Sitting of 10 February 1993

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL[Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Arab-Israel Dispute
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards resolving the Arab-Israel dispute.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): There has been some progress towards resolving the Arab-Israel dispute since the Madrid conference in November 1991. The deportation of Palestinians last month is a setback. We are urging all sides to take the necessary steps, in accordance with Security Council resolution 799, to ensure that that does not disrupt the peace process.
    Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend raises the question of the deportees. Does he not agree that movement on both sides of the Arab-Israel dispute is needed and, in particular, that the Palestinians need to undertake confidence-building measures to allay Israel's legitimate security fears, and that there needs to be a widespread willingness among Palestinians to take part in the peace process and to bring violence and extremism to an end?
    Mr. Hurd: I certainly hope that the Palestinians will continue to take part in the talks with Israel and that they will consider carefully the proposals for an interim period of autonomy. However, if the Palestinians are to do that, there must be further action by Israel, with regard both to the deportation of Palestinians, which I have already mentioned, and to Israel's general practices in the occupied territories which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State illustrated in a speech in Geneva yesterday.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: What does the Foreign Secretary intend to do to build the Palestinians' confidence so that they will participate again? As the Israeli Government have demonstrated that they have no intention of moving in any way, shape or form towards the United Nations, what confidence can the Palestinian negotiators have? When we debated the issue a few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State what guarantees of safety he could give
    964
    members of the Palestinian delegation if they enter into the talks again while the deportees are still somewhere between Lebanon and Israel and the Israelis are still adopting against the Palestinian population measures that are wholly unacceptable to the international community?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is not right to say that Israel has made no move in any shape or form. On 1 February the Israeli Cabinet decided to allow 100 of the deportees to return, to halve the term of exile of the remainder, and to take various other measures. That is not sufficient, but it is a move in the right direction. I welcome the fact that American Secretary of State Warren Christopher is to visit the area next week and that the new American Administration have taken over the baton from the previous Administration and are clearly giving the peace process a high priority.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is ever to be peace in that troubled part of the world, its history has to be taken into account and that the Egyptian Government's recognition in recent times that they have to live in peace with Israel is an essential ingredient which other Arab nations should take on board?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed; I agree with my hon. Friend. Equally, the Israeli Government have to accept, as they have done, the principle of United Nations resolution 242—"land for peace". Only on that basis will the peace process make progress.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not essential for the credibility of the United Nations, and for the confidence of the Islamic world in general, that we be seen to insist that the acceptance of United Nations Security Council resolutions is universally applicable? Is not the problem simply that Israel has set its face against any attempt to comply with Security Council resolution 799? Is it not also an error to try to fragment the solidarity of the Palestinians, as has been suggested, however much one deplores the activities of Hamas?
    Finally, I ask the Foreign Secretary to condemn, as we do, the use of live ammunition by the Israeli security services in the occupied territories, especially against children. Is it not deplorable that a growing number of children are being killed as a result of those activities?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the Minister of State, gave the figures to the European Commission of Human Rights in Geneva yesterday. It is reported that 216 children have been injured since 1 December 1992 and that 12 have been shot dead by Israeli defence forces. That is why I said what I did earlier.
    The Israeli Government have partially moved towards compliance, but they have not complied fully with the Security Council resolutions. I hope that the Israeli Government will go further.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: If, two years ago, Iraq had withdrawn from only a quarter of Kuwait, would my right hon. Friend really have used the words that he has just used in the context of the Palestinian deportees about that situation? Is it not perfectly clear that when there is such a blatant breach of international law a little bit of persuasion is required, and pressure?
    Mr. Hurd: I believe in persuasion backed by pressure. However, I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to equate the two circumstances absolutely. The aggression of Iraq against Kuwait and the decision to deport the Palestinians are both wrong, but they are different in character. The United Nations has taken different measures in respect of each and we wish to pursue the aims of the United Nations in respect of both.

    UN Security Council
    Ms. Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the future structure of the United Nations Security Council; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning reform of membership of the United Nations Security Council.
    Mr. Hurd: The increased effectiveness of the Security Council has renewed interest in its role. Several countries would like permanent membership. Any expansion in membership would require an amendment to the United Nations charter. Negotiations on this would be long and complicated. Our aim is to ensure that the Security Council continues to operate effectively. We would not favour any arrangement that undermined its authority or prejudiced the position of the United Kingdom.
    Ms. Eagle: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the momentum gathering for Britain to lose its permanent place on the United Nations Security Council would not have built up if the Government had not delivered such a disastrous economic performance? Is it not the case that a third-rate economic performance means that we are now increasingly being regarded as third rate in the world at large?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not know of anywhere except this country where it is suggested that we should lose our permanent seat. No such suggestion has been made by any of those who have suggested that new members should be added. The hon. Lady's conclusion is false and it is based on a false assumption.
    Mr. Robathan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arguments being advanced for a change in the composition of the Security Council are not new and that they are far less valid now than they were before, in view of the increased effectiveness of which my right hon. Friend speaks, as illustrated by the Gulf war coalition and in other United Nations operations around the world?
    Does my right hon. Friend also agree that although economic performance is obviously important, the contribution made to United Nations forces by other countries does not match Britain's contribution? Indeed, some of the countries put forward as potential permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are conspicuous by their absence when it comes to United Nations operations overseas.
    Mr. Hurd: Some of those countries have constitutional restraints. However, my hon. Friend is entirely right: the two countries doing the most on the ground for United Nations peacekeeping across the world as a whole are France and Britain, and the two countries doing the most
    966
    for United Nations peacekeeping in terms of getting supplies to the towns and villages of Bosnia are Britain and France. The facts that my hon. Friend gives put the theoretical arguments in some perspective.
    Mr. Rogers: The Opposition, like the Government, support the aims of the United Nations. We should like its remit to be broadened politically and to be supported financially. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the United Nations is to retain our support and trust, it must behave even-handedly with regard to resolutions that it has passed and that if there is to be any restructuring, it should be carried out on the basis of considered debate and not on the basis of gratuitous comment by any country?
    Mr. Hurd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address that remark to those on the Opposition Back Benches, who seem to leap into the debate with very little regard to reality. I agree that a discussion has started and we cannot stifle that debate, but we have no intention of altering our own position as a result of it.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is easy to pass United Nations resolutions—the number has probably increased 20-fold in the past 20 years—but that if the United Nations is to retain credibility it must expand its influence and that influence must be backed by the support of its member countries? As my right hon. Friend said, far too few countries put their money where their mouth is.
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. As a result of the end of the cold war, quite suddenly over the past couple of years there has been a build-up in the number of conflicts in which the United Nations is expected, not least by hon. Members, to intervene. The difficulties of intervening effectively are clear: The resources of the United Nations—the assets available to the Secretary-General—are inadequate for the purpose.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many resolutions he has proposed to the Security Council in the last 12 months on matters relating to international security.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Since 1 January 1992, the United Nations Security Council has adopted 83 resolutions: 67 concerned matters relating to international security; 11 specifically invoked chapter VII of the charter. The United Kingdom voted in support of all the resolutions. Members of the council, the Secretary-General and parties to the disputes engage in close consultations during the drafting of Security Council resolutions. The United Kingdom has played a full and active part.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as the western powers appear to lack a strategy for getting rid of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad, is it not time that the British Government promoted, within the Security Council, resolutions that would underpin the position of the Iraqi National Conference—that is to say, the Iraqi opposition?
    Mr. Hogg: Our first objective must be to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with the existing resolutions of the Security Council and, incidentally, with the no-fly zones—and that we propose to do.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the staggering number of resolutions passed in a single year reminds us all of the importance of maintaining strong armed forces? Does he further agree that the proliiferation of nuclear weapons in many of the trouble spots that the resolutions affect—in the long term, potentially including Iraq—further reminds us of the importance of keeping a full range of nuclear capability?
    Mr. Hogg: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree. On the former part of his question, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we deploy some 3,756 soldiers in United Nations peacekeeping operations and are the second largest contributor to such operations.

    South Korea
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with South Korea.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Our relations with the Republic of Korea are excellent. We look forward to a further strengthening of them during the next Administration in the Republic of Korea.
    Mr. Parry: Given the good relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and South Korea, will the Minister consider using his influence by asking the South Korean Government to cancel the war games—Exercise Team Spirit—on the Korean peninsula for the sake of peace and detente?
    Mr. Goodlad: We have consistently supported efforts to achieve peaceful reunification of the two Koreas, as has the hon. Gentleman. That can be achieved only through direct north-south contact. We were disappointed that the ninth round of bilateral prime ministerial talks was cancelled in December and we hope that talks will resume shortly.
    Exercise Team Spirit, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is to be a routine defence training exercise involving United States and Republic of Korea forces. The purpose is to exercise combat readiness command control, host nation support and logistic support for the command that might be required to defend South Korea. The exercise, which is normally held annually in the spring, demonstrates the United States commitment to the defence of South Korea. It is a purely bilateral matter for the United States and South Korean Governments.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the so-called Democratic Republic of Korea is on the verge of economic collapse? Does he think that there is now a greater opportunity for both Koreas to unite for the benefit of their people and of world stability?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend makes a very perceptive point.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position on the conflicts in former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Hurd: We and our European Community partners are lending full support to the efforts of Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance. We believe that the plan that they have put forward offers the best prospect for a peaceful solution. We are following discussions in New York closely and taking part in them. We urge all the parties to negotiate seriously and to abide by the agreements reached at the negotiating table.
    Mr. Williams: While accepting that the Vance-Owen peace plan for Bosnia is the only one on offer, what does the Secretary of State have to say to those in the new Clinton Administration who say that the proposals reward ethnic cleansing?
    Mr. Hurd: We are waiting for the policy decisions of the new Administration. We have been in touch with them, and I had a good talk with Secretary Aspin last weekend. I believe that we shall shortly get a statement on the American position which will recognise the importance of the Vance-Owen process.
    Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety and disappointment on the part of Bosnian refugee men living in Chertsey at their failure to be reunited with their families? Is he satisfied with the reception of processing arrangements in refugee camps in the former Yugoslavia?
    Mr. Hurd: If my right hon. Friend will send me details, I will take up the Bosnian matter with my Department. I will also take up the matter of the refugees in his constituency with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    The record of the United Kingdom in receiving those who need to come here and who are nominated by international agencies to come here is a good one, but the main thrust of our effort must be to enable those who have been forced from their homes to survive and get through the winter as close to their homes as possible and then to return.
    Sir Russell Johnston: In the area of conflict prevention, what action is being taken to reduce tension in Kosovo? Is it not time that we set aside Greece's anachronistic objections to the recognition of Macedonia?
    Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is much discussion going on in New York at present about the way in which that country could be admitted to the United Nations. That is the essential step and I do not despair of getting agreement on it fairly soon.
    The hon. Gentleman is quite right: Kosovo is a dangerous spot. Everyone accepts that it is part of Serbia and everyone should accept that it is entitled to the sort of decent autonomy that it had before 1988.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that our troops are deployed in the former Yugoslavia not to fight a war but to deliver humanitarian aid? Will he take

    969
    this opportunity to congratulate our armed forces on performing a difficult and dangerous task with considerable success?
    Earlier, my right hon. Friend said that the United Nations does not have the resources with which to fulfil its new role in the world as peacemaker and peacekeeper. In the light of the report of the Select Committee on Defence published this week, is he convinced that the United Kingdom has the resources to fulfil its role as a member of the United Nations Security Council?
    Mr. Hurd: We have the resources to do what we are doing, which is very substantial. The United Kingdom is second only to France across the world in how we join in United Nations peacekeeping. We have more troops in Bosnia for the humanitarian purpose than any other country. The exercise was treated as perhaps rather negligible when it started, but, thanks to the work of the British troops, it has turned into the only piece of substantial good news to come out of that area this year. Hundreds of thousands of Bosnians, who all the experts predicted would die this winter, are being kept alive—partly because the weather is a bit milder than usual, but mainly because of the efforts of allied troops among whom the British are pre-eminent. Our troops have escorted 244 convoys, carrying 18,480 tonnes of food, medicine and other supplies to the towns and villages of Bosnia. The RAF has delivered 4,773 tonnes by air into Sarajevo.
    Mr. George Robertson: May I add my tribute to our troops engaged in the humanitarian work in Bosnia? Reports came out over lunchtime that the Clinton Administration have decided on a deployment of troops for future peacekeeping in the area, combined with further aid and the possibility of a special envoy. We would welcome that as a supplement to the Vance-Owen proposals, not as a replacement for them.
    Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the House expects him to continue to press for the continuing pursuit of those guilty of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia? The whole world has been revolted by verified reports of actions that clearly fall within the description of war criminality, especially reports of the systematic mass rape of women in that area. For the perpetrators of such obscenities there must never be a hiding place.
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. We have emphasised that point repeatedly. The lawyers are now hard at work trying to overcome the difficulties in establishing an international tribunal for that purpose. I believe that that work has to bear fruit in the Security Council.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more should be done by the United Nations and the Western European Union to deal with sanction breaking in Yugoslavia, particularly the importation of oil by barges, which I believe is happening on a massive scale?
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with that. I discussed it with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister this morning and I have discussed it with the Romanians and the Bulgarians in the past week. For those of us who believe that peaceful pressures are crucial, it is important that those pressures should be effective, and they are increasingly effective on the Adriatic. The Romanians have begun to turn away barges loaded with oil bound for Serbia. It is crucial that
    970
    all the riparian states, Ukraine and, indeed, all the neighbours of Serbia should do their best to make those pressures effective.

    Israel
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that the Government of Israel complies with United Nations resolution 799.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have repeatedly urged the Israelis to comply with United Nations Security Council resolution 799, most recently in a meeting berween Euopean Community Foreign Ministers and the Israeli Foreign Minister in Brussels on 1 February. The Israeli Government have now taken a helpful step in the right direction. We hope that they will build on this. We are urging all concerned that the top priority is to resume the peace process.
    Mr. Watson: In answer to an earlier question today, the Foreign Secretary said that different measures had been adopted by the United Nations in respect of resolutions on Iraq and on Israel, as indeed they have: the resolutions in respect of Iraq were speedily enforced, but those in respect of Israel have never been enforced. It is now eight weeks since resolution 799 was adopted unanimously, demand-ing that all the deportees be returned to their homes as quickly as possible. The Foreign Secretary and his Ministers must be aware of Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali's report to the United Nations Security Council last month on the enforcement of resolution 799, which finished with a strong recommendation that whatever—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must have a question from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Watson: I am coming to it, Madam Speaker. The point is—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question now.
    Mr. Watson: My point relates to the Secretary-General's report—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is Question Time. I insist on a question being put. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can ask his question.
    Mr. Watson: Will the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers ensure that the Secretary-General's report of last month, which demanded that the deportees be returned home as soon as possible and that whatever measures are necessary should be taken immediately, is endorsed and that fellow members of the Security Council are encouraged to ensure that that happens as speedily as possible?
    Mr. Hogg: As my right hon. Friend made plain, we regard the deportation of 450 people as a gross breach of the fourth Geneva convention and a gross infringement of human rights, and that is why we support resolution 799. As my right hon. Friend described, the Israelis have taken a welcome step forward, but it is only a step forward. We expect them to comply with resolution 799 and we shall do our best to induce that to happen.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is no justification in international law or international morality for Israel to deport people from the land that it occupies to a third country? Does he accept that it is not the first time that that has happened but just the most dramatic example? Will he ensure that this country and the world community keep the pressure on Israel to come back into the community of nations, by ceasing that practice and restoring every last one of those people to their homeland?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a good deal of sense. As I said in reply to the previous question, there is no doubt that the deportation was a gross violation of human rights. It was unlawful and we have criticised it in many ways, including resolution 799. As my hon. Friend has said, this is not the first example of such a violation and our view is that deportation must stop and that Israel must comply with resolution 799, which we supported.
    Mr. Galloway: Since I have just returned from the area, will the Minister accept from me that people in the occupied territories are in the depths of despair about the failure of the powers to do anything about making Israel implement resolution 799? The fine words that he has spoken today are all very well, but when will the Governments and powers do something about it? Is the Minister aware how isolated and vulnerable the Palestinian negotiators in the territories are, as they have asked their people to put faith in the peace process and international diplomacy? Lastly, the Secretary of State said a few weeks ago that he would not meet the Palestine Liberation Organisation because he was not convinced of the usefulness of so doing. Is he aware how useful it is to the forces of extremism and reaction in the Palestinian arena that he does not do so?
    Mr. Hogg: I am trying to pick up the central theme of the hon. Member's multi-headed question. I agree that the Israelis' actions in deporting the deportees did a grave disservice to the peace process in the middle east and encouraged the forces of extremism. For that reason and for many others, we very much hope that the Israelis will rapidly comply with resolution 799.

    Nigeria
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Nigeria.
    Mr. Hurd: My noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey and I have each recently visited Nigeria. Relations between our two countries remain close and we look forward to a smooth transition to civilian rule in August.
    Miss Nicholson: Can the Secretary of State assure me that Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to ensure a smooth transition? After all, the President pulled back from the transition to democracy some months ago and is now talking about August 1993. Can he also assure the House that he will do everything possible to encourage the President to come to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund, as the last agreement lapsed in April 1992, which has created year-end inflation in August 1992 of 51 per cent?
    Mr. Hurd: Those are both important matters. I was encouraged by my talks in Nigeria, both with the President and with members of the new civilian transitional council, under a remarkable Nigerian and friend of this country —Mr. Shonekan. A smooth transition to civilian rule is essential and I believe that it will happen. As my hon. Friend said, the economic situation is more intractable. We shall continue to encourage the Nigerians to come to reasonable terms with the IMF.
    Mr. Corbyn: In his discussions with representatives of the Nigerian Government, did the Foreign Secretary raise the question of Nigerian participation in the west African force in Liberia? Did he ask them about the objectives of that force and what is being achieved in Liberia, where the most terrible civil conflict is taking place, with masses of casualties? Does not he think that a ceasefire must be brought about in that country and can Nigeria help with that?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed, I discussed that issue, and the hon. Gentleman's account is correct. Nigeria leads a number of west African countries that have forces in Liberia and are trying to bring the fighting to an end and restore stability to that tormented country. They have been frustrated at their lack of success so far. Since then, I have discussed with one or two people how the international community can help those countries and help to bring about a return to peace in Liberia.

    Malawi
    Sir George Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the fairness of the referendum being planned in Malawi on whether to allow multi-party elections.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): If the referendum is to carry any credibility, it is essential that it should be conducted under conditions that are acceptable to the United Nations and to those groups in Malawi advocating democratic reform.
    Sir George Gardiner: We all welcome the deferral of Malawi's referendum in accordance with the recommendations of the United Nations technical team. However, does not my hon. Friend deplore the fact that the Malawi authorities have still not agreed to the United Nations recommendation that there should be one ballot box for all votes, not one ballot box for yes votes and one ballot box for no votes? Does he not deplore the fact that the Malawi authorities have ignored the United Nations recommendation that an independent referendum commission should be appointed? Worst of all, those authorities have ignored the United Nations recommendation that the laws that allow for detention without trial should be suspended during the conduct of the referendum campaign. Is that not a travesty of democracy?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The British Government are also pleased that the date of the referendum has been delayed. I agree with my hon. Friend about the many shortcomings that he has identified. Clearly, the referendum must be held in conditions of which the United Nations approve if the Malawi Government are to seek to have further aid from

    973
    aid donors in future. The United Nations must be satisfied of the conditions, as must all reasonable people such as my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister agree that a pre-requisite of any free election and referendum should be freedom of speech, freedom to campaign, hold meetings, issue leaflets and freedom from fear? Certainly there should be no political detainees. What steps are the Government taking through the Commonwealth to ensure that those conditions begin to obtain in Malawi? Does the Minister agree that it stretches credulity to think that there could be a referendum in Malawi as early as next month and that the conditions could obtain by then?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The referendum will not be next month. President Banda has announced that it is to be in June, which is what we have just been discussing. The hon. Gentleman is clearly right—much progress much be made towards achieving conditions that the United Nations and ourselves believe are reasonable for a referendum and for human rights. There has been a little progress on that in Malawi, but we want to see much more. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify those matters and put pressure on the Malawi Government to come to their senses.

    British-American Relations
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet President Clinton to discuss British-American relations.
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is looking forward to meeting President Clinton in Washington on 24 February.
    Mr. Burns: When my right hon. Friend meets President Clinton will he reiterate to him the importance of the special relationship between the United States and Britain? Will he make it plain to the new President that many people, not only in the United States, but in this country, have high hopes for his personal success and that of his presidency? It is crucial that we have free trade, job creation and economic recovery, which are of paramount importance to both countries.
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The first contacts with the new team have gone well. There has been no interruption in our discussions with the United States Administration on former Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Arab-Israel position and the urgent need for the general agreement on tariffs and trade to fulfil the aims outlined by my hon. Friend. The new President carries a huge burden and I think that everyone with goodwill and good sense will wish him well.
    Dr. Godman: Is it likely that the President of the United States will be warned against sending a peace mediator to Northern Ireland? Will he be told that that may cause more harm than good? Are not the days of the American interventionist role in western and northern Europe coming to an end?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think it likely that the new United States Administration will propose a mediator as regards Northern Ireland, but we are doing our utmost, as indeed are the Government in Dublin, to acquaint the new
    974
    American Administration with what is happening in Northern Ireland and in particular with the efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make progress on the constitutional side.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister also encourage the American Administration to get the European Community to play a greater role in the middle eastern peace process and to provide more wisdom, judgment, experience and balance, as well as reminding them of the need to avoid obvious mistakes?
    Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that that exact pitch would work very well in Washington. One of the good things that have happened is that the new Administration have declared that the peace process started by Jim Baker should continue and should be a priority. That is why Secretary Warren Christopher is going to the area next week. I look forward to meeting him immediately after that. If we in Europe can help, we should do so. We can encourage and apply pressures, as we have discussed in the House already this afternoon. I do not think that we should seek to complicate the task or take the place of the United States so long as they give the peace process priority.
    Dr. John Cunningham: May I warmly welcome the Government's new determination to develop a warm relationship with the Clinton Administration, having previously worked to prevent President Clinton's victory in the election? May I stress that we share the view that it is very important for us in terms of trade? We do not want to descend into a trade war with the United States of America. We want to see final approval of the GATT agreement and we want to see the United States of America playing a positive role in support of the peace process in the former Yugoslavia. All those are important matters on which Britain and the United States of America share interests. I wish the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister well in their discussions with President Clinton and his team.
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be obliged. Thank you.

    Poland
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his polish counterpart to discuss economic development in Poland.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs takes every opportunity to discuss economic and political developments with the Polish Foreign Minister. He last did so at the CSCE meeting in December last year.
    Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to discuss with the Polish economic administration the findings set out in an excellent article in The Economist which point out that while the public sector of the economy is stagnating, the private sector is going ahead by leaps and bounds, because the Government are fragmented, the administration is weak, taxes are therefore difficult to collect and bureaucracy is almost non-existent? As a result, the private sector is now employing 60 per

    975
    cent. of the work force and accounting for half of the gross national product. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that we could learn a thing or two from the Poles?
    Mr. Hogg: I am glad to say that through our policy of the know-how fund, the Poles have learnt a thing or two from us, particularly the virtues of privatisation.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister explain why there is a disparity between Poland, Hungary and the two states that formerly constituted Czechoslovakia in terms of guarantees for credit for the medium and long term? Why are we discriminating against Poland and why do we have a mealy-mouthed approach to supporting and sustaining a fragile democracy and economy?
    Mr. Hogg: One of their problems when negotiating the budget within the Parliament is to secure sufficient agreement to ensure that the deficit does not exceed 5 per cent.

    Bophuthatswana
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received about Bophuthatswana; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The most recent representation was from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have an even-handed policy towards all responsible leaders in southern Africa? Will he accept that President Lucas Mangope has led his country in southern Africa for 15 years, a country which is multi-racial and has had democratic elections a number of times since it established its independence? When President Lucas Mangope visits the United Kingdom, will my hon. Friend arrange for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister to meet him?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government do not recognise Bophuthatswana. Therefore, it would not be right for a Foreign Office Minister to meet Mr. Mangope—although, as my hon. Friend knows, there have been contacts at an official level. The future constitutional arrangements for South Africa must be a matter for the South African people to decide, in accordance with their constitutional negotiations. I am glad that the Bophuthatswana Government participated in CODESA 2 and I hope that they will participate in future Convention for a Democratic South Africa negotiations.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) backed the wrong parties in Angola? Now, because of that sort of backing, the butcher Savimbi is running wild in Angola. The hon. Gentleman also backed the wrong horse in Namibia. Therefore, will the Minister disregard his hon. Friend's representations and instead listen to the people of South Africa, who want a unified, democratic South Africa as quickly as possible? What are the Government doing to help to achieve that?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It does not really help if the House tries to decide the constitutional arrangements for South Africa. It is for the people of South Africa to decide through CODESA when it reconvenes.

    Balkans
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the Balkans.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We are our EC partners have made clear our unequivocal support for the work of the international conference for the former Yugoslavia. Its success would be a significant step towards securing stability throughout the Balkans. We are also working to prevent the conflict spilling over into Kosovo or Macedonia and to provide humanitarian relief to those caught up in the fighting.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not it precisely because both Kosovo and Macedonia have all the characteristics of a tinder box that the Owen-Vance peace process must be successful and, above all, complied with by the warring parties? Should not we and other countries do our damnest to put pressure on those parties to comply?
    Mr. Hogg: To use my hon. Friend's phrase, we are doing our damnest. However, he is right to draw attention to the special problem of the minorities in the former Yugoslavia. We have rightly focused on the question of Bosnia, but we must also pay special regard to the issues of minorities in Serbia, including Kosovo, and also in Croatia. Their rights must be secured as part of any overall settlement.
    Mr. Winnick: Could Ministers be a little stronger about what steps will be taken by the international community to bring to justice those who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, are undoubtedly involved in terrible crimes? People who have read the articles by Robert Fisk in The Independent have been horrified by the systematic torture and rape of Muslim women. Those responsible should face an international tribunal, and that should not be years away.
    Mr. Hogg: It is an extraordinarily difficult and important point, because there is no doubt that the most ghastly crimes have been committed in the former Yugoslavia. We assert, and will continue to assert, that those who commit such crimes, either directly or indirectly, should be held personally accountable. However, there is another problem, which the hon. Gentleman will wish to bear in mind. If the authority—the responsibility—for those crimes goes as high as the hon. Gentleman and I expect, we must ask ourselves what is the priority: is it to bring people to trial or is it to make peace? That is the sort of tension with which we must deal.

    Japan
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet his Japanese opposite number to discuss bilateral relations.
    Mr. Hurd: I hope to visit Japan in early April and I am in touch with the Japanese Government about that. I welcome the opportunity that that will give me to discuss

    977
    with the Japanese Foreign Minister our relations with Japan and the whole range of international issues affecting our two countries. We shall also meet at the economic summit in Tokyo in July.
    Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend's visit will be most timely, as about 200 Japanese companies are now manufacturing in the United Kingdom, directly providing 50,000 jobs, contributing extensively to our balance of trade and reinforcing our manufacturing base. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the Japanese that this Government—unlike the Opposition—remain committed to the policies that have, over the past 10 years, made the United Kingdom the most popular and sensible location for high-quality inward investment in the European Community?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We have 41 per cent. of Japanese investment in the European Community—partly because we fought hard and successfully to secure free circulation within the single market of products manufactured in the United Kingdom by companies owned in Japan. Japanese companies also bring to this country important research and development. More than 30 of the Japanese firms that my hon. Friend mentioned have research and development units here.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Foreign Secretary admit that the real reason that Japanese companies come to Britain and have factories here is because, as with Nissan in Sunderland, they can pick up £300 million of taxpayers' money to set up a factory with no-strike agreements, with only 10 per cent. of the work force being trade union members? They pinched the jobs of other car workers in other parts of Britain. The truth is that the Japanese Government have taken the British Government for a ride, because our balance of trade deficit with Japan is about three times higher than the value of goods that we send to Japan, yet Japan was the nation which was reckoned to have lost the war—and Germany is running a close second.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in this —Japanese firms, and those whom they employ in this country, are benefiting from the reforms and changes that this Government brought to British industry. That is part of the reason why Britain is attractive to Japan, and a large part of the reason for rejecting the nostrum of the social chapter.

    Israel
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the President of Israel when he visits Britain in February to discuss relations between the United Kingdom and Israel.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will call on President Herzog during his visit.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that peace and mutual understanding in the middle east would be improved if long-standing hostages such as Ron Arad were released? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he has been kept incommunicado by
    978
    Arab captors as a prisoner of war for seven years, against all the rules of the Geneva convention? Will representations be made to secure his immediate freedom?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a real point. If Ron Arad is still alive—we thought some two years ago that he was, but we have no up-to-date information—it is extremely important that he be released with all possible speed. The same proposition applies to detainees in south Lebanon. One must acknowledge that the business of holding people without due process of law is intolerable and should stop.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: When the Secretary of State meets President Herzog will he make clear to him that, as President Herzog was born in Belfast and reared in Dublin, there is tremendous empathy between our nation and Israel? While we are concerned about detentions in Israel and in the Lebanon, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the standards of justice of Israel's Supreme court are held in high esteem throughout the world?
    Mr. Hogg: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, President Herzog is held in the highest esteem in this country, and also in great affection. As to the Supreme court—yes, its reputation is high, but we must acknowledge also that Israel's policies within the occupied territories need to be rigorously criticised because they frequently constitute gross breaches of human rights. I took the opportunity to say that in Geneva yesterday to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

    East Timor
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit Indonesia to make representations about human rights violations in East Timor.
    Mr. Goodlad: No. the Indonesian authorities are well aware of our views on the human rights situation in East Timor. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the subject when he met the Indonesian Foreign Minister in Manila in October, as did I—and as I also did when I visited Indonesia in October. As appropriate, we will take suitable opportunities to do so again in future.
    Mr. Jones: Indonesia is not a country at the centre of the world stage and world interest. Does the Minister agree, however, that human rights violations carried out in Indonesia are as important as those carried out in countries that attract more international interest? Does he agree that such violations are more severe in Indonesia than in many other areas? In East Timor, the Government have killed an even larger proportion of the population than were killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia. When will the Government be prepared to act against Indonesia? When will they stop selling goods to the country and stop dealing with its Government?
    Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman is right: Indonesia is an important country. It is an important member of ASEAN—the Association of South-East Asian Nations —and is now chairman of the non-aligned movement.
    We and our European partners continue to be concerned about the human rights situation in Indonesia

    979
    and East Timor and we have made our views known to the Indonesians on numerous occasions. We remain profoundly concerned about reports of large numbers of deaths over the years, but we believe that some of the figures have been exaggerated. We believe that constructive dialogue is the most effective way of influencing attitudes and encouraging improvement; we do not think that cutting off trade, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would help the people whom he presumably wishes to help.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, far from being unimportant, Indonesia is the fourth largest country in the world and the world's biggest Muslim nation? Is he aware that after the deaths in East Timor —which clearly inspired the question—the Indonesian regime set up a commission of inquiry, as a result of which some army officers were disciplined and others removed from the armed services? Should not regimes such as Indonesia's, which is trying to improve its human rights record, receive due praise for the steps that it has taken, rather than being denigrated by ignorant Opposition Members?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Indonesian authorities behaved in an unprecedented manner after the Dili atrocities in bringing those responsible to trial. My hon. Friend is also right in saying that continuing bilateral relations with what is, after all, a very important country, and continuing to provide that country with trade and aid, is the most likely way of bringing about an improvement in human rights, as we all wish to do.
    Mr. Tony Banks: May I say that I am quite surprised that the Minister, for whom I have some regard, is prepared to be such a snivelling apologist for the Indonesian regime? Where is the morality in British foreign policy nowadays? Is it not outrageous that the British Government should be prepared to supply arms to the Indonesian regime, in view of the human rights abuses in East Timor? Will the Minister make representations to
    980
    Helmut Kohl, who, I understand, is at this moment preparing to sell large amounts of the old East German navy to the regime?
    Mr. Goodlad: As I have said, we and our European partners are deeply concerned about human rights in East Timor and have pulled no punches in making our views known. The expression employed by the hon. Gentleman is entirely inappropriate in this context. No one has been firmer than we have.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's question about defence sales, all sovereign states enjoy the right to defend themselves, under article 51 of the United Nations charter. Applications to export British defence equipment are carefully scrutinised. We do not allow the export of arms or equipment likely to be used primarily for repressive purposes against civilian populations. In the case of Indonesia, this criterion extends to the possible use against the civil population of East Timor. We do not believe that an embargo on defence sales to Indonesia would be an appropriate or effective way of influencing the Indonesians to engage in better behaviour in the field of human rights.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Irrespective of the regional importance of Indonesia, will my right hon. Friend confirm that originally—after colonial rule—Indonesia occupied East Timor by force and that throughout the past 15 years its record on human rights, regardless of Dili, has been quite deplorable? Will my right hon. Friend do all he can, through the United Nations and the European Communities, to ensure that the voice of East Timor is heard—either directly or, as has been offered, indirectly through the Vatican—in negotiations towards a constitutional solution to this very difficult problem?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is quite right. Unlike a very large number of other countries, this country did not recognise Indonesia's annexation of East Timor. We continue to believe that the question of East Timor's status and future is best addressed through the auspices of the United Nation's Secretary-General and through contacts between Portugal and Indonesia, and we continue to encourage those concerned to pursue the dialogue in which they are engaging.

Apple Juice (Safety)
3.30 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang(by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the safety of apple juice currently on sale in Great Britain.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the most comprehensive food surveillance programme in the world. It has been operating for 20 years, and 12 working parties constantly monitor the food supply in a co-ordinated national programme, overseen by the steering group on chemical aspects of food safety, for many hundreds of different contaminants. All the results of the Ministry's surveillance work are routinely published, together with the commentary on any health implications that may have come to light. In all, 34 detailed reports have been placed in the public domain. The report of which this particular survey forms a part is already in the course of being produced. It will be published next month.
Patulin is a naturally occurring toxicant that has been with us since the creation. It is produced by moulds. Apples have always been prone to this particular mould. Therefore, our surveillance programme has of course examined apple juice on several occasions in the past to determine patulin levels. On the last occasion, in June 1992, four samples contained higher levels than were expected on the basis of the previous surveillance. The results were considered by the scientific and medical specialists in the Ministry and the Department of Health, who considered that the levels did not pose an immediate hazard to health but that they should be referred to the Government's independent expert committees and then published in the usual way.
The results were referred to the Committee on Toxicity, the independent expert committee whose membership comprises some of the leading toxicologists in the land. The Government look to these top independent scientists for toxicological advice. The committee did not consider that the patulin results showed a need for any products to be withdrawn from sale, but recommended as a matter of prudence that steps should be taken to reduce the levels to the lowest technologically achievable.
In the light of that entirely independent and expert advice, the Ministry's chief food scientist called in representatives of the industry to explore the options for achieving that. He stressed the need for improved quality control measures to be taken to ensure the lowest possible levels, and various action levels were explored and considered in great detail.
The matter was then put to the independent Food Advisory Committee at its next two meetings. The published agendas of the committee make it clear that this matter was under consideration. The committee recommended that patulin levels should not exceed an action level of 50 parts per billion and that the position should be reviewed in the light of further data.
Following advice from the Food Advisory Committee, I called in the industry in December and explained the advice that we had received. The industry had already started to react to the earlier findings of the Committee on
982
Toxicity. The Ministry's follow-up sampling planned for this spring is deliberately timed so as to look at apple juice made from apples made from last season's crop that have been in store for the maximum period—that is, we are studying the worst case possible.
Whenever the Government have proper, scientifically substantiated evidence that the public is at risk, immediate action is taken, as in the case of dioxins in milk, lead in animal feedingstuffs and milk and the closure of shellfish beds during contamination by algal toxins. This is not the case with patulin, which on the best toxicological advice available to the Government did not constitute an immediate hazard to health. Nevertheless, our prudent action is designed to minimise a natural problem that has been with us since Adam ate the apple and thus made a career decision.
We should not forget that apple juice is a useful source of vitamin C, and no good purpose whatever is served by creating quite unnecessary public alarm and confusion.
Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that he has not justified the Government's failure to act last year? I tell Conservative Members who seem to think that this is a laughing matter that the fact that a substance occurs naturally does not mean that it is not toxic or dangerous to human health. The Minister has not denied that patulin can cause cancer and other life-threatening conditions. He has not denied that the tests conducted on behalf of the Ministry last year showed that, in some apple juices, levels were above the safety standards laid down by the World Health Organisation and the Ministry. Does he not realise that, when the test results were known, the Government should immediately have made them public and taken steps to remove all toxic apple juice from the shelves?
Is the Minister trying to discredit the Government's own safety standards in this area? Where is the open government policy now? Does not this show the need for a freedom of information Act and for an independent food standards agency? How can we be sure that the Minister is not showing the same negligence about other food safety standards? Is it not clear from the Minister's failure last year to take apple juice off the shelves and to make the information public that Britain's food is not safe in his hands?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman cannot be taken seriously. It is not often that one hears such an injudicious blend of malice, ignorance and prejudice. We have acted throughout according to the best scientific advice available in the land. Food safety standards in this country are the highest in the world, and the hon. Gentleman does no service to the consumer or to the food industry by such ridiculous and idiotic scaremongering.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend assure the young woman who telephoned my constituency office this morning and who is expecting a baby shortly that she need have no fears for the baby or herself?
Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am happy to give the absolute assurance that that is the case.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister must not be too defensive about apple juice, but

983
should, like me, be a great advocate of the apple, and of apple juice and tell the House that he will drink it often in the future, even if he has not done so in the past.
There is one important issue. As I understand it, the report of what was a perfectly routine survey was concluded in June and the drinks manufacturers was first told of it in July. Will the Minister consider revising the process so that in future, if such a report might cause concern if it were made known informally, as has happened in this case, it would be best at that time to give the public the facts about what was found together with the reason why they should not be concerned?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he approaches the issue. It is true that after each incident of this type it is perfectly proper for the Government to consider what has happened in the past and what steps they should take if necessary to restore and improve public confidence in such testing. We shall certainly consider carefully the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am a very big drinker of apple juice.
Mr. Paul Marland: Does my hon. Gentleman agree that the Opposition are indulging in scurrilous scaremongering based on gross exaggeration? There are not thousands but millions of people outside the House who will have been greatly reassured by what my hon. Friend has said not only in the Chamber but on Radio 4 this morning, when he explained carefully exactly what patulin is and the effects that it could have if taken in enormous doses. It is a very difficult row to hoe to decide between over-regulation and the appropriate regulation in which his Department should indulge. Over-regulation seems to be something that the Labour party craves—
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps I could guide the House: hon. Members should put questions to the Minister, not make statements. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question to the Minister, I shall hear it.
Mr. Marland: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of his colleagues on getting the balance exactly right?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the people to whom his congratulations should be directed are the scientists who so skilfully and carefully carry out surveillance across the food chain 365 days a year, which gives us such a high standard of integrity in our food industry. As for regulation, my hon. Friend raises an important issue. No regulation should take place if it is not directly proportionate to the risk involved.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister will be aware that the House does not usually associate him with the feminist cause, but he will no doubt be recognised as having made a contribution to it as he appeared to state that patulin rather than Eve was responsible for the figleaf. Will he assure the House that no contaminated apple juice has been sold in this country in the past few months, because he will recognise that his hon. Friends are far more interested in champagne than in a healthy drink so frequently consumed by my colleagues?
Mr. Soames: In that regard, the hon. Gentleman is an example to us all. I can give him the absolute assurance that he seeks. Since the report of the Committee on
984
Toxicity and the Food Advisory Committee, all batches of apple juice sold have been tested to the limits laid down. Naturally, any batches that exceed those limits are not put into circulation.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Until my hon. Friend spoke today I had no idea that the apple in the garden of Eden was a windfall. Will he confirm that to get anywhere near the dangerous level someone would have to drink 140 litres of apple juice a day? Will my hon. Friend do his best for the fruit processors in my constituency and recommend that people drink one litre a day, which would still leave them 139 litres a day away from any conceivable danger?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes a good point in his own style. He would suffer an excess of more than patulin if he drank that amount of apple juice. Plainly, as in all such cases, the limits depend on very large doses being administered over a long period. That is why the steps that we took—the steps that we always take in connection with such food incidents—represent a reaction entirely in proportion to the risk, and are always in the interests of the consumer and of public health.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister not consider that we could have avoided much sensationalism if he had managed to lumber before us six months ago and tell us what was going on? Will he also consider the fact that in Scotland, as I know he is well aware, the Agriculture and Fisheries Department is not responsible for food safety? Does he not consider that, if the rest of the United Kingdom copied that example, it might help to reassure the public that the people responsible for food safety were not also responsible for promoting the interest of agriculture?
Mr. Soames: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have a close and harmonious working relationship with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is responsible for the food industry in Scotland. On all such matters we consult and operate in a manner which could be considered a model of co-operation across Whitehall.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend accept that I drink apple juice every day of my life, and I do not consider myself toxic—although I may be quite dangerous at times? Is he aware that one of the people stirring up the controversy is a Dr. Tim Lang, the former director of the London Food Commission—a front organisation for the Labour party, funded by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to the tune of £1 million—who has now resurfaced in an organization called Parents for Safe Food? And—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is abusing the time allowed—[Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Lady has a direct question, of course we must hear her. She has something quite valuable to say—most of the time.
Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend investigate my allegations?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is not only a credit to the apple but an adornment to society. I am happy to assure her that we are mindful at all times of the need to balance the paramount requirement of public health and the

985
consumer interest—those are, of course, very important —with the need to have due regard to the manoeuvrings of those whose real interest is to rot the food industry.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As an hon. Member who has something valuable to say all the time, may I express a sense of puzzlement? Is not patulin a carcinogen? How comes it that the World Health Organisation, which consists of careful people and extremely cautious scientists, has said that the level of patulin is above the limit? If the Minister attacks my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), the same attack must be brought home to the WHO, must it not?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the WHO has fixed an advised level of patulin at 50 parts per billion. It is also true that patulin, if taken in very great quantities, can be a carcinogen. The point is that the best advice from the best toxicological scientists in this country was that we should have acted exactly as we did—and we do not do anything unless the advice is both scientific and substantiated.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend on listening to scientific advisers rather than the chattering classes on this matter. Is it not the case that a man even of the infinite capacity of my hon. Friend could not drink sufficient apple juice to do himself any damage? As long as the scaremongering—the political fun and games—goes on, the jobs of people in the apple industry who work in apple picking, in caring for the trees, in apple packing and in processing in constituencies such as mine in Kent will be at risk.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is true that a food scare can reduce confidence in a product and can, therefore, have an entirely unnecessary knock-on into the jobs of people who work in an excellent business. My hon. Friend is also right to say that the amount of apple juice that would have to be drunk for any harm to come to anyone is so huge that it is impossible to quantify. Nevertheless, we believe that the steps that we have taken are right and prudent, and that they will command the support of the consumer.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that my constituents have not reacted to this morning's announcement with the mirth expressed by him and by his hon. Friends? In the main, the constituents
986
who have expressed their concern to me are mothers of small children. One such constituent is a woman who is pregnant. They are concerned about the amount that might be damaging, not to someone of the size and girth of the Minister, but to a small child. They are also concerned that they were not allowed to make the decision themselves, because the Government did not release the information, about whether they should or should not administer to their children what is, as the Minister said, a valuable source of vitamin C. The Minister denied them the right to make that decision themselves.
Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady is going a little over the top. There is no merriment among Conservative Members. We believe that this is a serious and important matter. The full weight of the Government's scientific advisers and toxicological advisers has been brought to bear on it. All the papers will be published and all the information will be made available. It is pointless to react in a way that is quite disproportionate to the risk. What matters is that people have, despite the best efforts of the hon. Lady and her amusing constituents, trust and belief in the integrity of the food chain in this country.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister join me in condemning the Opposition out of hand for daring to frighten these poor women, who are now terrified and who say that they are afraid to give their children apple juice? Does he agree that it shows the depths to which the Opposition have sunk that they scare these poor women? Next time he is in my constituency —I hope that that will be soon—will he join me in drinking several pints of Inch's cider, which will give him a wonderful result?
Mr. Soames: I look forward to that day with great pleasure. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the scares put around by Labour Members are fatuous. The integrity of the food chain is a matter to which we attach the greatest importance. We shall allow nothing to happen which could upset that position.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on. I have an announcement to make before we do so.
Hon. Members may have seen that there has been a little hold-up in the ballot for notices of motions. The ballot will therefore remain open until after the ten-minute rule Bill so that hon. Members are not inconvenienced, provided that the Chair is not inconvenienced by the rush of hon. Members around the Table.

Water Resources (Amendment)
3.54 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law applicable to pollution offences and anti-pollution works and operations under the Water Resources Act 1991 in so far as they relate to abandoned mines; and for connected purposes.
I seek leave to introduce the Bill at this time because it is highly relevant—[interruption]
Madam Speaker: Order. A number of rather loud conversations are going on. The hon. Gentleman is having some difficulty in making himself heard.
Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker.
I seek leave to introduce the Bill at this time because it is highly relevant to the plans for the coal industry. The discharge of waters from working mines into rivers is controlled through consents issued by the National Rivers Authority under section 89 of the Water Resources Act 1991. That section allows the NRA to protect rivers and streams from pollution by the imposition of conditions relating to the quality and quantity of the discharge and the proper monitoring of the water that is pumped out of the mine. Moreover, under section 161(1) of the Act, the NRA can carry out remedial or preventive works and reclaim the costs from the polluter.
When mining ends, however, there is a completely different picture. As the mine is abandoned, the pumps are stopped, and as the ground water seeks its pre-industrial revolution level, the tunnels and shafts fill with water. Whereas in a working mine any water is pumped out before prolonged contact with minerals or heavy metals, as the workings of abandoned mines fill, the water becomes contaminated by minerals. Where the contaminated water breaks through to the surface, it pollutes.
Usually, the pollution is highly visible because it is in the form of a red-stained sediment from dissolved iron salts. Such water is highly acidic. The sediment coats the bed of water courses and literally suffocates all life which might support fish. It ruins the spawning gravels for breeding fish and leaves only some species of algae to grow into thick blankets of unpleasant-looking cover. That affects the overall ecosystem of flora and fauna—in particular, bird species. Sometimes, the water is also contaminated by traces of cadmium, zinc and other heavy metals, and such invisible pollution has far more serious implications for the food chain.
Notwithstanding the position that I have described, as soon as a mine is abandoned and the pump switched off, pollution controls over discharges are removed. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, abandoned mines are specifically exempt from regulation. Under the Act, a mine operator such as British Coal may "permit" water to enter water courses by switching off the pumps, but it is deemed that British Coal does not "cause" the outflow. Presumably, mother nature is to blame. That means that, under the law as it stands at present, the operator of a coal mine or any other mine can walk away from his enterprise; there is nothing that anyone can do about it.
In January 1992, we saw the catastrophe that follows from the inadequacies of the present situation when the operators of the Wheal Jane tin mine in Cornwall went bankrupt. Few people will forget seeing on television the 10 million gallons of brick-red water that had surged into
988
the River Carnon, seeping downstream to foul the Restronguet creek, the Carrick roads and Falmouth bay and threatening the Helford estuary.
Subsequently, at Devoran bridge, cadmium levels were measured at 600 parts per billion, which should be set against the five parts per billion standard set in the dangerous substances directive. Similar results were obtained for other heavy metals. The NRA, the county and district councils and the Government have had to fund a massive clean-up programme which is still under way. There are 88 private mines operating in south Wales at present. There is a need to ensure that the environment is protected if and when those mines cease to operate. If the Government plan to sell off coal mines, it must be realised that, when a company decides that a privately owned mine has completed its profitable life, that company walks away from the mine with no further responsibility for what happens when it floods.
It is inconceivable that the Government should proceed with the sale of any mine without defining who is responsible for abandoned mine waters.
One solution would be for an agency, funded by a levy on extracted coal, to assume long-term responsibility for clearing pollution from abandoned mine waters. The Water Resources Act 1991 would be amended so that the agency would no longer be exempt from normal pollution controls. Section 161(4) of the Act would be amended so that, when the agency did not deal with the pollution to the satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority the authority would have the power to carry out the work and reclaim the costs from the agency. In that way, the NRA and the Government could meet the statutory duties imposed on them by the EC in relation to water quality standards. At present, that duty is not being met.
Of more immediate concern to local authorities, the NRA and conservationists is the result of the Government's decision to close 31 pits—or is it 20 or 10 pits? Who knows? It must be realised that, regardless of the number of pits which are closed, such closures will not mean simply that many more rivers will be polluted.
Many mines have not been totally abandoned when mining has stopped. Because of the safety requirements of nearby newer mines, pumping may have continued in old workings. Since the Oakdale colliery was abandoned in 1990, the River Sirhowy has been polluted by discharges for 1.5 km so far. When Oakdale closed, there was no longer any reason to continue pumping at Celynen north colliery, which closed on 31 March 1985. The subsequent break-out of water from that colliery has led to visual pollution of 2 km of the River Ebbw—threatening the environmental gains for a river which has been steadily improved at considerable cost since 1968.
British Coal has spent more than £1 million a year pumping disused pits in County Durham to protect the working coastal pits. If those pits close, the pollution potential will be enormous. Similarly, Derbyshire has many old mine workings which are pumped to protect newer pits, especially in the linked Nottinghamshire coalfield. Derbyshire county council is concerned about the pollution in its area that will result if the Nottinghamshire pits close.
Throughout the British coalfields, mining in the past was carried out with no appreciation of environmental consequences. We have been encumbered with depress-

989
ingly ugly spoil tips and derelict buildings. In Wales, so far we have at least 29,000 recorded abandoned shafts, drifts and adits.
In Yorkshire, discharges from abandoned mines are causing serious pollution to 40 km of river. In England, a total of about 250 km of rivers are affected by abandoned mine waters. That is likely considerably to underestimate the problem.
In south Wales, the Welsh Office is supporting research initiated by the Wales NRA to identify affected streams where pollution is unrecorded. But we know that more than 30 miles of streams and rivers, amounting to 4.5 per cent. of our classified rivers, are contaminated by waters from abandoned mines.
Members of the Welsh Select Committee visited sites early last year, including some in my constituency. They saw the effects of pollution on the river Cathan at Garnswllt, the 1 km of the River Morlais between the closed Brynlliw colliery and the river Clyne which is polluted for its entire length as it runs through the Clyne country park and down to the sea. The River Pelena, also in west Glamorgan, is known as the yellow river.
Those eyesores can be tackled only through Government funds for land reclamation schemes. I hope that before colliery closures or sell-outs take place, adequate effective legislation is established so that these problems are not added to.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gareth Wardell, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Denzil Davies, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Tom Clarke and Mr. Ken Eastham.

Water Resources (Amendment)
  WATER RESOURCES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law applicable to pollution offences and anti-pollution works and operations under the Water Resources Act 1991 in so far as they relate to abandoned mines; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February, and to be printed. [Bill No. 131.]

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 26 FEBRUARY 1993
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Tom Cox

Mr. Harold Elletson

Mr. Bernard Jenkin

Orders of the Day

  Housing and Urban Development Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  [DAME JANET FOOKES in the Chair.]

  Housing and Urban Development Bill
    New clause 14

      OBJECTS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE AGENCY
      '1.—(1) The Agency established under section 139 below shall have the objects and functions specified in this section and in the rest of Part III.

      (2) The main objects of the Agency shall be—

      (a) to further the economic development of England or any part of England;

      (b) to promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness;

      (c) to prepare, promote, assist and undertake measures for the economic and social development of England;

      (d) to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of England;

      (e) to promote a special programme for the creation of employment opportunities in areas affected by the closure of collieries; and

      (f) to further the improvement of the environment in England (having regard to existing amenity) and by, inter alia, securing the regeneration of land.

      (3) With regard to the functions specified in (2), the objects of the Agency shall relate to the regeneration of land—

      (a) which is land of one or more of the descriptions mentioned in subsection (4); and

      (b) which the Agency (after consultation with local authorities and acting in accordance with directions, given by the Secretary of State under section 143) determines to be suitable for regeneration under this Part, after having undertaken an environmental assessment of the likely significant effects of the activities.

      (4) The descriptions of land referred to in subsections 3(a) are—

      (a) land which is vacant or unused;

      (b) land which is situated in an urban area which is under-used or ineffectively used;

      (c) land which is contaminated, derelict or unsightly; and

      (d) land which is likely to become derelict or unsightly by reason of actual or apprehended collapse of the surface as the result of carrying out of relevant operations which have ceased to be carried out:

      and in this subsection "relevant operations" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Derelict Land Act 1982.

      (5) The objects of the Agency are to be achieved in particular by the following means, namely—

      (a) by developing or encouraging the development of new or existing industry and commerce;

      (b) by providing or assisting in the provision of finance to persons carrying on or intending to carry on industrial or commercial undertakings;

      (c) by assisting in the establishment or growth of community enterprises or co-operative enterprises;

      (d) by promoting or assisting the establishment, growth, modernisation or development of industry or any undertaking in an industry;

      (e) by providing or adapting sites or reconstructing premises for any industrial or commercial undertakings or assisting any other person to do any of these things and providing and assisting in the provision of related facilities;

      (f) by managing or assisting in the management of sites and premises for industrial undertakings;

      991

      (g) by bringing derelict land into use or improving its appearance;

      (h) by creating a safe and attractive environment; and

      (i) by facilitating the provision of housing and social and recreational facilities.'.—[Mr. Henderson.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.6 pm
      Mr. Doug Henderson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that it will he convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 107, in clause 140, page 142, leave out from beginning of line 37 to end of line 29 on page 143.
      No. 130, in page 142, line 44 at end insert—
      '; and

      (c) with due regard to the environment in which the land is situated; and

      (d) principally for the benefit of the people resident in the local authority area in which the land is situated.'.

      Mr. Henderson: New clause 14 is about how best the problem of urban dereliction can be tackled in our country. The Government would say that a property-led urban regeneration agency was the most appropriate way of tackling the problem of urban dereliction. The Opposition would argue that such an agency would be inadequate and that the weight of evidence for the weakness of similar past attempts such as the urban development corporations is available for all to see. We would also argue that a full development agency along the lines of the Welsh Development Agency and Scottish Enterprise is necessary if a real attempt is to be made to tackle the problem of urban dereliction in Britain.
      I am pleased to say that there was agreement in Committee that there was a problem of urban dereliction which could lead to under-utilisation of potential economic resources, both human and physical, with the inevitable result that unemployment is created. It is a problem which places physical and aesthetic blight on many urban areas. It is a problem which throws up huge social problems such as bad housing, family stress, poor health, poor educational achievement, teenage violence and a drug culture. It is a problem which in many communities in Britain creates a sense of hopelessness. Generations of unemployed people and whole communities feel alienated from the rest of society. It is a problem not only of people but of people and their communities.
      There was also agreement in Committee that the problem of urban dereliction would not go away of its own accord and that the state must intervene if a real attempt is to be made to tackle the problems. There was a recognition that market forces would not deal with the problem of urban dereliction and would inevitably tend to create development in prosperous areas. It was recognised that the cost of urban renewal was too expensive to attract a market solution. There are extra costs, such as the cost of clearing sites and providing infrastructure such as roads, railways and new factories. There may be a lack of trained staff to work in a new employment area.
      Indeed, there may be difficulty in attracting trained staff into areas afflicted by urban dereliction. A culture of community needs to be established so that staff who come to work in an area which needs to be developed have the
      992
      facilities which they would expect in other communities such as shopping and recreational facilities. Market forces will not create such facilities. Also, developers will always be attracted to the easy short-term option—the pull of an attractive location which will give them a quick return. State intervention is necessary if developers are to be attracted into areas of severe urban dereliction. That is as far as agreement went when the subject was discussed in Committee and there was no agreement on how the problems could best be tackled.
      The Minister said in Committee that a multi-agency approach was necessary, and I do not disagree. He must, however, think of the nature of that approach because there are plenty of examples of multi-agency approaches in the recent past. Urban development councils, task forces, derelict land grant, urban aid, city challenge, training and enterprise councils and a host of other initiatives have been taken. As he visits different parts of the country, the Minister's own eyes must tell him that the problem has not been resolved. He is welcome to come to Tyneside to find out what is happening there. The multi-agency approach has not made any real dent on urban dereliction.
      Is not the Government's failure one of economic analysis? One of the Government's advisers, professor Robson of Manchester university, recently spoke about urban problems to the Institute of British Geographers' conference, saying:
      "It is not enough to rely on benefits trickling down from large developments—such as London Docklands. When too many inhabitants of a city are without money, work, homes, and worst of all without hope, cities as entities must inevitably flounder."
      Before he sat on the Front Bench the Minister was known to be keen to put his thoughts down in writing from time to time. He prepared a book called, "Popular Capitalism", which obviously endeared him to his master —or rather mistress—of the time, as he was quickly promoted to the Front Bench after its publication. In the book he said:
      "Far from being divisive or doing people down, popular capitalism has got something to offer all of the people. Many pilgrims are now wending their way to Docklands and are mastering the street names of the new city. Perhaps one day Heron Quay, Mudchute, Canary Wharf will be names as well known worldwide as Trafalgar Square, Marble Arch and Charing Cross."
      So, who are the pilgrims? Credit Suisse, Ogilvy and Mather—an advertising company—the Daily Telegraph, and the remains of the developers Olympia and York. That constitutes only 15 per cent. of Canary Wharf, however, because the rest of it is lying empty—so they are lonely pilgrims.
      The Minister's officials were not prepared to be pilgrims. They were offered the chance to jump on Howard's Mayflower at Westminster and troop down the Thames to the Isle of Dogs, but as soon as the opportunity was made available it became known as the great mutiny on the Thames because his employees were not prepared to go. Instead of being known as Heron Quay or Canary Wharf, it will be known as the lost city of Wapping, and in many senses it deserves to be, because the project was ill conceived.
      Why will the Government not listen to the evidence that a development-type agency is necessary? That view has been expressed to the Government by a wide range of sources. The agency should co-ordinate infrastructure development, the activities of the important Departments of Transport, Environment, and Trade and Industry. It

      993
      should link up any training schemes that might be made available and act to encourage inward investment. It should co-ordinate grants and aid and, importantly, promote the area.
      4.15 pm
      Not only the Labour party is saying that, but the Government's own consultants. I have a document which has already been presented to the Minister by Linklaters and Paines. It argues forcibly that a property-based agency on its own will be completely inadequate. It strongly argues for a development agency to co-ordinate the various factors that I mentioned.
      The builders involved in many of the development schemes have also used the same argument. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House by reeling off endless quotes, but it is useful to quote Costain, which states:
      "The Consultation Paper"
      on which the Bill is based
      "gives no indication of how the primary aim of the Agency, 'to enable vacant and derelict land in urban areas to be brought into use', will be integrated with the people related activities which are so necessary. Scotland, with its network of Enterprise Companies, and Wales, with its Development Agency, have a more holistic answer to the challenge and we recommend that this opportunity be used to provide a similar response to England's regeneration needs."
      Nigel Smith, another of the Government's advisers, wrote in a recent article in the Local Government Chronicle:
      "The WDA has been able to exploit the synergy between its property and inward investment functions—offering a one stop shop—to great effect. Regionally based outfits in England cannot hold a candle to the Welsh."
      If the Minister is not convinced by the evidence of the consultants and the developers, perhaps he will listen to the views of Lord Walker, who will be appointed chairman of the agency should Parliament approve it.
      Autobiographies have become fashionable for ex-Ministers and Lord Walker in his argues:
      "We calculated that by creating new businesses, helping existing companies grow and attracting inward investment from Britain and overseas, we could bring down unemployment to the lowest figure in England"—
      in relation to Wales.
      "I quickly realised that my best instrument for achieving all this was the Welsh Development Agency. It was flexible, could help with the property side, offer grants in line with the EEC rules. I gave it more money to expand the job."
      The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): How is it that the hon. Gentleman argues for wider powers, opportunities and responsibilities for an unelected organisation—the URA—while the leader of the Labour party said that much more must be done by elected politicians in government and local authorities? There seems to be an inconsistency between his amendment and what the leader of his party was saying a few days ago.
      Mr. Henderson: There is absolutely no distinction between what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the leader of the Labour party, was saying and what I have said. My right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Labour party would support me in saying that the agency charged with regenerating urban Britain must be given the proper powers to do the job. My right hon. and learned Friend
      994
      made the point, as I would, that the agency should be democratically accountable to Parliament, certainly on an annual basis when setting out budgets and reports.
      The agency should also be accountable to the regions of the country where it operates. The democratic structure on which the agency could be regionally based should be examined. There should be local monitoring committees so that where the agency is working in local streets or communities, the residents can have a direct say in what it is doing. There is absolutely no distinction between the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East and myself or my other hon. Friends.
      Even were the property-led agency to have some impact upon our cities, does the Minister believe that it could have any impact on rebuilding communities in our coalfields? There is clearly a need not only to rebuild the whole economies of those areas but to bring in the infrastructure, to develop the training and to do all the other things which are necessary to give a community hope for jobs, vitality and a chance of being successful. I hope the Minister is not suggesting that there should be a Grimethorpe wharf. I cannot imagine that that would do much to help rebuild that community.
      In relation to the regeneration of land, is it not also essential to do that in partnership with local authorities? The Government have not given sufficient emphasis to that. Partnership is necessary so that planning is co-ordinated and things like housing need are taken into account. Where there is a chance of revitalising many inner-city areas, much of the investment should be in housing. If inner city areas are to have vitality and hope for the future, people must live there. If there are no houses which people can afford, they will not be able to live in the inner cities.
      The third argument in favour of a partnership with local authorities is that expenditure programmes must be closely co-ordinated; otherwise, any good work undertaken by any agency could be undermined because of the authority's lack of resources.
      If I had had more time, I would have liked to give more evidence to the House of other authorities who have argued the same case. It is important that the House understands that the argument about building a partnership with local authorities is not party political. It is put forward by practitioners who have experience of development schemes. Organisations like the Building Employers Confederation have argued the case firmly. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is far from being Labour-controlled, has also put in a submission to the Minister about the need for development schemes to involve local authorities.
      If the Minister cares to read the press releases of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), he will see in the press release of 16 November 1992 that
      "Mr. Howard stressed in his keynote speech that there were no quick fixes and that the success of urban regeneration required partnership, the key to his major capital partnership initiative. He said: 'There is no doubt in my mind there are opportunities in the inner cities. Local authorities have a key role to ensure that these opportunities are seized.'"
      I hope that the Government are prepared to learn from the lesson that they must have witnessed with their own eyes, namely, the disasters in areas like docklands; they should also learn from the experience of the 1980s when there were too many confusing schemes and too many unco-ordinated and disjointed schemes, and when all the

      995
      schemes had too few resources, with the result that none of the schemes made any great impact on regenerating urban areas.
      The Minister should learn from the experience of his colleagues in Scotland and Wales who are sitting not far from him. Development agencies in Scotland and Wales, working closely and in partnership with local authorities, have achieved more than the panoply of schemes which have been available intermittently in parts of England. The Minister should listen to the experience Of consultants, planners, architects, surveyors, builders and developers.
      They are all saying the same thing: that a properly-led agency will not work and that an agency with much firmer powers must be able to take on the real task of regenerating not only the economy but the social fabric of many of the inner cities. That rebuilding has to be done in partnership with local authorities. That is also the experience of local authorities and of the local people who have been involved.
      New clause 14 gives the House a new opportunity for urban regeneration. It provides an opportunity to create legislation which can have a real impact on a terrible problem which afflicts many parts of the country. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment as proposed in new clause 14.
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: I strongly support the new clause. If we want to promote economic development through the 1990s and into the 21st century, we need to take a long-term view and to ensure that it is carefully co-ordinated and planned. We need a well-developed strategic approach. Most importantly, we must consider the human resources in a particular area. The vast majority of the 306 responses to the Government's consultative exercise on the proposed urban regeneration agency raised the points to which I have just referred. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, those responses were not party-based; they came from across the whole spectrum of political parties.
      The Minister made it clear in Committee that he envisaged the urban regeneration agency as having a narrow brief—a step towards
      "bringing derelict land back into use."
      He then said:
      "the task of encouraging wholesale regeneration…is very large. That is why we need a series of other policies in other Departments, other bodies, and local authorities."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 January 1993; c. 806.]
      The special measures expenditure, the urban block element of DOE expenditure, is small—a ratio of 1:12. It is a small carrot intended to encourage a donkey along the road of increased economic activity. Our point is that, if the donkey is walking down the wrong road—if unemployment and poverty are increasing, benefits are being cut and housing is becoming more and more derelict —that small carrot will not he sufficient to encourage the donkey down the right road of economic development in any of our cities. I hope that the Minister will make representations to his Cabinet colleagues to change the direction of wholesale economic policy to make economic development in inner-city areas effective. If he does not do that, the policy will not be effective.
      The second point of concern about special measures —the £200 million carrot—is that there is every likelihood that the money will not go where it is most needed. A parliamentary answer to me on 27 January referring to the
      996
      distribution of urban block expenditure this year clearly showed that £318 million of the £1 billion block had gone to London and the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North commented on docklands.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) produced figures only two days ago showing that, overall, there has been a dramatic shift in public resources to east Anglia, London and the south-east. At the same time as the Government are talking about the problems of reclaiming derelict land and property in those areas which have suffered industrial decline, in the northern region there has been a 4 per cent. cut in public resources.
      Through new clauses 14 and 108, we are attempting to ensure that expenditure is effective, but it will not be effective unless there is a well-developed, democratically controlled regional structure to define the strategic approach and to attract funds. As I said both on Second Reading and in Committee—on neither occasion did the Government satisfactorily pick up the points—there is nothing in the Bill relating to the increasingly important role of the European Community in special measures funds for economic development. Research over the past five years has shown that the European countries and regions which were most effective in their use of European economic development and social fund moneys were those with a strong regional democratic structure. That important element is totally missing from the Bill.
      4.30 pm
      This distribution of funds is also important. It is not possible for a regeneration agency which is blinded by land and property and politics alone, and which does not identify the plight of the people living there, to create a distribution system based on need. My hon. Friend mentioned what happened in the docklands in the 1980s. The special inner-city measures introduced by a Conservative Government during the mid-1980s were a sick joke. They were spoken of as relating to poverty and to inner cities, but there followed the most lucrative profits for property developers as property prices sharply increased. The Government have learnt nothing and they are making the same mistake again. They are offering a new initiative based simply on land and property, which will have no effect on the reality of life for people living in the cities.
      Simultaneous with the launching of the agency is the rundown and destruction of the urban programme, which has clear criteria for meeting training demands and the needs of black communities. We have seen the rundown also of the safer cities initiative, which was crucial in upgrading inner-city policing and reducing crime, and of Home Office-funded schemes which made a major impact on training and education among black and other ethnic minority communities. All that is happening at a time when official statistics released yesterday show that unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is 18 per cent. while among black and other ethnic minority communities it is as high as 38 per cent. Yet still the Government are shifting from a people-based approach to one narrowly based on land and property. That missed opportunity is unforgivable.
      The agency's style and constitution lacks everything that we want. It is yet another example of government by quango. The board's membership will be tightly drawn

      997
      and nominated by the Minister—its chairman has already been nominated. It will follow the pattern set by many other quangos with memberships nominated by Ministers —training and enterprise councils, development corporations, health trusts, and so on. I recommend Keith Shaw's study of the north-eastern area, "Regional studies No. 2 —1990: In search of the non-elected state". A serious democratic deficit is now involved in the control of the major elements of public funding in a variety of areas. Accountability is lacking, because power and money have been shifted away from locally accountable authorities. I find that extremely worrying.
      We discussed the regeneration agency's corporate plan in Committee. We also had an interesting discussion this morning in the Select Committee on the Environment about the merits of publishing the draft corporate plan for the Housing Corporation, for which the National Federation of Housing Associations has pressed very strongly. We want the plan to be open to public scrutiny, consultation and discussion. The Minister said a good deal in Committee about the need for consultation on the agency's plans and proposals, but nothing in the Bill even suggests that the agency has a duty to prepare and present a corporate plan; such a plan is not even mentioned.
      The Minister said in one of his replies that the agency would
      "be required to produce for the Secretary of State a corporate plan and detailed budget management documents, which he will study and approve".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 January 1993; c. 843.]
      That, however, is no answer to the question of open government. There is no point in simply publishing an annual report which is retrospective and then saying, "You can have all the consultation you want," because the consultation would be about something that had already happened. I ask the Minister to agree—in the spirit of open government—to require the agency to publish its draft corporate plan, so that discussion and consultation can take place before the Minister makes his funding decisions.
      I hope that I shall catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair later today so that I can refer to the important question of the removal of planning control from local authorities in designated areas. That is relevant to new clause 21.
      With the right economic policy, the agency has the potential to take on board economic development under democratic control, along the lines suggested in new clause 14. It could encompass all aspects of economic development, concentrate its drive and motivation on the human resources which exist in our cities and urban areas and help to promote the economy of those areas.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the new clause, but I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 130, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones).
      I must declare an obvious interest: I represent a development corporation constituency, and have done throughout my time in the House. As a result, I have some experience of what it is like to represent, and to live and work in, an area whose regeneration authority is appointed by Ministers. I have had the opportunity to reflect on the nature of an authority whose members have come and gone while elected members have remained—and, above all, whose specific objectives have never been defined.
      998
      Section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 defines the object of an urban development corporation as
      "to secure the regeneration of its area."
      It does not say how, when or, more important, for whom. It does not say in whose interests an area is to be regenerated. It is regeneration for regeneration's sake. Often the attitude of those who live and work, and those who have lived and worked, in the Surrey docks area along the south side of the Thames, in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, and by London bridge—and, equally, those in the Isle of Dogs, Wapping, Tower Hamlets and Newham—has been, "Yes, there is regeneration, but it is not regeneration for us."
      In many cases, indeed, it has appeared to be regeneration against "us". Schemes were announced, put to the planning committee of the development corporation —a body not elected by anyone—and approved. Some of these schemes then took effect, even though they were contrary to the views expressed by local communities, their representatives and often the local councils.
      Like the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), I make the point that we should not be under the illusion that any type of appointed agency is a substitute for a democratically accountable body. This is no replacement for democratic regional government in England, no replacement for fairly elected local authorities making decisions for their areas, and no replacement for a tier of local government in London, as in the rest of England, at parish or community level, which could look at very small development and planning matters. I know that the Minister is aware of and at least partially sympathetic to the last of these points. I hope that, when he has completed the work that he is doing, he will agree that we in London, like people in the rest of the country, are entitled to parish or community councils.
      We shall certainly not secure democratic accountability through the proposed agency. That being so, I make a plea for some things which, even if we do not like the structure and the format, can at least determine the nature of the agency. First, we need a partnership between the agency and its works, on the one hand, and those who are democratically elected and their plans, on the other. That point has been made already, so I shall not elaborate on it. Secondly, we need proper consultation—a point made well by the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North and for Sheffield, Hillsborough, who said that it was not good enough to have a few quango employees producing a glossy brochure and saying, "This is the corporate plan —take it," but no consultation with people on the ground, who might just have some good ideas.
      One of the frustrations of Members for Docklands constituencies—this has been put to the Minister's predecessors—is that they have often heard of plans and initiatives only after the press has been told about them. That is no way to proceed. This is not self-interest and arrogance; it is simply that, in a democracy, elected representatives, whether at local government level or at parliamentary level, are entitled to timely information about what is going on.
      Within the confines of the structure that the Government want the agency to have, its membership should take some account of the interests and concerns of those who are democratically elected. Indeed, it would be no bad thing if the majority of the agency's membership

      999
      could be arrived at after consultation with representatives of the local authorities—in particular, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and, potentially, the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of London Authorities, and the London boroughs. It would certainly be a good idea if those who do this job were to reflect democratic trends, as well as bringing skills and expertise to it.
      Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 34 local authority members on the boards in urban development corporations around the country? There are many good examples of how people work in partnership. I welcome the fact that, in several towns, cities and other areas, there is now excellent collaboration. Indeed. in the case of Hartland and Plymouth, the local authorities want urban development corporations; they have been pressing us to set them up and get on with the job.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Hughes: To be completely honest, I have to say that I did not know that the number was 34. I accept that development co-operatives have some local authority members. Indeed, such members have always been sought. In the case of the Docklands corporation, a local authority member has been sought from each of the three borough councils. The problem is, they never constitute a majority on the development corporation: democratic accountability is fine, but the inability ever to be a majority gives rise to the danger of tokenism.
      Some local authorities see the benefit of an agency and of money coming in. The Minister must understand the point that I am making, as in the not too distant past he worked in and sought to represent urban areas, although the electors of Peckham were not terribly supportive of that proposition when he presented himself to them. At any rate, he will remember how important it is to secure partnership and agreement wherever possible.
      Secondly, much regeneration has yet to take place. Last year a friend of mine—a Zimbabwean nun who works for Oxfam—visited Britain. Having been to many parts of urban England, she commented on the extent to which land is under-used. She regarded that as a scandal. In Zimbabwe, good land is such a valuable commodity—yet here she saw much good land in this country which was not being used. My friend made the point very tellingly. It can be beneficial to be made aware of the perspective of someone from outside our own culture.
      I do not dissent from the proposition that there has been some very laggardly development, but there is no point in development if we get it wrong and if it does not meet people's needs. In this regard, I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to our amendment and that, if he is unable to accept it, he will undertake to consider it with a view to negotiating something which could be the subject of an amendment in another place.
      I wish to make a serious point in relation to the two halves of a very simple amendment: first, any development should take place with due regard to the environment; secondly, it should be principally for the benefit of residents of the area. Like my constituents and many others in urban Britain, I am aware that some of the benefits of urban life have corresponding disbenefits. One thinks for example, of noise, pollution, high crime rates and a generally lower quality of life. In urban Britain, the chances of having one's vehicle or house broken into are
      1000
      considerably higher, and people have to tolerate traffic noise through the night as well as through the day. It is therefore very important that the environment in which regeneration takes place should leave people with a better quality of life.
      I will give two examples relating to the experience of those of us from south London. We believe that we are about to have something which, in the short term, will be much more useful than a regeneration agency. This is a matter about which the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) shares my concern. I refer to the announcement about the Jubilee line extension, which has been mentioned so often in the House that someone from another planet might think that we were struck in a timewarp—or the groove of a record. We have been promised that development, and we are waiting for it to come out of the tunnel—but we have been waiting so long that we have almost forgotten which way to look.
      The extension will do much good for docklands south and north of the river, but we must have regeneration which takes account of the best means of removing the spoil of four years' work from where people live. There is no point in suffering four years of hell if it can be avoided. That is not a matter with which I want the Minister to deal specifically, but I mention it as an example. Regeneration must take account of the already noisy, cramped and difficult urban environment, and therefore must be planned so as to minimise disturbance and maximise benefit. For example, spoil should be transported by river rather than by road, and lorry journeys should be made as short as possible. Such practical measures can be taken to deal with problems which affect people immensely.
      The second example is topical. It directly affects riverside Members in central London, and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and I are equally concerned about it. We have just learnt that some promoters wish to introduce a floating helipad which would move among 22 sites between Chelsea bridge and the pool of London. In the past 10 years, there have been six battles—all of them successful—to stop helicopters from landing and taking off from riverside sites at Blackfriars, Cannon Street, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. On Monday, there was a trial flight from one roof of Sea Containers house by Blackfriars bridge before an inquiry in April.
      Regeneration cannot be environmentally sound if its consequence is to permit helicopter flights, which people regard as a blessed nuisance, without their being subject to any planning authority. The Minister appears almost amazed that that is not subject to the planning requirements. We want not loopholes but proper processes of consultation and decision.
      Ms. Kate Hoey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—he is my hon. Friend on this issue—for giving way. This proposal will circumvent every planning law. It seems nonsense that we are discussing a Bill on housing and urban development while at the same time this proposal is being allowed to proceed. I am sorry that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has not been selected, because we must find a means of subjecting the proposal to the normal planning procedures so that people who live and work along the river are consulted before their lives are runied.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady makes a good point. There is a convergence of views in the community. People who live in inner cities, regardless of their political views, often have the same views. We are saying that we do not want short cuts which circumvent the proper procedures. The majority view is not held uniquely by people living in council tower blocks; it is also shared by people who have bought expensive riverside flats on a long lease. Whatever our reservations and qualifications about the agency, our plea is that short cuts which have an environmental disbenefit must not be allowed.
      My next point relates to paragraph (d) of amendment No. 130, which uses the words
      "principally for the benefit of"
      local residents. I do not mean that development must be only for the benefit of people who live in the area, but if a person's home is chosen for regeneration by an agency which nobody has elected, it is reasonable to expect the agency to act first in the interests of the people trapped by the decision and most affected by it.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North argued that one of the agency's purposes must be to maximise employment, and that point is made in one of the objects of the agency. My constituency has one of the 10 highest unemployment rates in Britain, so one of my key tasks is to maximise work opportunities for people who do not have work but who want to use their skills. Objectives must be specific and of benefit to residents.
      Suitable housing must be developed. It is no good building luxury riverside flats which are out of the range of 95 per cent. of the population when there is not enough accommodation to house people such as the three who came to my door this morning before I left home saying that they wanted housing. Enough schools must be built to cater for the extra people who move into an area when it is regenerated. Such co-ordinated arrangements are necessary for the community.
      The transport system must be able to meet the needs of a regenerated area. It is no good the M25 and the docklands light railway being found to be inadequate because they were planned wrongly. I am not saying that we should widen the M25-I believe that goods should be transported by other means—but a railway should be able to cater for the number of people who use it. Let us have some sympathy and priority for people who live in areas which are chosen for regeneration. Such areas are not just lines on the map; they contain real people whose families have often lived there for generations, and they have a right to have their interests put first.
      I agree also that one of the prime functions of the agency should be to help in the coalfield communities of Britain. As the docks of south London have shown, when an industry is removed it removes a substantial employer and generator of primary or secondary work. Whatever the outcome of the review, and however many pits are saved, we have a duty to ensure that the coalfield communities are supported and encouraged and that those areas become as prosperous to live in as anywhere else.
      I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the new clause and to my amendment.
      Mr. Jim Cunningham: The proposed urban development agency must be judged against a number of things, especially rising unemployment. Unemployment in Coventry is about 11.5 per cent.,
      1002
      and a fair proportion of those unemployed are young people. They obviously take much interest in anything that the Government suggest to tackle the problem.
      My problem with the Bill is that, on the one hand, the Government set up an urban development agency but on the other the Government go into the abstract and become a little vague about what I call the subsidiary resources and the agencies that should go with it. As some of my hon. Friends said earlier, urban aid projects such as the safer cities programme, section 11 and education projects are under threat from the Government. People in urban areas, especially black people, rely on those agencies for training, advice and business experience to enable them to set up businesses. The Government say that their objective is to tackle regeneration and create jobs, yet they are removing that objective in the way that I outlined.
      The other yardstick is whether the agency will help to revive Britain's manufacturing base. People in great manufacturing cities such as Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton will take an interest in seeing whether these agencies can re-establish our industrial base. For far too long, Britain's industrial base has been eroded, especially during the 1980s, or the boom years as we now like to call them, when the service industries flourished and everyone thought that we were on the road to utopia, only to discover six or seven years later that we were not.
      We must remember that many urban development agencies could be successful, providing they have the co-operation of local authorities and local industrialists. There have been several debates about Europe recently. Europe has forms of—dare I say it—regional government. Agencies can work hand in hand with regional government to allow for what I would call strategic planning on a major scale in any given region. In that respect, there is a vacuum in this country, and that is where the problems will lie in trying to ensure that the regeneration agency is successful.
      5 pm
      We should remember that we do not have a structure in this country to meet the European criteria in terms of attracting grants to some of our more depressed areas. Ministers often go to Europe to haggle with and to persuade our partners to provide money for our deprived regions. That problem must be dealt with if urban development agencies are to have a measure of success. The Minister might find that he will have to establish more locally based agencies because there must be a mechanism or vehicle to make people in localities within regions feel that they are part of the decision-making process of that region.
      There must certainly be something more locally based in cities such as Birmingham and Coventry. If not, the agencies will not necessarily receive the co-operation of local residents who might experience difficulties with, for example, planning permissions, an issue that we shall discuss later.
      The Minister said that there had been a great deal of co-operation with local authorities. I have no reason to doubt that, but based on my experience in the west midlands, stronger representation will be needed on any boards. Without that, the boards will become quangos which could ride roughshod over people, local authorities, industry and industrialists. The result might be that the

      1003
      objectives of land regeneration and job creation are not achieved. In any event, the Minister must take on board those issues.
      One of the big problems is that any regeneration must take place against the Chancellor's autumn statement and the Chief Secretary's statement yesterday. Many aspects of spending are to be reviewed, which will cause considerable problems because the agency will be trying to fulfil its function with diminishing resources, and that is what it is all about. The Government are trying to operate a policy which has no more than a 50:50 chance of success.
      All in all, there seems to be little hope for inner-city areas, especially in terms of urban aid, safer cities and financial help. We have already told the Minister that there are serious disturbances in those areas. People have tried to analyse them, and I have no more answers than anyone else, but they know that many young people, of black and European origin, have no hope because they do not have a job. Many have never had jobs but will be looking to the Government to provide jobs and training. Some people in the major cities will be considering the proposals in that light.
      We hoped, and we still hope, that the Minister will have second thoughts about urban aid and section 11 areas for which he has responsibility. We hope that he will talk to his colleagues about safer cities projects because if they are not maintained alongside urban development projects, I and a number of colleagues will be apprehensive about what is likely to happen this summer. I say that not as a threat but out of extreme concern. I have spoken to people in the inner cities who have experienced burglaries and violence.
      We hope that the Minister will consider the new clause and, where possible, give a little. I repeat that Coventry has a number of sites and projects that we would like him to consider if and when the legislation is approved.
      Ms. Ann Coffey: I support new clause 14. Like many of my hon. Friends, I am worried about the narrowness of the Bill in attempting to achieve urban regeneration. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), I am specially concerned about urban aid funding being run down in the next few years. We need to consider a number of strategies to achieve urban regeneration: industrial investment, improvement of houses, access to employment, and social and recreational facilities.
      Those strategies are necessary to the regeneration of communities. We often talk about urban regeneration but we mean the regeneration of communities. "Community" is a very over-used word. I sometimes think that people believe that communities are suddenly born. They are not; people have to work to create a community and to continue to work to hold it together. Urban aid funding has been very important, especially in many inner cities, in enabling that to happen and in allowing communities to work together in the face of obstacles.
      Urban aid funding has been used in a variety of ways. It has mostly been used in areas of rising unemployment, poor social housing and rising crime. It has been used for the benefit of the community. A number of projects are currently being funded by urban aid. I could give an enormous list, but I shall mention just a few. The list includes play schemes for the under-fives for whom nursery education is not available; support and advice to carers, people living at home looking after relatives;
      1004
      community action schemes which help communities to feel that they are achieving something and help to get rid of the feeling of powerlessness, and youth centres and centres for the elderly. Such projects have often given back to communities that feel decimated and demoralised the hope and possibility of achieving something.
      That feeling should not be under-estimated, because the most serious problem is the demoralisation of inner-city communities. That demoralisation leads to a fragmentation and the result is, unfortunately, ever-rising crime.
      The Minister is making a fundamental mistake in using urban aid money to finance the urban regeneration agency. The urban aid money is for a different purpose.
      I do not know whether the Minister expects local authorities to be able to pick up the tab, which is what happened in the past when urban aid money ran out. But in the past they could raise the finance, and now they cannot. Throughout the country, especially in the inner cities, local authorities face the capping of their budgets. The name of the game these days is cutting services. The only choice that local authorities have is which services to cut—and they have to make such choices in the face of an enormous amount of legislation based on the assumption that the community is there to care and to provide the network. Both the Children Act 1989 and the National Health and Community Care Act 1990, especially the latter, make assumptions about the caring community networks being there to look after the elderly.
      As the Minister knows, raising finance has been made even more difficult for local authorities in the aftermath of the poll tax disaster. I estimate that in Stockport, my local authority area, £10 million which could have been spent on services has been lost through debt charges on borrowing, uncollected poll tax, administration and all the associated costs. The problem continues, because the deficit is still there. Local authorities will not be able to pick up the tab. They will not be able to provide statutory services to fill the gap. Inevitably, the projects will disappear, and that will be a further blow to the communities. I urge the Minister to think again.
      Most such projects are funded through the voluntary sector, on which the community, the statutory sector and, indeed, the Government are relying more and more heavily to provide services such as sitting schemes, transport, luncheon clubs, respite care for handicapped children, and so on. However, "voluntary" does not mean free and for nothing. Voluntary agencies need support for administrative costs and for training workers. The voluntary sector will be especially hard hit by the withdrawal of urban aid funding.
      In Committee the Minister answered our questions about the narrowness of the Bill by saying that housing problems and the problems involved in generating social networks would be dealt with elsewhere, through other policies. However, since the mandatory grants scheme was introduced in Stockport in 1990, fewer houses have been improved with grants and through envelope schemes. To rely on the grants system to deal with problems such as improving housing as part of urban regeneration involves a gross assumption. That simply is not happening.
      How can one talk about urban regeneration without considering employment, especially among young people? Unemployment increases poverty in the community, and the cycle of economic decline continues. As more people become unemployed, there is less buying power and less

      1005
      demand, so industries go out of business as a result. We need to attract industry, and to do so we must have a skilled work force.
      5.15 pm
      The training and enterprise councils have the major responsibility for skilling the community, especially young people, but I am worried about whether that is happening to a high enough level. We still seem to be thinking in terms of quantity rather than quality. I was most concerned that, in the High Peak TEC area, fewer young people were given engineering placements this year than last year. That seems to be a sign that the attempt to give young people badly needed manufacturing and engineering skills is gradually being given up. I do not know how we can attract new industrial investment if we have no skilled labour force.
      All those matters must be tackled—employment, industrial strategy, and improving the social network and the housing infrastructure. If that does not happen there will be no genuine urban regeneration. It cannot be done simply by local authorities. The Minister is right to say that more strategic planning is needed. The pity of it is that the north-west, especially Greater Manchester, already had a strategic planning level—the Greater Manchester council, which the Government abolished. I am glad that they have gradually come round to the idea that a strategic planning level is needed to make things happen.
      Of course, planning on that scale has to go beyond local authorities, but I still argue that it can be achieved through the democratic system. At present, through the planning laws, the Secretary of State has the last word. Any developer refused permission by the local council can appeal to the Secretary of State, and the council's decision can be overturned. That opportunity is open to the developer, but not to the objector. The objector cannot go to the Secretary of State. The planning laws have been considerably centralised since 1987, which has limited local authorities' ability to make planning decisions. There is a great deal of central control over planning issues.
      There are several reasons why the system should be democratic. It is worrying that the Government are exerting tighter and tigher control over the allocation of resources, yet are handing over the responsibility for spending and managing those resources to unelected representatives appointed by a system which is by no means clear to everybody. What does the term "community representative" mean? Who is to judge who is a community representative?
      The only way to judge who represents the community is through an electoral system, whereby one can see by the votes cast who is a community representative and who is not. The system of government by unelected representatives is pervading our whole society, which is a matter for enormous concern. When things go wrong, to whom do people complain? How do they know how decisions are taken, and how do they influence them and change things? Without a system of elected representation, none of that is possible.
      Instead of the idea of elected representatives we now seem to have the notion of consultation. Over the past few days I have heard the phrase "right to consultation" again and again. What does it mean? Consultation means nothing unless the person being consulted is really able to
      1006
      influence what happens. Unless elected representatives have the power to influence, and to make things happen, consultation and the phrase "right to consultation", mean nothing.
      When the Minister sums up I hope that he will consider carefully the narrowness of the Bill and how, given that narrowness, it can achieve urban regeneration. Secondly, I hope that he will deal with the issue of democratic representation, and all the agencies that will spend money and make decisions which have enormous consequences for neighbourhoods.
      Mr. George Mudie: I was in two minds whether to speak because of the timetable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has told me that he has already written five minutes of praise about my speech, so I had better make it.
      I am also a bit embarrassed. As the Minister knows, I was not a great admirer of the Bill on Second Reading or in Committee. However, I rise under instruction—[Interruption.] It is not what hon. Members think. I am under instruction from my colleagues and friends in the fine city of Leeds. One of the first things I found out during my first week here, which I have not been able to practise, is that if one does not ask, one does not get owt. I am under instructions that before this terrible measure has completed its passage through the House, I must launch the interest of the city of Leeds in housing Lord Walker and his many staff. That plea is an additional reason why I support the fine new clause. Lord Walker will need more staff if the new clause is included in the Bill, so more office space will be needed.
      Mr. Redwood: It would help the case of Leeds no end if the hon. Gentleman said that he did not support the new clause. I cannot guarantee that I could deliver the Leeds office in that case, but it might sway Lord Walker.
      Mr. Mudie: As Oscar Wilde said, the only way to rid oneself of temptation is to give in to it. However, I shall not. Sorry, Leeds, I shall not be bribed—at least not in front of the cameras.
      It will be sufficient for me to explain what a fine city Leeds is. The civil servants will not have to fear wending their way tubeless to docklands or even to Marsham street. Like their 2,000 colleagues in the Department of Social Security, they would be in the centre of Leeds. There is still space on the same site and within 10 minutes, they would be in open countryside.
      Mr. Irvine Patnick: It is called Sheffield.
      Mr. Mudie: I was about to deal with that city south of the great city of Leeds. If the civil servants had the time, they could always nip down to peer at the quaint city of Sheffield. I hope that the Minister will give my suggestion due consideration.
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: I cannot let pass the implication that people will travel down the motorway to Sheffield just to have a look at the shopping facilities, especially as they might end up in Meadowhall rather than in central Sheffield. The importance of the excellent city of Sheffield is its tradition in training under the Manpower Services Commission, as it used to be called. We have said throughout the passage of the Bill that the various

      1007
      elements should work closely together. For that reason, the city of Sheffield would be an ideal location for the urban regeneration agency.
      If the city of Leeds thinks that it can get up in the debate and make a single-handed bid for the headquarters of the new agency without every other city that is represented here having a go, it must think again. We are really discussing the issue of the agency and not making bids for the crumbs of its headquarters.
      Mr. Soley: What about Hammersmith?
      Mr. Mudie: What about Hammersmith? I think that I had better put the matter away, which will be a relief to everyone. I rest my case. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the record shows that Leeds, as usual, was first with a site and with a good description of the facilities available.
      When I was a youngster, I had a hero called Nye Bevan. I remember reading one of his books in which he gave a warning about this place to which I did not then pay sufficient heed. He warned about how the procedures and methods of operating here tend to civilise and to blunt anger. My experience has taught me that that happens most of the time. That is a disadvantage in a debate such as this. Someone outside watching the debate and hearing the technical phrases about grants, about the urban regeneration agency and about the urban programme might forget what we are talking about. We are talking about the inner cities programme of the Department of the Environment.
      It is worth while to take a minute to go over the basis on which the inner cities programme is framed. The Government have a programme relationship with 57 of our cities which shows that there is no dispute about the problems in those cities. Life can be very hard in the inner cities, and on occasions it defeats people. I live in an inner city and I do not suggest for a second that all inner cities have problems. However, I was a councillor in Leeds for 20 years and it has been my experience that there are many city communities in which people have nasty, brutish lives and get a very bad deal out of society.
      The unemployment level for inner cities is often double or treble the level elsewhere. One of the Sunday papers published a chart of how wealthy each city was. Leeds was 98th, which was not bad. When revenue support grant is distributed, Leeds is treated as an affluent city because it contains within its boundaries places such as Wetherby, Otly, Roundhay and Moortown. Such areas help to balance and to mask the realities of life in other parts of the city. Unemployment levels in the inner cities are twice or three times those in the rest of the city. Figures released in the past two weeks show that there is three times the normal level of unemployment among Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in my inner city.
      There is invariably a major lack of investment in housing in inner cities which means that there are serious housing problems such as bad roofs, no heating, old sink units, old baths and badly fitting, draughty window frames. All that contributes to an unhealthy housing stock which has effects on the occupants and, above all, on the children. There are effects on education, on health and on future employment. When a young child gets bronchitis because of the lack of heating at home, he requires time off school. That time off school will endanger his academic record and thus his future employment record.
      1008
      Communities normally have their own primary schools and perhaps their own middle and high schools. The education that the children receive there is not the equal of the education given to children in other parts of the city. I do not for a minute criticise the teachers who work very hard. If 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the children —[Interruption.] I am discussing the inner cities programme. I point out to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the Clerk advises you to challenge me, that the people who live in the inner cities are a vital part of them.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I make the decisions and I consulted the Clerk. The hon. Gentleman was straying rather wide of the functions of the agency, and I should be grateful if he would return to them.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Mudie: I shall return to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which extends the aims and objectives of the agency to cover social, economic and environmental matters. I have been dealing with some of the social problems that the inner cities programme is designed to help. The question that we must ask is whether the Bill adds to or improves on existing inner-city initiatives. Does it meet any of our objectives or deal with any of the problems affecting inner cities?
      As I said at the outset, although we can discuss such matters in the abstract, it is as well to spend a couple of minutes considering what people's lives are like in our inner cities. Education provision is poor and health is bad. Health records show that someone living in an inner city is likely to die earlier and suffer from more illnesses. The children of an inner-city dweller are likely to be unhealthier than other children. Crime and vandalism are part of inner-city life. In some places people cannot get insurance; their car—if they have a car—is daily and nightly at risk. Elderly people are, and feel themselves to be, at risk.
      That is the reality. If the Minister does not agree, I challenge him to say so. I have done no more than to describe my experience of life in my city and in other inner cities. Those are the problems with which the inner-city programme is supposed to deal.
      I repeat the question that I asked on Second Reading and in Committee: will the Bill bring relief to the people of the inner cities who are suffering from the problems that I described? I do not think that it will. I think that the proposal was put on the table when land was short and the idea of adding derelict land to the programme seemed very attractive. In 1993, that is no longer the case. The tower cranes have disappeared from the inner cities. A developer coming to a city will find prime development sites available for building. The measure may have been relevant in 1987–88, at the height of the property boom, but it is irrelevant now.
      I have a second criticism of the measure. An examination of the range of inner-city initiatives reveals a trend towards property, buildings and land which is well worth considering. City grant, derelict land grant, the development corporations, and city action teams—only shortage of time prevents me from reading in full the official descriptions from the 1992 Department of the Environment annual report of what the organisations do —as well as city challenge consist predominantly of land and property initiatives.

      1009
      A third disturbing factor that has arisen since Second Reading is of grave concern in the inner cities, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) have referred to it. The withdrawal of any new schemes from the urban programme and the stopping of any new schemes for section 11 projects gives us a clear indication that, in the Department, the move is towards property and land.
      My good Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) referred to the fact that the Government's policy seems to be based on the theory that, if one gets land and puts buildings on it, they will somehow fill up with jobs and some of the prosperity will trickle down. I can only say that, if the trickle-down effect worked, it would surely have been in evidence in 1987–88, at the height of the Lawson boom. In fact, in the inner cities, life was as wretched, unemployment was as high and health and education were as bad.
      The new clause would broaden the aims of the initiative and permit the Minister to operate in accordance with the admirable example of the Scottish Development Agency, not only in providing land but in concerning himself with the firms that occupy it. It is interesting to compare two things that have happened in the past week, one of them in Scotland and one in England. In the case of the Hoover factory in Scotland, the SDA became involved. Amazingly, it fought off a French attack on jobs, with the result that the factory in Scotland is staying while one in France is closing. Compare that with what happened in England, where the Prime Minister's response to the plight of Leyland DAF was that it was a matter for the receiver.
      The new clause would also permit the Minister to take another look at the social aspect of the inner-city programme, which is in danger of disappearing altogether; if that happens, it will bring tragedy to the inner cities.
      Mr. Redwood: We have had a wide-ranging debate on the general objectives of the agency. The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) at least wanted the urban regeneration agency to come to Leeds. He would be even better advised to help the council to identify land that would be a suitable case for treatment for the URA. Many city councils are doing just that—clear evidence that there is a need for the agency and that many local authorities wish to work with it.
      I have always stressed that the arrangements should be based on partnership and have always predicted that there will be quite enough willing volunteers with ideas and schemes to enable Lord Walker, who will find himself much wanted around the country, to get off to a good start and with the money, skills and enthusiasm that the URA will bring to the vital task of city regeneration.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, East does not think that there is enough SSA and grant in Leeds, in comparison with Labour boroughs in London, for example. I assure him that the same formula applies to London as to Leeds and that it takes into account the very factors of need that he identified in his speech or other factors that are substitutes for those. Of course, the grant must be awarded in part in relation to the need that is defined.
      It was a pleasure to her two Labour Members—the hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson)—expressing pride in their
      1010
      respective cities, and to see the introduction of a little competition in the Labour party over the question of to where the URA might move and live.
      The issue of bad education will not fall primarily to the URA, and I am surprised that some Opposition Members think that the URA should have widened powers to involve itself in the education process. That is what the hon. Member for Leeds, East seemed to imply. It is true that there are schools in the inner cities whose results are poor and whose children's ambitions are not set high enough. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has introduced a number of proposals to lift the standards of performance in schools throughout the inner cities—a vital part of the regeneration strategy.
      Mr. Mudie: We discussed this matter in Committee. In the past, the Minister's Department, through the regeneration programme, has paid for computers which have been used extensively to help primary school children with reading and maths. The Minister's Department has done sterling work in building, outfitting and even staffing child-care facilities which have allowed working mothers to get training that they would not have received if they had not had those facilities through the excellent urban programme. That is why I want the urban programme to continue.
      Mr. Redwood: The money which is granted through the general grant and SSA settlement for local authorities gives much more money per pupil in the hard-pressed, inner-city areas than elsewhere. We wish to see those local education authorities rise to the challenge and deliver the standards we think they can achieve to raise the performance in schools. I do not believe that children in the inner cities are less able than children elsewhere. If more money is given, as it is, why can the results not be better?
      If individual local authorities wish to bid for additional moneys which have certain educational benefits, there is the city challenge process to which some have responded. Some local authorities have seen the importance of an education strategy within the general regeneration strategy.
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the Minister's insistence that local authorities are interested in raising the standards of education training in the inner cities, why have the Government announced the winding down of section I I moneys granted by the Home Office? The vast proportion of those moneys goes to teachers who are specifically targeted at some of the most deprived people, the black and ethnic majority, which is especially necessary to put that positive action into education and training.
      Mr. Redwood: We have substantially expanded the amount of money going to city challenge and the urban programme combined next year, and a number of initiatives are being launched. We have also increased the grant available to local authorities.
      The hon. Member for Hillsborough made a number of points in her speech. I agree with her that economic policy geared to recovery is the most vital thing for inner-city renewal and regeneration. That is why I welcome the 6 per cent. interest rates and the signs that economic recovery will now occur and start to lift the economy out of recession. I hope that the hon. Lady also welcomes that as the most important thing to promote recovery.

      1011
      The hon. Lady complained that £318 million out of the urban budget of £1 billion goes to the south-east, especially to London. It is quite true that money goes to Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Southwark. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would be the first to say how important that is. If there were more Labour London Members in the House, they would be standing up for their part of the country in the way that some northern Members have done already.
      Mrs. Helen Jackson rose—
      Mr. Redwood: I will not give way because I have to make progress.
      There is a lot of need in those areas of London. I make no apology for the fact that we are trying to do something about the issues in London, just as we are trying to tackle them in Leeds and other northern cities, including Sheffield, from where the hon. Lady comes.
      Two Labour Members made the point that they do not think that we have the right structure of government in the United Kingdom to get grants and subsidies from the European Community. How wrong that is. It is not the system of government. The fact is that we have no objective I region on the mainland of Britain because no area was poor enough when the system was drawn up to qualify for that status. That status gets the lion's share of the money on the good socialist principle that the money should be given to the poorest. Of course, that means primarily the areas to the south of the Community, not areas on the mainland of Britain.
      At present, the United Kingdom Government are listening to representations on whether it is possible to lobby successfully for any change in the map, but it will have to be based on sensible criteria. It will still be the case that regional policy in the Community will help the southern member states more than the United Kingdom because, clearly, they are poorer.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does the Minister agree that one of the main vehicles for attracting grant to Britain is the Midlands economic forum, which has replaced the West Midlands county council? That forum is one of the few vehicles in the United Kingdom which can define the needs for the area in terms of grant and is one of the mechanisms to ensure that the Government operate within a European system to award the grants.
      Mr. Redwood: We have a first-class system of ensuring that we get the grants for which we are eligible. The Government's prime objective is to get a just return from our contributions to the Community for the reasons which everyone understands.
      I cannot agree with Opposition Members who say that the Docklands development corporation is a sick joke and has done nothing of value. I suggest that they tell that to those people who are proud of their new homes and pleased with the major housing that has been developed in partnership through the Docklands development corporation. Opposition Members should tell that to the many hundreds of people who have new jobs and the people who have a better built and recreational environment because of what the Docklands development corporation has achieved.
      I stand by the remarks I made, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) tried to
      1012
      ridicule, when I said that Canary wharf would be a famous name in London. Events of the past few months and years have made Canary wharf even more famous. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that and welcome the day—which will come—when everyone will see that Canary wharf is a development full of tenants, generating jobs and a symbol of the new prosperity of that area.
      Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister recall that, in his book on popular capitalism, he said that the Government would be able to get their money back after 10 years of investment in the Canary wharf project? Rather than the Government getting their money back, does he not accept that the developers are asking for more money to save the project?
      Mr. Redwood: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits to see what happens next. A good time horizon was set out in the book. I hope that he will agree with the objective that, if the Government can get some of their money and subsidy back, they should aim to do so. I see the hon. Gentleman agreeing with that point.
      Mr. Soley rose—
      Mr. Redwood: I must make progress because there are other important debates to come to which we wish to listen.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey got to the nub of the issue. He said that there is a great deal of vacant land in the cities and that it needs tackling. That is why he should support our version of the urban regeneration agency which is before the House tonight. We agree with the hon. Gentleman and we will do something about it by concentrating those resources.
      The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about planning permissions for heliports. I have been told that a heliport may need planning permission, depending on whether it is a development or not. That is an issue into which those who are concerned must look. They would certainly need a Port of London Authority licence which will require negotiation and satisfaction of the authority about the circumstances. The Secretary of State for Transport has reserve powers on noise control. There are a number of issues which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will explore with his local communities.
      I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman about his suggestion that any development by the urban regeneration agency should be considered in an environmental context. Of course, it should and it will because of the way in which housing and urban development and planning legislation are structured.
      In Committee and elsewhere, we have made it clear that the normal circumstance is one in which the urban regeneration agency will need planning permission from the local authority. Whatever happens, it will have to be in the context of the unitary development plan or the structure and local plan in the area involved. I assume that all the relevant environmental issues will have been thought through in the local and national proposals and consultations which are undergone for the normal planning process.
      In Committee, I also made it clear that, if the development control powers are to pass to the URA, there will be three important guarantees: first, the House must permit those powers to the URA; secondly, those powers will still be within the framework of the UDP or the local

      1013
      or structure plan; and, thirdly, the URA will proceed by the same means as a local authority would proceed. In most normal cases there will be the usual opportunity for consultation and granting of opinion from the local community.
      Mrs. Helen Jackson rose—
      Mr. Redwood: I must press on, because we have to proceed to the next business; otherwise, the hon. Lady knows that I would be happy to give way.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said that property-led strategies are not enough on their own. I entirely agree, and that is why we have city challenge and big programmes through local authorities with the grants which we offer them and the powers which they have been granted by Parliament, and it is why we have a number of other initiatives in education, tackling crime, training and housing. Of course, there needs to be more than a property-led strategy, but to tackle the 150,000 identified derelict and vacant acres needs vision, money and skill. That is what the urban regeneration agency will bring.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North favours much wider powers for this unelected body. That sits uneasily with the new stress in Labour policy on giving powers to elected Governments and local authorities. We believe in a URA with a focused remit and accountable to the House. The other policies should be implemented through general Government strategy or by local authority powers.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister deal with the other point of my amendment—that the principal duty of the URA should be to the residents of the area affected?
      Mr. Redwood: As I envisage the URA working by agreement with the local authority, I assume that the local authority will put proposals to the URA which reflect local opinon; so that point is taken care of. It is also taken care of in the planning process in the way that I have described.
      While I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North is at least concentrating on inner-city issues, unlike his boss who seems to concentrate on the monarchy and telling us that he travels first class. the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark in his new clause, and I urge the House to reject it.
      Mr. Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the Minister. I well recall the first time I saw a picture of him with his boyish grin lounging next to a lamp post outside the Palace of Westminster. It was in an article in The Sunday Times in May 1988, in which it was predicted that by the end of the decade he would be the leader of his party. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it was not. The lamp post went on to be used several times by the stray dogs of Westminster and the hon. Gentleman went on to become Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities.
      This has been a good debate. We have had several excellent speeches from former leaders of local authorities. I commend the speeches made by hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who was a councillor for 11 years and chair of economic development for eight years on Sheffield council. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry,
      1014
      South-East (Mr. Cunningham) is a former leader of Coventry city council and was a councillor for 20 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) was a councillor for eight years and for four years leader of the Labour group on Stockport council. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) was a councillor for 20 years and leader of Leeds city council for 10 years: he will forgive me if I do not spend five minutes praising him—in view of the time, he will have to make do with a few seconds.
      All my hon. Friends presented the face of inner-city life in Britain today. They put to the House their views on the Government's inner-city policy in the past few years. As we vote on the new clause, it is worth reminding ourselves of the Government's commitment to our inner-city areas:
      "We take pride in our cities",
      the Conservative party told us in its election manifesto, which was rather oddly entitled, "The Best Future for Britain". On page 38 the Conservative manifesto said:
      "Right across Britain they have been given a new lease of life and areas that had been run down have been transformed."
      Let us examine that extraordinary claim in the light of the Government's present proposals.
      The urban regeneration agency, the objectives of which we seek to amend in the new clause, has a long and interesting history. It was not the brainchild of the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities but that of the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), now President of the Board of Trade. On 16 February 1992, The Sunday Telegraph reported that he was urging the Prime Minister to accept
      "a powerful body to spearhead … regeneration … an English development agency that would lead the drive to revive the inner cities".
      The Prime Minister obviously disagreed. It was explained in the report that his Cabinet colleagues were putting up stiff opposition because they suspected that the right hon. Member for Henley intended to use the URA as a stalking horse for a more interventionist industrial policy after the election. If only that had been true.
      The Guardian reported on 23 April 1992 that Lord Walker, who has been appointed to head the agency, intended to use it
      "to develop a second Whitehall base for Michael Heseltine's brand of industrial intervention … Although Mr. Walker will officially be reporting to Michael Howard … it is expected that he will keep open his private lines of communication with Mr. Heseltine."
      That, I presume, explains why every second clause of the Bill says that the URA cannot act without the permission of the Secretary of State. Under the proposals in the Bill, Lord Walker will surely have to ask the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities or the Secretary of State if he may blow his nose.
      It is clear that the Minister did not want the President's baby and, having been forced to carry it, has virtually strangled it at birth. New clause 14 is intended to breathe a little life into the agency and to give that life some purpose other than as a facilitator for property developers.
      We believe that the statutory objects and functions of the agency should include creating and preserving jobs. That is a task made even more necessary and difficult as the Government proceed with the destruction of 34,000 inner-city jobs through the abolition of the social programme, which was mentioned by so many of my hon.

      1015
      Friends. Ministers must face the fact that one does not breathe life back into our inner cities merely by reclaiming land and persuading someone to build on it. Much mention has been made of Canary Wharf, which surely must have taught them that lesson.
      Some £4 out of every £10 of the Government's urban block expenditure went to docklands in 1991. The
      £1.1 billion of public money spent on docklands created 13,500 jobs. By comparison, the urban programme has created and preserved 230,000 jobs since 1985 and currently supports 33,000 jobs at a cost of less than £240 million a year. The Opposition care about inner-city policy because we care about the people who live there. We ask ourselves what the agency will do for them.
      Sustainable regeneration will not come about by developing land and waiting for the effects to trickle down to the wretched inhabitants. Sustainable regeneration will come about by creating jobs in the inner cities and by providing the training and the educational and social projects which will enable the inhabitants to fill those jobs and to live decent lives in those areas. Those are exactly the type of projects that the Government are destroying with the destruction of the urban programme. Ministers do not understand that. Indeed, that is why they will oppose the new clause.
      Mr. Redwood: How will there be new jobs if there will not be property reconstruction? Do not areas need factories, shops and other new buildings to bring new jobs in?
      Mr. Vaz: We do not need any lectures from this Government and this Minister about the provision of jobs when so many jobs have been destroyed by what the Government have done. We have always said that we wanted sustainable jobs which will last for a long time, not the short fixes that the Minister and his policies have ensured have occurred in the inner cities.
      On 3 November 1992, the Secretary of State said:
      "Let me assure the House that I intend the agency to work hand in hand with local authorities."—[Official Report, 3 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 163.]
      Where is the duty to consult? He will recall the farce of consultation on the urban programme: a private secretary in the Under-Secretary of State's office wrote to local authority leaders informing them that the programme was to be ended. The voluntary sector, which received some £50 million from the urban programme, did not even get a letter. The Minister will also recall that local authorities and others were encouraged over several months to prepare their bids for the urban programme—bids which cost millions of pounds which the Government still have not managed to refund.
      Where is the money for the inner cities? The answer is clear: it has been squandered on the poll tax. Let us never forget that the poll tax was the Secretary of State's invention. The squandering of that money has left nothing for our inner cities. That shows either contempt for the people of our inner cities or breathtaking incompetence: I invite my hon. Friends to decide which more aptly describes the attitude of Ministers. That is why the new clause includes a statutory duty to consult local authorities. The Secretary of State has demonstrated that he is unfit to be left with that responsibility.
      1016
      6 pm
      The Minister, for all his talk of partnership with local authorities, is like a battle-hardened veteran who cannot forget that he used to be at war. He wants the agency to override local authorities' planning powers. A sign of how much he is stuck in the past is that even those organisations which used to support him now see no virtue in going ahead without partnership with the local authorities, or in a central Government quango overriding local democracy. The Conservative party claims to be the party of democracy, but the Bill contains no commitment that the Urban Regeneration Agency's board will include representatives of democratically elected local authorities.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for drawing my attention to the book written by the Minister. It is interesting to read the first words on page I in chapter I, headed:
      "Democracy breaks out: the long road to freedom".
      Perhaps the Minister can remember them and quote them with me. He wrote:
      "Around the world there are important stirrings for freedom"—
      freedom for everyone except local authorities, which are democratically elected by local people.
      Last week I went to Manchester to see the excellent urban programme work carried out by the Labour council there. Councils such as Sheffield, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham and Newcastle have used their limited powers to assist urban regeneration. What support have they received from the Secretary of State? He has become the Hughie Green of inner-city policy—turning it into a game of "Opportunity Knocks", handing out peanuts with one hand, while with the other the Government have robbed local authorities of £60 billion since 1979. According to the Government's figures, they plan to cut urban block expenditure by almost 30 per cent. in the next three years; the only numbers rising as fast as the crime and unemployment figures in our inner cities are the number of inner-city programmes with silly names and less resources.
      We need a policy for people, not for buildings. We tabled the new clause because we passionately believe that as we move towards the millenium our inner cities deserve much better than the contempt that they have received from this uncaring Government.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 307.

      Division No. 148]

      [6.2 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Ainger, Nick

      Betts, Clive

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Blair, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Blunkett, David

      Alton, David

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Boyes, Roland

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bradley, Keith

      Austin-Walker, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Barnes, Harry

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

      Barron, Kevin

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Battle, John

      Burden, Richard

      Bayley, Hugh

      Byers, Stephen

      Beckett, Margaret

      Caborn, Richard

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Benton, Joe

      Cann, Jamie

      1017

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hutton, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Illsley, Eric

      Connarty, Michael

      Ingram, Adam

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jamieson, David

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jowell, Tessa

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

      Keen, Alan

      Dafis, Cynog

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Darling, Alistair

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davidson, Ian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Leighton, Ron

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

      Lewis, Terry

      Denham, John

      Litherland, Robert

      Dixon, Don

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dobson, Frank

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Dowd, Jim

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McAllion, John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eastham, Ken

      McCartney, Ian

      Enright, Derek

      Macdonald, Calum

      Etherington, Bill

      McFall, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McKelvey, William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fatchett, Derek

      McLeish, Henry

      Faulds, Andrew

      Maclennan, Robert

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fisher, Mark

      Madden, Max

      Flynn, Paul

      Mahon, Alice

      Foster, Derek (B' p Auckland)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Marek, Dr John

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fraser, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Garrett, John

      Martlew, Eric

      George, Bruce

      Meacher, Michael

      Gerrard, Neil

      Meale, Alan

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Michael, Alun

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Milburn, Alan

      Gordon, Mildred

      Miller, Andrew

      Gould, Bryan

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Graham, Thomas

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morley, Elliot

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Gunnell, John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hain, Peter

      Mudie, George

      Hall, Mike

      Mullin, Chris

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Hardy, Peter

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Harvey, Nick

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Henderson, Doug

      Olner, William

      Heppell, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Parry, Robert

      Hinchliffe, David

      Patchett, Terry

      Hoey, Kate

      Pendry, Tom

      Home Robertson, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pike, Peter L.

      1018

      Pope, Greg

      Spearing, Nigel

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stevenson, George

      Prescott, John

      Stott, Roger

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Radice, Giles

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Tipping, Paddy

      Redmond, Martin

      Turner, Dennis

      Reid, Dr John

      Tyler, Paul

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Vaz, Keith

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'fry NW)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Walley, Joan

      Rogers, Allan

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Watson, Mike

      Rooney, Terry

      Welsh, Andrew

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Salmond, Alex

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wilson, Brian

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winnick, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wise, Audrey

      Simpson, Alan

      Wray, Jimmy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

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

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mr. John Spellar and

      Snape, Peter

      Mr. Gordon McMaster.

      Soley, Clive

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 160

      ADJUSTMENT OF AREAS
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 133,in page 157, line 10, at end insert 'with effect from 1st July 1994.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider also the following amendments: No. 134, in page 157, line 14, at end insert
      'and shall satisfy himself that the local authority in question has sufficient additional resources to continue where the level of their provision at least at the level preceding the making of such an order.'.
      No. 135, in page 157, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
      '(a) shall not be exercisable unless a draft of such an order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Hughes: The amendments form a natural group and relate to the limited subject of the adjustment of areas of urban development corporations. They seek to amend the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the substantive Act by which urban development corporations were established. At present, the Government can set up, by order, an urban development corporation and, by order, that corporation can cease to exist. In the Bill the Government seek to give themselves the power to alter the boundaries of an urban development corporation once it has been set up. The shorthand phrase for that process is de-designation.
      The Minister of State knows that the three subjects on which my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendments are ones that I discussed with him when he last visited Southwark and Bermondsey, and the London Docklands development corporation area to the east of Tower bridge,

      1021
      some weeks ago. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will support at least the general thrust of the amendments. I hope that I can persuade him to be positive about them, even if he takes them away and changes the wording.
      Amendment No. 133 tries to ensure some sort of control over the time scale between the enactment of the Bill—I imagine, later this year—and any partial de-designation of urban development corporation areas. There have been various rumours over the years, and the current rumour is that the Government may well want to de-designate an area when they have finished their regeneration work while leaving the rest of the urban development corporation to continue with certain powers. I understand that argument and do not object to it in principle.
      The amendment seeks to provide a natural time for the first such de-designation. I immediately concede that I think that, technically, the slightly better wording would have been
      "with effect from no earlier than 1st July 1994"
      instead of
      "with effect from 1st July 1994."
      Nearly every year in May—certainly next year—there are local government elections. Therefore, the logical time to change the status of an area currently within an urban development corporation would be to coincide with a suitable date when the local administration could plan to take it over.
      To take the scenario that I know best, were there to be a local election in the London borough of Southwark in 1994—as there is scheduled for the first Thursday of May—it would be sensible for the Government, if they want to de-designate an area at a date after the Bill is enacted, to take the following action. They should de-designate only after leaving a decent interval after enactment so that the authority has plenty of notice. In addition, they should do so at a date that is relevant to the local authority cycle—the election cycle runs from May to May.
      That process would allow the Government to tell Southwark, Tower Hamlets or Newham that they want to take a part of the district out of the UDC and hand it back to the authority from 1 July or thereafter. That would mean that, during the election campaign, what had been done and would be done in the area would constitute a natural local election issue.
      The future of de-designated development corporation sites is an issue concerning the local electorate. Among other things, they could vote on the alternative programmes for the area when it returns to local authority control. Whether it is 1 July or later is a matter of detail.
      I am not arguing that it should be as soon after the local elections as 1 July in London or anywhere else. I am arguing only two things: that there should be a decent interval after the Bill becomes law, and that it should be after a date which allows for local consideration and democratic participation. Ultimately it is right that the areas should go back to local authority control.
      Amendment No. 134 again concerns a matter about which there has been consultation with Government and about which the Minister and his colleagues have been addressed not just by me but by various local authorities. It involves a simple, though important issue for the local authorities and communities affected—the funding before and after an area leaves an urban development
      1022
      corporation. I will not stand by the beauty of the drafting. Indeed, there is a typographical error in the second line: the word "where" should be "with".
      Again I will take the example which I know best, Surrey docks within the London Docklands development corporation. Certain funding comes from the taxpayer to the corporation through Government and is used for everything from road building and environmental improvements to the reclamation of land. Some money is used to fund nurseries or community projects. The local authority should not be financially disadvantaged when that area is handed back.
      Any funding which an urban development corporation had provided should be transferred to the local authority, otherwise there will be the unsatisfactory position in which an area is returned to council control but the council is given no dowry, as it were, with it. If there is no alteration in the standard spending assessment or in the funding from central Government, a council with additional responsibilities will be disadvantaged, and the community will also be disadvantaged. Projects which had been started and continued on the basis of certain funding would be at risk.
      The amendment is about the security of funding programmes during the transition. The Government are alert to the problem. In an area like mine, in the top 10 in the country with unemployment at 20 per cent., there is huge environmental disadvantage. I do not think the Minister was attacking me earlier. Clearly there have been benefits from having an urban regeneration agency in place. Some areas have been improved substantially environmentally and new houses have been provided. We do not want to end up with an infrastructure which we cannot sustain and which becomes grim. We do not want parks which we cannot look after or an environment which deteriorates rapidly and takes us back to where we were. That would not be in the interests of anybody.
      As a PS to the debate, may I remind the Minister that when he was in Southwark he visited one of the better-off parts of the urban development area—around Butler's wharf. In such an area the community might rise to providing its own funding, but in other areas that would not be possible because, for example, many people are on income support.
      Amendment No. 135 is straightforward. When urban development corporations are set up, they are debated in the House. Even when small areas of land are acquired compulsorily, there is an automatic debate either in the House or in Committee. The amendment would ensure that the House had an automatic opportunity to debate in full session, even though it would probably be after 10 pm, any proposal by Government to use the power in the clause to de-designate partially.
      I hope that the draftsmen and women who advise the Government will not find it difficult to agree that that would be a reasonable procedure. I hope that there is no constitutional bar. Again, it is not a London issue because there are many development corporations. The House should have the opportunity to debate any communities which might be the subject of a change of status before a decision is made.
      I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these matters. I hope that all the amendments will receive a positive welcome.
      Mr. Redwood: The intention of clause 160, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wishes to amend, is to encourage de-designation where the work is complete or more or less complete, and where the local authority can come to an agreement with the urban development corporation for the transfer of that part area back to local authority control. I know that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that general measure which my right hon. and learned Friend and I included after hearing the views of local authorities adjacent to UDC areas. Some are keen to negotiate such transfers.
      On the amendments, I am reluctant to put in a time limit. The effect of amendment No. 133 would be that we could not partially de-designate prior to 1 July 1994. It is conceivable that a local authority and a UDC could reach an earlier agreement. If they did, I would be happy for de-designation to go ahead. I would not wish to get in the way of local wishes. If there had not been willing agreement, it is unlikely that we would get to the partial de-designation before 1 July 1994 under the powers approved by both Houses in due course. De-designation would arise only if there was agreement, which deals with the hon. Gentleman's worry about the local democratic effect.
      On the question of resources, there has to be negotiation between the local authority and the urban development corporation concerned. Over the last nine months of my discussions with them, I have been asking all UDCs to think at each point, when planning or developing a new proposal, about the long-term liabilities and about whether those can pass to the private sector or whether they would willingly pass to the local authority.
      One advantage of partnership and local authority membership of UDC boards is that the issues can be discussed at an early stage and a local authority can indicate whether it would be happy in due course to take over a park or a recreational facility, or whether it thinks that the revenue and maintenance cost would be too large, which would lead, I trust, to a modification of the scheme.
      As to the powers, I think that the negative resolution proposal in the Bill gives sufficient parliamentary accountability. This is different from setting up a new body which is taking away powers or duties from a local authority and giving them to a UDC. That procedure clearly needs the techniques which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This is about restoring local democratic accountability for an area which has been handled temporarily by a UDC, so I do not think that it needs an affirmative resolution.
      Of course, Parliament is sovereign and can, if it wishes, discuss these matters or express its view should there be contention or difficulty. In most cases—indeed, I hope in every case—it will be done by agreement. I trust that local authorities will make sensible proposals to return the areas to local democratic control once the regeneration work has been wholly or largely completed.
      I urge the House to reject the amendments, but will take note of the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am aware of the need to proceed, where possible, by agreement with the local community.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Briefly, and with the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the Minister for being generally positive and for some of the encouraging things which he said about the need for agreement on timing and resource allocation. Although I think that I
      1024
      could work out an amendment that he would find difficult to resist on the arguments that he has put, I will note his comments and seek advice. There will be an opportunity later in the passage of the Bill to seek to move amendments which he may find acceptable.
      In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 20
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 77, in page 238, line 37, at end insert—

      'Land Compensation Act 1973 (c. 26)
      . After section 12 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act 1967) there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Tenants participating in collective enfranchisement, or entitled to individual lease extension, under Part I of Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

      12A.—(1) A tenancy to which subsection (2) or (3) below applies ("a qualifying tenancy") shall be treated as an owner's interest as defined in section 2(4) above whether or not the unexpired term on the date of service of the notice of claim is of the length there specified.

      (2) This subsection applies to a tenancy if the tenant, on the relevant date—

      (a) is in respect of the tenancy a qualifying tenant for the purposes of Chapter I of Part I of the 1993 Act (collective enfranchisement); and

      (b) by virtue of the tenancy, either—

      (i) is a participating tenant in relation to a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement under that Chapter; or

      (ii) is one of the participating tenants on whose behalf the acquisition by the nominee purchaser has been made in pursuance of such a claim.

      (3) This subsection applies to a tenancy if the tenant, on the relevant date and in respect of the tenancy, is a qualifying tenant for the purposes of Chapter II of Part I of the 1993 Act (individual right to acquire new lease) who—

      (a) has on or before that date given notice under section 38 of that Act (notice by qualifying tenant of claim to exercise right); and

      (b) has not acquired a new lease before that date.

      (4) If no claim is made in respect of a qualifying tenancy before the claimant has ceased to be entitled to it in consequence of a lease being granted to him by the nominee purchaser or, as the case may be, under Chapter II of Part I of the 1993 Act, the claimant may make a claim in respect of the qualifying tenancy as if he were still entitled to it.

      (5) No claim shall be made by virtue of subsection (4) above after the claimant has ceased to be entitled to the lease referred to in that subsection, but such a claim may be made before the first claim day if it is made before the claimant has disposed of that lease and after he has made a contract for disposing of it.

      (6) Compensation shall not be payable before the first claim day on any claim made by virtue of subsection (5) above.

      (7) Any notice of a claim made by virtue of this section shall contain, in addition to the matters mentioned in section 3 above, a statement that it is made in respect of a qualifying tenancy as defined in this section and, if made by virtue of subsection (4) or (5) above, sufficient particulars to show that it falls within that subsection.

      1025

      (8) In relation to a claim made by virtue of subsection (4) above, section 4(4)(a) above shall have effect as if the reference to the date of service of notice of the claim were a reference to the relevant date.

      (9) In this section—

      (a) "the 1993 Act" means the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; and

      (b) "participating tenant", "nominee purchaser" and "the acquisition by the nominee purchaser" shall be construed in accordance with sections 12, 13 and 34(2) of that Act respectively.".'.—[Sir George Young.]

    Schedule 21

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 78, in page 242, line 37, at end insert—

      '1980 c. 51.

      The Housing Act 1980.

      In section 141, "3,". In Schedule 21, para-graph 3.'.

      No. 97, in page 243, line 46, column 3, leave out '177(3)' and insert
      '177, in subsection (2)(b) the words "or the Corporation" and in subsection (3)'.
      No. 98, in page 243, line 49, column 3, at end insert—
      'In section 180, the words "the Corporation" and
      "Corporation".
      No. 79, in page 244, line 21, at end insert—

      '1985 c. 71.

      The Housing (Consequential Provisions) Act 1985.

      In section 6(3), "12,". In Schedule 2, paragraph 12.'.

      No. 112, in page 244, line 24, column 3, at beginning insert—
      'In section 17, in subsection (1), the words "and exercised by".'.
      No. 99 in page 244, line 36, column 3, at end insert—
      'In section 79(2)(b), the words "in accordance with section 84 below". '—[Sir George Young.]

    Clause 169
      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 96, in page 160, line 40, leave out '123' and insert '120 to'.—[Sir George Young.]
    New clause 4

      JURISDICTION OF SHERIFF IN SCOTLAND
      ' . In section 299 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, at the end of subsection 1(B), there shall be added—
      "(1A) In particular in any such proceedings for the recovery of damages or compensation where it can be shown that the public sector authority has been derelict in its duty to issue a notice of defect to a prospective purchaser of a defective house, the sheriff shall have the express power to issue a decree applying the remedies available under section 278 of this Act.". '—[Mr. Kirkwood.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am aware that this is an important strategic debate about housing and urban planning. I am also conscious of the fact that Third Reading is yet to come and that hon. Members want to reach that stage as soon as possible.
      1026
      However, I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the House to deal with what I believe to be an unfortunate matter in my constituency with which only Parliament can deal.
      I could detain the House for some time discussing the background to the circumstances which have provoked me to table my new clause, but I will deal briefly with the matter as I know that the Minister is aware of it and has taken an interest in it. I pay tribute to his officials for the help that they have given me and for their understanding of the complexities of the matter. I hope that the Minister will continue to take an interest and that he will be as sympathetic as possible.
      The new clause would give explicit and additional powers to the sheriff in the Scottish courts in adjudicating matters which come under the original Housing Defects Act 1984, as amended by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Those Acts deal with former council houses which are deemed to be statutorily defective. The new clause is necessary because of a sequence of events which have occurred through a combination of bad luck and a simple omission by a local authority.
      The results have been dire in the way in which they have affected the future of 20 families living in Whitson-Fairhurst-type properties in Hawick in my constituency. It is no exaggeration to say that the lives of those people, as well as their homes, have been blighted by what has happened. All the families are previous local authority tenants; all of them exercised their right to buy, as they were entitled to do, under the 1981 legislation; all live in houses which are superficially desirable—well kept, well decorated and well tended—but those houses are now known to be statutorily defective.
      Under the original 1984 Act, tenants seeking to buy their homes had a statutory right to be told that the effective market value of their homes was nil. I do not want to apportion blame, but for whatever reason the families concerned were not told about their statutory right and in good faith they took out mortgages on houses which are not saleable in today's market. Because of that act of omission, and because the truth about their properties has only just come to light, they have missed the deadline for the statutory protection which would have been afforded to them under the 1984 Act. Because they have no alternative, they are now forced to fall back on common law and the provisions of the 1987 Act in taking their case to the courts.
      The architects of the 1987 Act specifically and properly included a clause giving the sheriff the right to adjudicate on any disputes involving defective houses. However, neither the architects of the Act nor the Ministers who took it through the House could have foreseen the effect of such a simple but damning omission on the families involved. The problem for the lawyers and, indeed, for the sheriff when he adjudicates on any such case, is how to quantify the loss that those families have sustained. I am a former provincial lawyer, so I understand only too well that it is an impossible calculation. No scales of justice are available to the sheriff, the lawyers or anyone else to help to make a fair and clear judgment about the extent of the loss sustained by those families.
      On the one hand, having considered precisely that problem, Parliament made it clear that nothing less than 95 per cent. of the unaffected market value would be sufficient recompense for people in that position. On the other hand, the sheriff will be adjudicating on an action for

      1027
      damages under common law and he will not have access to the 1984 Act, as amended by the 1987 Act. He does not have any easy way of deciding the level of compensation that should be offered to those families. I understand that my new clause may be technically defective, but the intention behind it is to give the sheriff the additional option of providing the same remedy as would have been available if those families had had the protection of the 1984 Act. The new clause is carefully crafted and controlled to ensure that there is a limit on the amount of compensation.
      The problem has been distressing for the families involved, but I again acknowledge the departmental officials who have helped me to pick my way through the problem. The local authority and the insurers advising it have all been doing their level best to find a remedy. The solicitors acting for the families have also been doing their best, taking account of Lanark council's opinion, to obtain an effective remedy. Everyone has done everything possible under existing law to provide an effective remedy, but no one outside the realms of central Government has the power to do so. There needs to be some form of Government intervention to provide that remedy.
      The new clause is the only way that I could think of to provide a means of avoiding the problem of retrospection. It would make a power available to the sheriff in future. The families are currently considering whether to accept an offer from the insurance company which is advising the council. That offer is not ungenerous, so far as it goes, but if the additional power provided by the new clause were on the statute book by the summer—the timetable envisaged for the Bill—any court proceedings initiated by the families in the autumn, for example, would have a better prospect than they have at present.
      Obviously, learned counsel would have to advise the agents individually, but if the Government could look favourably at least on the spirit of the amendment, that would give fresh hope to a group of honest citizens who through no fault of their own have been through a financially and emotionally trying experience and who not unreasonably look to Parliament for some effective redress.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I will not reply at length to the hon. Gentleman, but I have listened carefully to his remarks and he presented a persuasive case. It is my intention, if this is at all possible, to bring forward a Government amendment in another place if necessary. Given that undertaking, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
      We shall consider issues involving dates, and all the implications, and we intend to bring forward a suitable amendment in another place if necessary. It is my belief that that will be necessary. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution; we shall do our best.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order Jar Third Reading read. —[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      6.41 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Our general election manifesto made clear our commitment to Britain's housing and to the reinvigoration of our inner cities. The Bill contains far-reaching measures to achieve that. It takes forward no fewer than 10 specific manifesto commitments which will increase the opportunity for our citizens to own and to control the houses in which they live, which secure a better deal for council tenants, and which will help to transform our cities and to restore the civic pride that too often has been strangled by years of municipal socialism.
      In 1980 we introduced the right to buy. Labour's eventual conversion to the right to buy was as inevitable and predictable as its initial outright opposition. Labour could not stand in the way of more than I million council tenants who eagerly seized the opportunity to own their own homes.
      The rents-to-mortgage scheme introduced by the Bill will give tenants a new route into home ownership. Labour described those proposals as irrelevant. It does not care about council tenants who want to buy but who cannot afford to do so outright. We do care. We will re-launch the drive to home ownership and we will make sure that tenants are well aware of their new rights. Many will think that now is the time to take advantage of low prices, low interest rates, and generous discounts. The only question is when Labour will see the benefit this time. Will it do so before the next election, or will it wait until it loses that election and then continue its salami tactics of adopting our policies bit by bit?
      Will Labour Members say of this Bill, as they said of so many others, "Aren't you lucky that you didn't vote for us last time? Think of all those mistaken policies—the error of which we now concede—that we would have thrust upon the people of this country if they had been foolish enough to vote for us at the election."
      Mr. John Battle: What is the Government's view of the 70,000 council leaseholders who exercised their right to buy but who now find that they have a massive repair lease, which means that some receive bills as high as £58,000 each? As a result, many of those tenants are in danger of losing their homes. What will the Government do about that? Many believe that those tenants were not well informed by the Government when they exercised their right to buy.
      Mr. Howard: I well understand why the hon. Gentleman is keen to divert attention from the Bill's provisions and his party's abysmal record. He knows perfectly well the answer to his question—that we are engaged in discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to see what steps can be taken to alleviate the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I strongly urge him to desist from his diversionary tactics and to return—painful though this may be for him—to the subject matter of the Bill.
      Our manifesto promised to revolutionise the management of council housing. The Bill does precisely that. It gives tenants the right to manage—a right undreamed of by Labour. On Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition said that his party should adopt a

      1029
      "new politics that puts people first, that rejects dogma and embraces political common sense solutions".
      Alas, the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot to tell his hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench, and in particular the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), that bureaucracy was outmoded and dogma was to be rejected. The hon. Member for Leeds, West still wants to keep the ineffectual veto that we are replacing with a right to real involvement in the management process from start to finish. He still puts the interests of local authorities, however inefficient they are, before the interests of tenants.
      Mr. Soley: Will the Secretary of State answer a question that other Ministers have consistently refused to answer? I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not good at answering questions, but perhaps he will try. If a council is providing a good service and the tenants are happy with that service, why should they have to pay to be transferred when they do not want that? At the same time, a private sector tenant may have a landlord who has been harassing him imprisoned but the tenant still has no right to transfer. When will the Secretary of State take tenants' rights seriously?
      Mr. Howard: There is a simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. If the council's management is as good as the hon. Gentleman suggested, it would win the contract. That is the essence of competitive tendering—a concept which remains wholly alien to Labour, despite recent attempts to pretend to embrace it.
      Part I of the Bill was considered at length yesterday. I believe that there is widespread acceptance of the principle of leasehold reform, even among those who expressed doubts about some of the detailed provisions of the Bill. Our proposals are directed clearly at people who have long leases at a low rent and who are generally regarded as owners of their premises. They will not have an adverse impact on the renting market, which we want to prosper. I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Jill Knight) on that point.
      Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that it is not the Government's intention to move into the rest of the rented market? I refer particularly to his statement that the object is that all tenants should
      "own and … control the houses in which they live".
      Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it amply clear that he is not talking about the private rented sector?
      Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to clarify that aspect and to give the reassurance that she seeks. As we made plain during the passage of this legislation, there is a clear distinction between the private rented sector to which my hon. Friend referred, which we are determined to encourage, and those who live in the specific categories of houses and flats to which the legislation will apply. I accept my hon. Friend's point and give her the reassurance that she seeks.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State a situation affecting 19 of my constituents whose ground landlord is the Church in Wales, and whose houses have been made unsaleable by the Church's demands and its attempt to enfranchise them
      1030
      at a cost of £17,000 in respect of houses valued at between £100,000 and £150,000. The leases are due to revert in 2003. According to the Church's advisers, that means that £17,000 must be paid for a lease. Leaseholders cannot sell a house on that basis; nor can they enfranchise themselves, because who has £17,000 to spend? Two years ago, £1,400 was being asked; what are people to do now that the price has shot up to £17,000?
      Mr. Howard: I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's question. He should be well aware that, ultimately, such matters are decided by leasehold tribunals. If his constituents ae not satisfied with the terms offered by their freeholder, they should take the case to a tribunal.
      Mr. David Winnick: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Howard: No, I must make progress.
      I was dealing with the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I think that I had already mentioned their anxieties about the terms on which enfranchisement will take place. Their chief fear was that leaseholders might somehow acquire their homes at a discount. I entirely accept that that would be wrong, and I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that it will not happen.
      The marriage value—which is the element of compensation at issue—is the extra value released when the freehold and leasehold interests are brought together in a single pair of hands. In the absence of enfranchisement, there is no marriage value, so the freeholder will have lost nothing if the leaseholders retain an element of that value when enfranchisement goes ahead. There is no discount; there is merely a sharing of the extra value. The precise share for each party will depend on the circumstances in each case. Often 50:50 will be appropriate, but in some cases the landlord should get more. For example, if the lease has very little of its term left to run, the landlord should probably get nearly all the marriage value.
      The Bill allows for that. It will replicate the open market. In the case of flats, we have added the safeguard that the landlord must always receive at least half the marriage value, but if he can convince the leasehold valuation tribunal that in the market he would receive more, the tribunal must give him more.
      The Bill addresses important problems, and it does so by proceeding with clear manifesto commitments. I know that Conservative Members who have some misgivings about the leasehold reform provisions have weighed that point carefully. Opposition Members, however, are in a state of total confusion. Do they oppose leasehold reform? Do they oppose a vigorous drive to develop derelict land, led by a new agency working with local authorities and the private sector? Do they oppose giving council tenants the right to turn their rents into mortgages?
      We have been told by the hon. Member for Leeds, West that compulsory competitive tendering for housing management is unacceptable—a view echoed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Last night, as a result of mighty effort, the hon. Member for Leeds, West managed to persuade 55 of his hon. Friends to vote with him on a wrecking amendment. It was, however, extremely inconsiderate of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is Labour's full-time spokesman on the monarchy, not to tip off his hon. Friend before giving his recent interview to Tribune. He must know that Tribune is

      1031
      not just any old magazine but the approved vehicle for sneaking out major policy U-turns—in this instance, on compulsory competitive tendering.
      The hon. Member for Blackburn is in favour of compulsory competitive tendering—or so he told us in the pages of Tribune—while the hon. Member for Leeds, West is against it. In which direction are his hon. Friends to turn? Are they to follow the hon. Member for Blackburn, or the hon. Member for Leeds, West? Should they come, or should they go? Should they vote yes, or should they vote no? We await their decision with interest.
      I cannot conclude without referring to the distinguished contribution made by Liberal Democrats to the debate on housing. After attending five Standing Committee sittings, their housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), told the magazine Inside Housing, that the Committee was "a bag of worms", and that he had no intention of returning to it. Of course, we could not expect the hon. Gentleman to be present this evening. True to his word, the hon. Gentleman missed the next 20 sittings. Hon. Members can imagine the intense expectation when he arrived in the Chamber yesterday. The House hung on his every word—or it would have done if he had said anything; lapsing into Trappist mode, he sat through the debate but remained silent throughout. It would be impossible to identify a more eloquent comment on his party's ability to contribute a single thought to our deliberations on these important matters.
      The Bill will play an important part in regenerating our cities. It will give council tenants the opportunity to buy a stake in the homes in which they live; it will allow hundreds of thousands of private leaseholders the opportunity to gain control over the management of their homes; and it will bring about a much-needed improvement in the management of public housing by introducing the spur of competition. All those important reforms are contained in the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
      6.56 pm
      Mr. Jack Straw: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, for my inability to be present for speeches about important amendments and new clauses.
      I went to Nottingham this morning. I caught a train that was due to arrive at St. Pancras at 3.15; it arrived at 5.50 pm. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Privatise."] I had anticipated that ritual chant from Conservative Members. In fact, the delay was caused by the under-investment with which we have charged the Government, and by the semi-privatisation that they have already carried out. Following a total train failure caused by clapped-out equipment, the passengers were forced to suffer the indignity of knowing that, just up the line, locomotives were ready to take the train back to Wellingborough station. Because of the so-called business railway, however, none was available, so we sat there for two and a half hours.
      Yesterday, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said:
      "It is a matter of considerable regret to me that the Bill is modelled on a Labour precedent, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 … A number of us find it difficult to accept that a Conservative Government are retabling a socialist measure which has been described by Professor Wade QC"—
      an acknowledged administrative lawyer—
      "as a form of 'expropriation'"
      which
      1032
      "can scarcely be said to have been for public purposes".—[Official Report, 9 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 834–35.]
      The hon. Gentleman has been wrong in the past, and I am afraid that he was wrong yesterday. Would that this were the measure that we would have tabled if we had won the general election in April—a measure that would have given almost all flat leaseholders the right to enfranchise. We would have ensured that the test on non-residential floor space was raised, and, in particular, we would have rescinded the low rent test.
      Yesterday, a Labour amendment and new clause were moved which would have led to the abandonment of the low rent test. That followed debate in Committee. Although, like the Secretary of State, I was not a member of the Committee, my hon. Friends were led to believe that the Minister for Housing and Planning understood the powerful arguments against the iniquity of the test—arguments for a view shared by a number of Conservative Members.
      It is my belief that the Minister of State—once one of the great left-wingers of the Conservative party, who, I realise, cannot answer for—this understands and agrees with the case we make but that he was overruled by others, no doubt including the Secretary of State, under pressure from the Duke of Westminster tendency of the Conservative party. We should like to know what were and are the arguments against our amendment on the low rent test. Certainly they were not advanced in debate last night, nor were they put forward in Committee. There is no case for a low rent test—particularly the one in this Bill, which enables unscrupulous landlords so to set their ground rents as to escape the Bill's provisions and deny tenants the right to enfranchise.
      Last night, the Minister for Housing and Planning asked me what our attitude on Third Reading would be. I told him that if he were to accept the argument for the amendment and the new clause in respect of the low rent test, we should support the Third Reading. That remains our position. But, in the event, we shall not be supporting the Third Reading. Our position in this regard is entirely consistent, not least because the Government have refused to give full rights of enfranchisement to all holders of long leases.
      Mr. Howard: I should like to ensure that I have understood the hon. Gentleman's position. Will he confirm that, because not quite all the people whom he would like to see given the right to enfranchisement will achieve that right under the Bill, he wants the right to be given to no one?
      Mr. Straw: That is a ludicrous parody. There are other reasons for our opposition. We need means of expressing our very serious opposition, on behalf of disfranchised leaseholders, to the provisions of the Bill. We can do so by voting against the Third Reading, as we voted against the Second Reading in the hope that changes would be made in Committee.
      I should like to turn to the extraordinary position that the Government have got themselves into in respect of compulsory competitive tendering for housing management. The Secretary of State referred to my Tribune interview. The entire interview was tape-recorded by the editor. The direct quotations of my words are correct. The statement—in reported form—that compulsory competitive tendering and the council tax would be retained is erroneous. I did not say that, nor would I, as how and

      1033
      when policy is settled are matters for the Labour party as a whole. Those are not things for me to proclaim in an interview for Tribune. An apology from the editor will appear in this week's issue of the paper. In the interview I also made it clear that we are opposed to compulsory competitive tendering for housing management.
      Mr. Howard: Why has it taken the hon. Gentleman a week to decide whether the Tribune report was correct?
      Mr. Straw: What I have just said to the House was said to journalists last Friday, when the interview appeared.
      Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Straw: No. We are due to vote very soon.
      The Secretary of State made much of the apparent management rights that he is ready to give tenants. He described as ineffective a veto giving tenants the right to decide who should manage their estates, despite the fact that such a veto was written into the 1985 Act by many of his hon. Friends, albeit with our support. What emerged, particularly in the answer that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), was that his real concern was that the veto, far from being ineffective, would be all too effective. It will give tenants the right to decide, before the matter goes to competitive tendering, who should be their managers.
      It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say, as he sought a moment ago to say, that the tender price will determine who should manage an estate. The tenants want an absolute right to decide before the matter goes to tender. We are not arguing that the council should have that right; we are arguing that the tenants should have it.
      On the question of urban regeneration, our concern is that there should be a much wider base and a much more democratic agency, as we proposed in new clause 14. It is a matter for great regret that the Government rejected that proposal. The need for regeneration of urban areas is overwhelming, and the Government's half-baked policies are not good enough. After all, they virtually wound up the urban programme, and the Secretary of State is currently shuffling to abandon the third phase of city challenge. On this matter, I should be very happy to take an intervention from him. Yesterday, in reply to a question from me, he talked about a possible third phase. We should all be pleased to hear a categorical assurance that there will be a similarly sized third phase of city challenge.
      Mr. Howard: We have more than once made it clear that we have not abandoned city challenge and that we shall take a decision about a third round at the appropriate time.
      As the hon. Gentleman invited me to intervene. I should like to press him a little further about what he said a few moments ago concerning his attitude to compulsory competitive tendering and to the council tax. He said that all his words reported in quotation marks by Tribune were accurate. Well, what he said—reported in quotation marks —about compulsory competitive tendering was that he had seen the case for it in respect of the provision of basic services such as refuse collection. What he said—reported in quotation marks—about the council tax was that he could see that the underlying principle was okay.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions, even from Secretaries of State, should be short.
      Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State failed to read beyond the remark that the underlying principle was okay. The property tax U-turn was not done by the Opposition. We have argued for years for a property tax. On the other hand, the Secretary of State went round the country for five years evangelising on the merits of the poll tax. He it was who said that the poll tax was the fairest and most equal of all taxes and who, in speech after speech, damned the idea of a property tax based on capital values. I am delighted that he has at last been converted to the idea of a property tax. What I want to know is whether he believed it then and whether he believes it now. Is his conversion a genuinely Pauline one?
      The Secretary of State spoke of manifesto pledges made by the Government just 10 months ago. He did not say that, since April 1992, 450,000 building workers have gone on the dole, that 150,000 people are in long-term mortgage arrears and face the ever-growing threat of repossession, that 65,000 homeless families are in temporary accommodation, that we still have the scandalous spectacle of people sleeping rough on the streets, and that house building in the private and public sectors is at the lowest level for a decade.
      We shall vote against the Bill because it takes away tenants' rights, because it does not provide an effective programme for urban regeneration, because it fails fully to enfranchise leaseholders and, above all, because it fails to do anything about the underlying housing crisis, of which the Government are the architect.
      7.10 pm
      Mr. Michael Jopling rose—
      Hon. Members: Come on!
      Mr. Jopling: If the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) can each take 10 minutes on Third Reading, I do not see why time should not be available to Back Benchers.
      I do not think that I can remember a Bill being introduced by my party that made me feel more ashamed. This is a poor Bill. I have opposed it throughout, and although my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made some welcome adjustments to its provisions on leasehold reform, I am very disappointed that he has not been able to go further.
      I cannot accept that a landlord should be made to sell a property to a leaseholder against his will. The Bill does not fairly compensate him for when a leaseholder exercises his option of enfranchisement. Unless the Secretary of State can give clearer guidance to the valuation tribunals, it is likely that they will gravitate towards the 50:50 split of the marriage value, using the flawed argument that my right hon. and learned Friend has advanced about a willing buyer and willing seller. That will not achieve fairness. The willing seller and willing buyer basis is flawed when a transaction is a forced one between two private citizens.
      I hope that before the Bill is enacted the Secretary of State will be able to improve those terms and that the resulting average price that is paid will ultimately be nearer 100 per cent. of the marriage value. I have been given an example of a flat with a freehold vacant possession value

      1035
      of £750,000. If a landlord sells a long lease of 70 years at, say, a value of £630,000 and at a rent of £500 a year, he will forgo £120,000 of that value. I have been advised, using the criterion that the tribunals use, that after the first year of the lease the loss to the freeholder would be just under £56,000 and that the overnight windfall gain to the leaseholder would be the same. I do not see that that is a fair and proper basis on which to proceed, which is why I am astonished that the party to which I belong has introduced such legislation.
      I was in the House when the 1967 Bill was enacted. I know very well that if the Labour party had introduced legislation such as this Bill, there would have been fury and furore from this party and it would have been opposed root and branch. For that reason, if the Government want the Bill, they will have to get it without my assistance.
      7.14 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be as brief as the right. hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), but I shall not take the same view. I hope that the Secretary of State, having complained yesterday about the Trappist tendencies of my colleagues, will not complain if I now say something: he cannot have it both ways.
      The most controversial aspect of the Bill relates to the point that was made by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. The attitude that he and other Conservative Members take, though understandable in logic, is less understandable in politics, as they did not take a similar view of tenants' rights when we were debating the right to buy from local authorities. Local authorities suffered as much as private landlords might if the Bill is enacted.
      The inconsistency is remarkable—not that consistency would be a prize awarded to either Front Bench, for reasons that are evident after tonight's speeches. The Secretary of State knows the position that my colleagues and I adopted, so the advice that I shall soon give my colleagues is predictable. On Second Reading, we supported the Government, making it clear that we supported some parts of the Bill.
      We support the proposals for enfranchisement, although we regret that the Government did not amend them to get rid of the low-rent test. We support attention being given to urban regeneration, but we do not like the mechanism adopted because of its undemocratic nature. We support the idea of more tenants' management but oppose the lack of tenants' having the final say over compulsory competitive tendering. We do not believe that that compulsion should be at the behest of the Government; it should be the decision of those affected.
      One must therefore make a choice between passing a Bill with many provisions that one does not like or blocking it in the hope that the Government will improve it when it returns. The choice for us is clear: we will seek to block the Bill by opposing Third Reading. We hope that, if it is defeated, the Government will learn the lessons of the arguments put in the House and outside and will become much more accountable and democratic, not only in their housing policy, but in their policy for urban regeneration.
      7.17 pm
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: If it had been put to me at an election meeting that, within months of that election, the party that I support would introduce a Bill that legislated between two private individuals who had had a perfectly good and legitimate contract to force one against his will to sell to another, and then not at a fair price, I would—and I can speak for my hon. Friends on this—have hotly denied it. Yet that is what the Bill does in various ways.
      We discussed yesterday in great detail the subjects of compensation and residence. Is it right that the Bill should apply to foreigners, companies and people who are well able to look after themselves? Is it right that legislation should break up the heritage estates of our great capital city?
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is deluding himself if he believes that the principle of the Bill will not affect the minds of investors who are seeking to erect or create property to let. They will say that the Conservative Government, in spite of what they claim, are unreliable and will enfranchise tenants. That is a terrible mistake. The decline of the rented sector has been one of the worst problems in the housing market and is very much the fault of the Opposition, whose belief in security of tenure has taken out of the market the capacity for the less well paid to have a decent home.
      I support what our manifesto said, but the Bill is the wrong way to achieve it. I shall certainly not support it.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 262.

      Division No. 148]

      [6.2 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Ainger, Nick

      Betts, Clive

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Blair, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Blunkett, David

      Alton, David

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Boyes, Roland

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bradley, Keith

      Austin-Walker, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Barnes, Harry

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

      Barron, Kevin

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Battle, John

      Burden, Richard

      Bayley, Hugh

      Byers, Stephen

      Beckett, Margaret

      Caborn, Richard

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Benton, Joe

      Cann, Jamie

      1017

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hutton, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Illsley, Eric

      Connarty, Michael

      Ingram, Adam

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jamieson, David

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jowell, Tessa

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

      Keen, Alan

      Dafis, Cynog

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Darling, Alistair

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davidson, Ian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Leighton, Ron

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

      Lewis, Terry

      Denham, John

      Litherland, Robert

      Dixon, Don

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dobson, Frank

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Dowd, Jim

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McAllion, John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eastham, Ken

      McCartney, Ian

      Enright, Derek

      Macdonald, Calum

      Etherington, Bill

      McFall, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McKelvey, William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fatchett, Derek

      McLeish, Henry

      Faulds, Andrew

      Maclennan, Robert

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fisher, Mark

      Madden, Max

      Flynn, Paul

      Mahon, Alice

      Foster, Derek (B' p Auckland)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Marek, Dr John

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fraser, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Garrett, John

      Martlew, Eric

      George, Bruce

      Meacher, Michael

      Gerrard, Neil

      Meale, Alan

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Michael, Alun

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Milburn, Alan

      Gordon, Mildred

      Miller, Andrew

      Gould, Bryan

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Graham, Thomas

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morley, Elliot

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Gunnell, John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hain, Peter

      Mudie, George

      Hall, Mike

      Mullin, Chris

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Hardy, Peter

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Harvey, Nick

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Henderson, Doug

      Olner, William

      Heppell, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Parry, Robert

      Hinchliffe, David

      Patchett, Terry

      Hoey, Kate

      Pendry, Tom

      Home Robertson, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pike, Peter L.

      1018

      Pope, Greg

      Spearing, Nigel

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stevenson, George

      Prescott, John

      Stott, Roger

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Radice, Giles

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Tipping, Paddy

      Redmond, Martin

      Turner, Dennis

      Reid, Dr John

      Tyler, Paul

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Vaz, Keith

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'fry NW)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Walley, Joan

      Rogers, Allan

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Watson, Mike

      Rooney, Terry

      Welsh, Andrew

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Salmond, Alex

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wilson, Brian

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winnick, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wise, Audrey

      Simpson, Alan

      Wray, Jimmy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

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

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mr. John Spellar and

      Snape, Peter

      Mr. Gordon McMaster.

      Soley, Clive

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Cash, William

      Alexander, Richard

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Amess, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Ancram, Michael

      Clappison, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Ashby, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Coe, Sebastian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Congdon, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Conway, Derek

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Couchman, James

      Bates, Michael

      Cran, James

      Batiste, Spencer

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

      Bellingham, Henry

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Day, Stephen

      Booth, Hartley

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Boswell, Tim

      Devlin, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Dicks, Terry

      Bowden, Andrew

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bowis, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Dover, Den

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Duncan, Alan

      Brazier, Julian

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bright, Graham

      Dunn, Bob

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Eggar, Tim

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Elletson, Harold

      Burns, Simon

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Butcher, John

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Butler, Peter

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Butterfill, John

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Evennett, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Faber, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Fabricant, Michael

      1019

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lord, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Luff, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Freeman, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Madel, David

      Fry, Peter

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gale, Roger

      Malone, Gerald

      Gallie, Phil

      Mans, Keith

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marland, Paul

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Marlow, Tony

      Garnier, Edward

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Merchant, Piers

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hague, William

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hannam, Sir John

      Needham, Richard

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Heald, Oliver

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Norris, Steve

      Hendry, Charles

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hicks, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Page, Richard

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Paice, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Horam, John

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Redwood, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Richards, Rod

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robathan, Andrew

      Key, Robert

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Knapman, Roger

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

      Sackville, Tom

      Knox, David

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Legg, Barry

      Shersby, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Sims, Roger

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lidington, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      1020

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Trotter, Neville

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Viggers, Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Walden, George

      Spring, Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Sproat, Iain

      Waller, Gary

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Ward, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stephen, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stern, Michael

      Watts, John

      Stewart, Allan

      Wells, Bowen

      Streeter, Gary

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Sumberg, David

      Whitney, Ray

      Sweeney, Walter

      Whittingdale, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Wilshire, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Yeo, Tim

      Thurnham, Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

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

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. James Arbuthnot.

      Trend, Michael

      Division No. 149]

      [7.20 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Burns, Simon

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Burt, Alistair

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Butcher, John

      Alexander, Richard

      Butler, Peter

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Butterfill, John

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Amess, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Ancram, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carttiss, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cash, William

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Ashby, David

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Churchill, Mr

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Clappison, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Coe, Sebastian

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Colvin, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Congdon, David

      Bates, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Batiste, Spencer

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Couchman, James

      Booth, Hartley

      Cran, James

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bowis, John

      Day, Stephen

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Devlin, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bright, Graham

      Dicks, Terry

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Dover, Den

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Duncan, Alan

      1037

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knox, David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Elletson, Harold

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evennett, David

      Lidington, David

      Faber, David

      Lightbown, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lord, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Luff, Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forman, Nigel

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Forth, Eric

      Maclean, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Madel, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      French, Douglas

      Malone, Gerald

      Fry, Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Gale, Roger

      Marlow, Tony

      Gallie, Phil

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Garnier, Edward

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Merchant, Piers

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Milligan, Stephen

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mills, Iain

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hague, William

      Needham, Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Norris, Steve

      Hawksley, Warren

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hayes, Jerry

      Ottaway, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Page, Richard

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Paice, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hendry, Charles

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hicks, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Horam, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Redwood, John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Richards, Rod

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Riddick, Graham

      Jack, Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Key, Robert

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Sackville, Tom

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      1038

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Tracey, Richard

      Shersby, Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Viggers, Peter

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Walden, George

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waller, Gary

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Ward, John

      Spring, Richard

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sproat, Iain

      Waterson, Nigel

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Watts, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wells, Bowen

      Stephen, Michael

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Stern, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Allan

      Whittingdale, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sumberg, David

      Willetts, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wilshire, David

      Sykes, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Coffey, Ann

      Ainger, Nick

      Cohen, Harry

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Connarty, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Corbett, Robin

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Austin-Walker, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cousins, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Cox, Tom

      Barron, Kevin

      Cryer, Bob

      Battle, John

      Cummings, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Dafis, Cynog

      Bell, Stuart

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Darling, Alistair

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Davidson, Ian

      Benton, Joe

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Berry, Dr. Roger

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

      Betts, Clive

      Denham, John

      Blair, Tony

      Dewar, Donald

      Blunkett, David

      Dixon, Don

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Dobson, Frank

      Boyes, Roland

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bradley, Keith

      Dowd, Jim

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

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

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Eastham, Ken

      Burden, Richard

      Enright, Derek

      Byers, Stephen

      Etherington, Bill

      Caborn, Richard

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Cann, Jamie

      Fisher, Mark

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Flynn, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Foulkes, George

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Fraser, John

      Clelland, David

      Galloway, George

      1039

      Gapes, Mike

      Jowell, Tessa

      Garrett, John

      Keen, Alan

      George, Bruce

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Godsiff, Roger

      Leighton, Ron

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Lewis, Terry

      Gould, Bryan

      Litherland, Robert

      Graham, Thomas

      Livingstone, Ken

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Grocott, Bruce

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Gunnell, John

      McAllion, John

      Hain, Peter

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hall, Mike

      McCartney, Ian

      Hanson, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hardy, Peter

      McFall, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      McKelvey, William

      Harvey, Nick

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      McLeish, Henry

      Henderson, Doug

      Maclennan, Robert

      Heppell, John

      McMaster, Gordon

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Madden, Max

      Hoey, Kate

      Mahon, Alice

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mandelson, Peter

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Marek, Dr John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Meacher, Michael

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Michael, Alun

      Hughes, Simon (Southward)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hutton, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Illsley, Eric

      Milburn, Alan

      Ingram, Adam

      Miller, Andrew

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jamieson, David

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      1040

      Mudie, George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Murphy, Paul

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

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Snape, Peter

      O'Hara, Edward

      Soley, Clive

      Olner, William

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Neill, Martin

      Spellar, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Parry, Robert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Patchett, Terry

      Stevenson, George

      Pendry, Tom

      Stott, Roger

      Pickthall, Colin

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pike, Peter L.

      Straw, Jack

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis

      Prescott, John

      Tyler, Paul

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Vaz, Keith

      Purchase, Ken

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Walley, Joan

      Radice, Giles

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Watson, Mike

      Redmond, Martin

      Welsh, Andrew

      Reid, Dr John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Rogers, Allan

      Wilson, Brian

      Rooker, Jeff

      Winnick, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Wise, Audrey

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wray, Jimmy

      Salmond, Alex

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Alan Meale and

      Simpson, Alan

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Social Security
7.32pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.
Mr. Lilley: The orders implement the decisions that I announced following the autumn statement at the end of the public expenditure round. I shall discuss how they affect different groups of beneficiaries, but it is just possible that the House will wish me to expand a little upon the implications for social security of the long-term review announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Monday. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall do so after dealing with the orders themselves.
I am pretty certain that the long-term review will have two things in common with the public spending round: it will be accompanied by sustained, reckless and unfounded scaremongering by the Opposition, and the outcome will show that scaremongering to be wholly baseless. In October, for example, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) put out a statement saying that the Government were planning to cut benefits for
"the poorest, weakest and frailest who have been targeted to pay the price of the Government's policy".
We are used to hearing that sort of thing from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East—but he was joined by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). who should know better. The hon. Member for Garscadden accused the Government of planning a campaign of "social vandalism", "singling out those on benefits", breaking our pledges and so on.
Needless to say, both hon. Gentlemen were wrong. In fact we kept our pledges to families and to the elderly, maintained support for people hit by recession and focused additional support on the most needy. Today we are implementing those decisions.
Mr. David Winnick: The Secretary of State is keen to accuse the Opposition of scaremongering, but is he not aware that on Sunday almost every newspaper—including those that usually support the Government—stated, presumably as a result of leaks, that the Government intended to means-test the state pension? It was not suggested that that would happen during this Parliament, but that was supposed to be the long-term
1042
objective. Will the Secretary of State now give a guarantee that in no circumstances and at no stage, in the short or the long term, will the state pension be means-tested?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has a dispute with his own Front-Bench spokesmen. It is the Leader of the Opposition who has set up a review to consider means-testing all universal benefits.
Mr. Winnick: Answer my question, yes or no.
Mr. Lilley: In the section of my speech dealing with the long-term review, I shall deal with the precise point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
We are fulfilling our manifesto pledges to uprate pensions and child benefit in line with inflation. We are uprating all other major benefits fully in line with inflation and are confirming decisions to channel £1 billion extra to those on income-related benefits. In a tough spending round, it was possible to find the resources to maintain and improve benefits only by the most rigorous scrutiny of costs.
Above all, it was essential to staunch the flow of money to those whom Parliament did not intend to receive it. In the autumn, I set a target of £500 million for fraud identified and stopped by the Benefits Agency alone. I am delighted to say that we are well set to exceed that this year.
Mr. Donald Dewar: The form of words that the Secretary of State used might have given someone listening less than carefully the impression that the right hon. Gentleman would have liked to do better, but that, of course, he did well in the stringent financial conditions. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the Government's position? Is it not true that, as a matter of policy, they would not want the basic pension, for example, ever to rise in real terms?
Mr. Lilley: It is a fact that the Labour party is committed to linking pensions to earnings. We are committed to linking the basic pension to prices. That is clear—and it has important implications. It means, for example, that, as I have said, we can channel additional resources to those in greatest need. The Labour party would not he able to do that. That is why a Labour Government would be compelled to means-test the pension if they were uprating it in line with earnings and wished to channel any resources away from the better-off to the most needy. That is a dispute that the hon. Member for Garscadden must have with his Back Benchers.
I am delighted to say not only that we are set to exceed our target for Benefits Agency fraud for this year, but that for next year I shall set the agency and local councils a combined target, covering all benefits, of nearly £1 billion worth of fraud identified and stopped. If we abandoned the battle against fraud, as Opposition Members often urge, we should not have that £1 billion—and without that I could not have increased benefits for those on income support.
The hon. Member for Garscadden may tell Selina Scott, as he did the other night:
"we are united on the need to tackle fraud".
Who would not tell Miss Scott what she wanted to hear? But the fact is that the Opposition have opposed and derided every step that we have taken to bear down on fraud. They opposed our measures to curb the payment of benefits to people not actively seeking work, be they new

1043
age travellers or others. They opposed our measures to prevent bogus asylum-seekers from ripping off the system with multiple applications. They ridiculed the target that I set at Brighton, which we are now set to exceed. That is why the public are convinced that Labour is the friend of the freeloader. It is not I who said that, but the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, in his characteristically courteous manner. How will the uprating scheme benefit women in receipt of invalidity benefit? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a few days ago the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice issued an opinion to his colleagues that the British Government had discriminated against women by cutting off invalidity benefit at the age of 60, which was in contravention of an equality directive passed, I believe, as long ago as 1979? When does the Secretary of State expect the European Court of Justice to issue a judgment based on the Advocate General's opinion?
Mr. Lilley: We are uprating invalidity benefit, so the hypothetical constituent to whom the hon. Gentleman refers will benefit.
It is the final ruling of the European Court, not the opinion of the Advocate General, which matters. We abide by such rulings, although I am reluctant to consider it sensible to set policy by having it decided by unelected judges rather than by this elected House.
Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Lilley: I would rather make progress. However, the hon. Gentleman is always so polite that I shall give way.
Dr. Godman: I always try to be polite; the Secretary of State is always polite in his dealings with me.
The Secretary of State made an important observation. He said that it is not the Advocate General's opinion but the ruling of the 13 judges which is important. He also said that he always abides by such judgments. If the judges rule against the Government, will the 470-odd constituents to whom I referred receive not only the invalidity benefit, but the back payment of that benefit?
Mr. Lilley: I do not want to give a hypothetical response to a hypothetical ruling of the court which we have not yet seen. The hon. Gentleman may come back to me at a future date on the issue.
The main feature of the debate is the uprating of all the main benefits in full. People said that we would not or could not do it. When I announced last November that we were doing so, the hon. Member for Garscadden promptly started looking for shortcomings in the basis of the uprating. He alleged that by indexing on the basis of price rises over the previous 12 months, I was
"leaving pensioners' living standards vulnerable to rising inflation in the coming year"—[Official Report, 12 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 1018.]
The hon. Member for Garscadden was wrong again. Far from rising, inflation has been falling. The retail prices index showed a 3.6 per cent. rise in the 12 months to September and that is the amount by which all benefits will be uprated. The RPI now shows a rise of just 2.6 per cent. A change to using forecast inflation would probably have disadvantaged everyone on social security.
It was rather unwise for the hon. Member for Garscadden to make that suggestion because it merely
1044
reminds the House that in 1976, Labour changed to the forecasting method. It was a blatant ruse to cut benefits and it resulted in an uprating 6 per cent. less than would have been the case under the method used now. The poor were truly vulnerable under Labour because inflation reached 27 per cent.— 10 times the current rate—slashing the value of benefits between upratings and wiping out savings.
In his response to the uprating statement, the hon. Member for Garscadden suggested that an index excluding housing costs would be better for pensioners. The pensioners' prices index excludes most housing costs, but if that index had been used since 1979 instead of the RPI, the pension would now be worth £6.65 a week less than the current rate. We are not in the business of playing around with indices. Our way is straightforward: to attack inflation and to protect honestly the real spending power of benefits.
It may be helpful if I now explain how the benefit uprating helps different groups of people: the elderly, families, the unemployed, the sick and disabled, carers and those in residential care. The Government have shown that we honour our pledges. Our pensions policy has three main strands. The first is to maintain the real value of the basic retirement pension, so we are increasing the basic pension next April from £54.15 to £5610 for a single person and by £3.10 a week to £89.90 for a couple.
The second strand is to focus extra help on those who most need it, so we have raised the pensioners' premium in income support by £2 for a single person and by £3 a week for a couple. Together with the ending of any requirement to pay any council tax, that channels £500 million extra to the neediest pensioners.
The third strand is to encourage people to make additional pension provision in line with their earnings. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1992 protects members of occupational pension schemes by uprating guaranteed minimum pensions by 3 per cent.
The success of our policies to encourage more choice in pensions can be seen by the number of people who have chosen to contract out of the state system. Since the pension reforms of the 1980s, 5 million people have become personal pension holders. Some 500,000 additional people have joined occupational schemes and the number of schemes has increased by 31,000.
Once again, for families we have honoured our manifesto pledge by fully uprating child benefit. It will rise to £10 a week for the first child and to £8.10 for other children in the family. Family credit has been uprated in full. It now goes to more people with family responsibilities than ever before. Some 450,000 families are being helped to maintain themselves in work by an average payment of £42 a week. Almost 300,000 will gain from improved arrangements for non-dependent reductions in housing benefit and in income support housing costs. The three lower rates of non-dependent deductions will remain the same. Those with higher incomes will be expected to contribute £21 a week, which is not an unreasonable amount, as it represents less than one sixth of their income.
I have been especially mindful of those hit by the recession in my scrutiny of benefit levels, so I have uprated unemployment benefit fully in line with prices. The Chancellor does not include expenditure on benefits for the unemployed within the overall control total for public

1045
spending. It is right morally and economically to accommodate the extra help for the unemployed during the recession.
We are spending £2 billion on programmes for the unemployed, including youth training. That is two and a half times as much as was spent on training under the previous Labour Government.
The House has already heard that I propose to uprate invalidity benefits fully in line with inflation for people unable to work because of sickness.
Dr. Godman: In the west of Scotland, a number of men are in receipt of invalidity benefit because they are suffering from asbestosis or from related ailments. In pursuit of their legitimate claims against their employers for placing them in such dangerous circumstances, they had to submit themselves to an independent medical by a specialist. They had to pay for that examination. I appeal to the Secretary of State to examine most sympathetically the problem that the men face in having to find the money. It is an added burden for those men and I should be extremely grateful to the Secretary of State if he would find a way in which to remove that burden from these men, all of whom are terminally ill.
Mr. Lilley: I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's point. I suspect from the way in which he puts it that he is referring to industrial injuries benefit rather than to invalidity benefit. Either way, I shall look into the matter and contact him afterwards.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have argued for a while that people who are following a course of study with the intention of making themselves more employable or people who have chosen for a while to leave the labour market to do worthwhile voluntary work should be able to negotiate with their social security or unemployment benefit office the opportunity to withdraw voluntarily from the labour market while they are engaged in socially worthwhile activities. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will take that suggestion seriously into consideration in these hard times.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend has mentioned the point to me behind the Speaker's Chair. We shall consider it seriously.
On benefits for the sick and for the disabled, I intend to increase fully in line with inflation sickness benefit for short-term sickness and the lower rate of statutory sick pay, but I do not propose to increase the higher rate which goes to employees earning £195 or more a week. Most employees who qualify for the higher rate have their statutory sick pay topped up by occupational sick pay schemes. It would therefore be an inappropriate use of taxpayers' resources to increase that rate.
For people with disabilities, we shall in particular continue the support provided by the two new benefits introduced last year—disability working allowance and disability living allowance. This will be the first uprating of the new benefits. Since the introduction of disability living allowance in April last year, 370,000 awards have been made, including more than 200,000 to less severely disabled people who have gained from the new benefit. That increases to nearly 2 million the number of people receiving help with the extra costs of disability.
1046
I also plan to increase the amount that carers may earn before their benefit entitlement is affected. Those carers entitled to the carer premium in income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit who currently qualify for a lower earnings disregard will be able to earn up to £15 a week without losing any of their income-related benefit.
Most of the income support limits for those in residential and nursing homes will be increased by £10 a week—that is more than inflation in most cases. I have also decided to increase the grant to hospices. I shall be making an extra grant of £1 million in 1993–94, and that is in addition to the £1 million for each of the public expenditure survey years announced in 1991.
I promised that I would address the issue of the long-term review of spending announced on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. In the annual public expenditure round, the focus is essentially short term. We review spending plans for the next year and two subsequent years, yet in the Department of Social Security in particular, most of our spending—who gets it and how much—is laid down in statute. Because of the time that it takes to legislate, implement and protect existing beneficiaries, the main impact of any change is likely to fall beyond the PES period. Consequently, the annual public expenditure round provides insufficient incentive to get to grips with longer-term trends. The social security budget is rather like a giant super-tanker: it takes some time to respond to the movement of the rudder. That is why it is sensible and essential from time to time to undertake a long-term review as we are doing at present.
Let me make one thing crystal clear. We have no intention of reneging on our manifesto pledges. Our manifesto was quite explicit. We believe that the basic pension must remain the foundation for retirement and we will protect its value against price rises. We are likewise committed to child benefit, which will continue to be paid to all families—normally to the mother—and uprated in line with prices.
By contrast, the Opposition are jettisoning—like cargo from a sinking ship—the pledges that they offered the electorate. Every time the hon. Member for Garscadden appears on television, he abandons a pledge—a pledge before breakfast, a pledge before lunch and a pledge before dinner, if I may coin a phrase.
The aim of our review is not just to control expenditure. It is to ensure that spending is geared to the needs of the 1990s and the 21st century and not to the patterns of the past. We intend to improve as well as save. So let us be quite clear: excessive expenditure on social security can be doubly damaging because when the state takes too much money from one person to give to another, it reduces the first person's incentive to work and undermines the second person's incentive to support himself. It is a double whammy of disincentive and dependency.
Let us face it:
"one of the tragedies of the present system is that it does encourage dependency. I only have to look around my constituency to see people who have become dependent, not because they want to but because of the way the system operates—because of the poverty trap. Can we break out of that? I am certainly not afraid to say that there are duites as well as rights for those on benefit."
Mr. A. J. Beith: Before the Secretary of State continues with this rather familiar passage from his conference speech, let me ask him this: does he recognise that the reason why so many people

1047
depend on social security benefit is that they are unemployed through no fault of their own and that the public expenditure problem that the Government face arises largely because of the amount of benefit paid to the unemployed and the loss of tax revenue from those same people?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may find the phrases that I have just uttered familiar. I may say that they were not from my conference speech but were the words used by the hon. Member for Garscadden to describe the dependency syndrome that he sees in his constituency. So we all agree that there is an irresistible case for a thorough long-term review of social security. The Government are quite clear as to the principles that should animate that review. I have spelt them out to the House before but I repeat that the keys are to focus improvements in benefits on those in greatest need and to harness private provision wherever possible.
Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time.
He referred to the state pensions, and we understand the position regarding this Parliament. So that those in their 40s and 50s, whether in employment or out of employment, may know the situation, will he now state it unambiguously? Is he telling the House and the country that, as far as the Government are concerned—leaving aside anything that may or may not have been said by the Opposition—the state pension itself will remain without any form of means testing whatever?
Mr. Lilley: We have made it absolutely clear what our pledges are and that we have no plans to means-test. I cannot tell what would happen in a future Parliament if the Labour party were ever elected. It seems to be working out plans for precisely that—but, fortunately, it does not seem to be very good at winning elections.
We have made it clear what our principle are. We want to give people wider choice, stronger incentives and more control over their own money. The Opposition reject that route, because they know what they are against but they have not a clue what they are for. That is why the Leader of the Labour party set up a commission—a total cop-out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has always opposed the practice of putting Government services out to contract but now he is contracting out the Opposition's entire policy. It is the first time in history that a party has had to ask outsiders what its principles are.
In his much-heralded speech on Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition did not mention social security once so we should not expect too much from Labour's commission on social justice. I have been looking at the list of the people whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman has placed on the commission. There are two conspicuous absences,, the first of which is the Labour spokesman on social security, the hon. Member for Garscadden, who, as a result, is left floundering in interviews, unable to state what his policies are and unable to influence what they will be. Even more remarkable is the absence of the Chairman of the Select Committe, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whom I welcome to our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman is living proof that it is possible to be a member of the Labour party and a creative thinker, but he is also proof that it is not worth the risk—one will not be put on a commission, one will not be put on the Front Bench and one will be excluded from its counsels.
Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State has stated that, in this Parliament, the review will not touch the two benefits in respect of which the biggest savings could be made if it were decided to make a change in the overall level of social security expenditure. He will therefore be dealing with more minor benefits, which are nevertheless important to those claimants who may be affected. The right hon. Gentleman said that we all know the principles by which the Government operate. Will he undertake that, as far as possible, the review will be undertaken in public and that, as happened with the Fowler review, the background papers will be published so that affected claimants and their representatives at least know what is going on and can perhaps influence the Government's decisions in advance of their conclusions?
Mr. Lilley: The review is likely to be rather wider in scope initially so I do not think that we shall adopt that approach, although we shall of course be responsive to any suggestions that come from the Select Committee, from hon. Members or from people outside the House.
Mr. Frank Field: But unless we know what the Secretary of State is planning, it will be terribly difficult for outsiders to contribute.
Mr. Lilley: We are planning a long-term review. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, we hope to be able to feed back some of our findings to inform the short-term public expenditure round, but the rest will take longer. The review is likely to inform the whole process of the transformation of the social security system as time goes by rather than being a one-off decision.
Let me return to the subject of the commission on social justice, on which the hon. Member for Birkenhead sadly does not sit, and consider who does serve on it. Apart from the statutory business man, it consists of one BBC producer, one professional trade unionist, one economist, one charity director—[Interruption.] I seem to have a fan who reads all my speeches in advance. The list also includes a charity director, a chair, a baby expert, who I take it is the high chair, a provost, Neil Kinnock's press secretary and seven professors. I suspect that their idea of poverty is a shortage of port at high table.
Characteristically, the leader of the Labour party has set them off in the wrong direction. At the last general election, he tried to persuade the electorate to accept higher national insurance. Now he is considering cutting the benefits of those who contribute most. Of course, he is opposed to private provision. Can there be a more irrational combination: take the lid off contributions, means-test benefits and discourage private provision? That is the Labour party's recipe. I am glad that it is learning it by heart. I hope that it will soon get its lessons right.
The orders which we are debating today demonstrate the Government's commitment to the needy. They prove that we keep our pledges, and they demolish the Labour party's scaremongering. The same will be true of our long-term review. I commend the orders to the House.
8.1pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I recognise that it is important to get a high return on capital. The Secretary of State must recognise that there are not many young Conservatives in the House at present, and the

1049
speech which was suitable for a gathering of Young Conservatives, and the humour that went with it, is not necessarily suitable for this debate.
I understand and accept that the Secretary of State takes great pride in the uprating which he has announced and which we are legislating for today. It is almost as though he surprised himself—and perhaps he did. If he surprised himself, that would explain the black propaganda that he and his team spread before the announcement.
I have had exchanges with the Secretary of State on the point before, and I do not intend to go over the evidence. There was plentiful evidence in the press and quotations and reports of what the Secretary of State had been saying to groups of his own Back Benchers about the tough nature of the poublic expenditure round and its impact on social security. Of course, it did not come to pass. I am at least grateful for that, and I made that clear, undoubtedly to his disappointment, from the beginning of the statement.
It has not stopped the Secretary of State from polishing a passage which has appeared, to my knowledge, in at least three speeches about the disappointment which ran across the Labour Benches when the 3.6 per cent. was announced. The passage is somewhat tired and predictable. We are almost invited by the Secretary of State to imagine that singlehandedly and bravely, as a sort of Horatius figure, he thwarted the Treasury's wish to do wicked things to social security. That is not a likely story, and the relief which greeted the 3.6 per cent. figure perhaps tells him a fair degree about his reputation and record.
The Secretary of State is in the habit of gloating. He got that reputation during his address to the Young Conservatives, small bits of which have been recycled today. I did not admire the speech, so I especially deplore its reappearance, even in a greatly truncated form. Quite a little theme is being developed. For example, at the beginning we had a rather risqué joke about the sexual mores of Young Conservatives which I thought was quite courageous and perhaps a matter for interested speculation.
We got another Gilbert and Sullivan pastiche, as we always do. We also got another mark of the right hon. Gentleman. I say in passing that we got some rather unpleasant personal jibes about some of my colleagues, although I escaped on this occasion.
What was interesting, and what I especially enjoyed in the speech, was the ringing defence of the Government's European stance. It was especially satisfying to hear that sounding out loud and clear. If that is the sort of support which the Prime Minister gets at the Cabinet table, I am not surprised that he looks distinctly nervous on occasions.
I shall make my final reference to the speech, and it is perhaps a more serious point. The Secretary of State does not do himself much good when he misrepresents the position and opinions of others in the political spectrum. For example, the suggestion which was implied—it was qualified only in a minor way—that the Labour party hates families and wishes to make fathers redundant and mothers dependent is an unpleasant distortion of our position.
Mr. Lilley: I certainly did not say that about the Labour party; I said the left. Indeed, I would commend to the hon. Gentleman an interesting pamphlet published by the Institute of Economic Affairs by two Labour party members about families without fathers. I should think that it would be of great interest to the whole House and would have a broad measure of interest but not necessarily total agreement. It is not an issue on which the Labour party is to be condemned, only the left.
Mr. Dewar: That is what I meant about qualifications that amount almost to sophistry. In the context of the speech and the way in which it developed, there is undoubtedly the impression that the Secretary of State intended to give in his remarks. I will not pursue the matter, but he should be more careful in the future. Occasionally, he takes certain pleasure in misrepresenting the position. There is enough genuinely between us without that sort of distortion.
I accept that the 3.6 per cent. covers the inflation figure for the 12 months to September. No one has quarrelled with that. We have made it clear that it is welcome, so far as it goes. We are entitled to say that it is a standstill award: it represents no progress and solves no problems. There are still a lot of queries, questions, difficulties and disasters in the social security world and none of them is tackled by this measure or the figure.
I do not think that the House would want me to go through the difficulties in great detail. The Secretary of State will recognise that there is still great concern, for example, about the disability living allowance in terms of the administrative process. I have been told that we have reached a steady state, but the mailbags of my colleagues deny that daily. There is still an enormous number of people who have been waiting an inordinate time for results.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the distress about the developments in the independent living fund and the sudden decision to close that fund on 25 November. I mention that in conjunction with the disability living allowance because, as Ministers will know, many people wanted to apply for the independent living fund. To qualify, they would have had to get a disability living allowance. They put in an application early in the year, perhaps in March or April, and by the time the gate came down on 25 November they still had not received a response to their application from the DLA.
It is doubly chawing for people to get the news that their applications have been successful and qualified for the independent living fund only to discover that they cannot apply because of the ruling that the door shut on 25 November. It will be interesting to see the Government's response to that problem.
Difficulties still attend the social fund. We have had a great deal of talk from Ministers about the need to work on the basis of loans to maintain the flow of cash for the social fund. The Labour party's point of attack is the real difficulties which arise from the cash limiting which can be arbitrary and affect the chances of success, to some extent at least conditioned by the area in which people live and the point in the financial year in which they apply.
There are many difficulties and troubles. Although the Secretary of State is entitled to take what credit he can from the settlement, modest though it is, he must recognise

1051
that the worries still exist and are very much part of the daily life of those who must live with the system and, to some extent, rely on it.
The 3.6 per cent. will not cure those problems. I have no doubt that many hon. Members are uncomfortably aware, from constituency experience, of the fact that there are people on income support at present. No one thinks that income support is a generous provision to cover the cost of living. In fact, many people receive less than the income support entitlement because of the enormous number of deductions which are being made from income support levels.
The figures I saw—undoubtedly the Secretary of State will be familiar with them—show that, in England, about 495,000 recipients of income support are repaying social fund loans. Another 262,000 are paying poll tax arrears. No doubt a distinction can be drawn between those making social fund repayments and those paying poll tax arrears and one could say that it was the fault of the second group that they had less money because they should have paid the poll tax. But the fact remains that families are struggling on a level that none of us comtemplated or expected.
I gather that in Scotland—I am being unashamedly parochial in using that statistical base—20 per cent. of recipients of income support are subject to deductions for social fund repayments. That is a staggering figure, to which soon will be added those subject to the new arrangements, for example. for deducting £2.20 for child maintenance under the child support unit. So there are major problems which the House should not forget when we consider the narrower point of the uprating.
The Secretary of State quoted me—I do not know whether it was a compliment or an attack—on the subject of dependency. I am not ashamed of what I said. Of course I believe that some people have become dependent. The Secretary of State was right to mention the caveat that I included—that it was the fault of the system. People are dependent because of the position in which they find themselves. It is not a matter for moral judgment or the assumption of some moral failing.
If the Secretary of State and I agree that there is a problem of dependency, I must remind him that his Government have been in power for almost 15 years.
I should have thought that by now they would have had time to turn the tanker or at least marginally to adjust its course to deal with that problem. I will not apologise for recognising that a problem exists—it would be a mistake to brush it under the carpet—but the Secretary of State should recognise that what we do about the problem is the matter for discussion and debate.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying a word or two about the long-term review. I accept that it is perhaps difficult for him to give us a great deal of detail about the end product, but I hoped that he would go a little further than he did. For several reasons, I wish to press him on the matter. I make the preliminary point that there is a distinction between a long-term review—obviously, changes in benefits will have a phasing-in period and will be some way ahead—and the short-term financial problems of the Government. However, the two are to some extent interconnected.
There was a touch of panic about what was announced the other day. It is some evidence, for which perhaps we should be grateful, that Ministers are beginning to face up to the economic failure for which they are responsible.
1052
I shudder to think of the abuse that would have fallen on the heads of a Labour Government if they had run a public sector borrowing requirement of £45 billion, moving happily ahead to some £50 billion in the next year or 18 months. We would have been told that it was the height of fiscal irresponsibility and an example of the insanity of having a Labour Government.
I suspect that the realisation that in the coming financial year the Government will borrow £1,000 for every man, woman and child in Britain and will borrow about £1 billion per week to fund the shortfall in their income has triggered at least some of the Government's activity, which is being described as a long-term policy review. The Government are in an awful mess and there is no disguising that fact.
We gather—I should like to press the Secretary of State on this—that the Government's activity is not a search for immediate savings. It is not just a matter of finding a few million here and there. In the Chief Secretary's statement and the briefings that have been given to the press, he implied that the review would be a fundamental change in structure. That makes it a serious matter. One of the press reports, allegedly based on a Treasury briefing, said that the review would not be a cheeseparing exercise but would be fundamental in its impact.
We were told specifically by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that on the agenda is a search for areas of provision from which the Government can withdraw altogether. That is an interesting phrase. It must mean something. It must have been put in with specific thought because it appears in the introductory statement made to the House. When the Minister replies, we should be given some idea which areas are being considered. We do not want hard decisions but we want to know roughly frorn which areas the Government may seek to withdraw.
Mr. David Willetts: If the hon. Gentleman presses Ministers on that point, will he say what the Leader of the Opposition was referring to in a recent interview in The Times when he said that the social justice commission would be free to propose all sorts of "subtractions" from social security benefits? Surely, if the hon. Gentleman expects the Government to explain what they mean by withdrawal, he should explain what the Labour party means by subtraction.
Mr. Dewar: I was challenging the Government to say a word or two. I do not think that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) speaks for the Government.—
Thr Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Yet.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman should be pleased that people are already speaking for him. His cause is being advanced with all the persuasive powers for which the Under-Secretary is famous. I am not sure whether that bodes ill or well for his career, but I will leave him to make up his mind about that.
If the hon. Gentleman aspires to the Front Bench—I suspect that he is a man not without ambition—some of the pamphlets that he has written recently will make doubly interesting reading on the day that I hear of his appointment. But at the moment I am asking the questions. We have given a fair amount of information about the areas that we would examine. That is why the

1053
Secretary of State's attacks were unfair and inaccurate. We have not been totally silent. Let us hear something similar from the Minister.
I repeat that the phrase "areas of provision from which Government can withdraw altogether" will hang in the air. It will be analysed and will be the source of much speculation if the Government do not do something to help the problem of definition. Perhaps I could tempt the Minister by mentioning some of the matters which have been suggested not by Labour politicians but by journalists who say that they have received a hidden briefing from Government sources.
We have been told that unemployment benefit and invalidity benefit will in future be largely a matter of private insurance cover. Those who cannot afford private insurance cover will be left with some sort of safety net provision, but the Government will basically withdraw from unemployment and invalidity benefit. It will be left to the private insurance market and those who can afford the premiums to take steps to cover against misfortune at some later stage.
That is a specific suggestion. If that is all nonsense, if it is wide of the mark, if that is not the type of provision from which the Government intend to withdraw, the Minister will be able to make that clear. That would be of some help, at least in a negative sense, and would perhaps save many people scribing many columns on the basis that that is what is in the Secretary of State's mind.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has always given way to me in these debates and I am grateful to him for his courtesy on this occasion. Will he tell me the difference, in principle at least, between the position which he asks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to clarify and the principle set out by the Leader of the Opposition, who said of benefits:
"There may be a case for many of them remaining universal, but it's only right we should be prepared to re-examine everything. I have not ruled anything out of court".
What did he mean?
Mr. Dewar: He meant what he said. The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to know that I am grateful to him for raising that point because it allows me to come to the subject of pensions. I intended to read out that passage. My right hon. and learned Friend pledged that the social justice commission would be prepared to look at areas of difficulty and consider what was the right balance between universal and targeted benefits. His following passage made it clear that there were strong arguments for the universal principle, but that has been translated with remarkable ingenuity and a good deal of brass neck into an alleged Labour party mission to means-test everything.
I am struggling to find the right parliamentary language. It seems that the hon. Member is showing a great deal of sophistry in that respect, and he well knows it. There is no way that the words that the hon. Member—from a southern seat which I cannot remember all by myself—quoted can be construed to have the meaning that he seeks to place upon them for partisan but unjustified reasons.
The Secretary of State is being very careful and has said that there will still be a basic pension which will never be means-tested. Exactly what has he got in mind?
1054
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State remembers the report by Andrew Grice on the front page of The Sunday Times, which stated:
"Plans under consideration include ending the automatic right to a state pension for people who can afford to make their own private provision for retirement. The state pension would become a safety net for those who could not do so."
That is Mr. Grice's interpretation and he may be quite wrong, but later in the article the following words—allegedly those of the Secretary of State—are printed in direct quotation marks:
"We need to look for ways in which the state pension could better targeted and private provision harnessed … We need to focus money on those who are in greatest need and open up greater opportunities for those who can provide for themselves."
It is easy to be misled by words. I do not object to such concepts in the right circumstances, but it is remarkable for the Secretary of State to use such words when he speciously accused us of being interested in means-testing the basic pension, and to say that there is no doubt about his position.
Mr. Lilley: Mr. Grice is a good journalist, but I did not give him an interview or say those words. Obviously, through some Chinese whispers, he got a mangled version. I did not utter those words and, when asked, he acknowledged that, he has no recording of me doing so.
Mr. Dewar: That is extremely interesting. In The Sunday Times it is a direct quote. It states:
"he told The Sunday Times."
I understood what the Minister is saying and I do not want to make too much of it as it is a matter for him and Mr. Grice, but I still want to know exactly what is contemplated.
I shall suggest what I think is contemplated. Perhaps there will be a safety net provision—called the basic retirement pension—but people will be invited to contract out of it and will be paid incentives to do so. I do not want to open a major debate and shall be brief, but I must state why that concerns me.
It would be dangerous if the better-off people in society were asked to contract out, not merely into an alternative to the state earnings-related pension scheme, but also out of basic pension provision and cover for illness and unemployment. A vast and important part of the population would be encouraged to see the welfare state as something for other people. Inevitably they would see it as an incubus from which they derived no benefit, and therefore as something unimportant to them. Once we achieve that, we will wreck something that is important and central to our values and our community.
Mr. Winnick: The Secretary of State seems to disagree with the prominent article in The Sunday Times last week and to deny what it says. Why did he not immediately issue a statement? That would have received a great deal of publicity and by Monday the papers could have made clear that the article was inaccurate. The Secretary of State's silence must be a sign that the article was basically correct.
Mr. Dewar: As my hon. Friend will understand, I cannot answer that. However, it is a fair question and the Minister may want to deal with it or to get his colleague to do so later.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). If we took at face value the

1055
Minister's assurances that pensions and other major benefits such as child benefit will not be touched, we would be left with a puzzle. However, the Secretary of State may be thinking of an extension of the contracting-out principle of the sort that I described. Perhaps he will confirm or deny that.
I am not sure that such a system would be a good buy for the Treasury. As we know from the premiums for the private pension system, the Treasury has had to go without a substantial amount of national insurance contributions and has had to pay substantial sums because of the contracting-out payments and incentives over and above those, which have run to billions of pounds during the past five or six years. I suspect that the arithmetic may be a good deal less comfortable than the Secretary of State makes out.
Above all, my objections are social and philosophical. If one relegates the welfare state and the benefits system, which the Secretary of State is in charge of, to a safety net or fall-back provision, successful people who are assured of their position in society will think that the system has nothing to offer them. That would be a mistake and we would not be prepared to contemplate it.
The Secretary of State's attempts to represent himself as generous to pensioners do not hold water. He says that the retirement pension is so important to him, but he has confirmed that it is his policy to freeze it in real terms, which means that it will drop substantially as a percentage of average earnings.
Dr. Godman: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the changes to certain elements of our welfare system proposed by the Secretary of State may not only constitute a mistake but be capable of being challenged in the European Court of Justice? The Government face certain challenges at the court on Department of Social Security matters. May I remind my hon. Friend that the European Court, in every sense of the word, is becoming an international supreme court for the 13 legal systems contained within the 12 member states.
Mr. Dewar: I agree, but I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Social Security is the best man to appeal to about the European Court of Justice. Judging by what he said in his Young Conservatives speech, I suspect that he is not particularly sympathetic. He may be more worried about the court of public opinion if he goes ahead with the schemes that I suspect that he has in mind.
Many other suggestions are swimming around. For example, the hon. Member for Havant has, among other things, recommended a retirement age of 67 for men and women. Government withdrawal from industrial injury benefits is on the agenda. It seems to me that the contracting-out principle—taking people out of the comprehensive welfare system—is writ large at the back of the Secretary of State's mind. I hope that he will be able to comment on that before we adjourn this evening.
We are obviously not going to vote against the uprating assessment. Although it is a standstill and a legal minimum, we have made it clear that it is welcome, as far as it goes. The Secretary of State mentioned some figures. A single person over 25 will get £44 in income support after housing costs, but someone between the ages of 18 and 24 will get £34.80, although many of their expenses word be the same as if they were over 25. That difference is sometimes difficult to defend. The pension of £56.10 and
1056
even the married person's pension are not generous. I do not believe that the Government could be proud of those figures, and they will be greeted with muted enthusiasm by those people who have to struggle to make ends meet on incomes on which I should not like to live. I suspect that the Secretary of State would not like to live on them either.
8.29 pm
Mr. David Willetts: I very much welcome the uprating of all social security benefits by 3.6 per cent. in the orders before us today. Not only are we expecting an uprating of 3.6 per cent., but it comes when inflation has been reduced to 2.6 per cent., so people on benefit will enjoy an increase in the value of their benefits in April above the current rate of inflation. As inflation is low and falling, we can also be confident that the real value of benefits will be maintained during the year. One of the hidden costs of high inflation rates is the damage done to the value of social security benefits, so that by the 11th or 12th month of the year, benefits can be 15 or 20 per cent. lower in real terms than they were at the start of the year. Thank heavens the present low inflation means that that problem, which made it difficult for people on modest incomes to budget carefully, has largely disappeared.
Today's debate also covers the review of social security expenditure announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Monday. This year's uprating puts some of the scare stories that we have heard into perspective. We have not only an extra £2.5 billion spending on social security due to inflation, but a further £1 billion spending on social security due to the increases in the real value of benefits to the poorest members of our society. There have been increases in the value of income support and extra help has been provided with the new council tax as there is no reduction in income support to take account of the disappearance of the old requirement to contribute to the community charge. That is good news for people on low incomes.
The Labour party is trying to make hay with the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, but it has its own review under way. It seems odd that the Labour party is allowed to have a review of social security while, according to the Labour party, the Government —who have the responsibility of taking important decisions on the long-term future of social security and do not merely indulge in political speculation—are not allowed to have a review. If the Labour party has a review, it makes it infinitely more important that the Government should have one.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—who is sadly not in his place at present—is Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, on which I am honoured to serve. Speaking about the review, he urged his Labour colleagues:
"if we do not think very radically, we will drift into our fifth election defeat, and we will deserve that."—[Official Report, 30 November 1992; Vol. 215, c. 84.]
The Conservative party should also think radically. Radical thinking has won us four election victories and will be the basis for our fifth.
I shall outline some of the ideas that I hope will be considered in the Government's review. One of the themes must undoubtedly be targeting. It is striking that we have a budget which now runs at more than £70,000 million a year, but which is not so well targeted at helping people on low incomes as it should be. The Government's figures on

1057
households on below average income show that 7 per cent. of recipients of income support live in households with incomes above the national average.
I hope that I may be allowed to refer to a pamphlet entitled, "The Age of Entitlement", published by the Social Market Foundation earlier this week. The author's name temporarily escapes me—[Interruption.] I am being asked to identify the author. The pamphlet happens to have been written by David Willetts, Member of Parliament.
The pamphlet contains figures from a parliamentary answer on pensioner incomes and shows that pensioners in the top two quintiles of pensioner incomes—the fourth and fifth quintiles—receive a higher income in absolute terms from social security benefit than pensioners in the bottom quintile. It seems difficult to defend a social security system under which pensioners at the top of the income range do better out of the state than pensioners in the poorest 20 per cent. That is why the improved targeting of social security benefits must be placed high on the agenda of any social security review.
It is important to make a distinction—one which is often overlooked. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) overlooked the fact that targeting does not necessarily mean means testing. Means testing is one way of targeting, but there are other ways. One of the insights contained in the original report of William Beveridge was that if one defines the category of benefit recipient carefully enough, one can produce a benefit that is well targeted on poverty without having to use means testing.
In preparing his report, Beveridge surveyed the social conditions of England at the time and identified the groups of people on low income—such as unemployed people and pensioners—and saw that benefits going to them would be well targeted on poverty. Patterns of income and social conditions in this country have changed, so it seems reasonable for the Government to investigate whether there are different categories of recipients who should receive benefits, and to ensure that the benefits are well targeted on them.
Let us consider the stages in the life cycle. It is clear that, by and large, poor families are one-earner families, which generally have young children. Nowadays, when children reach school age, most mothers go out to work. If we want to target a benefit on families on particularly low incomes, we should focus any increase in child benefit expenditure on children under the age of five. In that way, we shall be targeting the benefits on poverty among families. I have seen the mischievous suggestion that I am keen on the idea as I have two children aged under five, but my argument is not entirely autobiographical.
I accept that the direct costs of young children are lower than the costs of teenagers, but if one also includes in the equation the income that the family sacrifices because mothers with young children tend not to work, then the overall picture is different. There is clear evidence that the poorer families tend to be those with young children.
The analysis can also be applied to the other end of the life cycle. When we consider poverty among pensioners, it becomes clear that the pensioners who find it most difficult to make ends meet are the older ones—those over 80, particularly widows. That is why it would be absurd to
1058
spend any social security resources on extending pensions to men aged 60 to 65. I do not know of one social policy expert who says that the real target for extra social security spending should be men aged 60 to 65. They all say that the target should be to help alleviate poverty among older pensioners over the age of 80, particularly widows.
It is for those reasons that I hope that the Government's current review of the pension age will raise the female pension age to 65. Once that process has begun, there is no reason why it should not go further. Some of the savings reaped by that measure could be put towards increasing the value of the pension for those aged over 80. That would be a considerable improvement in targeting and could be achieved without means testing.
Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "some of the savings". Is his speech on reforming the welfare state purely about targeting, or about targeting and cutting the size of the social security budget?
Mr. Willetts: Our social security budget is heading towards 13 per cent. of the entire national income, so it is important to save money on that budget as it will be difficult to sustain. However, it is possible both to save money on social security and to target the remaining expenditure more effectively. There is no reason why a responsible Government should not achieve both aims.
The scope for shifting from state provision to private provision through insurance should also be considered in the review of social security. I should like to identify some areas where progress could be made. The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to industrial injuries benefit. I agree with him on that point. It seems absurd that companies do not themselves take responsibility for compensating employees who suffer industrial injuries and that compensation is provided through a state scheme with a standard contribution. That means safe employers subsidising dangerous employers. It sends out the wrong signals.
Employers in dangerous industries where there are high rates of industrial injuries should be forced to contemplate the improvement of their working practices, not because of cumbersome interventions from Brussels but because their insurance premiums are high and they recognise that they can reduce them by reducing the number of injuries. That would be sensible privatisation of a social security benefit, which would also contribute to the important objective of ensuring that workplaces are safe.
Another area is the expenditure, now running at nearly £1,000 million a year, on mortgages for people who are on income support. There is no reason why the state should act as the guarantor of last resort for commercial loans entered into by building societies. Why should it not be possible for people to take out insurance so that their mortgage payments could be maintained if they suffered the misfortune of losing their jobs?
Unemployment benefit has also been talked about. I must confess to some scepticism there. If any progress can be made in that regard, I would welcome it, but we have to acknowledge that many unemployed are young. They have either no earnings record or only an intermittent record on low pay. For them to accumulate the record of paying insurance premiums which would be the basis for sustaining them while unemployed seems difficult. That is a practical problem which would need to be addressed.

1059
Finally, there is the pension itself. As we have heard several speculative quotations from newspapers, some of which we have established were not accurate, I will quote from a newspaper article of 40 years ago. The heading is "Social Security Under Review". Almost exactly 40 years ago, the Conservative Government launched a review of the social security budget.
Lord Beveridge contributed an article to The Times, identifying the options which he thought should be examined. He made it clear that he already thought that his system of national insurance benefits had suffered as a result of the extra costs imposed by the Labour Government. He set out an agenda for the issues which should be considered when contemplating the future of the pension and it may be a good guide to the issues that the present Government might wish to address in the years ahead. He said that the Phillips Committee, the body set up then,
"should examine any methods by which the prospective burden on the general taxpayer for pensions to those past work can be lightened. The methods possible in theory include encouraging voluntary delay of retirement; raising the minimum age for pensions; exclusion from social insurance pensions and contribution for them of persons adequately covered by superannuation schemes in their particular employments; increase of insurance contributions."
In regard to the minimum pension age, I might point out that he later advocated that a full pension should not be payable until the age of 67. There is no reason why the Government should be reluctant to embark on an examination of the options which Lord Beveridge raised 40 years ago.
8.43 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I feel slightly left out in these debates. I have always felt left out in the past because people were never nasty about. me. I do not know why that is. What I have said is never quoted or questioned. That is bad. I am beginning to develop a complex. I am also feeling left out because I am not having a review. Everybody else seems to be having reviews, so I might as well announce a review, just by myself. I will do a deal with the Secretary of State; I will submit evidence to his review if he will submit evidence to mine.
I want to speak for a few minutes in this important debate. Sometimes such debates degenerate into ritual. I hope that hon. Members will not take the wrong meaning from that. The debate is an annual event in the social security calendar and it becomes ritualistic. Nevertheless it is an important opportunity to discuss aspects of social security generally.
Although it is not related directly to the uprating statement, the Secretary of State commented on fraud and the need to examine the administrative procedures to be used by his Department. I am as keen as every other hon. Member to make savings on fraud, and to try to root out housing benefit fraud particularly with the assistance of local authorities. However, I am concerned about some claims that the Secretary of State seemed to be making about the amount that he could save on the fraud provisions which he announced in the uprating statement.
I would be reassured if in the reply to the debate, or in a letter subsequently, the Secretary of State could flesh out what further thought had been given to the issue. I understand that the Department had to put up a strong case to the Treasury to get the grant, which I support, but
1060
I am nervous that the Secretary of State's claim about the amount which he could save on fraud, £1 billion a year, may be a bridge too far. I would be reassured by more of the detail behind that statement.
In that connection, I have had interesting correspondence from people who work in the Department and who are concerned about administrative changes. I understand that floating around the Department there is a document called the Mayhew report, if I have the name right. I should like to see that report. Responsible staff who are conscientious about their duties are concerned about some administrative changes that have been made. In a time of citizens charters, open government and all the rest of it, perhaps all I have to do is ask for the report, which I have just done. If I cannot get a copy of it, perhaps in the letter which the Secretary of State will send me about fraud he will tell me precisely why.
I too think that 3.6 per cent. may be par for the course in terms of the legal requirements. However, I have to draw attention to a point which is made with monotonous regularity in these debates; benefit recipients are falling further and further behind those who are earning more than the increase in the retail price index. I accept that the RPI is 3.6 per cent. I accept what the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said about what that will mean in real terms, having regard to inflation, this spring, but year in, year out, pensioners and other benefit recipients fall further behind in the wealth stakes in comparison to those who are lucky enough to be in employment.
The average male earnings figure equivalent to the 3.6 per cent. RPI increase is 4.7 per cent. It may be true that the difference does not add up to a big row of beans in one year, but year by year that inexorably puts people in receipt of benefit at a chronic disadvantage. We must never forget that in the social security uprating debates.
I was not particularly taken with the Secretary of State's comments about statutory sick pay. That is to be frozen, saving some £20 million. I do not understand why statutory sick pay was singled out. Maternity pay has also been frozen at £100. I am worried about future increases. The capital limits and earnings disregards should be considered carefully in the Government review, because there is real scope for progress. The 21-hour study limit and the 24-hour employment limit for those engaged in voluntary activity could be changed to try to encourage people to do part-time work to assist themselves when they are on benefit.
The reduction in invalidity benefit of £240 million is premature. A research project that is currently under way, which is expected to report towards the end of 1993, would provide a valuable insight into what could be done with invalidity benefit. I understand what the Government have done in that direction and I welcome the fact that a great deal more money is being spent, but it is wrong to use this uprating statement to make a change in advance of those research findings.
It is becoming obvious from my case work and from talking to other Members of Parliament that insufficient account is being taken of the increases in water charges. I hope that the Government will monitor their effect on the benefit system. I welcome the fact that the Government have not adopted the proposal to claw back funds relating to the community charge.
I continue to be worried about the take-up rates for some means-tested benefits, especially family credit and income support. The evidence from research projects is

1061
equivocal. The Government may say that it is still early days, that the changes only came in in 1988 and that such matters take a little time to take effect; I am aware of that. Nevertheless the Government should pay careful attention to how the take-up rates develop.
I am also a little disappointed that something more progressive and beneficial was not done with the social fund. If the Minister has the opportunity when he replies, I hope that he will say something about the comments made by the Social Services Advisory Committee and the Social Policy Research Unit about the social fund.
I have been making some desultory overtures to the Department about the needs of share fishermen in Scotland. A real problem is beginning to emerge. I do not complain that the Government have not dealt with it, because it is a new problem. Share fishermen are having their earning capacity statutorily reduced by the provision for tie-up days in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992. I think that they are the only earning group in the British economy with statutory restrictions placed on the amount of money that they are entitled to earn.
The fishermen are self-employed and there are some problems with how help could be administered. I have been casting around, trying to find some way of getting them access to additional support while statutory restrictions apply to their right to go to sea to earn a living. I accept that it is a complicated matter, but I hope that the Government recognise the problem and will carefully monitor what is happening The number of people involved is not large, but some families are dependent on crew members of boats that are now tied up for long stretches. They are suffering badly.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is inconsistency in the Government's attitude? They say that one reason why they do not want the House to adopt the Maastricht social chapter is that it lays down foolish rules, such as limiting the amount of work that people can do. They want people to be able to work for as long as they want to work. On the other hand, the Government are limiting the amount of work that can be done by the fishermen to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Kirkwood: The experience of the Chairman of the Social Services Select Committee is all-knowing and all-embracing. He even speaks effectively on behalf of share fishermen. I shall report that with some pleasure to the fishermen at the quayside market in Eyemouth on Friday afternoon.
Dr. Godman: Is it not true that at one time those fishermen were allowed to draw unemployment benefit when they could not put to sea because of circumstances beyond their control—for example, heavy weather or the boat being out of the water for repair? Because of the statutory limit on days at sea, those fishermen are now in precisely the same position.
Mr. Kirkwood: The change in the weekly earnings rule had a severe impact on share fishermen, some of whom were denied access to unemployment benefit. That blow hit them some years ago. I represent a fishing constituency and my experience is that something is wrong and action needs to be taken.
1062
I want to voice two more gripes before I sit down. The first refers to war pensions and the changes in the provisions for noise-induced hearing loss. I understand and accept that we are discussing a package deal, so the rank differentials that have been eroded or abolished are acceptable. However, although it is right to have stringent conditions when ensuring that there is a direct link between hearing loss and active service, having established that link I do not understand how it can be fair not to base the award on the degree of disability. I have always understood that war pensions were a legal entitlement, but that entitlement is being summarily withdrawn.
I understand the Government's case that the package, in the round, will benefit people in other directions. That is welcome. However, former service men who have suffered that disability are right to feel slightly let down and to hold the Government to account. They want further explanations of exactly why the change was made.
Secondly, I am concerned about the demise of the independent living fund. I noticed some interesting exchanges in written questions and answers between the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the Minister. The hon. Member for Garscadden is looking surprised. He asked how much it would cost to extend the successor to the independent living fund to those who had gone beyond retirement age. The answer is interesting. Only a £2 million increase in the successor fund would be needed to extend it to people beyond retirement age. The figure would increase to £6 million next year and £9 million the year after. Those are not insignificant sums, but I hope that the Government will seriously consider providing them. That is food for thought for the Department.
I want to say a few words about carers. The increase in the invalid care allowance and the carer premium of 3.6 per cent. to £33.70 and £11.95 respectively are all very well as far as they go. The Government have estimated that the changes will benefit 189,000 recipients of invalid care allowance and 70,000 recipients of carer premium. However, carers are the main providers of community care and they save the country almost £24 billion a year, according to figures produced by some pressure groups.
Some 26 per cent. of all carers and 40 per cent. of all older carers are living in some poverty, often as a direct result of their caring responsibilities. The increases announced in the uprating statement will mean that the invalid care allowance will represent only 10.69 per cent. of national average earnings, which is not adequate recompense for the service to the community that those people perform. Older carers cannot claim ICA for the first time after the age of 65, and without entitlement to ICA the poorest older carers cannot claim the carer premium either.
There are also problems with claiming unemployment benefit when the individual returns to the employment market after he or she has finished caring. If that individual was looking after someone receiving the lower rate of care component, they cannot claim ICA. I appreciate that big sums of money are involved in making some of those changes, but I hope that the Government's review will consider carefully the support that carers are to receive in the longer term.
I hope that the review is successful, and that it will be open and genuine. I hope also that we shall all have a chance to make submissions. I shall do so to the best of my ability. The uprating statement is acceptable and welcome

1063
as far as it goes, but the Government have missed another opportunity to be more progressive and imaginative in providing more support to those who need it most.
8.59 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I like to think that not the disagreement between both sides of the House but the large degree of agreement will impress people who are watching this debate, or who rush out to buy copies of Hansard to read all about it. Ultimately, however, the chasm is narrow but deep—which means that there is a living for us to earn. One thing I noticed is that, since the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has been in charge of his present duties, the tone of these debates is much more reflective.
That is something of a disadvantage. Sometimes it is easier to repel a polarised situation by indulging in coarse oratory. When the hon. Gentleman sets out his stall, he does so in such a persuasive way that one has to pinch oneself to think that he might be in error. Whatever other tricks one may produce in debates in which the hon. Gentleman participates, a knee jerk or an elbow to the solar plexus will not repel the hon. Gentleman.
In tonight's debate, as in some recent debates, it has become clear that there is common ground in the sense that it is acknowledged that some regard must be paid to where the money to pay the benefits one wants to pay is to come from. I do not say this in any partisan way, because there has been no trace of that tonight, or for some little while. Even in the 10 years that I have been in the House, I have heard vestigial voices saying that the way to achieve the pension system that we want for all our constituents in need is to raid that great pot of gold out there, if only the Government of the day would do that.
For a long time, it was thought that if one could only get one's hands on the money of the rich, one could improve the benefits system dramatically. That is a lovely idea, but it does not hang together. Around 89 per cent. of taxpayers pay only basic rate tax, so if one confiscated all the money earned above the basic rate level, it would still be a drop in the ocean in terms of improving the benefits system generally. It is common ground on both sides of the House that we must to a large extent have a benefits system that we can afford.
It was clear from the experiences of the last Labour Government that, no matter how good one's intentions, at the end of the day one's finances can find one out. In a bygone age, one could swap remarks across the Chamber about Labour being the party that took away the Christmas bonus one year, or rigged its own pension arrangements so that, having awarded pensions linked to incomes, it then had to avoid them.
All that is true, but I do not say that it was done with dishonour. That Labour Government had the best of intentions. They produced a mechanism which, had the Government been able to fund it, would have brought substantial benefits to the pensioners concerned. Ultimately, that Labour Government's good intentions failed because the country could not generate the income necessary to realise them. The common ground between us now seems to be that the Government must be able to raise the money needed from the tax revenue produced.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that, although he could accept the 3.6 per cent. uprating, it was not very much. One might ask him rhetorically, "Given the state of
1064
the economy, where would you get the money to produce a better level of pensions?" Quick as a flash, the hon. Gentleman would reply, "We would never be faced with that problem because we wouldn't get the economy in this state." If I sat on the other side of the House, I would defy the facts and make that reply as well. It remains true that, in any economy, one must see what can be afforded. I do not see what more could be done, and we must simply face up to that.
We must consider some of the more sombre steps that we may yet have to take. Reference has been made, properly, to the amount of Government borrowing necessary to finance the present benefits system. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we had gone too far, and should set about cutting benefits; the fact is, however, that the Government have decided that they can fund benefits on current levels, through taxes and borrowing.
That is an important point, which may yet be the basis for a significant difference between the two sides of the House. In the last public expenditure settlement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor started on the basis of the amount that the country could afford, and then decided how that money could be allocated. It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security fought his corner with considerable skill: he managed to ensure that all benefits were uprated sufficiently, while at the same time operating within a budget that had been decided in the first place not on the basis of what we would like to spend, but on the basis of what was available. That was rather brave.
For all our different reasons, we hope that my right hon. Friend's move will work this year. If it does, however, we must look into the future, and ask ourselves whether such action will always be possible. Will there come a time, sooner or later—perhaps sooner—when the Chancellor of the day decides what can be afforded, and then looks at the social security budget in its entirety? If so, that Chancellor may decide that it is simply not possible to maintain benefits along the lines that we would like.
It is curious that remarks such as this should be swapped across the Floor of the House—for instance, that it should be suggested that the Leader of the Opposition may be thinking of taxing or means-testing benefits, or, at least, not entirely ruling out such action—when the Government are having to conduct a review. I see nothing dishonourable in some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition.
When I quoted some of those remarks to the hon. Member for Garscadden, he said that the words meant what they said: I think that he was accusing me of putting a gloss or spin on them. I did not need to, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words were perfectly plain. He said that there might be a case for many benefits to remain universal, but that it was only right to be prepared to re-examine anything; he did not rule anything out of court.
More recently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of
"a strong case for maintaining universality, everyone having access to child benefit and retirement pensions to which they have contributed during their working lives. The commission is perfectly free to propose all sorts of subtractions and additions and alternatives".
A cynic might say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman really meant that, even if the commission made

1065
such a proposal, he would not adopt it; but I do not think that that is a mark of this Leader of the Opposition. I believe that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is telling his own commission that it is
"perfectly free to propose all sorts of subtractions and additions and alternatives",
he genuinely intends to consider them.
I see no great difference between that and the concept mentioned recently by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He suggested that people with sufficient means might wish to make their own arrangements rather than relying on the state system. Surely, we are talking about two ways of acknowledging the same truth—that it is not sufficient to say that we would like to do without dealing with how such action is to be funded.
The hon. Member for Garscadden countered that argument with great force and sincerity. He suggested that there would be something" wrong with a system that allowed, indeed almost obliged, the prosperous middle classes—to coin a loose phrase—to contract out of the welfare state, and then simply to leave it there for those who would have to rely on it. I accept, in terms of argument and debate, that it would be wrong, unwelcome and thoroughly unhelpful if those who had been obliged to contract out entirely then regarded what was left as an incubus.
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that some mean-minded people would not see it in that way; clearly they would. However, I do not think that that would be the predominant view in British society. I do not believe that those who educate their children privately have no regard for those who educate them in the state sector, and I know that no one would seriously make that bald statement in the House.
Let me cite a more homely example. The level of owner-occupation is probably very high on both sides of the House, but I cannot imagine that those who own their own houses would have no regard for people who live in council houses on rents essentially subsidised by the Department of the Environment.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Garscadden makes. If what he fears were to come to pass, it would be a powerful argument against going in that direction, but I do not believe that British society works in that way. If that seems too extravagant a proposition, let me put it another way. In the House of Commons, even in this new age of the middle ground, there is still a pretty wide descrepancy between those on the right of the Conservative party and those on the left of the Labour party. But those two groups have one thing in common: they are both prepared to come here and legislate in this way. I accept that the hon. Gentleman believes that there is a risk. I do not think so. What I see are different ways of reaching the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be working towards.
A moment ago, I said that we might yet, in the not too distant future, have to face decisions that would make it simply impossible for us to spend and uprate across the board. It will be particularly difficult for the governing party to face up to such decisions, and particularly tempting for the party in opposition to exploit the situation. If the roles were reversed, the Conservative party would be subject to that temptation. One has only to
1066
consider what has happened to the retired population to realise that we are storing up a problem of gigantic proportions, which we shall have to try to address. At present, the proportion of supporting taxpayers to pensioners is slightly more than three to one. By the early decades of the next century it will have fallen to about two to one.
If one makes that point to the classic awkward pensioner whom every Tory candidate is terrified to meet during a general election campaign—the Albert Tatlocks of this world—they say, "I don't want to know about the burden on the working population. I paid my dues over the years. I fought in a world war." I know a few people who fought in two. They don't want to know about the burden their pensions represent for the working population. Although those people's contributions give them the right to be supported by the working population, the practical ability to maintain them in the style to which they wish to be accustomed lies outside what can be achieved with the tax contributions of the working population.
As the proportion of workers to pensioners decreases markedly, there will be some pretty tough decisions to be made. Perhaps the most partisan remark that I need to make in this connection is that, to some extent, the justification for the optimism of the Labour party in thinking that it can once again be the governing party will be indicated by the extent to which it helps the Government in this debate. I cannot for one moment imagine that the Opposition spokesman wants to spend the next 20 years fighting on the Labour Front Bench and finally, in his grey-haired years, come to the Government side and find that he has only two taxpayers to support each retired person. It seems to me that, if the hon. Gentleman really believes in the Labour revival, he will have to enter into this debate.
On these occasions, it is worth concentrating on the points that unite us. As this debate proceeds, it will be interesting to see the extent to which, in the end, there is no difference between us. As a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, I sometimes find myself outflanked on the right by the Chairman, and sometimes think that I am outflanking him on the left. If that is an indication of a constructive debate, it will ultimately be so much harder for the Government to cover up any sins. Of course, they do not have such sins, so the risk does not exist.
9.13 pm
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: It is no surprise that this debate about the uprating statement has also been a debate on the Government's reviews of public spending—particularly the reviews of social security spending. Future uprating statements, whether under a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, will depend critically on our ability to look rigorously at public spending on social security.
Although Front Benchers may have fun with one another about each other's reviews, it is surely no coincidence that both the Labour party and the Government have now launched fundamental reviews. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) felt a little anxious that the Liberal party did

1067
not have a review. If I were he, I should say that my party had had a very good review—the Beveridge report of 50 years ago—even if it needs some radical updating.
It was a bit rich of the Secretary of State to attack us for having an independent review. Why should he attack a privatised review? He made it clear in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that his will be a secret review, and therefore a classic nationalised review. We live in strange times when such criticisms are made.
I welcome the need for a fundamental and long-term review, but note much foreboding in our community about the Government's review and their intentions. I see many honest citizens in Croydon and throughout the country reaching for their purses and wallets when they hear about the Government's review. I ask why that is.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announcing the public expenditure review, said that we needed to distinguish between essential and avoidable costs. That must be right; it is simple and truthful stuff with which we can all agree. What are the implications for this review? Although any proper analysis of social security spending should start at the beginning, I worry that the Government might start at the end. In other words, they might start where they can save money—what benefits they can cut —and make a political calculation about what they can get away with at the next election. Perhaps I am being too logical, but I think that we should start not at the end but at the beginning. I will say what I mean by that in a moment.
Let us acknowledge that this is not the first Government review. At least two or three times since 1979 the Government have said, "We need a fundamental review; we need to constrain or reduce public expenditure."
Mr. Dewar: Fowler.
Mr. Wicks: The Fowler review comes to mind, but in their 1990 White Paper the Government clearly stated their objectives:
"The Government intend to reduce public expenditure progressively in volume terms over the next four years."
That did not work. They did not reduce public expenditure in real terms or any other terms. In fact, public spending increased dramatically from £203 billion in real terms at the beginning of this Administration in 1978–79 to a significant £258 billion in 1992–93.
Although there have been many differences across the Chamber—more, frankly, than some hon. Members, in a spirit of politeness, have acknowledged—any Government will face fundamental questions. What do I mean when I urge the Government to start at the beginning of the story and not at the end? I think that we need, first, to ask questions about social change in Britain: how do people live and work, and how will that look up to the year 2000? Given that analysis, what trends are making for social insecurity, and what trends and what policy development could make for social security? My fear is that in future we may not have enough money to give decent benefits to people who have to rely on social security because, for the want of better policies, we are having to provide benefits for people who, in a better world, would not need to depend on social security.
The second task of a proper review would be to state its objectives. The objectives of any proper review of social security would be to ask, how do we develop policies,
1068
which often have nothing to do with the DSS, that enhance economic well-being and enable our citizens to become financially independent? Only after that would we need to focus on those who, because of disability or advanced old age, have to depend, quite properly, on universal state benefits.
I will explain my point in three ways. The first is the most obvious, but I make no excuse for returning to the theme of unemployment. Unless we make up our mind as a society to attack Beveridge's giant evil of idleness or unemployment, all our plans, as he said 50 years ago, and as I more modestly say today, for social well-being and social security are out of reach. If we have to spend large sums of money, often paying very low benefits but to masses of people, we shall not in future be able to cater for all the modern needs for which a decent society should cater.
We shall not be able to cater for the needs of the carers, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, the needs of the growing numbers of people with disabilities or those who, in frail old age, often and rightly—have to turn to the state for help. They include not least the generation which has missed out on the private and occupational pension revolution.
The Government must come clean at the beginning of their review. Do they see a future of mass unemployment? If so, they can hardly quarrel with the expenditure implications which consume a daily growing proportion of our social security budget and of our gross domestic product. They must come clean about their employment, full employment or unemployment assumptions.
The White Paper on public spending clearly shows how much we as a society are spending to keep people out of work who want to work. When we consider the trends among one-parent families and some longer-term sick people who are on benefit, we cannot but ask questions: how many of them would be in work and not on benefit if we were to approach full employment again? There are hidden costs of unemployment in the public expenditure White Paper, which we should make as visible as possible.
A fundamental review of social security and unemployment is more about macro-economic and employment policies and about child care and training than about social security policy. Therefore, I urge the Secretary of State to introduce an interdepartmental element into his inquiry.
My second illustration of starting at the beginning rather than the end of the story involves family breakdown. One of the demographic and social revolutions affecting not only a European society such as ours but others across the world is, sadly, the growing number of children who spend some or all of their childhood in one-parent rather than two-parent families. Almost four out of 10 new marriages will end in divorce, so a large percentage of children exprience family breakdown.
That revolution has not been painless. The fact that 70 per cent. of today's one-parent families depend on income support reflects the failure of society to comprehend or to cope with that revolution. A higher proportion—about 85 per cent.—of one-parent families will spend some time on state income support. That is bad news not only for mothers, children and society as a whole, because life on income support is rotten, but for taxpayers, public expenditure and the economy. I do not believe that life needs to be like that.

1069
In Sweden, for example, the picture is quite different. About 80 per cent. of one-parent families are not on the Swedish equivalent of income support, but in employment. There are many reasons for that, including the fact that the state has intervened through labour market policies, employment training and child care to help people socially. Of course there are costs involved in intervening through the state, but the social and economic savings have been colossal. Our failure not only to comprehend family breakdown but to prevent it and to help its victims has major public expenditure implications. The Government should start there rather than by asking whether they can cut a bit off benefits for one-parent families.
My third example deals with the subject of aging, which various hon. Members have mentioned. There has also been a social and demographic revolution of aging, which has major consequences for public expenditure and pensions policy. We shall hear more about that after I April, when the so-called community care policy comes into effect.
We are beginning to have a vigorous debate, but there is not yet a consensus on who should meet the costs of aging, either for pensions or, in particular, for care. Soon the Government—any Government—will have to grapple with the equalisation of pension ages.
That is a several billion pound question. Do we go back to 60? The Government would say that we could not afford that. Do we equalise at 63? Do we go to 65? Do we follow the advice of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) —we now find out that he was apparently quoting Beveridge—and go for 67? Those are important questions. We should not consider those questions in isolation, but should relate them to the other questions with which hon. Members on both sides of the House have to grapple, about the right future mix between public and private provision. We may disagree about that mix, but we should have the debate.
As has been pointed out, the poorest groups are people in their late 70s and in their 80s and 90s, who have missed out on the private pension revolution and who may now need targeted help. I agree with the hon. Member for Havant that such help need not be means-tested—indeed, I urge that it should not be means-tested.
Let us ask questions about the pattern of retirement. Let us not talk about pensioners as a grey mass, which they are not: they are many millions of individuals, some of whom want to retire early and some of whom want to work until they drop and never retire. Let us have flexibility and look at the actuarial implications in ways which make sense to people. Let us not treat people as a mass who have to retire either at 60, 65 or 67—or even 57. Let us offer them choices and freedom, and discover how we can do that in ways which enhance social welfare but also make sense in terms of public expenditure. Those are the important questions.
Finally, the review—
Mr. Frank Field: Ours or theirs?
Mr. Wicks: Both. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead who, almost echoing Government policy, called for open government on the issue. Such fundamental questions should not be about political fixes and cutting benefits. Why do we not
1070
encourage public debate on them? Why not consider a discussion paper, a Green Paper, a series of meetings or whatever, to engage the public in the discussion? There are no clear answers. There may be disagreements. At the end of the day, the Government will come to their own decision, with a White Paper and perhaps legislation. But why not encourage a public debate?
I support the review if it turns out to be long-term, fundamental and open. We need to review those questions. Any Government approaching the year 2000 will face difficult social questions involving public expenditure. Let us open the debate beyond this Chamber to the wider mass of people who have a major interest in the issues.
9.27 pm
Mr. Charles Hendry: There has been some discussion during the debate about speeches being recycled, so I shall say at the outset that I wrote my speech myself, and that it has not been used before. When I have finished it hon. Members may realise the benefits of recycling speeches and using them time and again—especially when they are as good as the one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the Young Conservatives conference at the weekend.
I was briefly tempted to use again the speech which I made in the debate on the Social Security Bill last November, because no one took any notice of it at the time, so no one would have realised if I had used it again tonight. But then I was much more tempted to re-use the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), which brought in so many new ideas and so much enlightened thinking.
I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), and during its 29 minutes I was wondering whether he might effectively dispel Conservative Members' belief that there had indeed been a gloomy feeling among Opposition Members at the time of the uprating statement. On that occasion we could see, as Opposition Members could not, the faces of those sitting on the Benches opposite us. We saw how miserable they were. Where, even today, were the words of welcome for the uprating statement?
Eventually, after twenty-eight and a half minutes, the hon. Member for Garscadden got there. He said that he welcomed the statement "as far as it goes." That was a magnanimous gesture by the Labour party—but the hon. Gentleman immediately went on to attack the amounts of money involved. We always hear from the Labour party how to spend wealth. Now and again it would be nice to hear Labour Members tell us about how to create wealth.
We hear attacks on the amount of money paid in benefits. The hon. Member for Garscadden says that it is not enough, that it is a measly amount—but does he tell us how much he would spend? Does he give us an inkling of how much the Labour party believes the benefits should be? He does not, because we would ask how much that would cost. Labour Members would not tell us; we should have to tell them how much it would cost. Please will the Labour party come clean? If Labour wants to challenge us on the amounts paid in benefits—all Conservative Members would like to see the levels of benefits increased —please will Labour Members tell us the level to which they think benefits should be increased?
It is only a year ago that Labour was more open and was telling us that Labour party policy was that pensions

1071
should be raised for a single person to one third of average income and to half average income for a married couple. The hon. Member for Garscadden makes an unlikely Father Christmas. Indeed, it has been uncharitably said that he thinks that charisma is 25 December. Christmas presents come ill from the Labour party which twice cancelled the pensioners' Christmas bonus.
Labour's commitment to raise pensions by that amount would have cost £25 billion. We do not know whether Labour still stands by that policy. If Labour had stood by that policy and if it was now in government, we should not be considering a fundamental review of Government spending and how to allocate resources, but a closing down sale. As happened before, we should have found that we were spending infinitely more than we could afford. We at least have the courage to recognise that and the integrity to try to challenge those issues.
We are now told that we have a new Labour party, the fourth new Labour party after four election defeats. From his remarks, it is clear that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) recognises, as we do, that a fifth election defeat is likely for Labour.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hendry: In view of the charitable comments that my hon. Friends pile on the hon. Gentleman, it would be churlish not to give way to him.
Mr. Field: I was not saying that a fifth defeat was inevitable. I said that a victory is there for us, but that we need to make fundamental changes. These debates offer that opportunity. Other opportunities arise to make that contribution to the party. I believe that we should run the Conservatives really close next time and that we should put the fear of God into them that they will lose their red boxes, their chauffeur-driven cars and all the trappings of power. Labour should be serious this time about that objective.
Mr. Hendry: We do not mind Labour running us close as long as it does not win. As long as the majority does not drop below 19, we can live with it. We plan to increase that majority ourselves.
Having seen the new, new model Labour party, we could look around justifiably for clarification about its policies. We looked forward with great excitement last week to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition in which we thought that he would set out the new agenda and the way forward. We thought that he would of course talk about social security. Sadly, he did not. Social security did not get a mention.
We were obliged to wait until this week when the Leader of the Opposition was interviewed by The Times. That shows how much the party has changed. A few years ago, even last year, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have had an interview with The Guardian. Some of his colleagues would have gone to the Morning Star. Now, Mr. Murdoch is in favour and Labour Members are prepared to talk to The Times. We welcome that transformation. However, we find that we still lack a clear explanation of the party's way forward.
We know of Labour's commission on social justice. Conservative Members have attempted to find out how fundamental the review will be. I quote what Labour has said:
"There is a strong case for maintaining universality".
1072
As has been said already in this debate—we have to challenge you on the issue because you will not tell us what it means—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use the word "you". He has repeatedly done so. I am not responsible for anything of which he has accused me.
Mr. Hendry: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have realised that.
The quotation continues:
"everyone having access to child benefit and retirement pensions to which they have contributed during their working lives."
Again, there is universality. The quotation continues:
"The commission is perfectly free to propose all sorts of subtractions and additions and alternatives."
In spite of the challenges from Conservative Members, the Labour party will not tell us whether it means that as an open-ended review or whether it seeks to use weasel words to pretend that it wants both sides of the circle playing together.
I shall concentrate not on the way of the past, which is what we hear from the Labour party, but on the way forward. I shall pick up some of the points so excellently explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts).
We have two priorities in social security. First, how do we stop people drifting or moving into dependency? Secondly, how do we help people to come out of dependency? I do not see it as one of our priorities to seek to sustain people and keep them in dependency. That should not be one of our goals.
If we are to stop people moving into dependency, one of our key principles must be to help people to prepare for times of difficulty or illness, or simply for the process of getting older. That is why we believe so strongly in private, personal and occupational pensions. It is a source of great sadness to us that there is still no cross party recognition of the fact that planning ahead should be welcomed rather than scorned.
It cannot be right to spread benefits so wide that those in need do not get the help that they genuinely require because too much help is being given to those who do not require it. I referred just now to massive increases in pensions. If one gives large increases to everyone—including people with large personal incomes on retirement—we shall make it increasingly difficult to target help on those in genuine need. If one asks a child, "Do you want a lollipop?" he will say yes. If one asks a child, "Do you want to pay for it?" one will get a slightly different reply. We must accept that higher levels of benefit cost money.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said, we are faced with the problem of a working population that is shrinking relative to those who will be living and requiring support from the state. Planning ahead is not callous. It is not a vicious 19th-century Tory principle. It is common sense and reflects the aspirations of people throughout the country.
If we are to be honest about targeting, we shall have to look at some other sacred cows. I know that this does not necessarily fall within the Department's responsibilities, but we must challenge the long-term future of mortgage interest relief. We spend more than £5 billion a year

1073
helping people with their mortgages, even though many of them can well afford to pay them. As a result, other people in need of housing support receive less than they require.
Now that the housing market has bottomed out, I hope that we shall gradually start to tackle that principle. With a base rate of tax of 20 per cent., we could start by saying that mortgage interest relief should start at 20 per cent. rather than 25 per cent. That alone would create a saving of £1 billion which could go towards reducing the deficit or towards spending elsewhere.
How does one help people to move out of dependency? Too often, the policies of the past have worked to trap people in dependency. Over many years, choice has been removed. Let us consider what has happened in our inner-city areas, where such policies are most important. The state—either at local or national level—has said to people, "We will look after you. We will look after your housing, education and health. We will look after you when you are young and when you are old and in all aspects of your life. You need worry about nothing. The state knows best. The state will look after it."
In many areas, we have rolled back that principle, but in some areas it survives and people have lost the ability to choose. It is not that they do not want to choose but that they do not understand how to. They are frightened of making choices. Over the past 14 years, we have been tackling those problems gradually. Initially, we told people who wanted to take an opportunity that we would take off the lid that had been holding them down and allow them to make a choice. We told people that, if they wanted to buy their council house, buy shares in a company or start up a business, they could go ahead and do it. Then there was a second tranche consisting of people less willing to take the leap. To them, we said, "We will give you an incentive to start taking out personal pensions and to buy shares."
Our priority must now be to consider people who come into neither category. We shall not achieve that merely by shaking the benefits tree—although it is certainly important to ensure that people do not get benefits to which they are not entitled. For many people, the benefits tree represents security. It is not like a tree of apples from which ripe fruit drops when one shakes it. Many will cling more tightly because the tree is their security.
I agree with some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who said that we require a cross-departmental system. The benefits system is part of the package, but we also need to look more widely. Let me give a couple of examples. Many single parents are in dependency for the simple reason that they do not have the opportunity to go out to work. The mother cannot raise income because she has no one to look after the child, and she cannot simply get a job. We need to look at that cross-departmentally.
In my constituency, we have a shortage of housing. In one area we have a number of empty police houses. We have two empty police houses side by side, which is a chronic waste in an area of housing shortage. We should examine whether those empty houses could be turned into units for single parents with children under school age. The houses could be turned into four or five units and single parents would have facilities on site and a child minder. The mother would have the opportunity to get a
1074
job without placing an extra burden on the state for a massive provision of child-minding support. In that way, we could help single parents to find work, start tackling their problems and looking to a brighter future.
The same could be said of the unemployed. We should not look simply at how we support unemployed people. We must see how we can give people the cross-departmental support which they need to make them ready to move back into work. For that reason, we need to be open-minded on the principle of working for benefits.
Mr. Winnick: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he referred to unemployed people moving back into work. Does he realise that the overwhelming majority of unemployed people do not want to rely on benefits of any sort? When vacancies occur, there will often be 500 or 600 people applying for a single vacancy. Sometimes they queue all night for the opportunity of getting a job. The responsibility for what has happened lies with the Government. The hon. Gentleman should be concerned that millons of people are denied the right to work.
Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Gentleman looks across the channel, he will see a socialist Government which has pursued socialist policies and which has an unemployment rate that is almost the same as that in the United Kingdom. It is not a question of the Government's policies having failed. The United Kingdom, significantly as a result of our refusing to take on board the social chapter, is ready for growth, and most of the independent reports expect it to have the highest rate of growth in the European Community by the end of this year. Perhaps the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) can look more at the positive aspects than the negative ones.
The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that unemployed people want jobs. The worst waste for unemployed people is having nothing to do, sitting around all day at home or getting up late and losing the work attitude.
I have been unemployed twice—once when I left university 12 years ago, in a similar time for graduates as it is now, and shortly thereafter. I know what it is like to write letters and wait for replies. One finds that many people do not bother to reply and many other people simply give one a dismissive letter as though they have not considered the application. In those circumstances, it is difficult to maintain morale and continue looking for work daily.
One of the reasons for looking at the principle of work for benefits is the question of how to put people in a frame of mind whereby they are in a position to apply for jobs and be enthusiastic about getting them. Many questions need to be examined: whether working for benefits would be part-time or full-time, whether it would be compulsory or voluntary and whether it would apply to everybody or only to those who have been unemployed for some time.
We need to challenge things. It was President Kennedy who said:
"Change is the law of life, and those who only think of the present and the past are certain to miss the future."
He had vision and imagination in many other areas. We are right to challenge the principles, think the unthinkable and hope to do the unthinkable. That is the way in which we should move forward.
There has been a creeping dependency over many years which the Government have sought to reverse in the past 14 years. That creeping dependency is not desirable.

1075
Moreover, it is something which we cannot support. I support the Government's social security initiatives as part of the package to put those problems right. I will be supporting the Government on the order tonight.
9.43 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the past two and a half hours we have heard several wide-ranging and deeply intellectual speeches from people who are plainly formidably expert on social security matters. As I am sure you know, Madam Speaker, I am not an expert on social security. But as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament I am worried for those constituents of mine who, for reasons beyond their control, are unable to defend themselves against the irregularities that arise in their dealings with the local Benefits Agency offices. I shall use some examples to show the need for reviews of the social security system.
All the examples that I shall use come from my two most recent surgeries. One involved a man living in Port Glasgow who told me that he applied for disability living allowance in May 1992. He brought to my surgery a formal acknowledgement of his application dated 1 June 1992. He has heard nothing from Blackpool since. I find that disgraceful.
Mr. Winnick: That is fairly common.
Dr. Godman: Whether it is common or not, it is a matter of deep regret for my constituent.
Another example concerns a young girl who came to see me at my constituency surgery. She is 17 and four months pregnant. Her parents put her out of the house when she announced that she was pregnant. She refused an abortion. She is living in a house which is much too big for her in a part of my constituency where the houses are known as "difficult to let".
The young girl went along to the local benefits office in Port Glasgow to ask for help in her difficult circumstances. She was turned away because she was not in receipt of income support. She is undergoing youth training. Why did not one of the officials sit the girl down—a girl is what she is; she is 17 years old—and say, "We cannot pay you because of the harsh regulations governing payments from the social fund. You are not on income support. But did you know that if you are in such difficulties you can go along to the local social work department?" The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that, under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, a social worker may have been able to give the girl some financial assistance. Why was not the girl given that advice?
Another example of the failure of the state to protect individuals who find themselves in difficult circumstances is the case of a constituent of mine who is suffering from asbestosis. He is deeply ill, like many of the sufferers whom one finds in shipbuilding constituencies for reasons that I do not need to spell out to the House. He has been advised that he needs an independent medical examination. The man is living in poverty, but he is expected to find the money for that independent medical examination which is required by the Department.
I was grateful to the Minister for saying that he would look into this difficulty for men and women suffering from asbestosis. As you know, Madam Speaker, in almost every
1076
case asbestosis is terminal. I am pleased to say that at long last the law in Scotland has been brought into line with English legislation, in that the claim no longer dies when the victim dies. We are grateful for some small mercies.
I raised the question of invalidity benefit earlier with t he Secretary of State. He courteously gave way and listened tolerantly to what I had to say. If any benefit needs to be subjected to a tough-minded review, it is invalidity benefit.
Under United Kingdom law, a women loses invalidity benefit at the age of 60 and is given a retirement pension instead. In a case heard in Liverpool, Commissioner Skinner decided that Mrs. Rose Graham had suffered sexual discrimination vis-a-vis EC directive 79/7/EEC. The Secretary of State is appealing against the Secretary of State. The assistant chief adjudication officer telephoned me last summer to tell me that that was the case and I have received correspondence from Ministers on the subject.
The social security commissioner decided that United Kingdom social security law discriminates against women, and that they should be treated in the same way as men when in receipt of invalidity benefit. On the basis of the Liverpool case, I made representations on behalf of a constituent, Mrs. McLatchie, whose invalidity benefit was restored plus the payment of arrears. That was fine and good, and I thought that the Government were acknowledging that EC law has supremacy over our legislation. They are, however, appealing to the English Court of Appeal.
I organised a take-up campaign on behalf of constituents caught in the same trap and about 400 made late appeals. They have all been told that they cannot be paid, despite the fact that Mrs. McLatchie was paid. Incidentally, one of my constituents is going to take the Government to the sheriff court, because under Scots law it is argued that she should receive her money.
I wrote to the then European Social Commissioner, Mrs. Papandreou, formally to request that she initiate proceedings at the European Court of Justice against the Government for that act of gross sexual discrimination. Mrs. Papandreou has gone, but I received a response from the acting director-general, Steffen Smidt, who said:
"With reference to Mrs. Thomas case, I can inform you that there is actually a proceeding before the Court of Justice of the European Community deferred by the House of Lords on the basis of Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome."
That article enables a national court to refer a case to the European Court of Justice, and that has profound implications for any review of social security systems throughout the European Community, let alone in this place.
The letter continues:
"This case concerns Mrs. Thomas and four other persons"—
two are male: Mr. Murphy and Mr. Morley.
"Hearings took place in November 1992, and the Commission is awaiting with the greatest of interest the forthcoming judgements.
At this stage, the Commission has to wait for the above judgement before introducing any proceedings for infringement against the Government of the United Kingdom."
As I said in an intervention in the speech of the Secretary of State, the Advocate-General has proffered his opinion to his colleagues. The other judges may well choose to reject his recommendations, but I suspect that the omens are not good for the Government. If his colleagues accept his recommendations, it will cost the Department of Social Security dear, as more than 400 people in my constituency have appealed.

1077
It seems that, in future, people who believe that they have a genuine grievance against the Department of Social Security, and hence the Government, may, under the Maastricht treaty—if it is resuscitated by the second Danish referendum—have the right to take the Government to a domestic court. Those people will not have to undertake the long and winding road to Luxembourg but can take the Government to a domestic court because of their perceived failure to protect those people's interests.
In its 15th report for the 1991–92 Session, on page 49, paragraph 34, the Select Committee on European Community Legislation stated:
"There is now a new factor. The jurisprudence of the Court has developed to a point where it has recognised a right for individuals (in carefully defined circumstances) to sue their Member States in their national courts for damages flowing from non-implementation of obligations intended for their protection. In relation to obligations of this nature, the prospect of a flood of actions in national courts may be a greater deterrent to dilatory Member States than the prospect of a simple fine."
In future, people who feel that they have a legitimate grievance against the Government for their failure to protect them under social security legislation may take the Government to court. Those people can use the European Court of Justice as a tactical convenience. The provision is contained in the Maastricht treaty. I make no apology for attempting to use the European Court of Justice for tactical convenience to protect several hundreds of my constituents whose invalidity benefit was stopped when they reached the age of 60, which is the present position.
When the learned men sitting in Luxembourg decide that the Government are guilty of sexual discrimination when paying invalidity benefit, it may result not in reductions in the social security budget, but in the problem of where to find the extra money to pay the scores of thousands of women who will be involved. I look forward to that decision, about which I am fairly optimistic. No doubt Ministers are hoping that my optimism is misplaced and believe that I should not place too much reliance on the European Court of Justice. However, if Ministers and Government officials fail to protect my constituents, I shall willingly use the European Court of Justice and our national courts—if the Maastricht treaty is resuscitated by the Danes—to protect my constituents.
Even the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is going to conduct a review of the social security system. The reviewers, whether professors or Department of Social Security officials, may have to take cognisance of the role of the European Court of Justice in determining, by way
1078
of European Community legislation, what is fair and proper in the administration of individual social security systems in the European Community—soon to be called the European union, I believe. That is an important subject, especially for hon. Members like me who are not experts but have to defend constituents' interests.
The three examples that I gave of constituents who came to my surgery involved people caught in deep poverty. I hope that this evening the Minister will respond sympathetically to those examples.
9.59 pm
Mr. Keith Bradley: This has been a reflective and wide-ranging debate. I will try to comply with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that we stick to the reflective mood and do not lapse into crude oratory. I shall try to avoid that temptation.
When the uprating statement was made, it was with great relief that we heard that benefits are to be protected. There was always a suspicion that sooner or later the social security budget would come under close scrutiny. Although there is the gloss of a general review of the whole benefit system, it has to be made clear that there is a suspicion—I say no more than that—that the review is based on the need to get the Government out of the economic mess that they have got themselves into—
It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.)
MADAM SPEAKER then put the Question which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates &c.).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1992–93
Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £1,893,716,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 431 of Session 1992–93.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution 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.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain funds out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1993: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

Social Security
Question again proposed.
10.1 pm
Mr. Bradley: Time is even shorter now and I will press on quickly. As I was saying, the Government are trying to find a way out of their economic mismanagement. While the benefit uprating announcement was welcome, it did no more than preserve the status quo for many groups of beneficiaries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said; it did not address the issue of real improvements in benefits for many people, nor will it give help to the many groups who are denied entitlement to benefit. None of those benefits are being restored.
We should not rely on press speculation, but it is already clear that one early target for review by the Government will be invalidity benefit. The likelihood that taxation of that benefit is on the agenda means that many disabled people face further anxiety while they await the outcome of the review. If taxation of invalidity benefit is introduced, disabled people will lose because they are on low incomes.
The average invalidity beneifit in March 1991 was £67–90. Recent surveys by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that disabled people are less likely to find work. Additionally, they incur extra costs because of their disability. They should not be further disadvantaged. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred to the opting-out process in the review, which has not been denied by the Secretary of State. The opportunity for private provision for disabled people is more limited, partly because of their individual risk assessment and the cost of premiums. We have to examine that carefully.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
Mr. Bradley: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber; because of the time availabe, it would be inappropriate to give way.
Disabled people are just one group who will be worried about the results of the review. I hope that in his reply to the debate the Minister will be able to give assurances to such groups.
The uprating statement did not bring relief to our faces because many people did not get the good news that their benefits were being restored. We should not be fooled by the view that the basic increase in basic state retirement pension is so generous that elderly people will have an income which will enable them to live happily, with finance being no problem.
If we put the retirement pension into context, average pension income has risen in real terms, but it does not reflect a good picture of the overall distribution of income. About 9.6 million of our 10.6 million pensioners are currently receiving state pension, either through national insurance pension, income support, or a combination of the two. Of those, in 1990 72 per cent. were among the two fifths of households with the lowest disposable income. Among the one fifth of all households with the lowest disposable income in 1989, 51 per cent. were retired people.
In 1991–92 the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that 1,425,000 families were headed by pensioners in receipt of income support. Of those, 105,000 were entirely
1080
dependent on income support—but the income support levels are not generous. It is not surprising that pensioners feel that an actual increase of a mere £2 a week is derisory and is not a reflection of their real costs. One pensioner told me that the £2 increase merely covered the increase in the window cleaning bill. We should not be fooled into believing that the uprating is so generous that many pensioners will not continue to live in abject poverty.
We must recognise that a crucial group of people will not benefit from the uprating statement, and that is 16 and 17–year-olds who are denied the right to benefit. The Government's guarantee of a place on a training scheme has proved woefully inadequate. Thousands of young people have not had the opportunity of a place on a training scheme, yet they are still denied the right to benefit. Many organisations are now talking about the problems of poverty among 16 and 17–year-olds. For example, Youthaid estimates that 124,700 16 and 17–year-olds are unemployed and have no place on a training scheme, and 97,000 of those are not receiving any benefit or payment.
It is clear from the evidence that that places an additional burden on the families of that group of youngsters. The poverty of the 16 or 17–year-old is being transferred back into the poverty of the family. In many cases, that has led to the break-up of the family because it cannot afford the extra burden of a 16 or 17–year-old who is denied a proper training place or any benefit. I hope that the Government will reconsider the denial of benefit to that very vulnerable group of people.
I want quickly to deal with the position of disabled people and their carers, which was eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I want to draw a particular point to the Minister's attention and I hope that he will be able to clarify the matter when he replies to the debate. As he knows, the administrative chaos in the introduction of the disabled living allowance has caused great anxiety and hardship for thousands of disabled people. That was compounded by the sudden ending of applications to the independent living fund. It is my understanding that unless disabled people were in receipt of DLA, they could not claim from the ILF. They were doubly disadvantaged because of the chaos in the administration of DLA.
In another place, in response to a question only yesterday by Baroness Hollis, Lord Henley said that individuals did not have to be in receipt of disability living allowance to receive an award from the independent living fund. Will the Minister confirm that, if people subsequently receive disability living allowance and had applied before the cut-off date to the independent living fund, they will still have the opportunity to obtain an award from the ILF? Lord Henley's statement did not make the position clear. Correspondence with the ILF states that people have to be in receipt of DLA, not simply to have applied for it. If that is the case, people should not have been denied the right to apply to the fund. Clearly, that needs to be rectified, and I hope that the Minister will respond.
I reinforce the comments of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire in relation to those who care for the disabled. A study by the Royal College of Nursing and the Spastics Society published today acknowledges yet again the valuable work done by carers. Studies estimate that the savings enjoyed by the state as a consequence of

1081
the work of informal carers is £24 billion per year. It is unacceptable that carers should be so poorly recompensed for the work that they do.
It is clear that the amount of money spent on care is infinitesimal. Financial support for carers currently accounts for 0.02 per cent. of the total social security budget, and invalid care allowance represents only 10.69 per cent. of national average earnings. That is scandalously low. Is it not time that the Government acknowledged the value of carers and their work and ensured that their efforts are recognised as a job of work and properly recompensed? There is no suggestion that carers demand to be recognised in that way—they work willingly—but we should accept that we owe a debt to those people for the savings that they make for the state.
Little has been said this evening of the problems with the social fund. The Department's own study, "Evaluating the Social Fund", highlights the fact that 60.5 per cent. of the survey sample had to cut back on food and living expenses, 46.6 per cent. cut back on clothing, and 20.6 per cent. on paying bills. Those on income support and at the lowest income level who have to apply to the social fund cannot afford such cutbacks. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are considering the Department's report. They commissioned it, and they have had time enough to evaluate it, state their considered view, and say what they mean to do. The Government surely cannot be satisfied from that study that all is well.
In Committee this morning, debating a social security benefits statutory instrument on the preserved rights of individuals in residential care, the point was made that, despite uprating, there is overwhelming evidence that the care gap between income support levels and the fees charged for residential care is growing massively. Where people with so-called preserved income support rights are currently in residential care, the new community care legislation makes the local authority responsible for ensuring the future funding of that arrangement. That could lead to potential evictions from residential homes or, more probably, such homes going out of business. If that happens, those individuals will not enjoy the protection of preserved rights.
Will the Minister say how he views the future uprating of benefits against those costs? During the progress of the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—now the Under-Secretary of State—clearly recognised that problem and led an effective campaign which led to the acceptance of a new clause. Unfortunately, it did not end up in the Bill—but we will not go into the reasons for that. That problem has not gone away, and we must be sure that the Department recognises that and will bring forward proper provisions.
I believe that in recent years—whatever the uprating has been in terms of inflation—there has been a dramatic increase in the number of households and individuals facing debt problems. More than half a million households have serious multiple debts, and are in arrears to three or more creditors. That it because income levels for those on benefit are still too low. Many have had to turn to credit companies. I do not wish to be parochial, but a survey of Money Advice clients in Greater Manchester revealed that
1082
two of the main contributory factors to financial difficulties were unemployment and low incomes—both of which have increased under the present Government.
I hope that the Government will address those two important issues today. The only real way forward is to bring about a move back towards full employment, in the meantime recognising that a proper level of benefit is necessary to ensure that low-income families do not suffer the multiple debts that they are currently experiencing.
10.15 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): This has been an important debate —partly because we are disposing of some £2–5 billion of taxpayers' money, and partly because social security legislation touches on those in the greatest need. We should debate closely and carefully the way in which the money is spent. Things may change now that I am on my feet, but so far this has been a high-quality, thoughtful debate: I feel that it deserves a large audience, and more participation by hon. Members, than it has achieved—but we are aware of the great attraction that social security matters hold for many of our colleagues.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garsgadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in the public expenditure survey which was concluded last year. Anyone who imagines that discussions between my right hon. Friend and myself and our dear and close friends in the Treasury are cosy fireside chats is very much mistaken; it was a tough public-expenditure round, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend has been sufficiently congratulated on the successful outcome that he achieved—a very full uprating of benefits across the board, and no increase in national insurance contributions. I consider that a remarkable achievement.
We are now faced with the issue of a long-term review of the pattern of social security. Given the size of the social security budget and its potential to increase, I do not think that anyone should be surprised if from time to time, instead of examining the pattern of expenditure year by year, we should take a more fundamental look at the way in which money is going, and decide whether the current pattern is appropriate for the next few years. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-west (Mr. Wicks)—welcome the news of a fundamental review.
I should like to say more about that, but I want to respond to a number of the points that have been raised. I shall not be able to cover all of them in the time available, but I shall consider them carefully tomorrow, when I have read Hansard.
I understand the anxieties that are felt about the important question of the independent living fund. The fund was originally introduced as a transitional measure, to operate until the introduction of the care in the community measures. Those measures are to be introduced at the beginning of April. During its short life, the fund has been a remarkable success. In the first year, expenditure ran to about £1 million; in the current year, it is approaching £100 million. In April, when the fund trust is ended and cases are handed over to a successor body, some 22,000 severely disabled people will constitute the case load.

1083
Many hon. Members who follow these matters will be aware of the situation, but I should like to make it absolutely clear that we intend, in the very near future, to legislate to replace the independent living fund with two new trusts. One of these will take on the handling of the case load of 22,000 with freedom, if the care needs of individuals increase—as, sadly, they often do—to increase the level of payments in those cases. The other trust, which will operate in tandem with local authorities, will be in a position to top up with cash, where the services that local authorities provide cannot meet the full care costs of the more severely disabled people. Obviously, we shall have to see how this works in practice, but I believe that we have the right formula. That main responsibility for the provision of the community care packages that disabled and elderly people will need must lie with local authorities. In the case of the most severely disabled people, there is an argument for continuing an independent living fund that can operate in conjunction with the local authorities, and we shall so legislate.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) mentioned the interaction between the independent living fund and the delays in the payment of disability living allowance. I shall seek, in the course of my reply, to address that matter. It would have been open to the trustees of the independent living fund, before deciding to cease taking claims with a view to having an orderly hand-over of cases to the new trust in April, to deem someone who had applied for disability living allowance to have been in receipt of it, and therefore to be eligible for help through the independent living fund. In practice, that did not happen, but the option was available. The trustees were living within a budget. There were other constraints upon them. I hope that by April, when the two funds are operating, a number of people who might very well have applied if the fund had not been closed down for the purpose of achieving an orderly takeover will be able to apply for help from the new independent living fund.
It is not surprising that the social fund too has been mentioned, although it is surprising that it was referred to only in the opening and closing speeches by the Opposition. I understand the great interest in the whole operation of the social fund and its importance in addressing the exceptional circumstances and exceptional need at the fringes of the social security system. The amount involved is close to £80 billion a year. Since the invention of the pattern of social security, there has always been a need for some provision at the fringes that cannot be coped with in a regulated way. In these cases, discretion is absolutely essential. We have had the report by the social policy research unit of York university, the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Government's own consideration of the pattern of the social fund.
It is obvious that very soon the Government will have to announce how they see the future of the fund. It was introduced just about the time that I came to the Department. Since then a number of things have struck me very clearly. One is the relative success of loans. The SPRU report drew particular attention to the way in which the concept of loans has gained acceptance, following a very hostile initial approach. There is now increasing acceptance, on the part of people who need help form the social fund, that loans are a sensible way of tackling many of their needs.
1084
There have been about 1 million community care grants and about 5.5 million loans since the social fund started. The importance of loans lies in the fact that a given amount of money can be used successively to help a number of people. Thus, money can be put to much better use by being recycled.
Mr. Dewar: The Minister knows that there is a dispute about the cash-limiting effect of these provisions. On the specific point about loans, may I ask him if he is prepared to have a look at the question of repayment periods? Weekly deductions from benefit are often very high—or genuinely appear to the person concerned to be very high —and loans are sometimes refused on that ground.
Mr. Scott: I cannot go further than I have, but that is one of the matters that we shall consider when we make our announcements about the social fund.
A number of hon. Members asked about delays with the disability living allowance. I face an uncomfortable two hours tomorrow morning before the Select Committee on Social Security, which perhaps is the best forum to deal with that in detail. I want to pay tribute to the staff. I reiterate my regret about the distress that a number of claimants felt about the delay in the delivery of DLA, but the staff have done extremely well to deal with I million claims since DLA was introduced, and nearly I million claims have been cleared by staff. I see that the Chairman of the Select Committee has joined us now, and I shall look forward to expanding rather more on that topic tomorrow.
Dr. Godman: How long does it normally take for a commissioner's decision to be acted on by officers of the Department?
Mr. Scott: Assuming that the commissioner's decision is not appealed, it would operate very quickly. The hon. Gentleman raised a series of individual cases to which I cannot reply this evening, but I undertake to consider each one to see what lessons the Department can learn.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked about invalidity benefit and where the projected savings of £240 million would come from. They will come from improving the medical controls over the delivery of invalidity benefit. People invited to medical examinations for invalidity benefit will be given more notice and will be asked for reasons if they feel that they cannot attend. They will be warned that failure to attend without giving proper notice may lead to their losing benefit and adjudication officers will have power to disqualify in those circumstances.
However, if there is a good cause for a further examination, we hope that they will be held more quickly —normally within six weeks—and we shall ask examining doctors to produce more comprehensive reports than hitherto. We believe that the savings that we have forecast will result from that. It is £240 million over the three years of the survey period, running at £50 million, £90 million, and £100 million over those three years.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked about take-up. We are concerned to ensure maximum take-up of the benefits that we make available .We estimate that £9 of every £10 of income-related benefits is taken up, and four out of five people take up the benefits to which they are entitled.

1085
The Government have an unparalleled record on carers. We have a very good record on the take up of invalid care allowance, on the carers' premium and on other support for carers. Caring is likely to move substantially up the political agenda in forthcoming years. We shall watch that with much care to see what we can do within the resources available. I pay tribute to the huge army of carers, who contribute to ensuring the quality of life of many elderly and disabled people in our society.
Mr. Frank Field: The Minister has highlighted the importance of carers, to whom both sides of the House attach similar importance. When the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was speaking for the Government this evening he said that the review will save money for taxpayers and redistribute resources. When there is a redistribution rather than tax cuts, where will carers stand in the pecking order for the largesse?
Mr. Scott: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who well understands the complexity of the social security system and the shifting sands of demand within it, expects me to issue a batting order. I mentioned the increasing awareness of the role of carers which has been shown by the Government and other providers. We have recognised that role more than any previous Government, and I shall certainly not be drawn into issuing a batting order, despite my love of cricketing analogies.
In the past year, social security has been increasingly recognised as a vital factor in the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. We need to be fair to those who rely on benefits, but my right hon. Friend and I are also conscious of the fact that we have a responsibility to the taxpayers who provide the £80 billion a year that we spend on benefits.
I commend the orders to the House. We are considering five pieces of legislation which will ensure that the social security system will work effectively next year. We are setting benefit rates, providing increases to the guaranteed minimum pensions and making the normal adjustments to national insurance contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Resolved,
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

St. Albans Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
10.31 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of St. Albans hospital and the centralisation of acute services in north-west Hertfordshire. It is a subject of intense interest to the residents of St. Albans. I share that interest because, although the hospital is not in my constituency, it serves many of my constituents, especially those in London Colney. On the same basis, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) also shares our concern, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) whose constituency contains the hospital.
Since the health authority first unveiled the proposals to centralise the services in 1990, with their consequent effect on St. Albans hospital, my right hon. Friend has been at the forefront of a long and vigorous campaign to preserve as many services as possible for the residents of St. Albans. At every turn and with exhaustive efforts, he has fought on behalf of the people of St. Albans, reflecting their great concern about the hospital services.
This is a matter of local pride and concern. Local people are worried about the distances entailed in having to travel to Hemel Hempstead and the attendant risks in the case of accidents. Their concern reflects the esteem in which the services and professionals at the hospital are held. I wish to refer in particular to the paediatric services and St. Julian's ward, which are the subject of much affection and esteem.
When the decision was finally taken in December last year to centralise the services and to move some from St. Albans to Hemel Hempstead, there was great disappoint-ment in St. Albans. It would be hard to overestimate the disappointment which has been manifested on several demonstrations and marches, all of which were properly conducted. Similar anxiety has been expressed by several groups in the district, local churches and the community health council. My right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans shares that feeling.
It must be said that when the decision was taken, due weight was given to the professional opinions of the consultants who serve St. Albans hospital as to the best way to save high-quality services in Hemel Hempstead and St. Albans.
On the other side of the argument, I draw attention to the strength of local feelings and suggest that weight could also be given to them. Local feelings run deep indeed in St. Albans, and they are conditioned by the fact that, although the town has retained many important services in its hospital, including a 60-bed elective surgery unit, nevertheless, a substantial number of beds have been lost as the hospital previously had 293 beds. It has lost its maternity, gynaecological and paediatric services and—most significantly—from 8 March it will lose the accident and emergency services in the full form in which they now exist.
I call urgent attention to that loss. It is the focus of great concern, and people are wondering exactly what accident and emergency provision in St. Albans will be left with after 8 March. There is a strong case for taking a long hard look at that provision. Under the present proposals, after

1087
8 March there will be no service at all for six weeks, and then a nurse practitioner-led service, treating minor accident and emergency cases, will start. I urge that urgent attention be paid to the strong case for upgrading that service to a much higher level.
The health authority compiled some figures in a survey carried out in 1991 and released in August 1992, which revealed that, of the 35,000 or so attendances at St. Albans hospital, about 6,500—about 18 per cent. of the total—could have been met in that year by a nurse practitioner service. So a relatively small proportion of the cases that were being treated at St. Albans hospital would be suitable for the intended level of service.
The survey also considered how many of those cases would have been dealt with by a doctor-led service, involving either a general practitioner or some other suitably experienced and qualified doctor. It was found that, of the 35,000 attendances, a further 57 per cent.—or 20,000 cases—could have been met by such a service. That means that about 75 per cent. of the total attendances at the hospital that year could have been dealt with by a doctor-led service. That would make a great difference.
A doctor-led service would be an important facility for people in St. Albans, and save many of them a great deal of travelling. It would also save much of the pressure that would otherwise fall on the service at Hemel Hempstead. There are strong grounds for such a service to be introduced in St. Albans.
In making that suggestion, I am fortified by the fact that such a proposal was ventilated by the health authority in a leaflet issued in August 1992, which said:
"We hope to involve local general practitioners in making the best use of the minor accident treatment unit".
Furthermore, last October the chief executive of the North West Hertfordshire health authority produced another document, which was intended to be the basis for local discussions leading to health authority recommendations. It suggested that
"the unit should be nurse practitioner, but this would not preclude GP involvement".
I therefore suggest that such an upgraded service is already in the health authority's mind. There is an urgent case for the service to be upgraded to that level, to provide a better service for the people of St. Albans.
If this is a question of resources being made available for the provision of such a unit, the argument is strong and the case is clear that those resources should be provided for the people of St. Albans. They should be made available for a doctor-led unit, which would be open on the same 24-hour basis as the former accident and emergency unit. Before implementation, that unit should be the subject of full consultations with the general practitioners in St. Albans to ascertain the part that they wish to play and whether they wish to take the reins of the accident and treatment service, or whether they feel that it would be best served by some other form of suitably qualified and experienced doctors.
Perhaps most urgently of all, I call attention to the six-week interval that will ensue when the full accident and emergency service is closed on 18 March. With the plans as they stand, for those six weeks there will be no accident and emergency provision in St. Albans. The issue has been put to the health authority, which has said that the six weeks is needed for nurse retraining. I suggest that that is not a satisfactory explanation and that training could be provided in a way that would enable the service to be
1088
continued. The explanation is not a satisfactory reflection on the health authority. Great concern is being caused to the residents of St. Albans. They are to lose their accident and emergency service, and it would seem that they are not to have any form of transitional service for the following six weeks.
There are several other matters that are of great concern to my constituents in London Colney and elsewhere, including the other residents of St. Albans. Important issues remain to be resolved, including transport to Hemel Hempstead. Many patients have to use public transport or private transport to reach a hospital, but many of my constituents will be faced with a difficult journey. Some of them will have to endure two such journeys. I have much in mind my constituents in London Colney, who will have to travel into St. Albans and then on to Hemel Hempstead.
I appreciate that the health authority has considered these matters and that it proposes to provide a bus service from the centre of St. Albans to the hospital at Hemel Hempstead, but that service will operate for only certain hours of the day. It may be suitable for those who are visiting the hospital, but it will not be satisfactory for casualty patients or for those who wish for any other reason to use the hospital outside the hours of the service. I hope that attention will be given to that and to the predicament of elderly people. I know that there are many elderly people in London Colney and the rest of St. Albans who use the hospital there. I am mindful of the journeys that they will have to undertake. I invite the health authority to give special consideration to those people a nd the arduous nature of the journeys that they will have to undertake.
There is concern that there should be a continuation of maternity services at St. Albans. These services, in their full form, are to be centralised at Hemel Hempstead. What level of service will remain at St. Albans? There is uncertainty about that because different suggestions have been made. I urge that the health authority should follow the recommendations that are set out in the report that was specially commissioned to examine maternity services in St. Albans under Dr. Elizabeth Scott. I believe that it should implement as many of those recommendations as possible, especially those that relate to community midwifery, which were considered to be extremely valuable by the authoress of the report.
I have referred to several important issues for the people of St. Albans, including my constituents in London Colney. There is a great sense of disappointment, as there would naturally be in any district at the loss of such a hospital. Much local concern arises from that.
I know that St. Albans residents of all shades of opinion are united in wanting their hospital to remain in the form, and with the level of service, to which they are accustomed. I invite the House to consider the views of those local residents. We must take into account the views of the users of our services and give due weight to their opinions. So strongly expressed are the opinions of those in St. Albans at present that I can only urge the House to give full weight to them, and can only ask for the maximum possible provision to be given for accident and emergency and for other services remaining in St. Albans. The people will at least be able to feel that, although their hospital has been changed and its services have been centralised, they still

1089
retain high-quality and safe services. That is the very least that I ask on behalf of the residents of St. Albans this evening.
10.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for raising this important issue. The debate gives me the opportunity to place on record the reasons for the decisions which have been arrived at and also to set out what I believe to be some of the advantages which will accrue from North West Hertfordshire health authority's proposals for centralising acute services within the district. I hope, too, that I can allay some of the concerns that my hon. Friend has shared with the House this evening.
The problems of the health authority's acute services are, of course, long standing. In November 1989, the health authority began a comprehensive review of its acute services, as it was becoming an increasingly untenable proposition to continue to provide the full range of acute services on two hospital sites—at Hemel Hempstead General and St. Albans City hospitals. The need for change was dominated by a concern for quality and safety of care together with the ability to ensure that the provision of viable, cost-effective services was maintained. The key elements of such a service were defined as recruitment and retention of specialist skilled staff, accredited junior doctor posts with the right mix of volume and experience, and the optimum use of resources, both revenue and capital.
There were a number of compelling reasons for change. Action needed to be taken to ensure that the unit, in competing with other hospitals for limited numbers of staff, was in the best possible position to recruit extra nurses, midwives and support workers. To reduce junior doctors' hours, additional doctors would be required across both hospital sites. However, the number of posts recognised for training is strictly regulated by the Department of Health and the royal colleges because of the need for a full range of experience. Posts not recognised for training do not attract good staff. Moreover, experience was showing that the two hospitals could not attract junior staff to existing posts.
There was also the issue of the optimum size for a viable unit and the need to concentrate expertise to provide good quality care. The unit has failed to attract specialist services which it might otherwise have been expected to attract because neither St. Albans nor Hemel could sustain such services in individual hospitals.
Finally, there is a continuing need to replace dilapidated building stock with appropriate new facilities designed to meet the demands of modern medical techniques and procedures.
The report of the 1989 review concluded that accident and emergency services, paediatrics and maternity services could not be replicated efficiently and safely on two sites, only a few miles apart, within the district. It was important to achieve the concentration of expensive and sophisticated diagnostic and treatment technology and highly trained staff necessary for all those services and, indeed, to address concerns about the accreditation of medical posts and the supervision of junior doctors. Two hospitals, each
1090
attempting to provide the same services and competing for staff, would represent a diminished service, becoming unsafe and eventually uneconomic.
In 1990, following full public consultation, the health authority submitted proposals to the Department of Health, which recommended the centralisation of most acute services on one site. Hemel Hempstead was chosen because the existing buildings at Hemel could better cope with the additional work load. The implications of the proposals for the residents of St. Albans were considered carefully by officials in my Department over several months.
In January 1992, my predecessor rejected the overall proposals on the grounds that they did not give sufficient weight to the need for local access to hospital services for St. Albans residents. However, he agreed that acute accident and emergency services could be centralised in Hemel Hempstead, accepting the clear evidence that that would offer a higher quality and, above all, safer service to all residents of the district.
My predecessor also approved the centralisation of in-patient maternity services at Hemel. Maternity services had been temporarily centralised at St. Albans in 1989. They are now housed in an excellent new consultant maternity unit in Hemel Hempstead.
My predecessor also gave approval of the establishment of an elective surgical unit in St. Albans, but asked the health authority to draw up detailed proposals which would maximise services to patients in St. Albans. He asked the health authority to consider plans for the provision of services at St. Albans to treat the majority of minor accidents and examine models of maternity provision—general practitioner or midwife-led—which would respect the understandable wishes of pregnant women in St. Albans not to have to travel to Hemel Hempstead for delivery unless absolutely necessary.
I must emphasise that my predecessor's decision did not challenge the concept of centralisation. I am convinced by the arguments in favour of centralisation, especially in the interests of safety, quality and efficiency for the district as a whole. The concern then was to find a configuration of services which allowed major acute and emergency services to be provided on one site, but which still retained a wide range of services for the majority of local residents at the other.
The health authority prepared its response in the light of my predecessor's letter and, having tested public reaction, submitted revised proposals to my Department in October 1992. I gave those proposals careful consideration and visited the district to see the services provided, assess the impact of the revised proposals and hear at first hand the views of the local people—the patients, consultants and others.
I was satisfied that the health authority had not only responded to my predecessor's request for reconsideration but adapted the original proposals as far as possible in the light of public concern. I believe that the health authority had demonstrated cost-effectiveness, increased quality and safety in its revised proposals and that the district as a whole stood to benefit. I therefore approved phase 1 of the scheme.
I will briefly outline the health authority's revised proposals. They provide for additional staffing, equipment and training for the community midwifery service so that home births can be offered as an option to women who are assessed to be at low risk of complications and for

1091
improvements in antenatal care provision in St. Albans with the provision of an antenatal day care unit there. Those recommendations enhance the centralised inpatient service provided at Hemel Hempstead and ensure that a high quality maternity service is provided for all mothers in north-west Hertfordshire.
The proposals also provide for the creation in St. Albans of a new elective surgical unit of 60 beds in the Moynihan block and a new day care unit in the main theatre complex in the Gloucester wing. Those proposals maximise theatre utilisation and provide capacity for up to 7,000 in-patients per annum at St. Albans City hospital. Most importantly, those plans are sufficiently flexible to allow for an increase in the number of elective beds in line with the demands of purchasers.
A project team led by the unit's director of quality assurance has now been established to oversee the development of a minor accident treatment unit, and I have noted carefully the remarks of my hon. Friend about that. Initially, the unit will be run by nurse practitioners and operate between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm, seven days a week.
That will provide a valuable service by greatly increasing the number of minor accident cases which can be treated in St. Albans rather than in the major accident and emergency department at Hemel Hempstead. It will provide much speedier treatment of a range of minor accidents and injuries for the residents of St. Albans. Whether that can be upgraded to, for example, a GP-led service, depends very much on the attitude of local GPs. I am pleased to say that the health authority is in discussion with local GPs and that it seems likely that the service can, indeed, be expanded. Having said that, I note what my hon. Friend said about other features of the arrangement and about the six weeks following the closure.
In-patient paediatric services are now concentrated on the Hemel Hempstead general hospital site. The concentration of services has allowed the unit to satisfy itself and the local population that a safe and good quality service can be provided. As a consequence, nurse staffing levels, particularly the availability of RSCNs, have improved. On medical staffing the service is now fully supported by permanent medical staff rather than a series of short-term locum doctors. The consultant paediatri-cians can now focus their availability to deal with emergencies on the one site, where both paediatrics and the special care baby unit are located.
Out-patient children's services continue to be available on the St. Albans city hospital site. In addition, arrangements are also in place for children to attend St. Albans for the removal of dressings, and so on. In addition, from 1 April this year the unit plans to offer a monthly paediatric day surgery service for children from the St. Albans area.
I am, of course, aware that public opinion, especially in the eastern part of the district, has remained antagonistic to the proposals. It was largely on account of the strength of local feeling that I took the decision to assess the scheme personally, even though the capital investment called for
1092
by the revised proposals is within the limit for the regional health authority to take such a decision without referring to Ministers.
In giving approval to the proposals, I made plain to the health authority the need to gain public confidence by emphasising the benefits of the reconfiguration. I am pleased to note, therefore, that the authority has drawn up comprehensive plans to ensure effective communications to reassure the public about hospital services—for example, by deploying local newspapers to inform the public of the services available to them.
Most public concern has been centred on the closure of the accident and emergency services in St. Albans and the related issue of ambulance services. I am assured that the "blue light" journey times between St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead will not be more than 15 minutes. In any case, ambulances would take urgent cases to the nearest accident and emergency department with the most appropriate facilities. Five hospitals with such facilities ring the district within eight to 16 miles of St. Albans.
In the event of a major accident, there is access to more than 100 paramedics across the two counties. Within the district there are currently 18, a number which will rise to 24—the national target—by 1994. That would represent one out of every two ambulance staff trained as paramedics and a paramedic on every available ambulance. I stress the importance of pre-hospital care in the treatment of accidents and emergencies today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, public concern has focused on the difficulties of access and parking at Hemel Hempstead. I am pleased to report that the health authority has taken positive steps to address those anxieties. Access will eventually be improved by a county and borough council plan for a new spur road and by agreements which will give 250 additional parking places.
Proposals for the provision of an hourly inter-hospital bus service are currently being assessed and the service will become operational from early March. I understand very well the strength of feeling. During the two visits that I made to the district, I was left in no doubt about it by the public reaction. It has also been made known to me by pressure from Members of Parliament, including in particular my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
A certain misunderstanding and misapprehension also exists about the nature of the proposals. Much opposition has focused on the perceived diminution of service, as though the closure of St. Albans hospital were being considered. For the reasons that I have given, nothing could be further from the truth.
In conclusion, I am confident that once the new proposals are clearly communicated and understood they will be of benefit to the residents of north-west Hertfordshire by providing them with a safe and high quality health service of which they can be proud. I hope that all local interested parties can work together with the health authority to ensure the smooth implementation of the proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Privity of Contract and Estate
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when it is intended to introduce legislation to implement the Law Commission's report on "Privity of Contract and Estate"—Law Commission No. 95; and what representations the Lord Chancellor has received from the business community about legislation on this subject.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is actively considering the recommendations of the Law Commission on this subject and hopes to be able to make an announcement in the near future. He has received representations from both tenants and landlords and is well aware of their respective interests.

  Parking Fines (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the revenue from on-street parking fines in Liverpool for the past three financial years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The fines, fees and fixed penalties collected by the magistrates courts are remitted to the Exchequer as an aggregate amount and the proportion relating to parking penalties cannot therefore be separately identified.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the adult population in England is currently eligible for legal aid; and what is his estimate of the proportion of the adult population which after 1 April will be eligible for legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Estimates of eligibility that have been made are based on family expenditure survey data and relate to households. The proportion of households currently eligible for civil legal aid is estimated to be between 50 and 55 per cent. in England and Wales. I estimate that after the changes are introduced in April about 48 per cent. of households in England and Wales will be eligible for civil legal aid. There is no upper financial limit for criminal legal aid: all those whose financial resources are such that they require assistance in meeting their costs are eligible and will continue to be eligible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Martial Arts Weapons
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ban the importation of martial arts knives and similar weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The importation of 14 types of offensive weapon, including certain martial arts knives, is already prohibited by virtue of an order made under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  My right hon. and learned Friend will consider, in the light of all the evidence, whether further restrictions on the importation of any offensive weapon that is brought to his attention are necessary.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which his Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A provisional list of regulations that impact on business has recently been put together by my Department. I shall place the list in the Library once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consistency of definition.

  Prison, Fazakerley
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a decision has yet been made on the proposal to build a prison at Fazakerley in Liverpool.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government believe that there is a clear need for more secure prison places in the north-west. A new prison at Fazakerley would enable us to locate many prisoners from Merseyside much closer to home than is now possible. I have looked into the concerns expressed against building a prison at Fazakerley, but have concluded that the site is suitable for such a use. In view of the planning authority's reservations the matter will now he referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment who will consider its request that the matter should be the subject of a public inquiry.

  Police Restructuring
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has had, or proposes to have, with the Greater Manchester police authority about the restructuring of police forces and police authorities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has not held discussions with individual police authorities. He is considering what reforms in police organisation and structure may be needed. He will announce his proposals as soon as possible. Interested parties will be consulted before final decisions are reached.

  Drugs, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new strategies he intends to promote to tackle drug problems in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's overall strategy for tackling drug misuse is aimed at reducing both the supply of and the demand for drugs throughout the United Kingdom.

  Local drugs prevention teams have been set up in both Manchester and Salford under the Home Office drugs prevention initiative, and they will continue to work with the local community in finding effective ways of preventing the spread of drug misuse.

  Greater Manchester, like other areas, will also benefit from other aspects of the Government's drug strategy such as the assistance we are providing to other countries to help reduce the supply of drugs into this country and the tougher controls which we are introducing on precursor and essential chemicals.

  At the national level, we are committed to bringing forward proposals to ensure that the control of drug misuse is co-ordinated effectively, and the Criminal Justice Bill which we hope to bring before the House shortly, further tightens the law on drug trafficking and money laundering.

  Youth Crime, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to deal with car crimes committed by young people in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government has encouraged the police and other agencies in the development of effective crime prevention programmes aimed at tackling youth crime and has funded a number of initiatives. The Home Office safer cities projects in the Greater Manchester area, Salford and Rochdale, have committed £120,000 and £18,000 respectively in 1992–93 to schemes aimed at diverting young people from crime, including car crime. We also established local drug prevention teams in Manchester and Salford in February 1992 with the aim of tackling the spread of drug misuse, particularly among the young. In addition the Home Office currently funds four projects which, in the main, are aimed at providing programmes of supervision or support for young offenders and defendants, in the Greater Manchester probation area through its probation supervision grant scheme. An application in respect of a go-kart project is in the early stages of consideration. The Department of Education announced recently that Manchester is to receive £147,000 in 1992–1993 under its grants for education support and training programme for youth crime prevention schemes. Five estates are targeted and the schemes will focus on car crime and burglary.

  As part of its programme of action on youth crime for 1993, Crime Concern is planning a series of regional seminars, one of which is to be held in the north-west, on best practice in diverting young people from crime.
  622
  The Government are also considering what means might be needed to reduce offending by the very small group of persistent juvenile offenders.

  Wolds Prison
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grade of staff member has been appointed race relations liaison officer at the Wolds prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The post of race relations liaison officer at HM prison Wolds is held by the training manager. Staff at Wolds are not ascribed grades as such.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on staff there were at the Wolds prison between 1 July and 31 December 1992; and what was the average population of prisoners at the Wolds during this period.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During the period in question there were 16 assaults on staff by prisoners. The average prisoner population was 195.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many disciplinary adjudications were carried out at the Wolds prison in the most recent convenient month; in how many cases prisoners were found guilty; in how many cases prospective loss of remission was ordered; and what was the average number of days' remission forfeited.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In December 1992, 71 adjudications were carried out at HM prison Wolds. Prisoners were found guilty in 62 cases and punishment of prospective added days was used in 22 cases. The average number of days forfeited was 3.8.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults by prisoners on other prisoners took place at the Wolds prison between 1 July and 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Twelve incidents of assault by prisoners on other prisoners took place at HM prison Wolds during the period in question.

  Prison Staff (Ethnic Origins)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) black and (b) female prison officers, there were in 1963, 1970, 1980, 1990 and at the latest available date; and what proportion these figures form of the total prison staff establishment;

  (2) how many (a) black and (b) female prison governors, there were in 1963, 1970, 1980, 1990 and at the latest available date; and what proportion these figures form of the total number of prison governors.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Prison Service is currently in the process of conducting a voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of its staff, and until that survey is complete we shall not have comprehensive data. However, the tables set out the information currently available on staff who have recorded their ethnic origin as other than white.
  623

  Prison officer grades

  Total number in officer grades

  Number of non-white officers

  Number of women number officers

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1 February 1993

  24,135

  173

  0·7

  2,106

  8·7

  1 January 1990

  20,710

  26

  0·1

  1,711

  8·3

  1 January 1980

  15,548

  1

  —

  629

  4·0

  1 Figures not available.

  Governor grades

  Total number in governor grades

  Number of non-white staff in governor grades

  Number of women officers in governor grades

  per cent.

  1 February 1993

  1,024

  0

  92

  9·0

  1 January 1990

  884

  0

  86·5

  9·8

  1 January 1980

  565

  1

  40

  7·1

  1 Figures not available.

  Figures for 1963 and 1970 are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, if at all. Figures for prison officers relate to unified grades from prison officer to principal officer.

  Prison Officers
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers are working in prisons where the prisoners are of the opposite sex.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 1,124 female prison officers work in establishments with male prisoners and 110 male prison officers work in establishments with female prisoners. One hundred and sixty-one female prison officers and 649 male prison officers work in establishments with prisoners of both sexes.

  Prisoners (Cardphones)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many prisons prisoners now have access to cardphones; and when inmates of all prisons will have access to cardphones.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Cardphones for prisoners' use are available in all establishments in England and Wales, except Durham prison and Wormwood Scrubs, where installation is due to take place by the end of February.

  Prisoners' Clothing
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many prisons sentenced prisoners are allowed to wear their own clothes; and what plans he has to extend this to all prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Prisoners other than convicted male prisoners are allowed to wear their own clothes, and the Government aim progressively to allow convicted male prisoners to wear their own clothes.

  Prisoners at Belmarsh, High Down and Woodhill prisons have been allowed to wear their own clothes since they opened in 1991 and 1992. Formal trials are being held at Her Majesty's prison Wellingborough and in
  624
  Huntercombe and Finnamore Wood young offender institutions to assess the implications of a more general move towards prisoners wearing their own clothes. In addition, some other establishments allow male convicted prisoners to wear certain items of their own clothing.

  Prisoners in category C and D establishments, including open young offender institutions, are allowed to wear their own socks and underwear if adequate laundering or exchange arrangements are available and they may also be allowed to wear their own shoes.

  The scope for further relaxations will be considered later this year in the light of the trials.

  Prison Service Agency
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the framework agreement for the Prison Service Agency to be finalised.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I plan to publish the agency's framework document on 1 April, when the agency is launched.

  Remand Prisoners
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all area criminal justice consultative committees have discussed the Criminal Justice Consultative Council paper on prisoners awaiting trial and reported back to the council.

  Mr. Jack
  All area committees are to discuss this paper which was published on 1 December 1992. Those that have not already dealt with this matter are scheduled to do so at their next meeting.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults by prisoners on other prisoners took place in male prisons holding remand prisoners in the most recent six-month period for which figures are available; and what was the average population of those prisons during that period.
  625
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The provisional figure for assaults by prisoners on other prisoners in male prisons holding remand prisoners during July to December 1992 is 460 and the average population was 17,162.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on staff there were in male prisons holding remand prisoners in the most recent six months period for which figures are available; and what was the average population of those prisons during that period.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The provisional figure for assaults on staff, including attempted assaults, in male prisons holding remand prisoners during July to December 1992 is 535 and the average population was 17,162.

  Criminal Justice Consultative Council
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how often the Criminal Justice Consultative Council has met; and what topics it has discussed;

  (2) what plans there are for the Criminal Justice Consultative Council to produce an annual report of its work; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Jack
  The Criminal Justice Consultative Council has met on five occasions. It has discussed the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; the establishment of area criminal justice liaison committees; projections for the criminal justice system; prisoners awaiting trial; race issues within the criminal justice system; the mode of trial decisions and sentencing; notification of guilty pleas at an early stage; the public expenditure survey 1992 as it relates to the criminal justice system; the criminal justice special conferences programme 1993–94 and its own programme of work.

  The council will produce a report of its first year's work which will be published after its next meeting on 22 April.

  Prisoners (Televisions)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many prisons prisoners are allowed television in their cells; and what plans he has to extend this to all prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following the announcement in the White Paper, "Custody, Care and Justice", a trial of battery-operated televisions began at HMP The Mount in December 1991 and of mains-powered sets at HMP Stocken in October 1992. Television in cells has also been allowed in some other establishments, including HMP Garth and HM young offenders institution, Feltham, and we are considering allowing televisions in cells in some other prisons.

  The trials are addressing a number of issues including safety, security, licensing, cost and effects on prisoners' behaviour and participation in regime activities. The trials are being evaluated and decisions on whether to extend the availability of in-cell television further will be taken as soon as possible.

  Prison Meals
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to serve meals in prisons at times of day which correspond more closely to mealtimes outside prison.
  626
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A model regime for local prisons and remand centres was published in November 1992 which governors are expected to work towards. This sets out reasonable times at which meals should be served. A code of standards for the Prison Service is also being developed, for publication by the end of the year, and is expected to include provisions about mealtimes. At contracted prisons, there is a contractual obligation to provide meals at normal times.

  Prison Staff (Name Badges)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many prisons staff now wear name badges; and when staff in all prisons will be required to wear name badges.

  Mr. Jack
  It is a commitment by Her Majesty's Prison Service that all staff in both headquarters and establishments will be required to wear name badges from 1 April 1993 when they come in contact with the general public and prisoners. Many staff have already been issued with their name badges and are being encouraged to begin wearing them, but as the manufacture and issue of these name badges is a rolling programme aimed for completion by 19 March 1993, it is not possible at this point in the programme to indicate how many prison establishments have received their badges.

  Police Officers (Plumstead)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed number of police officers in the Plumstead division of the Metropolitan police for 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: There are currently 257 officers in the Plumstead division.

  Allocation of officers in the Metropolitan police district is a matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police. I understand that at present there are no plans to alter the number of officers stationed at Plumstead.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many potential contractors have bid to provide prison education services in 1993–94; how many bids are from local education authorities; and how many are from colleges of further education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 January 1993, c. 597.]: A total of 154 bids have been received to provide future education services in one or a number of prison establishments. Of these, 113 are from colleges and institutions of further education, 28 from private sector organisations and 13 from local education authorities.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science Budget
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the distribution of the science budget in 1993–94.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have considered the Advisory Board for the Research Councils' recommendations on the
  627
  distribution of the science budget, and have decided to accept the advice that the £1,164.56 million for 1993–94 should, subject to approval by Parliament of the estimates in due course, be allocated as follows:

  Allocations for 1993–94

  £ million

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  109·8

  Economic and Social Research Council

  53·5

  Medical Research Council

  256·9

  Natural Environment Research Council

  140·0

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  582·1

  The Royal Society

  18·5

  The Royal Academy of Engineering

  1·7

  Other, including OST initiatives, ABRC Science Policy Studies and CEST subscription

  2·0

  1,164·6

  I am publishing the board's advice today. Copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  European Bioinformatics Institute
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps the Government are taking to secure the establishment of the European Bioinformatics Institute in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am delighted to announce that the United Kingdom has today submitted a bid to host the European Bioinformatics Institute at Cambridge. This presents an exciting and important opportunity for the United Kingdom to secure an international research facility at the forefront of modern science and in an area of great and increasing importance for health care and for industry.

  The EBI will be an out-station of the European molecular biology laboratory in Heidelberg. Its task will be to provide a database of biological information to researchers throughout Europe. The bid is being underwritten by the Medical Research Council, with support from the Wellcome Trust. Copies of the full text have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Scientists
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he is considering to provide incentives for scientists to continue to work within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government provide substantial funding to maintain a healthy science base in this country and to ensure continuing opportunities for our scientists. The question of career structures for scientists is one which is being examined in the context of the forthcoming White Paper on science and technology.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Investment Bank
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the new projects that are to be submitted for financing by the European investment bank and their approximate cost.

  Mr. Nelson
  The European investment bank—EIB—is required by its statute to seek the opinion of EC member 628
  states in whose territory a project is situated before considering it for approval. The Government are, and will remain, in close contact with the EIB, to discuss proposals submitted by United Kingdom organisations for new investment projects. However, projects under consideration are classified by the EIB as commercially confidential and it would therefore be inappropriate for the Government to list those in the United Kingdom, before the loans had been approved by the bank's board of directors.

  Household Debt
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of debt per household for every £100 of disposable income for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for the level of household debt outstanding are not available. The levels of debt of the personal sector, which includes apart from households, all unincorporated private businesses, sole traders, partnerships, non-profit-making bodies, serving persons and private trusts, per £100 of disposable income for the years 1979–91 were as follows:

  £

  1979

  57

  1980

  57

  1981

  62

  1982

  67

  1983

  74

  1984

  79

  1985

  85

  1986

  90

  1987

  98

  1988

  106

  1989

  111

  1990

  116

  1991

  116

  Charities (VAT Rebates)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received to date calling for the introduction of a VAT rebate scheme for charities within the next Budget.

  Sir John Cope
  A considerable number.

  Debt Payments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) of 18 November,Official Report, column 225, when the new contracting terms for Government contractors to be paid within 30 days came into effect.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: Guidance was issued on 14 April 1992 to all Government Departments and executive agencies. For all contract award procedures initiated after that date, all Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay subcontractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract, or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the subcontractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

SCOTLAND

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Since November 1991 two firms of consultants have been used by my Department in connection with my market testing programme. Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte helped to undertake the initial scoping exercise to identify possible activities for market testing in my Department. Capita Management Consultancy is being used to assist my Department in undertaking the 1992–93 market testing programme. The total cost of these consultants up to the end of December 1992 has been £207,625 excluding VAT and expenses.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report on drinking water quality in Scotland in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  A report has been published today by the Scottish Office Environment Department which gives an overview of drinking water quality in Scotland in 1991, under the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 and associated regulations. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The report shows that drinking water quality in 1991 has improved since 1990 as a result of the action taken by authorities to deal with water quality problems. In 1991, 98 per cent. of all regulatory determinands met the prescribed standards compared with 97 per cent. in 1990. Reported data also showed that for 48 out of 55 numerical standards, 99.8 per cent. of analytical results complied compared with 99.6 per cent. in 1990.

  The failures to meet quality standards fully did not represent a risk to public health.

  Ministers' Health
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice is given to Ministers in his Department(a) concerning their own personal fitness and (b) their role in promoting good health by example.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer of 21 January 1993]: Having published the policy statement "Scotland's Health: A Challenge To Us All", my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues are fully aware of the life style factors which contribute to personal fitness and good health. We are also firmly committed to the undertaking in the statement that the Scottish Office will develop health promotion policies as exemplars for other employers, and this process has already begun.

  Shetlands (Oil Pollution)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice his Department took before authorising the use of chemical dispersants on the Braer oil slick off the Shetland Islands.
  630
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: My Department's marine scientists have extensive knowledge of dispersants because of their long involvement with the North sea offshore oil industry. The limits on the sea area in which spraying could take place followed discussions which local fisheries and environmental interests.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what permission he has given for the use of Dispolene 34S and Enersperse dispersants to break up the oil slick from the Braer tanker accident off Shetland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: My Department authorised the use of type 2 and type 3 dispersants, of which Dispolene and Enersperse are two varieties.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will make a statement on the preparedness of further education colleges to transfer from local authority control on 1 April 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: Colleges are in a good state of readiness. New management structures are in place and the necessary management systems are being set up. Those working in colleges are to be congratulated on the good progress which has been made.

  Tree Planting
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of(a) Forestry Commission planting, (b) private planting and (c) new trees have been planted in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales and (iii) England each year since 1981; and what were the Government targets for these years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: Information on the planting undertaken by the Forestry Commission and the private sector since 1981 is given in the tables.

  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Younger, stated on 10 December 1980, Official Report, column 927:
  "there should be scope for new planting to continue in the immediate future at broadly the rate of the past 25 years" that is about 30,000 hectares a year. In his statement on the rural economy made on 9 February 1987, Official Report, columns 38–39, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Jopling, announced that the Government's new planting aim would be changed to 33,000 hectares a year. This remains the indicative level.

  Forestry Commission planting

  hectares

  New planting

  Restocking

  Year ending 31 March

  broadleaves

  conifer

  broadleaves

  conifer

  Scotland

  1982

  36

  10,058

  14

  2,023

  1983

  50

  7,971

  15

  2,274

  1984

  36

  7,674

  15

  2,632

  1985

  42

  4,735

  16

  2,429

  1986

  41

  3,997

  71

  3,292

  631

  New planting

  Restocking Year

  Year ending 31 March

  broadleaves

  conifer

  broadleaves

  conifer

  1987

  221

  4,845

  212

  3,107

  1988

  297

  4,320

  382

  3,145

  1989

  243

  3,671

  283

  3,561

  1990

  224

  3,563

  298

  3,486

  1991

  191

  3,275

  211

  3,453

  1992

  223

  2,651

  270

  3,358

  Wales

  1982

  0

  326

  21

  1,503

  1983

  11

  425

  11

  1,471

  1984

  4

  271

  15

  1,524

  1985

  12

  149

  32

  1,268

  1986

  2

  47

  29

  1,749

  1987

  3

  135

  168

  1,767

  1988

  9

  148

  119

  1,922

  1989

  0

  61

  119

  1,617

  1990

  10

  86

  91

  1,273

  1991

  3

  12

  82

  1,390

  1992

  5

  50

  175

  1,599

  England

  1982

  15

  543

  125

  1,824

  1983

  23

  406

  178

  1,849

  1984

  11

  386

  211

  2,356

  1985

  7

  160

  88

  2,083

  1986

  13

  233

  206

  1,950

  1987

  46

  92

  374

  2,410

  1988

  67

  111

  323

  2,286

  1989

  31

  99

  376

  2,519

  1990

  27

  171

  433

  2,284

  1991

  7

  27

  323

  2,163

  1992

  17

  53

  345

  2,513

  Private sector planting

  Hectares

  Year Ending 31 March

  New Planting

  Restocking

  Broadleaves

  Conifer

  Broadleaves

  Conifer

  Scotland

  1982

  56

  10,607

  105

  1,234

  1983

  95

  9,991

  63

  905

  1984

  141

  13,988

  88

  931

  1985

  127

  14,008

  122

  1,055

  1986

  245

  17,047

  184

  1,375

  1987

  439

  16,781

  266

  1,281

  1988

  1,084

  20,113

  448

  1,212

  1989

  1,551

  20,882

  657

  1,591

  1990

  2,284

  9,204

  852

  1,132

  1991

  2,640

  7,923

  1,170

  1,670

  1992

  2,540

  7,285

  1,168

  2,042

  Wales

  1982

  41

  963

  36

  187

  1983

  60

  851

  48

  108

  1984

  90

  974

  29

  84

  1985

  34

  884

  46

  76

  1986

  41

  702

  72

  362

  1987

  134

  574

  51

  229

  1988

  262

  683

  134

  342

  1989

  213

  710

  104

  152

  1990

  232

  320

  161

  109

  1991

  228

  282

  153

  143

  1992

  218

  138

  219

  360

  England

  1982

  297

  498

  726

  1,162

  1983

  445

  1,069

  800

  1,194

  1984

  447

  1,033

  916

  1,019

  1985

  434

  542

  884

  883

  1986

  563

  421

  1,236

  1,110

  1987

  775

  444

  1,522

  1,122

  1988

  1,149

  530

  1,745

  973

  632

  Year Ending 31 March

  New Planting

  Restocking

  Broadleaves

  Conifer

  Broadleaves

  Conifer

  1989

  997

  755

  1,414

  916

  1990

  2,611

  755

  2,532

  1,339

  1991

  3,455

  908

  2,824

  1,146

  1992

  3,275

  691

  2,590

  1,452

WALES

  Wayne Darvell
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what reasons underlay his decision on the provision of community support for Wayne Darvell following his release after the quashing last year of his conviction for murder; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The assessment of need for, and provision of, services in the community for any individual is a matter for the relevant statutory authorities—including the social services authority and/or health authority—acting in consultation with one another. I am advised that West Glamorgan social services department had already sought to give help to Mr. Darvell when he was in their area. Most recently, I understand Mr. Darvell is now living in South Glamorgan where he has been seen by health and social services staff who are discussing his needs with him.

  Travellers and Displaced Persons
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the date on which his Department invited local authorities to bid for the specific grants for the education of travellers and displaced persons in the financial year 1993–94.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No new bids have been invited for 1993–94. The programme for 1993–94 will support expenditure of £100,000 relating to ongoing projects in Gwynedd, Dyfed and South Glamorgan.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February,Official Report, columns 2–3, if he will give further details of the capital programme for the year 1993–94 and the percentage rate of increase thereof since the year 1987–88.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish figures for(a) the gross budget for capital expenditure and (b) net budget for capital expenditure in respect of his Department's programmes (i) for each year from 1987–88 to 1992–93 and (ii) planned for 1993–94;

  (2) if he will publish figures for (a) gross capital expenditure and (b) net capital expenditure in respect of his Department's programmes for each year from 1987–88 to 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:
  633

  Capital expenditure within the responsibility of and allocated by the Welsh Office1

  £ million

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  21987–88

  981

  822

  21988–89

  1,050

  777

  21989–90

  1,206

  910

  21990–91

  1,220

  1,037

  21991–92

  1,288

  1,136

  31992–93

  1,369

  1,180

  41993–94

  1,497

  1,257

  1 The figures do not take account of changes in functional responsibilities.

  2 Outturn.

  3 1992–93—Forecast Outturn. The special package of housing measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1992 Autumn Statement—£38 million—is additional to the forecast outturn shown.

  4 1993–94—Plans. Planned gross expenditure in 1993–94—£1,497 million—represents an increase of 52.6 per cent. over the outturn for 1987–88; an increase of 8 per cent. in real terms.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish the right of employees of statutory bodies in Wales to make claims for a specified number of work days each year for attending courses to assist with the reading, writing and speaking of Welsh.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The provision of opportunities for employees to learn Welsh is a matter for individual employers and organisations to consider.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much financial assistance has been provided by his Department to establish Welsh language learning centres in Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will list the amount granted to each centre.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office awards grant aid to a number of organisations which support Welsh language learning, for example the Urdd, local authorities and the learners' organisation CYD. Figures for grants awarded in respect of learning centres run by these organisations are not kept separately. However, direct support for the Welsh language centres at Nant Gwrtheyrn and Canolfan Iaith Clwyd over the last five years has been as follows:

  Year

  Total

  1988–89

  49,000

  1989–90

  76,000

  1990–91

  105,000

  1991–92

  93,500

  1 1992–93

  103,000

  1 Provision.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been allocated by his Department in each of the last five years to assist directly the marketing of Welsh learners' courses for adults.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Direct Welsh Office support for teaching Welsh to adults over the financial years 1990–91 to 1992–93 is as follows. Figures for previous years were not kept separately.
  634

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  538,000

  1991–92

  645,000

  1992–93

  1697,000

  1 Provision.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hired consultants have been employed by(a) central and (b) local government and by the public sector excluding local government in Wales to advise on the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering to (i) professional and specialist services, (ii) executive and clerical operations, (iii) office services and (iv) estate and construction services since the publication of the "Competing for Quality" White Paper; and what was the total cost of hiring consultants according to (1) the type of work to be tendered and (2) the organisation conducting or partaking in the tendering process.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is not available in the form requested. Three firms of consultants have been employed by the Welsh Office to advise on the Department's own current market testing programme. The cost to date of employing these consultants is £25,000. Information on the employment of consultants by other parts of the public sector is not collected centrally.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on recent air quality audits conducted in Wales by the Warren Spring Laboratory on behalf of the Government.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Warren Spring Laboratory conducted a survey of nitrogen dioxide levels in the United Kingdom in 1991–92. All the readings for Wales were well below EC guideline limits.

  The laboratory is also currently taking measurements in Wales as part of a survey of toxic organic micropollutants in urban air and an interim report was published in September 1992. Monitoring is continuing and trends in readings are being analysed.

  Copies of the published reports of both surveys are held in the Library of the House.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what specific processes have been established by his Department to monitor the effectiveness of contracted-out services in comparison to services undertaken prior to contractorisation in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Monitoring of contracted-out service delivery in the local authority and health service sectors is the responsibility of those sectors. Specifications for contracts let in respect of the Department's own current market testing programme will be performance-based and will form the basis for the monitoring of the service deliverer's performance.

  Credit Approvals
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 10, what is the estimated amount in the reduction of basic credit approvals (a) to Mid-Glamorgan and (b) to Welsh counties arising from the transfer of further education institutions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Local authority credit approvals have been reduced in total by £8.915 million in 1993–94 compared with the level which would otherwise have been set to take account of the transfer of further education institutions. A deduction was not made as such for each individual county. Basic credit approvals are allocated according to a formula agreed with the local authority associations.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment is made of environmental factors in encouraging inward investment into Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The excellent environmental attractions of Wales continue to be a factor in encouraging high levels of inward investment.

  Astra Skillcentre
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the south Glamorgan training and enterprise council concerning the future of the Astra skilleentre at Gabalfa, Cardiff.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Recycling
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress made by local authorities in introducing recycling schemes in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  information relating to increases in the number of bottle banks will be published in the 1992 series of the "Environmental Digest for Wales". Definitive information on other aspects of recycling will not be available until district councils complete their recycling plans under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed in the coal industry in(a) Wales and (b) Clwyd in (i) deep mining and (ii) opencast mining in 1980, 1990 and at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The available information is presented in the following table:

  Number employed in coal mining

  1980

  1990

  1992

  Wales

  Deep-mined

  30,842

  4,669

  1,293

  Opencast

  2,265

  1,221

  1,311

  Clwyd

  Deep-mined

  1,322

  587

  437

  636

  1980

  1990

  1992

  North Wales1

  Opencast1

  165

  21

  11

  1 Separate figures for Clwyd are not available.

  Source: British Coal.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed in the steel industry in(a) Wales and (b) Clwyd in 1980, 1989 and at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of people employed in the steel industry in Wales in 1980, 1989 and 1992 were 32,200, 19,400 and 16,500 respectively. Comparable figures for Clwyd cannot be given, as to do so would breach rules of company confidentiality.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed in the aerospace industry in(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales in 1980, 1990 and at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  According to the census of employment, in September 1981 there were 6,500 people employed in the aerospace industry in Wales. In the latest available census, in September 1989, this figure had risen to 9,300.

  Figures at county level cannot be given, as to do so would breach rules of company confidentiality.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many construction workers are currently unemployed in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The sample size for the labour force survey is not sufficiently large to allow a reliable estimate of unemployment by region and by previous industrial sector.

  Road Congestion and Accidents
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost to industry of road congestion and road accidents in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the cost to industry of road congestion and road accidents is not available. The total cost of road accidents in Wales in 1991 is estimated to be £230 million.

  Upland Areas
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning hill livestock compensatory allowances in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received representations from Welsh Members of Parliament, the Welsh fanning organisations and individual farmers in respect of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments in Wales. I have also recently had meetings with two Welsh Members of Parliament, some farmers and representatives from the Welsh farming unions to discuss this matter.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy for upland areas in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  637
  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 19 June 1992, at column 711.

  Liverpool Bay Gas Reserves
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the development in Clwyd of the Liverpool Bay gas reserves; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have received many representations in relation to the application by Hamilton Oil for planning permission for a gas and oil terminal at Point of Ayr, Clwyd. A public local inquiry has been held and a decision will be issued as soon as possible.

  Hospital Incinerators
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospital incinerators in Wales that(a) burn less than 25 kg of clinical waste per hour and (b) burn less than 1 tonne of clinical waste per hour.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no hospital incinerators in Wales that burn less than 25 kg of clinical waste per hour. The hospital incinerators that burn less than 1 tonne of clinical waste per hour are as follows.

  District and location

  Number

  Clwyd

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  1

  Wrexham Maelor General Hospital

  1

  East Dyfed

  West Wales General Hospital

  1

  St. Davids Hospital

  1

  Prince Phillip Hospital

  2

  Bronglais Geriatric Hospital

  2

  Gwent

  Nevill Hall Hospital

  1

  St. Woolos Hospital

  2

  Gwynedd

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  2

  Llandudno General Hospital

  1

  Bryn-y-Neuadd Hospital

  1

  Eryri Hospital

  1

  Bryn Beryl Hospital

  1

  Bron-y-Garth Hospital

  1

  Dolgellau Hospital

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  East Glamorgan General Hospital

  1

  Prince Charles Hospital

  1

  Aberdare General Hospital

  1

  Princess of Wales Hospital

  2

  South Glamorgan

  University Hospital of Wales

  2

  Lansdowne Hospital

  2

  Prince of Wales Hospital

  1

  Sully Hospital

  1

  Llandough Hospital

  1

  West Glamorgan

  Neath General Hospital

  2

  Singleton Hospital

  2

PRIME MINISTER

  Fisheries Decommissioning Scheme
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will administer the fishing decommissioning scheme for the entire United Kingdom fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will administer the decommissioning scheme on behalf of all four fisheries departments. The scheme is part of a package, including effort control measures, designed to conserve fish stocks and help to meet targets the United Kingdom as a whole under the European Community's multi-annual guidance programme.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to co-ordinate the activities of Departments on the transportation of radioactive materials from and to Thorp; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Transport arrangments are the responsibility of the consignor, subject to meeting the requirements of the Department of Transport on safety issues and the Department of Trade and Industry on export control and security issues. The two Departments co-ordinate as necessary.

  Youth Policy
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the establishment of a ministerial group to co-ordinate youth policy across Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The interests of young people can best be served through action which addresses specific issues. Where action involves more than one Department, co-ordination between Ministers takes place. These arrangements work satisfactorily and there is currently no need to establish a formal ministerial group.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Financial Management
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 551, if he will outline the initiatives planned by the Director of Finance and Administration to improve financial management systems in House Departments.

  Mr. Beith
  In addition to the further development of measures already taken, the Director of Finance and Administration is planning to introduce an integrated payroll and personnel system for staff of the House early in the next financial year. A new computer system for the Fees Office is also under consideration.

EDUCATION

  Sanctuary Buildings, London
  Mr Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the amount to be spent in 1993–94 in rent and other costs associated with the offices of his Department in Sanctuary buildings, Great Smith street, London.

  Mr. Boswell
  The estimated rent for Sanctuary buildings for the financial year 1993–94 is £10,368,823. This figure includes the service charge and VAT. The estimated contribution in lieu of rates to be made for Sanctuary buildings is £2,350,400.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing for each education authority the percentage cash increase between education standard spending assessments for 1992–93 and 1993–94; how much of this increase is due to changes in student numbers; how much this increase is in standard 1992–93 price terms, using the inflation estimate in the autumn statement; and what is the percentage relationship of the 1993–94 standard spending assessment with the 1992–93 budget.

  Mr. Boswell
  Local education authorities' standard spending assessments—SSAs—for 1993–94 are not directly comparable with those for 1992–93: they will be lower in cash terms, mainly because local authorities will from this April hand over responsibility for most further education to the Further Education Funding Council, and will begin to relinquish responsibility for school inspections. When

  Adjusted 1992–93 total education SSA

  1993–94 total education SSA

  Actual change

  Percentage change

  Name

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  City

  0·315

  0·425

  0·110

  34·9

  Camden

  57·937

  63·990

  6·053

  10·4

  Greenwich

  98·375

  100·437

  2·062

  2·1

  Hackney

  99·671

  108·349

  8·678

  8·7

  Hammersmith

  48·660

  52·782

  4·122

  8·5

  Islington

  72·477

  76·064

  3·587

  4·9

  Kensington

  32·571

  33·301

  0·730

  2·2

  Lambeth

  115·784

  124·033

  8·249

  7·1

  Lewisham

  99·806

  104·392

  4·586

  4·6

  Southwark

  99·082

  99·952

  0·871

  0·9

  Tower Hamlet

  111·165

  115·580

  4·414

  4·0

  Wandsworth

  86·281

  88·261

  1·980

  2·3

  Westminster

  47·438

  50·212

  2·774

  5·8

  Barking

  57·580

  58·783

  1·203

  2·1

  Barnet

  99·224

  101·703

  2·479

  2·5

  Bexley

  78·775

  81·653

  2·877

  3·7

  Brent

  113·885

  118·569

  4·684

  4·1

  Bromley

  87·346

  89·805

  2·459

  2·8

  Croydon

  107·014

  109·660

  2·646

  2·5

  Ealing

  112·300

  117·801

  5·501

  4·9

  Enfield

  101·415

  104·134

  2·719

  2·7

  Haringey

  88·659

  95·091

  6·433

  7·3

  Harrow

  65·716

  67·112

  1·397

  2·1

  Havering

  78·761

  80·056

  1·294

  1·6

  Hillingdon

  80·024

  82·943

  2·920

  3·6

  Hounslow

  80·439

  81·775

  1·337

  1·7

  Kingston

  40·174

  41·367

  1·193

  3·0

  Merton

  50·246

  52·909

  2·663

  5·3

  Newham

  114·679

  120·318

  5·640

  4·9

  Redbridge

  83·824

  87·990

  4·166

  5·0

  640
  these changes of functions are taken into account, there is an underlying percentage cash increase in the national total of education SSAs of 2.9 per cent. This reflects falling inflation and the Government's policy that in the coming year public sector pay increases should be held to between nil and 1.5 per cent. It also acknowledges differing spending pressures on LEAs including demographic changes, and their general scope for obtaining further improvements in value for money.

  The table sets out for each local education authority the education component of the SSA for 1992–93, adjusted on an estimated basis, to remove the element relating to functions that the LEA will relinquish from next year; and compares this with the education component of the SSA for 1993–94.

  Local authorities' education SSAs for 1993–94 were not calculated by reference to further education student numbers because of the transfer of responsibility for most of further education to the new funding council. The differences in the percentage change in individual LEAs' education SSAs reflect differences between LEAs in the relative rate of growth or decrease of school pupil or client group numbers and changes in LEAs' relative positions on the indices for additional educational needs, sparsity of population, free school meals and area costs.

  The aggregate total of authorities' education budgets for 1992–93 is £19,013 million. The aggregate total of authorities' education SSAs for 1993–94 is £16,530.7 million, which is 13 per cent. less than this total budget figure. However the two figures are not comparable. LEAs' 1992–93 education budgets take account of expenditure on further education, for which local authorities will not be responsible in 1993–94, and expenditure supported by specific grant, which is excluded from the 1993–94 aggregate total of education SSAs.
  641

  Adjusted 1992–93 total education SSA

  1993–94 total education SSA

  Actual change

  Percentage change

  Name

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Richmond

  36·276

  36·953

  0·677

  1·9

  Sutton

  55·265

  57·953

  2·687

  4·9

  Waltham Forest

  88·723

  92·901

  4·178

  4·7

  Birmingham

  429·989

  446·733

  16·745

  3·9

  Coventry

  109·556

  111·417

  1·861

  1·7

  Dudley

  92·276

  93·914

  1·638

  1·8

  Sandwell

  107·961

  111·180

  3·219

  3·0

  Solihull

  60·981

  61·901

  0·920

  1·5

  Walsall

  96·959

  98·193

  1·234

  1·3

  Wolverhampton

  99·013

  100·591

  1·578

  1·6

  Knowsley

  69·951

  71·195

  1·245

  1·8

  Liverpool

  191·778

  198·796

  7·018

  3·7

  St· Helens

  61·859

  61·756

  -·103

  -0·2

  Sefton

  94·835

  95·630

  0·795

  0·8

  Wirral

  120·691

  121·804

  1·113

  0·9

  Bolton

  92·563

  95·090

  2·527

  2·7

  Bury

  52·885

  53·490

  0·605

  1·1

  Manchester

  174·399

  181·953

  7·554

  4·3

  Oldham

  83·168

  82·989

  -0·179

  -0·2

  Rochdale

  76·266

  78·519

  2·253

  3·0

  Salford

  72·810

  75·472

  2·662

  3·7

  Stockport

  84·014

  84·761

  0·747

  0·9

  Tameside

  72·331

  72·772

  0·441

  0·6

  Trafford

  66·897

  68·493

  1·595

  2·4

  Wigan

  98·254

  100·128

  1·874

  1·9

  Barnsley

  70·390

  71·339

  0·950

  1·3

  Doncaster

  109·416

  113·091

  3·675

  3·4

  Rotherham

  90·403

  91·171

  0·768

  0·8

  Sheffield

  154·546

  160·606

  6·061

  3·9

  Bradford

  205·863

  212·346

  6·483

  3·1

  Calderdale

  69·407

  71·397

  1·990

  2·9

  Kirklees

  135·726

  140·873

  5·147

  3·8

  Leeds

  233·570

  238·354

  4·783

  2·0

  Wakefield

  101·202

  101·798

  0·596

  0·6

  Gateshead

  66·353

  68·218

  1·866

  2·8

  Newcastle

  89·701

  92·166

  2·465

  2·7

  North Tyne

  64·449

  63·514

  -0·935

  -1·5

  South Tyne

  52·150

  52·248

  0·098

  0·2

  Sunderland

  104·697

  106·298

  1·601

  1·5

  Isle of Scilly

  1·174

  1·194

  0·020

  1·7

  Avon

  280·449

  290·419

  9·970

  3·6

  Bedfordshire

  197·921

  208·117

  10·196

  5·2

  Berkshire

  254·440

  261·858

  7·418

  2·9

  Buckinghamshire

  234·337

  242·179

  7·842

  3·3

  Cambridge

  212·245

  217·752

  5·507

  2·6

  Cheshire

  312·294

  319·277

  6·983

  2·2

  Cleveland

  214·700

  216·411

  1·712

  0·8

  Cornwall

  150·271

  152·770

  2·499

  1·7

  Cumbria

  155·855

  160·123

  4·269

  2·7

  Derbyshire

  290·215

  296·017

  5·801

  2·0

  Devon

  302·349

  314·363

  12·014

  4·0

  Dorset

  177·658

  185·549

  7·891

  4·4

  Durham

  199·555

  201·760

  2·205

  1·1

  East Sussex

  187·054

  202·200

  15·146

  8·1

  Essex

  512·144

  530·727

  18·614

  3·6

  Gloucestershire

  161·639

  166·832

  5·193

  3·2

  Hampshire

  466·023

  488·477

  22·454

  4·8

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  208·978

  211·588

  2·610

  1·2

  Hertfordshire

  331·486

  340·153

  8·667

  2·6

  Humberside

  299·924

  305·451

  5·528

  1·8

  Isle of Wight

  41·293

  42·695

  1·401

  3·4

  Kent

  514·163

  537·360

  23·197

  4·5

  Lancashire

  468·602

  473·160

  4·558

  1·0

  Leicester

  304·348

  311·210

  6·862

  2·3

  Lincolnshire

  194·521

  199·004

  4·483

  2·3

  Norfolk

  229·490

  233·013

  3·523

  1·5

  North Yorkshire

  209·175

  211·142

  1·967

  0·9

  Northamptonshire

  202·203

  206·165

  3·961

  2·0

  Northumberland

  103·897

  106·388

  2·491

  2·4

  Nottinghamshire

  336·427

  342·430

  6·003

  1·8

  Oxfordshire

  167·394

  175·758

  8·364

  5·0

  Shropshire

  131·831

  133·995

  2·164

  1·6

  Somerset

  135·244

  139·024

  3·780

  2·8

  642

  643

  Adjusted 1992–93 total education SSA

  1993–94 total education SSA

  Actual change

  Percentage change

  Name

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Staffordshire

  331·243

  339·638

  8·395

  2·5

  Suffolk

  195·386

  199·679

  4·293

  2·2

  Surrey

  273·254

  277·550

  4·296

  1·6

  Warwickshire

  149·024

  151·414

  2·390

  1·6

  West Sussex

  202·639

  209·127

  6·487

  3·2

  Wiltshire

  177·191

  181·284

  4·093

  2·3

  Total

  16,065·200

  16,530·700

  465·500

  2·9

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the per capita standard spending assessment for 1993–94 for(a) Wiltshire and (b) English education authorities on average.

  Mr. Forth
  For the purpose of determining standard spending assessments, the education component of standard spending, net of specific grants, is divided into five sub-blocks—under-fives, primary, secondary, 16 plus, and other education. Within each sub-block, the money available is distributed on the basis of the relevant pupil or other client group numbers. The per capita figures for each sub-block for 1993–94 are set out in the table.

  Some care must be taken in drawing conclusions from the figures. First, the figures are only notional allocations. The standard spending assessment system is a mechanism for distributing grant between authorities. Because authorities have discretion to decide their own spending priorities, the sub-blocks and the per capita figures in them have no meaning outside the framework of the distribution mechanism.

  Second, the per capita figures for primary, secondary and 16 plus pupils include provision for children in special schools, related central services and related functions such as home-to-school transport. Therefore they are not comparable with age weighted pupil units in LEAs' schemes of local management.

  Third, the control total for the 16 plus sub-block notionally reflects LEAs' residual responsibilities for 16 plus students in sixth form colleges, such as home to college transport, as well as their continuing responsibilities for pupils in school sixth forms. The main client group for this sub-block is the number of pupils aged 16 and over but part of the control total is distributed by reference to the number of pupils aged 11 to 15.

  The Other Education block is based on the population aged over 11 years, with an additional weighting for those aged 16 to 24 years to reflect LEAs' continuing responsibilities for some further education students after the transfer of responsibility for most further education to the Further Education Funding Council this April.

  Subject to these qualifications the figures in pounds are:

  Wiltshire

  England

  Under 5

  224

  279

  per head of under 5 population

  Primary

  1,787

  1,921

  per pupil aged 5 to 10

  Secondary

  2,590

  2,775

  per pupil aged 11 to 15

  16+ Other

  3,644

  3,864

  per pupil aged 16+

  644

  Wiltshire

  England

  (a) 11+

  13

  15

  per head of 11+ population

  (b) 16–24

  39

  43

  per head of 16–24 population

  English Teaching
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received about key stage 3 English.

  Mr. Forth
  Since the beginning of the year my right hon. Friend has received about 1,500 letters on the subject of key stage 3 English assessment tests.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the Government's expenditure plans for the Higher Education Funding Council for such years as figures are available.

  Mr. Boswell
  Provision for recurrent grant for the Higher Education Funding Council for England is £2,465 million in 1993–94, £2,606 million in 1994–95 and £2,598 million in 1995–96. Provision for capital grant is £319 million, £322 million and £329 million.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has completed two market tests since November 1991. Its publications dispatch service has been contracted out to Westex Ltd.; the Department's library service has remained in-house.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff in his Department are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost his Department since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's market testing programme is co-ordinated by six staff—1.5 full-time equivalent posts—who undertake this work within their
  645
  normal duties. Line management staff in the areas being market tested also contribute. The estimated cost of the programme, in direct staff costs and consultancy costs, since November 1991 is some £203,000.

  Research Course Degrees
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if, further to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 281, he will list those institutions which have applied to him for authority to award (a) taught and (b) research course degrees and have not yet been awarded it.

  Mr. Boswell
  Applications for degree-awarding powers are made to the Privy Council. The Privy Council receives advice on such applications from the Secretary of State who is advised by the Higher Education Quality Council —HEQC. The following institutions have made applications which are presently under consideration:

  Guildhall School of Music and Drama

  Royal Agricultural College

  Royal Northern College of Music

  Luton College of Higher Education

  The applications from the first three institutions did not specifically distinguish between taught course or research degree powers, and the HEQC is discussing with these institutions the appropriate scope of the applications. The application from Luton college is for research degree powers only, as the college already has taught course degree-awarding powers.

  Further and Higher Education Colleges
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 282, he will list those institutions who have applied
  646
  to him to be incorporated under sections 15 and 16 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and which wish to designate themselves colleges of further and higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  In addition to those institutions listed in my reply to the hon. Member on 20 January, the following colleges, which have been incorporated under section 15 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, have applied to my right hon. Friend to adopt the title college of further and higher education:

  Grimsby College of Technology and Arts

  Guildford College of Technology

  Northbrook College of Design and Technology, Worthing.

  Medical School Applicants
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has on the percentage of United Kingdom resident medical school applicants accepted, broken down by sex and by ethnic origin, distinguishing(a) Asian-Bangladeshi, (b) Asian-Chinese, (c) Asian-Indian, (d) Asian-Pakistani, (e) Asian—other, (f) total Asian, (g) black, (h) white and (i) total; and what are the percentages for each medical school.

  Mr. Boswell
  Universities Central Council on Admissions statistics show that 51 per cent. of all accepted home applicants for undergraduate medical courses in autumn 1991 were women. The UCCA does not publish information on the ethnic origin of applicants by subject category, nor for individual universities.

ENVIRONMENT

  Structure Plan, Hampshire
  Mr. Malone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to approve the structure plan submitted by Hampshire county council.

  Mr. Baldry
  As soon as possible.

  Table showing the number of rejected proposals on the London boundary reviews

  Report Number

  Name of area

  Number of proposals

  Number rejected

  Name(s) of rejected proposals

  594

  Barnet

  13

  0

  —

  598

  Bexley

  16

  1

  Stanham Farm

  610

  Harrow

  26

  0

  —

  615

  Croydon

  80

  0

  —

  618

  Waltham Forest

  48

  0

  —

  620

  Bromley

  46

  1

  Stonehouse

  622

  Greenwich

  28

  4

  Thamesmead

  623

  Croydon

  12

  0

  —

  624

  Lambeth

  10

  0

  —

  632

  Crystal Palace

  20

  0

  —

  634

  Tower Hamlets

  5

  0

  —

  636

  City of London

  27

  0

  —

  637

  South wark

  17

  0

  —

  638

  Islington

  14

  0

  —

  641

  Bromley

  53

  0

  —

  642

  Greenwich

  14

  0

  —

  647

  Richmond upon Thames

  2

  0

  —

  648

  Redbridge

  21

  4

  Woodford Green, Grange Hill

  652

  Hounslow

  33

  0

  —

  653

  Lewisham

  28

  0

  —

  654

  Havering

  45

  1

  Rush Green

  656

  Camden

  22

  3

  Regents Park, Fitzrovia

  666

  Westminster

  5

  0

  —

  672

  Enfield

  46

  0

  —

  676

  Hillingdon

  16

  0

  —

  EC Environmental Directives
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources his Department will commit to providing the European Commission with data in regard to the annual report on implementation and enforcement of EC environmental directives and regulations.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commission's plan to present to the Environment Council the findings of their annual report on environmental legislation arises from an initiative we took as presidency to encourage other member states and the Commission to take implementation and reporting as seriously as we do. The United Kingdom need commit no new resources.

  PM10 Particulates
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the major sources of PM10 particulates in the local atmosphere; what are the principal health effects; and whether he will set an air quality standard for PM10.

  Mr. Maclean
  The major sources of PM10 particulates in the local atmosphere are fuel conbustion—in towns and cities, principally diesel and petrol—wind-blown dusts both natural and man-made and aerosol particles formed

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many cases he has overruled a Boundary Commission's recommendations in London since 1989; and if he will identify changes proposed by the commission in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table gives details of the decisions made so far on Local Government Boundary Commission reviews of London. None of the rejected proposals was referred back to the commission for a fresh review.

  by chemical reactions of primary pollution emissions. At high concentrations particulate material in conjunction with sulphur dioxide can exacerbate respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis, and can lead to reductions in lung function. Trace amounts of carcinogens can also occur in association with airborne particulates.

  My Department, in close collaboration with the Department of Health, has established the expert panel on air quality standards to develop recommendations for possible new standards and guidelines for air quality in the United Kingdom. The panel is considering several air pollutants, one of which is PM10, and will report on these in due course.

  Air Pollution
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many enhanced urban network air pollution monitoring stations he plans to establish in urban areas by 2000; which sites are already committed; what criteria will be used to prioritise commitments to future sites; and what resources he will make available to local authorities without enhanced urban network stations who wish to undertake quality-assured air quality monitoring.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the second year report on the environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", we announced our intention to continue the expansion of the urban network to cover all major cities by 1997. The
  649
  precise number of stations will depend on the availability of resources. Stations are already operating or expected to come into operation this year in London, Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Newcastle, Leeds, Bristol, Liverpool, Hull, Leicester and Southampton.

  In determining priorities for future sites my Department will take account of factors such as population and associated traffic activity, other significant local sources of pollution and any other local features, such as topography, that may be of relevance.

  My Department will issue a discussion paper later this year on how central and local monitoring efforts can best be integrated and supported, taking account of the need for adequate quality assurance and control. Meanwhile, my Department is pleased to help local authorities with documentation and advise on these matters so far as resources permit.

  Local Authority Debts
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the methodology for the future treatment of accumulated local authority debt, in circumstances where an authority ceases to exist as a result of local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I would expect the assets and liabilities of such local authorities to be transferred to successor authorities, as in previous reorganisations of local government. But the detailed financial implications of reorganisation are still under consideration.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to publish the proceedings of the seminar on sustainable development policies for Britain which his Department is holding in Oxford in March.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department will hold a seminar at Green college, Oxford, from 18 to 20 March with a range of people from other Departments and outside government to inform our thinking about the report which the United Kingdom must submit to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development this year. Green college will produce a summary of highlights from the discussion which will be distributed to many people with whom we are discussing the preparation of the report. I shall place a copy in the Library of the House. The seminar itself is just one part of a wide public consultation exercise.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from among the United Kingdom research community and environmentalists on the level of Government funding for research on international environmental policy issues; and what assessment he has made of the performance of Economic and Social Research Council and other Government-funded research programmes in this area.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is in frequent contact with the United Kingdom research community and environmentalists on the levels and direction of research on international environmental policy issues.650
  Responsibility for assessing the performance of ESRC and other Government-funded research programmes rests with the funding bodies concerned.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to set up a consultation process with academic specialists, environmental groups and other expert parties in order to establish national and international environmental research programmes, along the lines of that operated in the Netherlands.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department already operates a well-established, comprehensive system of consultation on its research programmes.

  East Thames Corridor
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the proposed development of the east Thames corridor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The report by the consultants commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in 1991 into the potential of the east Thames corridor for development and environmental enhancement was received in November 1992. Consideration is being given to the findings of that study in the context of the wider planning guidance for the south-east, which is under review. It is hoped to publish consultation papers on the regional guidance and the east Thames corridor in the near future.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about air quality and air pollution along the east Thames corridor.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department has received three representations in the last three months.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the proposed east Thames corridor development.

  Mr. Baldry
  Frequent representations are received from local authorities, business interests, the development industry, organisations concerned with the conservation of the natural and built environment and others about the studies which are being undertaken of the east Thames corridor and about future planning policy for the area.

  Parliament Square (Air Quality)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what records his Department has of the results of monitoring air quality at Parliament square, Westminster.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has no records of air quality at Parliament square, Westminster.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an announcement about his Department's spending plans for the years 1993–94 to 1995–96.
  651
  Mr. Howard
  Yes. I have today published my Department's annual report for 1993, Cm 2207. This sets out in detail the outcome of the public expenditure survey announced in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement on 12 November 1992. It also provides the policy background to each of the spending programmes and policies and information on performance targets, output measures and value for money.

  The report sets out what we are doing to improve the quality of life internationally, nationally and locally. This is the central thread which ties all our policies together.

  This is true whether the policies and programmes are aimed at protecting the environment; enhancing, and improving access to, the countryside; regenerating the inner cities; helping every family to have a decent home or improving the framework for the delivery of local government services.

  The environment is at the forefront of the agenda for each of these areas, and details of how environmental objectives are integrated into the Department's work are provided throughout the report.

  The report plays a key part in the Department's accountability to Parliament and to the public—a significant theme of the citizens charter—with its performance and plans laid out for all to see.

  Rural Petrol Stations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the implications of the EC directive on vapour recovery for the operation of rural petrol stations.

  Mr. Maclean
  A draft EC directive is under consideration which would require the recovery of vapour from the storage and distribution of petrol in order to minimise emissions of volatile organic compounds. We welcome this in principle. However, our consultations with industry, including the operators of petrol stations, suggest that the costs of compliance with the proposed directive in its present form could represent an unreasonable burden on small stations in rural areas for very little environmental benefits. We are therefore seeking an exemption for such stations from the requirement to fit vapour recovery equipment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rubber Bullets
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on which date rubber bullets were first issued to security forces in Northern Ireland; and whether rubber bullets were available to soldiers in Northern Ireland in January 1972.

  Mr. Mates
  Rubber bullets were first made available to members of the security forces in Northern Ireland in 1970 and remained in use until 1975, when they were replaced by plastic baton rounds.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.
  652
  Mr. Mates
  The following firms of consultants have been used to advise on the Northern Ireland market testing programme since November 1991:

  BET FM Ltd.

  CAPITA

  Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte

  Helm Corporation

  Leopold Joseph & Sons

  Logicom

  Michael Willacy Associates

  MVM Consultants Plc

  SERCO

  Symonds Facilities Management Plc

  Witt Thornton (Management Services)

  The total cost was £348,549.

  In line with the White Paper "Competing for Quality", private sector consultancies have helped to determine the most promising new areas for market testing and contracting out and have also been used to strengthen Northern Ireland Departments' market testing capability.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many late applications were received for suckler cow premium in respect of 1990 and 1991; and how many of these were(a) paid in full,
  (b) paid in part and (c) refused.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  Number of late applications received

  124

  74

  (a) Number paid in full

  —

  —

  (b) Number paid in part

  85

  51

  (c) Number refused

  39

  23

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many late applications for suckler cow premium in respect of 1992 he has received to date.

  Mr. Hanley
  Two hundred and thirty-three to date.

TRANSPORT

  Airports (Credit Approvals)
  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now announce the 1993–94 supplementary credit approvals for public airport companies and local authority airports.

  Mr. Norris
  Supplementary credit approvals totalling £12 million will be available for public airport companies and local authority airports for 1993–94. These credit approvals, together with other resources which public airport companies expect at this stage to invest, will assist the airports concerned to provide facilities which they estimate could cost some £83 million in 1993–94.

  We have today agreed to supplementary credit approvals totalling £4 million at this stage. The projects concerned include the continuation of work on the south apron and taxiway and on the new control tower and fire station at Coventry airport, runway resurfacing at Exeter airport and lighting schemes at Biggin Hill airport. Formal supplementary credit approvals for these and other projects will be issued to the local authorities shortly.
  653
  The £12 million supplementary credit approval provision for local authority airports, used in conjunction with airports' internal resources, will ensure that safety and security schemes can proceed. We look to the private sector to play the major role in financing significant airport expansion.

  Tanker Routes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that tankers and owners use a shipping route west of St. Kilda.

  Mr. Norris
  Tanker routeing around the United Kingdom coast, including St. Kilda, will be considered by Lord Donaldson in his inquiry. Pending the outcome of that inquiry, a voluntary code is being developed which will place restrictions on tankers navigating through sensitive areas.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has submitted proposals for the attention of the EC Council of Transport and Environmental Ministers in respect of tanker exclusion zones on environmental and safety grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  As my noble friend the Minister for Shipping announced on 4 February, agreement in principle has been reached with organisations representing oil companies, tanker operators and shipping interests on voluntary measures in the form of a code to be promulgated by mid-March, which it is intended will include restrictions on tankers operating in sensitive areas. The code will be transmitted by the Government to the International Maritime Organisation for consideration and endorsement by the maritime safety committee in May with a view to publication internationally as an addition to the "Ship Routeing" document issued by the IMO. I will draw these developments to the attention of the European Commission.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the outcome of the EC Council of Transport and Environment Ministers on 25 January concerning tanker exclusion zones; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what timetables have been agreed by (a) the EC Council of Ministers and (b) the United Nations International Maritime Organisation for the consideration of submissions for tanker exclusion zones; and what is the relationship between the two timetables.

  Mr. Norris
  The EC Council of Transport and Environment Ministers urged the Commission to bring forward its communication on maritime safety so that a first discussion of it can take place at the March meeting of the Transport Council. Among other matters to be examined in the communication is identification of areas of ecological interest for which restrictions, such as routeing measures or areas to be avoided, might be appropriate. No timetable has been agreed either in the EC or in the IMO for consideration of any proposals that may emerge.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which sensitive areas around the coast of Northern Ireland are included in the areas to be avoided by tankers; and which fishermen's organisations were consulted in preparation of the voluntary agreement between his Department and the oil companies.
  654
  Mr. Norris
  It is too early to anticipate the detailed provisions of the voluntary agreement, including the designated sensitive areas, that is being developed by industry. The following fishermen's organisations attended the meeting on 4 February that led to the concept of the code:National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.
  Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

  Marine Safety
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the new areas which he will propose to the May meeting of the International Maritime Organisation marine safety committee as recommendations for the status of areas to be avoided; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  No decision has yet been taken to propose any new "areas to be avoided" to the IMO. The routeing of tankers, among other issues, is within the terms of reference of the inquiry to be conducted by Lord Donaldson. Pending the outcome of that inquiry, officials met with organisations representing oil companies, tanker operators and shipping interests on 4 February and agreed in principle voluntary measures in the form of a code to be promulgated by mid-March, which it is intended will include restrictions on tankers operating in sensitive areas. The code will be transmitted by the Government to the IMO for consideration and endorsement by the maritime safety committee in May with a view to publication internationally as an addition to the "Ship Routeing" document issued by the IMO.

  Model Aircraft (Air-misses)
  Mr. Malone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the air-miss incidents involving model aircraft flying(a) within and (b) outwith controlled air space which have been reported to the Civil Aviation Authoirity since reporting of such incidents was made mandatory.

  Mr. Norris
  The records of the Civil Aviation Authority's safety data and analysis unit show that between April 1977 and December 1992 there have been 12 reports of air misses between model aircraft and real aircraft. Of these six took place in controlled air space. The other six took place outside controlled air space, but of these three were in aerodrome traffic zones.

  In addition, between June 1979 and May 1992, there have been four collisions between full size aircraft and other airborne objects which are believed to have been model aircraft. Also since 1987 there have been three fatal accidents involving model aircraft; in one case a hang glider pilot was killed and the other two each resulted in the death of a person on the ground.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to privatise the Vehicle Inspectorate agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend has consulted publicly on the future of the Vehicle Inspectorate's heavy goods and passenger-carrying vehicle testing functions, including the scope for private sector
  655
  involvement; the consultation document made clear that he does not consider the inspectorate's enforcement functions appropriate for privatisation. He is considering a decision in the light of the consultees' responses and will make an announcement in due course.

  Maritime Emergency Oganisation
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable of his proposals in respect of the privatisation of the Marine Emergency Organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  We have no plans to privatise the MEO. We are currently considering the possibility of executive agency status.

  DVOIT
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the timetable for the privatisation of the Driver, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology agency.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend announced proposals for the privatisation of DVOIT on 19 October 1992,Official Report, column 209. I expect that DVOIT will move into the private sector by about the end of 1993.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable of his proposals in respect of the privatisation of the DVLA.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 November 1992,Official Report, columns 406–7.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable of his proposals in respect of the privatisation of the Driving Standards Agency.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 November 1992,Official Report, columns 406–7.

  Surveyors General Organisation
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable of his proposals in respect of the privatisation of the Surveyors General Organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 10 November 1992,Official Report, column 675. The Surveyors General Organisation is not being privatised. A consultation document on the scope for increased private sector participation in respect of that part of its work relating to survey and certification was issued on 14 December 1992; the deadline for responses is 12 March 1993.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable of his proposals in respect of the privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory.
  656
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Transport Research Laboratory became an executive agency in April 1992. At the same time the control of research budgets passed to departmental customers; TRL now must compete for an increasing proportion of the Department's research business. I keep the future of the agency, as with all parts of my Department, under constant review and any plans for privatisation would, of course, be notified to Parliament and be the subject of consultation with staff.

  London-Portsmouth Railway Line
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy on the future of the railway line between Portsmouth and London Victoria via the south coast, Barham and Gatwick airport.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is our intention to franchise, in due course, the operation of all passenger services currently run by British Rail. The franchising director will base the initial franchises on the timetable operated by British Rail prior to franchising. Subsidy will be available for all socially necessary services.

  West London Rail Links
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the privatisation of British Rail on the residents of Northolt, Perivale, Greenford, Hanwell and Ealing.

  Mr. Norris
  We expect that the privatisation of BR will lead to an improvement in the quality of all rail services.

  Bristol Harbour Revision Order
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will postpone his Department's public inquiry into the Port of Bristol Harbour Revision Order until the House has debated and reached a decision on the recommendations in the First report of the Trade and Industry Committee on energy policy and the market for coal.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer to my written reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on 14 January 1993, at column 816.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments he has made of the arrangements for preventing a casualty such as the Braer, or mitigating the effects of such a casualty, off the south coast of England.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: The Secretary of State for Transport announced in his statement to the House of 11 January, Official Report, columns 609–10, an inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Donaldson to advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendations of "Tourism in the UK: Realising the Potential", as it applies to his Department's responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Most of the action points in "Tourism in the UK: Realising the Potential" which come under the remit of my Department have been taken forward, in most cases via the statutory tourist board.

  The British Tourist Authority held a successful conference in October last year to encourage foreign language training in the tourism industry; the British Tourist Authority, the English tourist board—ETB—and the regional tourist boards are working to promote training opportunities within the industry; my Department's proposal for an initiative to disseminate information on facilities for tourists with disabilities was incorporated in the European Community tourism action plan; in November last year we hosted, with the English tourist board, an international Tourism and the Environment conference with speakers and delegates from the United Kingdom and other EC member states; together with the Department of the Environment—DoE—we have commissioned research into the feasibility of obtaining better information on the numbers of day visitors, to assist the calculation of standard spending assessments; we collaborated with the Department of the Environment on the production of the planning policy guidance note on tourism development; the English tourist board will launch Industrial Heritage Year in February; industry leaders have had the chance to comment on the JICTOURS working group's report, and a more permanent user forum is being established.

  My Department continues to work with other Departments to take forward issues under their control which were mentioned in "Tourism in the UK" and which affect the tourism industry.

  Ms. Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to meet the chairman of the British Tourist Authority to discuss the future of tourism in Great Britain.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. I expect to discuss the authority's corporate plan with the chairman when it is submitted in the spring.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the cost per visitor for each museum and gallery in receipt of funding deriving from his Department.

  Mr. Key
  The estimated cost per visitor is as follows, taken to one decimal place for figures for the grant-in-aid and number of visitors:658

  Grant-in-aid (financial year 1992–93) £ million

  No. of visitors (1992) million

  Cost per visitor £

  British Museum

  32·4

  6·7

  4·84

  Natural History Museum

  28·9

  1·6

  18·1

  Imperial War Museum

  11·0

  1·1

  10·0

  National Gallery

  17·9

  4·3

  4·20

  National Maritime Museum

  11·6

  0·5

  23·20

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  13·4

  1·2

  11·20

  National Portrait Gallery

  5·6

  0·8

  7·00

  Science Museum

  22·4

  2·6

  8·62

  Tate Gallery

  16·6

  2·2

  7·55

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  30·1

  1·5

  20·07

  Wallace Collection

  1·9

  0·2

  9·50

  Manchester Museum of Science and Industry

  2·2

  0·3

  7·33

  Museum of London

  4·1

  0·3

  13·70

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  0·6

  0·04

  15·00

  Geffrye Museum

  0·9

  0·05

  18·00

  Horniman Museum

  2·6

  0·2

  13·00

  Royal Palaces (Entrance Fees)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total amount of the entrance fees collected at those royal palaces open to the public for the latest year for which figures are available; and to what purposes the revenues are applied.

  Mr. Key
  This is an operational matter for the Historic Royal Palaces agency which is responsible for managing those royal palaces open to the public. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the agency to reply to the hon. Member and will arrange for his reply to be published in the Official Report.

  Letter from David Beeton to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 5 February 1993:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about entrance fees collected at the Royal Palaces. My Agency is responsible for the management of the Historic Royal Palaces.
  The Agency's income and expenditure for 1991–92 was:-

  £ million

  £ million

  Total Expenditure (net of VAT refunds)

  —

  23.5

  Entrance Charge income

  10.1

  —

  Other Business income

  5.7

  15.8

  Borne by the taxpayer

  —

  7.7

  You may be interested in the enclosed copy of our latest Annual Report and Accounts, which includes full details of our income and expenditure in 1991–92. Copies of this report may also be found in the House of Commons Library.

  The Government has no funding or supervisory responsibility for entrance charges at the occupied Royal Palaces.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My Department is currently in the process of contracting out a range of central services, including mailroom services, minor maintenance, office cleaning, porterage, reprographics, security, central typing and secretarial cover. No contracts have yet been awarded for these. The Department has awarded a contract to Sema Group Limited for the supply of computer equipment and associated services.

  Royal parks division contracted out grounds maintenance work in February 1992. The successful contractors were: Brophy plc, Glendale Industries Limited, Serco plc, Turfsoil Limited and Tyler Environmental Services Limited. The division is currently market testing building agent services and estates management.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff in his Department are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost his Department since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  A small number of staff in my Department have been assigned to work on the market testing programme amongst their other duties. The total cost of the programme since November 1991 would include staff costs and associated overheads, plus consultancy fees of £541,198. It is not readily possible to separate the cost of the relatively minor staff involvement and overheads to give an overall total.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Five firms of consultants have been used to advise on areas which are now the responsibility of my Department since November 1991: PE International have advised on the provision of central services in the Department; Cluttons, Watts and Partners and Gillhespies have advised my Department's Royal Parks Division; and Land Use Consultants have advised the Historic Royal Palaces agency. The total cost of consultancies is £541,198. A proportion of this cost would have been met by the Department of the Environment, which was responsible for the royal parks and the Historic Royal Palaces agency until April 1992.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Africa
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the World Bank report "Sub-Saharan Africa: from Crisis to Sustainable Growth" about 660
  the amount by which real levels of official aid to Africa need to increase per year through the 1990s; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The World Bank report concludes, on certain assumptions, that to achieve 5 per cent. per annum GDP growth, additional development assistance to Africa needs to grow at 4 per cent. per annum in real terms.

  We agree that Africa will require a sustained high level of concessionary external assistance. However, the provision of such assistance will only have lasting impact if it is accompanied by the successful implementation of economic and political reform in individual African countries, enabling domestic resources to be used efficiently and encouraging the private sector.

  We aim to maintain a significant level of development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa in the years ahead both bilaterally and through multilateral and EC channels. We have also been prominent among those calling for more generous relief of official debt and we are pleased that 11 African countries have now benefited from Trinidad terms.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the bilateral and multilateral aid programme spent in Africa has been(a) project aid and (b) programme aid for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The figures requested are as follows:

  Project and programme aid to Africa 1979 to 19911

  Gross British bilateral aid to Africa

  Year

  £ millions

  Project aid2 Per cent.

  Programme aid Per cent.

  1979

  231

  42·1

  16·8

  1980

  257

  35·7

  13·6

  1981

  300

  38·6

  10·5

  1982

  247

  43·1

  13·4

  1983

  237

  42·4

  8·9

  1984

  268

  46·9

  6·1

  1985

  315

  32·1

  9·2

  1986

  285

  31·4

  15·2

  1987

  308

  26·6

  17·2

  1988

  427

  22·7

  26·2

  1989

  514

  27·3

  30·9

  1990

  389

  32·3

  13·2

  1991

  521

  29·2

  21·2

  1 Data are not readily available on multilateral disbursements by project and programme aid.

  2 Project aid also includes disbursenment from the Aid and Trade Provision and CDC project expenditure; it does not include Technical Co-operation projects.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the bilateral aid programme was spent in Africa for each year since 1979; and what the amount was in cash terms and in constant terms since 1979.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The figures requested are as follows:

  661

  Gross bilateral aid to Africa 1979–91

  Year

  Cash terms

  Constant terms (1991 prices)

  Percentage of total bilateral aid allocable by continent Per cent.

  1979

  231

  551

  38·3

  1980

  257

  513

  42·3

  1981

  300

  538

  40·7

  1982

  247

  411

  43·2

  1983

  237

  375

  40·6

  1984

  268

  405

  40·0

  1985

  315

  451

  45·3

  1986

  285

  394

  40·5

  1987

  308

  406

  49·5

  1988

  427

  528

  50·3

  1989

  514

  593

  53·8

  1990

  389

  417

  46·0

  1991

  521

  521

  49·4

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase bilateral and multilateral aid to Africa in the next financial year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: Africa remains a priority for the overseas aid programme. Almost half of our bilateral aid is directed to Africa. The precise level of spending varies from year to year and depends upon the progress of individual projects and programmes. We will aim to make available substantial support to poorer countries in Africa with which we have close connections and which are pursuing sound development policies. We take the same view in the multilateral agencies to which we contribute.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the multilateral aid programme was spent in Africa for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The information requested is in the table.

  United Kingdom share of multilateral aid to Africa 1979 to 1990

  Year

  United Kingdom share of multilateral aid to Africa £ million

  Total allocable multilateral aid £ million

  Allocable multilateral aid spent in Africa Per cent.

  1979

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  1980

  116

  242

  48

  1981

  147

  316

  46

  1982

  173

  371

  47

  1983

  189

  429

  44

  1984

  227

  479

  47

  1985

  232

  432

  54

  1986

  233

  462

  50

  1987

  239

  478

  50

  1988

  301

  587

  51

  1989

  334

  615

  54

  1990

  366

  626

  58

  Notes:

  1. The figures given are estimated by the Overseas Development Administration Statistics Department using data provided by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD on the spending patterns of multilateral agencies, and United Kingdom contributions to multilateral organisations.

  2. Estimates were first calculated for 1980 and are not available for 1979.

  3. The 1990 figure is a provisional estimate.

  Multilateral Aid (Contracts)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the value of contracts won by United Kingdom companies in competition for contracts financed through multilateral aid and how many jobs are created or secured; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: Aggregate figures for the value of contracts awarded through multilateral aid agencies, including multilateral development banks, are difficult to estimate because not all agencies compile statistics on contracts awarded by nationality; and for those which do, there are significant differences in the way data are reported. Because of these limitations, it is not possible to estimate the total value of business secured by United Kingdom firms through multilateral aid agencies. As I told the hon. Member on 26 January, at column 636, our best estimate is that for every £1 we contribute to multilateral agencies, they spend on average £1.40 on British goods and services. This is based on incomplete data averaged over several years. No estimate has been made of the employment impact of such business.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been provided by Her Majesty's Government to provide for displaced persons in Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: We have committed over £70.5 million in humanitarian relief to displaced people and other victims of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. £41 million has been committed through the EC. The remaining £29.5 million is in direct bilateral assistance, nearly all of which is focused on Bosnia-Hercegovina where the needs are greatest. This bilateral assistance has been spent on such things as the rehabilitation of buildings to provide accommodation for 20,000 displaced people in the Zenica area, the provision of 43 trucks and support staff to deliver relief goods, and the restoration of electricity supplies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Agencies (Performance Measures)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the current primary and secondary performance measures for(a) the Warren Springs Laboratory Agency, (b) the National Engineering Laboratory Agency, (c) the Laboratory of the Government Chemist Agency and (d) the National Physical Laboratory Agency; and what steps are taken to keep the measures under review.

  Mr. Leigh
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 13 January 1993,Official Report, column 739 in respect of the Warren Spring Laboratory agency; the answer given on 15 December 1992, Official Report, columns 144–45 in respect of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist agency; the answer given on 16 July

  663
  1992, Official Report, column 992 in respect of the National Engineering Laboratory agency; and the answer given on 3 July 1990 Official Report, columns 499–500 in respect of the National Physical Laboratory agency. All the agencies' targets are reviewed annually, including the National Physical Laboratory agency's longer-term targets, as part of their corporate planning processes.

  SMART (Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology)

  Region/Office

  Applications

  Acceptances

  Grants Awarded £ million

  Grants paid £ million

  East

  160

  22

  1·02

  0·58

  East Midlands

  90

  24

  1·16

  0·49

  North East

  42

  9

  0·38

  0·32

  North West

  110

  16

  0·68

  0·71

  South East

  374

  33

  1·45

  1·14

  South West

  158

  25

  1·18

  0·74

  West Midlands

  121

  22

  0·96

  0·55

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  79

  22

  1·03

  0·52

  Welsh Office

  70

  15

  0·67

  0·55

  Scottish Office

  111

  18

  0·80

  0·79

  Northern Ireland Office

  28

  6

  0·24

  0·23

  Total

  1,343

  212

  9·57

  6·62

  SPUR (Support for Products Under Research)

  Region/Office

  Applications

  Acceptances

  Grants Awarded £ million

  Grants paid £ million

  East

  9

  3

  0·18

  0·10

  East Midlands

  4

  2

  0·08

  0·20

  North East

  3

  2

  0·09

  0·07

  North West

  27

  21

  1·86

  0·22

  South East

  19

  17

  1·80

  0·35

  South West

  10

  5

  0·20

  0·15

  West Midlands

  7

  4

  0·31

  0·12

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  17

  7

  0·46

  0·35

  Welsh Office

  8

  4

  0·40

  0·08

  Scottish Office

  5

  5

  0·61

  0·34

  Total

  109

  70

  5·99

  1·98

  Premium Rate Phone Calls
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what protection parents have from the excessive use of premium rate phone calls by children responding to magazine competitions.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services—ICSTIS—recognises that children are a vulnerable audience for premium rate telephone services and are not responsible for paying for them. The ICSTIS code of practice therefore contains a number of measures which help to protect children and their parents. No children's service may exceed seven and half minutes in length and all children's services must terminate automatically. Promotional material must feature a clear and prominent statement giving the maximum cost of the call and stressing that the service should only be used with the permission of the bill payer. In addition, any children's

  SMART and SPUR Grants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications and acceptances for SMART and SPUR grants were made in each region in the first six months of the current financial year; and what was the value of(a) grants awarded and (b) grants paid.

  Mr. Leigh
  The number of applications and acceptances, and the grants awarded and paid under the small firms merit award for research and technology—SMART—and support for products under research—SPUR—schemes from 1April 1992 to 30 September 1992 are as follows:

  service which exceeds one minute in length must begin with a statement which urges the caller to seek the permission of the bill payer before using the telephone. There are a number of other conditions in the ICSTIS code relating to games and competition services, including rules on the clarity of the promotional material and the requirement not to exaggerate the chances of winning.

  In addition to these controls, BT customers served by digital exchanges can request that access to all premium rate services from their line is barred. This "call-barring" is available free of charge and is now available to some 60 per cent. of BT's customers.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures will be taken by his Department in order to implement the European directive on rental right and lending right.
  665
  Mr. Leigh
  This directive will be implemented by means of a statutory instrument amending the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Member states have until 1 July 1994 to comply with the directive. In view of the complexity of the directive and the options which it makes available to member states, my Department intends to consult widely before finalising the amending legislation. I expect consultations to begin in the next few months.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what actions and consultation his Department is undertaking with regard to a possible instrument on the protection of the rights of performers and producers of phonograms by the World Intellectual Property Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The United Kingdom has been at the forefront in urging the World Intellectual Property Organisation—WIPO—to draw up a new international agreement on the protection of performers' and record producers' rights. WIPO has now begun preparatory work on such an agreement. This is a development of an earlier WIPO initiative on a possible protocol to the Berne convention on authors' rights, on which work is continuing. More than 50 organisations representative of United Kingdom copyright interests have already been consulted on the protocol, and there will be similar consultation on the new instrument when WIPO makes this available in draft form. United Kingdom officials also take part in regular informal discussions on these matters involving the European Commission, the United States, Japan and other major countries.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those EC directives related to copyright and intellectual property presently under consideration by his Department; and if he will list those individuals and organisations who have been consulted with regard to them.

  Mr. Leigh
  Four draft directives in the intellectual property field are currently under consideration: a proposal for a Council directive on the co-ordination of certain rules concerning copyright and neighbouring rights applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission; a proposal for a Council directive harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights; a proposal for a Council directive on the legal protection of databases; and a proposal for a Council directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. In addition, the Department is considering the implementation into United Kingdom law of two adopted directives —directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks, and directive 92/100/EEC on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property.

  Numerous organisations and individuals have been consulted in connection with these measures. In general, consultation has taken place through bodies representing particular interest groups, where these exist. Organisations consulted in relation to the measures listed above include the following.

  Copyright

  Arts Council

  Association of County Councils

  Association of the Electronics Telecommunications and Business Equipment Industries (EEA)

  666

  Association for Geographic Information

  Association of Independent Radio Companies

  Association for Information Management (ASLIB)

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of Photographers

  Authors Licensing and Collecting Society

  British Academy

  British Academy of Film and Television Arts

  British Actors Equity Association

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  British Computer Society

  British Copyright Council

  British Film Institute

  British Library

  British Microcomputer Federation

  British Office Technology Manufacturers Alliance

  British Photographers Liaison Committee

  British Phonographic Industry

  British Retail Consortium

  British Screen Advisory Council

  British Sky Broadcasting

  British Telecom

  British Videogram Association

  Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union

  Business Equipment and Information Technology Association

  Business Software Alliance

  Cable Television Association

  Centre for Commercial Law Studies

  Channel Four Television

  Cinema Exhibitors Association

  Committee of Directors of Polytechnics

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom

  Common Law Institute of Intellectual Property

  Computer Users of Europe

  Computing Services Association

  Confederation of British Industry

  Confederation of Information Communication Industries

  Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities

  Consumers Association

  Copyright Licensing Agency

  Council of Polytechnic Librarians

  Design and Artists Copyright Society

  Direct Marketing Association

  Directors and Producers Rights Society

  European Information Industry Association

  European Information Researchers Network

  Federation Against Software Theft

  Federation of Local Authority Chief Librarians

  Independent Television Association

  Independent Television Commission

  Institute of Electrical Engineers

  International Association of Music Libraries (UK)

  International Federation of the Phonographic Industry

  Law Society

  Law Society of Scotland

  Library Association

  Mechanical Copyright Protection Society

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  Music Copyright Reform Group

  Music Publishers Association

  Musicians Union

  Music Users Council

  National Computer Users Federation

  National Council for Education Technology

  Newspaper Publishers Association

  Newspaper Society

  Ordnance Survey

  Performing Right Society

  Periodical Publishers Association

  Phonographic Performance Limited

  Post Office

  Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television

  Public Lending Right Office

  Publishers Association

  Radio Authority

  Royal Society

  Scottish Software Federation

  667

  S4C

  Society of Authors

  Society of Film Distributors

  Standing Conference of National and University Libraries

  Writers Guild of Great Britain

  Patents and Trade Marks

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  Bar Council

  BioIndustry Association

  British Agrochemicals Association

  British Association of Rose Breeders

  British Poultry Breeders and Hatcheries Association

  British Retail Consortium

  British Sugar Beet Seed Producers Association

  Centre for Commercial Law Studies

  Chartered Institute of Patent Agents

  Chartered Society of Designers

  Compassion in World Farming

  Confederation of British Industry

  Consumers Association

  Federation of Small Businesses

  Food and Drink Federation

  Greenpeace

  Incorporated Society of British Advertisers

  Institute of Patentees and Inventors

  Institute of Trade Mark Agents

  Law Society

  Law Society of Scotland

  Licensing Executives Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Medical Research Council

  Milk Marketing Board

  National Consumer Council

  National Federation of Womens Institutes

  Patent Concern

  Plant Variety Rights Office

  Potato Marketing Board

  Trade Marks Patents and Designs Federation

  Worldwide Fund for Nature (UK)

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the developments in copyright matters made under Britain's Presidency of the European Community.

  Mr. Leigh
  One directive in the copyright field was adopted during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community—directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November concerning rental and lending rights and certain rights related to copyright. The United Kingdom also sought agreement at the December Internal Market Council on a draft directive dealing with copyright and related rights in the field of cable and satellite broadcasting, but a minority of member states resisted this. Regular discussions were held at Council working group level on a draft directive on the duration of copyright and neighbouring rights protection. The United Kingdom also played a leading role in Community efforts to further the work of the World Intellectual Property Organisation in the copyright field.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce his review of the assisted areas map; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to make a decision on Coventry and Warwickshire's application for continued assisted area status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 2 December 1992, at column 260

  Export Insurance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with organisations representing British exporters concerning the provision of public funds for insuring exports against political risk.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have had frequent consultations on political risk insurance with organisations representing British exporters and banks.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations he has received, and what discussions he has had, concerning the planned discontinuation of export reinsurance for political risk in 1994; and if he will give details;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Export Credits Guarantee Department's capacity to provide export reinsurance, particularly for political risk;

  (3) what was the total level of export reinsurance provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion specifically related to reinsurance for political risk, in each export sector and for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England;

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the likely effect of the planned discontinuation of export reinsurance for political risk, in 1994, for United Kingdom exports, exporters and the balance of trade, in each export sector and for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

  Mr. Needham
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department is able to provide reinsurance, subject to Treasury consent, under the terms of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991.

  The ECGD currently supplements the private sector reinsurance treaties, for both commercial and political risk, of the privatised successor of the insurance services group. This support will be available for up to December 1994 in order to give time for the new company to arrange to source its full reinsurance requirement from the private market. The new company is working to achieve this outcome. Over 90 per cent. of its needs are currently being met by the private market.

  Quite separately, the Export Credits Guarantee Department provides the new company with 100 per cent. reinsurance of the risks arising on certain higher risk markets for which no capacity has been made available by the private market. This facility is not time limited. Subject to satisfactory financial performance, it will continue for as long as the Government consider it essential to meet the reasonable needs of United Kingdom exporters.

  I believe that the combined effect of these arrangements will be to maintain a good level of short-term export credit insurance support for United Kingdom exporters.

  These reinsurance facilities have only been available since December 1991 and apply to less than 10 per cent. of the new company's reinsurance exposure for standard short-term business. The Export Credits Guarantee Department reinsurance is provided on a global basis and it is not possible to provide a breakdown between the risks, goods or geographical location of exporters reinsured.

  Representations have been made to me by interested parties about the likely adequacy of the reinsurance

  669
  market to meet future demand and any implications this may have for Government policy. I am considering these representations.

  Incentives to Industry
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has set up a committee in his Department to examine the flow of incentives towards industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department carefully examines each year the balance of priorities, and value for money, of our spending on grants to industry.

  Research and Industrial Support
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the allocation of funds for research and industrial support within his Department during the course of 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the Department's allocation of funds on research and industrial support in 1992 was given in the regional and general industrial support and other support for industry sections of "Trade & Industry; The Government's Expenditure Plans 1992–93 to 1994–95", Cm 1904. Further information was included in the selective assistance to industry and research and development and other programmes sections of "The Government's Expenditure Plans within the Energy Sector 1992–93 to 1994–95" Cm 1905. The supply estimates— 1991–92 HC273-IV & V—as subsequently updated by the supplementary estimates—1992–93 HC45, HC231 and HC434—contain detailed information on expenditure in 1992–93. The Department's latest plans are given in "Trade & Industry; The Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96", Cm 2204, published on 10 February 1993.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are directly or indirectly employed in the oil and gas industry(a) in Scotland and (b) in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  A survey by the Scottish Office and what is now Scottish Enterprise estimated that in 1990 direct and indirect employment by the oil and gas industry in Scotland was some 97,400. A similar, but less comprehensive, survey covering employment in 1992 is in preparation. No comparable survey exists for the United Kingdom as a whole, but the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association has estimated that direct and indirect employment could be 300,000.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff in his Department are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost his Department since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Eight staff in my Department are assigned to the market testing programme. Since November 1991, the programme has cost the Department £460,000. This covers direct staff costs and consultants brought in to add private sector skills in line with the principles of the "Competing for Quality" White Paper.
  670
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following publication of the White Paper "Competing for Quality", I put forward a programme of market tests for completion by September 1993. While a number of these tests are at an advanced stage, none has yet completed the full process.

  In the period in question, there have been numerous instances of contracting out services for management or policy reasons, but in these cases the formal testing of the market against internal provision has not been necessary.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give for Standard Industrial Classification Orders 3302 and 3341(a) annual output, (b) United Kingdom market size and (c) balance of trade for each year since 1987; and if he will give the figures on a similar basis for Standard Industrial Classifications 3302 and 3341, together with Standard Industrial Classifications 3301, 3443, 3453 and 3454.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figures may be obtained readily from the summary tables of Central Statistical Office "Business Monitors" PAS3301, PQ3302, PAS3441, PAS3443, PQ3453, and PAS3454, copies of which are available in the Library. The best estimate of the United Kingdom market size may be calculated by adding imports to, and subtracting exports from, the figures for sales of principal products shown in these tables.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of actual capital expenditure on current petroleum and natural gas development in the United Kingdom continental shelf in each of the last 15 years; if he will forecast the level of future capital expenditure in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of actual capital expenditure on petroleum and natural gas development in the United Kingdom continental shelf are given in my Department's report to Parliament, the "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom", the Brown Book, copies of which are available in the Library. A survey conducted by my Department during 1992 shows company intentions to invest some £4.7 billion in each year from 1993 to 1995, £4.1 billion in 1996, and £3.2 billion in 1997. The decline shown in the intended expenditures over the later years of the survey period is usual in these surveys, since companies cover only projects which are sufficiently advanced to enable reasonable estimates of expenditure to be made. However, if these intentions are realised real annual expenditure will remain higher than in any of the years between 1987 to 1989.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will forecast the number of orders for platforms for United Kingdom oil and gas production development
  671
  in each of the next five years and the estimated level of capital expenditure this represents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  A survey conducted by my Department during 1992 shows company intentions to order some 44 platforms over the next five years, on which intended expenditure is some £8.3 billion for the structures, decks, modules and equipment alone. The survey does not collect the number of orders in each year, and only includes projects where company plans are sufficiently advanced to enable reasonable estimates of expenditure to be made.

  Gas-fired Power Projects
  Mr. Sahnond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licence applications have been received in each of the last five years for gas-fired power projects; and if he will give details of their generation capacity.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following is the information requested.

  Year

  Number

  Capacity (MW)

  1988–89

  0

  0

  1989–90

  4

  3,280

  1990–91

  11

  9,485

  1991–92

  15

  8,508

  11992–93

  4

  989

  1 To date.

  Notes:

  1. Prior to section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 coming into effect on 31 March 1989 application for consent for power stations, other than those made by the Central Electricity Generating Board, were made to local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

  2. Applications for consent for power stations with a capacity of 50 MW or less are dealt with under the Town and Country Planning Acts and my Department does not have information on such applications.

  3. Power stations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many gas-fired power projects are(a) currently under construction or (b) already in operation; and what is the output/generation capacity of each.

  Mr. Eggar
  Major—above 50MW—gas-fired generating stations in England and Wales are as follows:

  Station

  Location

  Proposer

  Capacity

  Commissioned

  Killingholme

  South Humberside

  PowerGen

  900MW

  Roosecote

  Cumbria

  Lakeland Power

  230MW

  Under construction

  Barking

  London

  Barking Power

  1,000MW

  Brigg

  South Humberside

  Regional Power Generators

  240MW

  Calder Hall

  Cumbria

  British Nuclear Fuels

  160MW

  Corby

  Northamptonshire

  Corby Power

  350MW

  Deeside

  Clwyd

  Deeside Power Development Company (National Power)

  450MW

  Keadby 1

  Near Scunthorpe

  Keadby Power

  680MW

  Killingholme"A" (phase 1)

  South Humberside

  National Power

  650MW

  Little Barford

  Bedfordshire

  National Power

  680MW

  672

  Station

  Location

  Proposer

  Capacity

  Medway

  Kent

  Medway Power

  660MW

  Peterborough

  Cambridgeshire

  Peterborough Power

  355MW

  Rye House

  Hertfordshire

  PowerGen

  680MW

  Spondon

  Near Derby

  Derwent Cogeneration

  318MW

  Wilton

  Teesside

  Teesside Power

  1,750MW

  Power stations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, respectively.

  ECGD
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the role and functions of the Export Credits Guarantee Department; which functions have been privatised and on what basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department's 1991–92 annual report and trading accounts, which were laid before the House on the 28 January 1993, provide full details of the Department's role and functions. These documents have been placed in the Library.

  The Insurance Services Group of ECGD was privatised on 1 December 1991. I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) on 2 December 1991, Official Report, columns 11–12 in which he set out the terms of the sale.

  Leyland DAF
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations he has given to the implications for the British Army of the cessation of the supply of Leyland DAF military trucks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is in contact with the receivers.

  Red Star Parcels
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the date of the publication of the memorandum of sale for Red Star parcels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The British Railways Board at present hopes to issue a memorandum of sale for Red Star in March of this year.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the effect of the Government's proposals for rail privatisation on the pension of existing Red Star employees, who(a) lose their jobs as a result of privatisation and (b) remain in the employ of the new company following privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The British Railways Board, which is handling the sale of Red Star, is considering appropriate arrangements for the pensions of all existing Red Star employees.

  BNFL (Accidents)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all reportable accidents and incidents that have occurred at(a) BNFL Chapel Cross, (b) BNFL Calderhall, (c) BNFL Sellafield, (d) BNFL Springfield and (e) BNFL Capenhurst since 1962; and if he will provide a breakdown of the annual totals into the number of (i) fatalities, (ii) major injuries, (iii) other injuries, (iv) dangerous occurrences and (v) disease.

  Occupational injuries and dangerous occurrences reported to Health and Safety Executive's factory inspectorate as occurring in specified BNFL establishments

  Year1

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries2

  Over three day injuries3

  Dangerous occurrences2

  Chapel Cross

  1986–87

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1987–88

  —

  1

  8

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  8

  —

  1989–90

  —

  2

  12

  —

  1990–91

  —

  2

  12

  —

  1991–925

  —

  —

  5

  1

  Calderhall4

  1986–87

  —

  1

  8

  —

  1987–88

  —

  1

  4

  —

  1988–89

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1989–90

  —

  3

  6

  —

  1990–91

  —

  1

  23

  —

  1991–925

  —

  —

  26

  1

  Sellafield

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1989–90

  —

  4

  193

  3

  1990–91

  —

  5

  132

  4

  1991–925

  —

  4

  108

  3

  Springfield

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  —

  5

  70

  1

  1990–91

  —

  3

  44

  —

  1991–925

  —

  2

  42

  1

  Capenhurst

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1989–90

  —

  2

  20

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  16

  —

  1991–925

  —

  2

  16

  1

  1 Year commencing 1 April.

  2 As defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  3 Injuries causing incapacity for normal work for more than three days.

  4 Also includes injuries and incidents reported as occurring at BNFL's Calder Tip, and Windscale and Calder sites.

  5 Provisional.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Macedonia
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support Macedonia's application to become a member of the United Nations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in close consultation with fellow members of the Security Council on Macedonia's United Nations application. Our decision will be taken in the light of these consultations.
  674
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The full answer to the question can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Incidents at nuclear installations reported to the President of the Board of Trade or Secretary of State for Scotland are published by the Health and Safety Executive in its quarterly statements of incidents at nuclear installations. Copies of these are held in the House of Commons Library along with the site newsletters. The available information on conventional accidents at these sites is given in the table:

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to persuade the United Nations to lift sanctions against Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There can be no question of lifting sanctions against Iraq at present. Iraq is not in compliance with its obligations under all relevant United Nations resolutions.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his current plans to place the Iraqi question before the United Nations Security Council; and if he will make a statement.
  675
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Security Council frequently discusses Iraq, both in formal and informal sessions. On 25 January the Security Council concluded that there was no basis for the lifting of economic sanctions. Discussions are continuing on the Secretary-General's proposals for the reinforcement of the United Nations Iraq/Kuwait observer mission.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications or other approaches on the recent attack on Iraq he has had from countries which formed the UN alliance during the Gulf war, other than the USA and France; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in close touch with our coalition partners. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with the Sultan of Oman and King Fand during his recent visit to the Gulf.

  European Foreign Policies
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European foreign policies.

  Mr. Hurd
  I meet my European Community partners regularly to discuss the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy issues.

  Serbia
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Serbian Government about the persecution of Muslims in the Sandzak region of Serbia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our European Community partners have repeatedly condemned the Serbian Government's treatment of minorities, including Muslims in Serbia.

  South Africa
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he is considering to encourage sporting, cultural and trading links with South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We support sporting and cultural contacts with South Africa. The British Overseas Trade Board has designated South Africa as one of its targets for trade promotion. A programme of events is planned to draw the attention of United Kingdom exporters to opportunities in South Africa.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in respect of the current situation in Kuwait.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in regular touch with our allies about the threat to Kuwait's security.

  Abu Dhabi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Britain and Abu Dhabi.
  676
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman's question on 3 June 1992, at column 825, relations are excellent.

  Maastricht
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the timetable for ratification of the Maastricht treaty in each other EC country.

  Mr. Hurd
  Nine member states have ratified the treaty. Germany has completed the ratification process but has yet to deposit its instrument of ratification in Rome, pending resolution of a private action brought in the constitutional court.

  A second Danish referendum will be held on 18 May.

  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconsider his policy on meeting officials of the Palestine Liberation Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We maintain regular contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organisation at senior official level. Ministerial contacts were broken off because of PLO support for Saddam Hussein. Our policy remains under review.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel regarding recognition of the PLO.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is up to the Israeli Government to decide whether to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

  Balkans
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British policy in the Balkans.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our policy is to support the international effort to find peaceful solutions to the area's problems, notably by the international conference for the former Yugoslavia; to prevent the conflict spilling over into Kosovo or Macedonia; and to provide humanitarian reflief to those caught up in the fighting.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Indian Government on self-determination for the people of Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister when he visited New Delhi recently. He made clear that the best way forward should involve simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan, an improvement in human rights and a genuine political process in Kashmir in which the political aspirations of the population there can be accommodated; and a cessation of all external support for violence in Kashmir.
  677
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by him recently to the Government of India about human rights in Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised British concerns about human rights in Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister during his visit to India last month. He also encouraged the Indian Government to allow independent human rights organisations and others to visit Kashmir. Mr Narasimha Rao assured us of his Government's commitment to respect human rights and determination to take action against wrongdoers.

  Turkey
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Turkish ambassador to discuss human and civil rights in Turkey.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans for such a meeting.

  We have been in regular contact with the Turkish Government on the subject of human rights.

  The issue was most recently discussed during the visit to the United Kingdom of the Turkish Prime Minister in November. During the visit Mr Demirel reiterated his Government's commitment to its programme of reforms which aims at improving human rights and increasing democratisation in the country.

  We welcome this clear commitment to human rights by the Turkish Government and look forward to the implementation of their programme.

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's continuing permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 2 February, at column 81.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the constitutional position of the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  None.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will issue a letter of comfort to oil companies currently prospecting in water around the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The question of a "letter of comfort" is under active consideration.

  Japan
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to strengthen United Kingdom relations with Japan.
  678
  Mr. Goodlad
  Relations with Japan are excellent. We intend to maintain the momentum of regular ministerial and other visits. Subject to final confirmation from the Japanese Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs plans to visit Tokyo in April. The Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary will visit Tokyo in July for the economic summit. Both Governments actively encourage a range of cultural, educational, scientific and academic exchanges to expand knowledge of each other's societies. We warmly welcome Japanese investment in this country. The meeting in Japan next month of the UK-Japan 2000 Group will continue the valuable contribution made by that group. Trading relations have greatly improved under the impetus of the Opportunity and Priority Japan campaigns, but both sides recognise the need to address the growing imbalance.

  Norway
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made on considering Norway's application to join the European Community.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Edinburgh European Council invited the Council of Ministers to decide on the opening of negotiations with Norway once the Commission's opinion, a detailed assessment of Norway's suitability for membership, is available. If the opinion is favourable, we expect negotiations with Norway to start soon after.

  Overseas Representatives (British Cars)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on buying British cars for use by overseas representatives.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In accordance with Government guidelines the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to purchase cars for use by overseas representatives on a value-for-money basis.

  British manufacturers are used where they are competitive on quality, fitness for purpose, price and delivery.

  Angola
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Angola.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking through the international community to end the violence in Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government supported Security Council resolution 804 and will continue to support the efforts of the United Nations to promote dialogue between the Government of Angola and UNITA with a view to agreeing a ceasefire and full implementation of the Bicesse peace agreements. We therefore welcome the meeting, held under UN auspices, at Addis Ababa last month between the two parties and hope that this will be followed by further dialogue.
  679
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 30, what further action he is taking to secure the release of three British citizens held by UNITA forces in Angola; what joint action he proposes with other governments with citizens similarly held; whether this issue will be raised at the UNITA/government talks in Addis Ababa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: Since first hearing of the detention of three British citizens by UNITA in Angola, we have made strong representations to UNITA for their release. I am pleased to say that all three were released on 7 February together with a number of other foreign detainees, and have now left Angola.

  Former Soviet Republics
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the assistance being given by the United Kingdom to the former Soviet republics.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The purpose of British assistance to the states of the former Soviet Union and the Baltics is to support economic and political reform. We have pledged bilateral aid totalling over £131 million, including £100 million for the know-how fund. So far, we have spent £35.7 million, and a further £11 million is already committed to specific activities. Our assistance is directed to priority sectors, mainly small business development, financial services, energy and food production and distribution. There is £280 million in medium-term export credit cover for the region, for which only Russia at present qualifies. We also contribute about 18 per cent. of European Community grant aid to the region, totalling 1,305 mecu in 1991 and 1992. The European Community has also made available 1.75 billion ecu in loans and credits. We provide further support through the World bank, the European bank for reconstruction and development and the Asian development bank.

  Customs Fines
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rulings have been made by the European Court of Justice regarding the illegality of customs fines; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  My attention has not been drawn to any rulings by the European Court of Justice regarding the illegality of Customs fines.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff in his Department are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost his Department since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Neither the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office nor the Overseas Development Administration have staff assigned specifically to market testing. Since November 1991, however,680
  market testing has accounted for a significant proportion of the time of some 25 diplomatic wing staff and 11 staff of the Overseas Development Administration. The cost, including direct staff costs, of the diplomatic wing's market testing programme up to 31 December 1992 was approximately £170,000; the cost of the Overseas Development Administration's programme was approximately £93,000.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In following up the requirements of the White Paper "Competing for Quality", Cm 1730, the diplomatic and ODA wings of the FCO each agreed a programme of market testing with the efficiency unit.

  Market testing exercises for the implementation of this programme are in hand but none has yet been completed.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Sri Lankan high commissioner.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not met the Sri Lankan high commissioner recently. I last met the high commissioner on 19 January.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Sri Lanka concerning the human rights situation in that country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We frequently discuss our concerns on human rights with the Sri Lankan Government. We take every opportunity to stress the importance we attach to respect for the rule of law.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings Foreign Office officials or Ministers have had with representatives of the Tamil Tigers in(a) Sri Lanka, (b) the United Kingdom and (c) elsewhere, and on what dates.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We try to keep in touch with all shades of Sri Lankan opinion. This is consistent with our frequent offer of good offices if all sides would find it useful to help negotiations take place.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings his Department's officials or Ministers have had with representatives of the Tamil community in the United Kingdom to discuss human rights in Sri Lanka in the last year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Before I visited Sri Lanka in October 1992, I met a group of representatives of human rights organisations, including those representing Tamil concerns. FCO officials are in frequent contact with both governmental and non-governmental human rights organisations in the United Kingdom and Sri Lanka.
  681
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to visit Sri Lanka. I visited Sri Lanka from 12 to 18 October last year.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will estimate(a) the number of barges on the River Danube which have broken United Nations sanctions by delivering oil or oil products to the territory of the former Yugoslavia, (b) the number of tankers in the Adriatic which have done so and (c) the number of aircraft originating in Iran which have done so.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We know of at least five barges that have breached UN Security Council resolution 757 of 1992 by delivering oil or oil products to Serbia on the Danube since the imposition of sanctions. We are aware of six tanker deliveries of oil to Montenegro via the Adriatic. No plane originating in Iran has yet been suspected of carrying oil or oil products to the former Yugoslavia. However, we know of at least one attempt by an Iranian plane to deliver arms to one of the parties to the Yugoslav conflict, in breach of UN Security Council resolution 713 of 1991.

  Weapons Convention
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government propose to ratify the 1981 convention on the use of weapons which may be excessively injurious or indiscriminate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are currently considering ratification of the convention by the United Kingdom, and expect to reach a decision soon.

  Global Environmental Change
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what detailed studies his Department has made or commissioned over the past three years in the foreign policy implications of global environmental change; and if he will make them available in whole or in part to the House.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We keep the foreign policy implications of global environment change under continuous review within the FCO. The Department has not commissioned specific external studies in this area.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his plans for developing a dialogue with national non-governmental organisations and academic bodies in areas of international environment policy where his is the lead Department.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have regular dialogue with non-governmental organisations and academic bodies covering a range of international environmental policy 682
  issues. We also maintain close contact with nongovernmental organisations on international aspects of a range of specific environmental issues.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Decommissioning Scheme
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out for each fishing fleet within England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the payments made under the fishing decommissioning scheme of 1984.

  Mr. Curry
  Payments made in respect of vessels in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland under the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1983 were as follows:

  £ million

  England

  15·54

  Scotland

  2·24

  Wales

  0·46

  Northern Ireland

  0·26

  Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the implementation of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992.

  Mr. Curry
  I shall shortly be laying before Parliament an order setting out the principles on which days-at-sea allocations will be worked out. On the basis of this order, Fisheries Departments will issue provisional days-at-sea figures to fishermen, who will have an opportunity to comment on them before days-at-sea restrictions start to operate. All fishermen will have a further opportunity to make a formal appeal to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal which is now being set up.

  I am placing in the Library of the House today an information note giving further details.

EMPLOYMENT

  Bridging Allowances
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds in receipt of bridging allowances for October, November and December 1992 on a comparable basis to the figures given in the answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), of 29 October,Official Report, columns 832–34.

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

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 10 February 1993.
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the

  683
  numbers of 16 to 17-year-olds in receipt of bridging allowance for October, November and December 1992. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The information you have requested is provided in the attached tables.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Number of males and females in receipt of bridging allowance—by ES region October 1992-December 1992

  October

  November

  December

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Northern

  316

  174

  255

  133

  247

  121

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  452

  250

  421

  197

  455

  217

  East Midlands and Eastern

  566

  274

  460

  268

  463

  237

  London and South East

  1,264

  707

  1,149

  622

  1,242

  635

  South West

  418

  193

  356

  184

  423

  197

  Wales

  293

  146

  257

  127

  252

  155

  West Midlands

  581

  327

  450

  237

  544

  274

  North West

  784

  405

  571

  284

  697

  359

  Scotland

  732

  422

  510

  303

  533

  273

  Total

  5,406

  2,898

  4,429

  2,335

  4,856

  2,468

  Numbers in receipt of extended child benefit October 1992-December 1992

  Weekly average per month

  October

  26,581

  November

  26,343

  December

  25,691

  Restart Interviews
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a table showing the results of Restart interviews for the period 1 April 1992 to 1 December 1992 on the same basis as the answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), of 29 October,Official Report, columns 834–36.

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

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 10 February 1993:

  Outcomes of Restart interviews April 1992—December 1992

  Region

  Interviews

  Job placings

  ET

  Jobclub

  Restart courses

  EAS

  Northern

  126,957

  557

  3,938

  4,454

  5,995

  112

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  152,981

  1,683

  6,301

  4,840

  7,857

  518

  East Midlands and Eastern

  181,669

  2,345

  4,868

  7,075

  6,524

  507

  London and South East

  624,657

  9,826

  14,988

  27,755

  19,079

  2,087

  South West

  141,185

  1,211

  4,770

  5,467

  4,874

  512

  Office for Wales

  106,575

  1,518

  3,648

  3,884

  4,133

  250

  West Midlands

  190,619

  2,333

  5,875

  6,881

  9,287

  552

  684

  Numbers in receipt of bridging allowance—by ES region October 1992-December 1992

  October

  November

  December

  Northern

  490

  388

  368

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  702

  618

  672

  East Midlands

  840

  728

  700

  London and South East

  1,971

  1,771

  1,877

  South West

  611

  540

  620

  Wales

  439

  384

  407

  West Midlands

  908

  687

  818

  North West

  1,189

  855

  1,056

  Scotland

  1,154

  813

  806

  Total

  8,304

  6,764

  7,324

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the results of Restart interviews conducted during the period April to December 1992. This is something which falls with the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The information you asked for is given in the attached annex. As you will appreciate, these figures reflect only the direct results of Restart. We do not know how many people subsequently take up a job or place on an employment or training programme as a result of the guidance given to them at their interview. It is through these indirect results of the help which advisers give clients in reviewing their options for returning to work that Restart has its effect.

  An indication of the scale of that effect is provided by the report "The Restart Effect" which was recently published by the independent Policy Studies Institute. It is based on an analysis of the largest survey of unemployed people in the United Kingdom since 1980. This showed conclusively that the programme had a major effect in reducing the time it takes people to leave unemployment, to get a job and to enter Employment Training, particularly for those people who were at a disadvantage within the labour market.

  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
  685

  Region

  Interviews

  Job placings

  ET

  Jobclub

  Restart courses

  EAS

  North West

  320,600

  3,003

  7,369

  10,900

  13,483

  535

  Office for Scotland

  208,639

  3,305

  5,944

  7,296

  8,071

  424

  Great Britain

  2,053,882

  25,781

  57,701

  78,552

  79,303

  5,497

  Temporary Employment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the numbers of people who have been employed in temporary employment in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Available information based on estimates from the labour force survey is given in the following table.

  People employed in temporary employment Great Britain

  Spring

  Numbers (thousands)

  1983

  1,345

  1984

  1,497

  1985

  1,403

  1986

  1,439

  1987

  1,547

  1988

  1,529

  1989

  1,465

  1990

  1,442

  1991

  1,450

  1992

  1,185

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the rate of unemployment among construction workers in each year since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Available information for Great Britain based on estimates from the labour force survey is given in the following table.

  Spring each year

  ILO Unemployment rate for construction workers (Per cent)

  1984

  11·6

  1985

  11·8

  1986

  12·0

  1987

  11·0

  1988

  6·7

  1989

  7·9

  1990

  7·1

  1991

  12·6

  1992

  17·6

  Source: labour force survey.

  Note: ILO unemployment rates obtained from the labour force survey are defined following internationally standard guidelines. Comparable information on this basis is not available for years prior to 1984.

DEFENCE

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all reportable accidents and incidents that have occurred at AWE Burghfield and AWE Cardiff since 1962; and if he will provide a breakdown of the annual totals into the number of (i) fatalities, (ii) major injuries, (iii) other injuries, (iv) dangerous occurrences and (v) disease.

  Mr. Aitken
  The breakdown of figures for reportable accidents and incidents for AWE Burghfield and AWE Cardiff during the period 1962 to 1992 is not readily available in the form requested. I shall write to the hon. Member when they are available.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which his Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Aitken
  A provisional list of regulations that impact on business has recently been compiled. It will be fully checked for accuracy and placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Trident
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average weight of a Trident submarine.

  Mr. Aitken
  The submerged displacement of the Vanguard class Trident missile submarine is some 16,000 tonnes.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what public appointments he has made since 1 November 1992; and what information he has on the political affiliations of those appointed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Three appointments have been made to Ministry of Defence executive non-departmental bodies since 1 November 1992. Appointments are made on the basis of aptitude and merit, and political affiliation, if any, is not relevant or recorded.

  UN (Military Secretariat)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to send a retired senior officer to the United Nations to advise on the establishment of a military secretariat there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on Monday 8 February,Official Report, column 498.

  Army Redundancies
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the redundancies in the British Army in 1993–94 will be compulsory.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 9.6 per cent. of Army redundancies, all of whom will be officers, will be compulsory.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what levels of redundancies are to be made in the British Army in the year 1993–94; and what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of those redundancies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The position on planned redundancies remains as set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on 10 December 1992,Official Report, column 800; the estimated cost of the redundancy payments—special capital payments—is £188 million.

  Royal Yacht Britannia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place about the replacement of the royal yacht Britannia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 26 January,Official Report, column 646.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what current discussions he has had with the German Government about prospects for German participation in the European fighter aircraft project.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie) on 9 February.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost, and how many people would benefit, if the earnings limit for invalid care allowance was(a) raised to the lower earnings limit for paying national insurance contributions or (b) abolished.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 18 November 1992 at column 252.

  War Disablement Pensions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of war disablement pensions have made a claim for loss of hearing below the 20 per cent. level in 1990, 1991 and 1992; and how many are currently outstanding.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, claims for war disablement pension have increased significantly during the period as follows.

  Claims

  1990

  27,004

  1991

  42,881

  1992

  133,972

  688
  Note: Records do not show how many of these claims were for noise induced hearing loss.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants received income support in respect of costs for(a) nursing care homes and (b) residential care homes in (i) May 1991 and (ii) May 1992; and if he will provide a regional and social services authority based breakdown of these figures.

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

  May 1991

  Residential Care People receiving income support in (thousands)

  Nursing Homes-People receiving income support in (thousands)

  England

  123

  76

  Scotland

  8

  9

  Wales

  7

  9

  Great Britain

  139

  94

  May 1992

  Residential Care (thousands)

  Nursing Homes (thousands)

  England

  135

  95

  Scotland

  10

  12

  Wales

  7

  10

  Great Britain

  152

  116

  Notes:

  All data rounded to nearest thousand.

  Source: Quarterly statistical inquiry.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the relevant regulations to allow claims for vibration white finger in circumstances where the claimant has been mainly working with wood; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no plans at present to amend the industrial injuries benefit regulations relating to claims for vibration white finger. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is currently studying the scientific evidence relating to hand/arm vibration syndrome, which includes vibration white finger, and will report in due course.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Benefits Agency to cease to refer to members of the public eligible for benefits of any sort as customers and to substitute applicants or other words or phrases appropriate to the context.

  Mr. Burt
  Ministers fully support the Benefits Agency's use of the word "customer" where appropriate. I have asked Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, to write with a full reply to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Nigel Spearing, dated 9 February 1993:

  689
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if the Agency will cease to refer to members of the public eligible for benefits as customers and substitute the word applicant or some other words or phrases.
  At the launch of the Benefits Agency in April 1991 one of the four Core Values on which the Agency was to conduct its business was Customer Service. The term "customer" was introduced in an attempt to focus our attention on the people we serve and to break down long standing barriers often implied in the use of other terminology. People who use the services of the Benefits Agency are entitled to be treated with the care and respect which is normally denoted by the term customer.
  "Customer" is also a more useful and all-embracing term than either claimant or applicant. The Benefits Agency deals not only with people who are claiming (or in the process of claiming) benefit, but also with their relatives, people acting on behalf of those claiming benefits, employers, welfare rights officers, other government departments and agencies. We use the term "internal customer" when describing the relationship between the links in the organisation, and this is a principle common to many organisations. The term reflects the attitude we should adopt and we have no plans to change it at the present time.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make an estimate of the number of(a) individual claimants and (b) households in Lambeth dependent upon income support at any one time.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr.Jhon Fraser, dated 9 February 1993:
  As chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matter. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for an estimate of the number of (a) individual claimants and (b) households in Lambeth dependent upon Income Support at any one time.
  The information requested could be obtained only at disprotionate cost. However, I have listed below the available information, as at 30 Novermber 1992, of the number of Income Support recipients at the Benefits Agency Districts covering the London Borough of Lambeth. Benefits Agency District boundaries do not correspond wth those of individual boroughs and some may, therefore, live outside the borough of Lambeth. This information has been obtained form the Income Support Management Information Statistics.

  District

  Number of Recipients

  Bankside

  25,616

  Lewisham and Brixton

  57,393

  Palace

  65,007

  South West Thames

  55,474

  Total

  203,490

  690
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claimants who have lost their benefit books have been refused a replacement in the 1991–92 financial year and from April 1992 to date; and where there has been a previously lost book, how many have been subject to unauthorised encashments.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Richard to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 9 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many Income Support claimants have lost their benefit books and were then refused a replacement in the 1991–92 financial year and from April 1992 to date; and where there has been a previous lost book, how many have been subject to unauthorized enacashments.
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, I should explain that the number of cased where a customer reported an Income Support order book lost in 1992–92 and up to the quarter ending 30 June 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, were:

  1991–92

  Q/E 30 June 1992

  Number of IS books issued:

  6,472,016

  1,337,865

  Number of IS books reported lost:

  66,594 (1.03 per cent.)

  19,873 (1.48 per cent.)

  Number of IS books reported lost, stolen, destroyed after receipt:

  28,004 (0.4 per cent.)

  10,559 (0.8 per cent.)

  When customers report that they have lost an order book, they will he asked about the circumstances of the loss, and a replacement will be issued. The interviewing officer will have to be satisfied that reasonable efforts to trace the book have been made. The customer may not automatically receive a replacement book, but could be paid benefit temporarily by girocheques on a weekly basis.

  The overall number of payment transactions makes a full reconciliation of order books by weekly counterfoils impracticable and not cost effective. It is therefore not possible to readily identify how many of those missing order books have subsequently been cashed.

  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to begin paying Mrs. Shirley Wakeham of The Nook, Ugborough, Ivybridge, South Devon, the disability living allowance awarded to her on 26 February 1992; if he will make a statement as to the reasons for the delay; and if he will consider the payment of interest to reimburse Mrs. Wakeham for the unpaid benefit.
  691
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr Anthony Steen, dated 9 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions raised about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, about when paymerts of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) awarded to Mrs Shirley Wakeham of The Nook, Ugborough, Ivybridge, South Devon, will begin, the reasons for the delay, and whether he will consider the payment of interest to reimburse Mrs Wakeham for the unpaid benefit.
  Outstanding payments of DLA were made to Mrs Wakeham on 5 February 1993. Payment was unfortunately delayed due to a clerical error made in recording the Adjudication Officer's (AO) decision onto the DLA computer system.
  The rules governing the payment of compensation for loss of interest are quite specific and require that delay in making payment on a claim must amount to 12 months or more before compensation can be considered. In Mrs Wakeham's case the delay amounts to less than 12 months therefore compensation cannot be paid.
  Clearly her payments have not been handled with the efficiency I would expect and I offer my sincere apologies for any distress or inconvenience caused.
  I have separately replied to you in greater detail about this case. I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to make a decision on the application for attendance allowance submitted by Graham Peter Barton of 7 Churchill Cottages, Ugborough, Ivybridge, South Devon, NI No. NZ 46 58 27 A; and if he will make a statement as to the reasons for the 13 month delay in settling this matter.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and a copy will be place in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 9 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about when he expects to make a decision on the application for Attendance Allowance (AA) submitted by Graham Peter Barton of 7 Churchill Cottages, Ugborough, Ivybridge, South Devon NI No NZ 46 58 27 A; and if he will make a statement as to the reasons for the 13 month delay in settling this.
  A decision was made on Mr. Barton's AA claim on 24 June 1992 and notified to him on 30 June 1992. The subsequent review decision was made on 26 January 1993 and notified to him on 3 February 1993. Unfortunately Mr Barton's original AA claim made on 5 December 1991 was mislaid. A further claim was not obtained until 19 March and subsequent delays have resulted from the heavy volumes of work following the successful launch of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  My letter of 19 October 1992 to all MPs explained the problems the Agency has faced since the successful launch of DLA and the positive steps I have taken to improve the situation. Further steps are being taken to recruit additional, and redeploy existing resources to clear the backlog of reviews.
  692
  I must apologise for the delay in dealing with Mr Barton's case. Such matters are not taken lightly when they fail to come up to the standard of service the Benefits Agency is trying to give all its customers and in this instance Mr Barton has clearly not received the standard of service to which he is entitled.
  I have separately replied to you in greater detail about Mr Barton's case. I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Benefits Agency (Customer Charter)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of claimants who have applied for compensation under the Benefits Agency's customer charter; and what is the number of successful claims.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of compensation under the Benefit Agency's customer charter is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms. Mildred Gordon, dated 9 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking, what is the number of claimants who have applied for compensation under the Benefit Agency's Customer Charter; and what is the number of successful claims.
  I would like to explain that the Department has operated Special Payment arrangements for many years and not solely as a result of the Benefits Agency's Customer Charter.
  However, the information you require is not available in the precise form requested. This is because, although some customers request compensation themselves, cases are normally forwarded for consideration as a result of identification by Benefits Agency office staff.
  I am able to state that, in the period 1 April 1992 to 30 September 1992, compensation for delay in payment of benefit was agreed in 3,085 cases.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the arrangements detailed in Mr. Michael Bichard's letter of 6 January, whereby Mr. James Johnston of 17 Summerlands Court, Brixham, will receive his disability living allowance each month by automatic credit transfer, will be activated; and when Mr. Johnston may expect to receive the next instalment of disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 9 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions raised about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, about when the Disability Living

  693
  Allowance awarded to Mr. James Johnston will be paid by automated credit transfer and when may he expect to receive the next instalment of his benefit.
  Mr. Johnston's benefit has been paid by automatic credit transfer since 14 September 1992 and the next payment is due on 24 February 1993. I have written to you separately and in greater detail regarding Mr. Johnston's claim.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Drugs
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations her Department has received from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry regarding membership of the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs; what was the date of any representations; and what was her Department's response.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Director of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry wrote to me on 11 December on this matter. A reply was sent on 25 January. I can now announce the names of the new members. They are as follows:

  Number of in-patients and day cases treated by RHA, all specialties, 1987–88—1991–92

  Regional health authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1 1991–92

  2 1989–90

  Northern

  546,101

  587,167

  600,986

  628,583

  655,287

  3,998

  Yorkshire

  624,780

  686,425

  702,691

  722,130

  751,428

  4,321

  Trent

  680,756

  756,151

  779,796

  809,186

  858,823

  4,116

  East Anglian

  293,072

  334,814

  356,003

  360,934

  379,294

  5,563

  North West Thames

  471,673

  531,953

  551,817

  536,203

  576,714

  8,952

  North East Thames

  579,509

  649,472

  688,821

  695,279

  746,633

  7,918

  South East Thames

  553,521

  616,953

  626,075

  629,250

  673,068

  7,055

  South West Thames

  405,323

  443,537

  454,287

  457,600

  500,588

  4,937

  Wessex

  436,368

  492,741

  510,516

  526,284

  562,571

  2,215

  Oxford

  344,225

  373,247

  388,680

  383,333

  404,923

  7,505

  South Western

  498,485

  578,399

  591,880

  588,049

  617,689

  4,864

  West Midlands

  768,725

  890,262

  925,209

  959,648

  1,006,699

  6,141

  Mersey

  425,392

  455,411

  479,831

  487,107

  523,515

  2,594

  North Western

  764,908

  844,152

  868,505

  887,029

  927,034

  6,401

  SHAs

  107,368

  111,091

  114,223

  114,637

  122,441

  6,898

  England

  7,500,206

  8,351,775

  8,639,320

  8,785,252

  9,306,707

  83,478

  1 Provisional.

  2 Private patients.

  Source:

  1987–88 form SH3. NB In-patients are discharges and deaths and are not comparable with finished consultant episodes.

  1988–89 to 1991–92 In-patients and day cases form KP70. NB In-patient finished consultant episodes are not comparable with discharges and deaths.

  Private Episodes from the Hospital Episode System.

  1989–90

  NHS episodes

  Private episodes

  Northern

  600,986

  3,998

  Yorkshire

  702,691

  4,321

  Trent

  779,796

  4,116

  East Anglia

  356,003

  5,563

  North West Thames

  551,817

  8,952

  North East Thames

  688,821

  7,918

  South East Thames

  626,075

  7,055

  South West Thames

  454,287

  4,937

  Wessex

  510,516

  2,215

  Oxford

  388,680

  7,505

  South Western

  591,880

  4,864

  West Midlands

  925,209

  6,141

  Mersey

  479,831

  2,594

  North Western

  868,505

  6,401

  SHAs

  114,223

  6,898

  694
  Dr. P. R. Fellows—General practitioner, Gloucestershire and chairman of Gloucester local medical committee.

  Miss A. F. Glasier—Consultant gynaecologist and director of family planning, Lothian health board.

  Dr. C. Grattan—Consultant dermatologist, Norfolk and Norwich hospital.

  Dr. G. Hargreaves—Former GP with experience of the pharmaceutical industry.

  Professor S. Holgate—Specialist in allergic disorders, Southampton university.

  Mrs. S. Noyce—Pharmacist adviser to Sefton FHSA.

  Hospital Patients
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in each of the last five years per regional health authority(a) as national health service patients and (b) as private patients within the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information that is available is set out in the table. The latest information on private patients is for 1989–90. Information for earlier years is not available.

  Source: Hospital Episode System.

  Schizophrenia
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital admissions there were for patients with schizophrenia in each year since 1986; and how many of these in each year were re-admissions.

  Mr. Yeo
  The table gives the number of admissions and re-admissions in England where a diagnosis of schizophrenia was made. 1989–90 is the only year where the quality of information permits publication.
  695

  Number of hospital admissions in England for patients with schizophrenia and number of re-admissions (HES) 1989–90

  Number

  Number of admissions

  38,180

  of which number of re-admissions

  18,550

  Community Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being undertaken by her Department to ensure the financial security of short-stay residential projects after the introduction of community care arrangements.

  Mr. Yeo
  From April local authorities will be responsible for assessing individuals' needs and arranging care, including short-stay residential care if appropriate. The money that the Department of Social Security would otherwise have spent supporting people in residential care will be transferred to local authorities to enable them to meet these new responsibilities. Particular encouragement has been given to local authorities to make suitable arrangements for respite care. We will be monitoring carefully how authorities fulfil their new responsibilities.

  London Hospitals
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy in coming to decisions in the Tomlinson proposals to establish schemes under which medical and nursing staff in London hospitals can be redeployed to(a) acute services outside London and (b) primary and community care services in London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We intend to announce our proposals for the future of the health service in London shortly. This statement will make clear the Government's response to Tomlinson's proposals and will set out how we wish to see the national health service in London evolve and improve.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring is undertaken and which statistics are kept by her Department to ensure a national consistency in decisions affecting extra-contractual referrals.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Decisions about extra-contractual referrals should reflect "Guidance on Extra Contractual Referrals" (EL (92) 60) which should ensure national consistency. Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued by her Department about the grounds on which an extra-contractual referral can be derived.

  Mr. Sackville
  An extra-contractual referral is a referral made to a provider unit outside an existing contract with the patient's district health authority. "Guidance on Extra Contractual Referrals" was issued under cover of EL(92)60, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications have been received from units or hospitals seeking trust status in Northumberland; and if she will make a statement.
  696
  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received three expressions of interest from units in Northumberland seeking trust status in the fourth wave. If all are successful it will bring the total number of national health service trusts in Northumberland to five.

  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hearings mental health review tribunals have had in each year since 1987;

  (2) how many applications there have been to mental health review tribunals in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Yeo
  The number of applications for and hearings of mental health review tribunals in each year since 1987 is as follows:

  Applications

  Hearings

  1987

  5,001

  2,928

  1988

  5,581

  3,168

  1989

  6,378

  3,731

  1990

  7,293

  4,378

  1991

  8,137

  4,728

  1992

  9,073

  4,935

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many mental health review tribunal hearings patients have had legal representation in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times sections 2, 3 and 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 have been used in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information is given in the table.

  Mental Health Act 1983

  Section:

  Year and Source:

  2

  3

  37

  1987–88

  Admissions1

  8,867

  2,568

  982

  Changes to2

  5,998

  4,512

  154

  Total

  14,865

  7,080

  1,136

  1988–89

  Admissions1

  9,517

  2,889

  883

  Changes to2

  6,484

  5,070

  218

  Total

  16,001

  7,959

  1,101

  1989–90

  Admissions1

  9,534

  3,031

  1,042

  Changes to2

  6,345

  5,004

  222

  Total

  15,879

  8,035

  1,264

  1 Admissions to special hospitals relate to calendar years.

  2 Patients in NHS facilities only.

  Hospital Broadcasting
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy toward the use by hospital broadcasting organisations of a freely radiating FM frequency.
  697
  Mr. Sackville
  Patient audio entertainment is readily available by using proven cabled (hard wire) systems delivered to the bedhead. The quality of properly designed systems is excellent, they afford privacy, and there is little risk of interference with sensitive equipment within the hospital. It should not be necessary for hospital entertainment to be broadcast on FM.

  Dentists
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of dentists receiving national health service remuneration; and of these how many(a) hold regular Saturday surgeries for NHS registered patients, (b) undertake specialist services for children and (c) provide out-of-hours emergency services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 30 September 1992 there were 15,411 general dental practitioners (GDPs) in England receiving remuneration for providing dental care and treatment under the national health service.

  The other information requested is not held centrally. However, information based upon a sample of GDPs, used in conducting a workload survey in 1991, suggests that some 33 per cent. of GDPs held Saturday morning sessions in 1991. Very few held Saturday afternoon sessions, and most of those who did also held Saturday morning sessions.

  The same survey shows that 78 per cent. of GDPs personally provided out-of-hours emergency cover. (All GDPs with continuing care or capitation patients are required to make reasonable arrangements to provide emergency cover for such patients, but need not necessarily provide the cover personally.)

  Information on specialist services provided by GDPs for children is not collected centrally.

  Wessex RHA (Computer)
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of the money lost by the Wessex regional health authority in attempting to install a new computer system; and if she will make a statement on the current situation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The district auditor estimated that about £43 million has been spent by the Wessex regional health authority on the RISP computer project. The Wessex RHA's regional general manager has publicly stated that the RHA has derived no benefit from about £20 million of that expenditure.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much her Department owes to community pharmacists for periods of up to(a) 60 days and (b) 90 days;

  (2) if she will set out her Department's policy towards the timing of payments to community pharmacists in respect of the NHS pharmaceutical services they provide; and what steps have been taken to implement the objective of ensuring that large companies or organisations pay their debts to small suppliers within a 30-day period;

  (3) on how many occasions, and to what extent in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, community pharmacists received payment in respect of NHS pharmaceutical services within (a) 30 days, (b) 60 days or (c) 90 days of the provision of these services.
  698
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Pharmacists receive some 80 per cent. of their national health service fees and payments within one month of submitting the prescriptions they have dispensed to the prescription pricing authority. The balance is paid a month later when the authority has calculated the exact payment due. In practice this means that, in any one month, pharmacists are receiving the equivalent of a full month's payment for their work.

  Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the Royal College of Physicians' report commissioned by her Department which examines the recommendations for guidelines on hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health did not commission the report on hyperbaric medicine. The working party was set up by the faculty of occupational medicine. Publication of the report is a matter for the Royal College of Physicians.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider issuing a health notice giving guidelines on the value of hyperbaric oxygen as a treatment for gas gangrene and carbon monoxide poisoning.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have no such plans at present.

  Prison Mother and Baby Units
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the cost of the visits by the social services inspectorate to the mother and baby units in prisons in each year since 1990; and which budget bore the cost of the visits;

  (2) what plans she has to transfer the inspection of mother and baby units in prisons from the social services inspectorate to the chief inspector of prisons; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) how many times the social services inspectorate visited the mother and baby units in prisons during 1990, 1991 and 1992, respectively; how many members of the inspectorate made each inspection; and what was the duration of each visit.

  Mr. Yeo
  At the request of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the Department of Health is conducting a programme of three inspections of the mother and baby units in prison at two-year intervals between 1990 and 1994. The first two inspections took place in 1990 and 1992 and a third is planned for 1994. The position will be reviewed after the 1994 inspection.

  The Department set up a multi-disciplinary team led by a social services inspector to conduct the inspections. There were five members of the team; two social services inspectors, one nurse, one paediatrician and a psychiatrist. In 1990 the team allotted three days to inspect each unit and in 1992 four days.

  The Department of Health met the costs of these inspections. The costs cannot be identified separately.

  Child Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with representatives of voluntary organisations with regard to their taking over
  699
  wholly or partially the statutory child care functions of individual local authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Hospital Incinerators
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the hospital incinerators in England that(a) burn less than 25 kg of clinical waste per hour and (b) burn less than 1 tonne of clinical waste per hour.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Bishop of Guildford.

Plutonium: Transport Safety
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether plutonium is being flown over Britain in containers designed to withstand a drop of only 27 feet and, if so, whether an accident might cause a major nuclear disaster.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the containers being used for the carriage of plutonium and other radioactive materials are designed and tested to withstand extremely severe conditions. The advisory committee on the safe transport of radioactive materials in its report in 1988 advised that the health risk to people from the transport of radioactive materials, including civil plutonium by air, was extremely remote and acceptable. The report discussed and effectively ruled out any possibility of a major nuclear disaster from such transport.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is not the practice in other countries? Is he aware that in the United States, for example, the restrictions are so severe that no transport of plutonium takes place in the air? Is he also aware that in some countries such transport is prohibited and that the degree of safety in this country is below that anywhere in the world? Will the Government look at the problem again?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take strong issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. The safety standard in this country is extremely high and rigorous. It is approved by the IAEA and therefore it applies not only to this country.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in those circumstances I shall write to the Minister because there appears to be a factual difference between us.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not surprised that there is a difference between us. It has happened before and doubtless it will happen again.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that the House of Commons Environment Committee warned against such transfer of plutonium? Although the Question refers to transport by air, is it not the case that the Japanese Government have prohibited the landing of plutonium in any of Japan's ports and have cancelled arrangements for the use of a specially converted ship? Does that not show that there is serious concern? As the Government have set up a
634
Cabinet committee to decide whether the THORP project in Cumbria should continue, should not the matter be reconsidered?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we share entirely the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for the safe transport of hazardous waste. That precisely is why ACTRAM was set up, with specialists available to give advice. That is why ACTRAM studied the situation so carefully and reached its conclusions.

Legal Aid: Costs
2.40 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to restrict the growth in the cost to taxpayers of the legal aid system and what is the anticipated cost in the current year.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it is anticipated that net expenditure on legal aid will reach £1,100 million during the current financial year. That compares with £426 million five years ago. I have announced a number of proposals designed to bring the rate of growth under better control. Regulations to implement those proposals will be laid shortly. Even after my proposed changes have been implemented it is estimated that spending on legal aid will continue to rise by 10 per cent. per year. It will reach more than £1,500 million by 1995–96.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that extremely interesting Answer. Does he share the view that although legal aid is a valuable service it is odd that in this day and age it should increase in cost as a percentage more rapidly than almost any other form of social activity? Is my noble and learned friend aware that many of us strongly support him in curbing legal aid, even if some fairly severe restrictions are involved?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. Obviously, like every other type of public expenditure legal aid must be kept under proper control. One of the important objectives of what I have in mind is the achievement of that control in as fair as manner as possible.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his proposed savage cuts in legal aid have been condemned by the consumer bodies; condemned by the CABs and advice centres; condemned by the Law Society and the Bar Council; condemned by the judiciary; condemned by his own statutory body which has advised him on legal aid; and have met with approval only from the Treasury, from whence they came, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the number of names does not necessarily give strength to the argument. It is extremely important to consider the position. Surely a degree of control is required in

635
respect of public expenditure. I have carefully considered proposals put forward for other ways of limiting the expenditure on legal aid. So far none has been adequate to the task. I am willing to consider any proposals which will have the effect of providing a better and more efficient service for those entitled to legal aid while giving proper value to the taxpayer.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, fresh as I am from serving on a Select Committee which had the pleasure of listening to 42 petitioners in person, will the noble and learned Lord bear in mind the vastly increased cost to the legal system of a substantial increase in the number of unrepresented litigants in both the criminal and the civil courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should perhaps say that I expect very little effect at all on criminal legal aid. As regards civil legal aid, I am not at all certain that there will be a substantial increase in the number of unrepresented litigants. It is true that there are unrepresented litigants at present. I do not have the precise figures but I should be very surprised if many are unrepresented because they are not eligible for legal aid. Many have views about the strength of their cases which prompt them to represent themselves.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, as in civil cases the litigant assisted by legal aid who is successful is normally able to recover the bulk of his costs from his non-legally aided opponent, will my noble and learned friend say what proportion of legally-aided civil litigants are successful against those who do not have the benefit of legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the proportion varies according to the subject matter. The one which is often singled out for most attention is personal injury actions. About 85 per cent. of those are successful and 15 per cent are unsuccessful. When the action is not successful the costs are considerable so that there is a cost to the legal aid fund in respect of all types of actions where legal aid is available.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that, by themselves, numbers do not count. Will the noble and learned Lord accept that among those numbers are many learned people who are involved at street level with the problems? People are entitled to have their problems properly dealt with and their cases heard. Has the noble and learned Lord considered what effect his proposals for cuts may have on the various charters produced by the Prime Minister; for example, the Citizen's Charter and the Patient's Charter? It is not much good giving people rights in charters if they find that they cannot afford the legal assistance to obtain those rights because of cuts imposed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the principal purpose of the charters is to confer rights which will not be required to be dealt with by a great series of legal action; for example, the way in which people are treated at public service counters and the disclosure of
636
the name of the person who is attending to them. My proposals are to curb the growth of legal aid. I want to make it clear that there is no question of reducing the legal aid budget. Those who speak of savage cuts imply that we are seeking to cut the legal aid budget. In fact, it has increased by 10 per cent. per year during the survey years. I do not envisage that my proposed changes to control the budget will have anything other than a marginal effect on charters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend has made clear, to describe the control of expenditure which is rising more rapidly than that in almost any other area as "savage cuts" discredits the noble Lord who puts forward that argument.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble friend says, the matter must be taken in context. I wish to emphasise—because it seems to have escaped the notice of some—that it is expected that the legal aid budget will rise substantially during the survey years.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as legal aid, by definition, is given largely to the poorer sections of society, is not the major cause of such an increase the fact that there are now many more poor people because of the policies implemented by this Government?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that the principal reason for the increase in the numbers seeking legal aid is because of the rise in the number of remedies available. Of course, it is also true that the range of cases in which legal aid is available is considerable. The demand for legal aid has risen on that account.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the legal profession could do much to reduce the increasing cost of legal aid and prevent the waste of police time and that of witnesses if it were to enter into discussions to reduce the number of cases which go right up to the door of the courts before the accused changes his not guilty plea to one of guilty?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend has made an extremely important point. The implications of the matter he has referred to go far beyond legal aid. It has implications as regards the convenience of witnesses, jurors and many others. Any suggestions that noble Lords can make that would have the effect of limiting this difficulty for the general public would be most welcome.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of a case that was mentioned in The Times two or three days ago where the costs of a legal action were discussed in the court? In the case that was mentioned a figure of £35 per hour per solicitor employed was considered reasonable. Does the noble and learned Lord feel that that kind of figure, as distinct from the somewhat astronomical figures that have been mentioned for legal services, is probably nearer the mark?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I represent the taxpayer and as I purchase legal services, the noble

637
Lord will not be surprised to hear that I much prefer the £35 figure to some other figures that have been mentioned.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, to what extent are the problems that my noble and learned friend faces in this field a reflection of policies followed by the Home Office? If so, will the searching study that we were told the Secretary of State is now going to carry out into the affairs of that department have a bearing on the problems that my noble and learned friend faces?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, obviously my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responsibility for policies relating to the criminal law. Those policies have an effect on costs and other matters. In formulating his policies my right honourable friend takes account of the effects they may have on the courts and on my department. However, he has a wider brief than that and he must take other matters into account.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I believe that this is both a difficult and a contentious subject. Will my noble and learned friend explore the possibility of treating it in terms of a debate rather than simply through questions and answers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am always open to consider debates. We have had two debates on this subject since I intimated my proposals in November. One debate occurred at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the other occurred recently at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

Children Born Without Eyes: Research
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will commission independent research into the cause of some children being born with no eyes, with particular attention to the possible effects of pesticides, dioxins and viral infections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, this tragic condition has been studied for many years without any clear indication as regards its cause. However, it is recognised that it may be genetically determined. I have asked for all the available data to be reviewed by the department's external independent expert advisers. We shall commission any research that they recommend.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will do all she can to assist in this matter of children who are born without eyes. However, I am equally sure that an independent inquiry is far preferable to an inquiry conducted by a government department which is responsible for licensing pesticides, especially as the Ministry of Agriculture has been less forceful in restricting pesticides than agriculture ministries in some other countries. Pesticides are a possible source of the
638
problem we are discussing. Will the noble Baroness try to ensure that the Government establish an independent inquiry to examine the statistics and to investigate any possible cluster effect? Where cluster effects are found, clearly the local hazards must be identified. Will the Government also make a special effort to help the children affected by this condition and their families?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is very much my intention to help the children affected by this condition and their families. At this stage, however, the Government would be reluctant to institute an independent inquiry. We would prefer to use our external independent expert advisers who have the specific task of reviewing these kind of incidents. I believe that is a quicker way of tackling the problem. Our advisers can obtain information more readily and we can then take action.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble Baroness said this defect may be due to a genetic condition, but is she aware that another condition known as optic nerve hypoplasia, which is not a genetic condition, may also be a cause of the defect? I urge the noble Baroness to follow my noble friend's suggestion and establish an independent and unprejudiced inquiry into this. This is a very serious matter.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is an on-going research agenda. The director of research and development at the department ensures that issues of the day that need investigation are investigated. In the current year we are spending £20.22 million on research and development. That is just within the department. In addition, a great deal of research is being carried out within the NHS and among non-departmental public bodies.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, bearing in mind that this is probably a condition that occurs worldwide and is one of distressing proportions, can my noble friend say whether the World Health Organisation is doing anything in this field?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend any information on that point at the moment. I am not sure what research programmes the World Health Organisation is carrying out. However, I shall certainly bear his views in mind. If we can learn anything from other countries we should do so.

International Criminal Court Proposals
2.55 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the Answer of Baroness Trumpington (H.L. Deb., 19th January, col. 810), whether, when the United Nations sets up an international criminal court, cases involving British service personnel accused of war crimes will be investigated and tried by that court.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the study by the International Law Commission of the possibility of establishing an international criminal court is at an early stage. It is impossible to speculate on what its jurisdiction may be. British service personnel accused of war crimes may be tried in civilian courts in the UK.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I appreciate that discussions are at an early stage. But this matter is a cause of great concern. Will she give me an assurance that before any decisions are taken by Her Majesty's Government, the Chiefs of Staff, commissioned officers and other ranks will be consulted about the implications of any such agreement and also that Parliament will discuss the matter? Will this matter require legislation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite certain that if an international criminal court is to be set up by the UN it will be some time before it is established. That gives us the opportunity which the noble Lord mentioned to allow the very fullest discussion to take place before any war crime is referred to that court, should it be established, rather than to a civilian court in the United Kingdom, wherever the alleged offence has taken place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would this matter need legislation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe it would require legislation. However, I should like to check on that. I do not believe we could proceed with an international criminal court of this kind without legislation being initiated.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I believe my noble friend said an examination was being carried out as regards the possibilities of setting up this international court. Who in the international arena is sponsoring this court and taking the initiative in the matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the United Nations commission of experts is taking the initiative in this matter. That commission will report to the UN Secretary General. The experts are obviously considering machinery which already exists under the terms of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for prosecuting those who commit grave breaches of the conventions. However, it will be some time before the court is established and full discussion will be undertaken before we reach any decision on this matter.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister comment on allegations that the UN commission investigating war crimes in Yugoslavia has insufficient resources to carry out its job properly? Why is it that the UK Government have so far failed to submit any evidence to this commission when both the United States and France have already done so?
Baroness Chalker: My Lords, I am not aware of the UN commission of experts having any lack of
640
expertise, time or resources to carry out its work and to make a report to the Secretary General. Nor am I aware that we have failed in any way to submit information. Certainly in respect of one aspect of the war crimes—the awful rapes that appear to have happened—Britain has been in the lead, with Dame Anne Warburton leading the mission. We have given the UN commission as much help as we can and shall continue to do so.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes and in that of the noble lord, Lord Chalfont, six minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. These two amendments to standing orders give effect to two items in the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House, which enjoyed a favourable wind when it was agreed to on Monday of this week.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 40(2)
At end insert (", unless unanimous leave is granted by the House.").
Standing Order 51
Leave out Standing Order 51 and insert the following:

("51.—(1) When, on the Question being put, a division is called for, the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall order the Bar to be cleared. Two Tellers shall be appointed by the Contents and two by the Not-contents.

(2) If, after a lapse of three minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared, Tellers have not been appointed for either the Contents or the Not-contents, a division cannot take place. The Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall declare the Question decided in favour of the side which has appointed Tellers.

(3) One Teller for the Contents and one for the Not-contents shall be appointed for each division lobby without respect to their degree; and Clerks shall be in attendance in each division lobby to record the names of the Contents and Not-contents respectively; the Tellers shall count the votes and announce the numbers to the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair.

(4) After the lapse of six minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared, or longer at the discretion of the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair, the doors of the Chamber shall be locked, and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall inform the House or the Committee of the Question which is the subject of the division.

(5) A Lord may vote in a division although he did not hear the Question put.").—(Lord Ampthill.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee: Report
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman rose to call attention to the sixth annual report of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should first like to pay tribute to the chairman and members of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) not just for the annual report but for the other specialised and detailed reports which they produce from time to time. They show a deep understanding of the problems of those with every kind of disability as they try to journey around our cities and our countryside.
This document reminds us that it is not just people with physical disabilities who need help to use public transport, but those with other disabilities, such as parents with prams, buggies and young children, the elderly, and those with heavy baggage and shopping. Over 6 million people in the United Kingdom have some disability. They include 2.5 million who have access to a household car, and 3.75 million who do not. Over 4 million people have a serious mobility problem, and 500,000 of them use wheelchairs. The easier the access to public transport, the more those persons will be able to use it, or to increase their use of it.
The Department of Transport Disability Unit report for 1990 said that its research suggested that there was a new market of up to 40 per cent. of disabled persons who could start to use buses and coaches, or use them more often, if those buses and coaches were easier to get on and off. Those extra passengers could amount to some 2.3 million people. Surely that is an incentive to go out and get on with the job.
The report that we are discussing is wide-ranging. Basically it deals with the pedestrian environment, the bus industry and education and training for mobility. The summary begins:
"Accessibility in the pedestrian environment is fundamental for removing mobility handicaps".
We all know that to be true. We have all experienced uneven footpaths, ill-sited seats and litter bins, cars parking on pavements, cycles strewn around, even being ridden on footpaths, indiscriminate parking at bus stops by cars and vans, no ramps to get up kerbs, and insufficient tactile paving for the blind.
If that kind of obstruction takes place, then mobility handicap is the result, and any effort to make other modes of transport accessible is virtually impossible. It is an interesting statistic that three-quarters of all pedestrians admitted to hospital after accidents have suffered injury by falling on the pavement. What cost is that to the NHS?
On education and training in transport for mobility, I hope for the widest possible publicity for other reports by the same advisory committee—the DPTAC Catechism and the Pilgrim's Progress. I endorse that committee's fervent hope that the next
642
generation of people in charge of public transport will understand the scale and nature of their future markets and how best to serve them.
I want to concentrate most of my time on the bus industry and some serious factual conclusions contained in the report. It says:
"that because of a combination of adverse conditions in the past, at present and in the all too near future—and in spite of determined efforts by management with all matters in its control—neither the bus operating industry nor the bus manufacturing industry in Britain can now be expected to perform so as to prevent harm to society unless transitional help is provided".
The report goes on to judge that,
"given transitional help, the two industries could produce positive new advantages to society within a few years and on an increasing scale".
I believe that what comes out of the report is the knowledge that some of the suggested recommendations needed to be acted upon urgently so that the industry can survive in the immediate future, and that there will still be available such forms of economic services which are needed in both urban and rural areas.
So what is happening? The Department of Transport is sponsoring a series of experiments on bus priorities and other measures to encourage people to use public transport. The department is also supporting experiments with low-floored buses. In this House on 19th February 1990, the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, on behalf of the Government, said that four demonstration vehicles had been touring the country for 18 months. That takes us back to 1988. The noble Viscount went on to say that time would be needed to sort out any technical and operational problems.
It is now February 1993. How much more time does the department need? Is the Minister in a position to express an opinion on the result of those experiments? Is he aware that in Germany and Holland, low-floored designs are in wide use and it is accepted that not only people with disabilities but everyone else can use the same bus? Those experiments are good, but five years on and in the light of what is happening in Germany and Holland, will the Minister assure the House that there will be no delay in action taken to consider the bus industry's difficulties?
More accessible vehicles introduced into mainstream transport must surely be to the benefit of all users, and widen the opportunity to use public transport regularly for those who at present cannot get onto a bus. I accept that with deregulation and privatisation it is the bus industry which has to decide the level of its investment. The Bus and Coach Council statistics for 1991–92, using the department's own figures, show that by 1990–91 the average ratio of the industry's pre-tax profit to turnover declined to 1.5 per cent. and returns on capital to 4.2 per cent. That is not a sound base for investment. What powers can local authorities be encouraged to use to provide capital grants to assist in buying buses with the DPTAC specifications?
In his Autumn Statement on 12th November 1992, the Chancellor said:

643
"I propose, however, to allow a time-limited relaxation of the rules governing local authorities' use of their future capital receipts. The existing rules allow them to spend only 25 per cent. of their housing receipts and 50 per cent. of their other receipts. With certain exceptions, local authorities will now be entitled to spend all the capital receipts that they realise between tomorrow and the end of December 1993".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/92; col. 997.]
That statement was amplified on the same day by the Secretary of State for Transport who said:
"The temporary relaxation of the rules about capital receipts would provide extra resources for local authorities to spend, at their discretion, on public transport and roads".
Can the Minister give the House any information as to if and how that money is being spent? What active encouragement has the department given to local authorities to spend some of its capital receipts in this way? If Section 106 grants can be used for disabled, user-friendly buses for subsidised services, as DPTAC proposes, will the Government come out loudly and clearly in support of what people with disabilities need?
I recommend to the House paragraphs 30 to 50 of the report which give detailed statistical evidence on which the conclusions are based. They deal with the reduction in passenger travel, the effects of deregulation, privatisation and intensified competition. They tell of the incidence of fuel duty, of the loss of local bus grants, of reduction in annual support from public funds and of the financial difficulties which face the manufacturers and operators in the bus and coach industries.
We have seen staff reductions and a reduction in operating costs. We have seen a reduction in the size of coaches because smaller ones are more commercially viable than 53-seaters or the double-deckers. However, that only allows the fleet of the larger vehicles to age with a slower rate of replacements, and fewer additions to the fleet. In today's conditions the industry is left with the job of making a profit and showing a return to shareholders. Passenger fares have increased. The competition from the car and the recession means that the number of passenger journeys has fallen. In 1985–86 the National Travel Service suggested that 4 per cent. of the total population, including 11 per cent. of the elderly, had difficulty in walking and if they could reach buses they could not use them in their present form. There is therefore a need for the bus industry to look at the way in which a vehicle is designed and operated.
In June 1988 DPTAC developed its specifications which suggested low cost ways of making buses more readily available and more user friendly, not only to people with mobility handicaps but to all users. Many hundreds of low-floor buses now operate in Europe. The design makes buses easier to board and alight even with a wheelchair, buggy or pram. They are also quicker and easier for everyone else who uses the bus, thus saving time at bus stops. Indeed, operators in Germany and Holland have stated that they can provide the same service with fewer buses, thus helping to relieve congestion on their roads. Why cannot the DPTAC specifications be incorporated
644
into the construction and use standards to which all new vehicles must conform? Cannot that be done by order, or is legislation required?
Another benefit from having an accessible and reliable means of public transport is that the legal restrictions can be made on the use of cars in congested cities if the quality of the vehicle and the standard of the bus service is made more attractive. The bus manufacturing industry has faced similar problems of costs, financial restraints and reduced orders leading to a fall in the purchase of new buses by 31 per cent. in 1991 and a rate of sales of new buses which would not replace the fleet in less than 25 years.
The Bus Industry Monitor indicates that the age of many buses still in service will dictate a significant growth in rebodying and refurbishing in coming years in the absence of major fleet replacements. However, rebodying and refurbishing means retaining the chassis, and it is the floor of the present day chassis which has to be superseded if we are to have low, step-free buses, with their advantage in marketing and operation.
In paragraph 98 of the report, the bus manufacturing industry states:
"Tell us what you will need and when you will want it and we will produce it".
But, first, those manufacturers will need reasonable assurances that what they then produce will be bought. The report goes on to suggest that government action could prescribe conditions which would effectively provide common ground. For example, as was done with London taxis, they could specify that after a certain date no new buses could operate on local services unless they conformed to DPTAC specifications; and that after another specified time no bus which did not conform would be allowed to continue in service. The same conditions could apply for long distance coaches.
Local authorities could also help by laying down terms of tenders for services they intend to subsidise, including the types of buses to be used. Only help at this time from public funds can assist the bus industry to be ready to act in good time.
The report accepts some of the side effects of the former new bus grants and suggests that any new grant from public funds should be directed at the bus operating industry rather than the manufacturing industry. It suggests that such a grant towards the acquisition of accessible buses might be payable to operators only as they scrap an equal number of buses of traditional design.
I conclude by referring to Appendix I. It points out that evidence shows that disabled persons able to use public transport means significantly fewer calls on domiciliary services; and that between £30,000 and £40,000 a year per 1,000 disabled people would be saved in that way with potential savings in excess of £200 million a year if all public transport were accessible. Accessible transport can play a very real role in enabling disabled people to continue living in the community rather than in institutional care.
Those are all valid reasons for doing something to improve transport. That would demonstrate that the

645
cost of providing mobility is less than the cost of acquiescing in immobility. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wish first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for initiating the debate and to congratulate her on the very constructive way in which she did so. I emphasise the need for urgent action by Her Majesty's Government in response to the DPTAC report, to which she referred. I, too, warmly congratulate the members on the production of the report. I declare an interest as vice-president of RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—which also welcomes the report, although it has some regrets to which I shall refer as I speak.
One of the advantages of this House is that because of our age structure we are better able to understand the needs of disabled people—many of whom are elderly—than perhaps applies to those in another place, or indeed to the population as a whole. The OPCS survey in 1988 on the prevalence of disability among adults found that 24 per cent. of people in their sixties, 40 per cent. of people in their seventies, and 70 per cent. of people aged 80 or over were affected by disability. That is a factor that we ought to bear in mind. The demographic structure of our population suggests that about 6 million people have mobility disabilities. It is suggested that by 2026 the figure will have increased to 7 million. We therefore have an increasing problem as the age structure of our population increases.
Nearly 50 per cent. of families in Britain have a car in the family. However, many elderly people live alone without a car, or with only one other companion who also is without a car. A substantial proportion of our population is dependent upon the family, some of whom may live far away and some of whom may not be able to provide transport at the time when the person needs it. Inevitably, that person becomes dependent upon public transport, and would find taxis very taxing on income.
The National Travel Survey in 1985–86 shows that 11 per cent. of the elderly population can use buses if they can reach them. That is a big "if" because for many people a bus stop is often at a considerable distance from where they live. That applies especially if those people are in wheelchairs. Nineteen per cent. of the elderly population have difficulties in walking. If they can reach a bus, they cannot use it as it is presently designed. That point was made strongly in the report and by the noble Baroness in introducing the Motion. Thus the design of buses is critical to increasing the mobility of disabled and elderly people. That is a problem which must be tackled as a matter of urgency. It will not be good enough if the Government say, "Well, we're strapped for funds". We are always strapped for funds. It is a matter of deciding on our priorities. As a society we have a debt to pay to disabled and elderly people.
646
The importance to the disabled person of having buses designed to meet their needs hardly requires emphasis. Perhaps I may refer to paragraph 84 of the DPTAC report which states:
"Low floor design goes to the heart of the main cause of mobility handicap in using buses by making it easy to board and to alight; and possible to do so from the kerb even in a wheelchair or with a buggy or a pram. But the same feature makes it easy and quick for everyone else to use the bus; and time is saved at bus stops in operating the bus, particularly if off-bus ticketing is used. So much time has been saved in this way that operators in Germany and the Netherlands have found it possible to provide the same services with fewer buses".
That point needs to be emphasised, and it is important that we should begin to learn some of the lessons from other countries which are ahead of us. I am thinking of our Community partners who are ahead of us in providing that facility.
Bearing in mind the public anxiety about safety, the need for the reduction of pollution and traffic congestion, the design of new buses is crucially important. I wish also to refer to another of the paragraphs in the report (paragraph 89) which states:
"For the industry there would be a new marketing opportunity. It would be offering something better for people who are already its customers; something better also for those who could have been its customers but have chosen not to be; something for those who would have had to give up using buses but can continue to use them in their … accessible form; and something for those who have not been using them because they have not been so accessible".
To give the necessary boost to a change in the design and construction of buses demands government action. Time is of the essence; and it requires some form of government assistance in funding. The DPTAC report produced a code of practice for bus operators. It includes the provision of handrails on buses; for the handrails to be in bright contrasting colours and to be covered with plastic material which is easier for people to hold. The bell button should be lowered to a height which disabled people can reach from a seated position. The entrances should have split steps with appropriate handrails to enable people with a locomotive disability to get on to the bus more easily. I submit that none of those changes is expensive in any way. They are simply good common sense to enable disabled people to use the vehicles.
However, DPTAC specifically does not provide access for wheelchair users. The Government have announced that they will assist in the funding of some low-floor buses in the United Kingdom during this year. But during the UK presidency of the EC, the Secretary of State for Transport decided not to take forward an EC draft directive which would have required, from a future date, all buses to be accessible. I should like the Minister to answer the question why we did not take this opportunity during our year of presidency. It seems to me to have been another opportunity missed. The report which was published in October quite specifically urged the Government to take an initiative during the six months' period of our presidency. One might have thought that that would in some way have been a redeeming feature of an otherwise disastrous presidency for the United Kingdom.
A final word about pavements. They were mentioned in the report and just referred to by the

647
noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. As she said, the report showed that three-quarters of pedestrians who are admitted to hospital after an accident have suffered injury by falling on the pavements. There is strong evidence, difficult to quantify, that the quality of pavements is decreasing rather than increasing as a result of local authority cuts in pavement repairs. I can vouch for that: in the area where I live in East Finchley, the quality of the footpaths has been so disturbed that for many people they are now dangerous.
It is important that we should not allow standards to slip at a time when needs are increasing. I appeal to the Government to see the urgency contained in the report and the urgency mentioned by the opening speaker in this short debate. The Government will receive full credit if they go forward and take a positive attitude towards the needs of disabled people.
3.26 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, it is very welcome that my noble friend Lady Stedman was successful in the ballot for a debate. It has given us the opportunity today to discuss the subject. I note that the Disabled Persons Transport and Advisory Committee, other-wise known as "Diptack", has chosen three main aspects of the subject on which to offer recommendations. I am amazed to learn that the National Consumer Council estimates that over half of all pedestrians who had to be kept in hospital for treatment did so as a result of pavement falls. How much more dangerous the uneven pavement must be to the visually handicapped person.
Although quite recently there have been notable improvements in the state of pavements generally, perhaps the most trying are those pavements which are heavily sloped. That must be a particular problem for someone in a wheelchair, not forgetting children in buggies or pushchairs. Pavement crossings—many of which are today well sloped—would perhaps be safer to use if a different coloured kerbstone were used. It would ensure a greater degree of safety.
The design of textured pavements to assist partially-sighted people is good, but they are, I fear, few in number. The sound to attract the attention of the blind or partially sighted is good, but sometimes it hardly gives time for a person to cross. The Royal National Institute for the Blind reports on a new audible signal called the "Bleep and Sweep" because of its distinctive sound. It gives four bleeps followed by a longer, rising tone. It is now available for use at staggered Pelican crossings. The loudness of the signal can be adjusted to enable the partially sighted or blind to hear it above the traffic, but it cannot be heard on the other side of the staggered crossing, which is essential if a partially blind person is to cross in safety.
There is a new form of crossing indicator called the Puffin which can be used instead of the Pelican crossing; it is the pedestrian user-friendly intelligent crossing and is so called because it can spot a person arriving at the crossing, able-bodied people or anyone with any form of disability who needs a longer time to cross. It enables the green man to remain long enough
648
for someone to cross. As I understand it, it can regulate traffic to enable pushchairs or wheelchairs to cross. The Puffin need take only two or three seconds longer when needed and I understand that when no one needs it it can switch off to allow traffic to flow more freely.
The RNIB reports that 50 such Puffins are to be installed and tested. Can the Minister say whether one could be installed at the bottom of Bridge Street and Whitehall where traffic turns left for Westminster Bridge? The present little green man hardly gives time for a person to cross before the green has changed to red. It is a wide crossing, but the dangerous side is the one I have mentioned. Highway authorities have been given all the information they need from the Department of Transport to choose between a Puffin and a Pelican crossing.
One other tactile aid for the partially sighted is a little round knob in addition to the press button on a control box for pedestrians to cross at lights. When the green man shows, the round knob rotates. I do not know how many there are in use, but the Ministry of Transport knows and approves of it; so I hope it will become widely used.
With regard to unmanned stations, I note that the committee has expressed concern about the policy of leaving 1,000 railway stations unmanned. I wonder whether the Minister is yet able to say whether British Rail has reviewed the policy and explored the possibility of making greater use of tactile surfaces on platform edges. There are many other questions which concern BR. I do not wish to suggest that it does not have a very good record in relation to disabled people. But there are many trains which require one to press a button to open the carriage door on arrival at a station. I note that in many cases the buttons are obviously too high for a person in a wheelchair. What would happen to a solitary disabled passenger in a wheelchair on a platform at an unmanned station with no ramp to assist in boarding the train? But there are many good stations for disabled users. I wonder how privatisation of BR will affect what on the whole is currently an excellent service for disabled people.
I draw particular attention to a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, speaking on an Unstarred Question on disabled transport, when he said:
"However, even if you can understand the actor's voice it is not much help if you are on the wrong train to be told the destination after you have left the station of embarkation. Surely the announcement should be made before the train leaves the station".—[Official Report, 19/2/90; col. 122.]
Certainly on the InterCity trains that I use from King's Cross announcements are made of places where the train is to call several minutes before it leaves, and more than once. Similarly, at York the destinations of trains are announced clearly and they are often repeated several times, apart from the display on the electronic visual boards. We must be grateful to the noble Lord for what I am sure must have encouraged British Rail to make this improvement at some, if not all, stations.
There is one very important point made by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on the need for visual displays or indicators. Many deaf people who travel regularly have watched in dismay their train

649
empty of other passengers as they obeyed the tannoyed instructions to continue their journey from somewhere else. At the present time, when there are not infrequent alerts for security reasons and orders to clear a station, it is imperative that there should be some form of easy display or indicator for the hard of hearing to read.
London Regional Transport has installed visual displays in 170 of the 274 Underground stations, which the RNID welcomes. The only problem is that they do not display information telling passengers to evacuate a station for security or safety reasons. I hope that London Regional Transport may consider the possibility of doing so.
London Regional Transport provides access for deaf people by means of a 24-hour minicom inquiry service, but many other transport services have overlooked the need for such access. This is Text telephones, which allow deaf people to access the telephone network by typing their conversation on a small keyboard. It is then transmitted down the telephone line to a similar terminal capable of receiving typed script. That is of great help to the hard of hearing, especially in an emergency.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is possible for railway stations and travel centres to be encouraged to aid those who rely on lip-reading by installing non-reflective glass. Ordinary glass shines and makes it almost impossible to lip-read and so to understand what is being said.
With regard to the disabled driver, I ask the Minister whether there are disabled instructors to teach a disabled learner, especially where a car may have entirely hand operated movements. It would perhaps give the learner added confidence if he knew his instructor would understand his difficulties very well from experience.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this important debate so eloquently and warmly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I must also congratulate the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on coming up with a frank and lucid sixth report.
The section on the bus industry is accurate and presents a fair assessment of the current situation. It is with that industry that I declare an interest and a long and happy association. The views that I shall express are those of the Bus and Coach Council, which represents the bus operators, and the Passenger Transport Executive Group, which represents the views on transport of the metropolitan authorities.
I hope that the following will not sound offensive, but the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned the matter in her opening remarks. To talk about "the disabled" is inaccurate and imprecise. There is no such single category. There are degrees and types of impairment or reduced mobility, ranging from the wheelchair user to the elderly, the sight-impaired, the young mother with shopping and a child, even the young man with his leg in a plaster cast. To propose a single solution—wheelchair accessibility for a minority—is to overlook the needs of the majority for
650
whom less radical solutions are appropriate. Indeed, such DPTAC solutions have universal benefits even for the fully mobile.
The industry and its members have for many years paid great attention to improving the quality of buses and the facilities provided in order to offer safer and more attractive services. Many of those features have been adopted by DPTAC, whose consolidating work is welcomed by the industry. The bus industry has been in the forefront of initiating the production of vehicles with more convenient access and lower step height—the noble Baroness covered that point—more comfortable and accessible seating, better lighting and smoother and safer acceleration and braking.
However, it should be realised that there are technical and operational limits beyond which vehicles become unreliable and excessively complex and costly. Many of the DPTAC recommendations are now, happily, generally incorporated in specifications for new vehicles and simpler ones widely adopted on a proportion of existing fleets. As vehicle fleets are replaced and updated, the percentage of vehicles including such features will increase. However, that increase is likely to be very slow, as the industry is operating with profit margins which are far too low to provide for adequate replacement or updating of its fleets. Bus operators aim to provide services which can cater for as many passengers as practicable, and in this context the willingness of some local authorities and passenger transport executives to contribute towards the retrofitting of appropriate DPTAC features on existing vehicles undoubtedly speeds up the process.
The industry has demonstrated that it is keen to incorporate DPTAC features, recognising that the benefits accrue to all passengers, not just the elderly and disabled, and it is optimistic that universal adoption of DPTAC specifications and other improvements will eventually be recognised by the public as beneficial. As yet, however, experience with DPTAC modified vehicles has not demonstrated that such provision has generated additional ridership sufficient to offset their cost.
In the absence of adequate profitability, the industry would only be able to incorporate the more extensive DPTAC features by increasing fares. Industry does not consider it reasonable to expect the ordinary passenger to provide financial provisions for a separate class of ridership for which special facilities may be required.
It is accepted that the DPTAC improvements need to be funded by way of a direct Department of Transport grant, or through a grant under Section 106 of the Transport Act 1985 at local level, sufficient to allow the full DPTAC specification to be adopted on new buses and retrofitted, as far as practicable, on all those existing vehicles which have at least five years' expectation of service.
The industry will continue to improve the quality of bus services and of its vehicles. But the rate of progress, where expensive and extensive modifications are required, will necessarily he slow. A faster rate, if thought to be socially desirable, can be achieved only with external public support in the manner suggested. Nevertheless, the industry is participating in the trial

651
use of ultra low-floor buses in London and in the North East, and we await the results with interest. Although ideally all buses should be retrofitted to provide wheelchair access, in terms of value for money many more people would be able to travel if all buses were modified to the DPTAC standard rather than a few new buses made fully accessible.
The report does not address the difficulties which transport authorities may have in maintaining the subsidised network if they require buses to be fully accessible, and neither they nor the operators can afford either to purchase new vehicles or to modify existing vehicles. It would not be feasible in many cases to make older vehicles wheelchair accessible and it is unfortunate that the committee has not recommended to the Government that credit approval be made available for upgrading vehicles short of wheelchair access.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, it is unfortunate also that the Government did not use the opportunity of the EC presidency to expedite the production of a European directive on the accessibility of transport, both previous draft directives having failed to become law. The question of the nature of governmental action required is posed in the report. Can my noble friend say what is the Government's view?
3.43 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, the most appropriate way of thanking my noble friend Lady Stedman for providing us with this opportunity to debate transport for disabled people is no doubt to target my comments with the same admirable precision as the DPTAC Report to which she called our attention. That report makes the point of general principle that we should not further disable people with disabilities by running transport services that they cannot use and cluttering pavements to the extent that rights of way become obstacle courses. The report also notes that those who staff our transport services can be either aides to the mobility of people with disabilities or human obstacles to their mobility, apart from the obstacles provided by the pavements themselves.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Peter Baldwin and his colleagues for making us think, since lack of thought is so often the main problem. One of MENCAP's trustees is blind —though physically he moves around with an energy which makes me out of breath watching him. He travels a great deal and on a recent visit to a familiar railway station he was thrown by an unexpected change in the arrangements. He inquired how he was supposed to have picked that up. The answer was that there was a notice. He then asked how, as a blind person, he was supposed to know that there was a notice which affected him. "You could ask", the official said helpfully. I will not complete the conversation. Your Lordships will have identified the peculiar logic. I have seen a notice at the taxi stop at Euston Station, which I am sure many of your Lordships have also seen, which advises disabled people on arrival to contact a member of the station staff if they need help. I have never yet seen such a
652
member of the station staff even within hailing distance never mind standing by, ready, willing and able.
The DPTAC Report shows how the technical ability to meet the needs of people with disabilities has advanced by leaps and bounds in recent years. There have also been considerable advances in expectations of travel. There was a time when travel was apparently accepted as the prerogative of fit males between the ages of 20 and 40 and women travellers had the curiosity value of Mrs. Trollope, Mary Slessor or Mary Poppins. Women, women with small children, women expecting children, older people and people with disabilities are all now accepted as actual or potential travellers. I am a trustee of a group devoted to providing recorded tapes for disabled visitors to some of our major and minor national tourist attractions. Some of your Lordships may well be the owners of some of those attractions. We recognise that disability does not equate with a desire to vegetate.
Each year MENCAP organises a range of holidays to suit the varied tastes of people with learning disabilities; from adventure holidays to more restful breaks from the sometimes rather limited opportunities of daily life. Community care is a rather empty concept unless people have the opportunity to get out and about in the community and to travel further afield to the same extent as others in the community. There are people whose disabilities, including behaviour problems, are such that special transport is a more realistic option than public transport. But for the majority, the accessibility of public transport is crucial to mobility in the community and with the community. I use the term "public transport" in its traditional sense of transport for the public. I notice that there seems to be some measure of inter-party agreement that who owns it is of less importance than who can use it.
For those people with learning disabilities who also have a physical disability—and that is true for many of the older or more severely disabled among them, including my own daughter who is both physically, mentally and sensorily disabled—the Advisory Committee's recommendations on buses and coaches are exactly in line with their needs. The same is true for those who have problems with balance. I would underline what the committee said about action at the European level. At the moment the situation is quite different in continental Europe—sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. As my noble friend Lady Stedman pointed out, buses may be more accessible on the continent, but pushing a wheelchair around is easier on this side of the Channel than on the other. I would add that getting across the Channel is not as easy with a wheelchair as it should be, though here too there have been substantial improvements.
For the generality of people with learning disabilities, reliable transport is the main requirement with trained staff to compensate when the normally reliable is temporarily unreliable. Trained staff can help to compensate too for the sometimes unhelpful attitude of other travellers who are too single-minded in their determination to get from point A to point B to have time for their fellow citizens with disabilities.

653
There is a poignant story in a book just published about a rather special man with a learning disability who lived for 14 years in the L'Arche Community in Lambeth until his death at the end of 1991. He paid his fare on the bus and then gave up his seat to a lady. The lady sat impassively while the conductor proposed putting the disabled gentleman off the bus because standing was not allowed. Mention of conductors indicates that that little scene took place a few years ago. But it well illustrates how bus design, crew training and public attitudes need to be tackled to ensure that people with learning disabilities do not look back to the hospital crocodile—to the special hospital transport —as a safer guarantee of mobility than we offer them in both our community and theirs.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I share with other noble Lords my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing the debate and also congratulate Sir Peter Baldwin and his committee colleagues for what is an extremely comprehensive report on an acute subject. We must now await what I hope will be an equally comprehensive reply from the Government. The point I wish to make to the Government is that this is a responsibility which they now have and cannot avoid; and those who are operating buses and those involved in their manufacture, are entitled to some firm leadership from the Government.
My approach is slightly different from that of other noble Lords who have spoken. I had some six or seven years with the bus industry and I had some four to five years as president of the Institute of Road Transport Engineers. It is therefore a subject of which I have some knowledge. The National Bus Company was a large and successful commercial operation. We had some 16,000 vehicles. We were in a position to be able to buy each year on an orderly basis some 500 to 600 new buses. We were able to deal with what was then called the ageing fleet. We were therefore able to co-operate with the manufacturing industry over the types of vehicles that were required commercially and for the customers whom we served.
We can take pride in that we put the first of the "kneeling" buses, based on the Leyland National, into operation. We put it into Hastings where, according to our statistics, there were more elderly and disabled people than perhaps in other towns. Those buses were well received and were successful. But the nature of the Leyland National and the cost of maintenance of the rather complicated machinery necessary to form it into a "kneeling" bus led me and many of my colleagues in the National Bus Company to the view that we should look to a low deck bus.
Prior to privatisation we had already put aside a very considerable sum of money to carry out our own research into developing that type of vehicle. I was also persuaded, because of our duties under the nationalisation Act, to appoint a consultant. We were privileged to appoint Mrs. Claudia Flanders as our consultant on the disabled as ordinary passengers. I learnt from that how much could be done at relatively little cost. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to
654
covers on handrails. One had never really thought about that, but our attention was drawn to it and we were able to do it quickly and relatively cheaply.
The most significant result was that the drivers and the general work force of the company were able to understand the needs of the disabled right across the board—the blind, the partially sighted and those who were in chairs. They had a better attitude in dealing with those types of passenger. That new attitude flowed into their treatment of the general bus passenger. We were able to do many things because we were a large and profitable company.
We now have a different situation. We have deregulation and we have had privatisation into many fragmented and some very small companies. Those companies, even at the best of times, will have had difficulty in providing the type of contribution which a large organisation can make. But they have operated in a period of great adversity. They have had falling passenger ridership. Although they have been able to increase their revenue by increasing their fares by some 50 per cent., costs and revenue have meant that they are in a very parlous financial state. None of those companies has the financial capability, despite the quality and even the aspirations of their management, to provide orders to the bus manufacturing industry for the provision of a new generation of vehicles. It is beyond their competence and it would be unreasonable to expect them to do it.
The bus manufacturing industry—the body builders and the engine and chassis workers—has experienced a calamitous collapse of orders since privatisation. That has had a grave effect on its ability to participate in export markets. The industry is incapable of undertaking new initiatives to meet new demands. It is a situation which the Government, and only the Government, can reach. It is perfectly true that local authorities have powers, but the local authorities are themselves strapped for cash and I do not believe that they will be able to exercise those powers. So it is to the Government that we must look. If the Government were willing to find ways and means by which we could develop a new generation of low floor buses, with all the benefits that those would bring to the disabled and to the general public who use buses, we could get an increased ridership because they would be more acceptable than they now are. It could also have an effect on our ability to sell overseas, which has always been essential to the bus manufacturing industry.
The proposals for government support which are set out in the report are reasonable and sensible. Bus operators need aid and support so that they can buy the vehicles that they need. There is another way. One could form a leasing arrangement by which a leasing company could buy vehicles in advance in order to get the benefits of size and scale. Those buses could then be leased to the operator. That would be helpful in terms of their capital requirements.
I thought that the Government gave great hope during 1992, particularly through the speech of Mr. Freeman on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State wished it to be known that he wanted to pursue urgently an initiative in order to

655
improve accessibility to places of employment. But, as we know, the directive to which he referred went into abeyance. A new directive has now come forward. It is a matter for dismay that this aspect is attached to an appendix to the directive. Instead of being mandatory or a line of purpose it has been put into an appendix in an optional way. The Government should say what part they played in that decision in producing the new directive. Was it a case of subsidiarity, or was it the case that they themselves recognised that the industry was unable to find the sums required?
Despite the dismay and anxiety of all those who participate in this field I hope that the Government will come forward now with a clear determination to encourage the two sides of the industry so that this critical objective can be achieved in a reasonable period—shall we say, by the year 2000?
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may in one breath apologise to my noble friend Lady Stedman for not being in the Chamber for her opening speech and also thank her very much indeed for this opportunity to look at the excellent report and valuable work done by Sir Peter Baldwin and his team at DPTAC.
Three years ago, in the debate on transport for disabled people, I concentrated on the orange badge scheme—the new proposals; the four inner London boroughs and local authorities issuing their own badges—so I thought it would be interesting to see what progress had been made. The revised scheme was introduced in March 1992. There were just over 1.4 million badges then. About one-third of those are now of a new design. Although the criteria for issue were not tightened as originally proposed, they are more strictly applied and enforcement against abuse is made much easier by the new badge with the concealed photo.
I turn to the inner London boroughs. Here a remarkable success story lies behind the brief mention in Appendix XI of meetings about disabled persons' parking in central London. The late Neville Rees of the Department of Transport, brought together a group consisting of his divisional colleagues, representatives of the councils, the police, DPTAC and the Traffic Director for London, and Ann Frye, head of the DoT's Disability Unit. The police were very helpful because they do not like the differing entitlements under the boroughs' respective badge schemes.
DPTAC pressed for more designated bays, longer free periods at metered bays for orange badge holders and for mutual recognition of the boroughs' respective badge schemes—each as a step towards full acceptance of the badge scheme. The four authorities have consequently come forward with a series of proposals which should improve the concessions offered to disabled drivers and passengers. The City of London has very much taken the lead in this matter. It published a leaflet which lists the locations of 140 designated bays for orange badge holders. Camden has agreed to extend the orange badge scheme to a
656
large and important area south of the Euston Road. Last October Kensington and Chelsea provided 78 bays. Westminster hopes that 100 additional bays will be in place by the summer.
I have gone into some detail because it really is terrific progress, as anyone who has followed this saga over the past 20 years will appreciate. I very much congratulate not only the DoT and DPTAC, but also the boroughs in particular for having come up with these proposals.
All four boroughs have now been asked to consider allowing holders of the new orange badge to occupy metered bays without charge. That would be limited, progressive and easy to police. Therefore, it is hoped that within a few years the local schemes would then become unnecessary and the orange badge scheme would effectively apply to all people living, and/or working or visiting in any of the four boroughs which is what the scheme was originally intended to do. It would be the best possible tribute to Neville Rees who, despite his illness, pursued this outcome courageously but firmly and with resolute determination.
I now turn to the problem of the growing number of local authorities issuing their own badges which offer varying concessions and which use varying eligibility criteria. Some of them are instead of, some are additional to, the orange badge scheme. In fact, I am tempted to call this hotchpotch the "not the orange badge scheme". It does have certain farcical elements. For instance, I have a wonderful letter from the access officer of my local town stating that the eligibility criteria is,
"difficulty in walking 50 yards"
and since my application shows that I cannot walk, I am ineligible for the scheme.
It is actually a serious problem. It means that disabled people living elsewhere do not know whether they can park in a town which they plan to visit. Under the local town's often somewhat bizarre criteria they may well be eligible, but they do not know and so they cannot visit. The "not the orange badge scheme" has been discouraged by DPTAC, RADAR and the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People. The DoT stated that it was undesirable in a leaflet issued on the introduction of the new orange badge.
I shall quote briefly extracts from four pieces of correspondence between Peter Large, the chairman of the JCMD, of which I am a member, and Ministers, because it is the quickest way of summarising the current state of play. Peter Large wrote to Roger Freeman, Minister of State for Public Transport, on 20th July 1992:
"Your Department has made excellent progress in encouraging the inner London boroughs to recognise the problems of Orange Badge holders … and we wonder whether some similar initiative could be made in respect of the special local badge schemes. That would start dismantling existing special badge schemes.
"We would also welcome some action to prevent new schemes being set up. Frankly, we would like to see them made illegal".
The Minister for roads and traffic, Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, replied on 12th August:
"While we understand the difficulties that local authorities face in areas where parking demand is high, we agree that such schemes cause unnecessary and inconvenient restrictions on the mobility and freedom of travel otherwise enjoyed by

657
people with Orange Badges. As you say, we have asked local authorities to review the position of these schemes in the light of the new arrangements for the Orange Badge Scheme and are hopeful that the new Scheme will reduce the demand for such schemes. However, I should very much like to see how the new Scheme beds in and the effect this has on local schemes before committing ourselves to any of the actions you have proposed".
Peter Large wrote again to Kenneth Carlisle on 10th October saying,
"We know that you appreciate that many Orange Badge holders are finding life very difficult in the areas where local badge schemes operate. We trust therefore that information about local schemes and their future will be actively sought by the Department so that any action that may be required along the lines we suggest can be taken in good time".
Kenneth Carlisle replied on 17th November, once again in the same vein,
"On the introduction of local concessionary parking schemes for disabled people, I can only repeat that we will continue to monitor the position".
We are now a third of the way into the new-style badge scheme so I believe that it must be beginning to settle in a little. When the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, comes to reply can he say what conclusions have been drawn so far from their monitoring? Has there been any reduction in the demand for new schemes? Has there been any dismantling of existing schemes? Has the DoT had any correspondence with local authorities? What, in short, has been happening?
I look forward very much to the Minister's reply. I am sure that he agrees wholeheartedly that the revised orange badge scheme must be allowed to work. The four inner London boroughs have given the lead and if they who have resisted the orange badge scheme for over 20 years can do it, surely the other local authorities who hitherto adhered to the scheme can follow suit and ensure that the new-style orange badge enables all holders to get around and to conduct their lives as effectively as possible.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is very difficult to wind up a debate like this when one is surrounded by so much expertise. Nevertheless, I believe that it is very good for those of us who speak for our parties on transport in this House to be able to listen to such a debate of enormously high quality, containing a great deal of knowledge, and so excellently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
Perhaps I may spend a minute or two speaking about the pedestrian environment described in the excellent report because I believe that those of us who are not disabled in any way do not entirely realise the problems that are caused by minor obstructions on the pavements of the towns and cities of this country. I had an experience about 18 months ago when I tore a leg muscle. I was on crutches for the first time in my life, which was a very revealing experience. It happened at our party conference in Bournemouth where there is a most excellent new conference hall with ramps, lifts and also fire doors. I found that I could not get into the building. I could get up the ramps all right, but the big heavy fire doors stopped me from going into the building unless there was someone there to assist me.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, someone might have wanted it that way.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggests that that might have been thought a good thing by the rest of the party. That is for him to judge.
When I returned home I went for physiotherapy to my local hospital. I was unable to get into the physiotherapy department, again because of fire doors. I said to staff at the hospital "This is curious. You are dealing all the time with people with various disabilities". They said "Yes, but you see, it is the fire regulations". I said, "You mean that it does not matter whether people can get in or out. You prefer that they burn to death if they are left inside than to be able to get out if they are on crutches". There did not seem to be an answer to that.
I give that example by way of illustration. It comes as an enormous shock to people who do not normally suffer from disabilities to be faced with that kind of experience and to realise what many people go through every day of their lives. I was astonished to realise the level of injuries caused by broken pavements. I believe that RoSPA suggests that about 3 million people are hospitalised each year because of pavement injuries and 200 people die from them. Those are the kinds of statistics that one does not normally hear in debates on traffic and transport in your Lordships' House, but clearly they are extremely significant. Therefore, one welcomes the suggestion in the report that there should be proper monitoring of pavements. Those of us who have been accused in the past of conducting pavement politics perhaps feel less bad about it than we sometimes have done. It is an important factor in people's lives. Of course, parking on pavements is a real problem and a real cause of a lot of the damage done to our pavements.
I gather that since the repeal of Section 7 of the 1974 Act it is no longer illegal to park on pavements. I wonder where we go from here, and what legislation is going to be introduced to put back that provision. I may be misinformed, but I should be glad if the Minister could tell us where we stand, because it is a serious matter. First, where there is obstruction from cars people who are partially sighted bump into them and damage themselves, and perhaps people with wheelchairs cannot get their wheelchair past the obstruction. In addition, the parking of heavy lorries on pavements causes much damage to pavements.
Often we underestimate the problems from which partially sighted people in this country suffer. When one thinks of disability one thinks of the more severe physical handicaps, and people who are partially sighted are often forgotten in our considerations. There are other people who are not normally categorised as being disabled; for instance, people with arthritis, which has been described as the hidden disability. They find it difficult to walk about our streets. Another category suggested to me of people who can suffer badly is people with hip replacements.
The analysis of the situation on the buses has already been dealt with, and it is extremely well dealt with in the report. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. He is right that there are

659
many recommendations in this report that are admirable, but it is doubtful whether the bus industry as it stands today, particularly in its more fragmented state after privatisation and deregulation, is capable of generating the capital to replace buses at the rate they ought to be replaced or of the quality that is necessary to take account of the disabled. The Government must look at the whole question to see how they themselves can assist, or indeed assist the local authorities.
It is easy to say that there should be buses fitted with lifts, or there should be "kneeling" buses, or low-level buses, but if the capital is not there to provide these admirable vehicles we shall go rambling on for years without proper provision for disabled people. As has already been said, these buses would speed up our transport system. Again as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and another noble Lord mentioned, off-bus ticketing has not been seriously tackled in this country, and I do not understand why. It works perfectly well in many countries on the Continent but somehow nobody seems to have tackled here.
I fear that if we come to the deregulation of the London bus system—heaven forbid that we ever do, but it is threatened—many of these problems will be put on to the back burner again. The whole question of through-ticketing is a problem that affects disabled people, and I fear that the privatisation of British Rail is another situation where through-ticketing is going to be under threat. Bear in mind that disabled people are not among the richest members of the community. They will experience difficulties if their concessions are eroded. Many of them find it necessary to have a travel companion and are therefore responsible for two fares on each journey they make. Those matters must be borne in mind. We cannot allow through-ticketing on both buses and rail to be eroded.
There are one or two items that are only marginally referred to in the report, and one or two that have already been referred to today. I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about notices. I was reminded of a notice allegedly in a Welsh village which said, "When this notice is covered with water, the valley is flooded". Similarly, I thought the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, about visible announcements for people who are deaf is an important facet that is not adequately covered.
I noticed that when the Heathrow Express mock-up vehicles were shown at Paddington about 18 months ago they included dot-matrix signs in each compartment, so that there is an announcement on a dot matrix as well as by sound of the station you are approaching. That is a good development that I hope can be incorporated in the rest of the underground system, and preferably in buses as well, because there is a great problem for people who have severe hearing problems.
I have received, as some other noble Lords no doubt have, representations in relation to this debate from London black cab operators. Although slightly wide of the mark it is an aspect that noble Lords ought to take into account. Their worry is the thought of licensing minicabs. On the whole, I approve of
660
licensing to improve the standards of minicabs, particularly where women travel alone and want some kind of security. In those areas where it is not possible to get a black cab they ought to have security in minicabs as well. I can understand the dilemma that arises by black cabs having to reach a certain standard to deal with wheelchairs where minicabs do not, and probably cannot, have that requirement. There is a genuine dilemma there.
We usually manage to bring bicycles into transport debates from these Benches. I think they are not referred to in the report. There is a particular problem with bicycles in that nobody ever seems to have a bell any more, probably because bicycle bells are pinched. I gather that there is no longer a requirement—and I should be glad to be corrected—for bicycles to have bells. People who are partially sighted can be put at grave danger by irresponsible cyclists rushing past them and causing them great distress.
Finally I want to say a word about the department's disability unit because it has been slightly left out of this debate. Although the Opposition Benches tend to castigate the Department of Transport from time to time, I think that the disability unit does an excellent job. It is clearly a listening department. Appendix 9 of the report gives some of the things that are being done. There is quite a list, including tactile services for blind pedestrians which we have touched on previously in your Lordships' House, particularly when someone was foolish enough to remove the one from outside St. Stephen's Entrance. There was an explosion in your Lordships' House and it was rapidly put back.
There is a whole series of questions, including that of pedestrian interface with light rapid transport systems. While we are talking about low level access to buses we also should be thinking of making regulations to the effect that all these new light rapid transport systems being introduced in the conurbations of this country are required to have proper low level access, or access for wheelchairs, and, indeed, tactile signing and all the rest of it. There is a long way to go, but the report that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has so well brought before us today points the way. I hope that we shall not take our eye off this important subject and that the Government will respond to all the suggestions in the report.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, not only for taking the opportunity to introduce the debate on the report, but also for the eloquence and significance of her remarks in so doing. This has been an outstandingly good debate. I have certainly learnt a great deal as, so he said, has the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
Two salient principles seem to emerge from the report. The first is that although there have been considerable advances in the technical means for helping those with disabilities whatever the form of their disability—it may be a question of a mother trying to wheel her child's pushchair on to a vehicle of one kind or another—public transport by and large does not cope adequately with mobility impairments.

661
The second point was well put by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, who illustrated how the reductions in services which have emerged as one of the consequences of, as he put it, the deregulation, privatisation and fragmentation of the industry into small companies do not auger well for the kind of investment that is required. That is a point the Government must address.
We are not talking only about reductions in services in terms of helping those who suffer from some form of physical impairment; it is also a question of reaching the outlying or peripheral areas of our towns and cities which may not be profitable areas to which to run a service. There is also the question of the impact of all this on the bus manufacturing industry which is facing, as my noble friend put it, acutely difficult times. It needs help. It is an important industry not only for domestic purposes, but also because of the potential that it offers in terms of overseas markets.
I should like to advert briefly to the question of the pedestrian environment, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He referred to the number of accidents that occur as a result of uneven, slippery and neglected pavements. Such accidents account for something like three-quarters of the pedestrians who are admitted to hospital after suffering accidents. That is an astonishing percentage. There is often difficulty in obtaining legal aid in order to mount the smaller class of claim. That is compounded in times of difficulty for local authorities by the local authorities taking a stringent view about the liability and quantum that may be involved in the knowledge that it is extremely unlikely that the litigant will be able to afford to go to court.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also referred to the representations that had been made regarding the black cabs in London. I hope that the Minister will deal with that. I understand that out of about 16,000 black cabs in London only 4,000 (or something of that order) are wheelchair-accessible. Admittedly, as the new cabs come on line, that proportion will increase.
Noble Lords have been reminiscing and providing personal anecdotes of situations, so perhaps I may tell your Lordships about taking a taxi to the House yesterday. It was a lovely taxi—a J-registration. I asked the taxi driver how the cab coped with people who were handicapped in some way or another. He said, "It is all there—all in the taxi". I said, "When I get to the House of Lords, would it be possible for you to demonstrate it to me?" He said that he would try to do that but that he was not very well equipped to do so. I said, "What do you mean—you are not very well equipped?" He said, "I have to read the handbook". It is all very well for one to have the necessary facilities to help people who are in wheelchairs and so on, but it is incumbent on the taxi driver to take the trouble to read the handbook. However, he was a very nice chap, and promised me that he would do so in future.
There are scarcely any lifts for disabled people using the Underground. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, disabled people have to be accompanied everywhere by an able-bodied person. I understand
662
that wheelchairs have been banned altogether on the Glasgow Underground. That seems a remarkable state of affairs.
I should like to devote the rest of my remarks primarily to the issue of the bus and coach industry. I understand that out of the whole National Express fleet of 800 coaches, only nine are accessible to wheelchairs. That is an extraordinary statistic. There should be legislation to ensure that buses are made much more accessible to wheelchairs, and that that needs to be done far more quickly than at present.
The report recognises the adverse operating and manufacturing conditions in the bus industry and the need for transitional help. Therefore, the question that I put to the Government, as other noble Lords have done, is: how are the Government proposing to address that issue? The fact is that the quality of buses has deteriorated to such an alarming extent that many people regard them as a third-class form of transport. Frankly, I believe that the amount of transitional help that would be needed is simply enormous. Indeed, it will take a considerable period of time to see real progress.
In relation to the bus manufacturing industry, the report quotes from paragraph 91 of the Bus Industry Monitor, 1992, which states:
"Purchase of new buses fell by 31 per cent in 1991, following less serious reductions of 13 and 3 per cent. in the preceding two years. Total sales volume at 2,804, is now the lowest experienced since the current form of record-keeping began".
The report continues:
"This is a rate of sales which would not replace the fleet in less than 25 years".
That is a fact of life with which the Government must deal.
The report suggests that a period of public financing to re-equip the bus industry with fully accessible buses is required. However, with respect to those who wrote the report, it is somewhat naive to think that the local transport authorities are able to fund the expenditure by using Section 106 grants. That fails to recognise the way in which the transport authorities are cash-starved by central government and are unable to take on a role of that kind. My noble friend Lord Shepherd has alluded to that.
The report demonstrates that the potential bus market will continue to decline so that by the year 2001 people with disabilities will account for something like 50 per cent. of the potential market. It asserts that the industry is currently inaccessible to a high proportion of that market of people with disabilities.
One of the ways in which public attention is being focused on the role of buses in combating the kind of difficulties to which noble Lords have referred and in combating pollution and congestion has been highlighted by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which I am the president, in running a "Year of the Bus" and instituting annual good practice awards. Some of those awards have gone to those who have led the way in terms of help for the disabled.
The report goes on to refer on the one hand to the financial constraints facing local authorities; but on

663
the other hand, it recommends that local authorities should exercise their powers under Section 106 of the 1985 Transport Act to make grants for the purchase of low-floor or wheelchair-lift-equipped buses. Frankly, I do not see how local authorities can do it. I do not think that they have the financial capability to do so at present. Indeed, many PTAs are having to curtail concessionary fare schemes or are having to introduce new or higher charges. There is no alternative but for the Government to intervene much more directly or indeed for them to seek additional powers if necessary. Unless more money is made available to local government then none of the improvements envisaged in the report will come about. It is pie in the sky.
I support the recommendation of paragraph (xvi) (d) of the summary to the effect that the Government should provide credit approvals for local authorities' capital expenditure on accessible buses to run on subsidised services. What we need is a firm commitment from Government for such schemes. Is that likely to come about? The Department of Transport arranged an experiment along these lines, which resulted in 68 buses available in London, but only £200,000 was made available for the rest of the country. But above all there has been no commitment forthcoming about any expansion of the scheme in the future, and I should like to know what the Minister has to say about that.
I now come to the DPTAC specification. The report deals with this but I think it rather overemphasises its impact. The number of new buses being built with or without DPTAC features is very small. It represents only a tiny proportion of the fleet as a whole. Part of the specification can be retro-fitted to older buses but the extreme old age of a large proportion of the fleet means that the benefits from this are likely to be very small. One of the concerns about the standard is that it is not specific enough. Many local authorities believe that the revised standard should be more prescriptive in its requirements than its predecessor.
The report refers to the need for European Community legislation: a point which was taken up by my noble friends Lord Ennals and Lord Shepherd and by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. There was a very clear understanding that United Kingdom Ministers would be giving a lead on this issue, particularly during the time when we held the presidency of the Commission. There seems to be no evidence—although the Minister may be able to refute this and I shall be interested to hear what he says—that Ministers of this Government made any attempt to promote legislation on this issue. Indeed it is very unlikely that it will be brought forward until the German presidency during the second half of 1994.
I end by asking one or two other questions which I think are relevant. Is there not a very strong case, based on the report, for a review of bus legislation? Also, could the Minister indicate when the consultation paper on the fine tuning of the Transport Act 1985—promised by Mr. Roger Freeman last year —is to appear? Would he accept that Section 106 grants should be awarded locally and that the
664
expenditure implications for local government should be acknowledged by central government? Also, could the noble Earl explain how the Government envisage that the introduction of low-floor buses will be financed in the medium to long term and could he explain the Government's attitude, as has been demanded by a number of speakers already, to progress at European Community level and how the necessary actions are to be taken?
4.33 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the recommendations of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee's Sixth Annual Report. The debate has ranged widely across the breadth of the report: not only that, but it has gone completely outside what the report had to say and has dealt with disabled transport in general. We will obviously consider what your Lordships have said with great care, and I can assure your Lordships that I shall draw what has been said to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends.
I should say from the outset that we greatly value the advice and support which the members of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee have provided over the last six years. I should like to pay a particular tribute to Sir Peter Baldwin, who has chaired the committee since its inception in 1986. His personal contribution to the development of transport policy in this area, both as chairman of the committee and earlier as a permanent secretary at my department, has been immense. Your Lordships might know that Sir Peter will be retiring as chairman later this year and I should like to take this opportunity to wish him well with his future endeavours. I am sure that your Lordships will support me on that.
The committee's sixth annual report begins by focusing on the pedestrian environment, which is of course the key to mobility for all of us. We all begin and end every journey as a pedestrian, even if it is only between home and the car. It is therefore vital to ensure that the pedestrian environment is designed and built and, just as importantly, maintained in a manner which meets the needs of all its users. Several years ago my department commissioned Leeds University to look at the ergonomics of the pedestrian environment, to identify the problems encountered by people with disabilities in going about their everyday business and to make recommendations on how the situation could be improved. In conjunction with my department, the Institution of Highways and Transportation then drew on the results of the Leeds work in revising their guidelines on providing for people with mobility difficulties. The revised guidance Reducing Mobility Handicap—Towards a Barrier-Free Environment was published in 1990 and is perhaps the most comprehensive source of advice on how to combat many of the problems which have been identified.
My department has also issued advice on other related topics. The Disability Unit Circular 1/91, The Use of Dropped Kerbs and Tactile Surfaces at

665
Pedestrian Crossing Points, provides guidance to local authorities on how to reconcile the needs of two groups of disabled people: wheelchair users, who need gentle gradients and flush dropped kerbs at crossing points, and visually-impaired pedestrians, who need to be given advance warning where the kerb definition has been lost. The blistered tactile surface now used at dropped kerbs across the country will be familiar to many of your Lordships. Indeed, it is used at a crossing point outside this House.
Of course, it is not only the planners who can create problems: inconsiderate drivers can turn the most accessible environment into a "no-go" area for pedestrians. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, rightly said that pavement parking and indeed parking at bus stops are not only antisocial but they can be positively dangerous for disabled and elderly pedestrians. The National Federation of the Blind's campaign, called "Get Streetwise", is helping to raise awareness of these problems. My department is drawing up guidance for highway authorities which sets out best practices and engineering measures which can be used to deter vehicles from pavement parking. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that at the same time we will be looking for an opportunity to introduce legislation which will provide for local authorities to make orders specifically prohibiting pavement parking in places where it is a particular problem.
We have also tried to shame those drivers who park at bus stops, and 27 million motorists have now received a leaflet with their road tax reminders which warns them of their anti-social behaviour and the danger it can be to bus users. We also encourage local authorities to take steps at local level to highlight this problem. Local publicity and other campaigns can be an effective way of raising public awareness. Parking at bus stops makes access much more difficult for elderly and disabled people. It also undermines many of the improvements which have been made in recent years to the design of buses, to make them easier to use for ambulant disabled and elderly people, as well as those with small children, shopping or luggage.
Perhaps the best known DPTAC initiative is the Recommended Specification for Buses Used to Operate Local Services. There can be no doubt that the specification has brought about something of a revolution of bus design. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will be interested to know that we now estimate that 90 per cent. of new buses have at least some of the features recommended in the specification, such as textured and colour-contrasted handrails, step-edge markings, "bus-stopping" signs which are particularly helpful to those with impaired hearing and bell pushes which can be reached from a seated position. We also know that some bus operators have retro-fitted some of these low-cost features to their existing fleet. For example, here in London, London Transport has carried out a programme of retro-fitting elements of the specification to 2,500 older vehicles. I agree with my noble friend Lord Teviot that it is right to compliment the bus industry on its work—work to which he rightly drew attention.
666
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, drew attention to an important point. He said that physical improvements may be totally undermined if drivers are unaware of the needs of their passengers. DPTAC has also produced a leaflet for bus drivers which gives some basic disability awareness guidance; for example, how to communicate with a deaf passenger and to allow passengers to sit down before driving off. It also gives commonsense advice which can greatly enhance the confidence and safety of elderly and disabled bus passengers. As regards common sense advice, consideration for others is something which cyclists might well bear in mind. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will be happy to disseminate that piece of advice to his fellow cyclists.
The next stage in bus design must be to develop vehicles which can provide full access not only to wheelchair users but also to people with prams and pushchairs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, rightly pointed out, low-floor buses are already in use in parts of Germany and the Netherlands. However, the operating conditions in those countries are quite different from those experienced here. We must ensure that such vehicles can provide an effective and sustainable transport service in the UK. We do not want to introduce a concept which is "here today, gone tomorrow". That would obviously have a detrimental effect not only on the confidence of the users but also on the operators.
The noble Baroness asked what assessment has been made of bus priorities and other measures to promote bus use, including experiments in low-floor buses. As regards bus priorities, the Government have been able to increase the allocation of resources to local authorities in 1993–94 from a prospective £6 million to £15.5 million. That is in addition to the £4 million allocated in 1992–93. The Department of Transport is to monitor five schemes with before and after evaluations.
With regard to low-floor buses, we certainly believe that such vehicles will have advantages for all users, and not only those who are elderly or disabled. But it must be for those in the bus industry to decide the appropriate level of investment in renewing their fleets and also the type of vehicle they believe to be most appropriate for their operations. I am sure that if low-floor buses offer advantages over conventional buses the industry will adopt them in large numbers. But more work needs to be done to assess the costs and benefits of such vehicles. That is why we are supporting two experiments with low-floor buses. One involves 68 low-floor single deck buses on three routes in north and west London. The other uses five buses on a route in North Tyneside operated by Go Ahead Northern (Coastline), which the Minister for Public Transport announced on 4th February.
Both experiments are just getting under way and therefore we are not able to express an opinion about their effectiveness. We shall be conducting monitoring exercises for both projects designed to provide an indication of the costs and benefits of introducing such vehicles. The results, which are expected in 1994–95, will be made available to all bus operators and local

667
authorities so that they can take the results of the research into account in planning future bus purchases.
Powers are available to local authorities to provide capital grants to bus operators to assist in the purchase of buses with special specifications. Section 106 of the Transport Act 1985 gives a power to local authorities to make grants towards expenditure on a vehicle, equipment or other facilities,
"provided wholly or mainly for … members of the public who are disabled; or … any equipment or other facilities … incorporated in any vehicle … not provided wholly or mainly for that purpose".
In providing such grant, however, local authorities must have regard to their duty not to inhibit competition.
Steps have been taken to draw the attention of local authorities to the powers available under Section 106. Paragraph 30 of the Transport Policies and Programmes Circular, inviting local authorities to put forward their bids for grant and capital approvals, states:
"The Department wishes to encourage the use of public transport".
It goes on to list a number of measures, including,
"grants to improve travel facilities for disabled people under Section 106 of the Transport Act 1985".
In addition, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has itself drawn to the attention of local authorities and bus operators the powers available under Section 106.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister believe that, strapped as they are for cash—that was the expression used by my noble friend Lord Shepherd —local authorities can really undertake that kind of obligation? They simply do not have the money.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord interrupted me as I was about to draw his attention to another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. It was the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. That allows local authorities to spend all of the capital receipts they realise up to the end of December 1993. Of course, we in the Department of Transport hope that some of this money will be devoted to improving public transport and, in particular, transport facilities for disabled people. But we have to recognise that it is for local authorities to take decisions on their own priorities.
I have already mentioned the increase in funds for local authorities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in the special position that he holds with the AMA, will draw that particular opportunity to its attention. I look forward to seeing some positive results as a consequence of what the noble Lord can do.
The noble Baroness drew attention to the report's conclusions about the low profitability of the bus industry and the effect that that is having on fleet renewal. That point was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I agree that it is true that the industry is going through tough times, but then so are many others. But the remarkable thing is that the majority of operators have managed to stay in business and many believe that the tide is beginning to turn on
668
profitability. The fact is that we still have more operators running more bus miles than before deregulation. We acknowledge that patronage continues to fall, but that is part of a long-term trend brought about, as the DPTAC report acknowledges, largely by the increasing use of the private car. The recession has also played its part in reducing orders for new buses—part of a worldwide phenomenon affecting all classes of new vehicle.
But recently there have been welcome large orders for new buses, including the 68 low-floor vehicles for the London experiment. I hope that that trend continues. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders statistics of bus and coach registrations in 1992 show an increase of 10 per cent. during the previous year and I hope that low interest rates and better trading conditions will see a continuation of that upward trend. Therefore, I hope that the gloomy picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be transformed into a better picture and that the next time he speaks on the subject it will have a rosier hue.
I turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, about laying down minimum specifications for vehicles. The DPTAC report acknowledges that in view of the international nature of the market that could be done only through EC construction and use regulations. A proposal for a draft directive has been put forward by the European Commission dealing with technical standards for bus and coach construction. Detailed discussion on the draft will not begin until later this month. But our initial reaction to the proposal is disappointment that it appears to deal with the issue of accessibility in a very inadequate way. In some areas the standards proposed appear to us even to represent a retrograde step rather than progress.
We would certainly hope to work with other member states to reach agreement that the features specified by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee for accessibility to buses should be incorporated as far as possible in the directive. Beyond that, we hope also to be able to make progress towards full accessibility. It is too early in the discussions yet to say how far we will succeed in this aim, but our intention is quite clear.
I must also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that it is our intention to give more prominence in the final document to the point which he made about access features. The document is a Commission document and it is now up to us to try to to change it.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, is the document now with the Council of Ministers or has it been referred back to the Commission?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that it is with the Council of Ministers. We are discussing it at official level and we shall try to make progress on the points that I have mentioned.
But, as the report indicates, powers are available to local authorities, both through their tender specifications for subsidised services and through the use of Section 106 of the 1985 Act, which I have already

669
described, to encourage operators to introduce more low-floor buses as well as other features to assist travel on public transport for elderly or disabled people.
I have described the action that the Government are taking to encourage the use of the bus both in terms of bus priority measures as well as specific support for low-floor bus experiments and we shall take stock of the situation when the results of those experiments are known.
We support the DPTAC initiative to incorporate disability training in course syllabuses for the planners, engineers and transport managers of tomorrow. With the knowledge that they gain during their training, we should find that the needs of disabled people are taken into account from the outset —in other words, providing access becomes a fundamental element in their thinking.
My department is working with the committee in pursuit of this aim. We have already had encouraging responses from many professional bodies, including the Royal Society of Arts, the Chartered Institute of Transport and the Institution of Highways and Transportation. We hope eventually that training will be provided across the range of qualifications, from national vocational qualifications to degree level.
But, as your Lordships will be aware, it is not just the training of the professional groups involved in the areas of public transport and the pedestrian environment that we are hoping to influence. We are also trying to raise awareness of the personal mobility needs of people with disabilities. My department's Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service— MAVIS—is working with the College of Occupational Therapists to see how its syllabus could be tailored to focus on this particular area. The aim is to ensure that disabled people are made aware of the opportunities fir independent personal mobility at the earliest stage of their rehabilitation.
Personal mobility undoubtedly gives the greatest level of independence for anyone with a disability. But for many disabled people, the process of learning to drive and getting themselves a car is a great deal more complex and difficult than most of us have had to face. With this in mind, in 1983 the department set up the first of what has become a biennial series of Mobility Roadshows. Those shows bring together all the major vehicle manufacturers, each with a fleet of their latest standard production cars equipped with a range of hand controls and adaptations. Disabled people are invited not just to look at the cars but also to test drive them on the private road system down at the department's Transport Research Laboratory. Even those who have only a provisional licence can test drive cars under the watchful eye of the department's driving examiners. The last Mobility Roadshow in 1991 attracted more than 200 exhibitors and over 30,000 disabled visitors. The next show, which will be on June 11th to 13th, will, we hope, offer a wider opportunity still.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about disabled driving instructors. A Private Member's Bill, which has full government support, is currently being discussed in another place and, if passed, it will make
670
it possible for the first time for physically disabled people to apply to become approved driving instructors.
The noble Lady asked also about tactile surfaces on platform edges and other facilities at unmanned stations. We are jointly funding a project with British Rail to look at practical solutions to access problems of elderly and disabled people at unmanned stations. Tactile surfaces will be one of a number of initiatives to be tested. Perhaps the noble Lady will allow me to write to her on the other points she raised because I do not have time to mention them all.
I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the number he gave for taxis which have wheelchair accessibility in London was not correct because over 7,000 now have that accessibility. Every new taxi has full access. From 1st January 2000 all taxis in London must be fully accessible. We have also produced a training video for taxis called "Call a Cab" which is widely available to the taxi fraternity. If the noble Lord finds another taxi driver who does not know what to do, perhaps he will indicate to him that there is a video available to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked about minicabs. As he will know, we are currently considering that issue. Questions about it have been tabled in the House. We hope to be in a position to put forward proposals shortly.
The mobility needs of people with disabilities, like those of everyone else, cover a wide spectrum. We are grateful to the work of DPTAC in helping us to develop clear and effective policies in this area which are aimed at breaking down the barriers that exist and creating an environment in which fully independent mobility is possible.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, which has been useful. I am sorry that we did not have more positive answers from the Minister as to how the department is likely to help and encourage. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned that local authorities are strapped for cash. However willing they may be to use Section 106, the funds may not be available for them to do so. I hope that the Minister will take to heart the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about the possibility of leasing back buses. That will encourage the fleet to be replaced by buses which the physically handicapped, those who are handicapped in varying degrees and the able bodied can all use. I hope that something can be done in less than the 25 years which is suggested at present.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although I wish that he had been a little more positive. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Military Commitments and Resources
4.56 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to call attention to the demands of national defence and international security and to the importance of ensuring a proper balance between military commitments and resources; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in tabling this Motion is to draw attention to what I believe to be the serious deficiency in the direction of our national security policy. Of course, since the Motion appeared on the Order Paper the Select Committee on Defence in another place has published its second report on Britain's Army for the 1990s. That report recommends that the Government should cancel all amalgamations and disbandments of infantry battalions.
Of course, the report is concerned only with the Army. In my view the problem goes much deeper than that. It involves the long-term structure of all our Armed Forces which does not seem to be planned according to any clear view of the kind of commitments which they are likely to be called upon to discharge in the coming years. My proposition is that that arises from a failure in what used to be called the "West" to comprehend fully what has changed in the structure of international security since the end of the Cold War and also, just as important, what has not changed.
As regards this country, in my view that has led to an apparent confusion about the long-term role of Britain in the world and, inevitably, to a muddled and incoherent approach to defence policy. If we do not know what kind of international arrangements we need to take us into the uncertainties of the 21st century, how can anyone be expected to devise the kind of military resources which we shall need to support our overseas commitments?
It was reasonable to expect that with the end of the East-West confrontation which had dominated military thinking since the end of World War Two, there should be a radical reassessment of the size, shape and equipment of our Armed Forces. The Soviet empire had disintegrated, and the threat of a surprise attack by massive armoured formations upon Western Europe had disappeared, although the Russian federation remained, in a turbulent political environment, still with a powerful military machine and with the second largest nuclear striking force in the world.
But the time was certainly right for fundamental re-examination of defence policy, based on some clearly defined assumptions about the changed nature of international security and national defence in the post-Cold War environment and of the role which this country intends to play in that environment. What we got was Options for Change. It is tiresome and pointless to prolong the sterile argument about whether that was a resource driven or Treasury led exercise. The evident truth is that it led to deep cuts across the whole spectrum of the Armed Forces in pursuance of the doctrine of equal misery for all.
Inevitably, that gave rise to a serious mismatch between resources and commitments, especially in the Army where it very quickly became clear, especially in the infantry, that all the warnings from Select Committees, retired officers, serving officers, academic strategists and other assorted experts about overstretch had been only too well founded. The elastic finally reached breaking point recently with the deployment of a sizeable British contingent to Bosnia. Last week, the Defence Secretary bowed to the inevitable and announced an increase in Army manpower and the planned number of infantry regiments. But that is only the beginning of our worries. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, confirmed in your Lordships' House that the cost of this modest increase would have to be borne from within the Options for Change budget. It needs no special knowledge or insight to conclude therefore that there will have to be further reductions in either the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force, or both, unless of course it is intended to make compensating reductions in other Army units. I hope very much the noble Viscount will reassure the House that that is not the intention.
If the strength and equipment of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force were so carefully calculated to meet requirements during the Options for Change process, what has happened since to lead us to the conclusion that they can now safely be subjected to further cuts? It must surely be clear to everyone now that Options for Change and the structure of the Armed Forces which sprang from it was based primarily on the need to apply severe financial restrictions evenly throughout the three services, and only secondarily, if at all, on an assessment of the commitments which those services were likely to be called upon to discharge.
It is not the Ministry of Defence that has to bear the responsibility for this. The Ministry and the Chiefs of Staff are in my view doing their best to meet the commitments laid upon them by the Government with the resources available. Nor, of course, is there any ground for criticism of the services. The British Armed Forces are widely recognised as being among the finest in the world. They are professionally led, and they are well trained. Their loyalty, discipline and courage are not in question; nor is their morale so far, although that is under severe strain.
No, the deficiency lies elsewhere. The resources which are devoted to the Armed Forces in the broad policy of a sovereign nation state are a matter for decision and direction at the highest political level. That direction should spring from a clear vision of the role which the nation seeks to play on the international stage. The ability and the will to deploy effective armed force is not only the essential guarantee of national security; it is also one of the principal and indispensable means by which a nation can pursue a coherent, responsible and influential foreign policy.
So far as this country is concerned, there is no clear evidence of that vision or political direction. When the results of Options for Change were announced, we were told that it was based upon fulfilling

673
commitments to Allied Command Europe, the dependent territories, Northern Ireland and the defence of the United Kingdom. Yet within months we were undertaking commitments in Yugoslavia, Somalia and in the Middle East which were nothing to do with any of those four basic interests.
The force structure which emerged from Options for Change has, in my view, been proved to be based on assumptions which are no longer valid, even if they ever were. Yet there are strong indications that when the current long-term costing process is complete even more cuts to the defence budget are contemplated: cuts in submarines, surface ships, support vessels, aircraft, armoured vehicles and armoured fighting vehicles. I do not expect for one moment that when the Minister comes to reply to the debate he will be able to confirm that. I imagine he will, however, at least confirm there are no plans to increase the resources allocated to the Armed Forces.
It is difficult for me at any rate to understand upon what long-term strategic concept all this is based. I am not suggesting that forces can or should be provided to meet every contingency. The Foreign Secretary, in a speech at Chatham House on 27th January, mentioned a United Nations assessment which asserts that there are now 25 substantial conflicts in progress in the world. He went on to say that as a result there will be even greater demands upon our military resources in the future. He also said that we shall probably have to say no more often than we say yes.
This is no way to construct the foreign and defence policies of a great country. Nor is it any longer simply a question of another defence review, however necessary that may be. It is no good tinkering with the existing resources in well meaning attempts to react to short-term crises. It is, in my view, a matter of national leadership in which the people of this country can see clearly what part the Government intend Britain to play in the affairs of a dangerous and unstable world.
At one end of the spectrum it would, of course, be possible to say that we shall in future concern ourselves only with the defence of the realm and the protection of our own immediate narrow national interests. We could then reduce our Armed Forces safely, perhaps to a level comparable with Sweden which spends 2.5 per cent. of its gross national product on defence; Switzerland, which spends 1.5 per cent.; or even Austria, which spends 1 per cent. That would surely be a miserable ambition for a country which has uniquely broad and deep historic links around the world; for a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which is actively involved in more international organisations than any other country; and for a people who derive a good deal of their national self-esteem from a tradition of constructive engagement in the problems of international security.
This is not to suggest that we should aspire to the role of the world's police force or that we should become involved in every dispute, crisis or conflict that arises anywhere in the world. Already, I believe, we are much too ready to listen to demands for action from every television reporter with a hand-held video camera. Much more seriously, there is a tendency to
674
take for granted the right of the United Nations to intervene, and to demand our help in intervening, wherever its secretariat perceives some problem of human rights or injustice.
We should, perhaps, remind ourselves that Article 2 of the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits interference in the internal affairs of a member state. As our own Foreign Secretary reminded us recently, that prohibition is now giving way to the assumption that humanitarian concerns must always prevail over a sovereign nation's right to manage, or to mismanage, the affairs of its country and its people. We cannot, nor do most of us wish to, aspire to any imperial or superpower status. However, many of us are not content to see our country accept some insignificant, menial role in the construction of a new world order.
What we need to do now, in my view, is to identify clearly some of the potential threats to international stability in the post-war world from such developments as the spread of missiles and weapons of mass destruction; the possible emergence of China as an expansionist superpower; the deterioration of relationships between Islamic countries and the West; the implications of the possible descent of the Commonwealth of Independent States into civil war and anarchy; or even the return of hard line communist regimes to some of the powerful states which have emerged as successors to the former Soviet Union, many of them with powerful military forces and nuclear arsenals. Then we need to play our part in strengthening and supporting those like-minded nations and international institutions which have common cause with us in meeting these threats. Those are the United Nations—provided it is restricted to its proper responsibilities—the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in a restructured and modernised form; the United States of America; the Western European Union; the European Community, provided it does not become fatally addicted to federalism; and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE).
But in accepting our international responsibilities we must not neglect the defence of the United Kingdom. Leaving aside the minimum requirements of defence against external attack, we employ at present something like 20,000 troops in an attempt to preserve a precarious security in Northern Ireland. We could, according to the best military assessment I have heard, reduce that number substantially if we were prepared to arrest and detain about 150 known terrorists from the IRA and the Protestant paramilitary groups. But unless there is the political will to take that calculated risk, we shall presumably have to keep what is something like a quarter of our infantry strength indefinitely tied down in Northern Ireland.
We cannot, in my view, defend the United Kingdom against internal and external danger and at the same time discharge an honourable and responsible role in international security with the military establishment which emerged from Options for Change, much less with that which seems likely to result from the current long-term costings exercise.
The Government must now make a choice. Either they must substantially and progressively reduce the deployment of our Armed Forces abroad—we have 80,000 troops at present serving outside this country, including nearly 4,000 on UN duty in Kuwait, Cyprus, Cambodia, the Balkans, Somalia and North Africa —or, alternatively, they must provide adequate military resources to discharge all those commitments and others of a similar kind which will inevitably arise in the future.
The present imbalance between resources and commitments, if it is allowed to persist, carries with it too many dangers. Operational tours are becoming too frequent with the attendant strain upon soldiers and their families. Training is, in some cases, woefully inadequate. There is a real danger that important tasks will not be discharged effectively. From all that springs the greatest danger of all in a fighting force —a progressive loss of morale.
It is no good telling us that the situation is being kept constantly under review. It is no good pointing to the recent increase in army manpower as an example of a reaction to changing circumstances. Modern armed forces are skilled, sophisticated organisations, handling complex weapons systems and high technology communications. They are teams of dedicated, highly trained men and women who depend for their effectiveness upon an amalgam of tradition, esprit de corps, discipline, and shared experience. They cannot be expanded and contracted safely, like some kind of hot air balloon, to meet passing political and financial calculations.
The anxiety that some of us feel about the lack of political vision in the conduct of those affairs should not be dismissed as just special pleading or disenchanted criticism pointed at the government of the day. It is far more important and deeper than that. Let me conclude with just one or two quotations from a speech on the same theme made only two weeks ago:
"a number of possible involvements is growing rapidly almost month by month".
Then:
"as we read … the details of each particular case, we may, to some extent, fail to see the general picture".
Finally:
"These themes affect our diplomacy, our armed forces, the way we allocate our resources, and the way we look at the world … Our diplomacy is now undermanned … and our armed forces are already stretched".
Those are not the words of some disaffected military activist; they are the words of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Douglas Hurd. I beg to move for Papers.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Ridley of Liddesdale: My Lords, it is a great honour to address your Lordships for the first time. I approach it with a large degree of trepidation because I very much want to be in the Government's camp over this issue but I am frightened that, overnight, the Government will raise its tents and disappear into the darkness and I shall find myself supporting a position which the Government have abandoned. It seems to
676
me that we have to approach this matter from the resources angle, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said.
I am no military expert. Indeed, I never rose beyond the rank of captain in the Territorial Army. I became officers' mess cook. It was not until I took the stores up in the sleeper to Catterick Camp and was awakened in the middle of the night by Brie dripping on my face that I decided the time had come to end my military career. I have to draw attention to the resources available:£27.5 billion goes on defence, overseas aid and foreign affairs, but the Government's deficit this year is £37 billion. So it is only two-thirds of what we have to borrow that we are currently spending. With a trade gap of £20 billion we cannot afford to have a large adverse effect upon the flows of money across the exchanges.
Certain commitments are inevitable: Northern Ireland, of course; Belize unfortunately; and the Falklands. Having tried in my day to negotiate solutions to those problems, I hope that the Government will continue to search for honourable and peaceful solutions which will relieve us of the military responsibility there. Certain commitments are profitable: the Romans kept Hadrian's Wall for 100 years after they lost control of the country on either side of the Border. They left the garrison there and charged dues on those who traded or went through. They made more money than the Roman army on Hadrian's Wall cost, which is why they kept the army there. It is a good military reason for a presence in an area. We do not make, but we do not lose, money on Brunei, and Hong Kong, a commitment which will come to an end, and we probably make money on the Saudi Arabian business and the al Yamahah project, and many other training operations which the Army undertakes. Those of course are all excellent.
The noble Lord has already drawn attention to the dangers of the future. I feel even more strongly than him about some of those dangers. The Cold War has ended and unleashed a whole maelstrom of nationalism and Moslem fundamentalism, ancient ethnic hatreds, grudges and tensions. At the same time, we have a nasty crop of dictators, some of them nuclear, who will be part of the pattern of history for a long time. We shall not, I believe, see less trouble in the future, but rather more.
I therefore think that the policemen of the world will be called upon more and more, and it is a pity that they always seem to be America, Britain and France, with, of course, some additions and some extra help from other parts of the world. The role of the policeman will be necessary. I give every support for us continuing to take part in that role, but I believe equally that the burden must be shared very much more evenly because there are plenty of rich nations which contribute nothing like their full share to the cost of those operations.
There would be no need for Options for Change, and no problems such as those to which the noble Lord has drawn attention, if there were a far greater flow of income into Britain from the various policeman operations that we have undertaken. The Gulf War set a good precedent in the sense that the hat

677
was passed around and a great deal of money was thrown into it; but we cannot ignore that precedent and see it as a one-off. We have to develop more sophisticated ways of making that happen in the future.
Another vision has been the transformation of the United Nations from a useless talking shop into a body which can grant mandates, recommend action and co-ordinate military activity in pursuit of its decisions. That too must be developed. Fragile, dangerous and hard-to-make-stick though such decisions are, and difficult though the problem is of financing those operations by those who, although not participating, will benefit from them, it seems to me that we should try to move the world in that direction. I have no illusions about how difficult that will be. However, I hope that in the longer term such a consideration will contribute towards squaring the circle which the noble Lord has raised, allowing me to continue to support Options for Change, which I very much wish to do.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Healey: My Lords, I believe that I speak for the whole House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ridley of Liddesdale, on a stimulating maiden speech. I have always been a little cautious in criticising him, even when I disagreed, because one Balliol man never eats another, as he may recall. However, we have other things in common. We are both keen painters. We have never been unduly infected by an excessive subservience to the orthodoxy of our parties when we felt strongly in disagreement with it. I found myself agreeing perhaps a little more with what he said than with the opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I agreed with a good deal of that speech but he left out one important dimension which was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, and that is the economic dimension.
Perhaps I may begin with another quotation. I remember Sir Henry Tizard saying in the late 1940s, after our victory over Germany and Japan, that we would not remain a great nation if we tried too hard too long to be a great power. Now that the Empire has gone, the Cold War is over and Britain is producing less than Italy, the time has come, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, to try to relate our spending to our means and our economic situation. At present, we are spending nearly twice as much of our gross domestic product on defence as Germany—which is much closer to all the potential sources of conflict—and 50 per cent. more than the average per head in NATO Europe. I fear that unless we can bring down our defence spending, if not to the general NATO European level at least to the German level, our economic decline will continue. In a world increasingly dominated by economic power we shall see the Germans and Japanese—they have been far wiser than we have in that respect—continuing to forge ahead.
The excuse for not facing that decision is usually that it is an unstable world; and indeed it is. But one source of that instability has been created by ourselves and our allies in the irresponsible export of arms to
678
unstable parts of the world. I was shocked to see a Government Minister boasting yesterday that we had record arms exports of £4.5 billion last year, 20 per cent. of the total arms exports in the world. Yet we know from bitter experience that many of those arms will fall into the hands of our enemies. It has happened in Libya, the Argentine, Iran and more latterly in Iraq. We know that excessive spending on arms by developing countries is liable to produce military dictatorships which will be hostile to us. We know too that our double-standard foreign policy in the Middle East is increasing the threat from Moslem fundamentalism to some of the regimes which are currently our friends.
That sad story was symbolised recently by British Ministers applauding an attack by American missiles on a factory outside Baghdad which was full of arms-making machinery supplied by Matrix-Churchill and financed not by the Iraqi Government but by export credits provided by the British taxpayer. Surely we should take that dimension of the security problem a great deal more seriously, as we promised to do at the end of the Gulf War but, like the Americans, have lamentably failed to do.
It is absolutely true that the Army is overstretched. I should like to pay my tribute to the Select Committee for spelling that out in detail. However, one reason is that we are still carrying commitments which are not in our interests. We ought to be able to get rid of the Cyprus commitment in the near future in particular since the prospects for a United Nations settlement are now much closer. I hope that the Minister will say a word about that in reply.
I do not understand why we still have the Belize commitment. That is surely an imperial relic grossly out of date. I am baffled to know why we have 46,000 troops in Germany when the Foreign Secretary admits that the threat which put them there in the first place has disappeared and NATO is now a biological monstrosity—an organ without a function.
If we need more troops for peace-keeping, surely the first place from which to draw them is Germany, if only in the short term, especially as the Germans have renounced any contribution to peace-keeping outside the NATO area. I do not go so far as the Financial Times this morning which suggested that we should ask Germany to provide battalions in Northern Ireland. But that is worth considering at least as much as the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, that we should provide mercenaries for the Germans and Japanese all over the world to protect their interests rather than our own. I do not believe that that is a terribly attractive answer to the problem.
The threat of a Russian military dictatorship, so often quoted, is an odd thing for the Government to use on the very day when our Prime Minister is trying to persuade the Prime Minister of the Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons which, by the British argument, are the ideal deterrent against a possible future Russian military dictatorship and, at a time when we are producing a new range of long-range nuclear weapons to penetrate a Soviet anti-ballistic missile system which they will be setting up in co-operation

679
with the United States. It seems to me that there is an awful concatenation of antique relics infecting our defence policy at present which badly needs attention.
The Foreign Office and the Government must decide what commitments it is "in our interests" (I quote the Foreign Secretary) to accept. I speak with the knowledge that I have behind me two chiefs of staff, the lacerations of whose spurs I still feel in my flanks. But the worst way to approach the problem is the way that the present Government have gone about it—by equal shares of scarce goods between the three services. I thought that we had long ago decided to tackle those problems on a joint service basis. I was deeply disturbed to hear a rumour recently that the Government are now planning to abolish the Joint Services Defence College at Greenwich. That is the main nursery for people who will in future consider dealing with such problems in an inter-service way. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he replies.
My own feeling is that we have far too much at the moment in the Royal Air Force and even more than that in the Royal Navy. All three services have far too big a top hamper. I was impressed by a letter from the commander of our forces in Oman during the famous war on behalf of the sultan. I wish we could get back to that kind of top hamper, but I doubt whether we could get quite so far very fast.
I believe that there is a chance now, perhaps just out of economic necessity, to get some sensible decisions taken which have been long overdue. The Foreign Secretary stated the problem four years late, and he did so accurately, but he proposed no solutions. I believe that the present Defence Secretary is an ideal man to co-operate with him in finding answers to those questions. I hope that the Prime Minister will not allow the Whips to dictate our defence policy. I gather that the cost of keeping two naval dockyards going instead of one will be enough to equip four battalions, if we were prepared to do that.
In view of the time, I shall finish by saying that I hope that the Government will not continue to use the Defence Secretary's job as a parking lot for Cabinet Ministers on the way up or down and that we can for once achieve continuity among those who run our defence policy.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it was sometimes argued during the period of the Cold War, when our Armed Forces also faced serious over-stretch and over-commitment, that we should seek a better way of meeting our NATO obligations by getting the alliance to adopt the concept of specialisation. The concept proposed that rather than every nation trying to cover the whole range of capabilities which might be required by NATO, we should seek to share the range across the alliance as a whole. If satisfactory arrangements had been agreed by all, there would have been better value for the money devoted to defence. However, the concept did not receive universal support from the Chiefs of Staff. It was felt
680
that there were too many national and other commitments beyond NATO's area of interest which had still to be met.
We are now living in a very different world where the risks and obligations we may encounter have taken on new dimensions. In particular, as we face the probability of further demands for United Nations peace-keeping or peace-enforcing operations, as the Foreign Secretary recently pointed out, I wonder whether we should revisit the concept of specialisation. No one country in the United Nations context could be expected to undertake or cover all requirements on its own. The United Nations operations will be undertaken by two or more nations in partnership. There should be scope for sharing out the range of potential and actual commitments, drawing as far as possible on the capabilities which each member country has already provided for its own national security needs.
In our case, bearing in mind our current scale of operations, our anxieties in Northern Ireland and on the ground elsewhere overseas, and potentially until 1997 in Hong Kong, many of our ground forces are more than heavily committed.
If we are to live within the resources devoted to defence and if we are to do all that is necessary to sustain our position as one of the permanent members of the Security Council, now must be the time to make it clear that, in respect of any further United Nations operations or increases to those currently in train, we would be willing to do more. But we should do so only by drawing on certain elements of our defence capabilities which are less committed at the present time.
Against such a background, there should be scope to start to rein back on our ground force deployments and to seek to provide more from our maritime and air forces in ways with which your Lordships will be well familiar. We are already doing so with Her Majesty's ship "Ark Royal" in the Adriatic and Tornado and Jaguar units around the borders of Iraq. I believe that the experiences of the past couple of years have given us plenty of practical lessons from which we could draw up and declare publicly a range or scale of capabilities, which would be available if required, as our share of actual or potential contributions to United Nations operations.
Indeed, if we do not do so, we are in danger of being dragged little by little into ongoing or new activities, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out this afternoon, with neither the resources nor the essential public support and understanding for what we are doing and where the line has to be drawn between resources and commitments.
The second point that I should like to make refers to the pressures for Her Majesty's Government to undertake yet another defence review. It has been my lot to have been closely involved with major defence reviews in each of the past four decades. For all of them, there followed a protracted period of adjustments: facilities being closed down or handed over; units moving once, maybe twice, before they reach their new "long term" locations; uncertainties about career prospects and even redundancy; family

681
plans for schooling, house ownership and spouses' own employment disrupted or curtailed, with inevitable effects on the families' budgets.
The impact of the follow-through to a major defence review is protracted and at times tiresome for the officers and men and women involved. Even though they recognise that it has had to be done, it is still a disrupting business, made more difficult if actual operational deployments and family separations occur in parallel. In the last review, Options for Change, all those follow on problems have arisen on a truly massive scale, as we would expect following a drawdown in manpower of 20 to 25 per cent. over a relatively short period.
There is a tendency, in the calls we now hear for yet another review, completely to overlook the fact that the implementation of Options for Change has really only begun. It will go on for a number of years, and your Lordships will appreciate what that means to individuals. To be treated to yet a further period of uncertainty, which follows in the wake of the commencement of a defence review and continues for many months, would be a grievous blow to morale throughout the Armed Forces and their supporting civilians.
I am relieved and glad that Her Majesty's Government have so far made it clear that apart from some comparatively minor trimming and adjustment or postponement to a few elements of the overall Options for Change package, they have no intention of instigating a further fundamental review. I hope that the Minister will feel able to confirm that position this evening.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for providing the opportunity for the debate today. I am sure that I shall not be the first noble Lord to rise with some trepidation to speak for the first time in this House.
My interest in the subject of defence dates back to my four-year extended short service commission in the Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales Own) in the 1970s. The regiment was at that time based in Germany, BAOR, and equipped with Chieftain tanks. My role for the majority of my service was as a troop leader. A troop at that time comprised four tanks and 15 soldiers. The regiment served in Northern Ireland twice during that period in an infantry role. After leaving the Army, I remained on the Royal Armoured Corps Reserve and still remain on the Emergency Reserve.
I sometimes feel that in the public perception the issue of "defence" does not rank as highly as it should do on the list of priorities, except at times where substantial numbers of our servicemen are involved in a major conflict such as the Falklands War or the more recent Gulf crisis.
I believe that it would put things in better perspective if our defence budget were looked upon by everyone as this country's insurance policy to safeguard our future interests. Like all insurance policies, there is a premium. These premiums
682
sometimes seem unnecessary at the time. On this basis, the country would have a right to expect a competitive premium for the best possible cover.
Herein lies the crux of the issue. What possible roles do we as a country expect our Army, Navy and Air Force—arguably one of the best-trained combined services in the world—to carry out on a domestic and international basis? Only when that question has been answered, can and should the cloth be cut accordingly, and not vice versa.
The events of the past 10 years, and of the past two years in particular, have shown that the unexpected can and does happen. The question is: do we as a country want, and indeed can we afford, to play the significant role in the future that we have done in the past in situations outside our own domestic and NATO arenas?
Following the changes which have taken place in the Soviet Union, the removal of the iron curtain and the unification of Germany, there is ample evidence to suggest that we now live in a more unstable and dangerous world than we did before. It is for these reasons that I hope the British public will see the good sense in paying whatever "insurance premium" is necessary to ensure that we can continue to safeguard our interests in the future as we have done in the past.
There are two specific points that I should like to mention briefly, as they greatly affect the lives of all servicemen, particularly soldiers. They are well-known: over-stretch and manning levels within battalions and regiments.
Where manning levels within a regiment or battalion are not at full strength, other units will probably need to be seconded, for instance, for an emergency tour in Northern Ireland. Those seconded soldiers are then likely to find themselves returning to the Province with their own regiment, when they get back there, in well under the desired 24-month gap period. Both those factors create obvious service and family pressures and have a detrimental effect on morale.
Finally, I would like to put the case of the Royal Armoured Corps that there should be no further reduction in the number of armoured regiments. In my experience, the calibre of the average armoured corps soldier is such that he is able quickly to adapt and retrain to an infantry role, and back again to his primary role. I ask my noble friend the Minister for his assurance, if it is possible, on that point.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure in your Lordships' House to pay a tribute to a maiden speaker. That is my duty today. I had some trouble trying to find out about the noble Lord and his activities. There was someone who saw him in the hunting field who said that he was a bit slow across country. Today, however, the noble Lord spoke with great rapidity and competence, and I congratulate him. It is always an ordeal to rise in your Lordships' House for the first time: the noble Lord discharged his duties exceedingly well.
We are short of time. I sometimes think, when one only has seven minutes, that the most popular action

683
one could take would be to sit down at the point I have now reached; one might even sell one's odd minute or two to other noble Lords. I considered doing that, but I decided that it would create too much ill-feeling and not enough certainty of what our policy was.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who is always a very competent speaker and thinker. I must confess, however, that I was more attracted by the vision of my old friend, my noble friend Lord Healey, in confronting the issues that face us. I find it exceedingly difficult to come to any conclusion. I do not think that there is any clear-cut solution. I do not envy the noble Viscount who will reply. I do not doubt that he has a smooth and efficient speech to make but the problems are almost impossible.
There is one issue that we ought to bear in mind. We do not want inter-service rivalry. There have been suggestions that the Air Force, with its European fighter, was hogging the money which the Army wanted; that you could take an airman and turn him into a foot soldier. That will not work very well. We have to face the fact that we shall not find any certain solution. That probably implies that we should continue regular investigations. We have had four defence debates of one kind or another in the past few months. I think we might have one every month and take the latest view. With a good supply of maiden speakers, we shall always hear some interesting new ideas.
I am concerned about the destruction of know-how —of knowledge. Those noble Lords who have read the details of the fight in the Falklands will recognise the importance of the knowledge and understanding of the soldiers, the marines and others who took part. We should be careful that, in cutting down numbers, we do not destroy the know-how, the feeling of esprit de corps and the courage of the Forces. The story of the Falklands is of a bloody war. Immense courage was shown. We need to retain that ability.
That makes me nervous about another aspect. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to comment. There is no proper reference in the White Paper (which I find a readable document) to the hydrography service. There is a reference to the hydrographer but not to the service. I understand that the hydrographic vessels are to be retired early and not replaced. Can the noble Viscount tell us what is happening? One of the great achievements of the Royal Navy has been its hydrography work in which we are supreme in the world; we want to continue with that ability. I find it disturbing that a proposition can be put forward by which the knowledge that goes with the ships as well as the men will be seriously damaged. That issue goes right across all the services—the ability to keep the knowledge that goes with operational experience.
I thought that I might have to talk about the European fighter. But the case for that is clearly set out. It is a good and economic answer to the problem, especially when one looks at the Russian aircraft that will no doubt be spread throughout the world and which we may have to face.
The services undertake a number of popular activities, not least ornithology. I am sorry suddenly
684
to enter upon that subject. I started off with the hunting field, so perhaps it is appropriate if I conclude on the ornithological. The Air Force has lost its chief ornithologist because he has become Chief of the Defence Staff. That is a very satisfactory outcome. I hope that he will lend his support to those activities in all three services.
I congratulate again the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, on a very fine speech, about which he can feel very happy. I hope that he will frequently speak in your Lordships' House.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, this debate is extremely timely, not least because the Government's preemptive strike last week, although welcome, still left many key questions unanswered. It is absolutely right that commitments and resources should be discussed in tandem. The more one feels obliged to reduce one's defence expenditure in search of a "peace dividend", even though the world has become anything but peaceful, the greater must be one's restraint on the military commitment that one maintains, let alone takes on, and the less one must be prepared to carry weight and exert influence in many areas of international affairs.
On the other hand, if it is felt that Britain's somewhat unique experience, and particularly our seat on the Security Council, makes it difficult to refuse certain obligations and involvements in the cause of international safety, then proper and adequate resources ought to be set aside to sustain the forces which will be needed. Like love and marriage, commitments and resources should go together. I mean, of course, real resources in financial terms, not just those that rob Peter to pay Paul. And if your Lordships accept my second premise, it is no good going on saying, as the Secretary of State said in his Statement in another place—I only hope with his fingers firmly crossed—that,
"The judgments made in "Options for Change" remain valid".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/93; col. 319.]
If we want to retain our international role and seat on the Security Council, they almost certainly will not remain valid and, indeed, many of the assumptions made in that document have proved inaccurate.
Let us look at resources. There, of course, the cat is out of the bag. No one is denying that the Armed Forces, and particularly the Army, are unacceptably stretched for their everyday commitments, let alone having enough in reserve for emergencies. The Select Committee's report is critical of the Government's part in allowing that state of affairs to develop, which may have accounted for the timing of the recent Statement agreeing to do something to alleviate the Army's manpower situation to the extent of two extra battalions, a 3,000 increase in the manpower ceiling and 2,000 redeployed into the Infantry from who knows where.
As far as it went I welcomed that Statement, and I rejoice for those who now see their proud regiments retained, even though I have to say that there will still be many deserving cases of quality throughout the Army—not least the Brigade of Guards and the large

685
regiments who are so infinitely better organised to face the future than single battalion regiments—who will feel correspondingly resentful and aggrieved.
But leaving sentiment aside, that modest recognition of reality raises two important points. First, bearing in mind the glaring shortcomings of all peace-time establishments, particularly but not exclusively in the Infantry, I very much doubt if raising the ceiling by only 3,000 will be sufficient to support and maintain those extra battalions and the other two, which at the last moment were put into Options for Change without any extra manpower. I believe that we need at least double that number and if I am right all that will happen is that we will end up with extra cap badges but with the units themselves still inadequately manned for the tasks that they have to do.
My second point concerns the right honourable gentleman's Statement that the cost of any additional manpower must be met not just from within the original Options for Change financial projection, which was severe enough; but within the much lower still financial provisions of the Autumn Statement of 1992. That means that the Government are not finding extra resources to meet increased and unplanned commitments. In fact they are continuing to take them away even faster. They are merely shifting £80 million from one part of the highly-stretched budget to another. It is all being done by mirrors!
We are entitled to know from where that money is likely to come. Will it come from the Royal Navy? That is a service which perhaps more than any other is ideal for projecting power and bargaining clout to any crisis area, as we have seen in the South Atlantic, the Gulf and now the Adriatic, and where some degree of amphibiosity is essential to the flexibility that that service provides. Perhaps it will come from the Royal Air Force, without which, as the Gulf War showed, our ground and naval forces cannot operate, in any conflict worthy of the name, without an unacceptable degree of risk and whose Tornado force provides a unique, highly specialised—to pick up the point of my noble and gallant friend—and professional element in any United Nations or international task force.
I believe, as some other noble Lords I am sure would agree, that it could come from our more than adequate nuclear capability. But sadly, if we keep anything worthwhile at all, the savings cannot be great in the shorter term. Or will the funds come from the Army, grasping at that age old panacea of "cutting the tail to strengthen the teeth"? There might have been something in that, if we had not been doing that for the past 25 years. I say that with some feeling having been involved, up until Options for Change, in every reorganisation in that period.
It is therefore my judgment that those things that we can, in financial terms, obtain from headquarters —the logistic and medical services, military music and the training machine—are all trifling compared with what we need elsewhere if we are to continue to play our part on the world scene.
That brings me to a final word on commitments. I am certainly not one to suggest that we should rush into military involvements when they are really none
686
of our business, when our national interests are not involved, when there is no clear political objective and when military action would not work anyhow. There is also much to command respect in the Foreign Secretary's recent speech regarding Britain's interest in a safer world needing to be disciplined and constrained and more concentrated on the techniques of prevention.
But if, as he also said, there is a need from the international community for an effort comparable to that in the years after 1945 if we are to avoid a slide into disorganised chaos, then Britain should play its part and some commitments will be inescapable. If we are not careful we could be in danger of deciding our foreign policy initiative not so much on what serves best our international relations and national interest and what is achievable in military terms, but on paper plans initiated by medium grade officials heavily influenced by the Treasury over three years ago when the world scene and prospects for stability looked very different from the way they look today.
If the Cabinet cannot produce more resources or at least stop taking them away, then they must shed commitments and have the courage to do so. We must do something about Ireland. When I was the CGS in Ireland we had 9,000 men stationed there; there are now 19,000. For whatever reason, if those commitments cannot be shed or refused—and I think that is more likely—and as a result the Armed Forces continue to be over-stretched, then it is equally their duty to obtain more real resources to correct the situation on the perfectly logical basis that the assumptions and judgments on which Options for Change was drawn up three years ago are today no longer valid.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing forward the debate and giving us such an excellent, wide-ranging survey to open our discussion. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Ridley on his outstanding and authoritative maiden speech. I particularly welcome the opportunity to say that because he and I were both elected to the other place on the same day many years ago and for something like 30 years I remained one of his constituents in Cirencester and Tewkesbury. I am glad that he has now joined us in this House.
I must declare an interest as a former Life Guards Officer in the Household Division. I felt that I wanted to say a word or two today not really in regard to the macro scene, which was covered so well by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, but also in regard to the more individual scene of the position of the Household Division.
I welcome the recognition by Her Majesty's Government that Options for Change is inadequate. If one had listened to the Secretary of State for Defence on television the night before last one would have received the impression that he did not think Options for Change was inadequate; that he thought it quite sensible and that we were going to continue with it as

687
before. But the Statement made last week by the Secretary of State surely indicates that he must consider that Options for Change is inadequate in view of the change in the international situation.
The fact that Ministers did not recognise—I hasten to add that I do not include my noble friend on the Front Bench, who was not a Minister at that time but has tried very skilfully to pick up some of the pieces since he arrived at the Ministry of Defence—that United Nations commitments would increase throughout the world: Bosnia; the Gulf has already been mentioned; Cambodia; Somalia; and many other places have added to the burden on the British Army. If we are going to remain a permanent member of the Security Council, a privilege which we have had since the institution of the United Nations in 1945 and a vital and important part of our foreign policy, we have to pull our weight and do our fair share in the operations which are needed around the world. We have been doing that very skilfully and we have been in the forefront of countries which have supported United Nations intervention in various parts of the unsettled world today.
We cannot, as other speakers have said, get rid of our Northern Ireland commitment. That is there. Indeed, only recently, at the end of last year, we had to accept the fact of sending two more battalions to serve in Northern Ireland. Two more battalions to serve in Northern Ireland is not just two battalions. They have to be backed up and training has to be arranged. For two battalions one is probably talking about 10 battalions in the final line-up supporting those two battalions in Northern Ireland. We cannot carry that out unless we have our regiments up to strength.
Previous Ministers appear to have been carried away by the end of the Cold War. They seemed to think that the Cold War was finished and that hanging on trees around Whitehall was loads of money which they could pick up by cutting down our Armed Forces. They thought that peace would break out everywhere and that we would no longer need troops, or that we would need very minimal numbers. That has proved to be totally untrue. The pressure of the Treasury, which was mentioned quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in saying that we cannot go on pursuing this issue—he and I have spoken in about three debates in the House in which we have made the point that pressure from the Treasury was causing the build up and the production of Options for Change—has quite clearly taken place. I am told that the figure for cut-backs which the Treasury has insisted the Ministry of Defence should carry out is somewhere in the region of £1 billion.
Both the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, mentioned resources and commitments. Will my noble friend when he comes to reply tell me one thing? Are we matching resources to commitments or are we matching commitments to resources? What are we doing? No one seems to know. It is not enough to say, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Chalfont, that numbers are continually under review. That is a
688
kind of chant from Ministers which does not add up. It is no good saying that, reprieving two infantry battalions and 3,000 men and paying for it with £80 million from other parts of the defence budget, and at the same time giving the impression that we might do a little more if we press hard enough. I intend to press my noble friend a little harder this afternoon.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, mentioned the Household Division. Why do we not also reprieve the three battalions of Foot-Guards who are doomed to suspended animation? They are superb fighting units and they also have the essential ceremonial role. Ministers seem not to recognise that the Household Division "arms plot" is unmanageable even with the three extra increments for public duties which Ministers have agreed since the announcement of Options for Change. Five battalions—the Grenadiers, the Coldstream, the Scots, Irish and Welsh Guards—are too few. There is no opportunity to train in brigade formations or divisional formations with only five battalions. The First Battalion of the Grenadier Guards is likely to be stuck in London for eight years after two years in Northern Ireland. What is the effect of that? It is very undermining to morale and it enormously increases the pressure on the five battalions and the three increments which Ministers have agreed.
There must be enough battalions to complete the Household Division "arms plot". They have to rotate through training, operations and public duties. There must be no recruit capping, otherwise there is a danger of turning the Household Division into a Protestant Papal Guard. In other words, they will have no role to play as fighting units. That is not the way to look after our finest troops.
I should like to end by quoting to my noble friend the Minister his words to the House of 3rd February 1993:
"For the moment we are content".—[Official Report, 3/2/93; col. 270.]
I must tell my noble friend that we are not content. The Household Division and both Houses of Parliament, as indicated by the Select Committee report, are clearly far from content. Will Ministers accept the advice which the Select Committee gives on page 27 of the report? The final recommendation is that he should look at all this again and change the decisions on the amalgamations of so many fine regiments. I hope that he will look at it again.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, in Options for Change the Government have shown their commitment to a smaller more flexible armed force, one better able to deal with the kind of localised conflicts which increasingly are arising in the world today. Up to now amphibious forces have been an element in the Government's thinking. I do not have to explain to the House the advantages of amphibious forces; the ability to land a force at any time and place of one's choosing; the projection of political power; and indeed the additional advantage of just the threat an amphibious force poses to a potential enemy. It keeps an enemy guessing. This was amply demonstrated in

689
the Gulf War when a large Iraqi force was tied up by an American amphibious force loitering just over the horizon.
Back in the mid-1980s it was generally accepted that we needed two helicopter carriers, two dock landing ships and six logistic landing ships. Options for Change wheedled that down a little. We lost one helicopter carrier and one of the logistic ships. Those were replaced by a converted merchant ship, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Argus". Today we are faced with two dock landing ships, "Fearless" and "Intrepid", both elderly, in a poor state of repair and increasingly costly to maintain. "Fearless" should be in commission at this moment. Instead she is in dock at Portsmouth and not in the Adriatic where she should be. Of the five logistic landing ships, one is relatively new, another was half rebuilt following the Falklands conflict and the other three are rapidly ageing and are expensive to maintain. The three are in need of urgent major refit. In addition there is the planned new helicopter landing ship and two replacements for "Fearless" and "Intrepid".
If we can believe present reports the new helicopter carrier is to be axed. This at a time—I fully appreciate the Government's problems with money—when other countries are turning increasingly to the use of amphibious forces and amphibious ships. I cite the French and US involvement in the Adriatic and US and Italian involvement off Somalia. However efficient aircraft are as a means of transporting a force to a trouble spot quickly, they cannot provide the back-up support needed to sustain that force. That has always gone and will continue to go by sea. More than 90 per cent. of the heavy equipment for Desert Storm went by sea. We have a very efficient amphibious force—the force element—but we are desperately in need of replacement ships to transport that force. If new ships are not ordered then the whole viability of our amphibious force is at stake.
I turn quickly to another maritime element and one that has not been mentioned—our so-called fourth arm of defence, the Merchant Navy. The British registered fleet has been reduced now to a dangerous level. We would no longer be capable of mounting a Falklands-type operation. The Government will say "There are still the beneficially-owned ships which will fill the gap". That may well be so at the moment, but I do not believe that it will be true for very long. The bigger problem is where we are going to get the people to man them.
Perhaps I may return briefly to the situation in Bosnia. There we have HMS "Ark Royal" and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Argus" waiting and ready to try to help the Cheshire Regiment if needed. Neither of those ships is particularly well suited to that task having both been built for different purposes. The fighting ability of the "Ark Royal" is somewhat reduced by the role she is having to perform at the moment. The "Argus" has a deck covered with vehicles and all kinds of equipment. I feel sorry for the crew and extra personnel on board that ship who do not even have room to walk around the deck for exercise.
690
I ask the Minister to re-emphasise the Government's commitment to amphibious forces including the provision of additional ships with which to transport and support them. If there really is no money in the kitty—the recent decision vis-à-vis Plymouth and Rosyth does not help the situation which is a continuing haemorrhage as regards naval funds—is there no way in which we might perhaps obtain a suitable ship from the Americans? I am sure that President Clinton would be only too happy to oblige. Failing that, could we not make some other cuts to enable us to order new ships; for instance, by cutting out a frigate or two?
In conclusion, I cannot overemphasise the importance of the sea element in any rapid reaction force such as the new one now envisaged. Purpose-built amphibious ships provide unrivalled flexibility both militarily and politically and without them we risk not only the future of our amphibious forces, but also further degradation of the fighting efficiency of other ships which are forced increasingly to fill in for them. I urge Her Majesty's Government to consider most carefully indeed any decision which they may be contemplating against proceeding with orders for new amphibious ships.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like briefly to congratulate not only the maiden speakers, both old and young, but also the mature ones who have spoken in many previous defence debates. I believe that we are talking about overstretch. What is clear is that there is overstretch in the number of noble Lords demanding to speak in defence debates. I wonder whether we should make representations to the Procedure Committee that we do not have to keep to six minutes. Everyone was speaking such good sense that we longed to hear more and more constructive ideas from them. I am sure that there is a better way of running defence debates than the one we are currently engaged in.
It is now 30 years since I was Defence Minister. I remember being told then that there were 54 operations in which our Armed Forces had taken part in the past 10 to 20 years. They had only one common factor: not one of the 54 operations was foreseen by the planners and allowed for in any defence plans. So I hesitate to ask for yet another defence review because where is the threat to come from? We need flexibility of deployment and operation because we cannot foresee what is going to happen. People say that there is to be a peace dividend because the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. But there are all kinds of fragments of the disabled Soviet Union.
One has only to be reminded from The Times leader today that the Ukraine has the largest operational army deployed in the world. It has 650,000 men under arms and 173 nuclear ballistic missiles. It is a large army. The Ukraine will not negotiate a START treaty. It has not signed START 1 and it will not negotiate START 2. Consequently there is a great deal of potential trouble in the Middle East and in the ex-Soviet Union. Therefore, it is not a good moment to make further cuts.

691
Politicians must be blamed when one looks at the response of successive governments. I remember a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Healey. He said that he and the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, never took the solid political line of their own parties. When the noble Lord, Lord Healey, was Defence Minister I remember him saying "If you do not have enough defence, you do not have houses, you do not have schools and you do not have hospitals; you have heaps of ashes". Perhaps it was the spurs that were scarring his flanks when he said that, but it was a genuine statement. He was under criticism at the time.
Lord Healey: My Lords, they were not senior enough to advise me at that time.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, at this moment we have to deploy our restricted and overstretched defence forces in 31 operations. The forecast from the Foreign Secretary was that under United Nations or other auspices there will be 25 major issues confronting us in the near future or which are currently facing us. As so many people with knowledge have said, we need more trained men and more men on the ground with rifles. We do not need too many sophisticated weapons because we have to think in terms of the bush wars and the flexibility which will allow us to make our commitment in that regard.
The uncertain risks remain. There are four ex-Soviet Union states which still have the deployment capability of nuclear weapons. The dangers persist outside Europe. Armed forces are now to be used—which is very sensible—against the lesser powers who are now developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Those countries can easily provide some threat in the future. Therefore our intelligence service is of supreme importance. If we were unable to forecast Iraq's build-up in those fields we may be missing other potential aggressors.
It was good that the Western European Union should meet in St. Petersburg and decide that in these fields, and under United Nations policies, we can at least deploy, provided that we can actually accept the deployment because we are already overstretched. It was interesting to see, I believe, the Spectator this week questioning whether we are getting a big enough bang for our effort. It pointed out that France—which also has an unemployment level of nearly 3 million and which has not cut back as we have—has 900 combat aircraft against our 500. France also has 700 armed helicopters against rather less than 300 in our forces. We do not seem to be getting the value for money which we are all determined to have. What is forgotten in these tables is that France has conscription, which is very cheap manpower compared with our highly trained and better trained manpower which we deploy under a voluntary system.
I have read the whole of the Select Committee's report which came out yesterday. It is full of good sense. In Options for Change there was a cut back from 73,000 members of the Territorial Army to 63,500. There is no mention in the report of trying to restore some of that manpower. Is that not a field which
692
should be explored? Willing people serve in the Territorials and if they are unemployed it is so much the better to give them jobs. They will be trained to some purpose in the future. It develops a loyalty to the unit which perhaps has been absent from their lives.
Another report which I have seen says that the medical portion of the Territorial Army has very strong, balanced units with up to 100 men, with surgeons and other assets, in East Anglia. They have not been used very much. Each weekend they are on the beaches there and working as a combined unit yet they were not sent to the Gulf and they have not been deployed. Should we not be looking at all the ways for voluntary labour to come forward to add manpower to our Armed Forces?
Finally, we must be at a standstill and examine value for money. We must try in every way to reduce the overstretch. The defence committee states:
"we consider it inappropriate and ill-advised to carry through the proposals for the restructuring of the Army in their entirety, and recommend that the Government cancel all amalgamations or disbandments of UK infantry battalions currently planned".
I believe that everyone here will say "Hear, hear!" to that.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I have little to add to what was said by my old, valued and now noble friend Lord Healey. I shall, however, make one point—in the form of quotations from two recent statements made in Moscow. The first comes from Mr. Pochinok, who is chairman of the budget committee of the Supreme Soviet of Russia. Your Lordships need no reminding that the word "Soviet" has nothing to do with communism, it is simply the Russian word for council. He said:
"Expenditure on defence is increasing. And that is immediately giving rise to an acutely unpleasant situation, but let's take a look at what has happened. As before, we are practically not buying any arms but we have begun a huge programme to provide housing, to release servicemen, to reform the army, to withdraw the army from other republics, and as far as the social protection of servicemen is concerned, we are paying pensions and that is all sharply raising budget expenditure. Take the budget message—it can be seen quite clearly that out of over R2,000bn expenditure on the army, expenditure on armaments accounts for a very insignificant part of this. And the most terrible thing is that very great disarmament expenditure has been added. We have created so many weapons that now simply fantastic spending is required to eliminate these weapons and the implementation of the START treaty will demand huge rouble and hard currency expenditure. This is necessary. That is clear. These weapons are simply dangerous for mankind. But our task is to find how to minimise the expenditure. But for some reason it is said that expenditure on disarming is even less than on maintaining these arms—but that's not the case—of course not—the expenditure is much greater".
That is one statement. Now take it with another, which is from an article in the Russian paper Moskovskiye Novosti:
"The recently secret Smelchak and Santimetr artillery systems have no equal in the world. A laser guidance system corrects the shell during the final sector of its flight … The system needs to see a target for only three seconds in order to be able to hit the 'bullseye'. The systems have now been declassified and have sparked the interest of military circles in a number of countries, and the Russian government has authorised exports of Smelchak; authorisation for exports of

693
the Santimetr system is being finalised. The price is a commercial secret; indeed it is hard to determine since there is no similar weapon in the world."
This, and corresponding developments in other countries, is the threat. It is not on this or that declining middle-rank power keeping 20,000 men more or less under arms that the future of humanity depends. It is on the generality of all states understanding where the world is going and unconditionally accepting the authority of the United Nations, for lack of anything better, and paying their dues.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing this subject to your Lordships' attention today. I wish to concentrate on rather more detailed matters concerning the Army. Currently, the Army faces major commitments in nine different areas around the world, and it is unlikely that it will be faced with fewer commitments, although they may change, over the next decade. If tour intervals of 24 months between emergency tours for infantry battalions are to be retained there would be an overall requirement for 56 battalions. Even with the Government's recent and welcome reprieve of two battalions there will still only be a total of 40 infantry battalions and three Royal Marine Commandos, which is nothing like enough to fulfil our commitments. These figures still produce a shortfall of 16 fighting units if the 24 month interval between emergency tours is to be retained.
If the infantry fighting units are severely overstretched now it is difficult to see how they will not be even more overstretched when reduced to only 40 infantry battalions and three Royal Marine Commandos facing the same number of commitments. This clearly shows an imbalance between our planned resources and our present commitments. We need more fighting units, and all further planned cuts in Options for Change must be stopped now.
One of the current commitments in Bosnia is ideally suited to the role of the Armoured Reconnaissance regiment and its vehicles, which are easier to handle on the mountain roads than the infantry Warrior vehicles. If deployed the regiment would relieve the infantry of some over-commitment which, in turn, would increase the overall tour interval for infantry battalions on emergency tours and relieve their critical overstretch. That will require the retention of one more armoured reconnaissance regiment and must not be at the expense of the eight remaining tank regiments.
There can be few reasons why only one squadron of the 9/12 Royal Lancers is deployed in Bosnia now. The main reason is that Options for Change has cut too many armoured reconnaissance regiments. They are in the process of reducing from five to two. To cope with a six month emergency tour you require a minimum of three regiments if you are going to give any one of them a tour interval of 12 months. In addition, because there will be only two in the future, no regular armoured reconnaissance regiment can be found for the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps
694
reconnaissance commitment, and the Ministry of Defence has had to resort to the provision of a Territorial Army yeomanry regiment.
Superb though the yeomanry are, it is a complete nonsense to commit them to a rapid reaction force in peacetime purely because Her Majesty's Government refuse to concede that there is a distinct military requirement for three regular armoured reconnaissance regiments. The retention of a third armoured reconnaissance regiment was not only strongly recommended in a previous Options for Change Defence Committee report, but it was again stressed in yesterday's Select Committee report on commitments and resources.
For the first time for many decades, from 1997 the majority of the Army will be home based with the exception of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. Surely there is a clear case to reduce the military logistic and administrative support services and to link these with civilian firms whose members could have some form of reserve army or TA liability and be called upon to serve their country in times of tension if necessary. As a result unemployment levels would be lowered by increasing civilian employment in the defence industry and the Army would benefit from a reduction of costs. This in turn would avoid cutting any more fighting units, which are so vital to our present level of commitment.
There is also a requirement to merge the Royal Armoured Corps and the Army Air Corps, whose main roles are the same. For example, both corps have as their primary role the destruction of tanks and the role of reconnaissance. To combine both corps would provide further savings.
Last, but not least, I wish to turn once more to regimental bands. I am not talking about the large state bands found by the Household Division, nor the large corps bands. The regimental bands in cavalry regiments and infantry battalions consist of no more than 22 men. They are the pride and joy of the regiment. They are the spirit of the regiment. They are, my Lords, a pillar of the regimental system, to which the Government have agreed they are completely committed. They perform the duties of stretcher bearer and medical orderly in time of war, and take on guard duties when the regiment is away from barracks. The Royal Armoured Corps stands to lose six bands in any event as a result of Options for Change amalgamations. For the remaining nine Royal Armoured Corps regiments to lose their bands as well is too much to ask. There are no grounds for doing away with regimental bands on cost implications. Cavalry regiments and infantry battalions have suffered enough from the draconian measures in Options for Change: they do not deserve this uncaring and insensitive treatment from the Ministry of Defence.
I can assure your Lordships that in some cases there is greater feeling among officers, NCOs and men about the possible removal of their regimental bands than there was over their recent or proposed amalgamations. The removal of bands will be seen as the start of the destruction of the regimental system and will be in direct conflict with government policy.

695
It will be seen as not being in the spirit of the smaller and better Army which was promised. It will be thought to be a betrayal of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the regimental system.
In conclusion, the Army, with its current commitments, which are unlikely to be reduced, needs a strength of about 130,000 troops. To achieve that, further Options for Change cuts must be abandoned now. Regimental bands should be retained, and a proper defence review carried out forthwith.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, today's debate comes at a very crucial time for the future of the armed forces. Unfortunately, time precludes me from speaking on more than one subject, so I shall concentrate my comments on the Army. However, I should like to echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on landing platform helicopters (LPHs) and landing platform docks (LPDs) and the important role that they have to play in the Navy.
Yesterday we had the publication of the second report by the Select Committee on Defence which, if I may be permitted to say so, was a most revealing report by any standards. It put the problems of the Army into a nutshell—that the Government are yet again trying "to do too much with too few".
While welcoming the extra 5,000 men, whatever way one likes to look at it that does not solve the problem. It is just a chink of light on the horizon. I can confirm that the Army recruiting staff have not been told to recruit another 5,000 men; and the extra 5,000 will just cover "the hump" of those awaiting redundancy. While the Army expects to recruit 10,000 men in the next financial year, this will not significantly increase its manning levels—and if it does so, it will be for infantry, and recruiting in the logistics corps will suffer. A shortage of all-important specialist skills will result.
The problem in the Army today is twofold. First, there are not enough men leaving voluntarily because of the lack of employment in civilian life. Secondly, there are too many men of the wrong age groups and of the wrong trades in the Army today.
I want to touch on just one subject which I do not think has been covered in your Lordships' House in this debate. I refer to the Army's real estate. It is one of the Army's major resources. It is large. Although it amounted to 225,000 hectares last year compared to 240,000 hectares in 1975, the cost has risen dramatically from £394 million in 1975–76 to over £2 billion in 1990–91. The question that I should like to ask the Government is whether they believe that they are making the best use of the real estate that they have. In doing so, I refer to the evidence given by Mr. Brian Hawtin, Assistant Under Secretary (Programmes), to the Select Committee on Defence on 25th November, in which he said:
"Restructuring has also provided an opportunity to make the best use of our modernised estate and as far as possible we are seeking to vacate poor quality accommodation".
I should welcome the proposed disposal of Greenham Common, but wonder whether the
696
Minister can say whether there will be any restraint on the use of that land because I have an interest in that I live close by.
The problem that remains for the Government is the cost of reinstatement. I draw your Lordships' attention to just two properties that I know of - I have heard of many more—which are a problem. The first is the very lovely house at Frimley Park, which has been vacant for some considerable time. The second is the large estate of Bagshot Park, the present home of the Army Chaplain's Department. Those are two lovely properties which I believe that the Government would dearly like to dispose of, but they do not have the finance with which to reinstate those properties so that they can be returned to their owners. I have spent many happy times at Bagshot, but I submit that it is high time that the chaplaincy departments of the three services were merged and, further, that the Ministry of Defence should press the Treasury for sufficient funds for reinstatement purposes otherwise it is a nonsense to keep on properties such as these for which we have no use.
Finally, in the short time remaining to me I have yet again to return to the question of reserves. In his Statement on 3rd February, the Minister said:
"following the publication last year … on the future use of reserves, we have yet to complete our studies of how best to integrate both regular and volunteer reservists into the post-options force structure".—[Official Report, 3/2/93; col. 267.]
The Territorial Army swallowed the large and bitter pill brought about by the recent changes made by the Options for Change cuts. It has responded magnificently and weathered the turbulence that resulted. It is fundamental to the security of this country. Proper equipment, training and manning of units is essential. As long as the Territorial Army has a proper role to play and can be given the chance to prove itself, it will flourish. However, it will not flourish if it is cut by cutting off its resources. If it is a question of the infantry battalions adopting the role of the logistics corps, they will accept it providing the regimental and unit spirit is maintained. Unlike regular forces, reserves do need time to adjust to change. Will the Minister please bear this in mind if a future restructuring of the Territorial Army is yet again envisaged? If financial cuts are to be made to the TA, I ask that they are not made in terms of individual items, such as training days, equipment or supplies, but that an overall budgetary figure is imposed so that the reserve forces are masters of their own destiny.
This country is very fortunate is having loyal, hard-working servicemen who have served the nation well since World War II. Today they face an uncertain future for the many reasons that have already been aired. As shown by the second report of the Select Committee on Defence, the options are either to increase the size of the Army or to reduce our commitments. In view of what was said in the other place, the second option is the only one—that is, to reduce our commitments. However, one must question whether our commitment to such organisations as the Rapid Reaction Corps and the ACE Mobile Force is still viable and whether it should continue in the future.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for initiating this important debate at a critical time when we await decisions on Bosnia. Britain still has a UN commitment with regard to Bosnia and Iraq.
In both places Russia, too, has an important part to play. While President Yeltsin retains power, he will be largely in support of what the Security Council recommends. But what if he were to fall? He is already seriously hampered in what he is trying to do by increasingly powerful, chauvinistic, nationalist forces, orchestrated—or at any rate manipulated—by the old guard who still instinctively fear and resent the West. He has failed to secure the referendum that he wanted. There is real unrest and insecurity. There are murmurings about the need to protect Russian interests in the Baltic States. Russian soldiers are engaged in "fire-fighting" in at least four parts of the former Soviet Union—the Caucasus being an area of particular concern. Russian refugees are coming into Russia in substantial numbers.
In short, there is a thoroughly volatile and unstable internal situation in which, with one-third of the population said to be living below the poverty line, sadly, there can be no lack of people who might be ready to return to an autocratic system if it restored some certainty to their lives. In saying that, I do not belittle the immense steps to freedom that have been taken—the flowering of so much new liberty and enterprise—but it is all very vulnerable.
The clock could be turned back and one more significant sign of possible reversion is the decree published on 1st February governing citizens' rights to travel abroad. This authorises the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Security and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to decide whether citizens deemed to be in possession of information constituting a state secret shall have passports and shall have permission to travel abroad. I do not find that a reassuring development.
Whether or not President Yeltsin survives, it is clear that the defence-industrial complex is growing in power and that it is concentrating, apart from converting a very few defence plants to work for the oil and gas industries or to convert to non-military aircraft, on operating on the twin principles of producing new sophisticated armaments for the new, leaner Russian forces and selling them abroad for hard currency and at the same time building military relationships in support of their diplomatic offensive in, particularly, the Middle East and the Far East. To achieve both those ends, the defence industry has been kept largely intact and unprivatised. President Yeltsin, on his return from India, where he recently concluded a military agreement and confirmed that Russia would he supplying the cryogenic rocket motors which could allow India to become a nuclear power, said that India was,
"an immense market for Russian weapons".
Russia would also be supplying conventional submarines to India. In the Middle East, the Russian
698
warship, the "Admiral Tributs", stationed in the Persian Gulf, is to take part in the arms fair due in Abu Dhabi next week,
"in order to show Russia's willingness to co-operate in the military sphere with all nations in the area, not only Iran".
Russia will be displaying firearms previously kept secret. Their "principled stand against aggression" has, they say, brought substantial economic dividends —a 2 billion dollar loan from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Oman—and the base is now being laid for military-technological co-operation.
The state committee for the defence industry is giving great attention to expanding export potential. State orders for arms exports for 1993 amount so far to 2 billion dollars. Russia has largely ceased to supply her old allies, Vietnam, Cuba and Eastern Europe, in favour of India, China and Iran, who are to receive up to 80 per cent. of Russian armaments sold. According to Andrej Kokoshin, the deputy defence Minister, in January this year, larger government orders for defence equipment for Russia's own forces are designed to ensure the provision of the most modern weapons. The defence industry was, he said,
"the main resource for our competitiveness in the world".
Then he went on to say that although stocks of arms were considerable, the proportion of obsolete weapons, ineffective and expensive to operate, was much higher. He said:
"We must rid ourselves of obsolete weapons, a labour-intensive and sometimes expensive process requiring safety measures".
He added that:
"The effectiveness of the nuclear forces and their reliability must be increased, together with high-precision weapons with selective strike properties".
He said that Russia needed military muscle with brains—convincing and effective military power. He said:
"Military might will be among the main means of ensuring Russia's security and its genuine sovereignty".
Thus, for Russia, the destruction of weapons required by START II is a step towards more modern weapons and it must come as no surprise that Admiral Gromov, announcing on 21st January the decommissioning and scrapping of 80 outdated nuclear submarines added that this would not tell on the deterrence potential of the Russian navy since new warships will appear, thanks to a new 10-year shipbuilding programme, in which the Government was giving priority to atomic submarine construction at Severodvinsk.
There are some very disquieting aspects for the world in the programme of scrapping obsolete weapons. Admiral Gromov said that there were insufficient dumps for radioactive waste in the country. 4.1 billion roubles will be needed to destroy the first 45 per cent. of the chemical weapons stored in the country. Seventeen nuclear reactors have in the fairly recent past been dumped in the Arctic Ocean. According to the Russian ecology ministry, three-quarters of the industrial waste is toxic, and some 100,000 people live under unfavourable radioactive conditions.
I doubt very much whether, when our own natural resources and capacity to act in support of our national policies were considered in 1990, the

699
Government envisaged the peace dividend that we now have to live with. There is more at stake than national pride, though that is a quality to be valued and cherished. We really must not dispose of the defence resources needed to support our diplomacy. We need to be perceived to be an effective member of the Security Council and important to NATO if we are to advance our whole national interest, economic and social, as well as military. We are listened to and can influence events because we are one of the few countries with an experienced and effective defence capacity to match our diplomatic experience. I submit that we cannot afford not to have that, and it is cheap at the price.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the perspective I should like to offer the House follows naturally from that which has been presented by the noble Baroness. My perspective is that we should not be too hasty in abandoning defence commitments which serve a real national interest. We should, if necessary, consider increasing the resources in order to meet the commitments.
From our own history it is clear that British governments in the past have done just the opposite and have spent less on defence when the immediate external dangers and pressures were seen to recede. The results of that policy have often been completely disastrous. Perhaps the most notable case in the last century was the reduction of a substantial number of ships in the Royal Navy after the Treaty of Amiens and a brief interlude in the Napoleonic Wars, which cost us dear. There were other cases in the 19th century, of which perhaps the most notable was the Boer War, for which our army was inadequately prepared.
However, perhaps the case which is most recent and most relevant to the situation we are now discussing was the "Geddes axe" in the 1920s, which led to very substantial and savage arbitrary reductions in our defence forces. The effect was very severe. The rearmament of the late 1930s saved us by a whisker only. The absence of an adequate armed force deprived us of the best opportunity of stopping Hitler at the most opportune moment—when he reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936. It also exposed us to the worst and most shameful humiliation we have suffered in this century to date: the Munich agreement.
Of course there were failures of political judgment and will involved, but military weakness was a cardinal factor in the attitudes of those in charge of government at the time. So there is, I suggest, a clear pattern from the past and a disturbing one: the recurrent temptation for British Governments to make defence cuts when there appears to be some diminution of external tension and danger. Of course it is creditable in a democratic state to lower taxes and reduce the burden on the citizen. But the examples I have given show that the benefits are all too often illusory. They have to be put right in a hurry at great expense, and inefficiently, later.
A few general considerations seem to me to arise on
700
the Motion. First, defence technology: this is now so complicated that once a sector is given up it is difficult to resume it in a hurry. If we were to stop producing, say, helicopters, submarines or missiles, we could not press a button and start again as we did with the much simpler military aircraft in the 1930s. The technology is too complex. Sudden needs could only be met by purchase abroad, which means uncertainty, risk and expense.
Secondly, I believe it is wrong to equate our defence effort with the defence of this realm only. Our peace and prosperity may well depend on events far from our shores; for example, in oil-producing states, in the shipping lanes of the world, or the harassment of our citizens or commerce by greedy dictators. Happily, the determination to defend our interests, shown in the Falklands and in the Gulf War, has reduced those risks. Our known capabilities and our readiness to use them if necessary have given us a valuable asset. We should not give up such hard-won advantages by excessive reductions or concentration on defence of our islands only.
Thirdly, defence and international security is now a co-operative, collaborative function, whether in NATO, WEU or the United Nations. We have still an essential part to play in such work. Our armed services are extremely efficient and widely admired for their collaborative military role. That is hardly surprising when we remember that our experience goes back to Marlborough's day. It is a strong national interest of this country that those activities should continue to attract an appropriate national contribution. They represent an investment in peace. British withdrawal from them would be both short-sighted and dangerous.
Fourthly, as others have rightly said, the capability to contribute to such peace-keeping activities is a necessary consequence of our permanent seat on the Security Council. Fifthly, there are the well-known dangers referred to by the noble Baroness of nuclear proliferation and the availability of heavy armaments from the rusting arsenals of the former Warsaw Pact. Those factors make the world more unstable and less predictable than it was even during the Cold War.
My noble friend Lord Chalfont is fully justified in raising the issue. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past for reasons of financial stringency. Defence is a long-term national interest which requires adequate financial provision over the years within reasonable limits of our gross national product. It is the task of responsible governments to make such resources available and to increase them if necessary. I believe that our citizens will understand and support the need to do so.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I agree with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench listened to it with great care. We must all thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his most timely debate. I agree very much with the general theme of his speech. My only

701
point of difference with him is that I suggest his Motion would have been better expressed had the substantive part of it ended;
"between military commitments and national resources".
Since increased power has been given to the central Ministry of Defence during the past 30 years, it has become accepted tradition, much encouraged by Treasury Ministers and all kinds of non-military officials who have tried to hoodwink service chiefs into accepting it, that increased expenditure on one service is automatically to be offset by equivalent economies in one or both of the other services. The possibility that such a practice may result in an irretrievable reduction in the ability of this country to deter others from seriously damaging essential national interests is calmly ignored by people who apparently do not want to understand the effectiveness of deterrence in safeguarding long-term national economies. Let us hope that such people will read most thoroughly the alarming speech made by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth.
I do not attempt to know the pros and cons of having a few more soldiers—and it is only a few—and saving the independence of four infantry regiments. I accept that that is probably necessary. However, like other noble Lords I believe that some of our overseas military commitments could be examined to see whether they are truly in this country's interest. Bosnia comes to mind. However, what does distress me is the bland assumption that the extra soldiers must be balanced immediately by reductions in naval and possibly Air Force expenditure. The capabilities of those services in peace-keeping and deterrence are totally different from those of infantry soldiers. The need for them relates more to deterring the invasion of British territories such as the Falklands and the independent survival of important trading partners such as the Gulf States.
Our particular naval and Royal Marine capability of conducting an opposed assault landing is a priceless asset not only to this country but to all our allies world-wide, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, so clearly explained to your Lordships. It would be folly indeed to let it wither without a clear idea of the future pattern of the quarrels of the world during the next 30 years.
As I reminded your Lordships in a recent debate on dockyards —which I am delighted to see was successful—the Navy's ships take many years to design and build and they have a life of 20 to 30 years. They cannot, like a wheatfield, be set aside one year and planted the next. Their replacement can usually be deferred for two or three years while an economy picks up. But that is a dangerous course mainly because the now small UK warship building capability, with its use as a foreign currency earner, may collapse in the meantime. I thus plead with the Government to think again about seeking to save a few million pounds in cancelling the much-needed Assault helicopter carrier and the diesel-powered shallow water submarines, and in reducing the usable destroyer/frigate strength, which newspaper leaks inform us are all in jeopardy.
The Government could save as much and more by deferring other less important national projects such
702
as public buildings—for example, new court buildings—but what would the construction industry say? On the whole the construction industry does not earn foreign currency but shipbuilding companies do. If the Government must look at the services as well, they could probably make a saving in time by recruiting fewer commissioned officers and using more fully the skill of Chief Petty Officers and Petty Officers, and their equivalents in other services. Those officers should be backed up in times of emergency—as, for example with the naval unit in the Aegean,—with reserve officers and senior ratings. That happened at the beginning of the last war. I remember that the destroyer which I commanded in the late 1950s had exactly twice as many officers as had been the practice for the same type of ship 20 years previously. It made for a very happy wardroom but I had quite a task finding worthwhile responsibilities for my very capable senior ratings. That could happen now. When in the 1930s the ships went to war the reserve officers came in to undertake the watchkeeping and other duties within the ship. That kind of pattern could save a great deal of money but not in the short term and not perhaps in the Air Force, which has extremely expensive aeroplanes. However, it will certainly save money in the Navy and the Army.
I shall conclude by suggesting to my noble friend the Minister that while the economy picks up the Government could do better in offsetting any essential Armed Service expenditure, in billions rather than millions, by judicious temporary tax adjustments across the board rather than by trying to push back the services to an unreal situation from which they may never recover. I am sure that the country would accept that if the need were properly explained.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, many noble Lords will be familiar with an anecdote about the great Duke of Wellington. He was accosted in the street by a total stranger who said, "Mr. Smith, I believe". The Duke of Wellington's reply was, "If you can believe that, you can believe anything". If one can believe that the depredations on the strength of our Armed Forces have been anything but Treasury-inspired one can believe anything.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, rightly reminded us of the history of our occasional neglect to our cost of our Armed Forces. Having carried out research on the subject relating to the inter-war period, I was struck to find in the documents how often ignorant interference from Her Majesty's Treasury had a decisive effect on the way in which programmes of armament were followed both in general and in detail. Nothing that I have learnt since has made me believe that current civil servants in that department are any less ignorant or indeed any less arrogant.
Therefore, it is important to realise that we are confronting a situation in which almost every noble Lord who has contributed to the debate—and most have real experience in the military world—has recognised that there are serious difficulties for our Armed Forces, that they are undermanned and overstretched and that we are placing upon them

703
burdens which it is wholly improper for us to place. The detail of that was spelt out in the report, to which several noble Lords have referred, of the Select Committee on Defence in another place.
My own military career having been short and inglorious, I look at something with which I am more familiar and which has been discussed and illuminated for us by my noble friend Lady Park—that is, the nature of the dangers and the commitments. We have a rag bag of commitments coming from different bits of history and different bits of our past. Some of those are understandable; for example, the Falklands. Some, like Belize, seem to be incomprehensible since an independent country in the Americas should be protected by the organisation of American states and not by a European country. Cyprus represents perhaps an historical connection; but it represents also our willingness from time to time to go on being a maid of all work for a not altogether competent United Nations.
What worries me most now—and I believe that this was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mottistone among others—is the possibility that we are being dragged into further commitments for reasons which are almost beyond our control. Why are our troops in Bosnia performing noble and gallant service? That is because the European Community's policy on the former Yugoslavia was German driven for German national interests, although Germany plays no part in picking up the pieces other than by receiving refugees. We have become involved because of premature recognition of the new republics with no safeguards for the treatment of their minorities.
Now we are told in some quarters that we must further entangle our defence policy and that it should be dictated to us under the Treaty of Maastricht—that ill-gotten document—the European Community and the WEU. I submit that that is not the way to consider the nature of our commitments or what we may have to do in future. It is important, whatever the reduction in this country's world status, that it should be able to look for itself at its own interests. For example, it has been, and rightly been, a legacy of years of experience, including the Second World War, that on the whole we should be close to the United States whenever we are involved in military operations. And yet we know that some elements in the European Community regard the changes that they wish to bring about in the Maastricht Treaty as a way to replace American involvement and a way to separate the defence of Europe from the defence of America.
I am sure that it is in our national interest that we reject anything of that kind. "The special relationship" may be an over-used phrase. It may not, and probably does not, represent the current feeling of the United States. But our connections with North America, which have twice been a saviour of this country, are something we should not abandon in favour of a need for a closer political, military and defence integration of Europe which, alas, as is seen in Bosnia is not only a mirage but a dangerous and bloody mirage.
7.4 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and other noble Lords who have said in effect that the Treasury tail must not be allowed to wag the defence dog. Therefore, I implore the Government not to disregard the recommendations of the report by the Select Committee on Defence.
I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to paragraph 6 of the introduction dealing with emergent dangers, and paragraphs 18 to 29, which deal with the emergency tour plot, overstretch and amalgamations, and then to the case set out on pages 46 to 50 for the retention of the Queen's Own Highlanders as a separate regiment instead of being amalgamated with the Gordon Highlanders.
I have a certain family interest in the future of the Gordon Highlanders in which my father, my grandfather and two of my uncles served at one time or another. It is our local regiment and it recruiting area is North-East Scotland from Morayshire to Angus. The recruiting area of the Queen's Own is north and west of Morayshire, through Inverness-shire and out to the Western Isles. From the east coast of Aberdeenshire to the Hebrides is nearly 200 miles as the crow flies. I say that because many people believe that Scotland is about the size of Northumberland but a little bit further on.
The descent, history, culture, outlook and interests of the west highlanders and islanders are quite different from that of the east coasters. I do not believe that it would be possible to retain that family spirit, which is one of the strengths of those two great regiments, in a single regiment with such a huge recruiting ground as the whole of Scotland north of a line approximately from Brechin to Tobermory, containing such a diverse population.
Much of the case in the report for the Queen's Own applies equally to the Gordon Highlanders. However, the Queen's Own was formed in 1961 from the Seaforths and the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders. They have already been amalgamated once. To force a second amalgamation on them only 32 years later is not sensible either from the defence, social, economic or the political point of view.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for initiating this debate and for giving the House an opportunity to consider the whole area of defence and national security at this time. Furthermore, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the wording of the Motion in which a proper balance between commitments and resources is emphasised.
It has always been a cardinal facet of defence planning that if one doubles one's military commitments, one must double the resources to meet them. Conversely, if one halves one's resources, the Government should halve the commitments which

705
those resources are required to meet. That point was argued most effectively by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall.
Options for Change took advantage of the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to reduce significantly our military forces to a level at which we are now, in my view, sailing extremely close to the wind with little chance of being able to combat the unexpected. The Government appear to have cut back our forces because at that time—and I refer to the time at which Options for Change was being formulated —there was no particular threat. However, noble Lords will know well that the human being has almost no ability to foresee what future threats might develop. That has been amply proven by the Gulf War, which started about a week after Options for Change was originally announced. More recently there has been the break up of what was Yugoslavia.
That significant threat to what the late Sir Winston Churchill might have described as the weak underbelly of Europe has now stretched our forces to near breaking point. If another threat, which could not possibly be foreseen today, were to develop, how should we respond to it? I was of course delighted with the recent decision not to amalgamate four infantry regiments. But, whatever has been said in another place, this certainly does not provide the Army with extra manpower. It merely interrupts the process of running manpower down. I was distressed to read recently in The Times that an order for a £170 million helicopter carrier for the navy, due to be made later this year, is expected to be cancelled to meet new demands for defence cuts.
I read in the same article that Ministers may delay the construction of two amphibious assault ships to replace HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid". Those ships represent the backbone of our amphibious capability and their departure from the fleet will further reduce our ability to provide a flexible and speedy response to threats in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, referred to that point.
I am also anxious about the size of the UK Merchant Fleet which has shrunk from over 1,100 ships in 1980 to fewer than 300 today. Reversing the decline of the UK Merchant Fleet would be of invaluable strategic benefit enabling realistic support for our Armed Forces in times of tension and crisis, as well as providing a significant boost to Britain's invisible earnings and increasing still further British shipping's major contribution to the balance of payments.
Finally, I wonder whether we are taking a big risk in failing to pay our insurance premium with regard to defence. I urge the Government to think again about the present planned reductions, to heed the report of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee about the British Army of the 90s, and to acknowledge that Options for Change may be leading to the reduction of our armed forces beyond what is prudent.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the first thing I do when I wake up in the morning is to turn on the radio. That is not a military secret. One never knows what one will hear on the radio. I listened to Radio 4 this morning. That is popular among noble Lords, especially with my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I congratulate him on making such a powerful speech today as he enters his 82nd year. Some noble Lords might like to take tuition from him in mountain warfare!
Yesterday morning I turned on the radio to hear, as is so often the case, that an explosion had taken place in Northern Ireland and members of the security forces had been wounded. There had been casualties. On entering your Lordships' House I learnt from the ticker tape of the death of Lance Corporal Beswick. This afternoon I did a little research and discovered that he was the 638th soldier to be killed in Northern Ireland in 23 years.
Many speakers tonight have referred to the defence committee in another place. Many noble Lords have served in another place and those who have done so may visit another place from time to time. We would do well to consider that the 638 soldiers killed in Northern Ireland equal the total membership of another place. Those soldiers have been killed while serving in an infantry role in Northern Ireland. I wish to address the rest of my remarks to that matter.
The motto of Options for Change is to seek an army that is fully manned, properly supported and well-equipped. I understand that the aim of Options for Change is to have 116,000 soldiers serving in the mid-1990s—that is two to three years away—104,000 active soldiers and up to 12,000 in a training role. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, exactly a week ago, in response to the Statement that was presented by my noble friend the Minister,
"The strain and stretch on the individual soldier will remain".—[Official Report, 3/2/93; col. 270.]
I hope that I have quoted the noble and gallant Lord correctly. That comment was made after the great announcement by my noble friend the Minister that two more infantry battalions would be available for duties in the Army. My noble friend the Minister, let alone the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, or any of your Lordships who have any knowledge of infantry training—I acquired such training about 35 years ago—will know of the "work up", as we call it, that is required for emergency tours in Northern Ireland for one infantry battalion alone. There are now more roulement battalions in Northern Ireland serving emergency tours that last on average six months.
Last week my noble friend the Minister said that one of the results of the changes he and his right honourable friend had announced would be that the extra two battalions would increase the average interval between emergency tours to 17 months. My noble friend admitted that at present the interval is 15 months. I hope that I have quoted him correctly. In paragraph 21 of the report of the defence committee of another place the interval would appear to be totally different. At least that is how it appears to me, but I am a simple country boy from Angus.

707
Paragraph 21 refers to the short, one-off deployment. Emergency support is also mentioned. That might comprise an additional platoon, company or similar group on duties in Northern Ireland. The assistant under secretary responsible for programmes from the Ministry of Defence uses the immortal phrase in the report that soldiers serving on extra emergency duties are "volunteers". I take the comments of the assistant under secretary with a gentle pinch of salt.
I was startled to read in the report of the committee of another place that the 24-month target interval between tours was initiated in 1974. My honourable friend the Minister of State states in paragraph 26 that in 1990–91 the interval between emergency tours for battalions was 18 months and that in 1991–92 it rose to 32 months—I do not understand those statistics, but no doubt they will be explained one day—and that for 1992–93 it is 17 months. Last week my noble friend said that at present the interval is 15 months. I understand, however, that it may rise to 16 months. Already eight out of the 10 emergency tour battalions who are scheduled to serve in Northern Ireland next year will have had less than the 24 months interval which is sought by my noble friend. I hope that he can give us some encouraging news on that point. I will not forget the soldiers who are serving in Northern Ireland and I, and I am sure other noble Lords, will not forget the relatives and the regiment of Lance Corporal Beswick.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we are all agreed, of course, that resources and commitments must be matched. The debate has shown that most speakers agree with the Select Committee's view that that must mean increasing the number of infantry battalions beyond that provided for in Options for Change. But all too few of those speakers have ventured an opinion on the three awkward questions that follow that decision. First, should we have a bigger defence budget? Secondly, if we should not, should we make cuts elsewhere in the services? Thirdly, if neither of those things can be done, what commitments should we cut?
Heaven knows, I hold no brief for the Government, but I think it is a little hard to attack them without offering clear alternatives to what the Government are doing. There has been a lack of alternative suggestions in this debate. We on these Benches have not ducked these questions. We think that an increase in defence expenditure would be unnecessary and undesirable. From time to time we put forward suggestions for modest and safe reductions in our naval, air and nuclear programmes. We have maintained that our commitments must be strictly limited. I agree with my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Healey, on that point. I agree with his comments on Brunei and Cyprus. I also agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ridley of Liddesdale. I pay tribute to his maiden speech. Like the noble Lord, Lord Healey, I
708
found those comments a little more to my taste than the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
I recall the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, about the Falkland Islands, which we should consider carefully. I recall him making a speech about leasehold in the other place. I thought then, and I think now, that it was a pity that he was let down on that occasion by his government.
The remarkable feature of our discussion about commitments in the debate and the Select Committee's report is the reluctance to place any limit on our commitments to UN peacekeeping. How can we have a plan for Army manpower unless we lay down—if only for planning purposes—a ceiling on the forces that we can commit to the UN? It is obvious that we cannot have a defence policy or a manpower policy without doing that. That, the Select Committee did not do. Instead, it envisages a wide, open-ended commitment to the UN. Paragraph 16 of its report reads:
"Part of the price of a refusal to reconsider the proposals contained in (Options for Change) will be the inability to respond to requests from the United Nations for military assistance on a scale commensurate with the United Kingdom's position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council".
But when we became a Permanent Member of the Security Council, we were the third most powerful nation in the world. Things have changed. The British Army has become much smaller; the demands on peace-keeping forces have become stronger, and are increasing; and to follow the commitments suggested by the Select Committee would call for increases in Army manpower far beyond those recommended by the Select Committee and rejected by the Government.
Surely it is enough that, today, despite our huge commitment to security in Northern Ireland, and despite deploying other forces on peace keeping in Belize, Brunei and the Falklands, we can still commit more peace keeping troops to the United Nations than the great majority of our fellow members, some of whom are bigger and richer than ourselves. By reason of its training, discipline and experience, the British infantry is probably the finest peace keeper in the world. We owe it to its members not to stretch them too far.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity of participating in the debate. As a maiden speaker from the Front Bench perhaps I may be allowed to extend the courtesies of the House to the two maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Annaly, spoke with great personal knowledge, which is clearly of value to the House. I am sorry that my old colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, is not here for the moment. I am sure we all greatly appreciated his speech.
I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and to congratulate him,, first, on his perseverance. He brings this matter to our attention from time to time. I appreciate that greatly, because I have always believed perseverance to be the most

709
important quality in public life. I hope that he will continue to persevere and give us further opportunities to debate these matters. Perhaps I may say, in the presence of the Whips and other people, that I hope that that may be done in a more intelligent and commonsense manner than appears now to be the case when we debate important questions and everyone is restricted to a ludicrously short time in which to express themselves. Coming new to the Dispatch Box, that seems to me a matter that the appropriate committees of the House should be noting.
I also express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his impeccable timing of the debate, coming, as it does, one day after the publication of the report of the Select Committee on Defence of the other place and one week after the Government's announcement which was no doubt intended to anticipate the report we all received yesterday.
There has been a remarkable degree of unanimity on all sides of the House that we need a fundamental review of defence policy. We should review it with regard to matching resources to commitments and relating the economic and financial considerations and constraints to those two factors. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, quoted the Foreign Secretary, and I shall not repeat what he said. I noticed this week, making the point that I wish to make, that General Sir Michael Gow was reported to have said:
"Soldiers cannot understand why the Government and the Ministry of Defence experts do not assess commitments first and then determine an army to meet them".
I believe that most of us would have to agree with that sentiment. It is, in a nutshell, the case that I wish to make from these Benches, especially as it is something for which the Labour Party has been calling for some two or three years now. An example of the opposite approach is illustrated by the £80 million needed to meet the small number of additional forces announced last week. It is clear that the Government have not thought through that addition. They cannot tell us where the £80 million will come from. They could bring us no comfort as to whether it would be at the cost of helicopter landing ships, RAF mid-term refits or anything else. The Government showed that they had no strategic review of our defence forces in mind when they made that announcement last week.
Yesterday, the Select Committee on Defence published what can only be described as a devastating, scathing, almost contemptuous report. I shall not go through it all again. In palmier days, if a Select Committee or party in this place produced such a unanimous report, Ministers responsible would have been considering their position. They should still do so. I except the Minister, because I do not hold him responsible for those strategic decisions.
I do not wish to recite all our existing commitments because I agree with almost every dot and comma of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, and with what my noble friend Lord Healey said about finance and economic considerations. I adopt everything said by the Select Committee about our existing commitments. I pay from these Benches my tribute to
710
our forces in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and elsewhere for the superb job that they are doing on behalf of this nation.
There are new questions about commitments. Some changes are being urged upon us which are almost breathtaking. New attitudes are emerging from the most unexpected sources. They seem to make an overwhelming case for a strategic and fundamental review. Who would have thought, for example, that last week we would have heard the Secretary-General of NATO, Manfred WOrner, speak about Yugoslavia in these terms:
"The peace process may require the ultimate sanction of enforcement to succeed … We must not shirk from the legitimate use of force if we are to remain credible"?
That is an astonishing statement. Was the Secretary General of NATO speaking on our behalf or with our authority? Whatever comes of that speech it will require a commitment of forces well outside anything which Options for Change ever contemplated.
There is another new factor. President Clinton talks of withdrawing a sizeable proportion of US forces from within Europe. On the subject of Yugoslavia we also have the question—it has not been raised today —on the Owen-Vance peace plan. If it succeeds, how many thousands of troops will it take to police it? If the plan does not succeed, what will be the consequences for our forces then? Those are absolutely critical questions which have to be contemplated in any defence review.
Finally we have to consider the situation of the United Nations. The Secretary General told us only the other day that in four years 13 new commitments world-wide have been undertaken by the UN. That was as many as in all the preceding years.
A fundamental review has to consider the contribution made by Germany and Japan, in particular since they aspire to be permanent members of the Security Council, in which case they have to accept the permanent responsibilities for world peace and make their proper contribution. In the Charter of the United Nations they are still referred to as "enemy states", along with Spain, Bulgaria, and Finland of all countries. That needs to be reviewed.
The case made out by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is overwhelming. It has the support of all of us on this side of the House.
7.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I feel more than my usual sense of pleasure in extending what is more than a conventional welcome to our three maidens today. I very much welcome the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to the Front Bench—I shall not refer to it as the bear pit of the Front Bench—and I look forward to his future contributions from it.
I also extend my heartfelt congratulations to our other two maiden speakers. My noble friend Lord Ridley is well known in the body politic. His particular style made a great impression on me when I was briefly in another place. That style has lost none of its point or pith. Your Lordships will surely agree that our House will be greatly enriched by his future contributions. My noble friend made a most helpful

711
and notably scholarly contribution. I refer to his suggestion as to how the defence budget might be further helped by a referral to commercial enterprises. If we were to ask Scots to pay a right of passage across Hadrian's Wall I hope that as a former Treasury Minister he would make sure that the Treasury did not pinch the money from the defence budget.
My noble friend Lord Annaly spoke with great experience as a commander in the cavalry. We greatly look forward to his contributions in your Lordships' House. It is a constant source, not of surprise but of satisfaction, to me as a relative newcomer to your Lordships' debates to find the extraordinary depth of experience of noble Lords who sit on these Benches.
Many points have been made during the course of debate. As usual I shall do my best to cover them. If I fail I hope that your Lordships will forgive me and allow me to write in due course. However, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his initiative in yet again proposing a Motion for us to debate on national security policy. I was grateful when he did so in October and I am grateful to him today, as I suspect are your Lordships.
The previous debate enabled me to lay before your Lordships, as I began to do in May last year, the basis of Her Majesty's Government's security policy. In doing so I stressed the fundamental importance of the NATO alliance and attempted to summarise the progress that the nations have made in adapting to a changing world since 1990, and in building basic machinery for a new security system—the alphabet soup with which we are now becoming so familiar; CSCE, CFE, NACC, and so on.
I shall not risk boring your Lordships by repeating what I said then except to reiterate that our fundamental approach remains the same now as in May and October of last year and as it has since the collapse of the Berlin wall. It is perhaps a good example of why Opposition accusations that the Government have a passion for U-turns are, as in so many of their pronouncements, greatly exaggerated. That may be of some consolation to my noble friend, Lord Ridley.
Your Lordships would expect me to reassure you therefore that the objectives of our defence policy are consistent with our overall security policy. Indeed, I took great comfort from the ringing endorsement that Her Majesty's Government received, in that respect at least if no other, from my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall when, in referring to the Ministry of Defence objectives set out in the statement on Defence Estimates 92/3, he said in our October debate:
"I doubt whether one can do … better than that as a guide to what the Armed Forces ought to be able to do."—[Official Report, 21/10/92; col. 791.]
I may be wrong, but neither the Opposition spokesmen nor the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, despite what he has said today, have shown any sign whatever of quarrelling with the framework and the objectives of security policy we have tried to establish and which I attempted to describe in May and October last year. Equally, I have not detected any fundamental criticism by your Lordships of the objectives of defence policy as set out in last year's
712
SDE; indeed, rather the reverse. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in correspondence with my right honourable friend said—I quoted it in a previous debate—that my right honourable friend had addressed a number of specific concerns in the Statement on Defence Estimates. I am glad to see that the noble Lord nods.
I welcome that fundamental agreement. In itself it adds a great deal of credibility to our security arrangements. Indeed, I think I observed in our previous debate that that was so. That is why I must confess to a measure of disappointment that in talking about the wider framework of security policy the noble Lord did not address himself to the substantial achievements of the past two years.
I do not wish to say more than that on our objectives. Where, unsurprisingly, there is disagreement it is on how those objectives are to be achieved. That is why the noble Lord's Motion is so apt. For it is over how much money should be devoted to defence and to what programmes that money should be distributed that the argument arises.
I hope therefore your Lordships will allow me to concentrate most of the remainder of my remarks on the important question of money. I hope that I shall manage to satisfy my noble friend Lord Fanshawe about the anxieties that he expressed. Somehow I rather doubt it.
During the course of the debate some noble Lords have drawn attention to the economic argument. The noble Lord, Lord Healey, and my noble friend Lord Ridley were notable in that respect. Indeed, I have argued in the past that the United Kingdom's relative economic decline at least in part can be attributed to the proportion of national resources which we devote to defence. As the noble Lord pointed out, Germany and Japan were defeated in 1945. But they are now great economic powers and, after all, spent next to nothing on defence on the early crucial years of reconstruction.
Clearly that is not the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, nor indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. As I understand it, they believe that we should, if necessary, increase our defence expenditure to match what they feel our position in the world should be.
Unlike those noble Lords, the voices to which I referred deplore the results of devoting a substantial proportion of gross national product to defence in both the United Kingdom and the USA. They point to what they regard as too much research and development expenditure being devoted to defence matters, to the dependence of national industry on foreign and domestic defence sales—the noble Lord, Lord Healey, referred to that—and to the crowding out of investment for civil and commercial purposes.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to a large extent I can recognise all those arguments in theory and I take them extremely seriously. To that extent, perhaps, trade does not always follow the flag, which seems to be the underlying argument of many noble Lords this evening. In practice, however, like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Beloff, I believe that we have to start from where we

713
are. The price of inadequate defence, particularly in a nuclear age—as your Lordships have often pointed out —is extraordinarily high. Just as in the past the Soviet empire had to be faced down, today we face an uncertain world and we as a trading nation have a strong interest in that world's security. Nevertheless, it is at least arguable that a level of defence expenditure higher than that of competing economies can put a nation such as ours at a serious competitive disadvantage in the long term. Perhaps that is a reason —and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and to my noble friend Lord Ridley—for asking Germany and Japan to shoulder a bigger share of the burden. Back to the level playing fields my Lords? I use that expression with due caution in view of the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the Liberal Benches. She reproved me eloquently some weeks ago for using it to the extent of rendering it a cliché.
Nevertheless, our security and defence objectives commit us to a substantial defence effort. That is something about which I may be able to reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. It is something that we accept, but the expenditure that that commitment implies must be rigorously allocated and accounted for.
As noble Lords know, resources are allocated to government departments through the annual Public Expenditure Survey—the famous PES round. On it, noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Healey, have batted on both sides of the wicket throughout their careers, usually gaining a reputation as a cutter rather than a spender. Like other departments, we put forward a programme and argue our case strongly throughout the negotiations. I am sure that it is right in a system of representative government, with competing demands on the public purse, that we should have to do so.
The enormous changes for the better in the strategic setting mean that defence budgets are no longer sustainable at previous levels. That, I hope, is common ground among your Lordships, although listening to the debate this evening I began somehow to doubt it. I point out to your Lordships that this is as true of our allies as it is of us. Between the year 1990–91 and the year 1995–96, we in the United Kingdom expect our underlying defence budget to decline by 11 per cent. in real terms.
Other NATO nations have been even more drastic, both in cash and capability. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Healey, referred to that. In 1992 average NATO defence expenditure was 2.9 per cent. of GDP, compared with the United Kingdom which plans to spend 4.1 per cent. of GDP. Some of our NATO allies such as Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands are contemplating force level reductions of the order of 50 per cent. compared with our 20 per cent. And our troops are trained professionals, as a number of your Lordships pointed out during the course of this evening's debate.
What we have to do is to try to decide what is the proper balance between the demands of defence policy and other demands on the taxpayer. Although it is not something to which I am altogether accustomed, here I have to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord
714
Mayhew. I am grateful for his clear recognition of that fact. Despite what my noble friend Lady Park says—and she knows that I have considerable sympathy for her knowledge and experience of the former Soviet Union—and despite what my noble friend Lord Beloff said, given the security climate I think I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that it would be highly unrealistic to expect an increase in our defence expenditure for the foreseeable future.
I could go on about these matters at some length but I would risk being accused by your Lordships of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. There is one point, however, which I should like to make in the context of resources which I believe is important. We build hospitals and keep them open because we believe that there is good reason to build them—at least I hope that is the reason. The same applies and should apply to defence programmes. We initiate them or persist with them because they make sense for defence. As we reduce our defence expenditure, rightly or wrongly, the consequential adjustments that follow have distressing consequences for employment and the coherence of long-established communities and industries. We saw that particularly coming through in the recent defence debate on the future of Rosyth and Devonport initiated in your Lordships' House.
However, if those consequences are to have a call on government resources they should not have a call on the Defence Budget but on the budgets of other government departments. Our concern is and must remain to bring the most cost-effective defence capability consistent with our aims from inevitably scarce defence pounds. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, made the point more cogently than I am able to. Cost-effectiveness is extremely important. I have already mentioned that the support area plays a big part in our efforts in that direction. I do not wish again to repeat what I said to your Lordships last week in the debate on Rosyth.
I wish to mention two other areas which make great contributions in that respect and I suspect that outside the rather arcane world of the sixth floor of the Ministry of Defence their effect has been greatly underestimated, both in the press and—dare I say it? —in Parliament. I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, out of the great depth of his experience, is highly sceptical of the accuracy of what I am about to say.
First, we have introduced a whole range of efficiency measures. It is always difficult to measure efficiency, but it is fair to say that at a conservative estimate the efficiency programme is anticipated to provide savings of about £300 million per year throughout the PES period. In that respect, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, for mentioning the defence estate—an area of the activity of the Ministry of Defence for which I happen to be responsible. One of the first actions I took when I entered that august building was to ask my officials to begin to prepare for a review of the overall strategy of the defence estate. We have now come a long way down the road towards producing it. It is important not only in the context of making the best use of resources but also in view of the increasing

715
interest which the public take in the land which the Ministry of Defence occupies. I hope that fairly shortly I shall be able to share with the public our thoughts on the subject and also to invite comments. In that context, I announced yesterday that we have a plan for the sale of Greenham Common and I can reassure the noble Viscount on that.
Secondly, on efficiency, I believe that we ought to give due credit to the new management strategy which has caused such grief and angst within the Ministry of Defence. It is already proving a substantial contributor to efficient management and that contribution can but increase with time.
There is little time left to me. The other half of that to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, addressed himself during the course of his speech was the important question of commitments. I wish first to address the subject of manpower. That is what a number of your Lordships expressed understandable worry about, including the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, my noble friends Lord Vivian and Lord Beloff, and others, notably the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall.
At a rough guess, I would say that if we were to implement all the proposals which the House of Commons Defence Committee suggested for manpower it would cost the Ministry of Defence budget approximately another £2 billion over a 10-year period. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, advocated the complete implementation of that budget. If I may make a party political point for one moment, it perhaps comes ill from a representative of a party which for many years has advocated a decrease in the defence budget to advocate that kind of increase in the present climate.
There are many ways, your Lordships invariably suggest, in which we should preserve the capabilities. Many suggestions have been made by noble Lords, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone, over our amphibious capability. Amphibious capability is something in which we are at the moment well engaged. So far as the LPH is concerned, tenders are at present being evaluated. HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid" will run on until their replacements are available.
In this context I would say that your Lordships' reasons for taking up these matters are always cogent and well argued in isolation. But I am also bound to say that a balanced programme is not just the sum of its parts. It is a sum of the balance struck between and the integration of its parts. Striking that balance is substantially a matter of judgment. And matters of judgment are, almost by definition, susceptible to challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, made that point. We go to great lengths to ensure that we strike the right balance. The world has changed and with it the full structures that we need to ensure the security of the nation and its ability to pursue its legitimate interests have changed as well.
I say to my noble friend Lord Beloff, and my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, that I wholly accept that if the present budget proves inadequate to perform the task
716
demanded of it, despite all the efficiency gains we may make, either we have to increase the budget or we have to cut commitments. To do otherwise would be to destroy the morale and capability of the best and most professional armed forces in existence. I was much moved, as I am sure your Lordships were, by the tribute paid by my noble friend Lord Lyell to the hundreds of soldiers who over the years have been killed in Northern Ireland. He asked by implication whether we would rather loose 638 Members of another place, or 638 soldiers. All I would say is: please do not tempt me.
The Armed Forces are one of the things that are demonstrably excellent in our nation. Were the Government to destroy that excellence we would not be quickly forgiven. In that respect, I take very much to heart the strictures of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on defence reviews and their effect. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lords, Lord Healey and Lord Shackleton, spoke about the importance of the long term and continuity. In that context I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will take to heart the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and realise that chopping and changing constantly is sometimes as dangerous as persisting in the long term.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question about hydrography and hydrographic ships?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am well aware of the constraints of time. I had intended to answer that question. We recognise the importance of specialist hydrographic capability. I am the Minister responsible for the hydrographer. We regard it as absolutely essential to retain the specialist hydrographic personnel in the Navy. I have the greatest admiration, for the reasons that the noble Lord gave, for the work that they do.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks for the Government, and it is not just his responsibility. Are the hydrographic ships to be phased out?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, at the moment, there are no plans to do that. That is all I can say to the noble Lord.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, all of whom made extremely valuable contributions sometimes against the irksome constraints of time.
Perhaps I might take mild exception to one aspect; namely, the suggestion that I had omitted the economic factor from the equation. I had thought that the whole of my proposition was based on the economic factor. Either the economic resources must be reallocated to meet commitment, or commitment must be reduced to match the available economic resources. I am delighted that the noble Viscount, when he answered the debate, seemed to agree that we had to do one of those two things. We may do either of them, but to do neither will invite disaster.

717
Finally, I thank the Minister for his courteous and, perhaps I might say, ingenious defence of his government's policy. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Mentally Disordered Offenders: Social Services Review
7.56 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take in response to the review of health and social services for mentally disordered offenders and others requiring similar services (Cm 2088).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to ask what steps the Government propose to take in regard to the most impressive report of the committee presided over by Dr. Reed on the treatment of mentally disordered offenders.
When I look at the list of speakers—it includes the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, at whom I am gazing directly—I remember what the Duke of Wellington is supposed to have said on one occasion. I suppose that after the military debate he is in the minds of all of us. Looking at his own troops, he said: "I don't know what effect these people will have on the enemy, but by God they terrify me". I am afraid that that is what I feel about my supporters this evening. I am particularly nervous of the maiden speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, (I hope that he is a little nervous too). I am always frightened of Law Lords until I get to know them. Then I realise that they are much like the rest of us. I wish him every success in his maiden effort.
I hope that the Minister who will reply, who is so exceptionally well qualified for the task, will be as kind to me as usual. But I cannot hope that my luck in that respect will hold.
We can all agree that the report is a tremendous step forward in the attempt to co-ordinate the various efforts coming from so many different quarters to cope with mentally disordered offenders. I recognise, however, as the Minister knows, that two further reports from committees under the chairmanship of Dr. Reed are yet to come. They will be published later. Of those two, the one that is crucial for our purpose tonight is the one which deals with high security mental offenders—which means in practice, I suppose, that it is largely a question of taking a good look at the future of the special hospitals. That does not prevent the rest of us offering views which may be particularly appropriate. It may help the committee in its work. But I realise that it is too much to expect that the Minister will tonight say anything positive about that subject. Nevertheless, I hope that she will be able to be a good deal more forthcoming than the Government were, not surprisingly, when the report was first published.
In a general sense the Government are prepared to share the standpoint of the committee. The report says that the starting point for the committee was to determine the future services on a multi-agency basis.
718
It goes on to say that decisions should be based on clinical needs and public safety. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach to mentally disordered offenders. But if we were to speak of offenders generally, we would have to pay some attention to deterrents and retribution. I take it that in this case those factors are not considered appropriate.
In the foreword to the report M r. Yeo, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, and Michael Jack, Minister of State, Home Office, say,
"The Government has reaffirmed in the course of the review that, wherever possible, mentally disordered offenders should receive care and treatment from health and social services, rather than the criminal justice system".
I am sure that all those speaking tonight would agree with that. But the decision regarding who is mentally disordered and who is not is a delicate one. Sometimes one cannot help admitting that it is wrongly taken. It is taken on the advice of doctors and psychiatrists, who are not infallible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has been kind enough before now to mention my book about mentally disordered offenders, Prisoner or Patient? which was published in April. In the book I describe a number of visits I paid to men convicted of murder and who are now in special hospitals after spending some years in prison. Obviously in their cases the decisions could be borderline. Nevertheless, we must make the best we can of the psychological and other resources available.
The House will be aware that the report contains 276 recommendations, and I shall not go through them all. I am sorry that the Reed Committee did not follow the excellent example of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's committee which looked at Ashworth and which set out a number of recommendations which were to be given top priority. The Minister may correct me, but as far as I can see all 276 recommendations stand on the same footing. However, that is only a comment in passing.
The great majority of the recommendations could be put into operation without much or any increase of resources. In that sense therefore, the Government could have no defence or excuse for not putting them into operation if they agreed with them. They could not say that it would cost a lot of money. On the face of it most, but perhaps not all, of the recommendations which would involve the transfer of prisoners into hospitals, could be effected without an increase of resources. However, I realise that if the courts are allowed to insist that a specific offender be transferred to hospital, that would need more hospital space and inevitably some increase in resources would be involved. The question of how one transfers people from prison to hospital is an important aspect of the report and a number of valid speakers may deal with it.
Another matter with which I shall not deal is the increase of psychiatric facilities in prisons. We have discussed that before today and no one knows more about that than my noble friend Lord Ennals. I do not know what he intends to say but he may deal with that aspect. I and many other noble Lords have stated in this House that one cannot obtain a really satisfactory provision of psychiatric services in prison until the

719
prison medical services are integrated into the National Health Service. But that matter is for another day or another speaker.
I shall concentrate my remarks on those recommendations which, on balance, must ultimately involve a specific increase of resources. I shall mention four recommendations from the report which I believe will, in the end, produce a new scenario. The first recommendation is that a considerable number of sentenced prisoners—somewhere between 750 and 1,400—should be transferred from prison to hospital. Secondly, that a considerable number of patients should be transferred from special hospitals to conditions of lesser security. The movement would be from prisons into hospitals and from special hospitals to conditions of less security. Thirdly, the places for people in secure units should be increased from 600 to 1,500. That is the most striking feature of the report. Fourthly, community care for mental patients should be much improved both for existing mental patients and for a significant number who will be moved from mental hospitals into the community.
Other speakers may deal with community care. In my eyes it is often a farce, but it represents an ideal which I suppose most of us share. For what my opinion is worth and whatever the precise figure, I offer my support to the broad scenario outlined by the committee. Broadly speaking I agree with its vision. At the end of my speech I shall press the Government to indicate how far they accept the picture of movement from one form of custody to another and finally out of custody into the community. Do they agree in principle with the basic findings of the committee? I shall want to know what steps they are taking to begin moving in that direction.
I shall spend the rest of my time—I will not be speaking forever—discussing regional secure units. As I said, the committee wished to see an increase from 600 to 1,500 patients. One can only call that a dramatic—or even traumatic—development. Even 1,500 would leave us short of the 2,000 recommended by the Butler Committee in the mid-1970s.
What are the special virtues of the regional secure units? I am sure that at one time or another most noble Lords present will have visited one. I have certainly visited a number and recently I visited the largest one, the Reaside Unit near Birmingham, presided over by the eminent Professor Bluglass.
Were the professor speaking to the House I believe that he would give four reasons why he believes that the regional secure units should attract strong support. First, making a comparison with special hospitals as we know them today, the regional units are smaller. Secondly, they have regional rather than national links. That means that they are less remote from the patient's home. I was particularly impressed by the work being done at the Reaside Unit to keep in touch with patients in their homes after they have left the unit. Thirdly, the regional secure units provide a high level of specialised care. Fourthly—which may be controversial—staff are members of nursing unions rather than members of the Prison Officers' Association, about which I have spoken more than
720
once in your Lordships' House. The last issue is perhaps too hot a potato for me to deal with tonight. I shall leave such matters to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who knows a great deal about the Prison Officers' Association.
I must say a few words on some of these points. Is there an ideal size for a regional secure unit? Professor Bluglass's unit has beds for 100 but when I visited it not so long ago only 77 beds were occupied. The staff had overflowed into the space which would otherwise have been used by the patients. The new building will eliminate that difficulty. There will be 100 there before long. One gets the feeling from Professor Bluglass that 100 is about the right size but in my own south-east Thames region, which is well known to the Minister, the regional secure units usually contain about 15 beds. That was true of Maidstone, which I visited not long ago, and I believe it is true of the others.
So, on the face of it, there does not appear to be an ideal size for regional secure units. In the south-east Thames region, 15 is the preferred number. Professor Bluglass prefers 100. I think that Professor Bluglass himself would say that it should depend on local conditions and that in country districts smaller units are more desirable. The Minister may have something to say about the desirable size of these units. It is fairly obvious that there is a wide range of choices.
One of the important recommendations of the committee is that patients in regional secure units should be retained for as long as it is necessary for their treatment. That has not happened up to now; it has not happened often enough up to now. In my opinion that would be a very desirable step in the future. In that connection, when I was at the Maidstone regional secure unit the idea was put to me that there should be two kinds of regional secure unit; those for fairly short-stay people—up to two years —and those for people who need to stay for longer periods. I mentioned that to Professor Bluglass who seemed to be in favour of the idea. Perhaps the Government will have something to say on whether people should stay in regional secure units for as long as it is judged necessary for their treatment.
The subject that I shall become involved in now is very tricky. I do not know whether the Minister, with all her resources, will be able to speak dogmatically about it. What about the ratio of staff to patients, including specialists such as forensic psychiatrists? I found it impossible to arrive at satisfying figures. At Reaside the total staff based on the centre were 300 and there were 77 patients. It may be said that that figure will rise to 100 but 300 is not a fair indication of the ratio because for one reason or another a good many staff have responsibilities outside the unit. That was also the position in Maidstone. I hope that the Minister will agree with the general statement—I do not know whether she will be able to say anything about the precise figures—that the ratio of staff is a good deal higher in regional secure units than it is in the special hospitals. If we are making a comparison between regional secure units and special hospitals we must realise that the regional secure units have a considerable advantage in staff and above all in specialised staff.
It is right to point out, before I leave this point, that in an article in the British Medical Journal not so long ago Professor Bluglass looked forward to the disappearance of the special hospitals. He said that he would like to see them disappear altogether. He takes the view that that kind of high security is unnecessary for more than 100 patients, instead of the 1,700 now retained in the hospitals. In the British Medical Journal he certainly looks forward to the abolition of the special hospitals. He sent me word to say that those who cannot be transferred to regional secure units in the first place should be in regional high secure units. That is what he has asked me to indicate.
I have quoted one high authority, Professor Bluglass. I shall quote another, Mr. Charles Kaye, director of the Special Hospitals Service Authority. The House will not be surprised to hear that he disagrees with Professor Bluglass's desire to bring special hospitals to an end. I want to record that because noble Lords might say, "He would, wouldn't he?" or they might say that Professor Bluglass would naturally want to see an expansion of regional secure units. At any rate there is a difference of opinion between these two eminent men.
I shall not cover again the ground that I covered in the debate on Ashworth. I expressed then a belief that special hospitals reformed have a very promising future. I shall not go over that ground again.
Mr. Kaye has been kind enough to give me some idea of the evidence he has been submitting to the further Reed Report on high security patients. I wish that I were a fly on the wall and could hear the arguments going on between him and Professor Bluglass. There were rumours that they were drawing closer together, but if they are closer together they must both have moved a good deal since I interviewed them. At any rate there are these two eminent men. If asked I shall only reply what Winston Churchill said during the Spanish civil war when asked which side he was on. He said, "I am on both sides." Up to a point that is true about me, but I am not in favour of the abolition of the special hospitals.
Without going into details I wish to say briefly that Mr. Kaye defends the maintenance of special hospitals but not as they are today. He would look forward to a time when there might be more than half a dozen special hospitals, each with no more than 200 patients. Three of the existing sites could be used. They would not be special hospitals as we know them but they would still be special hospitals. Professor Bluglass says that in principle he does not object to that formulation. He is not going to commit himself as to the national form of organisation that would result. I should mention also that Mr. Peter Thompson, of the Matthew Trust, who speaks with poignant first-hand experience of these matters, would like to see the special hospitals continue more or less as they are now. So there are various views that can be held.
I shall not go any further as there are many experts to follow me. I have not dealt with a proposal which would certainly be very costly if it was carried out within the terms of the Reed Report. It represents a desirable long-term aim. The committee would like to
722
see the numbers of forensic psychiatrists more than doubled and it would like to see other major increases in the same field.
One could ask questions about the advisory body but my time is up. I shall only ask the Minister to be as forthcoming as she can when she comes to reply. I know that she would wish to be forthcoming. There are limitations on any government at the moment. I hope that she will be forthcoming because she cares, as we all care, so tremendously about this subject. I look forward greatly to everything that will follow.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Bone: My Lords, I, and I am sure all noble Lords in the House tonight, are deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this debate. Nobody in your Lordships' House could introduce a debate on this subject with more knowledge or caring than he. I would like to pay a compliment to him and thank him for all that he does. We shall have the pleasure of hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, making his maiden speech. It is a great honour for us to have him with us tonight. I am sure that we shall all listen to everything he has to say both now and in the future. I would also like to compliment Dr. John Reed and all the members of his committee, for this magnificent report. I found it not only illuminating but also sometimes absolutely riveting. Despite the 270 recommendations everything seemed to be pertinent. An enormous amount of time and effort has gone into the report. I offer my congratulations to all of them.
This report has opened our eyes to the possibilities of care in the community for mentally disordered offenders and others requiring similar services. But before looking at the proposals we should realise that there will always be people who will need in-patient care whether they are offenders or people who, through stress or other reasons, become mentally disordered. The health service and sometimes the Home Office, must be responsible for these people.
There are over 70,000 in-patient beds for people with mental illness or learning difficulties, but through the new government initiative more people are being released into the community.
One hospital that I know well—perhaps I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as president of its housing association—has had over 1,000 beds. The number now is just over 400. The men and women patients have not just been thrown out as some sections of the press would have us believe. Their release has been very carefully planned and organised by all the staff of the hospital, local authorities, social services and the voluntary sector.
There are two houses within the hospital grounds which are used to assess whether the chosen patients —usually six or seven—like living together. At the end of the probation period they are moved to a house outside the grounds. They usually work; they pay rent and always have their own front door key. The houses are provided by local authorities within the catchment area. Social workers and the support team are always on call if anything is needed. If absolutely necessary, they can always return to the hospital. However, if all

723
goes well and their reintegration into a normal lifestyle is complete, they then move on to independent accommodation. We now have 18 homes. Perhaps I may add that I am proud to tell your Lordships that the most recent home is now bearing my name.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I tell noble Lords about this because I believe that we should all be aware that a great deal is being done by all the dedicated professions involved. I have also been in touch with Rampton Hospital, one of the special hospitals which I expect most of your Lordships know. I was relieved to hear that the present number of patients is 521 of whom 120 are women. In the year 1990–91, 57 patients were discharged. Last year there was an increase to 71 in the number of people who were able to leave. The disposals included being returned to prison to await sentence; transfer to a regional secure unit which we have heard so much about from the noble Earl; transfer to a psychiatric hospital and discharge into the community.
I am assured that in all cases the authorities concerned are aware of the movements of the patients until they are granted an absolute discharge. But with the best will in the world, there will always be people who are not included in statistics and who have not been found; those who are lonely, depressed, often unemployed and who gradually become mentally ill. They are usually homeless as well.
They must be desperately unhappy. Crisis at Christmas, a charity for the single homeless, has an open Christmas at which we welcome up to 1,000 men and women for seven days and nights at Christmastime. Quite a number of our guests need medical and psychiatric help but have slipped through the net. It is our duty to help those people before they decline into a life of crime. The Government have supplied finance for many more housing units to try to accommodate those who are now sleeping rough. We hope that in time cardboard city will be a part of the past.
Taking care in the community in all these cases will involve people who genuinely do care. It will be a challenge to all of us and one which we shall meet. I am sure that we shall succeed.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Mustill: My Lords, to make a maiden speech is an ordeal for anybody. My forebodings have been multiplied by looking down the list of speakers and seeing the names of noble Baronesses and noble Lords whose experience in addressing the House and in addressing the intellectual, moral and practical problems in the field of mental health are so much greater than my own. But appreciating seeing that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was to bring a splendid report before the House tonight, I felt that I must take the plunge because anything that can be done for a mentally disordered offender must at least be attempted.
Maiden speakers are urged to eschew controversy. But there can be nothing controversial in suggesting that among all the shipwrecked of our society, the
724
mentally disordered offenders are as far away as any from a lifeline. They raise the most intractable human and professional problems; human because, unlike other unfortunates, they raise in the breasts of very few an instinctive tide of sympathy. They are doubly alienated from the ordinary world and they are sensed by many as a threat to the precarious balance of the society in which we have to live. So there is no widespread impulse to help them or indeed even to recognise that they need to be helped. They are also odd men out and odd women out. They do not fit into pigeonholes. Put bluntly, I suggest that to many professionals they are a nuisance.
Those who run prisons or bail hostels have a difficult task. They feel, understandably, that the presence of someone mentally disordered upsets the balance—often rather precarious—of their establishment and makes things worse not only for the staff, but for the non-disordered people for whom they already cater. Conversely, those concerned with the practice of mental health do not welcome the potentially disruptive presence of a convicted criminal. However magnanimous and sincere, I believe that there are many professionals who wish that the mentally disordered offender were somewhere else.
Again, the mentally disordered offender is nobody's job. One has only to list a few of the agencies with whom he or she may brush into contact; namely, the police, social services, the medical profession, the prosecution services, judges, the prison service, the probation service and voluntary agencies of various kinds. He or she has contact with these and more, but is nobody's business. No person or body has central responsibility for the mentally disordered offender. No single body or agency combines in itself the unique mixture of skills that this particularly difficult subject demands. These factors mean that the mentally disordered offender simply falls through the gaps between agencies.
These are serious problems, but they are essentially emotional and administrative and ought to be susceptible of cure in time by education and efficient reorganisation. But behind them lie much deeper problems of law and philosophy. The substantive laws governing the relationship between mental disorder and guilt, and governing the powers and duties of the sentencing judge, are outside the scope of the steering committee's report, and I must therefore say nothing about them, deeply unsatisfactory though they are.
But I may perhaps be permitted one brief comment on the philosophy of punishment. Unless society has at least some idea of what it is trying to do when sentencing offenders in general, and, just as important, why it is trying to do it, there is no chance of making a deep impression on the problem of the special class of offenders who are mentally disordered. The time when society formulates and agrees a consistent, comprehensible and democratically underpinned policy on those deep issues seems to me a long way in the future.
Meanwhile, the most we can look for are piecemeal and practical gains, and here at least the picture is much brighter, as the report makes clear. Three trends

725
are particularly encouraging. First, the confluence of two movements for change. That is to say, the long running impetus towards the non-institutional treatment of the mentally ill, and in addition the more recent emphasis on the non-custodial disposal of offenders. Acting together these two streams of movement have led to a commendable pressure for the treatment of the mentally disordered offender outside compulsory residential institutions.
I use that dry and contorted phrase as I prefer not to say "in the community". To liberate these people into the community and expect the community to sustain them unassisted will not be enough. They will sink. The mentally disordered offender will require continuous professional and administrative support, and if that is not made available on a proper scale his position will be worse and not better through the change, and the position of his fellow citizens will be worse as well. Nevertheless, I venture to repeat that the initiative is to be warmly welcomed.
The second theme is the diversion of the mentally disordered offender away from the criminal justice system before they ever get into it. Of course once they get into it the cogwheels of the system grind inexorably on, and once in you never get out. In principle that is fine and I applaud it, but I would briefly draw attention to a constitutional problem that seems scarcely to have been mentioned in the literature and the debates.
We have in this country a statutory system of criminal law, criminal courts, and penal measures that apply to everyone. What seems to be proposed is that some people will be short circuited out of the system before they ever enter it. This may well be the right way ahead, but it is possible that the House will think that if it is the right way ahead the system should be formally legitimised and that standards and mechanisms should be formally established even if informally administered, otherwise we shall get inconsistencies. And, as we all know, inconsistency is one of the most potent varieties of unfairness.
Finally, I would particularly draw the attention of the House to the importance attached in chapter 10 of the report to inter-agency co-operation. That is already well under way. The Home Office and the Department of Health have given a powerful impetus. Also, nationally and locally and at all levels, the bodies and persons concerned have taken to it with enthusiasm. But the enthusiasm needs to be guided, and the initiatives need a solid framework if they are to unite the efforts of all who want to help these unfortunates, and also—and this is important—to get rid of the fragmentation and incoherence that is the curse of provision for the mentally disordered offender.
The steering committee, in paragraph 10.4 of its report, states that the progress already made,
"needs to be nurtured and supported from the top."
I venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government will put their weight behind this report, and carry forward the substantial gains which at long last are being made.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is my particular privilege both to thank and congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, on his maiden speech. I suppose even for a very senior and experienced Lord Justice of Appeal it is perhaps still a certain task to make a maiden speech in this place. The noble and learned Lord has got it over now, and I hope that he feels comfortable and relaxed. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Longford that too many Lords all at once can be daunting, but it is frequent that we have debates in which we would like to have a legal input and we do not have it. So to have one all on our own just for this debate is a great privilege, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will want to join in our debates again even after dinner time. It was a thoughtful and sensitive speech.
The subject introduced by my noble friend Lord Longford is one of growing interest. In the last two months I have taken part in two conferences on subjects relating to this report—something which I warmly welcomed. One of them was at the London School of Economics and the other was in Oxford organised by the College of Occupational Therapists, of which I admit to being president. But the interest in the subject owes a great deal to my noble friend Lord Longford. Month after month and year after year he has kept this issue before your Lordships' House. There have been occasions when I have been proud to follow him and there have been occasions when I have not been able to do so, but I and the whole House are grateful to him for keeping our eyes on this difficult subject.
I have to admit that reading the report brought back vivid recollections of my experience when I was Secretary of State for Social Services, and the time I spent prodding regional health authorities to construct regional secure units. Now, 15 years later, only three regions have in place the number of required beds in secure units—the North West, the South East Thames, and the South West region. Many are significantly below the target figure, and this must be of concern to the Secretary of State.
In this debate I declare my interest as president of MIND, which has made a great contribution to thinking, training and comment on this issue. MIND welcomed the report of Dr. Reed's committee and has called on the Department to secure as early as possible implementation of the bulk of the 276 proposals for action. It is an important report, and we should congratulate Dr. Reed on it. It is good news that he is to continue with an advisory committee. The review has uncovered a vast gulf between the treatment and care that individuals need and are entitled to receive, and in fact the level, range and extent of services currently available to provide this treatment.
The Reed Committee was able to draw on several important and recent studies. Paragraph 2.12 refers to the Efficiency Scrutiny of the Prison Medical Service (1990) which
"proposed that health care should be contracted in to prisons, predominantly from the NHS".

727
I entirely agree with the comments made by my noble friend on this subject. The paragraph also refers to the Woolf Report on disturbances at Manchester (Strangeways) Prison and elsewhere in 1991 which
"made far-reaching recommendations for the improvement of prison regimes".
In addition it states that the
"Chief Inspector of Prisons brought into sharp focus concerns about suicide and self-harm among prisoners".
At its disposal the Committee had research suggesting that
"upwards of 700 sentenced prisoners might require transfer to psychiatric care in NHS hopsitals".
There is much else of value in the report. Paragraph 4.5 states that other offenders
"are in the wrong place (for example, in prison when they need a secure hospital place, in a hospital with higher security than their treatment requires, or in hospital when they should be in the community)".
Paragraph 5.26 refers to special hospitals and to the 1,700 patients who are held in three locations. It points out:
"Recent research suggests that between 35 per cent and 50 per cent of existing patients may not require high security…although a number of sentenced prisoners may need to be transferred to such provision… In July 1992, about 100 Special Hospital patients were awaiting a move to a more local facility. About 40 of these had been waiting for more than a year despite the requirement for mentally ill and mentally impaired (or severely mentally impaired) patients in Department of Health Circular (88)".
The report paints a picture of—perhaps it is not fair to use the word "neglect"—inadequate provision and of a provision which does not suit the needs of patients. Hundreds of patients are not receiving the treatment and care that they need. Taken together with the inadequate supply of medium-secure provisions, to which I have referred, we have a very disturbing situation which should be commanding urgent Government attention. Like others, I await the Minister's reply with eager interest.
The review blames restrictive legal provision and perverse financial arrangements. It also blames the development of the NHS purchaser-provider relationship. It concludes that although court-based psychiatric assessment and diversion schemes can assist in preventing inappropriate imprisonment, provision for the diversion of "mentally disordered offenders" is currently planned in fewer than half of all district health authorities. It is a very serious fact that half of all district health authorities have not yet made any such provision.
Some of your Lordships may have read a recent article in November 1992 in the British Medical Journal, headed, "National Survey of Current Arrangements for Diversion from Custody in England and Wales", which concluded:
"When diversion is necessary the commonest obstacle when cited by the NHS is the lack of resources. However, as the Probation Service frequently cites a lack of interest by the mental health services as a barrier to further developments, it remains to he seen whether lack of resources or interest is the real obstacle to the future development of services".
I suppose that it is part of each, but we must not simply conclude that it is only a lack of resources.
MIND agrees with the review's conclusion that practice falls a long way short of what is desirable —desperately short for those people (and their
728
families) held for years in the wrong form of custody. MIND believes that current services, being excessively custodial and institutional, are often quite unable to address the individual needs of those required to use or to be detained in them.
We broadly support the review's proposals for reform and for the development of a range of services able to respect the human rights and health care needs of offenders with mental health problems and their families. I know that in his maiden speech the noble and learned Lord said that some people would prefer them not to be there, but they are there and we have to treat them with all the respect for their human rights, needs and welfare which they and their families deserve.
MIND also recognises the importance of introducing new mechanisms which will accurately assess unmet needs, ensure effective diversion from inappropriate custody, guarantee constructive joint working between agencies and authorities, remove legal and financial disincentives, and guarantee equal opportunities and freedom from discrimination on grounds of race and gender in the allocation or operation of services. It certainly welcomes the creation of a national advisory committee.
MIND hopes that the review's work will lead to a more effective and a fairer service and that important decisions will be taken. Health and Home Office Ministers must match the review's thorough and realistic analysis with commitments. I should like to list six. The first is to regulate strictly the NHS internal market, where necessary, to guarantee the purchase and provision of an appropriate range of local, regional and national services of high quality. The second is to make district health authorities assume financial responsibility for purchasing all secure mental health services, including those in high security. The third is to guarantee the creation of psychiatric assessment and diversion schemes to serve each magistrates' court area. The fourth is to fix a date by which mental health care in prisons will be entirely provided by NHS staff working to NHS standards. That was a point made in different words by my noble friend Lord Longford. The fifth is to maintain the momentum for change by publishing a five-year action plan with clear targets for reforms and service development. The sixth is to implement the recommendations to redress the racism and inequality which were described in the race and culture report.
No amount of its careful phrasing can conceal the human misery and waste that the Reed Report has documented. In prison, hospital and the community, current services have been shown often to fail the very people that they exist to help. Respecting their human rights may have a high price, but in a civilised society it must be paid. I hope that the Minister will respond in a positive way to the recommendations of the report and to the comments made by noble Lords.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, we must all thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for tabling this important Unstarred Question at such a timely occasion. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord

729
Mustill, on what I would call—and what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has already called—a most thoughtful speech. I hope that we shall be able to hear him often in the future. Perhaps I should say that this is the first time in a debate of this kind that I have agreed with practically everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said. I usually find that I disagree with him slightly and with MIND a lot. This time, however, I thought that what he had to say was splendid.
The Reed Report is indeed a most useful assessment of the problems facing us in the handling of mentally disordered offenders. Like others, I was keen that this debate should take place. I shall endeavour to pick out just a few points from what is a very comprehensive report but, before doing so, I must emphasise that I see Dr. Reed's report as most useful for future planning which, according to paragraph 1.4, was the intention. However, I do not see it as trying to deal with the present day situation in which there are clearly not the adequate or suitable facilities that are needed by many mentally ill people in this country, including many mentally disordered offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made a great point of that, and I agree, but I do not see the report as tackling that matter. It is looking forward, rather than looking at the present and although it is not the subject of this debate, I feel that it is the present which is most important.
I had the good fortune recently to meet, at their request, the trustees of the newly-formed Isle of Wight Community Health Service Trust (which is starting up on 1st April) to learn about its activities generally. We touched upon the subject of this Unstarred Question as well as on other mental illness problems.
As regards the latter, I should perhaps tell your Lordships that during the past five years in my county we have shut down our 19th century mental hospital and opened a new modern one near to our new large general hospital. Sadly—and here I turn to present-day difficulties—I have been told that in planning the new mental hospital 10 years or so ago our district health authority and the region made a significant underestimate of the type and extent of accommodation needed. That is so notwithstanding the excellent arrangements that we have had for many years for care in the community in the Isle of Wight and for inter-agency consultation, long before it had become a statutory requirement. It seems that mental illness, requiring some in-patient treatment, including secure accommodation, is on the increase, certainly in my small part of the kingdom. Without speculating about its causes, I hope that the Government will recognise it as a fact.
I turn now to the comments made to me on the Reed Report by the Isle of Wight director-designate of mental health services. He drew my attention particularly to "next steps" set out in paragraph 10.16 of the report and commented that, fortunately, there seems to be widespread agreement on what needs to be done, but that is for the future. However, it is clear to me and to my adviser that services for the mentally ill generally are being stretched to full capacity. The Isle
730
of Wight does not now have specialist facilities for the care and treatment of persons exhibiting disturbed behaviour as a result of mental health problems.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to contain these people even for short times because of their recent dramatic increase, as mentioned earlier. I suspect that this applies elsewhere in the country as well. If more people are going to be diverted from the courts there will have to be more central government support to provide the increased facilities. My honourable friend, Mr. Tim Yeo, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, in presenting the Reed Report last November, said that capital expenditure on medium secure psychiatric units would be increased from £3 million in 1991–92 to £18 million. Sadly, from the current practical experience at local level, this is nothing like enough. But perhaps I can be more generous and say that it is a very good start, if only a start. I hope that my noble friend the Minister, in replying, will be able to enlarge on that and tell us that it is in fact a start and not the end of the moneys that are to be made available.
In the same way, I think we can say that the Reed Report is a very good start and that we can look forward to more helpful assessments of national needs for mentally disordered offenders and recommendations from the continuing advisory committees under Dr Reed's obviously excellent chairmanship.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, on his splendid maiden speech. I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for asking this important Question on the Government's response to the Reed Committee's review of health and social services for mentally disordered offenders and others requiring similar services.
One of the five guiding principles set out in paragraph 3.3 of the Reed Report is that patients should be cared for,
"as far as possible in the community, rather than in institutional settings."
The goal of care in the community runs throughout this admirable report. I draw your Lordships' attention in particular to paragraph 8.12 under the sub-headings of "Community Services" and "Local Authorities" on page 34. The paragraph states:
"We are particularly concerned that the transfer to local authorities from 1993–94 of social security funds currently used to meet the cost of accommodation should not work to the disadvantage of mentally disordered offenders."
It continues:
"We welcome the intention of the Department of Health to issue guidance on 'ordinary residence' which may be helpful in some potentially difficult cases. However, looking at the broader issue, the concerns expressed to us by voluntary oganisations and others are such that we believe the Government may need to consider taking positive action, possibly through the introduction of a specific grant, to ensure that access to services is safeguarded."
The transfer of funds referred to is under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and is to take place on 1st April, just seven weeks from now. The question of the "ordinary residence" of a special hospital patient in a local authority area may be fraught with difficulty and may lead to endless

731
disputes between local authorities as to where a mentally disordered offender is ordinarily resident. Take the example of a man who has been in a special hospital for a decade. Suppose he was born and brought up in Taunton; he worked for some years in Plymouth; he committed an offence in Wolverhampton and he was staying in London at the time he was detained. What local authority is responsible for him? Where is he ordinarily resident? A team of barristers specialising in the conflict of laws could argue the case for months. Local authorities are likely to maintain that the mentally disordered offender belongs to another authority. The intention of the Department of Health to issue guidance on "ordinary residence" is, of course, welcome. But apparently the department has not yet done so, and 1st April is awfully soon. Moreover, guidelines are only guidelines and are by no means guaranteed to resolve disputes.
For some mentally disordered offenders ready to be released from special hospitals, the resolution of "ordinary residence" is likely to lead to delay and thus delay the continued rehabilitation of the individual, which is of course the goal of the Reed Report. If a mentally disordered offender does establish ordinary residence in the area of a given local authority, he or she may require a place in a high-care residential home. The person will have to approach his or her local authority for an assessment of need. The local authority may then decide to pay for placing the patient in a residential home. However, the grave danger exists that many local authorities may decide not to pay for that accommodation. Mentally disordered offenders will have to compete with others in need for scarce local authority money. As the Matthew Trust, which in the last 17 years has given £195,000 to help former special hospital patients, says in its briefing:
"There is a problem of attempting to negotiate resources for a group of people, who many see as undeserving and of low priority in local authority community care planning".
This point goes to the heart of the matter. The danger is that mentally disordered offenders will rank so low in a local authority's list of priorities that the high-care accommodation which is essential for the former patient's wellbeing will not be forthcoming. Presumably they will then swell the ranks of the homeless. Disaster is likely to ensue if former special hospital patients do not get the necessary accommodation and care. They may harm themselves; they may harm others; they may commit some other crime; they may go to prison; they may find their way into a mental hospital, or indeed a special hospital all over again.
What is a hospital supposed to do? If it rehabilitates the man or woman again and again releases the person to the local authority, the fear exists of an endless chain of release and return to an institution—much to the frustration of the institution and the mentally disordered offender alike.
In the past three years special hospitals have discharged a yearly average of 56 former patients into the community. An average of 51 former patients who will later be discharged into the community have gone
732
from special hospitals to regional secure units. Allowing for some individuals returning to their families, up to 100 patients each year will become the responsibility of local authorities.
There are approximately 1,700 mentally disordered offenders currently in special hospitals. They divide into two broad categories. The first group comprises those who are restricted and cannot be discharged unless the Home Secretary is satisfied as to a scheme for their future. Clearly, if no local authority will take responsibility for them or if the relevant authority will not provide the necessary accommodation, the Home Secretary should not release them.
The danger must exist that the whole system will silt up. The Reed plan that patients ultimately should be cared for in the community will come to nothing. The walls of the special hospitals will bulge and eventually more space will be required. As of February 1991 the Special Hospitals Service Authority intimated that each patient in its hospitals cost £826 per week. In the community the cost of residence for a former patient would be around £300 a week.
The second group coming out of special hospitals consists of those who are now legally unrestricted. If the Mental Health Tribunal is satisfied that such patients should be released they automatically will be. Released to what, my Lords? To homelessness and to the danger of consequent self-harm, of harm to others, of prison, or of return to hospital.
The special hospitals depend on voluntary organisations to provide much after-care accommodation. There is widespread apprehension that the transfer of funds after 1st April from the Department of Social Security to local authorities will lead to such a reduction of cash flow that the number of places available for mentally disordered offenders will greatly diminish. For example, the Inner London Probation Service points out that six hostels which are currently designated registered care homes will be at risk under the new system. Those homes provide inner London with 191 bed spaces.
The EFRA Trust takes a similar view. It put the number of relevant bed spaces in inner London at risk at the slightly higher figure of 200. Certainly, the outlook of the organisations on that aspect is profoundly gloomy.
I turn now to the suggestion in paragraph 8.12 of the Reed Report for a specific grant to meet the cost of accommodation for mentally disordered offenders. The argument in favour of ear-marking funds—or "ring fencing", in the current jargon—to provide residential care facilities for those suffering from alcohol and drug problems applies with equal force to the unpopular but desperately needy former special hospital patients. Without ring fencing they risk being squeezed out by other groups of the needy.
I have read ministerial speeches, press statements and copies of Hansard about ring fencing. If I understand it aright, the Government argue that because they are ring fencing the total amount of community care funds they no longer see any need to ring fence funds for the accommodation of individual groups such as those suffering from alcohol and drug problems.

733
Applying that reasoning to mentally disordered offenders means that the local authority may say to the individual former special hospital patient, "We have decided not to pay for the cost of accommodation for you. But be of good cheer, the Government's total community care fund is ring fenced." How that is supposed to console the former special hospital patient is beyond me. So vital is accommodation for those individuals, and so short is the time before 1st April, that I ask the Government to consider with utmost speed ring fencing the funds given to local authorities for this purpose.
An alternative that the Government could consider is a centrally administered specific grant. Specific grants have been made in recent years for the targeted homeless mentally ill initiative and for the rough sleepers initiative. Thus, precedents do exist. If the Government preferred that solution the obvious way ahead would be for the Special Hospitals Service Authority to administer a specific grant centrally. After all, the authority is already concerned with the patients and that related role would save overhead costs.
If local authorities fail to pay for accommodation for former special hospital patients the Matthew Trust and other voluntary organisations simply are not in a position to raise the necessary funds. To avert the dangers that I have spelled out the Government should urgently either ring fence money given to local authorities for this purpose or set up a centrally-administered specific grant.
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we all read the Reed Report with interest, admiration and respect. We read it in conjunction with the report entitled The Health of the Nation. We are deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for bringing the debate to this House. However, I fear that I shall disappoint him because I do not propose to talk about the individual recommendations in the report, which were so ably supported. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, for his speech, particularly as I hope to take up a number of points which he made.
During the speeches of noble Lords who have spoken on the recommendations of the Reed Report, I have realised that I want to talk about planning and structure before the recommendations of that report are implemented. I do not believe that they can be implemented until there is a background report which deals with the overall situation in this country regarding the mentally disordered.
First, there appears to me to be no up to date co-ordinated overall government policy for those suffering from a mental disorder. The departments involved are the Department of Health—health on one side and social services on the other—the Home Office and, to some extent, the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for housing and the problems of homelessness.
Secondly, a structured policy should be based on an overall inquiry and statistics. The noble and learned
734
Lord, Lord Mustill, made reference to the many organisations and people concerned. They need to be brought together in one co-ordinated policy.
I tabled a Question for Written Answer in Hansard some weeks ago which asked how many of those convicted of an offence and sent to prison had been previous patients in a mental hospital. The Written Answer was that the figures were not available.
Lord Mottistone: Oh no!
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, yes! I respect the Home Office research department and therefore I was surprised by that reply—all the more so because at paragraph 5 on page 24 of the report reference is made to government research which found —and other noble Lords have quoted this figure—that between 750 and 1,400 sentenced prisoners may currently require transfer to hospitals for psychiatric treatment. I realise that a proportion of those prisoners may not previously have been in mental hospitals, but I suggest that many of them would have been. I must point out that the Reed Report was commissioned by both the Department of Health and the Home Office. Therefore, the reply that I received to my Question was extraordinary.
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, referred to the homeless. How many of them have been discharged from mental hospitals and have no support within the community? Supporting, counselling and helping mental patients in the community is an incredibly difficult task. It is time-consuming and sometimes it is well nigh impossible. I know because I have done it. It is particularly difficult when dealing with schizophrenics. Some directors of mental hospitals were discharging patients because they said that they were not treatable. I should like to know from the Minister whether that still applies.
When I worked in Oxford, the Church Army and colleagues from the probation service worked hard to set up a hostel for the homeless. That hostel was built and we thought that perhaps we had contributed to diminishing the problem of homelessness in Oxford because we hoped that the hostel would be able to offer a rehabilitation service to the homeless. I now find that the hostel which was intended for the homeless is now full to the brim of men discharged from mental hospitals. Therefore, it is a mental hospital in the community; but it has no trained staff to administer medication or psychiatric help. Can that be right? It is surprising that the Charity Commission does not ask questions because the hostel is not being used for the purpose for which it was built and for which it is registered as a charity. We are not the only people who have found that to happen. It is happening all over the country. Of course there are also mental patients in prisons who should not be there.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I have visited many prisons. I know that the prison warders have great compassion, great patience and great understanding for men who have been sent to prison who they are quite sure should be in mental hospitals. Warders have complained to me that they do not have adequate training to give the men the help they should receive.

735
We have prisons, hostels for the homeless, the homeless themselves and the community care system. I support community care. However, before we attempt to implement the recommendations of the Reed Report, we should conduct a survey that covers all the methods of treating patients. We do not have a set of co-ordinated statistics from all the departments involved in this matter. However good the Reed Report is, its recommendations cannot be implemented successfully unless a survey of the type I have mentioned takes place.
I have become a little carried away and I have deviated from my script. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, spoke of fragmentation. I believe that is the thing that has held us back in this area more than anything else. I believe the Reed Report recommends that a committee should be established. I hope that if such a committee is established, it will first consider what is happening in this area—the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, are relevant in this regard—before it attempts to implement the recommendations of the Reed Report. The Reed Report cannot and will not be successfully implemented unless a policy is established that covers all government departments. We should gain accurate statistics on this matter from the Salvation Army, hostels, prisons, social services and from psychiatric hospitals. I beg my noble friend the Minister to talk to everyone involved in this matter so that a good policy is adopted for the United Kingdom as a whole.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, one of the reasons I retired from the Whitehall Theatre a few hundred yards up the road after 27 years and some 12,000 performances was that my social life had rather gone for a burton. I am delighted to note that noble Lords at this end of Whitehall, in Westminster, are also prepared to let their social lives go for a burton. There is no doubt that noble Lords' devotion to the cause we are discussing this evening, and to other causes, results in their being in this Chamber at unsocial hours and being away from their homes and loved ones. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate.
Last week the noble Earl, Lord Longford, paid me a gracious and generous compliment. I should like to return that compliment this evening. The noble Earl has made tonight's issue peculiarly his own. We all owe him a great debt, not only for the opportunities provided by this debate but also for the fact that the needs of mentally disordered offenders have got on to, and remained on, the public agenda.
I know that the noble Earl has over a very long period taken a personal interest not only in the theories but also in the welfare of individual offenders, so much so that it is rumoured that some patients believed that a visit by the noble Earl was a form of treatment prescribed under Section 58A of the 1983 Mental Health Act. Noble Lords may not be aware that Section 58 deals with treatments requiring a second opinion. The published statistics do not tell us
736
whether any detained patients have had recourse to a second opinion after the noble Earl's visits, but I think that extremely unlikely.
Perhaps it is a little late in the debate for me to offer my congratulations to my noble and learned friend Lord Mustill. It is good to know that we have at least one noble and learned Lord on our side—I believe there are others—and I particularly appreciated my noble and learned friend's remarks on care in the community for I know that some view that endeavour with profound and pessimistic gloom.
We also owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. John Reed of the Department of Health and his colleagues for the string of reports about services for mentally disordered offenders and those with similar needs. From my point of view the report —still at the consultative stage—on the needs of people with learning disabilities or autism is not the least important of that string of reports. It chimes in well with the recently published Mansell Report on the needs of people with learning disabilities and what the professionals call challenging behaviour, and those who have to cope with it sometimes describe with more colour and passion.
I want in this short intervention to make just four points. The first is a reminder that learning disability is not the same as mental illness. I am sure that noble Lords present are well aware of that fact, but I should like to record it for others who may read the debate. Crudely put, learning disability is a limitation with which one is either born or acquires very early in life. Mental illness is a disturbance of the mind which may affect anyone at any age, and, sooner or later, does affect many of us. Some people with learning disability have superimposed mental illness. Most do not. I am still surprised at the extent to which people, eminent in public life—some of them with medical qualifications and some of them with political ambitions—still confuse mental illness and mental handicap or learning disability. Perhaps an advantage of the new-speak "learning disability" is that there may be rather less confusion.
My second point is that since learning disability is distinct from mental illness, it is vitally important that there should be consultants, psychologists, psychotherapists, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists, speech therapists, physiotherapists, and teachers with expertise in learning disability and dedicated to working with those people with learning disabilities who fall into the offender and related categories. I am very much in favour of giving people with learning disabilities nice houses in which to live and a map showing the way to the nearest leisure centre, and asking the milkman to keep an eye open for their interests, but that does not constitute a service strategy for people with special needs.
The Department of Health has had time to consider the recommendations of the Reed Committee on extra places and additional qualified and specialist staff. I am glad to see that some extra funding for new places has been announced, and to know that new medium-secure units are in mind for Chase Farm and other places. I should like to know whether Ministers

737
accept the full implications of what the Reed Committee had to say about the need for places and staff.
Thirdly, I recognise that where people have a dual diagnosis —learning disability and mental illness—and especially where the learning disability is mild and the mental illness is the dominant factor the appropriate service may be a mental illness service; but where that happens, it is important that people with learning disability should be supported by staff who have some understanding of their extra needs. Those needs may be for a slower pace of treatment. I am apprehensive about what I suspect is a macho tendency in the health service to measure success in terms of turnover. If the door by which one came in is still spinning when one leaves, that is deemed success. Some detained patients in areas where beds are few and needs are many seem to be detained just long enough to send them on leave, so that bed occupancy can be not 100 per cent., but 120 per cent. People with learning disability need, in many cases, a slower and surer approach to rehabilitation.
It also needs saying, under this same heading, that the Ashworth Inquiry and wider experience show the vulnerability of patients with learning disability to situations in which they can be the victims both of staff and of other patients who trade on their vulnerability. If they are to be supported in "mixed" settings, alongside patients with personality disorder or mental illness, and by staff without special training in learning disability, general training has to take much more account of their needs than it does at present.
Fourthly, and finally, there are the mentally disordered offenders who happen to fall the wrong side of a line drawn by the law: it is a fairly arbitrary line. The same behaviour in other settings would not necessarily produce the same consequences.
We inflict on people with a mental handicap or learning disability a combination of deprivation. The least that we can do is to provide a first-class service for those who experience and cause problems as a result. I hope that we shall also improve our community services to spare our fellow citizens the problems in the first place. My noble friend Lord Acton referred to the "jargon" words, ring-fencing. Jargon they may be, but they simply will not go away.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I express my appreciation to my noble friend and colleague Lord Longford for again introducing a debate in your Lordships' House on a difficult problem which does not always receive the mileage that it should. My noble friend has brought many issues before your Lordships for debate over the years. No case which is left to the efforts of my noble friend goes by default. He is to be congratulated again for giving us the opportunity to debate the problem.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, on his maiden speech. In the few moments that we have spoken I found that we have a tenuous connection. He came from Leeds and went to Manchester for a legal career; I went from Manchester to Leeds to start a political career. We have both
738
ended up in this Chamber. However, having heard his speech on this very human problem I am sure that I speak for all Members of your Lordships' House when I say that we are delighted to welcome him and his support on this subject. He is someone who has been mainly concerned with dispensing the law. His speech indicated great compassion from a person who wished to achieve the best for people, many of whom in some respects cannot help themselves.
One of the main themes underlying this subject is resources. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, who spoke of the efforts by the people with whom she is associated. I sensed a note of optimism in the figures that she quoted. Although I fully accept her point, that is not what I believe. From the figures produced there is undeniably an increase in the numbers of people, many of them young, who have been removed from institutional care and sent out into the community without adequate resources to start a new life. The figures published by non-political bodies show that in London, and to a lesser degree in other major cities, an increasing number of people are now sleeping rough and suffering the rigours of winter, sleeping on the Embankment, in the shop doorways of the Strand, and down Victoria Street. One passes them when walking in those areas. An increasing number of people who have been sent back into society from hospital find themselves in the same difficult situation of those unregistered homeless people.
My background has been in local government. I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said regarding her former career as a director of social services. She hit the nail on the head. If the social service departments of local authorities are allowed adequate funding specifically to deal with the situation, I have no doubt that they will do that. When I first entered local government, the social service departments took care of many people who needed it, some of whom were not, in the strictest sense of the term, able to look after themselves.
What is worrying me is the great publicity being given at present to the Government's round of cuts and whether we are living above our means. We all know that although we have taken the trouble to be here tonight and most Members of your Lordships' House, wherever they sit, are sympathetic to the cause, it is not the most popular one with other people. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the difficult dividing line between the person who comes before the court because he is evil and the person who is sick. Where does the division lie?
People outside who have been the victim of an attack by someone who is a borderline case do not see it that way at all. We all know that when a risk is taken in favour of people doing a custodial sentence by allowing them back into the community on the recommendations of medical staff there is the possibility that they may commit another crime of enormous dimensions—perhaps murder or rape. In that case, the first question put by the victim or the public to the people involved with the wrongdoer is why it was allowed to happen. Someone is at fault and

739
the victims or the public do not wish to err on the side of the person with problems; their sympathy is with the victim and his or her family.
We must take all those calculations into account when we deal with the situation. I was delighted to hear the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on the subject because no one has been closer to it in the past than she has. It was also interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rix, speak of the Whitehall farces in which he appeared for 27 years. He now graces a new stage in coming to this place, but he has already earned a reputation for being listened to and for speaking forcefully, powerfully and knowledgeably on behalf of people who need champions of his stature so that the case will not go by default.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the staff who have to deal with the problems. Just before Christmas, he introduced a debate on another facet of the prison service and its problems. Very often the prison officers and staff do an excellent job but they are always at the sharp end if something goes wrong. Prison officers know, more than anyone, that the resources they are given to carry out their job are less than adequate. If the job is not done, they are blamed.
The disgraceful scenes at Strangeways Prison were mentioned. I happen to be a Mancunian and I think that very little of the riot was to do with people who were mentally ill. Possibly the most brutal section of the prison community was involved. I could say that I have a feeling of déjà vu, I have said this previously in your Lordships' House. Had the prison officers themselves been allowed to get on with the job, that disgraceful event would have ended after 48 hours and would not have gone on; but they were prevented from acting by people from the Home Department in London who thought that they knew better how to deal with the problem. I understand that the eventual bill for what took place was between £60 million and £80 million in a service which we know is short of money because of its lack of appeal to the public. I am worried, as are a lot of other people, that if massive and swingeing cuts in public expenditure are on the way, we may well be talking tonight of a door that has already closed. I hope I am wrong.
I should like to say a few words regarding prison officers and the staff who deal with these offenders. They are not prison officers, although they are members of the prison officers' union. People ask: should they not have a union of their own? But there is nothing new in an association or a union having divisions which cater for people doing a special job. The transport and general workers, the agricultural workers, the building section and the transport sector are autonomous under one umbrella. The Prison Officers' Association members in those particular types of institution are, in fact, not prison officers. They are highly qualified, highly trained and highly dedicated nurses who have been trained in that specific profession and trained to deal with such problems. From the reports I am given, their talents and ability are considered to be amongst the finest, if not the finest, in Europe.
740
The Prison Officers' Association itself is on record as being critical of the Government. It is always easy to be critical of the Government. But everybody is saying—and I believe that Members of your Lordships' House would say—that the situation we are dealing with is grossly under-funded. In an ideal world it would not be under-funded, but we do not live in an ideal world. The Prison Officers' Association has been in the forefront of the identification of problems, which of course are many and varied—problems which are created in the main by the mentally disturbed offender and those with personality disorders who have to be contained within the prison system.
The association also recognises the need for change and calls for the resources to be made available in order to administer the correct level of psychiatric intervention and diversion to the mental health care areas, be this at court, police custody, remand or sentenced prisons. So it covers the full spectrum of places where people have to be incarcerated, very often for the protection of the public and very often for their own protection. The association continues to call for a full public inquiry into the management of special hospitals and sees a need, following correct and proper assessment, to examine the way forward for these very valuable assets, and their use, that currently exist.
The POA was also the first to call for the closure of the disgustingly inadequate psychiatric provision at Brixton Prison. In calling for the closure of F Wing it was noted that neither the prison service management nor other pressure groups of any kind had seen fit to call for this closure. The Prison Officers' Association and its members concerned in that particular service did so.
To conclude, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has opened a tremendous discussion on a difficult subject that will never go away. There are ways of dealing with it and Reed has suggested some of them. But it is an ongoing problem. Other proposals will come forward. The people in the service who are specially trained in dealing with the situation have a dedication as high as any. But they do not have the privilege of coming to this House to put their case. I stress that they must be given the resources to match the job given to them in the discharge of people into the community. I tremble at what is going on, because I cannot for the life of me see the present policy succeeding, though I wish it well. As the noble Lord, Lord Acton, said when he spoke about ringfencing, unless more adequate resources than the Government even dream of at present are released to local authorities and other bodies charged with looking after this section of the community, I can only see it being a tragic failure. I put the following question: if it does fail—I hope it does not, but I think it will—where do we go from there? What do we do if we have tens of thousands of people living out in the open? That is not a stupid exaggeration. The situation is moving that way. What do we do with them when the institutions have all gone? How shall we cater for them? As far as I can see Dr. Reed has not been able to give an opinion on that point.

741
Within the next few years we shall be debating the situation again. With the Government's present policy on housing and the discharging of people into the community, I can only see the number of people requiring special training, special medical treatment and special care increasing. However, on behalf of the members of the Prison Officers' Association I can say that whatever can be humanly done, they will do it. But they will do it a lot better, and for more people, if they are given adequate resources to get on with the job.
Some people criticise the members of the Prison Officers' Association in an almost run-of-the-mill way without being aware of the problems. But the POA will do the job. Sadly, however, with the present round of cuts that the Government are to announce, we are already talking to a closed door.
We have heard some wonderful speeches this evening. The number of noble Lords who put down their names to speak in the debate is an indication of the feeling on the subject in your Lordships' House. Once again I thank my noble friend Lord Longford for giving us an opportunity to debate the problem.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I refuse to be left out of those in the House who have expressed their admiration, and I add my own affection, to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for all that he has done for us over many years in bringing penal affairs and the affairs of those whom we are addressing tonight before the House. He cajoled me to speak on this subject when I did not feel like doing so and thus inflicted a few extra minutes on the House before the speech of the Minister, to which we are all looking forward.
I say straightaway that I have nothing but praise for Dr. Reed and his colleagues for the final and interim reports. Of course I give credit to the Government for appointing him. It was an imaginative act and I am sure that we shall all benefit from it over the years.
My noble friend Lord Acton mentioned money and ring-fencing. I have great sympathy with him. However, I must say—I may be anticipating the Minister—that the recommendations of the Reed Committee are so many, so vast and so expensive that we can only hope for them to be implemented over a long period of years.
I am particularly glad that Dr. Reed and some of his colleagues are being kept in commission and I hope that he will give us some indication of his priorities. There are almost 300 recommendations and they are not prioritised. I hope that his continuance on the committee will enable him to indicate which recommendations he feels are the most important. In that regard I would expect him to highlight those which are the least expensive. Later I shall raise one point—perhaps my major point—which I should like to press on the Government. It may improve the situation overall and yet it should cost next to nothing.
In the first instance we look forward to the recommendations which cost least. Foremost among them will be the recommendation which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned. Mentally disordered
742
offenders who are kept in prison rather than in hospital and those who are in maximum security conditions who could be kept in less secure conditions should be looked at straight away. I very much hope that that will be done because it has the blessing, I believe, of the Parliamentary Secretary for Health. He has said that in public. I should hope that the recommendations of the Reed Committee would have the wholly admirable consequence of depleting the prison population by the provision of alternative extra custodial care or other local authority provision. The prison population is already going down and this should give a boost to that decline. I strongly welcome that.
My next point has hardly been mentioned by other speakers. I am very pleased with the guiding principles for service provision, which again have been endorsed by Ministers. That is welcome progress. I very much hope that these guiding principles or something very like them will also be promulgated and endorsed by Ministers for the prison service. It would do that service a world of good and would help to improve the atmosphere in the ways recommended by Lord Justice Woolf and the Inspector of Prisons. Young offenders, as well as the offenders whom we are discussing today —the mentally disordered offenders—should be able to benefit. If we cannot make progress in keeping young people out of custody we shall make very little progress in the criminal justice system.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, who made a most sensitive speech which we all appreciated, mentioned the paragraphs in the report about the interface between the professions. I want to concentrate on that. The report says that a study of the interface between the professions is of the utmost importance and should lead to,
"growing commonality of interests",
which is a pregnant phrase. That includes training needs and in particular,
"contact between general psychiatry and the criminal justice system",
which is generously characterised in the report as widespread though patchy. We hope to make good use of that recommendation which should, incidentally, cost either nothing or very little.
That leads me to my main interest arising out of the recommendation that there should be a study of the interface between the professions. It is perhaps not mentioned in Reed because it is outside his terms of reference but it is quite definitely relevant and also, I would hope, cheap and therefore capable of being introduced soon if there is the will. I refer to the amalgamation of the prison medical service and the National Health Service. That is indeed a breaking down of interface between two professions. I am convinced—the noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned this but he had so many other things to say that he did not pursue this line—that nothing but good could come from such a step. There might even be financial savings as a result of that integration. There certainly would be better delivery of health services for those in custody, especially for mentally disordered offenders, as recommended in paragraph 11. But I very much doubt if anything substantial will come of these recommendations unless and until the National

743
Health Service extends its service to embrace the work now done behind the walls of the prisons by the prison medical service.
I wish to refer to one particular instance. Members of the House may be aware that in a certain weekly periodical there is an article every week by someone who purports to be a prison doctor. He writes on happenings in custody and therefore one must presume that he belongs, or is attached, to the prison medical service. His sentiments are light-years away from those of Dr. Reed and his committee. One can hardly believe that they belong to the same profession.
He clearly has no use—indeed he has open contempt—for what he calls the "mentally subnormal and chronically hallucinated" prisoners who come before him. Fortunately, I realise that he is not exactly typical of the prison medical service, but he gives it a bad name. I question whether any doctor in his right mind would regard it as ethically correct to write anecdotally of his patients, as he does or, as he likes to term them, "clients". But they might as well be his victims.
I wonder whether the prison medical service is content that it retains in the service a man who regularly mocks his patients in a sick, mordant and sardonic way and holds them up to contempt, ridicule and hatred. A service which retains a man of that kind should be looked at. Indeed, I very much hope that it will be and that as a result the National Health Service will extend its bailiwick, as it should do in any case, to cover those who are in custody in the prison service.
9.53 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I also add my grateful thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for having introduced our debate tonight. As we all know, it is a subject to which he has devoted his life. We are privileged to have him in this House to remind us of what our responsibilities are in relation to the problems raised in the Reed Report.
I welcome its publication and the comprehensive analysis of what needs to be done. As has been said by many noble Lords, the report has produced 276 proposals which it states need early implementation if we are to solve the problem of inadequate treatment of mentally disordered offenders. It is an enormous task. I wish to take up the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. There are certain matters in the report that I would like to see implemented before others. There is no doubt that too many prisoners are detained in prison who should be receiving care and treatment from NHS specialist psychiatric services. The figure mentioned by many noble Lords is between 750 and 1,700 prisoners.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised a question that I also should like to mention. The policy of emptying psychiatric hospitals in this country and moving the patients into the community is altogether an admirable aim so long as the services in the community are there to take care of them. I should like to know—if the noble Baroness the Minister can answer—how many of these 1,700 prisoners are former inmates of psychiatric hospitals who have only
744
become criminals because they were released into a community where there was no one to look after them. It would be interesting to have that figure.
The report states that there are too many patients detained in high security hospitals for longer than their treatment requires because of a lack of development of medium secure units and a lack of community services. The treatment of a mentally disordered offender should have an aim in the sense that you move from the highly secure unit to the medium secure unit, and in the end, when the treatment has been successful, you are allowed to live in the community again. Those are essential elements of hope for people—not the feeling that they are never going to be released because there are not the services for them to be passed on to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, gave a marvellous example of what has happened in the psychiatric hospital in Hertfordshire with which she is involved. That is a wonderful example. But I must say to the noble Baroness that it is not a common experience in my view. Too many psychiatric hospitals have been emptied without there being the community services to look after the patients when they have been released. Therefore, I believe that that figure would be of great interest. It is essential that we have a system that gives hope to people. The report clearly states the three stages that are necessary.
If you are going to start from the beginning—and we must do that—one of the most important recommendations that the report makes is that we should have psychiatric assessment and diversion schemes to serve every magistrates' court in the country. There are only 40 such schemes in operation at present. It has been mentioned that fewer than half of district health authorities have a plan for the introduction of such diversion schemes. Those schemes, properly implemented, are probably the best means of preventing inappropriate prison sentences for mentally disordered offenders, so that we would not be starting at the prison but at the psychiatric or regional hospital secure unit.
The report puts great emphasis on the fact that regional health authorities will have to take on the responsibility for ensuring that adequate services, both secure and medium secure hospital places, are purchased by district health authorities in their regions. We had a wonderful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Acton, about the provision of community services and how they are to be funded. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, about the enormous extra effort that the community services have to make to deal with and give adequate support to the people coming out of secure units.
I agree very much with the recommendation in the report that there should be a move towards mental health care being provided by NHS staff in all prisons. However, I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that there should be an amalgamation of the medical service that is at present provided in the prisons with that provided by the NHS. All this needs monitoring. I am pleased that a

745
new advisory committee will be set up to monitor the implementation, and that Dr. Reed is likely to be the chairman of that committee.
However, I believe that the biggest stumbling block of all is the question of funding. Various Members of your Lordships' House have indicated that perhaps not all of the recommendations are financially demanding. But a lot of them are. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who said that Mr. Tim Yeo, the junior health Minister, had announced that the Government have boosted their support for secure units from £3 million to 18 million but, as the
746
noble Lord also said, another £18 million will be necessary the following year. What worries me much more is that in that same announcement Mr. Yeo said that
"progress in the care and treatment of mentally disordered offenders can be achieved by better use of existing services and resources and by improved co-ordination of the responsible agencies".
I am not saying that that cannot happen, but I should like to emphasise that that in itself will not be enough; the problem is much too great. We need improved funding, particularly for community services.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, at this late hour let me first thank my noble friend Lord Longford. As on the previous occasion on 18th November when we debated the Ashworth Hospital, he has once again drawn our attention to a very important problem which he has spent a lot of time studying. We are grateful to him for giving us the opportunity of this debate and the benefit of his thoughts.
As I have said on previous occasions, I rise to speak with probably the least knowledge and experience of all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I shall therefore fall back on trying to do what an academic can do, which is to give a little pedagogic lecture on the problem and to hope that I say something of use.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, said in his most excellent maiden speech—which I hope will be one of many that he will make to us—we are faced with a difficult problem. Because of the very nature of people who are mentally disordered and who are likely to become offenders, the public are not likely to feel sympathy for them but, as my noble friend Lord Dean has said, for their victims. When local authorities decide to apportion money for various uses, these people are not likely to be at the top of the list because they will not be able to lobby for the money and they may not have friends who can do so.
Faced with this difficult problem, let us also acknowledge that there are many dedicated people in the prison service, in hospitals and among social workers who do a most difficult job excellently. We only hear of them when something goes wrong, which is a great pity; but from day to day they do an excellent job in adverse circumstances.
The spirit of this excellent report by Dr. Reed is captured by what I might call two displacements, which are at the heart of this problem. One problem which has not been mentioned so far, if my memory is correct, is a horizontal displacement. It is the problem of people who are in prison but who are not properly identified as being mentally disordered. In that respect, the numbers that we hear of are understated regarding the number of mentally disturbed offenders.
Some interesting research by Professor Gunn, which is mentioned in the report, showed that over 20 per cent. of male prisoners had acute or chronic mental disorder which had not been diagnosed as such. On the one hand, we have fewer people who are correctly identified as having a mental disorder. The report would like us to go for a vertical displacement, by which I mean they would like people to be classified further down the list of acuteness or seriousness. The report would like us to use what is called divergent and discontinuance mechanisms as a means of ensuring that offenders do not get caught up needlessly in the criminal justice system.
Here I must acknowledge that I was somewhat perturbed by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, seemed to say: that perhaps in looking for ways of avoiding the possibility of these people going into the criminal justice system we should be consistent as regards those who are classified as mentally disordered and those who are not. However,
748
I presume that as long as we are careful, that is not likely to happen. However, down the line we want people to be in milder and milder forms of incarceration, if I may call it that: from high to medium security and from medium to low security, and so on.
As is pointed out in paragraph 4.3, the problem is,
"the range of hospital provision, in particular that in conditions of low to medium security, is inadequate overall to meet existing and projected need."
At the same time, it is not all that good to send these people out into the community, diverting people away from where they should be. The report says in paragraph 4.4:
"There is little point in 'diverting' someone if he or she has nowhere to go or if the placement is unsuitable or inadequate. This may simply lead to a deterioration, with the risk of further offending or resort to crisis intervention: the so-called 'revolving door' syndrome. It may also be a poor use of resources."
We should like people to be diverted from the most serious imprisonment; but at the same time one has to be careful about where they go and about the costs imposed upon society if they are prematurely released, badly classified or put into a low security facility before the right time. In this respect, I draw your Lordships' attention to the problem of resources and costs, especially for the National Health Service. Paragraph 8.8 of the report says that underlying these issues are two important principles. It reads:
"planning decisions about services for mentally disordered offenders should take account of the cost to all agencies"—
and they italicise "all agencies"—
"including the future cost of deterioration in a person's condition if needs are not met properly".
I think that is a very important principle. When we talk about resources and about how much we are spending on national health or how much we have achieved, there is a tendency to think in terms of money or in simple terms of bed space, and so on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, pointed out, it is tempting to exaggerate output or performance. We should like the throughput (if I may call it that) to be smaller; but each person will cost more money if one is going to do the job properly. What is important is not the quantity of health, but the quality of health, as we are witnessing in the case of the elderly. As we learn more we should like to do a better job for those people than we have done so far; but to do a proper job costs a great deal of money. There is nothing we can do about that. We must face up to the fact that such provisions cost a lot of money.
One of my responses to reading the excellent report was almost of despair. MIND summarised the recommendations by stating:
"The report recognises the importance of introducing new mechanisms which will accurately assess unmet needs, ensure effective diversion from inappropriate custody, guarantee constructive joint working between agencies and authorities, remove legal and financial disincentives and guarantee equal opportunities and freedom from discrimination on grounds of race and gender in allocation or operational services".
My noble friend Lord Ennals also referred to that statement. That is a tall order given the kind of facilities which are likely to be available. All the same, one should like to see those recommendations put into

749
effect; one should like to see all the proper things happen for these people. The fact that they will cost resources is taken as read.
Many noble Lords have pointed out various aspects of the problem and therefore I wish to point out only two which have not yet been mentioned. The first is the problem of racial discrimination. The British Association of Social Workers has in its briefing summarised the various NACRO reports on the problem. In that respect, the problem is the opposite of that which I described as horizontal displacement. It is that many more black people are classified as being mentally disordered than is strictly warranted. That is partly due to cultural barriers, prejudice or whatever. We must watch that matter carefully. As regards issues of race and culture, the Reed Report states at page 8:
"funding should be made available to establish an action research project on the diversion from custody of people from ethnic minority communities".
It further states:
"Health and local authorities should enable agencies from black and ethnic minority communities to develop and provide services for mentally disordered offenders".
There is serious and concrete action to be taken in terms of research liaison with ethnic minority active groups and in re-examining the procedures under which people are classified as mentally disordered.
The second problem is that of gender discrimination, which has not been mentioned tonight. We should take note of what was said by the British Association of Social Workers. In addition, the report points out the extreme disproportionality in sending women to special treatment hospitals once they are in prison. The numbers are so striking that it must be something more than an accident or randomness which causes it. The problem of gender discrimination also points to the need for monitoring as well as extra research.
Finally, I share the strong feelings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Acton. Given that the total numbers involved are rather small, that it is not possible to assign some of those people to a particular local authority, and that those people will not win their proper share of resources in any battle for local authority money, we may need to think about what the noble Lord called a centrally-administered specific grant scheme. That is a more elevated version of ring-fencing. It is ring-fencing at a national rather than a local level.
The entitlements which those people require to ensure adequate provision and attention to their problems will not come to them by them fighting for it because they are not capable of doing so. It will not come to them through the generosity of local authorities because they no longer have the funds to be generous. Logically, it must come by following the recommendations in the reports of enlightened people in this field like Dr. John Reed. Logic points to the fact that those people are entitled to funds and those funds can only be centrally guaranteed.
10.17 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware that the hour is late and that everybody wants to go home. I shall be as brief as I possibly can but it has been such an interesting and wide-ranging debate that I should like to try to do justice to it. I should like to associate myself with other noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate. It is the second time in less than three months that the noble Earl has given us the opportunity to consider the complex needs of mentally disordered offenders. That says much for his interest in and knowledge of the subject and his determination, which the Government share, to see improvements in the provision of health and social care in this area.
I also add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, on his maiden speech. I thought that it was a remarkable speech which was perceptive, knowledgeable and challenging and no doubt in the tradition of the Duke of Wellington. We look forward to hearing more from the noble and learned Lord on this and other subjects.
In November your Lordships looked specifically at the relatively small number of patients who need psychiatric care in conditions of high security. Today we have been considering a much broader group, the majority of whom have much less severe mental health problems, but who nevertheless need the right kind of assessment, care and support. If they do not receive that support, there is a danger that they will become part of the criminal justice system, or fall victim in the community to what has become known as the "revolving door" syndrome.
The joint Department of Health and Home Office review—the Reed review as it has become widely known—was the most thorough examination of services for mentally disordered offenders since the late Lord Butler reported in the mid-1970s. Like my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, I found the report not only interesting but gripping. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that the quality of the report was outstanding. The Government have already expressed their thanks to Dr. John Reed and his colleagues for their painstaking work. I am happy to do so again today. Their output in the space of 18 months was quite prodigious. In addition to their final summary report, published on 27th November, they produced 10 consultative reports which covered: services in the community, in hospital and in prison; staffing; training and financial issues; academic development; research; mentally disordered offenders with special needs; offenders with learning disabilities or autism; and racial and cultural issues. As the noble Earl has said, this work represents an immense fund of knowledge likely to be referred to for some years to come. For that reason we recently arranged for the formal publication by HMSO of those earlier reports to which I have referred. These are now available for public sale in four volumes.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the large number of recommendations made by the various advisory and working groups—276 in all. The

751
Government said, when the final report was published, that they would be making decisions in due course about which of the recommendations they could accept, and the pace at which these recommendations could be implemented. Available resources will obviously be a factor, although many of the recommendations are mainly to do with better practice and closer working between the various agencies. In a formal sense that is still the Government's position, but I can give your Lordships a flavour of how we are approaching some of the main issues and describe the action that is already being taken nationally and at local level.
As the committee said in its final report, each recommendation represents a piece of a very large jigsaw. It may be helpful if I draw attention specifically to Chapter 10 of the final report, as this was evidently intended to summarise the review findings as a whole and to identify what the committee saw as the fundamental issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has drawn to the attention of your Lordships the guiding principles set out in that chapter. The Government have already accepted that those principles should be adopted. I have sympathy with the noble Lord's view that those principles may well have a wider application. They are fivefold. They state that patients should be cared for and treated with regard being given to the quality of care and proper attention being given to the needs of individuals. That is important. Patients should be treated as far as possible in the community rather than in institutional settings. They should also be treated under conditions of no greater security than is justified by the degree of danger they present to themselves or others and in such a way as to maximise rehabilitation and their chances of sustaining an independent life. Finally, they should be treated as near as possible to their own homes or families, if they have them.
The committee then went on to identify a number of fundamental issues. These are: a positive approach to individual needs, including those of women and people from ethnic minorities—the noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned that; a multi-agency and multi-professional approach at all levels—this was mentioned by many speakers including my noble friend Lady Faithfull; the complementary role of mainstream and specialised services, the majority of patients being seen by the former, but needing access where necessary to the latter; and closer working at the court and pre-court stages between criminal justice agencies, the NHS and local authorities to divert people where necessary to health and social services. The identified issues also included an improved range of secure and non-secure health and social services, including those to meet the needs of homeless people; better mental health care services for prisoners; and, finally, a broader training, academic and research base to underpin all this activity.
Giving effect to these aspirations will be no easy task, and, as the report itself makes clear, where major deficiencies exist, significant progress is unlikely to be
752
made overnight. That point was also made today by many speakers. However, there are, I believe, grounds for optimism on a number of counts.
One of the distinguishing features of the review was the inter-active and relatively public way in which it was conducted. I have referred already to the range of consultative reports, the broad direction of which were overwhelmingly supported by the 200 or more bodies and individuals who responded to them. In addition, officials working with the review from both departments undertook an intensive programme of visits which included meeting people from a range of agencies, including the criminal justice system and the voluntary sector, in each of the 14 health regions. On the local authority side there was a series of seminars to which representatives of virtually all social services departments contributed, together with a major Home Office circular highlighting the opportunities for diverting offenders, which was issued shortly before the review began. This whole process has stimulated considerable practical interest in the subject. It is already beginning to bear fruit on the ground through a range of local initiatives.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, and other noble Lords expressed concern that people may be sent to prison when that is not appropriate. I believe he used the term "horizontal displacement". I am sure that those noble Lords will be pleased to learn of the growth of court assessment and diversion schemes now taking place. When the review began there was only a handful of them. There are now over 40 operating in England and the number continues to increase. We want to see still wider coverage, and so funding is now available from the Home Office to meet the sessional costs or fees of psychiatrists or community psychiatric nurses who attend magistrates' courts to provide professional advice. Agencies have been invited to submit bids for such support.
Another area to which we are contributing directly is the medium—or regional—secure unit programme, to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, devoted part of his speech, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who expressed his impatience at the rate of development. We agree with noble Lords and the Reed committee that the number of beds in those units needs to be increased. Accordingly, we have made available in the current financial year £17 million for the capital development of new places. That represents nearly a six-fold increase on last year. In the next financial year, the sum available will be £22 million, a further increase of about 30 per cent., which I hope will reassure some noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Dean of Beswick. That will enable speedy progress to achieve the existing target of 1,000 medium secure beds. As the noble Earl said, the Reed Committee envisaged further progress to a national minimum of 1,500 beds. It also wanted to see, as we do, greater diversity in the type of places to include better provision for, among others, those with longer-term needs and people with learning disabilities, a point made so cogently by the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Rix. We shall obviously be looking at those recommendations very carefully,

753
but, in the meantime, I emphasise our commitment to the growth of the programme, matched as it is by substantial increases in funding.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, all mentioned prison care. The Reed review supported the intention that the Health Care Service for Prisoners, as the former Prison Medical Service is now known, should become a purchaser rather than a provider of services. In particular, it welcomed the proposed contracting-in to prisons of a full mental health care service and the closer alignment with the NHS that that would entail. That would be valuable, not least for effective discharge and care programme planning. I am conscious that that proposition raises other issues which go far beyond the scope of our debate today. Indeed, the noble Earl raised some of them during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. Suffice to say that we want to see prisoners with mental health care needs receiving effective treatment—where necessary outside prison altogether. I am pleased to say that there has been a steady growth in recent years of transfers from prison to hospital under Sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983. In 1990 there were 325 transfers; in 1991, 450; and last year the figure rose to 611. We hope to continue that trend in 1993 and beyond.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the subject of compliance with Department of Health guidance on maximum waiting times (one year) for the move from special hospitals to other services. That is being monitored by the NHS Management Executive and details of patients waiting and moved from special hospitals are being made available for that purpose. The projected growth of the medium secure programme—only part of the picture, of course—will help that process. These, as I say, are transfers under existing provisions. The review made various suggestions for legal changes which might assist both hospital transfers and more suitable disposals by the courts. However, it recognises also that any changes would need to go hand in hand with service development, and any amendments to the Mental Health Act, in particular, would need to be approached with great care, given the careful balance struck by Parliament when it formulated the legislation 10 years ago. We shall be looking carefully at the various possibilities and will need to involve other bodies which may have an interest.
I should perhaps mention the recent initiative of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in asking officials of the Department of Health to consider urgently whether new legal powers are needed to ensure that mentally ill people in the community receive the care they need and whether the present powers in the Mental Health Act are being used effectively. The timescale for that work is about six months and I know that many noble Lords are keenly awaiting the outcome.
My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve spoke movingly of the success of community care schemes. Should the view be taken that there is scope for further
754
powers in terms of a new community supervision order, it might be possible for more people to live in happiness in the community.
On a broader front, the Health of the Nation White Paper identifies mental illness as one of five priority areas. What happens with general mental health services is crucially important to the majority of mentally disordered offenders. That includes applying the new care programme arrangements to which the review report made frequent reference. I wish to emphasise in particular that those apply specifically to patients in special hospitals and hence to those transferring to other places. We also wish to see more effective arrangements for discharge prisoners with mental health needs. To that end, we are hoping to fund a pilot project in Wessex region to which a number of agencies are also contributing.
Within the Health of the Nation there is a specific task for mentally disordered offender services. We shall be requiring that the strategic and purchasing plans of all health authorities include the necessary range of health and social services, both secure and non-secure, to enable them to respond to the special needs of this group. The message is set out also in the Key Area Handbook on Mental Illness that we published last month.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will take comfort from our determination not to forget those offenders with learning disabilities. He will be aware that the review report issued for consultation in November was specific on the subject. We have already received constructive comments from MENCAP and other bodies. We recognise that there needs to be better access to secure services other than in special hospitals and action to identify the needs of the majority of learning disabled offenders who have mild to moderate disabilities.
It is important that service developments based on needs assessment take full account of the staffing and training implications. I listened with deep concern, and indeed anger, to the incident—I hope that it is an isolated one —concerning a particular psychiatrist, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It is important that we have good training. I have referred also this evening to the need for a better academic base in an area which in many respects is under developed.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the projected increase in forensic psychiatrist numbers. It may be worth noting, as Reed does, that 30 years ago there were just two forensic consultants. Today there are 70. We are in touch with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others about the proposed further increases to which the noble Earl referred. However, I wish to emphasise that those projections are based on major service changes which, on the most optimistic plans, will necessarily take several years to effect. They do not represent a level of medical staffing that is required for services in place here and now.
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, expressed concern for those whose place of residence is unclear. It is a very complex area and because of that the department is about to give guidance to local authorities on the general issue of determination of financial responsibility for social services provided under the National

755
Assistance Act 1948 in circumstances where local authorities are unclear about where that responsibility lies.
The noble Lord also returned to the arguments for ring-fencing. He was quite correct in saying that the Government have included the whole of the social security transfer within a ring-fenced special transitional grant to local authorities next year. We do not believe that it would be helpful to ring-fence sums within that for particular groups or services. To do so would restrict authorities' ability to match resources to need. Therefore it is up to local authorities to decide how much to spend on those services, using not only the special grant and the specific grant, but also money from their mainstream funds. I should love to go into the issue but at present there is a case pending and it would be unwise for me to go further, I understand.
Lord Acton: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the case pending is on the matter of alcohol. That is not what we are discussing this evening.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am prepared to go on. The noble Lord is quite right. The burden of the argument up to now has been borne by the drug and alcohol services. But the suggestion being made tonight is that the services for the mentally disordered offenders should now also have money ring fenced for their services. This illustrates the problem very clearly. If we are to ring-fence for these groups, why do we not ring-fence for people with learning disabilities, the elderly, children, and so on. There are a number of needy groups. In the end, what takes place is that the Government make the local decisions which, in my experience, is not in the interests of local people.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull drew your Lordships' attention to the difficulties of supporting people in the community. In no way do I underestimate the challenges, but I believe that the new care programme approach applied explicitly to special hospital patients will go a long way to meeting some of those needs. No patient should be discharged without proper arrangements being made for him or her, including a place to live. That is an intrinsic part of the care programme approach.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the groups under Dr. Reed's chairmanship that are currently looking at high security and related provision and at services for people with psychopathic or personality disorders. These will report in the spring. I hope that the noble Earl will understand if I resist his invitation to comment at present on Dr. Reed's work. Like him, I have not been a fly on the wall.
However, as I indicated to your Lordships last November, the guiding principles of the review have obvious implications for the current centralised pattern of special hospital provision. Indeed, as the noble Earl said, the special hospitals service authority
756
is not wedded to the status quo. That was clear from the presentation made by the authority at last autumn's ministerial review. I am sure that the working group will be looking closely at all the various options and we await with interest their conclusions.
I should like to turn to the issue of homelessness, so sensitively raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I know that he will be encouraged by the £20 million programme for the 150 short-term hostel places that we are putting into place, as well as a lot of other provisions. My noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, were concerned about the fragmentation of services. It is a picture some of us will recognise. But the Reed Committee was a fine example of inter-departmental working. It was an outstanding example of co-operation between departments and I think will lead the way for further developments. The noble Earl mentioned the national advisory committee which will provide a continuing forum and will also link with other departments which have interests and responsibilities in this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, asked a specific question as to how many people in prison had formerly been in mental institutions. I regret to say that we do not have that information. The total figures quoted —750 to 1,400—are extrapolated from a very small sample survey. Not all will have previously been patients in hospital. So that is further work that we clearly need to do.
In conclusion, the profile of mentally disordered offenders is now much higher than it has been for many years. The interest shown by your Lordships in this debate and our debate in November on the Ashworth Hospital report is an illustration. We need to build on that interest and enthusiasm to ensure that this vulnerable group of people receives the right kind of help when they need it. I believe that the Reed review has provided a strong lead which we must do our best to follow.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Charities Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
  ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 1st-2nd FEBRUARY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 1st-2nd FEBRUARY
  SLOVENIA, CROATIA AND BOSNIA
  SLOVENIA, CROATIA AND BOSNIA
  PRIME MINISTER—PRESIDENT CLINTON: ALLEGED CONVERSATION
  PRIME MINISTER—PRESIDENT CLINTON: ALLEGED CONVERSATION
  ARMENIA: ENERGY SUPPLIES
  ARMENIA: ENERGY SUPPLIES
  NUCLEAR MISSILES: INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
  NUCLEAR MISSILES: INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: MONARCH'S CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: MONARCH'S CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION
  PAKISTAN: BIHARIS
  PAKISTAN: BIHARIS
  DORKING ST. MARTIN'S AND OTTERSHAW SCHOOLS: SALE PROCEEDS
  DORKING ST. MARTIN'S AND OTTERSHAW SCHOOLS: SALE PROCEEDS
  SELF-FINANCING REGULATORY AGENCIES
  SELF-FINANCING REGULATORY AGENCIES
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS
  ASYLUM SEEKERS: COMPENSATION
  ASYLUM SEEKERS: COMPENSATION
  BATTERSEA BRIDGE
  BATTERSEA BRIDGE
  "PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY": SHIPPING NOTICE
  "PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY": SHIPPING NOTICE