Sitting of 23 February 1993

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

    "The Health of the Nation"
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress in implementing the proposals contained in the White Paper "The Health of the Nation".
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to implement the proposal in "The Health of the Nation" to consider policies other than those of her Department in respect of their health implications.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We are implementing "The Health of the Nation" in full, and a summary of current action and initiatives is in the Library. The ministerial Cabinet Committee set up to oversee implementation of the health strategy ensures that it is taken forward on a cross-departmental basis. The guidance on how health issues can be taken into account during policy development will be ready later this year.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health of the nation, and of constituencies such as mine in North Colchester, will benefit from the reforms of London's health service that she announced last week because we shall be able to look forward to a fairer share of the region's resources, of which we have been deprived in recent years? May I draw her attention to the press release issued by North East Thames regional health authority, which made no mention of those benefits to my constituents?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend and fully agree with his remarks. The firm action that we set out last week for radical change in London will mean a fairer distribution of resources in London, directing them to primary care, and also a more equitable distribution of resources throughout the country. Generally, it is a policy which will improve the allocation of resources throughout the health service. As my hon. Friend comes from a constituency which has long subsidised excessive provision in London, he is one of many Members who stand to benefit.
    Mr. Gerrard: The White Paper acknowledges that there are close links between poor housing and unemployment and poor health. Government policies should take that
    748
    into account. Can the Minister tell us precisely what her Department is doing to persuade the Department of the Environment that it ought to spend more to improve housing and not less, and to persuade the Department of Employment that creating real jobs is not merely good economic sense but is good for people's health?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The great significance of the health strategy is that a Cabinet Committee oversees progress in meeting the targets. My Department is ensuring full implementation of the general practitioner contract—the Labour party voted against it—which is providing deprivation payments for inner city areas and has resulted in great progress with immunisation and cancer screening targets. There have been improvements in health throughout the country for all social groups, and that is the health strategy which we shall continue to carry forward.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that "The Health of the Nation" is a world model for a complete health policy? In congratulating her, may I ask her to consider the mechanism of health funding so that we can perhaps have a system in which funding allocated for the health service is more closely matched to the targets that we have set for ourselves?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can confirm my hon. Friend's remarks; the health strategy was commended by Dr. Asvall, the European director of the World Health Organisation, as a model which he would like others to follow. I was talking today about the importance of purchasing and the role of district health authorities. We are proceeding with those changes precisely so that health authorities can achieve the targets set out in "The Health of the Nation". We are confident about the activities of national health service trusts. The task now is to ensure that purchasers commission health care on behalf of local residents which meets the targets set out in the health strategy.
    Ms. Eagle: Does the Secretary of State admit that there are connections between poverty rates, the rate of unemployment and ill health? What is her Department doing? What representations is it making to other Departments to cut unemployment and poverty, to increase the nation's health in a meaningful way?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As I have made clear, the health strategy is overseen by a Cabinet Committee in which the contribution of different Departments is identified so that, together, we can meet the targets set out in "The Health of the Nation". The White Paper makes it clear that there are associations between, for example, matters of the environment. That is why the inner-city policies are so important and that is why taking forward improvements in housing is so important.
    Over and above all that, the Labour party has failed to explain why it opposed the new general practitioner contract which has resulted in improvements for all social groups in all parts of the country. Above all, it has resulted in the introduction of deprivation payments for GPs in inner-city areas.

    Health Care (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to promote improved health care in rural areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Health authorities have a responsibility for securing services to meet the needs of local people regardless of whether they live in rural or urban areas. We have encouraged health authorities to develop local purchasing to ensure greater sensitivity to the needs of individual communities.
    Mr. Ancram: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that community health care, such as the provision of local hospitals, is especially important in widespread rural areas such as my constituency? Will he encourage the purchasing authorities to recognise that fact in their purchasing policies, perhaps by himself recognising the additional cost of providing health care in rural areas such as mine?
    Mr. Sackville: The Government are well aware of the need to preserve the fabric of the countryside, which involves not only transport and jobs, but local health services and taking those services as close to people as possible. My hon. Friend will know that over the past few years £4.5 million has been spent on improving and updating the community hospitals in Malmesbury, Corsham, Warminster and Westbury. Furthermore, £8 million is to be spent over the next few years on redeveloping the St. Andrew's site at Chippenham.
    Mr. Denham: Does the Minister accept that there would be a great deal more money for the improvement of health services in rural areas and in many other areas if national health service funds were not wasted? Why has the Department done so little to sort out the scandal in Wessex regional health authority? Tory Ministers have appointed Tory friends to be chairmen of health authorities, and they have been lobbied by Tory Members to give contracts to companies run by friends of the Tory party. Some £40 million is being wasted. Why has the Minister done nothing about that scandal and why have his predecessors done nothing?
    Mr. Sackville: I can assure the House that very tight controls are now in place to monitor the procurement of information technology and other equipment. The hon. Gentleman talks about waste. I remind him that, despite limitations on finance, we have put a great deal of money into the health service in recent years. The activity figures continue to go up, more patients are treated and there are more nurses and doctors. Waste is something which we do not recognise.

    GP Fund Holders
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress in the number of GP fund holders.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the savings achieved by general practitioners who are fund holders.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Increasing numbers wish to join the scheme. More than 3,000 GPs in 585 practices are
    750
    now fund holders. A further 600 practices join the third wave this April, when one in four of the population should be covered by fund holding. Overall, fund holders made efficiency savings of between 3 and 4 per cent. on their budgets in 1991–92, which will be ploughed back into patient care.
    Sir Roger Moate: Has my right hon. Friend seen the survey reported in Doctor magazine which shows that 70 per cent. of GP fund holders have already managed to cut waiting times for their patients? Is it not extraordinary that the Labour party should seek to abolish fund holding altogether, when more and more GPs are seeking to become fund holders, when there is ample evidence of growing patient satisfaction with GP fund holding and when we need to extend fund holding even more widely?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right: it is positively bizarre that the Labour party should choose to shun a scheme which is leading to such clear advantages for patients, showing the way in which innovative and pioneering patient care can be organised. I noticed the survey in the Doctor magazine. The same survey shows that more than 60 per cent. of fund holders reported improved follow-up arrangements for appointments, more than 50 per cent. were providing extra services in their surgeries and almost 40 per cent. had introduced consultant visits. All those are real improvements for patients of fund holders which the Labour party—as ever, with its politics of spite and envy—wants to abolish.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the Secretary of State aware that 30 GP fund holders have made a profit of about £100,000 by establishing limited companies? Is she also aware that 11.2 per cent. of GP fund holders made a profit of £12.8 million in 1991–92? What evidence can she produce to the House that the money is being returned to the district health authorities for patient care?
    Mrs. Bottomley: What I have seen is the most deplorable document produced by the Labour party with the most inaccurate data one could believe possible. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) suggested that he wanted the spirit of intellectual renewal in the Labour party. The document on which the information is based has double and treble-counted a great number of the elements. The local element of management allowance is counted three times. Everything else that is covered by the management allowance is counted twice and the Audit Commission component is counted twice. It is the most deplorable document. What I can make clear to the House is that the savings from the GP fund-holding scheme have been ploughed back into better patient care.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend recall the quite outstandingly excellent practice in the southern end of my constituency which has done absolutely everything the Minister could possibly want? That practice has every person in the area—there is absolutely no one else that the practice can get—but it has only 6,500 patients. Will my right hon. Friend stretch the limit and allow the GPs in that practice to become fund holders, which they feel is the only way forward for them in already excellent conditions?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend, as ever, speaks for a great number of general practitioners and their practices in the United Kingdom. The success of the fund-holding

    751
    scheme is being admired and emulated by many others. We have been able to find new ways of developing the scheme. Recently, I announced that the scheme would be extended to diagnostic and further surgical techniques. This year, we shall introduce the use of community nurses and it may well be that at a later date we shall be able to reduce the numbers required to join the scheme. I know that that will receive a warm welcome from many hon. Members in the House.
    Mr. McCartney: We have just heard a rant from the Del Girl of health economics. The Labour party report on GP fund holders was based on information provided by family health services authorities—information which the Government want to keep secret. The truth is that nearly £100 million in the first wave has been spent trying to bring GPs into line in terms of the fund-holding policy. That money was top-sliced from patient care. Thirty companies have been set up and have raided patient care funds to the tune of over £100,000. At the same time, for example, in Manchester 32 seriously ill children have been turned away from Booth Hall children's hospital since October because it has run out of money. When will the Secretary of State stop top-slicing hospital authorities to give resources to GP fund holders and implement the Labour party policy of joint commissioning, which is much more successful in both funding and care for patients?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The overall cost of the fund-holding scheme is about £40,000 per year, which is about 2 per cent. of the budget set. There can be no doubt at all that that has resulted in much better patient care and a great spirit of innovation across general practice overall.
    The report to which the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred is positively bizarre. It mentions people such as Dr. Paul Lambden. I quote from him elsewhere:
    "I remain as convinced as ever that GPs should have financial as well as clinical responsibility for their patients … fundholders arc pragmatic and dynamic. As time goes by Trusts will come to understand the value of fundholding … The scheme is undeniably excellent."
    There is no doubt at all that fund holders have developed excellent services.
    The hon. Member for Makerfield referred to the difficulties that some hospitals have had in managing their budgets through the year. Those hospitals need to learn from the way in which fund holders have diligently and shrewdly managed their budgets. Instead of begrudging fund holders, hospitals should admire them. We believe in levelling up, not—like the Labour party—in levelling down.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is either incompetent or downright fraudulent for the Opposition suddenly to claim that GP fund holders are getting an extra £44,000 a year—which, of course, is being spent on patient care—when only a few months ago they were saying that there would not be enough money to treat patients?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend, as ever, is right. He and I will recall that in Committee the Opposition were always saying that fund holders would be too mean to provide care for their patients. Now they spend all their time saying that the care that fund holders provide for their patients is too good. The Opposition always want to
    752
    have it both ways. The fact is that the fund-holding scheme—a voluntary scheme—has been a great success. We want all GPs to have the same benefits as the fund holders.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to exempt youth training scheme trainees from prescription charges.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Help with national health charges, including those for prescriptions, is already available under the NHS low income scheme and is directed towards people, including youth training scheme trainees, who may have the greatest difficulty in paying. The scheme ensures that no one need be deterred from obtaining necessary medication on financial grounds.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Minister agree that it is outrageous that my constituent, Catherine Ormerod, who suffers from a life-threatening illness, should have to choose which medicines she takes? Does he further agree that, but for the good will of pensioners, shop stewards and friends, she would still not be able to afford the season ticket? Is it not about time we saw the same good will from the Department of Health as we see from the people of Ellesmere Port and Neston who have helped my constituent?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman had a full explanation of these matters in a letter from me dated 15 December—
    Mr. Miller: Four lines.
    Dr. Mawhinney: It was not four lines, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
    He also had a letter from the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville). In both those letters it was explained to him —but I shall explain it again—that YTS trainees have an income, which may well be supplemented by employers, in which case, like everyone else of relatively low income, they are considered under the NHS low income scheme. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, although he clearly does not want to accept it, that in this case age is not a relevant factor.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm that even those patients who have no exemption at all from the prescription charge, which I understand is in excess of £4, are paying considerably less than the true cost of the prescription, which I understand is about £9?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the prescription charge is much less than the average cost of the prescription to the NHS.
    Mr. Chisholm: Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny the recent report that pregnant women and women with children under one year old will no longer receive free prescriptions? Is it not enough for the Government to have raised prescription charges by 2,000 per cent. without imposing that burden on 1 million extra women?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman and his question would be taken slightly more seriously by the House if his question had some vague rigour. He knows perfectly well that there was no recommendation or report in the terms

    753
    that he has described. He is referring to the Bloomfield report, which looked at the system of remuneration for dentists. That report is out for consultation and we shall bring forward proposals in due course.

    Community Care
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that the clients of community care services have a wide degree of choice over services which they are to receive.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): New assessment arrangements will ensure that individual users and carers are fully involved in deciding how their needs can best be met. Public funding will be available for a wider range of services from an increasing range of suppliers. Those requiring residential or nursing home care at public expense will have the right to choose their own home, subject to certain practical limitations on cost and suitability.
    Mr. Arnold: Are not competition and choice the best way to achieve standards and services both in the national health service and in community care? Is it a coincidence that Conservative authorities such as Kent county council are already well under way with that, to the benefit of the clients that they will be serving?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are promoting competition and choice both through the requirement that local authorities spend 85 per cent. of the money transferred from the Department of Social Security purchasing services in the independent sector and through the binding direction requiring local authorities to honour individual preferences in the choice of residential home. The real way to promote competition, choice and higher standards will be to vote Conservative in the county council elections on 6 May so that there will be more excellent county councils such as Tory-controlled Kent county council.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the Minister accept that severely disabled people should have choice and freedom to make their own arrangements for personal care? For that to happen, local authorities must be empowered and adequately resourced to make direct payments which relate to individual need.
    Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point which has been canvassed before in the House. The cornerstone of our community care changes in April is placing the wishes and needs of individual users of services at the heart of the decision-making progress when the assessment is made. That will ensure that far greater attention than can be paid under the present system will be devoted to the personal needs of each individual who approaches his or her social services department. Further, it is our intention that individual needs should include much better consideration of alternatives to residential care. In future, it is far more likely that people approaching social services departments will be given a package of domiciliary, day or respite care services to keep them in their own homes for longer than was previously possible.
    Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the provision of sheltered housing, special needs housing such
    754
    as that for the disabled, and what is often referred to as part 2½ accommodation, housing associations have an important role to play in community care policies? Will my hon. Friend ensure that housing associations are fully involved in the preparation and implementation of community care plans?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We certainly want to see all local authority social services departments in close consultation with housing associations and with many other bodies. One of the biggest difficulties that we have encountered in making the necessary preparations for the changes is that too many Labour-controlled authorities refuse to engage even in a proper dialogue with independent sector providers of all kinds of care and services. That is why we had to issue a further direction, requiring consultation to take place and authorities to state in their community care plans in future how they will consult independent sector bodies.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: How does the concept of choice square with denying the right to advocacy by not fully implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986? How does it square with denying the right to choose good quality public services, and with telling local authorities not to record unmet need during the assessment process? The Minister talks about giving people the right to choose which home they will enter—what about giving them the right to choose not to enter a home in the first place? Is that not the real issue which the Government ought to be addressing?
    Mr. Yeo: It is indeed the real issue, and the Government are addressing it. For that reason, every local authority will be required in future to make an assessment of the individual's needs before he or she enters residential care. The exact weakness of the present system is that it is possible to obtain an automatic social security payment to finance a person's entry into residential care. In future, there will be much more detailed consideration of individual needs, so that there will be a good chance that a person who might otherwise have entered a residential nursing home will receive a package of individually tailored domiciliary, day and respite care services. I only hope that Labour-controlled authorities will address that issue rather more successfully than Sheffield city council, which is currently diverting resources from social services into payment for the provision of offices for Labour Members of Parliament.

    Limited List Prescribing
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has of the impact of her proposal to introduce a further limited list of pharmaceuticals available for prescription under the national health service on investment in research and development by the pharmaceutical industry.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The British pharmaceutical industry is a major international success story, accounting for nearly 10 per cent. of global pharmaceutical research and development, and contributing a positive trade balance of over £1 billion. I welcome the fact that the industry recognises the need to reduce the NHS drugs bill,

    755
    which is expected to rise by over 14 per cent. this year. I also welcome its co-operation in the work that we are taking forward.
    Decisions on research and development investment depend on many factors. It is not possible to identify specifically the impact of the proposed extension of the selected list.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our pharmaceutical industry can be rightly proud of its record in research and development? Has the Department carried out a survey of comparative costs, and the cost saving in the NHS that has resulted from its treating patients with drugs rather than taking up hospital beds? Is my right hon. Friend prepared to meet representatives of Cyanamid, which is the largest civilian employer in my constituency? Its current development plans are being held up because it is concerned about future profitability.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly commend the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry. It is, as I have said, an important industry: two of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies are United Kingdom-based.
    My hon. Friend has made an important point. We want to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to assess the cost effectiveness of new products and the contribution that they make to improving health care generally. We are making good progress on health technology assessment and we hope soon to commission a code of practice for economic assessment in clinical trials.
    Ms. Primarolo: Is the Secretary of State aware that the contraceptive pill is included in the 10 categories being considered for inclusion in the extended limited list? Is she aware that 3 million women take the oral contraceptive pill, which is 95 per cent. effective? The reduction in availability of the pill will force women to change to other forms of contraception and will lead to an increase in the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Will the right hon. Lady make a statement to the House, agreeing to withdraw contraceptive pills from the 10 categories?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Contraceptive pills are free for all women, regardless of means. We are seeking to ensure that all therapeutic categories are safeguarded, but the health service should not fund products that are too costly and have no unique therapeutic value.
    The hon. Lady's question is typical of the Labour party's attitude. Labour always shuns or ducks difficult issues. In 1985, when we last introduced a selective list, Labour adopted the same scaremongering approach. It has cried wolf too often. We shall ensure that therapeutic categories are covered, but, in a year when pay increases are being held at 1.5 per cent., we are determined to consider all the options in seeking cost-effective health care.
    Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the drug wastage that results from the present system of repeat prescription, whereby a three-month supply of drugs is dispensed in one go? Will she consider the triple-prescription scheme proposed by the pharmacists, under which drugs would be dispensed only on a month-by-month basis?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am determined to examine any way in which we can eliminate waste. We spend £100 million a day on the NHS and eliminating waste is the secret of
    756
    providing ever higher standards of cost-effective care. I appreciate the pharmacists' suggestion: they are an enormously important member of the health-care team and I greatly respect their particular knowledge and skill. I shall explore the suggestion later.

    Ambulance Service
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she routinely obtains about the ambulance service.
    Mr. Sackville: Health authorities and national health service trusts provide annual returns on ambulance staff numbers, the number and nature of patient journeys and emergency response times, as well as a range of financial information.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is it not a disgrace that we had to learn from a leaked document that ambulance stations—for instance, the Sharston ambulance station, which is the closest to Manchester airport—have been closed because of shortage of staff? I understand that the Minister had a recent meeting with the ambulance service in Greater Manchester. Did he receive from the people there a guarantee that all ambulance stations near the airport will be kept open to ensure that, in the event of a disaster, front-line services will be available?
    Mr. Sackville: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that adequate arrangements will be made for Manchester airport. He should know that the real test of Greater Manchester's ambulance service is that it achieved a response rate of 97 per cent. of calls met within 14 minutes, making it one of the best ambulance services in the country.
    Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the London ambulance service is getting £70 million in the current year and that one could conclude that the public are not getting a very good return for that investment? When will my hon. Friend do something positive to improve the disgraceful London ambulance service?
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend will know that the publication of a report of the London ambulance service is imminent. We believe that lessons will have been learnt from the events of late last year. We are confident that performance can be improved. As my hon. Friend has indicated, a large amount of money is spent on the LAS and there is no reason why it should not match performance in the rest of the country.
    Ms. Lynne: Will the Minister now recognise that the ambulance service should be treated in the same way as the fire and police services by being given emergency-service status?
    Mr. Sackville: The hon. Lady will be aware that there has been a transformation in the performance of ambulance services in this country. We are very lucky to have probably the most dedicated and professional ambulance personnel anywhere in the world and it is improving all the time. Soon a paramedic will be on every front-line ambulance. That is something of which we should all be proud.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Following the remarks that my hon. Friend has just made, may I ask whether the service is still

    757
    on target in its intention to have one paramedic on every ambulance by 1995? We have talked about the importance of health services to rural areas. I represent a rural constituency. It is extremely important that the people there can be assured that all ambulances will have a paramedic on board by 1995 — earlier, if possible.
    Mr. Sackville: I can provide the confirmation that my hon. Friend seeks. Recently I announced that the target date for a paramedic being on every front-line ambulance was being brought forward by one year—from 1996 to 1995—and that adequate funds would be made available for that purpose. Paramedic training has been one of the great success stories of the modern NHS.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total remuneration to chairpersons and members of NHS trusts estimated for 1992–93 in England and Wales.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The estimated figure for 1992–93 in England is about £8 million. Questions relating to Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
    Mr. Foulkes: The estimate is £8 million. How many doctors would that employ? How many nurses? How many physiotherapists? How many chiropodists? Is not it the case that this money is being taken away from patient care and stuffed into the pockets of Conservative cronies? Is not that tantamount to corruption?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels better for getting that off his chest. If we may take his questions literally, it is clear that he would leave the NHS without any oversight, without any public accountability and without any advice about the issues which, throughout Question Time, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends tell us are important.
    Mr. Rowe: I am married to a trust member who has been employed by the national health service, in a fully professional capacity, for many years and my experience is that the amount of work expected from members of trusts exceeds by far what was indicated in the prospectus that was dangled in front of them. The work is done conscientiously and late into the night. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to all those NHS trust members who give far more to the national health service than the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) could possibly imagine?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to pay such tribute, particularly to my hon. Friend's Gentleman's wife who, as he has rightly and objectively said, makes a significant contribution. As to all trust members, they represent the public. They represent the need to put our reforms on a firm footing and they are largely responsible, with doctors, nurses and the rest, for seeing the increase in the number of patients treated, which is the hallmark of the national health service reforms.
    Mr. Blunkett: In the light of the Secretary of State's speech earlier today on the continued future for regions and the role of the management executive and outposts, does the Minister agree that this is an admission that the market has failed and that trusts cannot be left to
    758
    self-governing status? Will he tell the House why we should be expected to pay £8 million a year to place people who are not accountable in any way to their local communities and who are not democratically elected and where central control is now to be exercised? Why the continued dithering and confusion with further reviews? Why are the outposts and regions to continue? Why more money announced today—on top of the £8 million to keep the trust in place, a £4 million announcement to make the system work better? Who is actually running the Department—the Home Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or the right hon. Lady?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman has just confirmed what we all suspected: he neither understands nor appreciates what the national health service reforms are about. The reforms are now widely seen to be successful, and successful against the target that the hon. Gentleman refuses to recognise: that they are good for patients, although not necessarily good for the National Union of Public Employees. More patients are being treated. What my right hon. Friend said this morning, which is absolutely central to the development of the reforms and even better patient care, is that we shall now focus as much attention on developing the purchasing side of the national health service as we have to developing the trust side. As that purchaser-provider split develops, so even more patients will be helped, treated and cared for, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt continue to be unhappy about that fact.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that the very essence of the health service debate is the number of patients that we treat each year? Will he tell us the growth in number of patients treated in trust hospitals in 1991–92 and compare that with the growth in number of patients treated in other hospitals? We need to know these facts.
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend understands these matters much better than Opposition Members. Last year we saw about a 7 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated within the national health service, and in trust hospitals the increase was over 8 per cent. In other words, trust hospitals delivered better patient care, more patient care and a higher quality of patient care than directly managed units. That is why, as my hon. Friend will understand, more hospitals will become trusts in April and even more will become trusts in April 1994, by which time 95 per cent. of all hospital and community units will be trusts. That is the good news that patients want to hear.

    Young People (Secure Accommodation)
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline her Department's strategy for providing secure accommodation for young people who currently have to be held in prison accommodation.
    Mr. Yeo: A number of local authorities have already registered an intention to provide some of the 60 to 65 additional secure places that we have assessed as being required nationally. We are continuing to discuss with other authorities how the balance might best be provided.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister realise that the problem exists now and has existed for many years? It was two years ago that the Government accepted, under pressure from Labour Members and others, the need for

    759
    secure places to end the scandal of young people being kept in prison accommodation because there was nowhere else for them to be kept, and there remains nowhere else for them to be kept. Two years later his Department has not provided one additional place anywhere in England and Wales. Is it not time that the Government slopped talking about doing something about this problem and started to provide the places?
    Mr. Yeo: As the hon. Gentleman supports South Glamorgan county council, which is resisting a proposal to build a secure unit in Wales—it is almost the only Welsh local authority that is doing so—I am amazed that he asked that question. I assure him that no Conservative Member will take any lessons in how to tackle crime from a party that opposed the Public Order Act 1986, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Criminal Justice Act 1987, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Prison Security Act 1992 and the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992, which banned joyriding. No amount of philosophising by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) can conceal the fact that Labour always has been soft on crime and always will be. It is always ready to shed crocodile tears for the camera on behalf of victims, but its real and deep sympathy is always for the criminal.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others later today.
    Dr. Howells: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is one thing to blame the chairman of the Conservative party for having sent advisers to try to help undermine the Democrats' presidential campaign, but that it is quite another for him to try to dodge the blame for illegal searches of Home Office files? Does he accept the blame for those illegal searches, and if he does not will he institute an investigation to find out who conducted them so that he can sack them?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically wrong on both points. Let me set out the facts for him. No one was sent by the Conservative party to take part in last year's presidential election campaign. Two members of staff were invited privately by people in the Republican party. Their fares were paid by people in the Republican party; they travelled in their own time; and they paid their own personal expenses. Their expenses were not paid by the Conservative party. In contrast, the Labour party sent people, including its deputy leader, to the Democrat headquarters. It is not the least of the tributes to President Clinton that he won the election despite Europe's most frequent losers giving him advice.
    The Home Office's press office received inquiries in early October about whether Mr. Clinton had applied for British citizenship. Inquirers were told that, in accordance with normal practice, details about individual applications
    760
    could not be disclosed to third parties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept that that is the fact of the matter.
    Sir Terence Higgins: As, unlike the previous Labour Government, this Government are not obliged to do what the IMF tells them, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity in Washington to explain to the IMF that the economic recovery is still fragile, that the size of the public sector borrowing requirement is still due to a large extent to the recession and that an increase in taxation at this stage in the economic cycle would stultify growth and be likely to increase rather than diminish the size of the fiscal deficit?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend, as a former distinguished Treasury Minister, will expect me at this stage of the economic cycle to take note of his comments rather than to respond in detail to them.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister appreciate the full significance of the latest figures showing 1 million long-term unemployed? Is it not appalling that 20 per cent. of the long-term unemployed in this country are aged between 18 and 24, many of whom have never had a chance to work?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the number of long-term unemployed is too high—higher than anyone would wish to see. That is why we are seeking to reduce it. That is why we have put in place the most varied comprehensive programme ever to help people who have been unemployed for six months or more. Next year there will be more than 1,200,000 places on a number of schemes to help the long-term unemployed, including training for work, job clubs, business start-ups and restart courses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering how we might further help the long-term unemployed. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to match his words with action and support any proposals that we may have.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it remotely satisfactory that a problem has to reach crisis proportions before it gets on the Government's agenda? Is it not the case that, whatever the Government say or have been doing, unemployment goes up every month? Indeed, it has gone up every single month since the Prime Minister took office. I will give him one simple and practical suggestion. Why does he not let local authorities spend their own money which they have got from asset sales to build homes and put people back to work? He could do it tomorrow. Why does he not do it?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls the autumn statement, he will know that my right hon. Friend increased the amount of local authority assets that could be used and that local authorities underspend the amount that they are permitted to use. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so sure that it is this Government's policies that cause unemployment, how can he explain the fact that unemployment is rising right across Europe and the world and that Governments of all complexions, including socialist Governments in France and Spain, face similar problems? If there is an easy answer, why is it that those socialist Governments and others have failed to find it?
    Mr. John Smith: Why is it that the Prime Minister fails to understand the deep concerns in this country? Is he aware that, in the context of high and rising unemployment and high and rising crime, it was reported yesterday in The Daily Telegraph that only 10 per cent. of the people of this country felt that we were a nation at ease with ourselves? Since the Prime Minister is so good at blaming everyone else, who does he blame for that sad state of affairs?
    The Prime Minister: I say categorically to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not fail to understand the problem of unemployment; I understand it very well. That is precisely why, over the last two years, we have put in place extra schemes—training for work, job clubs, job interview guarantees, business start-ups, workshops and restart courses—all to help people who are unemployed to get back into work. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits abroad that it is a worldwide problem, he does not have the courage to admit that here. He comes here with only sound bite politics rather than any constructive help.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the way to improve the unemployment situation is to improve manufacturing industry, not, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, by allowing local authorities to spend their capital? Does my right hon. Friend accept, further, that in real manufacturing industry—the engineering industry—there are real signs of improvement and activity and that there is increased employment? Will my right hon. Friend see that that improvement continues by ensuring that we do not have increased taxation, that interest rates are kept low and that there is more capital investment and not so much tax on it?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend sets out a number of important points. Quite apart from the present inflation position and level of interest rates, there are a number of other signs that bode well for our competitiveness and for job creation in the future. United Kingdom unit costs are now growing more slowly than those in Japan and Germany. Earnings are growing more slowly than for 25 years, making us more competitive. Export volumes were at record levels at the end of last year. Our share of world trade has stabilised after decades of decline. Productivity is at all-time high levels. Those are the essential ingredients for growing prosperity and secure jobs in the future, and those are what we are seeking to provide.
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fraser: Is not the Prime Minister appalled by the fact that when the Conservatives took office in 1979, unemployment was just over 1 million and that now the number of people unemployed for more than 12 months is over 1 million? May I suggest that, as he crosses the Atlantic this afternoon, he dips into "Bonfire of the Vanities" and contemplates the extent to which economic trends in this country are beginning to replicate the horrors of cities in the United States, and perhaps he could resolve to give up making excuses during Lent?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might do well to reflect on the levels of unemployment throughout the
    762
    Community, now at 17 million. He might show his concern better if he and his party did not oppose every job training scheme that we produce. While he invites me to look into "Bonfire of the Vanities", he might look into affairs in his borough, where there is the highest poll tax in Britain, the largest number of uncollected rents, the largest number of empty properties and where he and his party have brought despair year after year after year.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the actions of French fishermen today in destroying £10,000 worth of fish en route from Ayr to Germany? Does he recall similar incidents last year, when £30,000 of produce was lost in a similar manner? May we have an assurance that he will approach the French Government to make sure that the culprits are brought to justice and that compensation is paid to all in Britain who lose out in such circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes the point. Officials have already lodged protests with the French authorities about the incidents in Roscoff during the weekend. We shall continue to leave the French Government in no doubt that we expect them to act where necessary to safeguard free trade, to pay compensation when losses have occurred and to bring the perpetrators to book. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Enright: If a principal duty of a Government is the prevention of crime, have not the present Government failed spectacularly? Should not the Prime Minister immediately announce the establishment of a royal commission to make urgent proposals on the subject? Or will he just watch the downward spiral continue with the gaze of the dog that does not understand?
    The Prime Minister: As I arrived today, the Under-Secretary of State for Health was setting out a list of measures designed to deal with crime that the Opposition had opposed. To illustrate its depth of concern about the matter, the Labour party had 155 words on the subject of crime in its election manifesto. By contrast, since 1979 we have increased the maximum penalty for trafficking in hard drugs to life imprisonment; introduced a power to confiscate drug traffickers' and other criminals' assets, against the opposition of the Labour party; increased maximum penalties for carrying firearms to life imprisonment, for cruelty to children to 10 years and for insider dealing to seven years. I will take Opposition Members seriously on matters of crime when they support, for example, the prevention of terrorism Acts, and we shall give them an opportunity to do that within a few days.
    Mr. Luff: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plans by Jaguar Cars to invest £500 million in the production of a new car at Coventry and of the increases in production planned by Rover Cars, including the excellent Land-Rover Discovery car, which many hon. Members are proud to drive? Does he agree that that is excellent news for the west midlands and the whole British motor vehicle industry?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am—of course —aware of the large investments by Jaguar

    763
    and Rover. Not only is that excellent news for the motor industry and the west midlands, but it demonstrates the continuing commitment to the United Kingdom as a key manufacturing base by Jaguar's parent company, Ford. The British motor industry was a relic of an industry 15 years ago. It is now profitable, expanding and exporting as a result of our policies.
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: Why does the Prime Minister think that the long list of measures that he has just read out, and which his Government have successfully carried through the House to deal with crime and juvenile crime, has simply not worked? Could it be that crime has become too easy, that violence has become too much the theme of television and videos, that respect for other people has gone too much out of fashion and that too many young people see no stake for themselves in society but see more of a Future in crime and the black economy? Does the Prime Minister not have to reach out beyond any one party in order to tackle such issues?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say a moment ago, and I addressed
    764
    a good deal of that in a speech a fortnight or so ago. There is a responsibility that spreads far beyond any Government. It most explicitly includes a responsibility within the family circle. It most expressly includes the churches and it most expressly includes the schools to ensure that there is no truancy. Those children who truant are far more likely to be involved in juvenile crime. It is for those reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing measures to deal with juvenile crime very shortly.

    Belfast, West (Election)
    Madam Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House.
    I have to inform the House that, as required by section 144 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, I have received the certificate and report of the election court in the case of the petition alleging corrupt and illegal practices in the Belfast, West constituency election of 9 April last.
    The judges have determined that the petition be dismissed, and that the hon. Member for that constituency was duly returned at the said election. I shall lay both documents on the Table, together with the shorthand writer's note, and will cause the full text of the two documents to be entered in the Journal.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that it is entirely a matter for the House to decide on the progress or otherwise of any Bill and that as, so far at least, we remain an independent country, it is certainly not for those abroad, whoever they may be and whatever high authority they may have—be they Chancellor Kohl or anyone else —to tell us how to go about our business? Will you confirm that, because it would be most unfortunate if there were any feelings in the House that pressure is being applied from outside the country by Heads of Government to influence how and when we should decide on the Maastricht Bill?
Madam Speaker: I do not think that any of us in the House, including all 651 Members, give any thought to what anyone else says outside about the way we proceeed. It is for the House itself—all 651 of us—to decide what we are going to do.
Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although I very much welcome the Prime Minister's remarks on the disgraceful blockading of fish by the French, is it possible for a statement to be made in the House today on the precise action that the Government will take, in view of the mounting anger of fishermen and fish merchants, especially in Cornwall, who find that they cannot get their fish to France?
Madam Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking a continuation of Prime Minister's Question Time, but I have no doubt that those on the Government Front Bench have heard what he has to say.
Mr. David Jamieson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Minister of Agriculture asked to come to the House to make a statement about the disgraceful actions yesterday of French fishermen in Roskoff, who have caused the suspension of the ferry service from Plymouth which takes our exports abroad?
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that, on 3 December last, I had to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) had been using pre-paid stationery in connection with a fund-raising exercise for the Tribune group. As a result of my having brought that to the House's attention, I understand that he was admonished by the Serjeant at Arms and subsequently refunded the money. Needless to say, I gave the hon. Gentleman notice of what I intended to say on that occasion, and have done so again.
Unhappily, I have now discovered that this practice has not finished. I have before me an unsolicited letter which was sent to a member of the public, inviting him to go to a fund-raising dinner. It apparently builds on the success of the first dinner, when 200 guests raised more than £500—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am not interested in all
766
the frills on this, but if he puts a point of order directly to me, I shall hear it [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Gentlemen will not be wasting time like this when they see how many wish to speak in today's major debate.
Mr. Nicholls: The point of order that I have for you, Madam Speaker, is straightforward and simple. Although the matter came before the House previously, the complaint was not dealt with, and the hon. Gentleman is still using pre-paid stationery for private purposes. Given that clear abuse, what steps can you take to ensure that the taxpayer does not have to pay for fund-raising activities on behalf of a political party?
Mr. Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have had absolutely no notice of this complaint. I reject the hon. Gentleman's assertion, which is a disgraceful attempt to divert attention from the real business of the House, and I deprecate his intervention.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me deal with the point of order. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has alleged that a second offence has occurred and I take that seriously. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) says that he had not been notified. I take the point of the hon. Member for Teignbridge, that the hon. Member for Neath had been notified, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not yet received that notification. In any event—
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
I shall of course report this alleged second offence, which I take seriously, to the Serjeant at Arms and the appropriate Committee.
Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that it would not be the intention of any Minister to mislead the House, but in the response that I was given to an earlier question about the provision of secure units, information was given to the House which is simply not true. The Minister sought to suggest that a Labour-controlled council, South Glamorgan, was preventing the provision of secure places for young people. I wish to tell the House—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am not here for the hon. Gentleman to give information to the House. I am here to deal with a point of order, namely a breach of either our standing orders or our procedures. Will he raise a point of order that I can deal with?
Mr. Michael: I understand your point, Madam Speaker, and I hope that I am correct in putting it this way. Two years ago, South Glamorgan asked for the money to provide secure places—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. gentleman is not understanding me correctly. I have to deal with a strict point of order that concerns the proceedings of the House. I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman is trying to bring to my attention, but he must do it more precisely and more briskly so that I, as Speaker of the House, can deal with it. I am not in a position to deal with a political argument.
Mr. Michael: I hope that I will get it correct now, Madam Speaker. How can I put right the misinformation that was given to the House when the Minister suggested

767
incorrectly that South Glamorgan, which asked for finances to provide secure places locally, but has been blocked for two years by the Welsh Office—
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I do not give guidance across the Floor of the House, but if I can point him in the right direction, I have no doubt that the Table Office will be able to help him.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of what happened last night when the Government Whips, or perhaps it was the Government themselves, did not seem to know what to do, can I ask you, Madam Speaker whether there are any facilities under your jurisdiction for what I would call Government whipping classes so that they can understand how to do their job. If you cannot take the Chair in these proceedings, perhaps you could ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he is an expert on whipping.
Madam Speaker: Had I not such a busy schedule myself, I would be prepared to take on some seminars for hon. Members in all parts of the House.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: While noting with satisfaction the court decision in relation to the Belfast, West seat, and not missing the irony of those who appealed over the heads of the electorate of the Belfast, West to a court for a decision in their favour, may I ask you, Madam Speaker, to use the weight of your office to look at the entire electoral regulations, which are anachronistic in many ways, so that no other hon. Member will be put through the difficulties that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) had to endure?
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for the Speaker of the House. It is governed by an Act of Parliament. Some time may be found in the future to look at the entire matter.

BILLS PRESENTED
  HARE COURSING
  Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Peter Griffiths, Mr. Roy Hattersley, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Alan Meale, Sir Teddy Taylor and Mr. Andrew Welsh presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 12 March, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]
  OFFENSIVE WEAPONS (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. John McFall, supported by Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Henry McLeish, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. William McKelvie, Mr. Michael Martin, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Ray Michie and Mrs. Irene Adams, presented a Bill to create in Scotland an offence of having an article with a blade or point in a public place; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 26 March, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

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

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)
  That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT
  That the draft Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Council Tax Benefit (Permitted Total) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—/[Mr. Mackay.]
  Question agreed to.

Children (Prohibition of Sex Selection)
3.40 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of techniques designed to influence the sex of a foetus at conception; to amend the Abortion Act 1967; and for related purposes.
The House will be relieved to know that the Bill is not about Basildon and that I do not intend to mention my constituency in my speech. It has come to my attention that there is confusion about the intentions of the Bill which I seek to introduce. Let me say immediately that it is not a Bill to stop sex. Contrary to what some of my hon. Friends think, I am not that much of a spoilsport.
It is also not a Bill to interfere with the time limit in which an abortion can be obtained. It has come to my attention that the preamble to the Bill has caused controversy. I am seeking today to create all-party support. Accordingly, I give a firm undertaking that, if I am allowed to proceed with the Bill, I shall not seek to amend the Abortion Act 1967.
I welcome, and will take careful note of, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority public consultation on sex selection. The sole intention of the Bill is to stop the grubby little practice, which we witnessed on television the other day, of a doctor selling his services on the premise that he could enable people to select the sex they wanted for their child. I am a strong supporter of the enterprise culture, but the practices of that doctor are commercialism taken too far.
The Bill is entirely to do with the dignity of human life itself. It would prohibit the use of techniques designed to influence the sex of a foetus at conception. It would not in any way alter the present arrangements for dealing with sex-linked genetic diseases.
There is much that I would like to say on the whole issue, but suffice it to say, when life has never been so cheap, with child killing child and all the rest of it, that I hope that the House will agree that, however the arguments are deployed, it cannot be right to influence the sex of a child. Do we really think so little of ourselves? Is our self-esteem so low? Do we not care about anything any more? I hardly think that it is the view of the overwhelming majority of the general public that sex selection is right and proper.
Many of us are blessed with children. I thought that my circumstances were particularly suitable to one who wished to introduce such a Bill. First we had a boy, followed by a girl. When number three came along, people naturally asked what we would like, to which we answered that it did not matter as long as the child was healthy—it happened to be a little girl, and a right little madam she is. The pressure really started with numbers four and five. Everyone was interested and delighted, but the message was clear: "Won't you be disappointed if you don't have a boy this time?"
I was present throughout the labour and delivery of all my children's births. It is not much fun for someone to lie there thinking, "Everyone is expecting it to be a boy, what do I say if it is a girl?", which it was on the fourth occasion.
By the fifth occasion, pressure was mounting. What a lot of rubbish I had to listen to—all the old wives' tales about the way in which my wife was carrying the child, her shape and even a metal ring dangled by a string above her tummy. There she lay, just about to give birth, knowing
770
that everyone, whoever they were, expected her to have a boy. She did not. We had another girl, and what a delight she is.
Every time that we had a child, we were not bothered about its sex, but were concerned about its health. If we have another one, its sex will not matter: we just hope that it will be healthy. We have observed that it does not matter whether one has a boy or a girl—in our case, they are all rather badly behaved.
What is my real argument against sex selection? I have never believed in the equality of men and women—they are quite different, and if pressed I would say that women are superior to men. Nature has a mystical way of balancing the sexes. I do not know what it is called, so let us call it the mystery of life, and I think that it works quite well. I have no doubt that sex selection would probably discriminate against women, and it is especially offensive to women and to feminists.
I do not think that I am being too fanciful in imagining the day when sex no longer matters. One will be able to make a phone call and nine months later order a blonde-haired blue-eyed little girl. The practice of sex selection appears to have come from across the Atlantic, and I deplore it. The success rate of the technique is questioned by many leading medical authorities. Are we certain that the egg would not be rejected?
Finally, it is not acceptable to interfere with the natural balance between the sexes. Nature is best left alone; so let us take this opportunity to restore dignity to life itself. Let legislators and public representatives proclaim our humility at a time when so much that we hold dear has become grubby, and let us leave Mother Nature to take her own course when determining the balance between women and men on our planet.
3.47 pm
Ms. Glenda Jackson: I rise to oppose the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), on the grounds that I believe it to be both misguided and premature. I could also argue that it is flippant in the extreme, and that it makes a mockery of the subject under discussion and the debates and decisions reached by the House, not least the creation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which, unlike the hon. Gentleman, has issued a public document on sex selection, in which it has asked for the widest ranging responses to the issues raised, not least the consideration of
"the ethical, social, legal and practical issues surrounding sex selection".
The hon. Member for Basildon told the House that he has dropped the amendment that appears on the face of the Bill regarding changes in the Abortion Act 1967. I presume that he has done that because he has recently learnt that it is already illegal to obtain an abortion solely on the ground of foetal sex. A legal abortion is dependent on there being medical reasons, such as a mother tragically being a carrier of a disease that expresses itself only in the male line. Of the 200 such genetic diseases that medical science has discovered, the most obvious examples are haemophilia and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
The basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there should be no human intervention in deciding the sex of a child. Yet over generations and centuries, the human animal has placated the gods in some form in the hope that they would be able to produce male issue. The ancient

771
Greeks believed that a male child would be born if the left testicle was bound. Why that should be regarded as an old wives' tale is beyond my comprehension. Even today, couples are advised to go to bed with boots on or with boots off, to make love when a north wind is blowing, when the moon is full or when the sun is going down, or to use liberal applications of lemon juice. Those ideas are as flippant as the hon. Gentleman's arguments in favour of the Bill.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published its public consultation document in January this year. The Bill is premature, because the authority will not publish the results of that consultation until June. It seems absurd for the House, having set up an authority whose basis is the ethical issues surrounding human fertilisation, to dispense with the debate, argument, concern and compassion that went into setting up the authority before it has reported to the House and to the country at large.
It is given to few individuals to make a difference, to make a change and to leave the world a better place than they found it. Among that elite pantheon will undoubtedly be the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). There is also a place for the House in that, in passing the Abortion Act 1967, it released women from the dark cage of fear into which the possibility of an unwanted and an unplanned pregnancy had plunged them. The House should remember the care, compassion, consideration and quality of debate that brought the Act into being. The House should dismiss the Bill out of hand.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 106.

Division No. 160]

[3.52 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Elletson, Harold

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Alton, David

Evennett, David

Amess, David

Faber, David

Ancram, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Fry, Peter

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Gallie, Phil

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Gill, Christopher

Bendall, Vivian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Benton, Joe

Grylls, Sir Michael

Bowden, Andrew

Harris, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Hawksley, Warren

Brazier, Julian

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Jessel, Toby

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Kilfedder, Sir James

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Churchill, Mr

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

Clappison, James

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Colvin, Michael

Lidington, David

Congdon, David

Lord, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Dafis, Cynog

McAvoy, Thomas

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Macdonald, Calum

Day, Stephen

Maitland, Lady Olga

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dicks, Terry

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Duncan, Alan

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

772

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Sumberg, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thomason, Roy

Pawsey, James

Tracey, Richard

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Trimble, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Tyler, Paul

Powell, William (Corby)

Waller, Gary

Robathan, Andrew

Waterson, Nigel

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Whittingdale, John

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Mr. Cheryl Gillan and

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Dr. Robert Spink.

Speed, Sir Keith

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Allen, Graham

Hoey, Kate

Armstrong, Hilary

Home Robertson, John

Austin-Walker, John

Hood, Jimmy

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Barnes, Harry

Hoyle, Doug

Barron, Kevin

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Blunkett, David

Hutton, John

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Bradley, Keith

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

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

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Burden, Richard

Jowell, Tessa

Byers, Stephen

Keen, Alan

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Khabra, Piara S.

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kirkwood, Archy

Cohen, Harry

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Connarty, Michael

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Lewis, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Livingstone, Ken

Corston, Ms Jean

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cox, Tom

Loyden, Eddie

Cryer, Bob

McKelvey, William

Cummings, John

Madden, Max

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Milburn, Alan

Dalyell, Tam

Morley, Elliot

Darling, Alistair

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Davidson, Ian

Mowlam, Marjorie

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Mullin, Chris

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

O'Neill, Martin

Denham, John

Pickthall, Colin

Dobson, Frank

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Etherington, Bill

Primarolo, Dawn

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Fatchett, Derek

Rooney, Terry

Fisher, Mark

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Flynn, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Sedgemore, Brian

Fraser, John

Skinner, Dennis

Garrett, John

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

George, Bruce

Soley, Clive

Gerrard, Neil

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Straw, Jack

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Tipping, Paddy

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Walley, Joan

Gunnell, John

Winnick, David

Hain, Peter

Wise, Audrey

Hall, Mike

Hardy, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Herman, Ms Harriet

Ms. Angela Eagle and

Henderson, Doug

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.

Question accordingly negatived.

International Peacekeeping
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
[Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 27th October and 2nd and 10th December 1992 (HC Nos. 235-i, -iii and-iv); the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 27th January (HC No. 369-ii) and before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 28th January and 3rd and 17th February (HC Nos. 235-vi, -vii, and-viii), copies of which have been placed in the Library.]
Madam Speaker: Before I call the Foreign Secretary, I inform the House that, between the hours of 6 and 8 pm, speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
4.3 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am glad that the House is able to spend time today debating international peacekeeping. This is a fresh dimension to foreign policy. Of course, it is not exactly new, but it has aquired greater importance, and it presents us with a greater range of difficult choices than at any time since we gave up the task of imperial peacekeeping.
I am sure that there should be the widest possible debate in this country on the underlying question—to what extent should Britain, with our history, with our assets, with the limits on our resources, take part in the varied tasks of international peacekeeping?
The familiar tasks of foreign and defence policy remain. We still have to protect British interests and British territory, embracing under this protection dependent territories such as the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and Hong Kong. We must honour our commitments under the collective security agreements, and in particular to NATO. Those obligations have not been displaced by recent changes in the world scene. Our British Isles and our allies might still be threatened from overseas or from the land mass of what used to be the Soviet Union. It would be foolish to dismantle or run down to a dangerous degree the structure of collective security to successfully embodied in NATO.
The need to resist aggression, an attack of one country upon another, has taken Britain to war at least four times this century. We cannot assume that it will never happen again. But looking at the world as it is now fast changing, I am driven to the conclusion that most of the difficult choices facing us will in future arise not from acts of aggression, but from disasters within a nation state. That creates the difficulty.
Let us consider the countries in which the United Nations is peacekeeping today. Thirteen operations are up and running, and a 14th is in the pipeline. There are 259 peacekeepers in Jerusalem; 1,120 deployed between Israel and Syria; 5,643 in the Lebanon; and 353 in Kuwait, including 18 Britons. In the Western Sahara, there are 332 peacekeepers, including 15 Britons; in Angola, 221; and in Somalia a 28,000-strong unified task force led by the Americans, with 18,000 troops. A United Nations force in Mozambique has still not been put together, but its projected size if 6,625.
In Cambodia, there are 15,549 peacekeepers, including 122 Britons; in Latin America, 227 peacekeepers in El Salvador; and in Europe—in Cyprus—a force of 2,159,
774
including 612 Britons. There are two forces in ex-Yugoslavia, with nearly 21,500 people, including 2,804 Britons. Those are the United Nations' existing efforts.
Some relate to disputes between states, but the most recent relate to civil wars. The list does not include several areas of disastrous conflict inside states, where the United Nations is not yet involved in peacekeeping. Along the southern flank of what used to be the Soviet Union, in Georgia, in Azerbaijan, in Tadzhikistan, there is fighting of a greater savagery and intensity than anything happening in Bosnia.
The public are barely aware of those conflicts, because the cameras do not often visit them—but they exist. In one form or another, in all those conflicts and many others that I have not listed, the cry goes up for the international community to be involved.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Like the constituencies of many right hon. and hon. Members, a high proportion of employment in my own depends on the skill with which large companies manufacture armaments that we sell in large quantities abroad. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, alongside all our efforts to resolve international conflict, an equally tremendous effort must be made to change the nature of the way that we operate our industries, so that we can eventually, by international agreement, reach the point where our money is spent not on creating and exporting weapons of destruction but on ways of making the world work better?
Mr. Hurd: I agree in principle. That is particularly important in countries such as the Soviet Union and China, whose armaments industries play a much larger part in their economies than is the case in Britain. That is why, since the Gulf war, we have taken the initiative in getting the register of arms transfers and trying to work out—particularly with the five permanent members of the Security Council—the criteria that should govern arms sales. That is inevitably a slow business, but my hon. Friend is right about the need for that process.
It would be possible for us in Britain to say—some hon. Members do, and they reflect a part of public opinion—that none of these conflicts are anything to do with us: that, however great the slaughter, the suffering and the crimes, no specific British interest exists that should lead us to contribute our scarce resources or our limited armed forces to help relieve the situation. Alternatively, we could take the view—as hon. Members implicitly do when they write to me or table questions—that, wherever there is injustice or intolerable suffering, it is part of our duty as a nation to do our best to bring it to an end.
I recall what Gladstone said in 1879 at Dalkeith:
"Remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan among the winter snows is as inviolate in the eye of Almighty God as can be your own."
I note that Liberal Democrats are nodding piously in response to those sentiments.
Somewhere between those two extreme answers, as I am afraid I must term them—somewhere between the saloon bar and Gladstone—lies the policy that any British Government would in practice seek to follow. I shall say more about that shortly, but before dealing with the general issues of the choice that I have outlined, I wish to discuss one or two specific disputes on which I am always cross-examined in the House. Perhaps some analysis of the state of those disputes will help us towards the answer to the general question that I have put.

775
The dispute in Cyprus is one of the most long standing. Britain is one of the guarantor powers there, and the United Nations has been involved continuously since the outbreak of intercommunal violence in 1963. The peacekeeping force is still there, and—as I have mentioned —we still make a big contribution to it, although it is becoming smaller. The United Nations has also acted as a forum for negotiations between the two sides.
We believe that the set of ideas produced by the Secretary-General last year should form the basis of negotiations for a settlement. After the last round of talks in November, the Security Council endorsed the Secretary-General's approach in resolution 789, arid all parties agreed to resume in March. Now, there has been a change at the top in Cyprus: I congratulate President Clerides—who is well known to many of us—on his success in the presidential elections, and I hope that he will work with determination towards settling the problem. We hope that both he and Mr. Denktash will attend the next round of talks chaired by the Secretary-General. I am encouraged by the first indications that I have had in that regard. We urge all parties to move towards a fair solution, and we are involved in efforts to help prepare the ground.
As hon. Members know—particularly the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—Sornalia, which I also mentioned earlier, is a particularly stark tragedy. A whole population suffered the ravages of civil war, anarchy and drought; a whole society collapsed. We supported early efforts by the United Nations to feed the starving and bring some order to the chaos, but the warring factions effectively impeded us. We therefore supported resolution 794, which provided for all necessary means to be used to create a secure environment for relief.
The United States initiative followed. I congratulate the unified task force, especially the United States force, on the success of Operation Restore Hope. Relief centres have been secured, and aid is flowing. Britain is not involved on the ground, but the RAF helped with the airlift, and we remain the second largest aid donor in Somalia—so, in a sense, we are involved on the ground, although we are not involved in a military sense.
We want the United Nations to take over from the task force, but it will need a firm mandate and adequate strength. Recently, there has been heavy fighting between two rival warlords battling for control of the southern port of Kismayo, and 11 Somalis have been killed. That last incident shows that the position in Somalia is still tragic and volatile, and illustrates the case for a tougher mandate for the follow-on United Nations deployment.
That deployment will need to cover the north—what was formerly British Somalia—where an international rehabilitation effort is now urgently needed, as my noble Friend Baroness Chalker reported to me after her visit. Although the television cameras are no longer present in force, the problems in Somalia are still pressing and tragic, as the killing of Valerie Plaice, an Irish aid worker, showed.
Mr. David Winnick: I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has paid tribute to the Irish aid worker who was murdered yesterday.
I hope that I shall not, as a result of asking this question, be put into the camp of those who want Britain or the international community to intervene everywhere. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the fact that the
776
international community, led by the United States, has intervened shows that we are no longer in the situation that prevailed during the years of the cold war?
Does he agree that, whatever the extent to which the rule of law in a given country breaks down, however much chaos and hunger there may be, it is no longer the case that no action can be taken? While it may be impossible to intervene in other countries in which similar circumstances prevail, what has happened in Somalia shows how, under the auspices and authority of the United Nations, it is possible to take action that must be welcomed by the vast majority of the people of that country.
Mr. Hurd: I agree. This is a high water mark of United Nations action. It shows that the will exists, but it also shows the extreme difficulty of putting that will into practice over a long period.
I should like to turn briefly to the question of Iraq. Here we are still coping with the aftermath of the Gulf war. Over the past two years, coalition forces, acting in support of the United Nations, have effectively deterred Iraq from attacking its own citizens in both north and south. This is a development of the hon. Gentleman's point. We are talking about disputes within Iraq as well as the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait.
The operations against Iraqi air defences in January went well. Despite some rhetoric to the contrary, the Iraqis, over the past month, have steadily abandoned their defiance of United Nations resolutions. Border incursions into Kuwait have stopped, and the Iraqis have conformed to United Nations requirements for unrestricted flights for United Nations special commission inspectors into Iraq.
This, to a limited extent, is good news, but all experience shows that we must remain vigilant and keep up the pressure until all Security Council resolutions are fulfilled. We cannot trust promises of co-operation; we have to rely on our own monitoring of actions. Under Security Council resolution 687, the Iraqis must allow the destruction of all weapons of mass destruction; agree to long-term monitoring of their programmes on weapons of mass destruction; compensate the victims of aggression; and return third-country detainees and Kuwaiti property.
We also want, as should others, the release of Mr. Ride and Mr. Wainwright, British citizens imprisoned in Iraq, whose families I saw yesterday. Their severe punishment in no way fits their supposed offence. Iraq would gain some credit for releasing them but none for continuing to keep them in unjust captivity.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why did it take a brilliant cross-examination in the Old Bailey by Geoffrey Robertson, QC, to elicit the fact that on, 19 July 1990, the Foreign Secretary himself chaired a key Cabinet meeting, which reported to Mrs. Thatcher, urging that all arms embargoes in relation to Iraq should be done away with? If the right hon. Gentleman denies this, he ought to answer the allegations that are made by David Leigh on page 226 of his widely read book "Betrayed". Did that meeting take place on 19 July 1990, was it chaired by the Foreign Secretary, and what were its recommendations to the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues, including the Prime Minister?
Mr. Hurd: This will come out before the Scott inquiry. There was such a meeting, but it did not reach the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman supposes.Everything

777
will come out—the background, the context, the results and the conclusion that the results should be announced to this House.
I should like to turn to another matter that, rightly, takes up much time in this House—the Arab-Israel dispute. Three different peacekeeping forces are deployed in various parts of this dispute. The involvement of the United Nations has lasted for many years and is the basis for international efforts, but now the peace process sponsored by the United States and by Russia is, in effect, the only game in town.
Mr. Warren Christopher, the United States Secretary of State, is in the middle of his first foreign tour since his appointment, and he has chosen the middle east. He has taken up the process—I welcome this warmly—where Secretary Baker left off, and this effort, which is firmly based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, must be the focus for the whole international community.
We cannot realistically expect an early and complete solution. Those of us who have watched the twists and turns of this problem for so many years know that progress is bound to be painful—
Dr. John Cunningham rose—
Mr. Hurd: In just a minute, yes.
—but all sides seem genuinely now to contemplate the possibility of compromise, of real peace, and that is a change. There will never be a better background for the work to which Mr. Christopher has set his hand.
Obstacles remain. A serious one was the decision of the Israeli Government last December to deport over 400 Palestinians. This was wrong. It was a mistake that we and the rest of the international community have condemned. Since then, the Israelis have taken a significant step—not a total step but a significant one—towards carrying out Security Council resolution 799. We believe that they must build on that. The objective must be not to allow this obstacle to derail the peace process. That would be in no one's interests—certainly not the interests of the Palestinians.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for allowing me to intervene. A few moments ago, he spoke with great force and clarity about the need for Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq to comply totally with the resolutions of the Security Council. Now he is talking about compliance by Israel.
I agree with what he said about the terrible political error made, regrettably, by the new Israeli Government. Why, however, should it be acceptable for us to tell the world that Saddam Hussein must comply totally with UN resolutions—he is not allowed 25 per cent. Compliance—yet the Israelis' offer to comply with only 25 per cent. of resolution 799—that is, to return one quarter of the expelled Palestinians-is regarded as a basis for progress? That is surely totally unacceptable. If UN resolutions and compliance with them is to mean anything, everyone should comply.
Mr. Hurd: Saddam Hussein went to war. He committed aggression, he invaded Kuwait and he obliterated Kuwait. The resolutions under chapter 7 of the charter flow from that situation. The Israeli situation is different, but the
778
resolutions are clear and should be complied with. That is what I am saying. A step has been taken towards compliance, but it is not sufficient.
The two situations are not the same—the hon. Member is not suggesting that they are the same—and therefore the means of compliance, the time allowed for compliance, the background and the atmosphere of the background are bound the be different, because the situations are different. But the need for the wishes and declared intentions of the Security Council to be respected remains the same.
I turn to the problems of the former Yugoslavia.
Sir David Steel: On that same point, surely the last UN resolution was quite specific in including the words "all" and "immediately". There is no room for doubt about what the resolution meant.
Mr. Hurd: That is what I said. I am not saying that the resolution has been complied with: I am saying that a significant step has been taken towards that and further steps are needed.
Mr. James Clappison: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that, while he is absolutely right in talking about the problems caused by the deportation of the Palestinians, any flexibility that the Israelis may show over the Golan heights will be a much more welcome development in the context of these talks, and that such a development deserves every encouragement?
Mr. Hurd: I agree. The two critical parts of the bilateral negotiations are the one with Syria, on which there has been some progress, and the one with the Palestinians, which is more difficult and requires more effort by both sides if it is to succeed.
Of all the miseries and conflicts of which our constituents are so aware, the cry for action is heard most persistently about the situation in Bosnia. Press articles and television programmes crowd in on us, and there is no shortage of suggestions. Often, the suggestions that appear most satisfying to far-off observers overcome by anger and frustration are those that make the least sense on the ground.
Every hon. Member shares that sense of anger and frustration, but the closer one is to the action the more apparent is the misery, and the less easy it is to put the guilty and innocent into separate clear-cut categories or to devise simple courses of action that will end the fighting and produce peace with justice.
I must admit to some irritation in the past few days at comments from abroad that assume that nothing helpful is being done.
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Mr. Hurd: I want to get on a bit.
Last week, the Government of Bosnia drew attention to the fact that United Nations convoys had been unable to reach certain towns in eastern Bosnia. They did this by denying supplies to their own hard-pressed people. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, temporarily decided to suspend some aid convoys in Bosnia, and that came as a short, sharp shock to all three communities. Much comment followed, as if the relief effort had collapsed or was useless. An editorial in

779
yesterday's New York Times claimed that Mrs. Ogata had suspended all shipments to Bosnia, which is not true. Throughout this period, the relief effort continued.
The editorial went further, claiming that,
"all along, the supplies have not been reaching those most desperately in need... The lives of thousands of Bosnians are at stake. Decency requires that America and the world provide prompt relief."
Such ignorance of what has been happening warps the understanding of the public. Europe, with Britain in the lead, has for months been providing prompt relief, saving the lives of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, who would otherwise be dead.
Britain is providing the biggest contingent of troops in Bosnia of any United Nations country. We are keeping three power stations running in central Bosnia. Our troops have escorted 279 United Nations convoys, carrying some 20,000 tonnes of desperately needed food and medicines. In 351 flights since last July, the Royal Air Force, in dangerous conditions, has airlifted 4,700 tonnes of supplies into Sarajevo. In addition, under our aid programme, the Overseas Development Administration's civilian drivers have carried some 16,000 tonnes in more than 180 convoys. We are in the forefront of what the New York Times called for—prompt aid—without apparently realising that it was happening.
But our commitment is not unique. The French, Spanish, Danes and Portugese and the Benelux countries have all contributed troops to the United Nations Protection Force and helped to fund the UNHCR. France, for example, has committed 4,800 troops, and $10·2 million. We argue strongly with the French on quite a number of trade, European Community and other matters. That is a straightforward argument, but on Yugoslavia and many United Nations peacekeeping matters, our views and our interests, because we are broadly comparable countries on this, run closely together. We work well with the French as well as with others.
The success of this European relief effort under United Nations auspices has been about the only good news coming out of Bosnia so far, and I was glad to learn a few moments ago that a United Nations convoy, escorted by British troops, today reached the eastern Bosnian towns of Tuzla and Gorazde.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I endorse everything that the Secretary of State has just said, having visited British forces at Split and Zagreb last week. Does he share the scepticism of many hon. Members at the suggestion that relief may be dropped by air—a proposal that, it is said, has attracted some support from the British Government? That must be a matter of considerable difficulty, not least because of the free availability of portable surface-to-air missiles. Will he give an undertaking that no British resources will be applied to any such proposal unless there are considerable guarantees and understandings about the level of risk to which forces might be exposed in such a venture?
Mr. Hurd: I welcome what President Clinton and his team have said about the willingness of the United States to join in the humanitarian effort. If, as I believe, the Americans are devising ways of doing this from the air, I welcome that too. If they can reach by that means, without undue risk to themselves, parts of Bosnia which the land
780
convoys have not been able to reach, well and good. In that case, they too will be contributing to the task of keeping people alive who would otherwise be dead.
We believe that we are doing our bit in this respect by land, and have been doing so successfully and over a long period. Therefore, we do not have the intention of using our aircraft for this exercise, although we welcome the intention of the Americans to do so.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene again.
However well intentioned this proposal may be, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that dropping aid from aircraft flying at, perhaps, 12,000 ft is sensible and practicable in the circumstances? Is he also satisfied, given the comments coming not only from aid workers on the ground in Bosnia, who think that this is not a very sensible idea, but also from representatives of the Serbs and others, who will say—perhaps dishonestly—that they feel threatened that these drops may contain arms, that this will not disrupt the aid on the ground?
We need convincing that this proposal deserves our support. If there is no alternative to dropping aid from several thousand feet—if otherwise people would starve to death—it will have to be tried, but we need convincing that this not only will work in practice for the people that it is targeting, but will not fatally damage the existing effort on the ground, which he has rightly praised.
Mr. Hurd: The last point is a very important one. As I understand it, the Americans are discussing their ideas with the Secretary-General of the United Nations either today or tomorrow, and they will, of course, also be discussing them with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The last point will, I think, be in the minds of both the Secretary-General and the Prime Minister.
However, as the hon. Gentleman said-[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon. Gentleman."] Indeed? I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. It comes a little early in his career as shadow Foreign Secretary, which no doubt will be long and successful. I had some inkling of that news, but I had not realised that it had hit the public press. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman very sincerely.
The right hon. Gentleman's last point was entirely correct. If the Americans, who clearly are working very carefully on the techniques involved, find that they can contribute to the humanitarian effort by delivering supplies from the air to people whom the United Nations, the British and the French, and so on, have not been able to reach by land, we will welcome their contribution. I do not know enough about the techniques or how far their thinking has gone, but those are matters that will be discussed with both the Secretary-General and the Prime Minister.
The background is that, last autumn, experts predicted 300,000 deaths from cold and starvation in Bosnia this winter. One cannot say how many people have died, but until now the winter has been rather milder than usual, and we think the number is only a tiny fraction of what was predicted. That achievement of keeping people alive has been perhaps the main, indeed the only, piece of good news out of Bosnia in recent months.
I accept that, as hon. Members have pointed out before and as critics in America, Germany and other countries have pointed out, keeping people alive is not the full answer; it deals with the symptoms and not the disease.

781
So one must be looking all the time with some humility at all the possible ways of curing the disease. One should not be obsessed by the idea, "We have not thought of it before, so it cannot work." That is why it is healthy for President Clinton and the incoming Administration to be looking at all the possibilities, as we have tried to do continuously over the last two years.
President Clinton came to the conclusion, as we have done, that one cannot impose a political solution by military force, unless one is to undertake what would be an imperial commitment requiring many thousands of men for many years. No western Government support that. No Government—it is not true of all individuals—believe that it can be done simply from the air. From the air, one can destroy particular targets and achieve a limited purpose, as happened in Iraq, but one cannot from the air, as has been shown time and again in different examples, change a policy.
The United States has also looked, as have many others—certainly as we have done—at the possibility of a partial lifting of the arms embargo. The trade sanctions, as the House knows, apply only to Serbia and Montenegro, because we believe that they are primarily responsible for starting the war in Bosnia and for continuing it, but the arms embargo, which is mandatory under the Security Council resolution, applies to all the parties.
The idea of a partial lifting, in favour either of the Muslims or of the Muslims and Croats, is often canvassed. Again, I believe that that looks less practicable and less desirable the closer one gets to the action. It is incompatible in practice with the humanitarian effort that we have discussed in recent minutes. If one encourages the sending of arms into a war zone, one is choosing war rather than peace.
In practice, I do not think it could be partial. When one creates a loophole, one cannot be sure in a situation such as we are facing that only those whom one intends to receive help will actually get it. In other words, even if one intended to supply only the Bosnian Muslims, one could not be sure that the supply would end up there. This is a confused war, village by village and valley by valley, and it is easy for weapons to go astray.
Moreover, I believe that, faced with the arming of the Bosnian Muslims, the traditional friends of Serbia would rearm the Bosnian Serbs. We would, in effect, be throwing arms into the ring hoping for the best, rather like spurring on cocks to fight it out in a cockpit. The only certain result would be more bloodshed.
Those are arguments against courses which we think are not sensible, but if we argue against courses of action which we think are not sensible, we have an obligation to press on more energetically with the courses that we believe are sensible, of which there are three.
First, we offered, and created at the London conference, a peace procress. In the end, it will, in my view, work. People say that it is an illusion and is just diplomatic talk, but in the end, force does not provide an answer in situations such as this. Cynics sometimes say that force in the end is the only decisive fact, but in Yugoslavia, as in the Arab-Israeli dispute, just about everyone has tried force time and again. Force is actually a grossly inefficient arbiter of this kind of conflict. It settles nothing. Only
782
negotiation can produce a settlement that lasts, although one cannot be sure that that will achieve it, either. Even so, only negotiation can do it.
The Owen-Vance plan, which now has general United States and Russian backing—I am not talking about details—is a good plan. It is new, but the situation is new. It is not set in concrete and it is open for discussion, particularly the map, and its authors admit that much negotiation remains to be done. But I believe that a final settlement, when it becomes possible, will be close to the present outline.
I pay tribute to the representatives of the United Nations and the European Community, and in particular to David Owen, whom we have all known in different capacities and whose different characteristics have been copiously commented on in the House and elsewhere. Whatever our views about that, it is clear that he is now tackling the issue with a great deal of dedication, energy and ingenuity, and we can be proud of what he is doing.
Secondly, behind persuasion has to come pressure, and we are talking about sanctions. In the autumn of last year, it was clear that sanctions were beginning to bite, but they work only when continuously applied over time. At perhaps a crucial moment, the international community relaxed its grip on Serbia and supplies got through. We must plug, and we are plugging, the holes.
We have sanctions assistance missions posted to Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Ukraine. This month, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe appointed a sanctions co-ordinator—it was, in fact, a suggestion of mine that hung fire for a bit. There is now someone—not a committee but one man—whose job it is, day in, day out, to do his best to plug the holes and to make sanctions effective. We are supporting his work with skilled manpower and money, and we expect our EC partners and other countries also to support his work.
Thirdly, we aim for justice. I shall not go into the details, because every lawyer knows how complex it is, but the fact for the layman is that people have been sickened by war crimes in the former Yugoslavia—by the rape, torture and ethnic cleansing. The rapes have been authenticated by the commission set up and presided over by Dame Anne Warburton, the head of Lucy Cavendish college, Cambridge. That very sober report is all the more compelling because of the objective way in which it was prepared and presented.
Yesterday, the Security Council passed resolution 808, deciding that an international tribunal should be established for the prosecution of persons responsible for grave violations of international humanitarian law in former Yugoslavia since 1991, and requesting a report from the Secretary-General including specific proposals for the tribunal.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State referred to the fact that many of our constituents have found it difficult—as, indeed, have many hon. Members—to comprehend the situation in a country that many of us used to think of as a holiday destination. Many of the victims of the systematic rape will bear children in the spring of this year as a result of that rape. Are any specific steps being taken by the international community to enable those who wish to foster or adopt those children to do so, as many individuals wish to contribute in that way?
Mr. Hurd: When we heard from Anne Warburton and considered her report at the previous Foreign Affairs Council, we decided to set in train steps to help mothers in that position. Of course, the desire of the mothers arid of the Governments of Bosnia and Croatia is that, to the greatest possible extent, the children should stay where they are. However, I shall write to the hon. Lady with the particulars of what is done to help.
Mr. David Trimble: Before the Secretary of State leaves the question of the former Yugoslavia, will he comment on the future arrangements for Croatia, where, I understand, the arrangements for the monitoring force will expire shortly? Does he expect that the arrangements will be renewed? Does he think that there is a prospect of renewed conflict there? If so, what are the implications for the Owen-Vance plan in Bosnia?
Mr. Hurd: The Security Council has renewed the mandate for the United Nations protection force in Croatia, but only until 31 March. It is intended to provide a breathing space during which everyone involved—the Government of Croatia, the Krajina Serbs and the troop contributors—can work out a new arrangement, probably a new and, I hope, better mandate, so that the international effort can continue and make progress. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) knows, the situation has been very dangerous, but there is a little respite.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hurd: No, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make a speech in a moment.
I return to the general question that I asked at the outset. I believe that there is a solid British interest in reducing the amount of chaos in the world. We, more than almost any other, are a trading nation, and conflict is an enemy to trade and thus to our prosperity. However, there is also a less tangible issue: we are not given, thank heaven, either in the House or in Government, to great grandiloquent proclamations, and we should not pretend more than we can achieve.
However, there is, I hope, a sound instinct in this country that we, as a decent people, should make some contribution towards working for a more decent world. We cannot be everywhere or do everything, and there is no question of Britain or any country becoming the policeman of the world.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way.
All countries work under constraint and, in practice, it means that they have to work with international institutions. I shall not work my way through an analysis of all those institutions. 1 shall not, for example, deal with the way in which the countries of the European Community are steadily working more closely together on matters of foreign and security policy; there will be other opportunities to do that.
I wish to talk about NATO. It was created for one purpose, and is now adapting itself to cope with another as well. In NATO, we agreed last year that it should be ready to undertake peacekeeping outside its area. Today, there are NATO ships in the Adriatic, stopping and searching
784
vessels which might be breaking sanctions. There are plans for a NATO operation to monitor the skies over the former Yugoslavia. There are components of a NATO headquarters serving UNPROFOR in Bosnia. If there were a durable ceasefire in Bosnia which needed underpinning with a peacekeeping force, I do not doubt that that force would include a major NATO contribution as part of a United Nations operation.
I deal finally with the United Nations, which has a unique legal and political authority in these matters. As the House knows, we welcome the Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace" on how the United Nations might improve its capacity in preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping. Preventive diplomacy is an arm of United Nations activity which we must strengthen. We need to make a concerted effort to solve international disputes before they reach the point of armed conflict. It is a criticism of the United Nations, and therefore of all of us, that it has not done enough in that crucial aspect in the past.
Under international law, it is possible for any country to use force in self-defence without the specific authority of the Security Council, but chapters VI and VII of the charter provide a flexible legal framework for many types of such action, and they are now invoked more often than at any time in the history of the organisation.
That leads me to say a few words about the discussion on reform of the Security Council. The only person whom I have heard suggest that Britain should give up our permanent membership was a member of the Opposition who is not now in her place. The debate is not about giving up the British seat but about whether there should be additions to the permanent membership to reflect changes in the world since 1945. We have neither the will nor the power to stifle such debate, but some words of caution are perhaps in order.
Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State not think that there is a case for ensuring that there are permanent representatives of at least Latin America and Africa on the Security Council? Does he not think that consideration should be given of the removal of the power of veto of the permanent members of the Security Council in order to make the organisation more democratic and more reflective of the world's population as a whole?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's suggestions flow straight into the words of caution that I am about to utter. It is precisely such suggestions which feed the debate. The debate is likely to continue for a long time, because I cannot imagine a solution that would satisfy all aspirations to the extent necessary for the reform of the charter, which needs unanimity among the permanent members and a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.
A proposition has been heard, although it is not the hon. Gentleman's, that one could solve the problem merely by adding Germany and Japan to the list of permanent members. That will clearly not provide a solution in itself, because candidates from other continents would also make claims.
Permanent membership carries certain obligations, and I doubt whether it could easily be extended to countries which, for their own constitutional reasons, have up to now been unable to contribute troops to the full range of United Nations peacekeeping activities. In fact, of the permanent members, it is the French and the British who

785
are currently contributing most in the form of peacekeeping forces. Perhaps that introduces a touch of reality to what is often a theoretical debate.
It is sometimes suggested that instead of the British and French permanent membership, there should be an EC membership. The Maastricht treaty establishes in a satisfactory way the position of Britain and France as members of the EC who are also permanent members of the Security Council. The treaty recognises our responsibilities under the charter, and we accept the need to take the views of our partners into account as we fulfil those British and French responsibilities.
Of course the discussion will go on and we shall take a constructive part in it. However, I am particularly anxious that the discussion should not frustrate or undermine the actual efforts of the Security Council to deal with the problems of the moment. The Security Council has never been more in demand. It must be able to do its job effectively without too many distractions.
Britain will continue to do her bit. We are not pretentious or in search of glory. Perhaps more than most we tend to weigh the consequences of an action before we embark on it. For all the reasons I have given, we may more often have to say no than yes when asked to take part in peacekeeping actions, but we have, both in our foreign service and our armed forces highly professional national assets which are greatly in demand internationally. We need to look at the way in which the resources for our overall effort overseas are distributed. We need, both as a national Government and in the international institutions, to learn three lessons from experience so far.
First, it is easier and better to move earlier to avert a disaster than to clear up its consequences. In another field, we know that primary health care costs less than hospital treatment and an ambassador costs less than an infantry battalion. An international conference can cost a lot, but it costs less than military intervention, and peacekeeping costs far less than war. At the end of the day, as I have suggested, force usually proves to be a hopelessly inefficient arbiter in such disputes as we are discussing, and there has to be a negotiated settlement either between states or within states—better earlier than later.
Secondly, there has to be an equitable sharing of burdens in any substantial international enterprise and that has not always been so.
Thirdly, and most importantly, there has to be a disciplined analysis of risks and benefits. The international community should not lurch into enterprises the scope and duration of which have not been thought through.
If we follow those principles and encourage others to do so, we may together, case by case, cope with at least some of the problems of world disorder. We in Britain will try to bring a sound mix of prudence and courage to those choices, as is certainly expected of us by our friends abroad, and by our constituents.
4.52 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: The House will be grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his thoughtful speech this afternoon and I personally am grateful to him for the kind remarks he directed towards me.
Even before I heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I decided to start this afternoon where he concluded, with
786
the United Nations. I do that for two reasons—first, because Labour has and has always had a positive commitment to the United Nations, and that support is based firmly in our party's constitution. I say to those involved in the current debate about clause 4 of the Labour party's constitution that, whatever else they want to change, they will certainly not change with my agreement clause 4(7) of our constitution, which commits our party to the support of the United Nations.
Britain is in a unique position in what are rapidly changing times. As a member of the European Community, NATO and the Commonwealth and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we can exercise influence and maintain our presence in a whole variety of places, forums and discussions which are not open to many of our partners in the European Community or even the United States of America. In many ways, we can play a pivotal role in working towards a more peaceful and prosperous world where human rights and the needs of environment and sustainable growth are high on agendas. I welcome that position for our country. Whenever the Foreign Secretary seeks to use it positively with those aims and objectives in mind, he shall of course have our support.
We actively support the peacemaking role of the United Nations as it has been given effect in difficult circumstances in Cambodia—although that is an extremely fragile situation—Somalia, and elsewhere. I shall return to more specific areas of difficulty later.
There must be a debate on the future of the United Nations. Although we have always supported it, we do not believe that the status quo is adequate, for a number of reasons. We believe that a debate, and more, is essential about membership or permanent membership of the Security Council. I see no good or reasonable argument why Britain should not retain a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council, and it would not be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) to whom the Foreign Secretary referred, to say that she was suggesting we should give up, but only that the matter seemed to be under debate.
Yes, let us have the debate about the nature of the United Nations and the increase in demand being placed upon it, because there have been more demands placed on the United Nations in the past five years than in the past five decades, and increasingly, when people call for something to be done, they expect the United Nations to be able to respond. Clearly it does not have the resources, the staff, the financing or the cash to respond everywhere, even in those circumstances in which it decides that peacekeeping should be deployed.
I choose my words carefully when I say that, before the new President of the United States, whose election we welcome, or his Administration, start talking about the reorganisation of the Security Council or the reform of the United Nations, the United States should pay its subscriptions. We cannot blame President Clinton for that as he has only recently come to office, but, regrettably, the United States is the biggest single debtor to the United Nations and that is most unsatisfactory. It is not the only debtor but the biggest single one.
Mr. Dalyell: And UNESCO too.
Dr. Cunningham: UNESCO is not really on today's agenda, but since my hon. Friend has mentioned it, I urge the Foreign Secretary to renew Britain's membership of UNESCO at the earliest possible opportunity.
I return to the financing and organisation of the United Nations. The former Soviet Union is a major debtor, and, in some respects, so are Germany and France. Although figures vary, it is said that something approaching £2 billion is currently outstanding in unpaid contributions to the United Nations. At a time when the organisation is having to spend more than £3 billion on its efforts, that is most unsatisfactory.
The need to face up to the changing role of the United Nations was addressed by the Secretary-General himself when last June he produced to members of the United Nations his report entitled "An Agenda for Peace", covering preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping. That addressed the issues in a detailed way. It is not my intention to go through them all in detail, except to say that there are some positive proposals for peace in that agenda. We hope that Her Majesty's Government will take a positive, indeed a leading, role in discussing those changes.
The role for preventive diplomacy was very much part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It is far better for us to be active early to prevent or head off dispute and ultimately conflict, and far more beneficial to all concerned, than to see the United Nations so paralysed by lack of resources, support or political will that considerably later we are urged, and sometimes obliged, to intervene with military support or humanitarian aid, as is happening now in so many places. Peacemaking and peacekeeping are far more preferable to armed conflict, about which I share the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
Between 1945 and 1987, 13 peacekeeping operations were established by the United Nations; 13 others have been established since. An estimated 500,000 military, police and civilian personnel served under the flag of the United Nations during that time. Over 800 of them, from 43 countries, have died. The cost of those operations aggregated some $8·3 billion until January of last year. The unpaid arrears towards the operations stand at over $800 million, a debt to the organisation from the countries which contributed to the peacekeeping operations.
Peacekeeping operations approved at present are estimated to cost close to $3 billion in the current 12-month period, while patterns of payment are unacceptably low. Against that, global defence expencliture at the end of last decade approached $1 trillion a year or $2 million per minute, according to the analysis in the Secretary-General's "An Agenda for Peace".
When the Foreign Secretary recently made a speech on the subject of "The new disorder", he went into the issues in detail. I do not agree entirely that there is a new disorder. There are new circumstances in the international community with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and there are new circumstances in the United Nations because the frequent use of the veto has gone. There are not the same mechanisms available in international discussion, and there are not the same certainties about spheres of influence.
Long-established existing disorder has continued, and it has got closer to the European community in the former Yugoslavia. It is interesting to reflect on what the new
788
United States Secretary of State, Mr. Warren Christopher, said about the United Nations in his congressional confirmation:
"It will be this administration's policy to encourage other nations and the institutions of collective security, especially the United Nations, to do more of the world's work to deter aggression, relieve suffering and keep the peace. In that regard, we will work with Secretary General Boutros Ghali and members of the Security Council to ensure that the United Nations has the means to carry out such tasks."
That was what Warren Christopher said in his testimony. I hope that means that the United States will pay their dues.
I welcome the debate about the future of the United Nations, but I also welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about the necessary debate on the changing role of NATO. The original purposes of NATO have gone, but before we end effective international organisations, we need to know what the alternatives are and what other nations think.
In that regard, in the debate going on in the Federal Republic of Germany, I have urged our colleagues in the SPD to support the proposed constitutional changes. If the federal republic is to play a bigger role in the international community, it must support not just particular decisions or resolutions, but their effective implementation. That means constitutional change in the federal republic. It is an important debate there. On my recent visit I made it clear that the SPD should support those changes and that they should be agreed.
In respect of some of the areas of conflict that the Foreign Secretary put on his agenda, it is not a surprising coincidence that the same areas are on my agenda for discussion. No doubt some people will say that there is awful Front Bench collusion, but that is not the case. It would be difficult to speak in such a debate without coming to broadly the same conclusion about what should be discussed, even if we do not agree on all the proposed solutions.
As to the solution in Israel, about which I intervened in the Foreign Secretary's speech, I am a committed supporter of the Labour Government in Israel. I am delighted by their election. I recognise the force of the right hon. Gentleman's comment about the peace process being the only show in town, to use his phrase, and that everything possible must be done to get it further down the track. Therefore, the Labour Government in Israel must comply with resolution 799 of the Security Council—not next month, not in six months' time, not next year, but now. Those were the terms of the resolution and that should be the outcome.
I hope that our friends in the Parliament and in the Government of Israel are listening carefully to what we say, because we shall not change our position. It does nonthing for the credibility of the United Nations as a whole or of the permanent members of the Security Council if some Governments can be seen to—"flout" is perhaps too strong a word—ignore the decisions of the United Nations while others are expected to comply absolutely and, if they do not, to bear the consequences. I agree that circumstances in Iraq and in Israel are different and are not comparable at all. Nor, for that matter, are the resolutions, but the principle is the same. I hope that the House will agree that no one should be able by any means to wriggle out of compliance with the decisions of the

789
Security Council: otherwise, any talk of a new constructive, effective world order will be seen as meaningless by many.
Many years ago I had the experience—very interesting for me personally but very sad—of being involved with Lord Callaghan, then the Foreign Secretary in Harold Wilson's Government, at the United Nations peace talks following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The talks were held in the Palais des Nations in Geneva where I met the new President Clerides and Mr. Rauf Denktash, who is still the leader of the Turkish community. The Foreign Secretary has mentioned the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus, but the most threatening force is that of Turkey, which has 30,000 troops on the island. That is unjustifiable.
Sadly, Mr. Denktash blocked and stalled the talks on a solution to the problems in Cyprus, held under the auspices of the Secretary General at the end of last year. At least during his campaign for election, President Clerides does not seem to have said anything very helpful about his attitude towards United Nations' efforts to produce a solution in Cyprus. We support the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to seek a solution and we shall continue to take that view.
The situation in Iraq is rather like that in Bosnia. People are demanding that more should be done and I understand why, but as a nation and within the international community, we simply cannot have a blueprint that will produce a solution for every trouble spot in the world.
Representatives of the Kurdish people from northern Iraq and of the Shiah Muslims from the south are asking one simple question: why does the United Nations allow Saddam Hussein's regime to control the humanitarian aid going to their communities? They want to know why the aid cannot be provided directly to them. Everyone knows that the regime in Baghdad is not following the letter of the law in that respect. I suggest to the Foreign Secretary that that matter should be raised at the United Nations and that—under existing resolutions if possible, or if not, under new ones—it should seek to reorganise desperately needed aid to people who have suffered for so long. They continue to suffer deprivation in humanitarian terms and military harassment and threats to their lives and well-being from Saddam's forces. At least in humanitarian terms, we should be doing much more to satisfy their legitimate needs and demands.
When I intervened in the Foreign Secretary's remarks about Bosnia I was reflecting a fairly widespread view in the House that we need to be convinced about the Prime Minister's discussions. I know that he has some fence-mending to do and some ground to recover. Nevertheless, I wish him well because it is important for our country to have an effective working relationship with the United States. I hope that he will question President Clinton thoroughly and at length about the practicality of delivering aid in the way that has been suggested.
Two Hercules planes, flying at 2,000 ft or higher, will be threatened by the ground-to-air missiles that we know exist because, tragically, an Italian plane has already been shot down. There are questions about the efficiency with
790
which that aid will be delivered. Will it go to the people who so desperately need it, or will it go to their persecutors?
Sir Jim Spicer: Perhaps I may be of some assistance to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know where the idea of two C-130s flying at 2,000 ft emerged. I heard it on the wireless today, but it is absolute nonsense. We must leave the Americans to do their own thing in their own way, if they are going to do it. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who made it clear that we shall not take part in the operation. Hopefully, if the Americans carry it out, it will be for good reasons, and they will take into account the problems that it may present for our ground forces.
Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree. In such difficult circumstances, we should not let the Americans do things in their own time and in their own way when the United Nations is involved. I do not agree with that principle, any more than I agree with the proposition that we should support what President Bush did in Iraq during the last 48 hours of his mandate. Such matters must be discussed with the international community.
The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have every right to question in detail the American proposals in that regard, not merely in respect of the effectiveness of what they propose to do, but because of the serious consequences that it could have for British ground troops in Bosnia. We cannot tell the Americans to get on with it and to do as they wish, as long as they get some of the aid on the right target. It is more complicated than that and there is much more at stake. Opposition Members must be assured on those questions before we can support the proposals.
I accept that the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) may be right that the details being bandied about are not accurate. However, I stand firm on a principle that is important to Opposition Members and, I believe, to the Foreign Secretary.
In general, we welcome greater humanitarian aid efforts in the former Yugoslavia—especially in Bosnia—and have called for them consistently. We want more United Nations involvement on the ground in Macedonia too. Macedonia has a clear case for, and should be given, international recognition. I cannot understand the continuing delay, although I know that not everyone shares my strongly held view—including some Opposition Members.
I share the views expressed by the Foreign Secretary on the brutal crimes of violence against women in the former Yugoslavia. The organised, criminal rape of women, which has taken place there must be condemned and prosecuted as a war crime with the full vigour of international law. Her Majesty's Government and the international community will have our wholehearted support in their pursuit of the perpetrators of such crimes against women. I urge them to continue their wholehearted efforts to pursue the criminals, as I know that the Foreign Secretary is doing, and to bring the full vigour of law to bear upon them.
Mr. Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend seen the newspaper reports which demonstrate that those terrible crimes—especially the rape of Muslim women—were not committed on the spur of the moment but were organised deliberately beforehand by criminals and gangsters? Some

791
of the Serbian political leadership who were involved must bear responsibility for the actions of soldiers and criminals against women. I agree that those responsible, including the people who took the decisions, should be held to account and brought to justice.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. It is unthinkable to Members of this House and to people in this country that such crimes could be premeditated and carried out so systematically—indeed, they still are being carried out. Perhaps more than on any other issue, there is unanimity in this country about the need to prosecute the perpetrators of such unspeakable crimes.
Angola is another area of United Nations activity, which attracts fewer headlines but where the problems are no less acute. It is important to remind the House of the elections held in September last year following the peace accords, which were universally recognised as free and fair. Their conduct was a great tribute to the people of Angola. The present troubles and the dreadful violence that has occurred are a direct result of UNITA's refusal to accept the democratic verdict of the Angolan people. It is deplorable. UNITA is attempting to achieve by force of arms and the bullet what it failed to achieve through the ballot box.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that if UNITA is allowed to succeed, there will be the most profound implications for every other part of the world where United Nations-supervised elections are being planned or are shortly to take place.
Especially worrying are the repeated reports of support being given to UNITA by Zaire and by South Africa. I refer to two such reports. There was the seizure by the Namibian authorities at Rundu airport on 23 January of three South African four-engined Douglas DC6 aircraft. The Namibian Government issued a statement on the seizure of the aircraft on 26 January. On 21 January 1993, 120 Zairean and South African troops were landed on the outskirts of Huambo by Puma helicopters. Three Zaireans and a wounded South African were captured.
At 7 am today, I returned from South Africa. I raised the matter directly with the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in the National Government. During our discussion, I was assured that the Government of South Africa had ceased to provide support for UNITA in Angola. Of course I accept what the Minister said, but I believe that it flies in the face of the evidence being provided by the Namibian authorities. The circumstances are causing great concern on all sides of the debate in South Africa on the future of the country.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I was the leader of the British parliamentary delegation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to observe the elections, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the elections were free and fairly held. However, I counsel strongly against a partisan view of the two groups. We have witnessed the savage butchery of supporters of UNIT'A and the hounding down of such supporters and their families in Luanda and elsewhere. We must take that into account if a new Angola is to be built. There are brutal thugs on both sides and it is incumbent on the leaders of both sides to bring their people under control so that the country can achieve freedom, peace and democracy.
Dr. Cunningham: Much of what the hon. Gentleman says is true. However, the clear reality is that it was UNITA that refused to accept the results of the election. UNITA first resorted to force of arms when the breakdown occurred. We know, because tragically there are too many examples all around us, that once a breakdown happens, there are few innocents on either side in such conflicts. Such brutal conduct is deplorable: I share the views of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on that point.
I know of and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the good job that he did as leader of the delegation. However, I disagree on one fundamental point. It was UNITA that resorted to violence. Such violence should be condemned not just because of Angola, but because of the threat it poses to other United Nations-brokered peace accords and planned elections.
What steps are the Government taking diplomatically, through the United Nations and elsewhere, to isolate UNITA militarily and diplomatically and to try to bring to an end the appalling conflict which, as the hon. Member for Gravesham says, is costing thousands of lives?
Wherever there is war, famine and disease are not far behind. An estimated 3 million people could be at risk in Angola. There is a need for urgent international assistance, and I urge the Government to acknowledge that fact.
Western Sahara is another part of the world that receives few headlines, but where the United Nations is involved and where progress towards a settlement is painfully slow. It is now almost two years since the peace plan was drawn up by the then Secretary-General, supported by both sides and endorsed by Security Council resolution 690/691. A referendum should have been held under United Nations auspices in December 1991, with the real prospect of bringing an end to a conflict that has lasted for 18 years. We are still waiting for that referendum to take place. The United Nations must stand firm by the Security Council resolutions on Western Sahara and the referendum should take place as soon as possible on the basis of the agreements reached.
In common with other right hon. and hon. Members, there are many other parts of the world to which I could refer. As I have just returned from an interesting visit to South Africa, I shall speak on the position there next. The momentum of change is both challenging and exciting. I had the opportunity to spend three days at the African National Congress conference in Johannesburg and then to spend two days talking with leaders of other political parties and with Government Ministers in Cape Town.
No one should be in any doubt that the African National Congress wholeheartedly supports a peaceful transition to a non-racial, democratic society in South Africa. The magnanimity of people who have been imprisoned, banned, and exiled, and who have seen their families tortured and sometimes sadly murdered is astonishing. People want a peaceful transition. They want to avoid conflict and they want reconstruction in a political as well as in an economic sense in South Africa.
From my recent experiences, I believe that that goal is shared by almost everyone, regardless of political persuasion, in the Republic of South Africa. Happily, talks are now proceeding again and constitutional talks will recommence early next month. It is hoped that elections will take place 12 months from now.
There is broad agreement between the ANC and the National party Government on a proposed five-year

793
period for a Government of national unity. The ANC refers to a Government of national unity and the National party call it power-sharing. They must make their own decisions about how they describe such a Government. It is a positive proposal which is full of hope.
We had the opportunity to meet Mr. Nelson Mandela. I am happy to tell the House that reports of his illness, like reports of Mark Twain's death, have been much exaggerated. He was in a happy, confident and ebullient mood on Saturday morning in Johannesburg, although he was clearly tired because of the strenuous demands placed on him by the peace process, and by the discussions within his own organisation and bilaterally. There is no doubt that he remains determined to play a full part in the continuing process.
Another piece of important news announced on Saturday by the ANC was its willingness to name dates for a complete end to sanctions, with the exception of sanctions on arms, on oil and on nuclear materials. Assuming that the arrangements on the transitional period are agreed, assuming that announcements are made on an agreed date for elections, on the establishment of a transitional executive council and on independent electoral and media commissions, and assuming the passing of the Transition to Democracy Act, sanctions affecting diplomatic relations, transactions in gold, trade and trade credits, new investment, loans and other financial links will be lifted. Clearly, the ANC recognises the importance not only of reaching political decisions, but of trying in the shortest possible time to begin the important process of regenerating the economy in the interests of all in South Africa. All that was very positive.
What was far more worrying was the experience of visits to Alexandria, to Soweto and to Crossroads, where —I say this with gratitude—I was accompanied by the excellent staff of the British Ambassador, Sir Anthony Reeve, and by the Consul-General, John Doble. In black communities and townships where millions of people live in appalling circumstances, there is a clear appreciation of United Kingdom support for them and their efforts. I want to place that on record. Sadly, it is also clear that that support is infinitesimal when it is set beside the huge scale and nature of the problems in those communities and townships: illiteracy, unemployment, illness, tuberculosis —which is rampant in some communities—poverty and malnutrition.
I met an old lady in Alexandra who was being supported by our aid programme. She was running a hostel for elderly people. She said that she wanted, first, peace more than anything else and, secondly, more support to continue doing her work, giving warmth and comfort to old people who had been abandoned, sadly, by their families or had lost contact with their families completely.
I met and spoke with a woman in Crossroads whose son had recently been assassinated. She was running a co-op for African young people to develop skills and opportunities to create jobs for themselves. Her view was the same: no more fighting, no more war and no more killing; peace and help for reconstruction.
In my talks with representatives of the executive of the African National Congress and Ministers in the Government, and in a brief exchange of views with the
794
president, the leader of the Democratic party and a member of the Conservative party—simply to show that I worked hard to get across the political spectrum—there was universal support for the move towards free and fair elections. There were also widespread demands especially in the black community, as one would expect, for a greater commitment on behalf of the United Nations to provide monitors and more assistance and to ensure that elections are free and fair when they take place.
The future of all southern Africa is bound up in a successful outcome to democratic change in South Africa. The essential huge social and economic reconstruction which is required in South Africa will, if successful, have important consequences for neighbouring states in that part of Africa.
I urge the Foreign Secretary and Her Majesty's Government to continue the excellent work which is being done but to provide more support both directly through our aid programme and at the United Nations for a greater presence in South Africa to give the best possible chance for a peaceful transition to take place.
5.32 pm
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Once again, when we are talking about peacekeeping, the distinction must be made—and emphasised—between peacemaking and peacekeeping. The arrival of hi-tech developments in modern warfare has encouraged too many armchair strategists and their leader-writing friends to believe that there is a hi-tech fix for the rather confused situation that we have on the ground in places such as Bosnia.
I believe that military forces can be deployed under the appropriate United Nations resolutions to prevent the outbreak of conflict. They can also be deployed to keep the peace once a ceasefire has happened. I do not believe that any army in the world can insert itself between warring factions such as those in Bosnia.
Humanitarian aid convoys are a different matter. In Bosnia, the convoys are operating in a situation before the fighting has stopped. The fear must now be that any escalation in United Nations military action will create severe difficulties for the highly vulnerable British forces on the ground.
I know that many hon. Members want to take part in the debate, so I shall simply make some brief points about co-operation on the ground between non-governmental organisations and Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence and the Overseas Development Administration. First, I urge that there should be a collocated headquarters for both military and civil authorities, exactly as there was in northern Iraq. That operation was the success that it was precisely because of the close operational relationship which existed on the ground. Secondly, there is a need to establish as a matter of urgency standard operating procedures which must be agreed between the Ministry of Defence and the Overseas Development Administration.
Thirdly, I draw attention to the great success of the military in Bosnia in providing communications networks. I noticed with something of a wry smile that it was the French general in command who requested that it should be the NATO communications cell and the British in particular who would provide that support for him. That is an example of the way in which the military can be used as enablers without their in any way owning, filtering,

795
censoring or controlling the messages passed down that communications network. Understandably, there are many suspicions between non-governmental organisations and Government Departments.
NATO has made considerable strides recently in working out ways in which it can be involved in emergencies operations. Often, the military cannot be used because of the question of cost. Nowhere is that more glaringly seen than in the United Kingdom, where the Treasury requires the recovery of the full costs of, for example, aircraft when a more reasonable policy would be to charge only the incremental costs, recognising the training value which comes from acting in military operations.
In conclusion, it must be recognised that, although the military can help to stabilise a situation, they cannot provide solutions to the basic problems which exist on the ground.
5.36 pm
Sir David Steel: This has been a sober, thoughtful and constructive debate. The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) caught us slightly by surprise with his commendable brevity. Because the debate has been sober, thoughtful and constructive, probably very little of it will be reported in the media outside, who are much more interested in the occasional hysterics and histrionics of conflict in this place.
Nevertheless, the debate has been extremely worth while and I generally congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the tone that he set from the outset. I was disturbed only to the extent that I thought he was straying for a moment to try to position British foreign policy somewhere between the saloon bar and Gladstonian rhetoric. He will forgive me if I prefer to move it slightly more in the direction of Gladstonian rhetoric.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned leader writers and commentators. I have noticed recently—I do not know whether others have noticed this—that there is an unfortunate tendency among some writers and commentators to hanker after the old certainties of the cold war and wish somehow that we were back in those reasoned days. That nonsence must be exploded immediately. We should remind ourselves that our children were, until recently, growing up in a world of increasing tension and risk of nuclear terror and that that has been greatly diminished and dispelled since the end of the cold war.
The effect of the cold war was to intrude its malign influence into so many of the conflicts around the world which have involved us from time to time, including today. For example, I do not believe that the peace process in the middle east would have got as far as it has today if the cold war had still been in existence. Certainly, in southern Africa and in the areas to which the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred in the western Sahara and the Horn of Africa, one could see the meddlesome influence of the cold war everywhere. The disappearance of the cold war must be welcomed.
There is no doubt that the emergence of a single world super-power brings other problems in its wake. The Foreign Secretary gave us an interesting Foreign Office statistic—that the cost of an ambassador was certainly less than the cost of a military battalion. Let us take that as read. Perhaps much more telling and precise a statistic is
796
that the cost of two days of the successful Desert Storm operation would have covered the entire annual cost of all United Nations peacekeeping efforts around the globe. That is why I start with the proposition that investment in peacekeeping and the building up of the authority of the United Nations is, apart from all other considerations, good value for money for the taxpayer, and infinitely preferable to the necessity to resort to conflict in order to put out world bush fires.
I hope that we shall move forward in the spirit that the Foreign Secretary has outlined in developing the new world order and making it a reality by building up the authority of the United Nations. Undoubtedly, during the cold war, the balance of the super-powers tended to curb the threat of excesses by either of them through fear of the other.
Some of the rhetoric in the recent presidential debate in the United States was a little disturbing. The use of military might without moral authority is not leadership but a form of strong arm dictatorship. A solitary super-power, even in agreement with its allies, deploying high tech military might around the globe according to its own whim is a different proposition from creating a new world order under the specific authority of the United Nations charter, which is what we should clearly be aiming for.
At the time of the publication of the Government's White Paper, "Options for Change", I was critical of its lack of content, pointing towards the future commitments that the British military would have to make to United Nations operations. In a speech in my constituency at an enormous rally in protest against the proposed amalgamation of the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots, I pointed out that, while many were there for reasons of past sentiment, I was there to express my concern because of our future obligations. Anyone with an eye to the pattern of future world politics would have to recognise that while there may be peace dividends and cuts in the overall defence budget, the one thing that could not possibly be cut if one was to have a responsible attitude towards the United Nations, was the levels of infantry. I am glad that there has been at least some back-tracking in the Ministry of Defence since the White Paper was published.
Among the opportunities for cuts are cuts in the development and spread of armaments. I have spoken on the subject before, and I do not wish to repeat myself, but it is interesting that the American Government should be wrestling with the question of air drops over former Yugoslavia when the biggest inhibition against such air drops is the scale of surface-to-air missiles which have found their way into that territory from American supplies to the Afghan rebels. That is a good specific example of how we in the developed world have tended, for short-term reasons, to be rather gung-ho in our supplies of weaponry to particular bush fires or incidents, only to find them spreading elsewhere. There is a moral there which should be firmly taken on board.
In considering defence cuts, we must be careful not to allow the Treasury to impose particular cuts which will inhibit the very kind of role that we might want our troops to continue in future. Peacekeeping will certainly require Britain to be able to put forces such as the Royal Marines where they are needed. That will require amphibious capacity which the landing platform helicopter has been planned to achieve. I believe that the Government saw that

797
clearly when the amphibious package was set out exactly a year ago. It is worrying that that project now appears to be threatened by Treasury-led cuts, which are not based on defence requirements. The House and the Select Committees on Defence and on Foreign Affairs have been right to insist that we must establish our defence and peacekeeping needs first and deal with cost second, rather than the other way round.
Like others, I want to be brief, so I come now to the peacekeeping machinery itself. I well remember more than 12 years ago spending some time with the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Lebanon and being struck then, as I am today in the case of Bosnia, by the limits on the mandate of the United Nations peacekeeping forces.
Incidentally, as tribute has been paid to David Owen and smiles were turned in my direction, I am happy to endorse what the Foreign Secretary said. I know David Owen's qualities well, although I must admit that I never regarded peacekeeping and conciliation as highest among them; none the less, I readily acknowledge the tremendous effort that he has made, with Cyrus Vance, in this difficult situation.
To return to the United Nations mandate, it clearly is not satisfactory to have military operations which cannot exert their authority in the area to which they are sent. The Secretary-General was right to argue in his document "An Agenda for Peace" that, even if the political concurrence of the five permanent members of the Security Council is necessary, the United Nations should have a standby capacity of its own for the purpose of enforcement. If such a force were created—to which we, among others, would have to assign troops—the organisation would be able to react at even shorter notice. Such a capacity would also fulfil a preventive function by giving added seriousness to the resolutions and positions adopted from time to time by the Security Council. As the Secretary-General proposed in his report, those forces could be set up by agreements mentioned in article 43 of chapter VII of the charter. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give high priority to that.
When one considers the need for such a standby operation, there is no doubt that the United Nations—any criticism of which is a criticism of ourselves—was far too late into Somalia. Somalia is an example where I would argue, again in the best Gladstonian tradition, that we have a particular responsibility. Last October, when I visited a refugee camp in northern Kenya on the borders of Somalia and Ethiopia, I was taken aback by a man who came up to me and said that he should not be there because he was a British passport holder. I asked to see his passport, which he produced, and it turned out to be a British passport, the cover of which looked exactly like any of ours, but it had been issued under the Protectorate of Somalialand around 1950 and so was a valueless document. But the moral was there. We had a responsibility for part of Somalia at one time. That is why I argue, perhaps against the trend of the Foreign Secretary's remarks, that there are cases in which Britain has a particular lingering moral responsibility to be involved and to be taking the lead in United Nations activities—and Somalia is one of them.
When one considers Britain's history, it is undeniable that we grew strong and wealthy through our imperial
798
connections and that legacy also means that we have a particular responsibility to take the lead in trying to develop the new world order and to create peace in areas where there is conflict.
My last point has not yet been mentioned and I hope that the House will forgive me if I dwell on it for a few minutes. An important part of international peacekeeping should be the development of international election monitoring and election machinery. I was pleased, 10 days or so ago, to be at a round table in the Palais des Nations in Geneva and to find that the British Government had sent a senior official to a meeting which was at the invitation of the Swedish Government. They are proposing that an international electoral institute should be established under the authority of the United Nations but not a part of the United Nations machinery, with the capacity to assist the process of creating multi-party democracies.
The reason why that is directly related to international peacekeeping is simply that if one looks at conflicts around the world today, or historically, it is difficult to find examples of mature parliamentary democracies, responsible to people, which have gone to war with one another. War is almost always created through some autocracy or other, so the development of genuine multi-party democracies as part of good government, as part of the new world order, should be attended to with far greater priority.
The moral that I draw from the experience of Angola is slightly different from that of the right hon. Member for Copeland. Like the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), I was a monitor there, and I was also a monitor in the elections three years previously in Namibia. The two were like chalk and cheese. My conclusion is that there cannot be effective international election supervision on the cheap.
In Namibia, for an electorate of about 1 million, because of the unique circumstances there of the joint administration of the South Africans and the United Nations, about 4,500 international personnel were involved in the elections. In Angola, the figures were the other way around, with something like 450 personnel in charge of an electorate of 10 million. Although those elections were broadly described as free and fair, I am not so sanguine as the right hon. Member for Copeland. Those of us who stayed on after the election saw the difficulties created by the computer counting system breaking down and the suspicions that were aroused.
Mr. Jacques Arnold indicated dissent.
Sir David Steel: The hon. Member shakes his head, but I cite in support of my contention not an outside observer but the director of the elections himself, in an interview a few weeks ago on Angolan radio. His view, as the organiser of the elections, was that not enough international personnel were present to ensure that fraud and mistakes did not occur.
Mr. Arnold: I stayed on a little longer and returned on the same plane as the right hon. Gentleman. The problem was that the election authorities were so concerned with accuracy that they adopted a belt-and-braces approach and kept checking and rechecking the results all the way through. As is the case with our elections, certain results arriving first from the inner cities produced a distorted

799
anticipated result. They gave a four-to-one lead to the MPLA in the early stages—in the same way as a Labour lead is seen in the early hours in our elections.
Sir David Steel: I do not dispute that. I am only saying that Angola's election monitoring mechanisms—the hon. Gentleman and I both witnessed them—and the preparation of the register were inadequate by our standards. I am not arguing for a series of operations concerned with making sure that the icing on the cake is right—frankly, that is what election monitoring is all about, and I have been involved in quite a lot of it—but for the existing arrangements to be replaced with something that will ensure that the cake itself is baked in the first place: that is to say, the underlying conditions for elections exist; the electoral organisation in the particular country is genuinely independent; broadcasts are available equally to all parties; and the electoral register is properly prepared well in advance. All of that requires something more than visiting experts such as the hon. Member for Gravesham being present for a few days.
Dr. John Cunningham: The same is true in respect of the South African elections.
Sir David Steel: The right hon. Gentleman is right. With the South African elections in prospect, there will again be the need for something like a monitoring exercise.
I hope that the Government will give even more support than that which they have already lent tentatively to the Swedish Government's initiative in establishing an international monitoring agency. It would have the added advantage of being independent from government. Commendable though the work of the UN and of the Commonwealth election monitoring teams has been, both are organisations of government. One needs an organisation which is not directly related to government but only to nation states and is able to deal with all parties in nation states on a genuinely independent basis.
Such an agency would also have the advantage of co-ordinating the work of the many existing organisations —they are beginning to multiply—which deal with election monitoring. We saw in Kenya the difficulty that arises if people arrive and say that the elections are free and fair and then depart hastily, perhaps leaving others to make more critical judgments. There is a strong case for one expert, international body co-ordinating all the others. I hope that the Government will give that proposal much greater and more urgent public support as part of the general scene of international peacekeeping.
5.53 pm
Mr. David Howell: This debate provides a welcome opportunity to discuss international peacekeeping and the United Nation's changing role. I hope that the evidence given at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the subject is of some help to the House, and that the same will be true of the Committee's report on the "Agenda for Peace" agenda and of this country's interest in seeing it unfold when it is finally published.
We have been given, in knowledgeable speeches, an interesting grand tour of all the world's trouble spots, which add up to one central reality that we must confront. In the post-cold war world, there is increasing demand on every side and on every occasion for United Nations resources and troops and military personnel, and for United Nations-blessed military personnel. That will
800
develop in every conceivable way. We heard from the right hon. Member.for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) that the United Nations is being urged to move in to election monitoring, producing new constitutions, and perhaps even producing mandates to run whole countries—as has been hinted, in Somalia, possibly in Bosnia, and elsewhere.
From the old attitude that the United Nations could not do very much, the view today is at the opposite extreme, and the United Nations is expected to deliver fantastically high expectations on every front. We must adapt our own thinking, policies and interests to that new reality, if we do not want to be caught out by the pace of events.
Demands will be increasingly insistent, especially on countries such as ours that are permanent members of the Security Council, and there will be an increasing blurring of roles between peacekeeping and peace enforcement—the idea touched on in "An Agenda for Peace", which itself raises the difficult question of how one enforces peace and what kind of heavy weaponry should be used.
There is also a blurring between humanitarian activity and military intervention. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Bosnian tragedy. Bosnia is supposed to be a civilian operation by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to deal either with refugees or people whom it is thought will become refugees. It is to those people that the UN has tried to provide relief. The military involvement, in UNPROFOR 2, is to protect those delivering the relief.
We see before our eyes—this process is continuing even as we debate—a gradual merging of the need to deliver relief into a greater and greater military commitment. Those right hon. and hon. Members who have been to the region—I believe that a number have—have heard the debate on the ground. Some relief workers asked for the military to go away altogether because soft-skin vehicles escorted by hard-skin vehicles become the unnecessary targets for snipers.
Other relief workers asked for the military to transport all the relief supplies, because that was thought the only way that the supplies could get through. That view was prevalent a week or two ago in the UNHCR—particularly after it tragically lost some of its personnel.
In the past two or three weeks, other voices have been raised, asking whether the military could not go a little further and open the roads by force, because it was ridiculous that the roads should be closed by one Serbian waving a kalashnikov. It was said that the roads to Sarajevo and to the isolated and beseiged Bosnian-Muslim towns in eastern Bosnia should be forced open.
The latest development is the Washington proposal, which is being aired and considered, to make massive air drops of relief supplies—not just into Sarajevo from Zagreb and Split, as in the past, but into the Serbian-Bosnian heartland, where such a move would be regarded as against the Serbian-Bosnian agenda. That view may be regrettable, wrongful, and monstrous, but such air drops may be regarded as potentially hostile acts. That is a dangerous further move and one that must be carefully considered. Our eyes must be wide open to the fact that humanitarian relief and the desire to deliver it through international agencies and the United Nations is gradually being transformed into a military commitment.
We played it slightly differently in Iraq, where the military carried relief supplies from the start. The

801
UNHCR did not have a mandate to organise aid. Many would say that the Iraqi operation was highly successful, especially where British forces were involved. We should continue to take that kind of approach in Bosnia. Incidentally, I agree with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about getting relief direct to the Kurds and Shi'ites.
I ask those responsible for policy not to contemplate the argument that some deal ought to be done with Saddam Hussein because he is the only man and a counterweight to Iran. That is nonsense. Far from being a counterweight, Saddam creates a weak Iraq. As long as he rules there, there will be no counterweight to the mullahs and the ayatollahs. We need a democratic Iraq, autonomous and federal in nature, to provide a balance with Iran; otherwise there will be no stability in the middle east.
All the principles by which we used to stand—no intervention in internal affairs, humanitarian relief only, blue beret peace-keeping involving very light weapons—are being breached as the demands of the world, and the new conditions there, impose pressure for more heavily armed and more direct intervention by the military. Let me issue a plea to the Government, and to others who think about these matters: we should anticipate the problems, observe new situations as they emerge and prepare for the event—indeed, try to shape it by our policy.
We should apply our minds, with the greatest vigour, to four major aspects. First, there is the question—raised by both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Copeland—of the United Nations and its resources. Clearly, United Nations financing is not satisfactory. It is not just a case of delayed payments, although the amount involved is considerable: I have been told that $908 million is unpaid for routine United Nations operations, and about $850 million for peacekeeping. Against that, however, must be set the substantial physical contributions made by both the United States and Britain.
My point is both that the finance must be organised more effectively, and that the problem of trying to organise the military forces needed for every emergency on an ad hoc basis must be overcome. By the time the forces have been organised and the funds raised, the whole situation has changed, often for the worse. I know that the Boutros-Ghali proposal for earmarking or standby forces is not popular in London, but I think that it should be examined carefully. We might be able to make real economies in our defence expenditure if we could organise our forces logistically, in ways likely to meet the pattern of United Nations demand—likely, that is, to fit into an overall pattern, in which every country produces a particular logistical capability rather than an amorphous block of forces.
Secondly, we shall have to develop a much more effective contribution to preventive diplomacy. As has been pointed out, the deployment of forces in Macedonia and Kosovo is rightly being considered; in such cases, "a stitch in time" applies vividly, and effective preventive diplomacy will save many costs later.
Thirdly, we must recognise that the old restraint of the United Nations charter concerning intervention in internal affairs has, in practice, begun to crumble. It began to crumble in Kurdistan and Iraq; it has crumbled further in
802
the new Balkan states that have sprung into life. The activities of the United Nations are now creeping out of the chapter 6 area into the area of chapter 7 and article 42: soon, they may creep into the area of article 43, which sanctions the organisation of military force to take military action in various countries in the name of international peace and security. In a world that is expanding before our eyes, we must organise our own military and other resources to make an effective contribution.
Fourthly, there is the matter on which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly touched—the strengthening of the United Nations itself. Several questions arise. First, is the set-up—the establishment of the veto, the five permanent members of the Security Council, the rotation of Security Council members and the General Assembly—capable of giving authority and power to United Nations activities in the future? I entirely accept that the present operation works extremely well; certainly it worked in the Gulf, although things are not going at all well for the United Nations effort in other areas, such as Cambodia, and possibly Angola. That is very regrettable. Nevertheless, the Security Council has operated pretty effectively, and it seems a great pity to try to stir it up.
The fact remains, however, that two of the richest countries in the world—Japan and Germany—are not involved. They are moving very slowly, because their constitutions do not allow them to take on the responsibility of permanent Security Council membership at this stage, and they will not be ready to make their pitch until they have that status. In the meantime, however, I am sure that it is right for other Security Council members —us in particular, perhaps—to say, "We continue to be members of the Security Council, but we recognise its inadequacies, the difficulties and the case for change."
We should present constructive, not obstructive, ideas —I am not saying that we are presenting obstructive ideas —showing how the structure of the Security Council can be reformed and modernised in ways that will not damage its efficiency, and will not open up an unending squabble between all the continents about which should be Security Council members. Some interesting and positive ideas are floating around, and I feel that they should be codified and supported by this country.
Those are the new roles that will be imposed on us—roles that, indeed, we already face as we contemplate the vast spread of troubles that exists everywhere from Liberia to Cyprus. I have mentioned Cambodia, but a dozen other places are involved. I believe that, in all, 26 operations are proceeding: now that the Americans are in Somalia, more than 60,000 troops are operating around the world, either UN-blessed or wearing blue berets.
This is a major operation, and it can be said without fear of contradiction that it will expand, placing enormous additional strains on the United Nations and its secretariat—which, far from being an overblown bureaucracy, is grossly undermanned in many respects. We in this country must develop effective policies to deal with those developments, both in our own interests and in order to contribute in the way that we wish.
To do that, we need to adopt three stances, or qualities, here in London. First, we need a strong United Kingdom foreign policy, which must not be seen simply as a Euro-blur. Of course we have interests in common with our European neighbours; but, to be an effective United

803
Nations member, the country needs effective and well-articulated foreign policies, and an explanation of those policies to offer our United Nations and, in particular, our American colleagues. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will put those points to the President of the United States when they meet.
Secondly, we need a strong Foreign and Commonwealth Office. UN work is beginning to overload the FCO with all sorts of new requirements that are not often debated, but are very time-consuming. I note from our work on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that the FCO is considering not opening new missions but closing existing missions, in order to meet some of the overload. I also note that, in terms of overseas missions, we run well behind our neighbouring continental allies, the French and the Germans, and only a little ahead of the Italians; and that our cultural diplomacy effort, which is all part of weaving an effective role in the UN, is very much weaker than that of the French and the Germans.
We could pay a high cost for those deficiencies if we do not analyse carefully what we are trying to do. We want a strong Foreign and Commonwealth Office, capable of meeting the large load of new work.
Another Department that needs strength and support is the Overseas Development Administration. In the world that we are discussing today, the ODA is becoming less a development Ministry than a Ministry of emergencies—a Ministry that must meet an endless string of emergencies, ranging from the manmade horrors of Bosnia to the natural disasters and starvation in the Sudan and Ethiopia, and to earthquakes and so forth.
We need to be sure that we are not getting our priorities wrong in retaining our undoubtedly limited resources in areas where they are not contributing to the meeting of emergencies, and starving our agencies—led by the ODA—of resources. Those agencies, usually prompted by enormous public pressure, must swiftly meet the emergencies that develop.
Those emergencies are being met very effectively in Bosnia, but I suspect that, even in Bosnia, the balance of resources between actual relief work and the military input—an excellent job is being done in the military respect—suggests that protection costs much more than actual relief. This raises questions as to whether the balance is right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) set a standard of brevity that we cannot beat. None the less, we are required to be brief. Thus, I do not have time to mention all the environmental, development and arms control work of the United Nations. These are all aspects of the attempt to keep peace, to prevent conflict, to prevent endless killing and horror in this uni-polar—no longer bi-polar—world.
I recognise that such operations mean expenditure in terms of manpower and resources. Our instinct is to say that we cannot afford them. I end by saying that, against that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is equally caught by the 10-minute rule, which is now operating.
6.10pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I hardly needed that reminder, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Anyone rising to take part at this stage in a debate on such a subject and speaking with some authority might be considered by some people to be somewhat arrogant. That may be seen as applying especially to me, as my track record shows that I asked a Conservative Member to see me outside the Chamber for less than pacific purposes. However, in the remaining nine-and-a-half minutes, I want to make specific remarks about the British role in peacekeeping.
When I was on the Parliamentary Armed Services Trust, I spent some time in Northern Ireland with the Light Infantry. I suppose that the role is more policing than peacekeeping, but there is a great common area. About 18 months later I met the same unit in Berlin. As I reported to the House on a previous occasion, members of the unit dragged me to one side and, while expressing great joy at seeing me again, belaboured me for being "one of those bloody politicians who sent us over here to do a soddin' awful job with one arm tied behind our backs". That is the kind of approach that I want to talk about.
Last week the Select Committee on Defence visited Split and Zagreb and areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The group that I was with had direct experience of the rules of engagement of our troops in UNPROFOR 2 and those in UNPROFOR 1. There are some serious differences. UNPROFOR 2 is concerned largely with humanitarian aid to the heartland of Bosnia, which is either distributed by our personnel or made ready by our personnel to be collected by local bodies. The United Kingdom's contribution to UNPROFOR 1 is somewhat different. That group is concerned largely with medical and hygiene provision for the battalions that have been installed to supervise the United Nations protection areas under the first Vance plan. It includes contingents from Russia, Belgium, Argentina, Canada, Nepal, Jordan, Czechoslovakia, Nigeria, Denmark, Poland, France, Kenya, Sweden, Finland, America and quite a number of other countries.
I learned the chilling lesson that some of those contingents had arrived without any kind of equipment. They expected to be kitted out on arrival. Some of them turned up without any kind of training or experience. I learned that there is no proper planning cell in the United Nations and that there is no CQ module, no command, communications and control. General Sitash Nambia, to his eternal credit, was very loyal in saying that he had no problems with this. Contrary to some press reports, he said, he had the home telephone numbers of his United Nations superiors and could contact them at any time of the day or night.
Nevertheless, there are a number of engagements across the globe where United Nations contingents are trying to fulfil their mandate, and they can hardly be expected to communicate with superiors, at their homes, 24 hours a day. The whole situation is a farce and must be seen as such. Her Majesty's Government represent this nation, which prides itself on the way in which our young men and women are trained to fulfil political objectives on our behalf. The Government must see that those young men and women are not exposed to such nonsense.
I will tell the House about one of the more crazy things that we learned. Not only are United Nations personnel

805
allowed to fire when they are fired upon, but in the Krajina protection areas they must surrender their weapons if required by a Serb or a Croat to do so. Is this why we train young men and women to defend this country? Is it right to tell them that they must not fire unless they are fired upon and that weapons must be given up if that demand is made? I do not want to spell "preposterous", as I am sure that hon. Members see what I am getting at.
To date, 27 United Nations personnel have been killed,and more than 300 seriously injured. Some of the latter were injured in road traffic accidents, but the accidents occurred as those people were trying to fulfil the crazy, confused mandate that we have allowed the United Nations to give them. I wish to make it very plain that I am not in any way criticising the personnel, and I am not being chauvinistic when I say that the professionalism, dedication and spirit of the people we met, travelled with and dined—ate, rather than dined—with was quite exemplary. It was great to see how they performed their duties. Indeed, it bred in me a kind of pride that I never thought I would feel.
It must be made plain, however, that if we are serious about maintaining a mature and responsible role in the international arena we must ensure that other nations engaging in such activity accept their responsibilities beforehand in a serious manner and send to the theatres people who are experienced, well trained, well equipped and dedicated to the task in hand. The political task that we set must be very clearly defined, and the personnel must be suitably equipped to achieve it. We must also ensure that, if an operation starts to fall apart, withdrawal can be accomplished with some semblance of security—and without undue casualty, which is the great danger in Bosnia.
6.19 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: I will not follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) except to say that I thought his speech was most compelling and well worth reading by those hon. Members who did not have the privilege of hearing it.
My remarks will be a trifle heretic, and for that reason I preface them by saying two things. The first is that I strongly agreed with the cautionary words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the concluding part of his speech. The second is that I strongly welcome the all-party agreement which is obvious in the House, at least today, on the importance of Britain's commitment to the United Nations—something voiced by the spokesmen for both the Labour and Liberal parties.
It is a platitude that most hon. Members and, I suspect, many in the country—but perhaps not quite as many as we in the House imagine—believe in the virtue of international peacekeeping. Indeed, both the need and the opportunities for it have grown dramatically in recent years, especially since the end of the cold war. I will not give the figures, because they have already been put on record in the debate.
Furthermore, the problem is given an extra twist by the dramatic growth of the global media, which has enormously increased public pressure on national
806
Governments to "do something" when we see heartrending pictures on the television screens in our living rooms night after night.
As well as these changes, however, which have driven events and the response to events in one direction, other things have changed over the years, which ought to give us pause for thought and which constitute the basis of my argument this evening.
In particular, two forms of relative economic decline have taken place over the past two or three decades. One is that the United Kingdom, within what we now call the European Community, has declined in importance. Make no mistake: that is the reality borne out by the figures. The second is that the European Community itself, although it has grown from nine to 12 since we have been a member, with the prospect of a much larger Community towards the turn of the century, is nonetheless of relatively declining importance in the global economy and the global polity. Hon. Members on both sides need to understand these rather bleak and important facts.
So my conclusion already at this stage in my speech is that the time has come for us to cut our politico-military coat according to our economic cloth. I make no bones about that. I was glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in his thoughtful speech at Chatham House a while ago, said:
"We cannot be everywhere and we cannot do everything." That is obvious.
Singing the same song, or at any rate in harmony, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in his lecture at the Royal United Services Institute, said:
"We should not commit military forces in circumstances where there is no military solution"—
I would add, as my own gloss, where there is no realistic prospect of a political solution, which I think is more relevant—
"but only a clamour for something to be done."
Amen to both sentiments.
Other things have changed as well which should necessitate a fundamental review of our whole external role in the world—I put it no lower than that. The first is the problem of military overstretch, which has been well identified by hon. Members on both sides, most recently in the report of the Select Committee on Defence. The second is the prospect of a fundamental review of all forms of public expenditure, which, I would remind the House, was announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), the Chief Secretary, just a few weeks ago.
The third is the developing debate about the new role and structure of the United Nations, already alluded to in the debate, and notably the vexed and rather ticklish question for us, as British citizens, of British and French participation as permanent members of the Security Council reflecting as it does two of the greatest myths—or pretences—which emerged from the immediate post-war period, if we are honest about it. So we must be concerned about the point that Joe Rogaly made very well in an article in the Financial Times a while ago, when he warned us of the insidious danger for this country of being "hooked on the glory drug" when we can afford the drug less and less.
The fourth point is the parallel increase in the economic capacity, and increasingly in the political will as well of countries such as Germany and Japan, the two so-called losers of world war 2, which now enables them

807
notwithstanding their constitutional inhibitions, which are beginning to be dispelled, to carry more of the burden of global responsibilities and of international peacekeeping; and it is absolutely right that they should do so. In this context, it is perhaps quite encouraging—a sign of the times—that German troops now serve on UN operations, as I understand it, in Somalia, and Japanese troops on UN operations in Cambodia. It is a good step in the right direction.
It is sobering again to note that, in 1970,.on the basis of gross domestic product per capita—I want to read these figures into the record—Germany was fifth, Japan was 17th and the United Kingdom was 12th in the world. The latest figures that I have are for 1991. On the same basis, Germany was fourth, Japan sixth and the United Kingdom 18th. That is the economic basis on which we must build whatever policy we can sensibly afford.
My fifth point is the evidence of declining public support among the British people to allow any Government of this country gratuitously to accept disproportionate global peacekeeping burdens, especially if other, stronger, nations seem not to pull their weight, and if our external effort appears to be made at the expense of more pressing domestic economic and social needs. A good deal of opinion poll evidence, which I have no time to read into the record, shows exactly how the public reacts to these matters. It is somewhat different from the way in which some of us here who follow these matters see it ourselves.
So what am I saying? My argument is not that we abdicate altogether our external role in the world, but rather that it should be given a sharper and more concentrated focus—less of the wide angle, and more of the telephoto lens. We should limit the range of roles that we try to perform We should concentrate on fewer of them, but do them even better than we already do them.
We should concentrate on things like more rapid response intervention, which we do well; this implies fewer long-term peacekeeping roles of the kind that we are doing in Cyprus, for example, and for which I see little justification in today's world. We should put more emphasis on the support for the civilian power in Northern Ireland, because we have to—it is an integral part of our country—but that implies less emphasis upon the minimal, residual presence, which is the result of historical factors, in Germany, through the British Army of the Rhine.
We should encourage our stronger allies, particularly our partners such as Germany and Japan, to do more. In this process, we should recognise reality—here I make an unfashionable point—and consider ceding our place as a permanent member of the Security Council to Japan, while encouraging France to cede her place to Germany. After all, she appears to have been prepared to cede practically everything else to Germany in recent times, including her currency, so why not cede her place on the Security Council as well, for good measure?
Beyond the military sphere, we should concentrate more on our considerable diplomatic, cultural and overseas development skills of the kind to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) referred, We have a top-notch diplomatic service and priceless assets in the British Council, the BBC and our higher education institutions. We have one of the most respected and cost-effective overseas aid programmes in the world. We should play to those strengths. It is better
808
to do fewer things well than to attempt to do too many and fail for lack of capacity, and increasingly for lack of public will.
6.27 pm
Mr. Bruce George: The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) made a courageous speech, which will not go down too well with his colleagues when they get round to reading it. He argues that we should become Belgium with nuclear weapons, and I do not think that everybody on his side is quite prepared to make that leap in their own lifetime from super-power, to major power of the second rank, to slipping down the second division into the third division and out into the Beazer Homes league, if the league still exists, because military power underpins diplomatic power. It is absolutely right that one must develop one's roles commensurate with one's economic ability to sustain those roles.
The irony is that, with the transformation from the cold war, far from cuts being easily made, quite the reverse is the case, because one does not, if one wishes to embark on peacekeeping operations, dispense with those weapons that were necessary in the previous era and move into light tanks and equipment that was not central in the cold war. We need both capabilities, because there is no guarantee that the only conflicts that we are likely to be engaged in for the future will require Warrior and light tanks and light equipment. There are so many threats that still require the old-fashioned military capability. It is right to repeat the thesis of Paul Kennedy from "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" that countries that overstretch themselves eventually collapse.
A famous hymn says:
"Crown and thrones may perish
Kingdoms rise and wane."
That is most apt in relation to Britain. I shall not belabour the tempting political point that our economic capability has so deteriorated that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington can contemplate our playing only a minute role in international relations. That is one of the consequences of our economic decline in the past 13 years.
Boutros-Ghali said recently that there would probably be 400 countries in the world in the next decade. Many of them will be created as a result of conflict. It was not meant to be like that. The end of the cold war was meant to usher in an era of peace and harmony. In many ways, we can look back on the cold war—this sounds rather perverse —with some nostalgia. It might have been uncomfortable if one lived in eastern Europe with low living standards, but nevertheless there was some stability, which has disappeared.
We are now facing a crisis. The shifting of the tectonic plates is the finest analogy used to describe the fundamental transformation in international security. We are entering such a period of instability that even the Ministry of Defence recognises it. The uncertainties that we now have to cope with will cause enormous problems to the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office.
The late Evan Luard identified in the mid-1980s 127 wars that had taken place since 1945, during the period of apparent stability. Jane's Defence Weekly identified no fewer than 73 hot spots throughout the world. In 1991, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute identified 30 wars that were taking place, and the Royal

809
Military College, Sandhurst, identified 45 possible sources of conflict and tensions in the former Warsaw treaty organisation area alone.
What is more threatening is the fact that some of those crises have already surfaced. In some, the tensions are quickening; in some, the tensions and problems are stirring; but there are many instances, largely unknown, in which the issues are quiescent—lying dormant—but could escalate to a crisis at any time. Those are the sort of crises that we shall have to cope with.
In its seminal and influential report, the Select Committee on Defence made its own threat assessment, a "Strategic Setting". The warnings were there that one does not have the luxury of simply employing light forces on United Nations missions. We have identified a series of potential threats and crises to our national security that will be met only by a defence policy that can cope with a variety of contingencies.
The United Nations will be pivotal during the dangerous era that we are entering. It was rescued from its impotence by the ending of the cold war. The United Nations and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe will be very important, but they will not be panaceas for a more secure world or a substitute for institutions that, historically, have served us well and are undergoing a period of rapid transformation.
Until we achieve a more harmonious world, I argue very strongly that NATO is still required. The initiatives that NATO has taken to reach out to former eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union are very important, not simply an exercise in finding a job to do. We would he foolish indeed to see even the European Community assume that responsibility before it is time. We would be even more foolish to assume that one can abandon collective defence and security for a rather nebulous concept of the League of Nations revisited. Although the United Nations will be very important, it must surely be seen as a complement to existing institutions.
The Ministry of Defence has now recognised that the world is rather dangerous. The statements of previous Secretaries of State and the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) would make amusing reading in the light of their sudden Pauline conversion to a Hobbesian interpretation of international relations.
One must look for the institutions that will be important in the forthcoming decade. NATO will still be very important. The stakes have been raised by the Vance-Owen plan and by the Clinton acceptance of an American commitment to the plan. Up to 25,000 American troops have been promised to police the Vance-Owen plan, and NATO will probably be the implementing body of this. It has been said that 50,000 to 60,000 troops—a corps—will be necessary to police the plan. Many would argue that we should not get too deeply into such a crisis.
I argue that not getting more deeply involved in the long term, and even in the medium term, is likely to be more horrendous and to have more devastating consequences on European security. When the Select Committee on Defence visited Croatia recently, I led the rear area brigade—what I call the lack of moral fibre brigade, which was not chosen to go into more dangerous
810
country, several members of which are with us this evening. Most people assume that the only troops in Yugoslavia are the Cheshires, but many other troops from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Royal Fleet Auxiliary and from other countries are doing an excellent job.
The UN must look at its rules of engagement and its mandate. I have been told that our commitment is likely to be short, but I give the House this pearl of wisdom and information. I saw in the port of Split 12 pool tables waiting to be delivered to the Army. That does not show that a British withdrawal from former Yugoslavia is imminent, nor should it be. The United States should exact something from its allies in any activity that it undertakes. That is the only way to bring the negotiating parties genuinely to the negotiating table. Diplomacy alone is superfluous; diplomacy backed up by the threat of force is still critical.
The United Nations will assume an increasingly important role. If we are going to be 400 countries, the UN must play its part in securing that new world.
6.37 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: I must first apologise to the House for missing a number of the speeches which followed the opening speeches and thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker, for your tolerance; I had to attend a meeting that I could not avoid.
I was much taken with the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who spoke of some people's nostalgia for the cold war. When the Warsaw pact and the Berlin wall crumbled, few people realised how within so few years we should find ourselves in the difficulties and uncertainties that grip us today. A number of bodies around the world are commendably seeking to find a new role in the dangerous world that has emerged. The United Nations—I shall talk about this later—is doing its best to cope with the rise in prestige in recent years. NATO is seeking a new role, we hope as an agency of the United Nations to deal with regional problems. The conference on security and co-operation in Europe, the other newly fledged organisation, is acquiring more expertise in peacekeeping and in actions to reduce tension. All these are to the good, and all must be encouraged.
We have to remember that, where there are international tensions, there are various levels of international response. First, we very often apply sanctions, and it is to these that I shall devote most of my comments today. Then there is the role of peacekeeping and, above all, the role of peacemaking and the reversal of invasion situations, as in Kuwait and the Falklands.
I believe that there is in the House, quite rightly, an understanding of the dangers of peacemaking and of how ill-fated a massive peacemaking operation in Yugoslavia would be. The lessons of the last world war are well remembered in the House, and rightly so. The public would soon tire of a procession of body bags coming back from Yugoslavia with little sign of peace being made. The House's advice to the Government to avoid peacemaking in Yugoslavia if they possibly can has been absolutely right.
There is in the world, particularly over Yugoslavia—and, indeed, Cambodia, where I am going with a delegation from the Foreign Affairs Committee at the

811
weekend—a feeling of hopelessness, exasperation and frustration. I want to suggest some of the things that I believe should be done.
First, we need major changes at the United Nations. In November I went to New York with the Foreign Affairs Committee; we met Mr. Boutros-Ghali, and the Committee will be reporting in the near future to the House and making its recommendations. Clearly, there continues to be a major cash crisis. That must be put right, and it is hoped that the Americans, in particular, will play their part in this. There is also a major problem with regard to communications. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) spoke about that a little earlier. There is clearly a major problem, too, over the control of military forces deployed in various parts of the world by the United Nations, and a great deal has to he done to improve that situation. I believe that the Government should do all that they can as soon as possible to get a new basis for the new role of the United Nations—a good deal of it on the back of "An Agenda for Peace", which I was very glad to hear the Foreign Secretary welcome in his opening speech today.
I return, however, to the issue of sanctions, as they so often constitute the first measure agreed by the international community. We ought to be thinking a great deal harder about how we can make sanctions and trade embargoes a great deal more effective. The imposition of sanctions and embargoes is a vital part of preventive diplomacy. On far too many occasions over the years we have seen the imposition of sanctions which really have not worked.
When I first came into the House, the Conservatives were in opposition and I was one of the 30 Members who voted with the Labour Government to impose oil sanctions on Rhodesia. I still believe that that was the right thing to do. The tragedy of the situation was that the oil sanctions were not properly enforced. That continues to be the problem with sanctions. We all know that, with the exception of oil, the sanctions that have been imposed upon Iraq are not especially effective. We all know that, particularly through Syria, and perhaps through other places, there is a great deal of leakage, which should not go on.
In Yugoslavia, the effectiveness of sanctions can only be described as pathetic. I had an answer from the Government on this only the other day. We know that a large number of our tankers have been going into the former Yugoslavia up the Adriatic. We hear stories and read in the press about convoys of barges doing the same on the Danube. We hear of Iranian aircraft flying into the Muslim areas, and we know jolly well what they will be carrying.
The tragedy is that people tend to dismiss sanctions and embargoes curtly, saying that they do not work and that we should not do any more about the problem, but my question to the Government today is this: should we not be giving a good deal more thought to making sanctions and embargoes more effective than they are? If we could, that would be a great prize, because the more effective one makes sanctions and embargoes, the less need there is for subsequent peacekeeping or even peacemaking arrangements. It is quite useless, having imposed sanctions, to send an American fleet up the Adriatic to monitor what is going on. That is no good at all. One has to be able to enforce the sanctions.
812
To my mind, it would improve matters no end if, at the same time as one imposed sanctions, there was automatic deployment of enforcement and supervisory forces nn adjoining countries. It is clearly better to do it at that stage, at the beginning, than to try to impose those forces months later when serious shortcomings become apparent. National dignities are much more offended and upset if one then wants to put enforcement and supervisory forces into adjoining countries to see that the sanctions are properly applied.
There are, of course, major problems in doing this. Sanctions can never be made 100 per cent. effective; we all know that. There are always problems of transhipment, which can be a method of abuse. There is the problem of compensation for losses in adjoining countries, including trade lost through the imposition of sanctions. There was a classic example of that in the case of Jordan and the Gulf situation. Then there is the final difficulty, to which the hon. Member for Stockton, North referred in his notable speech—that of finding suitable troops. This is one of the major problems that the United Nations faces.
There are great advantages in ensuring that sanctions are properly enforced, above all because that does not lead to casualties among the enforcement bodies in adjoining countries. I strongly believe that there are great opportunities for making sanctions much more effective. I greatly welcome the CSCE initiative in appointing a sanctions co-ordinator; I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary welcome that today and I know that it was partly through his initiative that it was done. I urge the Government to give a lot more thought to this, because it is a relatively painless way of enforcing the international will.
6.47 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: This debate is a chance not only to assess the participation of our armed forces in peacekeeping operations, but to address the deep-seated and widespread desire of the peoples and nations of the world for some form of collective security. They want a means of ensuring uniform rights and protection for the individual and respect for and compliance with international law. They want to be certain that, if conflicts arise, the suffering of those directly affected, but not directly responsible, will be alleviated quickly and efficiently.
In short, I speak of a new world order, given life by the ending of the wasteful years of cold war stalemate, given energy and sustenance by the allied response to. Saddam Hussein's rape of Kuwait, and given hope for the future by continued progress on strategic nuclear arms reductions, by the ever closer co-operation of international agencies and states and, most of all, by the release of the United Nations from a 45-year-long relegation to the periphery of international affairs. There are good intentions and a will to achieve, but no backing and no will on the part of key member states to let the work begin.
I noted with interest that in his address at Chatham house on 27 January this year, the Foreign Secretary dismissed the idea of a new world order as being not helpful, yet he and the Secretary of State for Defence recognise in the public response to each fresh international crisis the must-do-something factor. Yet they fail to realise that, here and abroad, there is a will to accept change for

813
the common good. The means exist to achieve that change, provided we grasp the opportunity while the will and determination remains.
In "An Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, sets out the way ahead, and the British Government should take a lead in promoting and advancing the principles of that agenda. After all, we are a permanent member of the Security Council and we belong to NATO, WEU, CSCE, EC, the Commonwealth and the G7 group. We may be a medium-size power with a developed sense of international responsibility, as the Secretary of State reminded us, but there is no shame in that. If one sits at all the top tables, one has access to all the key players. One also participates in taking decisions that affect a large percentage of the world's population. So we should examine what the British Government are doing to meet the ends set out by the Secretary-General.
There are several important aspects of "An Agenda for Peace" concerning peacemaking and peacekeeping. Do the Government support the idea of centralising the control of military operations via a military staffs committee? Is it not fair to argue that the problem with United Nations operations in the past has centred on the inability of the participants to communicate and associate in the necessary functions of a complex logistical undertaking, such as humanitarian relief in Bosnia, around a single source?
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that a logical conclusion of the confusion experienced by the United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia in communicating with each other, let alone with the warring parties, cries out for a centralised structure as part of the United Nations peacekeeping effort based around a major signals unit and expanding to take in infantry, medical and supplies units?
Indeed, would it not be advisable, if we are to promote the role of the United Nations in those areas, to take on board all the points mentioned in paragraphs 42 to 54 of "An Agenda for Peace", drawing on the military resources of member states for a permanent standby force, trained and ready to hit the ground running, in response to Security Council resolutions? We welcome NATO's offer to place its resources at the disposal of the United Nations, highlighting the significance of the merging of Britain's foreign policy interests with the roles being created and played by international agencies.
I also read with interest the speech by the Secretary of State for Defence to the Royal United Services Institute in which he made many good points with which I agreed. But I question whether he was correct to say that there was no need to address "Options for Change" and that little could be achieved by setting aside troops for peacekeeping duties. The United Kingdom is the second largest contributor to United Nations operations, with nearly 4,000 personnel committed. Their experience and expertise is highly valued.
We can be proud of the role played by our forces in peacekeeping operations and should not shirk from the possibility of expanding that role. After all, even right-wing columnists are beginning to acknowledge the need for a more interventionist United Nations and the promotion of "the right people to the right jobs". The
814
British Army, Navy and Air Force are packed with the right people. The Government should, perhaps, accept that "Options for Change" is full of decisions but lacks direction. A blend of foreign and military affairs would be of use to the world as well as to the United Kingdom.
The UN peacekeeping operations cost money, so I urge the Government, who have access to all the key players, to push for the prompt payment of debts. I also urge them actively to consider the direct funding of peacekeeping operations from the defence budget. The idea of a peace endowment fund is also worthy of further consideration.
Dr. Boutros-Ghali talked at the UN about an excess of credibility. In his Chatham house speech, the Foreign Secretary highlighted the magnitude of that job, which involved, he said, running a foreign ministry, defence ministry and a world ministry for planning, all without adequate funding. We can play our part by bringing pressure to bear on other member states to pay their fair share and by assisting the Secretary-General in his attempts to streamline the administration in New York and elsewhere. We must also continue to promote the involvement of regional organisations, so allowing the appropriate implementation of UN initiatives at the local level. That should go some way to help clear up confusion over the UN's roles and capacities.
I urge the Secretary of State to advance the principles contained in paragraph 18 concerning the protection of minorities, a factor of great significance in a world ridden with disorder. I hope that, when he replies to the debate, the Minister will clarify the Government's position over the International Court of Justice and will say that we strongly support the implementation of the measures in paragraph 19 of "An Agenda for Peace", at home and abroad, to strengthen further the acceptance of the jurisdication of the court under article 36.
While these issues may not appear to be closely linked with peacekeeping efforts, there is clearly a need for the UN to create a feeling of wide-ranging justice in pursuit of Security Council resolutions. It must also instil confidence in the even-handedness of their application.
In that context, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) explained the fear and concern that currently exists over the situation in the middle east. He spoke of the fear felt by those who had been asked to participate in the continuing middle east peace process and of the concern of their relatives and friends. Somewhere between Israel and Lebanon are 390 of their colleagues. Unless we are totally even-handed over the issue, they may find that their lives are at risk when they return to their homes, especially if some of their friends and neighbours are still stuck somewhere between Israel and Lebanon. For that reason, we must enforce Security Council resolutions in an even-handed way.
In his Chatham house speech, the Secretary of State talked of an imperial role and concluded that it should be implemented only by the international community, with no claims or priviliges as the result. My hon. Friends and I have no difficulty in associating with that idea, and we urge the Government to move further and quicker in pursuit of it.
The men and women who wear the blue beret, whether they are operating in peacekeeping, observing or peacemaking tasks, are the instrument with which the world can restore order and sanity amid chaos. It is achievable. The cost, though high, is worth paying. A new

815
world order and a rejuvenated United Nations cannot promise total peace on earth, but we cannot afford to miss the opportunity to advance the peace process further.
6.57 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: Although the subject is wide, I shall restrict my remarks to Bosnia which, with other members of the Select Committee on Defence, I had the privilege of visiting last week.
The situation there is very confused. Reading the newspapers, one might think that there are three sides—the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims—but it is more complicated than that. The Serbs have received most of the equipment of the Yugoslav national army and its disciplinary procedures, whereas the Croats and the Muslims tend to have local militia raised locally and not always under full control. So the level of discipline depends greatly on the leadership of the individuals in the area.
That makes the whole area extremely dangerous. There are many bombs, bullets and shells, and our troops, faced with that situation, are behaving superbly. We are greatly impressed by all the troops there—the Cheshires, the Royal Irish Regiment and others; and the Royal Engineers, who have done a magnificent job in building a huge road from Tomislavgrad north—and morale is high. We were greatly impressed by everything we saw.
Our troops have a specific role, which is to assist in the distribution of humanitarian aid. It is a narrow role. Guestimating from various press estimates, about half the aid arrives in the hands of the people for whom it is intended, the starving and those in great difficulty. Much of the food and aid is taken en route. It is estimated that the Serbs allowing food into Sarajevo take between 25 and 40 per cent. of the food as it goes through.
The instructions from the United Nations are that the UN forces should not prevent that food from being taken, because that would be confrontational and provocative, whereas the whole point of the UN role in Bosnia is to be completely independent. They must remain independent because their vulnerability, were they perceived to be taking any side, would be extreme.
We were all shaken to discover that we were walking past armed troops from the Croat national army and even finding them in the same building in Tomislavgrad, carrying weapons. We nodded to them and they nodded back. The same neutrality applied to other militia forces. That is how UN forces have to operate because, if they were perceived as being on one side or another, it would be the end of their role. In such a dangerous situation, what is the possibility of a solution?
The Vance-Owen plan is a solution and, as has been said, it is the best one on the table at the moment. It is perceptive and it deserves our full support, but I have one observation to make. The Vance-Owen plan expects that it would require about 15,000 to 25,000 troops to monitor it. Let us extrapolate our experience in Northern Ireland which is a well-policed Province of 1·5 million people, where there are 20,000 troops maintaining one area in which guns and weapons are not permitted. By comparison, Bosnia has 10 such areas where weapons are rife and where everyone over the age of 16 has a gun. If the Vance-Owen plan were to be implemented, the call for 15,000 to 20,000 to monitor it is an underestimate by a
816
factor of about 10. It is more realistic to think in terms of 250,000 to 500,000 troops if we are seriously to police such an operation.
That underlines the main point—that, if peace is to come to the former Yugoslavia, it will come only with the wholehearted desire of the people of that country—there is no question of peace being imposed from outside. That would not work.
If a solution is not readily available, perhaps we should consider building blocks which are as constructive as far as they go. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) made a cogent case for further sanctions and their greater implementation, which I fully support. We must do all that we can to reduce the heavy arms and the armies, and I believe that there is a useful building block to be taken from the arms control measures of the Vance-Owen proposals, even if the proposals themselves cannot be implemented in full.
Perhaps as a minimum lowest common denominator factor, we might need to consider as a building block the creation of Muslim safe areas. The Croats and Serbs each have allies and somewhere to go but the Muslims, who represent 45 per cent. of the people and are the largest single minority in Bosnia, have nowhere to go and represent most of the victims in the current unhappy situation.
Finally, we must consider the economy. Certainly the southern part of Bosnia used to depend crucially on tourism, which has now gone. The biggest show in town, the biggest industry in Bosnia, is now the war and the second biggest is the United Nations humanitarian aid relief. Somehow we have to find ways to develop Bosnia's economy. It is sad, although perhaps good for British industry, that all the food and virtually all the supplies used by our troops in Bosnia come from the United Kingdom. One would like to think that some of the very small amount of hard currency coming into Bosnia from aid agencies and the troops would find its way into the Bosnian economy which desperately needs regenerating.
They are positive building blocks, and I now suggest three actions which could cause a great deal of damage it' we were to undertake them thoughtlessly. The first, which was promulgated a month or two ago, was bombing the Serbs wherever they may be with a view to preventing them carrrying out atrocities or continuing their aggression. I think that I am quoting the Foreign Secretary when I say that the concept of bombing the Serbs into submission is ludicrous and will not provide a useful way ahead.
The second is the imposition of no-fly zones. Such a step would lead to our being perceived as being on one side or another. The third is the concept of air-dropping aid, which is not realistic: from a high level it would miss, and from a low level it would be extremely dangerous. The Serbs who are currently preventing humanitarian aid from reaching its destination are unlikely to find a low-flying aircraft less aggressive than a truck as a way of distributing aid, and the risks would be enormous.
I underline once again the vulnerability of the troops, especially the English and French United Nations troops, if a move were made which would cause them to be perceived as being on one side or the other. United Nations forces in Bosnia can succeed in their present role only if they are seen to be independent. We must avoid anything that makes them seem less than independent.

817
I am seriously worried about the danger of our being sucked into a wider role. When the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement to the House on 14 January he talked about 2,300 troops. The Foreign Secretary today talked about 2,804 troops in Bosnia, so there has been an escalation without us noticing. The troops are keen and will wish their role to be enhanced because of their enthusiasm, which I greatly applaud. However, they must not allow their enthusiasm to carry us along. The media show us atrocities every day, and there is a great demand for "something to be done". I put a contrary view.
The present role is valuable, but we must not drift into a peacekeeping role without a clearly agreed plan which is accepted by all sides. If we later accept a peacekeeping role, it may not be in Bosnia but in Macedonia or elsewhere. We must not allow the present narrow role of distributing humanitarian aid to drift into peacekeeping.
I was so worried that I read carefully the words used by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in an Adjournment debate on 2 February. He referred to the task force led by HMS Ark Royal and said that its role was
"either to provide additional protection for our personnel or to assist with a withdrawal".—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 302.]
I suggest that it is completely unrealistic to think that we can distribute humanitarian aid if we need to back it up with 105 mm field howitzers and strike bombers. I am very concerned that we should at all times keep open the option of withdrawal, and I fear that it may come to that.
I hope that the Vance-Owen plan is allowed to succeed, but we must not be sucked into a wider role without thinking through the consequences.
7.6 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: Like many previous speakers, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) understandably concentrated on Bosnia and made a very sober and realistic analysis of the problems there. Much of the debate has been consensual. The starting point for many hon. Members has been the wish to know ourselves as a country, to know our economic strengths—or, in many cases, our weaknesses—and what we are able to do and, equally, what we are unable to do.
The Foreign Secretary's theme in his Chatham house lecture was fine as analysis, but it was overladen with a certain world-weariness and a minimum of zeal when perhaps a little more zeal might have been called for. The second aspect of the consensus is the background of international disorder: the six months that shook the world in 1989, the end of the Soviet empire and the subsequent problems in eastern Europe, the end of the Soviet Union itself, and areas such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Tadzhikistan which are flaring up and about which the international community can do very little.
The situation poses new questions for the international community, such as the limits of non-intervention and the point at which the international community can establish government where there is no government, as in Liberia and Somalia. It also raises questions about areas in which, because of the intractable nature of the internal problems, it would be unwise on a risk analysis for the international community to respond to television images and the
818
impulses of public opinion; it should perhaps refrain from dealing with such disorder and possibly exacerbating matters.
There is a question of credibility. Failures by an excess of intervention can do immense damage to the international community and to the United Nations. The United Nations and its role has been a proper focus of the debate today. In its totally new and fundamentally changed context, the United Nations is the repository of all our hopes. As the current Secretary-General said, it has an excess of credibility. Just as, according to the Foreign Secretary, we in Britain cannot be everywhere and do everything, so the United Nations cannot be everywhere and do everything. In some cases it will have only a co-ordinating role. It may subcontract the issue to be resolved to an appropriate regional organisation.
However, the United Nations is beset with enormous problems. It has no proper computer infrastructure for keeping in touch with various operations in the field. I understand that the United States State Department has offered to provide that, and I hope that that offer will be speedily accepted. Then there is the problem of the $1 billion arrears in contributions. There are also particular problems involving personnel which we need not dwell on. I have said all those negative things, but the United Nations is the only show in town. It is therefore wholly proper that the international community should consider it the world's best hope, and that we should do everything we can positively to encourage its development.
I recall going to Namibia at the same time as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who knows Africa extremely well. Perhaps the operation of bringing Namibia to independence was too easy, but it was grand to see the enormous enthusiasm and commitment of United Nations personnel on the spot. Having achieved so much in Namibia, they were saying, "Today Namibia, tomorrow we shall go on to the western Sahara and Cambodia". Alas, realism has set in as we reach rather more difficult and turbulent terrains, but it was good to see that degree of commitment and enthusiasm on the part of the United Nations.
We talk about peacekeeping in rather a negative way. Just as peace is not simply the absence of war, so peacekeeping is not simply a question of keeping the sides apart and preventing something worse. One is bound to ask the reasons for doing so. Surely there is a positive element of seeking to build structures which will last while we are involved in the negative side of peacekeeping.
I see that the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir Michael Marshall), the very distinguished international president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is present. There is an enormous role for the international parliamentary community in establishing the bases of democratic institutions in new countries. I believe fundamentally that the investment in democracy and its institutions is an investment in stability. Democracies tend not to go to war with one another. When there are internal procedures for accommodating disputes, it is less likely that a country will fall apart.
It is extremely important that the relevant international organisations, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, European Parliamentarians for Southern Africa and others gather together in the hope that in the breathing space provided

819
by the military they can build up the democratic structures as an investment in democracy. In many places, the United Nations has done that successfully.
Finally, one area which resembles a laboratory experiment going wrong is Mozambique. There was a peace accord in October in Rome after 16 years of brutal civil war which left more than a million people from Mozambique in adjoining countries. People were maimed and had limbs amputated. Everyone's hopes were raised by the agreement in Rome last October, but what have we seen since? After the agreement between RENAMO and the Government of Mozambique and the establishment of the United Nations operation with the awful name of UNOMOZ, which stated that there should be 7,500 United Nations troops in place to maintain the ceasefire, there is not one United Nations soldier there at: the moment. Under the terms of the October agreement, there should by now have been the demobilisation of 48,000 of the estimated 80,000 Renamo and Government troops there. Not one soldier as yet been demobilised.
Mr. Jim Lester: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Anderson: I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes and I want to make this one point.
Similarly, the hoped-for elections have again been put off indefinitely. As for the sums voted by the United Nations, a budget of £233 million has been lost in labrynthine discussions in the corridors and committees of the United Nations in New York. It is a disgrace that there has been such delay. As the Italian head of the operation has said, there is now a real danger of Mozambique following the tragic path of Angola where, because there was a cheap operation by the international community, what could have been a major contribution to peace in the region has fallen apart with tragic consequences.
When we consider the categories that the Foreign Secretary properly raised—I well understand the reasons why he dwelt particularly on Bosnia and the conflict which is so close to us and which could well lead to a war which would have enormous repercussions on us in terms of refugees and so on—we must also examine other areas in the third world where, because of the collapse of the cold war, new conflicts have now emerged. We must look at the bad example of Angola, and draw our conclusions.
7.17 pm
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I welcome the opportunity to take part in a wide-ranging debate on international peacekeeping in the context of foreign policy. There is an inevitable logic in this arrangement, reinforcing the view that our Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence work in rather closer harmony than many of their counterparts in the western world.
The euphoria of the end of the cold war certainly did not last long. Although we heard talk of the new world order during the American presidential campaign, there is an increasing perception that the world is not inherently more stable after the collapse of the Soviet bloc—indeed, quite the opposite. The disintegration of the Warsaw pact brought in its wake instability throughout the former Soviet Union, outright conflict in the Balkans, the redrawing of boundaries in central Europe, and economic and social difficulties in the reunification of Germany.
820
As the Soviet threat has disappeared, new arid dangerous situations have emerged, and there is an understandable, if misplaced, nostalgia for the certainties of the previous balance of power. Against that background, not of order but of disorder, we re-examine the means of providing international peacekeeping. I shall concentrate on the wider issues before discussing the British role in peacekeeping.
The combination of western democracies cutting their forces and their reluctance to put their soldiers at risk undermine their ability to restore peace in trouble spots throughout the world. If they are neither threatened directly nor have any commercial or other national interest to protect, is it reasonable to expect altruistic action, and if so, how can it be co-ordinated?
The United Nations will have to develop. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) had some interesting views on that. It can develop in one of two ways, either by setting up its own command structure, with national assets committed to it, or by using an existing military organisation which has proved so effective in co-ordinating military forces of different nationalities to work together.
Perhaps NATO, said by many to be seeking a new role, is staring the solution in the face. As the United Nations' agent, it could continue to bind together north American and west European democracies for the future stability of the world. There would be no shortage of work for it to do. As Enoch Powell once said:
"History is littered with wars that everyone knew could not happen."
It will need true co-operation between the various national members. We recognise, for example, the constitutional problems of Germany and the sensitivities of France about the United States, but the whole venture will be fatally flawed if historic inhibitions are not overcome. If that can be achieved, the United Nations, through NATO, could indeed arrange pooling of resources and the matching and allocation of national forces to specific areas of conflict.
I should like to consider the particular difficulties of the British contribution. The third defence requirement set out
in the last "Statement in the Defence Estimates 1992" stated that our policy was
"to contribute to promoting the United Kingdom's wider security interests through the maintenance of international peace and stability."
To achieve that, we must have sufficient forces. Those of us who declined to support in the Division Lobby the scale of reduction in the debate on the estimates last year believed that the manpower available after the implementation of "Options for Change" could not cope even with existing commitments, let alone the unforeseen ones that many hon. Members have discussed today. We did not think that "Options for Change" would stand the test of time, but it has taken the deployment of British troops in Bosnia, and necessary reinforcements to Northern Ireland, to show that the sums do not add up, never did add up and will not add up in future.
This country has already had to decline to commit troops to Somalia, which many may think for historical and other reasons is a more suitable place to send troops than to Bosnia. I endorse the comments of one of my hon. Friends on the policy that should restrict our commitment in Bosnia to a humanitarian role.

821
With respect, I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) that it was our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who earlier this year admitted what many of us had said and what the Select Committee on Defence said in its last report last week: that the British Army is indeed overstretched—the very phrase which has been forbidden within the Ministry of Defence for months, if not years. The Foreign Secretary admitted the overstretch, and now we look for further remedial action.
For years we have presumed on the good will of our NATO allies by deploying soldiers committed to NATO to so-called emergency tours of Northern Ireland and elsewhere. That has been tolerated up to now, but it will not be tolerated indefinitely. The worst scenario is that our hard-won leadership of the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps could be challenged by those who feel that we are not pulling our weight.
The fundamental task of that new corps is to have the right forces in the right place at the right time. It is no longer possible for the United Kingdom to "two-time" NATO. We may as a nation punch above our weight, to use my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's phrase, but we may be accused of not pulling our weight in a multinational peacekeeping role.
I finish by asking what we are trying to achieve in the debate. I suggest that it is the proper use of our forces, recognised to be the best professional non-conscript manpower in the world, as a force for good to restore peace, far outstripping our economic and numerical military strength. I cannot urge strongly enough that the future shape of our armed forces must be influenced strongly by the civilised exposition of the country's policies, as set out today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
7.24 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) made some telling points. Fascinating insights have been given during this wide-ranging debate. A basic lesson that the world will have to learn is that countries must recognise one another's frontiers and that the United Nations and treaty groups with whom nations have signed treaties will keep their undertakings. That would make a major contribution to international peace and peacekeeping.
The Foreign Secretary referred to a scale between Gladstone and the saloon bar. He would not expect me, with my background, to make a division there, especially not to go for the silly middle—a common solution to many problems throughout the world.
I was fascinated to hear the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) comment that he had previously misjudged Lord Owen. He did not realise that Lord Owen had such capacity for reconciliation. I am concerned that the plan for Bosnia might become a pattern. If the country is divided in the way suggested in the Vance-Owen plan, will that not be a spur to people in Kosovo and Macedonia to go for their stated territory, with a knock-on effect and a further division of countries?
The recent involvement of United States troops in overseas distribution of food in Somalia, and the
822
deployment of our own troops as part of a UN multinational force escorting food convoys in Bosnia, suggests, as in the Gulf conflict, that individual countries are making decisions to commit forces as international policemen throughout the world. Humanitarian aid is vital, but is it possible for a few countries to carry on that role by deploying their forces without practical support from other Governments?
I signal a warning. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) referred to different developments within the United Nations in its expanding role. He mentioned article 43, under which the UN proposes to set up a military task force. I counsel against that. The concept of training together and working together comes about only through long practice, as we discovered in war time. Experience in Northern Ireland of dealing with guerrillas and terrorists has shown that forces under one supreme commander, but operating under different sub-commanders, may shoot one another instead of the terrorists. Therefore, I caution care in setting up a task force.
I was alarmed when the United Nations spokeswoman, announcing the withdrawal of some UN food convoys in Bosnia, stated that she placed responsibility on different Governments for not implementing the decision of the United Nations—her implication was, by force. There comes a time when we have to stand up to a bully or, as in Kuwait, to invasion by a neighbouring country, but I caution that force is not necessarily the best means to achieve peacekeeping.
Some hon. Members have mentioned other issues and in passing I must refer to Indonesia, which is possibly the fourth largest nation in the world, and its relationship with East Timor. As I am aware of some of the hasty judgments which are based on biased reporting from Northern Ireland, I tend to question the accuracy of some of the information emanating from East Timor. Therefore, will the Minister of State tell us whether the Government have received a copy of the report that the Australian Federal Government were compiling in Melbourne a year ago in January and February, when they were taking evidence on East Timor? If so, will a copy be available for us to study in the Library?
The Foreign Secretary referred to the history and traditions of our commitments. South and southern Africa is one of those historic commitments and it is amazing that, while we welcome the fragmentation of the former Soviet Union into separate nations, there does not seem to be any awareness of the different nations which make up the state of South Africa. There is a tendency to treat all black South Africans as the same. Historically, we contributed to the division of southern Africa into its various components. Although I believe that a final settlement will have to come through internal agreement, could not a co-existence of the individual nations in a federation of southern Africa offer the most acceptable solution?
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred to an assessment of our troop commitment. Germany has constitutional reasons for not sending troops outside the NATO area, and some of its political parties and people are also reluctant. With the increased deployment of our troops overseas, is it not time that Germany was given the task of countering potential threats from the east? Such a move would allow the United Kingdom to withdraw the 1st Armoured Division from Germany, convert it to an

823
out-of-area role and give enough British troops to carry out most potential tasks world wide. A force of that size would, however, require an increase in amphibious and air support. Some people still have a tendency to be little Englanders, but before long I suspect that we could have a force with a worldwide capability, comparable with our days of empire.
There is an increasing demand on our armed forces. Surely it is time to carry out a thorough defence review to identify the force level required to meet the demands of the international community and to meet our political aspirations and ambitions.
7.33 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: This debate on international peacekeeping is long overdue. Events in Yugoslavia during the past two years are not only a challenge to the authority of the United Nations but an indictment of the rest of Europe, and especially of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is our principal peacekeeping institution.
However, what is happening in the former Soviet Union should concern us even more, as they are so serious that events in Bosnia will be nothing in comparison unless we respond more effectively than we have done to date. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his opening speech, conflicts and confrontations are taking place all around its southern perimeter, and are causing the deaths of thousands and the displacement of millions.
In Moldova, the continuing presence of the 14th Russian army is encouraging the Russian-speaking population to resist the realisation of Moldovan statehood. Deaths, destruction and displacement have been widespread, and civil war remains a distinct threat.
In Georgia, two separate conflicts are causing the same threat: the conflict between the deposed President Gamsakhurdia and the recently elected President Shevardnadze; and the conflict between the Abkhazian minority and the Government that has abolished their autonomy.
In Azerbaijan, a similar conflict over the autonomy of Nagorno-Karabakh has rendered tens of thousands of Armenians and Azeris homeless. It is causing continuing death and destruction, not least by the daily bombing of Stepanakert by Azeri missiles. I must use this opportunity to place on record a tribute to the undoubted courage of our noble friend Baroness Cox, who is setting out tomorrow on her 12th mission to deliver food and medical supplies to Karabakh. Those missions, financed jointly with the European Community and non-governmental organisations, such as Christian Solidarity International and the Tear Fund do so much to relieve and encourage the brave people of Karabakh. I hope that the £0.25 million of aid that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State recently announced will be allowed to get to those people by the Azeri authorities, in the same way as the NGO assistance.
Unless the international community provides effective pressure on Azerbaijan very soon, I fear that its forthcoming offensive this spring will see the end of that historic Armenian Christian community of Karabakh. Those people will undoubtedly be facing genocide, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to find out what more can be done by the CSCE and the United Nations to avert that potential tragedy.
824
In four out of five Asian republics of the former Soviet Union there are similar conflicts. There are growing tensions in the Russian Federation between and within many of its autonomous republics. Last month some of us met with President Tcheptynon of the autonomous republic of Gorno-Altay, who told us that if President Yeltsin were replaced by Communists they would declare their independence, many other autonomous republics would do the same and then the blood would flow in the Russian Federation.
In crude figures, more than 1 million Russians and non-Russians have been forceably displaced in the former Soviet Union and tens of thousands of families require immediate aid and resettlement. Of the 25 million Russians living outside Russia, it is estimated that about 10 million will wish to be repatriated, to which must be added a further 1 million Russian army officers and their families. None of those people have homes to go to and that must add daily to the instability facing President Yeltsin.
If we ignore that situation much longer we will not have learnt the lesson of Yugoslavia—which is one of preventive diplomacy and the establishment of assistance programmes in volatile situations that are likely to cause such displacement—and in that case it will be a continent and not a country that is out of control. The consequences for the rest of Europe will be immense for many years to come.
In my early-day motion 336 I noted that all those conflicts are taking place in CSCE member states and I suggested ways forward, which I believe fully complement the excellent ideas of Dr. Boutros-Ghali in his "Agenda for Peace". We need to introduce the use of internationally sponsored referendums to establish precisely the ambitions of national groups in pursuit of their right to self-determination. That is the peaceful alternative to ethnic cleansing, as a solution to nationalism. However, that requires a more flexible and realistic attitude and in accepting that changes in existing frontiers may be necessary to secure lasting peace.
We need to introduce a system of binding arbitration to solve conflicts. That would build on Dr. Boutros-Ghali's proposals to promote the use of an international court of justice and of distinguished statesmen as peacemakers. If their findings are to have any authority, they must as a last resort be enforced by force. That is the nettle that we continue to hesitate to grasp despite all our plans to establish rapid reaction forces in NATO so that the Western European Union can make peace as opposed to keeping the peace.
If we do not face up to decisions such as those to enhance the authority of the United Nations and its regional bodies, such as the CSCE, we shall have failed to seize the opportunities presented by the end of the cold war. We shall have ignored the lessons to be learnt from Yugoslavia. We risk condemning both the United Nations and the CSCE to the same fate as the League of Nations had, and we know what happened then.
7.41 pm
Mr. Stephen Byers: I am pleased to take part in this important debate, which is occurring at such an opportune time. What has been interesting is the disappointment shared by many hon. Members that the end of the cold war and the development of the new world order have not brought the peace and security we all

825
desire. Instead, they have led to a period of instability and insecurity. The debate on international peacekeeping needs to be seen against that backdrop.
Most of my comments will be directed at the Ministry of Defence and will concern our defence capability. The Ministry of Defence needs to review its activities and operations in that context. Recent reports in the press have referred to the fact that the central financial planning and management group in the Ministry of Defence has been considering its future procurement programme. I hope that the debate will give hon. Members an opportunity to express their views, and to inform and assist Ministers in their decisions about the future shape of our armed forces.
As many hon. Members have said, if we are concerned about and committed to international peacekeeping, there will be a direct and real impact on the size and shape of our armed forces. There can be no doubt that now that we no longer have an empire, and now that we have lost much of our former economic strength, we need to decide what proper role there should be for our armed services.
It is clear that we cannot reduce defence expenditure and yet continue to expand our military commitments. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, identify our priorities. We must then ensure that our military capability reflects those priorities. There is no doubt that that consideration will involve many difficult and painful decisions. We must ensure that the decisions are not led by the Treasury, but are taken in the interests of the defence of this country. The dead hand of the Treasury must not be allowed to dictate totally the shape of our armed forces for the foreseeable future.
There is no doubt that, in deciding our priorities, as we must, the security of our country must always come first. A second priority will be the role of international peacekeeping. There is no doubt that that would command the support of members of the public. However, I urge some caution. We must ensure that priorities in international peacekeeping are not determined by news editors on the "Six O'Clock News". All too often, public support and sympathy follow appearances, often with graphic and disturbing shots, on the news. Many other conflicts throughout the world are not as accessible to the news media, so members of the public do not see them. However, a peacekeeping role may be appropriate.
Such a role will not be carried out in isolation. It will involve close consultation with other nations within the United Nations. Within the context of a multinational approach, what should be the role of the United Kingdom? I believe that we should play to our strengths, and, as an island nation, our seaborne forces are a particular strength. We need to ensure that we have an amphibious capability and that we make proper and effective use of the Royal Marines. They are in an excellent position to assist in an international peacekeeping role. That approach was confirmed in "Options for Change", which recognised the need for flexible and mobile forces.
The Falkland crisis was a stark illustration of the need for an amphibious capability. In Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, the United States made great use of its amphibious capabilities. Present-day events in the former Yugoslavia reinforce the need for an amphibious capability.
826
As Member of Parliament representing a Tyneside constituency, it gave me great pride to see the Ark Royal set sail for the Adriatic. The Ark Royal was built and designed eight years ago in my constituency, and it is a great tribute to the workmanship and excellence of Swan Hunter shipbuilders in Wallsend. We must acknowledge that the Ark Royal and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus are not the best vessels for the delicate job that now needs to be undertaken by the task force.
As many hon. Members will know, the Ark Royal and the Argus are not the ships to carry out the role that is now expected of them. Between them, they lack the proper facilities for the accommodation of support helicopters, of artillery and of combat troops. It must be a matter of concern to all hon. Members that men who may be deployed are sleeping tonight on the hangar deck of the Ark Royal.
We need to upgrade and enhance our amphibious capability. It is vital to international peacekeeping, and it has political value. It is flexible and versatile. It can be maintained in a state of readiness, and it has considerable deterrent value. It can go covertly or in a blaze of publicity. It can be stationed either close to or at some distance from a potential area of conflict.
Amphibious capability has a strategic significance. As Sir Basil Liddell Hart said:
"A self-contained and sea-based force is the best kind of fire extinguisher because of its flexibility, reliability, logistic simplicity and relative economy."
The case for an amphibious capability, especially in the international peacekeeping context, is overwhelming. However, we must recognise that it will have consequences for our defence procurement programme.
It will mean that the order for the landing platform helicopter vessel must be proceeded with. It will mean that Intrepid and Fearless, which are now both more than 25 years old, will have to be replaced by a new generation of assault ships. We need to be clear that, if those developments do not happen, real doubt will be cast on the future of the Royal Marines, because there will be no suitable capability and no suitable vessels to deliver the Royal Marines to potential areas of conflict.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers: No, because I am under a 10-minute restriction.
The most pressing of the orders must be that for the landing platform helicopter vessel. No other vessel presently in service can provide the same function. It was originally thought that Invincible could cope, but it is now accepted that the role of task force commander and amphibious assault are virtually incompatible.
It is clear that, to fulfil our international peacekeeping obligations, the landing platform helicopter vessel is vital. Its cost is £170 million, compared with a total defence budget of £24 billion. It is a small investment, but it will ensure and greatly enhance our amphibious capability. As the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement said on the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991", when he spoke strongly in support of the amphibious programme:
"There is no other means of providing such a variety of operational choices."—[Official Report, 15 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 178.]
At a time of world uncertainty, the order for the helicopter carrier is vital. Not only would it bring renewed

827
hope to shipyard workers in my constituency on Tyneside; it would also ensure that our Government are in a position to discharge their international responsibilities and play their part in keeping peace throughout the world.
7.50 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I hope that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) will understand that I do not follow him, because of the 10-minute restriction.
With my colleagues from the House who are, like me, members of the North Atlantic Assembly, I went to Washington and New York and among our discussions we met those who were knowledgeable about the United Nations. We wanted to find out a little more about what was happening. I should like to say a few words about NATO and the lessons that it has for the United Nations and for peacemaking in general.
If the cold war taught us anything, it was the realisation that NATO, which is a regional multilateral collective defence and security system not previously seen in western Europe, has provided and will continue to provide the best chance of keeping the peace. I do not think that the significance of NATO can be exaggerated. Its impact on the world has been profound and has helped to save democracy.
NATO is significant because, first, its members got in the habit of working together; secondly, the system demanded a willingness to pool and share resources; thirdly, a multinational command became acceptable. That is demonstrated in the Rapid Reaction Corps where the ground troops are commanded by a British general and the air force is commanded by a former member of the Luftwaffe, and no one turns over in their grave at such a mixed multinational command.
Fourthly, NATO succeeded because it was more than a military alliance. It had a political dimension which called upon its members to strengthen the democratic ties between them and to reinforce the humanitarian values that they all shared. There is now talk of NATO combining with the Russians and the Americans to advance the Owen-Vance plan in Bosnia.
The willingness of the Russians to co-operate with NATO does not surprise me. The North Atlantic Assembly already has representatives of the Russian and eastern European Parliaments as associate members, and they tell us time and again that they would like their countries to join NATO one day. Be that as it may—I do not mean to be at all hostile to the concept—I think that we are a little way off that.
In July, NATO put its resources at the disposal of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier, that offer is parallel with a similar offer to the United Nations. Iraq opened our eyes to the fact that the NATO system of co-operation had a new and wider application. NATO was not involved in Iraq as such, but its military command and control structure ensured the vigorous and efficient prosecution of the war. It was NATO's logistical capabilities and planning procedures which made possible the transfer of so many munitions, arms, guns and tanks from Germany through the NATO logistic facilities in Rotterdam to the middle east. When my right hon. Friend
828
commented on NATO's involvement, he was specifically referring to the involvement of the former Yugoslavia when he said:
"This is not NATO involvement for its own sake but reflects the reality that the alliance has resources which cannot be duplicated elsewhere."
In an article in The Times recently, Professor Laurence Freedman pointed out:
"NATO is not always seen as an impartial and neutral source."
I agree with that. There will be times when nations will look to the United Nations or elsewhere to help with peacekeeping and sometimes the peace enforcement process. The Gulf war opened our eyes to the fact that the UN had a more vigorous part in peace diplomacy and the protection of refugees.
As we have been reminded by hon. Members both sides of the House, the ending of the cold war did not usher in a new world order. Rather, it ushered in a world of disorder or more disorder. It suspended—I do not know for how long—the dreadful paralysis of the inevitable veto which had constrained the United Nations' ability to act during the previous decades.
Not long ago, Major-General Lewis McKenzie, Canadian commander of the United Nations forces in Sarajevo—the first commander and a very able man—was quoted as saying that he found it extremely difficult to contact the United Nations because it seemed to work a five-day week. He found it especially difficult to contact the United Nations on Friday evenings at 5 pm New York eastern standard time. That is probably a little unfair but, be that as it may, we can probably understand the frustrations of the military commander at the time. He was only reflecting those frustrations.
Before we censure the United Nations, I have no doubt that its ability to carry out its functions is seriously inadequate. We have heard that one of the rasons is that the United Nations does not have enough cash. I shall not rehearse those difficulties now, because I have only a few minutes in which to make my other points. While member states fail to meet their financial commitments and peacekeeping operations, it is clear that the credibility of the United Nations will be undermined. I find it especially nauseating that three or four months can lapse between the Security Council's authorisation of a mission and its becoming an operation in the field. As the Secretary-General has pleaded on many occasions, it is essential that he should be provided with a working capital fund for the start of new operations.
I agree that forces should be earmarked by nation states for more rapid reaction. They should learn to train together. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made that point in his vivid description of conditions in Yugoslavia. Training is vital. We have seen the training that our troops undergo for NATO missions and then they must be trained to do police work in Northern Ireland.
I shall never forget having to face a mob of people in an Indian peacekeeping operation. A bombardier turned to me and said, "What happens if they charge?" I said, "They won't; they're a damned sight more frightened of us than we are of them." We were not even allowed to put a bullet up the spout. That was the training that we had to endure. No one had a go at us, because we looked rather fierce and determined. We must therefore have forces earmarked and well trained.

829
There should also be a reserve of basic stock, including radios and all sorts of bits of equipment which some scratch forces do not have when they come under United Nations command. They will need, as NATO has, a common set of procedures for military communications, shared information systems, and so on. That is NATO's strength.
The military staff committee has long been without a function in the United Nations. It should be given a practical role to ensure that the changes are implemented. That is done with NATO, through the supreme allied commander and his staff.
All in all, there are quite a few lessons which could be learnt, but not only from NATO's experience. Not only military proposals are important. We have heard about the importance of sanctions and having an organisation which can examine sanctions more keenly. Such an organisation needs economic and financial back-up to ensure that peace is sustained once it is kept. Humanitarian as well as social purposes will need to be fulfilled.
The need to strengthen United Nations arms control and verification procedures is important. That is one way of helping to cure the disease of instability, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier today. The failure of the safeguards of the United Nations nuclear proliferation treaty to detect Iraq's weapons programme is convincing evidence of the need to strengthen the inspection team. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the establishment of a United Nations conventional arms register must be welcomed. It would help transparency in the defence capabilities of nations, but it should be extended to weapons stockpiles.
Such measures appeal to me. The proposal which I find the most appealing of all is that we must help the United Nations to reorganise bureaucratically the distinction between its two different but complementary roles of peacekeeping. There is chapter VI, relating to peacekeeping, and chapter VII, by which the United Nations establishes peace enforcement. The United Nations should establish two separate departments—a department which deals with political affairs and conflict resolutions, and an international peace and security department. I would not mix up the two. In that way, the United Nations is much more likely to make the efficient and capable response that we increasingly come to expect from it, but we must help it to achieve that objective.
7.59 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: This time last week, I was with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and three other colleagues from the Select Committee on Defence in Vitez in central Bosnia. All of us found the journey to that part of former Yugoslavia an extremely distressing experience. We must have seen thousands of refugees, countless houses that had been torched or bombed and large numbers of heavily armed young men, some of whom may have been disciplined soldiers while others clearly were not. No doubt some had been involved, whether under control or not, in perpetrating atrocities against civilians in that unfortunate country.
It is important to stress in a debate of this nature that by no means all the atrocities that have taken place in
830
former Yugoslavia are the responsibility of the Serbs. They are all at it: I saw plenty of evidence of Croat brutality against Muslims and Muslim brutality against Serbs. On the day we passed through the town of Gorni Vakuf, a British United Nations Warrior crew had to destroy a Croat position which would not stop shooting at them despite the fact that they were flying the United Nations flag and carrying the United Nations colours.
It is bloody chaos, but the abiding image for me must be the children playing in the snow, smiling and waving to United Nations vehicles escorting the aid convoys and bringing a little hope into their God-forsaken country—I suspect, much as the children of Northern Ireland waved to British troops who bought time there 24 years ago. Perhaps there are lessons to be learnt from such parallels.
This is a tragedy that is unfolding on our own doorstep, the doorstep of western Europe, in a country where thousands of our constituents took their holidays until two years ago, in Sarajevo which hosted the winter olympics in 1984. Yet people in that area have not had the benefit of any peace dividend from the end of the cold war. On the contrary, they have been pitched into a vicious hot war, just like many other people around the vortex of what used to be the Soviet Union, in Tadzhikistan, Moldova, Georgia and other areas, not to mention Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere—some peace dividend!
That is the background against which the British Government decided to slash its Army strength by 40,000 soldiers while continuing to build another three Trident submarines purely to be able to destroy Moscow. I do not understand it, but that is what they decided to do. Mercifully, the great British public is, as ever, ahead of the Government in understanding such questions.
People are concerned about what is happening in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Kurdistan and the marshes of southern Iraq—not as far away places of which we know little, as Mr. Neville Chamberlain might have said, because, thanks to Kate Adie and other reporters, we know quite a lot about them. Our people care and they want to help, as they have shown clearly by their generosity in the relief effort and by the pressure that they brought to bear on the Government to deploy British troops with the United Nations to help to resolve the situation in Yugoslavia by taking an active part in the United Nations protection force last summer.
People understand pretty clearly why we could not help in Somalia. A helpful Ministry of Defence official recently told the Select Committee on Defence that we could not help the United Nations sponsored effort on the ground in Somalia because we do not have enough troops to do so.
I confirm what a number of my hon. Friends have said today. The British United Nations soldiers in their blue United Nations helmets in Bosnia are doing a truly magnificent job—partly, it must be said, because they have had the good fortune to be deployed in an area where it has been possible for them to operate effectively; their French counterparts have not been so fortunate in Sarajevo and the Canadians have not even been able to deploy into the area around Banja Luka where they were supposed to be operating. The other reason why the Cheshires have been able to achieve so much is because they are well trained professional soldiers with excellent logistic back-up and a wealth of highly relevant experience from peacekeeping in Northern Ireland.
At the beginning of the operation, when I and my colleagues on the Defence Select Committee listened to

831
evidence from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 22 September 1992, I wondered what could be achieved under the terms that he described. He said that the Cheshires could do no more than ride shotgun on convoys, and that, if the going got difficult, they would withdraw. What we saw in Bosnia last week was a much more proactive deployment. The British United Nations troops are opening up roads, rebuilding bridges, patrolling their area, talking to people, using their good offices to minimise the risk of conflict in local areas wherever possible and generally making their presence felt. They are doing all that as well as escorting a large volume of humanitarian aid which is getting through and helping the civilian population—although, sadly, far too much is going to the armies in that part of the world. We should be concerned about that.
The representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees whom we met last week were delighted with the way in which the battalion is operating and it would be good news if the operation could be similarly enhanced in other parts of former Yugoslavia. That is the point which must be put across in this debate: the exercise cannot stand still—either it will have to be stepped up in line with the Vance-Owen plan, or it will have to be abandoned.
The existing United Nations operation is at risk of becoming bogged down in a disillusioned and hostile environment, rather like our forces in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland 24 years ago, the troops bought time: and raised hopes, but when those hopes were not fulfilled, due to the failure of politicians, the troops were left in the quagmire where they remain today. That must not be allowed to happen to the United Nations in former Yugoslavia.
That means that the United Nations operation should be driven forward to make the Vance-Owen plan work. I do not like that plan any more than anyone else does. Such partitioning is unhealthy, but it is the only hope for that part of the world. To do that, the United Nations needs better co-ordination, better command and control and probably substantially more troops. It is also essential that there should be a direct representative of the United Nations General-Secretary in the area to take command of the operation with its political, military and humanitarian aspects. I hope that that will be considered.
American participation in the operation is obviously important, but Bosnia is no place for air power or massive ground forces. The "Stormin' Norman" approach would only degenerate into a sort of European Vietnam; that is a risk which should be understood by all concerned. Yugoslavia requires a combination of diplomacy and force, and the forces should be genuinely multinational. That, presumably, should include an enhanced British presence in UNPROFOR. I sincerely hope that when and if the Americans become involved in the operation they will listen to the people who have been deployed there during the last year and learn from those experiences.
What should Britain's role in all this be? On 13 October the Foreign Secretary said:
"our commitments"—
military commitments—
"could well increase—provided, that is, that we wish to maintain our position as a medium-sized power with a developed sense of international responsibility."
We are, after all, still a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
832
We have also assumed the leading role in the new post-cold-war NATO ACE rapid reaction corps, which should develop into a highly trained force ideally suited to play a key part in the United Nations peace enforcement role outlined in Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali's document, "An Agenda for Peace", submitted to the Security Council on 17 June 1992.
The Foreign Secretary has had to admit, however, that British forces are overstretched at present. He did so in a speech on 27 January before the Select Committee on Defence published its second report on the matter on 9 February. British defence policy is a shambles as a result of the Treasury's headlong rush to take a cash dividend from the end of the cold war without the benefit of any kind of review of the military risks and commitments facing Britain in the coming years. The Defence Select Committee's second report shows incontrovertibly that the 26 per cent. cut in the strength of the Army in "Options for Change", even after the 2 per cent. add-back on 3 February, still leaves our forces overstretched and, in many cases, treble-hatted, and certainly in no position to increase their commitment to the United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world. They are already unable to fulfil their existing tasks within reasonable constraints for training, intervals between emergency deployments and other important military factors.
The Select Committee unanimously concluded that we should add back a further seven infantry battalions to make it possible for the Army to undertake the tasks and to meet the risks which exist. I am not suggesting an increase in defence expenditure, but an objective review suggests that we should cut Army manpower by 21 per cent.—not the 26 per cent. proposed by the Government in "Options for Change". I would happily suggest substantial alternative economies in other parts of the defence budget. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will bring wiser counsel to bear in the Ministry of Defence.
There is much peacemaking to be done in today's world —whether in Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, southern Iraq, or Somalia—and that is just the start. I urge the Government fully to support the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to make that possible, and to reconsider the irrational defence cuts initiated by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) when he was Secretary of State for Defence. We can help to restore hope and life to the suffering people of places such as Bosnia. Peace itself is a far more precious dividend than anything that cash can buy.
8.10 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: I was relieved to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary say that the United Kingdom will not play any major part in flying supplies into Bosnia or any other part of Yugoslavia. Most right hon. and hon. Members will welcome that statement. Dropping supplies is not easy at any time, as we learned in northern Iraq. It becomes even more difficult under small arms fire or ground-to-air fire in the form of SAM missiles. If the United States wants to take that line and the United Nations countenances it doing so, be it on America's head. I would not want to see British planes taking part in that operation, which might also put at risk everything that we are doing so effectively on the ground.

833
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary asked to what extent we should take part in international peacekeeping. We have probably the proudest record in the world in international peacekeeping. It goes back to the Korean war, when admittedly we operated under powers delegated by the United Nations, and followed through to Desert Storm, also under powers delegated by the United Nations. Desert Storm deployed half a million troops from no fewer than 30 countries. However, those two operations were the exceptions to the general rule.
Over the past 30 or 40 years, the scale of United Nations operations has grown year by year. In the Arab-Israeli dispute in 1965, in UNF1, only 4,000 troops from seven countries participated. Although they did a reasonable job, the moment there was any trouble, they were invited to stand to one side—and they did. In Cyprus, United Nations forces numbered 6,238 in 1974, but by 1990 had fallen to 2,108. We may see the need for that force disappear over the next year or two. I am optimistic about the abilities of President Clerides and President Denktash. The two are old friends, and if they cannot work together to produce a future for Cyprus, then God help us.
I regret having to introduce a slightly sour note, but there was talk of 1974 and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Mr. Ecevit, then Prime Minister of Turkey, will be visiting London next month, when I hope Opposition Members will meet and discuss with him the events of 1974, when he came to London and begged the then Labour Government to intervene alongside Turkey. It was not convenient for them to do so. Had that Labour Government intervened, as they could and should have as a guarantor power there would be no partition today; Cyprus would be a united island, with a federal state established.
The United Nations will have an increasing role to play in the rest of this decade, and Yugoslavia is only the beginning. I follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) in referring to the composition of the United Nations forces there. UNPROFOR 1 in Croatia has a Canadian commander on the ground. Poor chap—I do not envy him this task one little bit. He has 14,000 troops from 31 countries. The hon. Member for Stockton, North described in some detail where those troops came from, how they were picked, and how ill equipped some of them are.
By contrast UNPROFOR 2 in Bosnia, under a French commander, comprises 7,740 troops, one third of whom are British. All come from NATO countries. It is a unified force, virtually working under a NATO command structure. It knows its business, and it is getting on with it. If I were offered the choice of those two commands, I know which I would take.
There will be more United Nations commitments, and all will require quality troops that are well trained, well equipped, well led and disciplined. The hon. Member for Stockton, North made the point that a large number of seconded troops do not exhibit any of those characteristics.
As to being well disciplined, who has the right to ask for troops to be withdrawn once they have been committed to a United Nations operation? Right hon. and hon. Members may have read a report in The Sunday Times about the behaviour of the Russian battalion in Croatia.
834
What right does it have to be there if its soldiers are behaving in that fashion, acting in a partisan way, and not doing their job properly? Who has the right to tell them to withdraw from the field?
That is a difficult situation, because a political decision was made to put in troops from all over the world—but if certain troops are not up to the job and of high enough quality, someone must bite the bullet and tell them to get out of the field and get out of the way. Having made that point, my hope is that that report was not correct.
There must also be proper command control—a well trained headquarters staff, and not one cobbled together from outside. That is where NATO becomes so important. There must be commonality of equipment and language, plus a generous allowance of engineers within any force, because they are needed in all such operations. There must be clear and incisive political control alongside military control—and someone of calibre from the political side to work with and enjoy the confidence of the military commander. Only one organisation is capable of providing a proper command structure that will work under fire if necessary, and that is NATO.
Also is the United Nations structure man enough to deal with the problems that will emerge in the course of the next decade—and does it have the resources to do so? The answer is clearly no. We and every other member of the United Nations must be prepared to come forward and to play our part not only in making the United Nations in New York worthy of the name but in ensuring that, when our troops put on the blue beret, they can wear it with pride. All too often, our troops do—but some other contingents that take part in United Nations operations do not.
8.18 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: During the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Foreign Secretary pointed out that Saddam Hussein went to war and obliterated Kuwait. All right. But the Foreign Secretary then talked about decent people. It is high time that "decent people" remembered the children of Iraq as they are now.
United Nations sanctions are causing the deaths of more than 2,000 people a week in Iraq through lack of medicine, medical services, food and diet supplements, bad water, and a lack of equipment and parts needed for health care, good water, agriculture, and food processing. It is high time that we considered ending sanctions. There can be no doubt about the deaths, or the causal relationship.
UNICEF estimates that between 80,000 and 100,000 children under five will die in 1993 if sanctions remain. Among the reports that establish a high death toll is a special report not in some Arab newspaper, but in The New England Journal of Medicine of 24 September 1992. According to that report, the death rate among children under five may be five times as high as the rate before 1991. Doctors estimate that 80 per cent. of child hospital admissions are nutrition-related. As I have said, my figures come from American rather than Arab sources.
Let me address the Minister through those figures. In 1990 there were 485 cases of kwashiorkor; in 1992, there were 13,744 cases. That is an increase of 28 times. Marasmus is a wasting disease, found especially among children as a result of defective feeding. In 1990, there were

835
5,193 cases; in 1992, there were 111,477–21 times as many. Those figures come from the university of Harvard, and they are not doctored.
In 1990, there were no cases of cholera; in 1991–92, there were 2,100. In 1989, there were 6,229 cases of measles and German measles; in 1992, there were 21,823—three times as many. In 1989, there were 1,812 cases of typhoid fever; in 1992, there were 19,276, 10 times as many. The figures are eloquent enough, but heaven knows what will happen in the possibly hot summer of 1993.
In 1989, there were 6,612 cases of pneumonia; in 1992, there were 17,377, 2·5 times as many. In 1989, there were 19,615 cases of amoebic dysentery; in 1992, there were 61,939—more than three times as many. In 1989, there were 1,816 cases of viral hepatitis; in 1992, there were 13,776, seven times as many.
In 1989, there were 2,816 cases of brucellosis; in 1992, there were 14,546—an increase of 5·9 times. In 1989, there were 73,416 cases of giardiasis, a duodenal intestinal problem; in 1992, there were 596,356—an increase of 8·1 times. There was an increase of 4·3 times in cases of whooping cough, and an increase of 12 times in poliomyelitis. The incidence of other protein, vitamin and calorie-related cases increased 11 times, involving great numbers of people.
I am told that virtually all the child population is affected. The percentage of births under 2·5 kg body weight in 1990 was 4·5; in 1992, it was nearly four times higher, at 17·6. It is climbing, and is the basis for western medical assessment that Iraq will have millions of stunted —yes stunted—children. We are rightly concerned about what has happened in Liverpool, but we should bear in mind—whatever politicians are in power in this country —that there is a possibility of stunted children in the lands of Mesopotamia. We have some locus in that.
Children over five, and adults, have suffered enormously. The most vulnerable—the elderly, and those with physical disabilities and chronic serious illnesses—have died at greatly increased rates, which comprise much of the approximately threefold overall increase in the death rate. Medical laboratory examinations declined by 60 per cent., from 17,928,000 in 1989 to 7,079,000 in 1992; major surgery cases declined by 63 per cent., from 181,000 in 1989 to 65,733 in 1992.
Those statistics do not convey the human suffering involved. Anyone who has visited hospitals in Iraq in 1991, 1992 or 1993 could hardly tolerate the sanctions: they are a cruel form of death for their victims, the families of those victims and all who understand that they are the actual, moral and legal equivalent of taking the lives and the health of infants, and of sick and elderly hostages, for the payment of money or other acts of government.
Sanctions violate humanitarian law, because they are known to deprive a population of food and medical care.
The Government ought to pay close attention to a recent visit to Iraq by Ramsey Clark. He was thought fit to become Attorney-General of the United States—the senior legal officer in Washington. Are we now to say that his figures, and his concerns, should be dismissed?
There is also the evidence of Dr. Eric Hoskins. Doctor Hoskins is Canadian, but he is also the holder of a Lester Pearson medal. He is very concerned about what he calls nuclear toys. He points out:
"Several months ago, when the medical director of the prestigious Albert Schweitzer Institute arrived in Berlin carrying with him one of these 'mildly' radioactive DU"—
836
depleted uranium—
"penetrators retrieved from Iraq, he was immediately arrested by the German authorities and charged with illegally `releasing ionising radiation'. The DU penetrator he was carrying, its radioactivity confirmed by two independent German laboratories, was quickly sealed in a lead-lined box."
There are no lead-lined boxes in Iraq. We should consider the humanitarian aspects of the matter.
On 22 February, the Prime Minister gave me an answer to unstarred question No. 70, in which I asked "pursuant to his oral answer of 4 February, Official Report, column 472, how much of the evidence of the key witness" —in the Matrix Churchill case—
"was given in response to questions which referred to the disclosed documents."
The Prime Minister replied:
"As I indicated in my answer of 4 February, I suggest matters relevant to the Matrix Churchill trail should await the outcome of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry."—[Official Report, 22 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 436.]
As soon as Lord Justice Scott's terms of reference were announced, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I asked whether questions would be precluded. Hon. Members will recall that we were told that in no way would answers be treated as if they were sub judice.
Now everything is being put into Lord Justice Scott's in-tray. I do not doubt the distinction or fair-mindedness of this judge, but I am very unhappy about this inquiry. I think that I am the only remaining Member of Parliament who appeared before the Franks committee. That committee, which met under the distinguished Lord Franks, is now reckoned not to have reported in a very satisfactory way. Indeed, when I talked to Sir Patrick Nairne some years later, he, like other members of the committee, was rather embarrassed about some of the things that had happened.
Lord Justice Scott should have at his disposal two Clerks of the House of Commons, independent of the civil service, to help him. In answer to written question No. 5 on 18 February, I was told that he would have the help of one assistant solicitor, one press officer, one grade 7 officer, one executive officer, one administrative officer and one personal secretary. This is not sufficient to sort out the wealth of evidence that is now being produced in book form.
During the recess I read the 500 pages of Kenneth Timmerman's book "The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq". Many hon. Members will be familiar with David Leigh's book "Betrayed". Then there is John Sweeney's book "Trading with the Enemy: Britain's Arming of Iraq". If we need any indication of the relationship with Iraq immediately before the war, here it is. But, like a plot twist, says Sweeney, in one of the Reverend Thomas Awdrey's "Thomas the Tank Engine" books, all is not well in the Iraqi shunting yards. When a bright, shiny, brash new engine steamed in, full of puff, its name was David Mellor. That was the discovery of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). At a serious level, I have to say that this is the relationship that occurred between Britain and pre-Gulf war Iraq.
I end by repeating something that I said in an intervention during the speech by the Foreign Secretary —that he must explain a number of matters arising out of the books to which I have referred. They cannot go unchallenged. The House of Commons will be brought into disrepute unless some serious answers are given, especially by the Foreign Secretary with regard to what

837
exactly happened on 19 July—a fortnight before the start of the hostilities—when he chaired a Cabinet meeting with the object of removing restrictions on the export of military equipment to Iraq.
When I make speeches urging the lifting of sanctions and contact with the authorities in Baghdad, let us all remember what the relationship between the British Government and Baghdad was. That puts into context a request that sanctions be lifted. I wish that the Foreign Secretary were present, for, with regard to the question that I put to him during his speech and Geoffrey Robertson's brilliant performance in the Old Bailey, I have to say with sadness that, for the first time, I do not believe him.
8.34 pm
Sir Michael Marshall: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will understand if I do not folllow him down his line of inquiry. I wish to take up some of the main themes that I detect emerging from the debate. I have heard almost all the speeches and apologise for having to slip out briefly to meet a constituent.
The document "An Agenda for Peace", which was produced last year by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, defines peacekeeping as
"the deployment of the United Nations presence in the field, hitherto with the consent of all parties concerned, normally involving United Nations military and/or police personnel and possibly civilians as well".
The document says:
"Peacekeeping is a technique which expands the possibilities of both the prevention of conflict and the making of peace."
Things have moved on since that definition was given in the middle of last year. The definition has been sharpened by the way in which the civil war has pointed up some of the difficult questions that the House faces today.
I shall wish to cite the situations in Somalia, northern Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia. These are three examples of the way in which we have had to look again, with some precision, at the problems that face us. I refer in particular to problems arising from the military and civil authorities' coming together under the umbrella of the United Nations. As has been said by several hon. Members, the wider definition of peacekeeping could certainly take in the question, for example, of the organisation of elections, as happened in the post-civil-war situation in Angola. We certainly see this operating in preventive diplomacy. Reflecting my IPU responsibilities, I have to say that it is in the area of parliamentary diplomacy that many people can play a part in this process.
With regard to the specific problems arising from civil war, one thinks of the safeguarding of food supplies and the prevention of human rights abuses. In every respect we have to reflect that the peacekeeping process with which we are principally concerned is disaster relief. If one thinks of the situation in those terms, one begins to see who the principal players are and how we should seek to support them.
I have long supported the use of the military in disaster relief. I know that there was a certain initial reluctance. That applied even in the case of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which was understandable, given the situation at the time. However, events have moved on,
838
and, as has been said, NATO has proved itself as perhaps the only coherent regional force that can be deployed under United Nations auspices. But NATO cannot take on everything. There will be situations in which we have to evolve a better structure to deal with the problems confronting us. Very often this has to be done against the problems—in some cases, the resistance—of some of the organisations involved in disaster relief.
I am thinking of the views expressed by the International Committee of the Red Cross and some of the religious aid organisations. I respect their views, but my attitude is simply that, when a disaster of this kind strikes, there is no option to turning to the military. It is the only organisation that can produce the rapid response that is needed for humanitarian purposes. It alone has the spread of communications, medicines, transport and, above all, command and control to secure the necessary direction of the operation.
But we ought to welcome the wider opportunity in what is happening in a difficult and dangerous world. I refer to the area of international co-operation. NATO and Warsaw pact forces are coming together. That is a welcome development. The idea of east and west and, in the case of the Warsaw pact, the former military being involved has much to commend it. Most right hon. and hon. Members would agree that, in the scheme of things in the world, there must be a place for such people, who, within their lights, gave service to their countries. Co-operation of that type is of the highest importance.
It is also very important in these debates that we should not forget the vast number of countries that are not privy to what goes on in the Security Council, the inner sanctum of the G7 and the "G77"—all those countries in the developing world that suffer in a way far beyond our experience. They too must be taken into account, and their sensitivities respected, when we make our plans. In all our work we should try to draw on the lessons that we have learnt in recent times.
Let me return to my three examples. In northern Iraq, the protection of Kurds has shown clearly what NATO can do in this regard. That action was undertaken directly in response to United Nations resolutions. The matter of Somalia raises some very serious questions. I pay tribute to what the United States has done in responding to United Nations resolutions, but the United States has said that it is there for a finite period, and the question that arises is what is to happen at the end of that period. While we all hope that diplomacy may be brought to bear to help resolve the problems, it would be a sanguine observer who felt that there were not still deep dangers with the war lords in that country. I see that there are already suggestions that forces from other members of the United Nations may be asked to take over this responsibility. Australia has been mentioned, and I have no doubt that we will receive the call.
I come, as most other hon. Members have, finally, to the situation in Bosnia. I was pleased to find such clarity of view from both Front Benches in saying that we cannot impose a military solution by force, nor can we end the fighting by attack from the air.
Sticking within the ten-minute philosophy as far as I can, I will advance just three principles that I hope that we will regard as relevant in our planning for existing and perhaps future commitments. First, if the military is to be employed it is essential that it has a clear objective. There must be some understanding of its purpose, of the period

839
in which it is to be deployed and of its relationship with the civil disaster relief agencies and with the United Nations —and that is an area where co-ordination is not particularly good at present.
Secondly, we cannot impose these responsibilities on the military if those who command them feel that they are going to be denuded of their traditional role, which is the defence of the free world and not a matter that can be pushed aside as no longer relevant. There are still severe anxieties in the world at large, and there is still a potential nuclear threat. Therefore, if we look at "Option: for Change", as we have been doing, and at the wider role of the military, that is fine, but when specific exercises are postulated, we must calculate carefully, their effect on those traditional roles.
Finally, the military must be given full support through the United Nations. It is in this area that I have some anxieties. If we look at the way in which the non-governmental organisations, the disaster relief community, the representatives of the United Nations and the military have sought to work together in the field, we see an uncertainty in the United Nations' own direction of these affairs.
I would particularly urge my right hon. and learned Friend, when he winds up, to reflect on the role of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs which has been set up to co-ordinate all these matters in the United Nations and, in particular, in some senses, to take over the previous activities of UNRO and other agencies. I believe that the Department of Humanitarian Affairs has not really been given the proper backing and encouragement that it should have. If it is allowed to pursue its work, it can begin to bring together all these agencies, all this relief and all the work of the military in a meaningful way. That is why I very much hope that we may give the United Nations strong support in this task while it is going through a period of difficult and international change.
In all the speeches that we have heard tonight, many of them moving and well informed, there is a clear desire that peaceful resolution should be the prime objective of the House as it is of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I understand that the wind-ups are to begin at about 9·20 pm. Five hon. Members are still waiting to catch my eye, and most of them have sat here all through the debate. If we have a bit of co-operation in the length of speeches, I may be able to call them all.
8.43 pm
Mr. David Trimble: Like many hon. Members, I want to concentrate on the situation in former Yugoslavia. Events there in the past few years have been rather depressing to observe. I am afraid that the conclusions that they may have for us are also depressing.
Before the crisis in Yugoslavia broke, there was some reason for believing that we were in the process of putting into place, through primarily the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, a set of principles which would regulate relations in Europe and deal with the sort of problems that later emerged. The principles involved such fundamental matters as recognition of existing boundaries, provision for minority rights through concern for the human rights of members of minorities and the
840
principle that changes should come only by way of agreement. These principles were the bedrock on which the CSCE process was supposed to operate.
When we see that that process has not operated effectively in Yugoslavia and consider the present position, we see something that is in conflict with the principles. The Owen-Vance plan for Bosnia has been described as the only show in town, but it is a most unsatisfactory show. It proposes to recognise as administrative units the ethnic divisions and ethnic units in former Yugoslavia. We are going to create a series of Serb states, Croat states and Bosnian Muslim states. This plan can operate only as a prelude to the break-up of Bosnia.
I know that under the plan there is a suggestion that there will still be some vague central authority, but the logic of events will point towards the break-up of Bosnia as presently constituted into those ethnic units because Owen-Vance recognises the ethnic units. As a corollary, the present ethnic sorting out that has started within that area will be accelerated. There may be proposals to deploy peacekeeping forces to police the operation of the Owen-Vance plan, but I suggest that it is only likely to slow down the process of break-up.
The implications of that for other areas will be considerable. If Bosnia breaks up on the ethnic lines for which Owen-Vance is laying the groundwork, inevitably the Bosnian Serbs will want to develop their relationship with the rest of Bosnia and with the Serbs in Krajina. That has implications for the territorial integrity of Croatia. It also has implications further south. The Albanians of Kosovo and the Albanians of Macedonia will ask, if the ethnic minorities are going to be recognised in Bosnia, why they cannot be recognised too.
We may feel that we can keep those areas in separate compartments mentally and try to apply to Kosovo the principles that we set out in CSCE agreements, which I understand is the position of the Government, because the Government say that they will continue to recognise the existing Serbian state and to tell the Albanian population in Kosovo that they should rely on autonomy and provide for human rights in that way, but they will not necessarily see it that way.
I attended a briefing on the subject the other day at which a gentleman who had been in the territory and was familiar with it said that the minute that a major peacekeeping force arrived in Bosnia, Kosovo would erupt, that the Kosovo Albanians realised that this would be their chance and would seize it with both hands. In the light of that, while the Owen-Vance plan may be the only show in town, it is going to be curtains for a number of territories in the way in which it operates. I do not consider that it will be a good plan or a good experience.
Having said that, I recognise that it is impossible to turn the clock back—I wish it were. We may be unable to rectify the mistakes that have been made with regard to Bosnia, but must we just sit and wait for their implications for Kosovo and Macedonia to unfold? If we cannot vindicate all the principles that underlay the CSCE process, can we at least vindicate the principle that change, if inevitable, comes only by way of agreement? At the very least can we not recognise the present state of Macedonia? I feel very concerned about the situation there.
We are told that the Greeks have no territorial ambitions over the present Slav state of Macedonia, but their blockage of recognition is, I fear, opening the way to other territories which do or may have territorial

841
ambitions. I refer to Albania, Serbia and Bulgaria. By keeping Macedonia in limbo, we are making it something that is up for grabs, an unstable area, in which other states may be tempted to intervene.
Looking at this rather depressing situation, I think that the overriding lesson is that the CSCE process and the United Nations itself have not worked very well. It may be said that it is working better than it did during the cold war, and that is a fair point, but we must not deceive ourselves. Let us not say that we have a new world order or that we have new international authorities which can be effective. They are not being terribly effective when put to the test. Experience in Yugoslavia and elsewhere shows that they do not have an effective decision-making process. The Yugoslav crisis emphasised that. Their reactions were too late and slow.
Another lesson is that we cannot deal with all the problems that exist in the world: to do so would place too heavy a burden on the few countries willing to bear them. If we cannot deal with all the problems, dealing with only some of them may bring the process into disrepute because selectivity would then arise. There is no difference in principle between the situation in Azerbaijan and Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and that in the Balkans. For various reasons, we are involved in one but not in the other. Such selectivity will bring the international organs and the international process into disrepute.
The answer is that until we have better and more effective decision-making processes and clearer principles on which to operate we should be cautious in our approach and should confine the use of international organs and intervention to clear and flagrant cases. We need better agreed principles on which to act and greater legitimacy for the way in which we act against states.
There has been a tendency in this debate to concentrate on what could be called the military nuts and bolts. Good and sensible points have been made about military command structures, the need for amphibious forces and so on, but the essential problem is not one of command or forces but political, and until we find more effective international organs and decision-making processes we should not talk up the process. We should move more cautiously and try to work out and achieve the necessary political consensus—if not globally, at least regionally—that can provide a basis for peacekeeping operations.
8.51 pm
Mr. David Faber: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate. I had planned to follow some of the more general points that have been made about the United Nations, but, mindful of your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall move straight to the subject of Bosnia.
I have sat through every word of this thoroughly good wide-ranging and extremely interesting debate. Like other hon. Members, I have been fortunate enough to visit Bosnia. I spent some time in Sarajevo just before Christmas, where I had the opportunity to see the peacekeeping operation at first hand.
I should like to consider the four categories of UN peacekeeping into which our role in Bosnia falls. The first is the delivery of humanitarian aid, which the Cheshires are so successfully undertaking in Bosnia and the
842
Americans in Somalia. The second is peace monitoring, in which UNPROFOR 2 in Sarajevo faces the most difficult task. The third is peacekeeping, such as in Iraq or by UNPROFOR 1 in Croatia, to which our Government may be asked to contribute should the Owen-Vance plan succeed. The fourth is peacemaking, which has been dealt with at length: the enforcement of no-fly zones, the imposition of troops on the ground and the removal of the arms embargo on the Muslims, all of which, I am happy to say, have been ruled out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The deployment of United Kingdom troops in Bosnia has been an outstanding success, and I join other hon. Members who have paid tribute to their skill and bravery. There can be no doubt that they have saved tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives, but the death of Corporal Edwards reminded us of the dangers that they face daily and of the greater dangers that they would face in a peacekeeping or peacemaking role.
One example that is often forgotten is the importance of the co-operation of Belgrade in delivering humanitarian aid. However much we may dislike the Belgrade Administration, we should remember that the majority of aid reaches Bosnia from there. It has a safe two-hour trip from Belgrade to the border at Zvornik, and were we to impose peacemaking or peacekeeping resolutions on Serbia, that route would be cut off, leaving only the more dangerous route that our troops are using from Split andVitez north to Bosnia.
It is in the peace monitoring role that the United Nations has the greatest difficulty on the ground, as I saw for myself in Sarajevo. When it was first set up, logistically, the operation in Sarajevo left much to be desired. It is the United Nation's job to monitor the clashes that take place, and the firing of heavy weapons. It issues daily press releases describing what it has seen, with a disclaimer about where shelling came from.
The shelling of Sarajevo has been an extremely emotive point throughout. It has barely been reported in the west that a great deal of it has come from Mount Igman overlooking Sarajevo, which is controlled by a rogue Muslim commander, Juka, who is not under the control of the Bosnian presidency and whose actions the United Nations has been unable to assess.
We saw emotive scenes of the shelling of the bread queue in Sarajevo and of a cemetery when a funeral was taking place. The United Nations locally now acknowledges that both may have been carried out by Muslims in an effort to curry favour with the west. That is certainly what we were told by UNPROFOR when we were in Sarajevo. Most recently, General Morillon has ticked off the Bosnians for the murder of a French soldier and the wounding of several French soldiers, the blame for which he laid squarely at their door.
Logistically and politically, there are problems, which the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) summed up very succinctly. How can Egyptians be seen as neutral observers by the Serbs and Croats in a war involving muslims? Similarly, how can Ukrainians be seen as independent observers in a war involving Serbs, when in many parts of Bosnia they openly fraternise with the Serbs and when convoys being taken by Ukrainians rarely come under fire? That is when they are not too busy playing the black market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) pointed out.

843
The first paragraph of the article in the Sunday Times to which he referred said:
"Russia's first military force to serve with the United Nations has turned out to be a disgrace, according to angry UN officials. Its men have been accused of black marketeering, defying orders from the UN commander in Croatia skimming UN funds and collaborating with Serbia's most ruthless paramilitary force."
The article, however true or untrue, lists a catalogue of cases in which the Russians have at best turned a blind eye and have at worst been helping the Serbs.
What will happen if the Owen-Vance plan succeeds, as we all hope it will, and achieves a peace settlement, and the UN asks us to contribute some form of peacekeeping force, probably run by the United States? I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to treat such an application with extreme caution. I appreciate that there is a catch 22 here: what is the point of sending troops to enforce a peace if the peace is already thought to be holding? I believe that we should be extremely cautious about joining any peacekeeping force, unless an established and workable peace is already agreed and has proved possible.
UNPROFOR personnel with whom we spoke in Sarajevo acknowledged that they were treading on eggshells. Their perceived neutrality is vital, which is one reason why British troops have been outstandingly successful in Bosnia. I am concerned that, were a peacekeeping force to be sent with United States troops at the head, it would not be perceived as neutral by Serbs, just as Russians playing a role in a peacekeeping force would experience great problems in convincing opponents of the Serbs that they were not closely allied to them.
In the United States, the debate has been much more one-sided than it has in the rest of the west, especially in the press. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned the worst excesses of The New York Times, which has attempted to whip up a fever in the United States throughout this unfortunate and tragic war.
It is clear that the vast majority of atrocities have been carried out by the Serbs, but I believe, for instance, that if we are to look at setting up a war crimes tribunal—I was concerned to hear the United States ambassador to the United Nations last night paying attention only to the Serb atrocities—this has to be handled in a very careful and cautious manner.
To sum up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the hope that other hon. Members will be able to catch your eye, I urge the Government to be extremely cautious in agreeing to help with any peacekeeping force in what is now Bosnia.
8.59 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I wish to take a different angle on the subject of tonight's debate. The question of which circumstances are right for the use of peacekeeping troops is complicated, and I support the humanitarian efforts of our troops, both in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, and pay a tribute to them. However, I wish to make another fundamental point.
Even if only one British soldier is deployed in a peacekeeping role, I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House agree that as much protection as possible should be provided under international law. It is this aspect of international law which leads me to question the Government's stance on the 1981 inhumane weapons convention and the 1977 additional protocols to the
844
Geneva conventions, each of which has great significance for British troops on peacekeeping duties. I will deal with the additional protocols first.
Protocol I relates to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts. This protocol supplements rather than replaces the 1949 Geneva convention, incorporating many important developments—for example, the identification and protection of medical aircraft, and provisions ralating to indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Protocol II relates to the protection of victims of civil war. It would be under this second protocol that any British soldier would have to claim protection, as the war in Bosnia is a civil war.
The former federal state of Yugoslavia ratified both those protocols on 11 June 1979. This ratification should apply to the replacement states, including Serbia and Croatia.
The second protocol includes a prohibition on "outrages upon personal dignity", in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment, rape—which, of course, has happened in the former Yugoslavia—enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault. Maximum pressure must be brought to bear on those guilty of such offences, because they have broken the Geneva Convention rules.
However, we must not appear hypocritical. This protocol, although signed by the United Kingdom, has not been ratified by us. If we are to put the maximum pressure on those who are carrying out such hideous offences, should we ratify it? Further ghastly offences, such as
"forced detention of civilians in appalling conditions", are also in breach of this protocol, as is the "forced movement of civilians".
If we are to make a case to the United Nations or any other international body about abuses of these protocols in the former Yugoslavia, we will risk looking quite foolish. Anyone opposed to such investigations will ask us why, if we are so concerned about these protocols, we have not ratified them.
The same is true of the 1981 inhumane weapons convention, which also has great significance for British troops in the former Yugoslavia. The use of napalm is controlled by this convention, although its use is not banned altogether. Napalm has been used many times in Bosnia, apparently by Serb forces. If British troops on humanitarian or peacekeeping operations are hit by napalm, Her Majesty's Government will have reduced political clout in international circles for any redress, because we have not ratified the convention.
Moreover, in statements, Ministers have questioned protocol 3 to the convention, which restricts the use of incendary devices such as napalm. I believe that this is a mistake, and it severely weakens the position of British forces on the ground. We are not talking about political embarrassments; we are talking about people's skins.
The Minister stated in a letter to me that the inhumane weapons convention cannot be ratified until the additional protocols have been ratified, and he linked this to possible
"interpretative or operational problems for NATO".
However, the linkage between the ratification of the convention and possible NATO problems with the protocols seems rather strange when one considers that other NATO states, such as Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway, have all ratified it. I think that

845
the inhumane weapons convention and the additional protocols could be ratified easily, and I urge the Secretary of State to start the process immediately.
Lord Glenarthur, then a Minister, told the other place in 1987 that he hoped that consultations in NATO about the additional protocols would be completed in 1988, so enabling a decision to be taken on ratification. We are still waiting.
There is a principle in international law that one does not sign a treaty unless one intends to ratify it. Unless Her Majesty's Government are breaking international law, the ratification decision must be a question of when rather than if. The time to ratify is now. Let us not leave the treaty to go the way of protocol 4 to the European convention on human rights, which we signed in 1963 but have not yet ratified.
Peacekeeping will be an important role for the British army. If a British soldier is to be sent to any danger zone, he should have the full protection of international law and be freed from the hypocrisy of the British Government's attitude to international law. I urge the Government to ratify those instruments.
9.5 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: In view of the time, I shall confine my remarks to the Balkans. The Foreign Secretary today detailed the scale, scope and record of British forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We can be proud of them. Their humanitarian work has saved thousands of lives, but for how long can that go on? Are we not treating the symptom and not the disease?
Are we perhaps postponing the inevitable? Are we waiting for an agreement between the combatants which —although we may get one—they would not keep? The long, sorry record of events recently in Bosnia has been of civilian leaders agreeing and military commanders on the ground brazenly disregarding agreements and carrying on with the slaughter.
The sense of futility engendered by the situation was well articulated by Lord Carrington during his briefings to Committees in this House. We must face two brutal alternative realities: either we let the war take its course or, on behalf of the world community, we impose a solution by the world community. The first has attractions, about which we have heard in the debate. We have heard echoes of the old saying about a faraway country of which we know nothing or, to recycle an old quotation, about Bosnia not being worth the bones of one British grenadier.
We could argue that they are all Slays, let them do battle among themselves and sort it out for themselves. Were we to take that approach, the outcome would see the majority of Bosnia and Herzegovina come under the Serbians, despite the fact that they made up less than one third of the Bosnian population at the beginning of this sorry series of events. Were that to happen, it would be thanks to their access to the Federal Yugoslav armoury. The Croatians would also hold large territorial tracts of Bosnia Herzegovina. But the Muslims would be squeezed, cleansed and exterminated. We would see the sack of Sarajevo, and we would see it night after night on our television screens. The slaugher would be inevitable, and inevitably it would be that of the innocent.
846
The end result of such a policy would be a greater Croatia. They would settle for that and they would go off the international agenda, like Slovenia before them. The Muslim Slavs would join the fragmentary minorities, such as the Jews, prevalent in central and eastern Europe. Greater Serbia would be the greatest danger of all. We would have proved that force pays, that defiance of the international community pays and that defiance, regardless of the activities of negotiators, even their own, wins. They would have won thanks to enjoying the heritage and armed forces of Federal Yugoslavia.
Let us be absolutely clear that greater Serbia would not stop at Bosnia Herzegovina. It would roll on to Kosovo, Vojvodina and even to Macedonia. Kosovo, the former autonomous province within Serbia, is populated to the extent of 80 per cent. by Albanians. Under Tito, the people had rights of language, education and even to fly the Albanian national flag as the provincial flag of Kosovo. Under Milosevic, the autonomous province and its national assembly have been abolished. The university of Pristina and the Albania schools have been closed. Repression is the order of the day.
Is the next step of Serbian ethnic cleansing to be carried out in Kosovo? The passions of greater Serbia could be fired by the emotions of the ancient battle of Kosovo, so emotive in Serbian folklore. The tolerance of the Albanians in Kosovo could break into violent revolt, which would make what we have seen in Bosnia look like a kindergarten.
Vojvodina, the other autonomous province within Serbia, has also been abolished and it has large minorities –18 per cent. of the people are Hungarians. Macedonia, as yet unrecognised, is 65 per cent. populated by people akin to Bulgarians, and 21 per cent. are Albanians. Events there could provoke Greece and Bulgaria. Events in Vojvodina could provoke Hungary. A trail of minorities, like a powder train, stretches from the Balkans across Europe: Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia, Slovaks in Hungary, Sudetenland exiles in Bavaria looking to the new Czech republic, Silesians in Poland rediscovering their German roots, Poles in Lithuania—so one could go on.
We must do all we can to back up the Vance-Owen plan to find a settlement in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is the start of the train of powder. It would be quite credible to cantonise Bosnia and Herzegovina. The origins of the Swiss confederation were to find a stable settlement between three communities there with roots in adjacent lands, and the record of Switzerland shows what can be achieved.
If we do not want the powder train across Europe to be ignited, as it was in 1914, we must give every support to a United Nations led and multinationally staffed back-up to a peace settlement in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It should not rely on the United Kingdom alone or even on a United Kingdom lead. We must show off the effectiveness of the foreign affairs pillar of the European Community which has been boasted of lately in the House. We must use the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and western European countries must put their forces where their mouths are. If, because of their 20th century history, Germany and Italy cannot intervene with us in Bosnia-Herzegovina, they must put up the money—as, indeed, the Germans did in the Gulf. If necessary, we must keep the peace and even make the peace.
9.11pm
Lady Olga Maitland: In his opening remarks, the Foreign Secretary prompted us with the question, to what extent should we take part in peacekeeping? I believe that we should take part wholeheartedly and without hesitation, not only because it would be a gesture of leadership from a country which should be proud of the professionalism of its armed forces but because we have the finest tradition of leadership. I for one should be disappointed if ever we fell down in that respect.
I appreciate the Foreign Secretary's saying that Great Britain would assist in a United Nations peacekeeping force in the event of a ceasefire and a peace agreement. I also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence recognised the possibility that Britain would contribute a force to NATO under a United Nations cap.
I must stress that duty begins at home. Whatever commitments we take on overseas, it is important that we do not do so at the expense of our important commitment in Northern Ireland, which must be our priority. It would be a tragedy if the Irish Republican Army misunderstood our determination to ensure that its violence never pays.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallingford (Mr. Forman) rightly mentioned our priorities. After our priorities at home must come those in Europe. I have absolutely no doubt that our moral responsibility lies within the European boundaries, so Bosnia must be top of the list. I place on record my enormous appreciation not only of the Cheshires and their fantastic work with the humanitarian convoys but of the less heralded Royal Irish Regiment. How often do people remember to thank them? There is also a special interest in my constituency, because 150 Crown agents have been sent out by the Overseas Development Administration to help with the convoys.
As we speak today, the bombardment continues in Bosnia. I heard this morning that the heavy artillery attacks on Tesanj, Gorazde, Cazin and Miljanovci continue unstinted. I hope that those dreadful events will be a spur to the peace talks.
As we are now discussing peace talks and something is likely to happen, the time has come to think ahead. I welcome the initiatives by Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance. Their plan for 10 cantons is not perfect, but we should encourage them to fight on to achieve the right mix and the best possible fair deal for everyone.
A peace agreement will lead to peacekeeping, but how will we keep the guns silent? That brings us to peacemaking. Forcing sniping warlords into demilitarisation will call for a considerable United Nations force which must be as broad, wide and deep as possible. It is not simply a United Kingdom responsibility; it is absolutely right that the Government should insist that the burden must be shared, and not simply with those who have already accepted their responsibilities. I welcome the fact that the Americans are now wholeheartedly joining in the planning and will be making a contribution.
It is also significant that we are now discussing the problem with the Russians. A multinational force is essential to gain the confidence of all parties. Many people will not find the Russians acceptable as they are working too closely for comfort with the Serbs; none the less, the balance has to be struck. I particularly welcome the trip by
848
Reg Bartholomew, the United States special envoy to Moscow. Let us consider for a moment the implications of a Russian contribution.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Lady explain what she means by the term "Russians"? She has now used it twice and it needs some clarification in the context of the debate.
Lady Olga Maitland: When I refer to the Russians, I refer particularly to the state of Russia and not to the Commonwealth of Independent States. I am not trying to embrace all the republics of the former Soviet Union. A contribution from the Russians would be significant, as it would be the first time that that country had co-operated with NATO. It could be attractive to Moscow and it is for the west to make it politically attractive. We must make it abundantly clear to Mr. Yeltsin that he has more to gain from the good will of the west than anything he could achieve by encouraging Milosevic.
We are well aware that there is a natural kinship between the two countries; they are Slays and they share the same Orthodox Church. However, it is important that we ensure that Milosevic, who is the inspirator of this murderous performance in Bosnia, should be politically isolated and made as uncomfortable as possible. Indeed, sanctions should be brought to bear which will cripple his style and standing in his own country. I was in Belgrade just before Christmas as one of the official observers for the election, and he was defiant to the core.
We must push forward and encourage those within the country of Yugoslavia who support a proper peace process. Next week, the former Yugoslav Prime Minister, Milan Panic, will be in London. We should listen to what he has to say. Meanwhile, it is important to enforce sanctions with the greatest energy. I congratulate the Government on drafting new proposals, suggesting the closure of all rail and road links and the enforcement of no-fly zones. In those matters, Russia would have to back the United Nations resolutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) drew attention to concerns about bringing Russians into a peacekeeping force. They are not experienced. We have plenty of evidence, as shown in The Sunday Times, that their behaviour has been militarily atrocious. Therefore, we need to consider carefully what role they should have. Where is the practical place to put them? Under whom should they serve? Should they work on the ground or in the air? Should they work alongside the Serbs whom they have been encouraging?
I should like to continue my comments, but it is time to finish. Britain has a duty to show real leadership. We are proud of our record and of the fact that we have had successful humanitarian convoys. I hope that they will continue undaunted.
9.20 pm
Mr. George Robertson: It is traditional to say in one's reply that the debate has been interesting and wide-ranging, but indeed this debate has been. It has also gone beyond that. There has been common concern throughout the House about the problems that face our continent and the world. Perhaps the debate has been a small but troubled oasis in the normal frenzy of political

849
activity which characterises our rumbustious but perhaps enriching political debate. Certainly it makes a change after last night.
The unity on deep troubles and serious problems shows the willingness of hon. Members in all parts of the House to try to come to terms not just with describing the problems but with finding solutions. We have to consider peacekeeping in its widest sense and not just in the clinical sense used in the military context. On peacekeeping, we were right to focus most attention on the United Nations. With its belatedly renewed prominence, the United Nations is the last great hope of us all for something better in future.
The Foreign Secretary entitled his talk recently at Chatham house "The new disorder". That description is unfortunately all too true of events in the world today. Despite that description, and despite the eloquent emphasis by many hon. Members in the debate, the United Nations is the only hope we have. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) spoke with considerable passion about the new role which the United Nations could and must have.
If the United Nations is to fulfil all the hopes and expectations of so many hon. Members and people outside the House, it will need the money, the physical resources and the personnel to put behind its policies. It will require the political will of all who participate in it. All those are preconditions for a renewed United Nations which might give hope to us all.
At the end of his speech, the Foreign Secretary referred to preventive diplomacy. Perhaps there was a hint of self-interest in his flying the flag for the Foreign Office, in what is probably a bitter and animated debate taking place inside Government as we talk—the traditional battle between Ministries and the Treasury. The Foreign Secretary has our strong support in the fight that he may be putting up—if that comes as any reassurance. If he wants to tell me that an attack would be better, I will be happy to write to the Chancellor. I will do anything to ensure that the message gets through.
The Foreign Secretary said that it is much cheaper to pay for an ambassador than for an infantry battalion, much cheaper to pay for ambassadors for a dozen embassies than for one aeroplane, and he said how much more good it does. His remarks are valuable, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who was formerly a member of the diplomatic service, also said that preventive diplomacy is important. This is the last time that this or any other country should even dream of cutting back on the people who are engaged in the process that may well prevent conflicts from starting, and who ensure that, when they start, they do not spread beyond the immediate boundaries.
The Foreign Office is facing cuts, and while they will not be severe this year, according to press statements, they will be in the following two years. They will not merely mean dashing the Foreign Office's ambitions to open new embassasies and missions in the new republics of the former Soviet Union and elsewhere, but will probably lead to cuts in British representation abroad, for example in the activities of that eminent organisation, the British Council —I must declare an interest as its vice-chairman—whose
850
role in cultural and educational diplomacy is both considerable and valuable. Such cuts should not be contemplated.
The cuts may well lead to reductions in world radio and television services—by any standards, the best broadcasting on the planet. It would be madness if the Treasury got away with any ambition to do that.
Sir Michael Marshall: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that an Albanian parliamentary delegation is visiting the House today. They have told us that many people have risked 10 years imprisonment and the confiscation of their entire property to listen to BBC radio World Service.
Mr. Robertson: That is a welcome intervention, and I know that those on the Treasury Bench listened with sympathy, but the message must get home to those inside the Treasury. If we do not invest properly in diplomacy, it will be infinitely more expensive to this nation and to the world.
Perhaps I have been the Shadow Front-Bench spokesman on foreign affairs for too long. It has been 11 years, and in my museum of the Foreign Office I have seen two European treaties and four wars with British involvement, and 24 Ministers have come and gone, including five Foreign Secretaries. During that time, I have come to recognise the quality and sheer professionalism of the British foreign service. I have no doubt that its contribution to making the world safer and better has been incalculable but fundamental, and we must bear that in mind.
I must deal with reactiveness. I was recently asked whether we envisaged that British troops would be deployed in a peacekeeping role during the next two or three years in Nagorno-Karabakh, Tadzhikistan, Moldova or Georgia. It seems fanciful this evening for us even to consider that possibility. The majority of people do not know where those places are. The majority of hon. Members, including me, cannot spell the names of most of those countries.
Yet it is always worth remembering that there are now 2,800 British troops, as the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, bravely engaged in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Eighteen months ago, there was no such country as Bosnia-Herzegovina. We now face a world that is moving so fast that we are deploying troops in a country that only a short time ago had no formal existence. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) rightly paid tribute to the role played by British troops in the area—an invaluable role, given their skill and professionalism.
We, as the politicians in charge of the policy making, must think now precisely whose agenda will dictate where deployments will be made. Will the agenda be fixed by the policy-makers elected by the people or by the television cameras and the possibility of their entering areas? The possibility of facing the threat of pax Americana now that the cold war has finished is replaced by the threat of pax television camera.
The world expects that we can solve the problems easily, and if television pictures appear in somebody's front room and the media say, "Do something," there is an automatic belief that we can send our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen to far corners of the world and relieve the suffering that we have seen on our television screens.

851
Bosnia is at the front of our minds and at the front of the images that we have. It has rightly dominated many of the powerful contributions this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made a powerful plea on behalf of the ordinary civilian population affected by events in that country today, where the level of bestiality seems to reach worse levels with every day that passes.
Yet we still believe that there is hope for the future. The Vance-Owen plan is not ideal, and it is sometimes not remotely ideal, but it is the only plan there is and the only hope there is. It must therefore have our support. I expressed some reservations last year about Lord Owen being chosen as the European Community's envoy to the former Yugoslavia. I was a close associate of his before he departed to wreak havoc on the British domestic political scene. However, I now believe that he will have made a commendable contribution to achieving peace, if it is eventually achieved in Bosnia. Parliament and the nation should be profoundly grateful to him and to Cyrus Vance for their efforts in the area.
I am glad that the Foreign Secretary announced this evening that the sanctions against Serbia have been toughened up. To break the cross-party consensus for a moment, I think that we should all share guilt about the fact that sanctions were not implemented with vigour, with enthusiasm and with the political will that was demanded when they were introduced last June. Even if only one man will now be responsible for the sanctions, that sounds slightly better than the previous system. The process towards war crimes tribunals must be welcomed. In itself, it may be an inhibition on some of the wilder and nastier excesses that some individuals seem to believe are legitimised by war in the area.
The problems in the world today are very different from the problems faced by previous generations. They are very different from the problems that faced the world only a few years ago. That change demands of us the imagination to see what the different and new solutions to the problems must be.
It is no use to be nostalgic for the time, only a few years ago, when we faced a vast, but almost completely predictable, military force on the other side of our continent. That force could be measured and analysed indefinitely, and it largely acted in a way that was manageable, even if it was dangerous.
We live in a world in which the problems are severe and complex. They do not involve a military challenge, but they involve refugees in increasingly larger numbers. There is the problem of migrations of whole populations across national boundaries with the huge problems that result for those countries which must then act as hosts. Problems come from minorities in the countries of our continent and beyond, and from the environmental disasters which have been stored up for many years.
Those problems demand new institutions when necessary. They will involve new training institutions, as well as military and security institutions, because trade will be one of the ways in which we will institute stability in many of the troubled parts of the world.
If we want to talk about peacekeeping, we should remember that economic deprivation is at the root of so many of the problems and troubles which are occuring in countries. Therefore, economic security is one way in which we can route the democracy of those countries and ensure our security in the rest of the continent.
852
Peacekeeping means newly reinforcing old institutions. It means giving life to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and making it work well. It means seeing what new role NATO can play. NATO exists, so it has a value beyond the simple institutions which it represents today. Therefore, its new role must be developed to encompass its wider responsibilities beyond the military role which it had previously.
Peacekeeping involves adopting new techniques, as the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said. It involves examining sanctions as an instrument which might be implemented quickly, effectively and toughly, so that perhaps we can stop some of the conflicts before they get out of control.
It involves using techniques of conflict resolution. Many people who live in Northern Ireland have experience of conflict resolution and containment which might usefully be exported to other parts of the continent. It involves informal links and new informal diplomacies, which might produce results. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and the president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union said, peacekeeping means using our parliamentary experience perhaps to export some of our specific pluralistic strengths.
All the time, peacekeeping means new priorities for the world in curbing arms sales. The sale of arms is part of the problem which we face today. In my post this afternoon, I received a copy of the Defence News. It is a worldwide weekly which is sent to many of us and which is extremely interesting. The chilling headline on the front page is: "Iran seeks to join arms export club". What sort of lunatic world are we engaged in when that becomes the headline?
In our search for new priorities, we must re-examine nuclear proliferation and how the rules on that might be toughened up. We must establish, police and move forward on new environmental standards for the world, so that individual countries will never again be allowed to store up their problems in a world in which airborne pollution means that no country can be sovereign in protecting its environmental space.
In the new world order, the development of human rights must not be simply a slogan for one country against another, or one blow-up against another. It must be something rooted in international law, so that we can no longer say that another country's problems and the people in those countries are not our problems. We are all part of this planet. If we have the opportunity to escape from the freeze box of the past, the monitoring of human rights and an active human rights policy must be at the heart of it.
This debate, all too brief and all too rare, has highlighted a wide range of serious problems that face us today in Europe and way beyond our continent as well, and the concern that is felt by so many hon. Members about all that is happening. I believe passionately that the changes of 1989 and 1990, the collapse of communism and the end of a wasteful, divisive and dangerous cold war, were genuinely welcome developments. They may have thrown up new evils and new uncertainties, but I for one have absolutely no nostalgia for the so-called certainties which, in turn, enslaved millions of human beings so close to our own country in this continent.
We now have to rise to the challenges and to the questions posed by the world today, just as those in the communist world will eventually rise to the challenges that face them in their countries. If we do, and if we have the will to deploy sufficient resources, imagination and

853
political will, the new world disorder that we see at the moment will be a mere temporary phase in the long course of world history.
9.40 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): As is right and as was to be expected, the debate has covered a great deal of ground. Some 27 or 28 hon. Members have spoken and a score or so issues have been addressed and, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, there has been general agreement on many of them.
I recognise as I start that I shall not be able to respond to all the individual points that have been made and I apologise for that in advance. I should like to identify the three main themes that have been spoken to in the debate and to deliver my response within that framework. Those themes should be and are the United Nations, the events in what was Yugoslavia and the middle east.
The United Nations has been the subject of perhaps the greatest discussion in the debate. The role of the United Nations, as has been emphasised by almost every hon. Member who has spoken to the issue, has developed enormously during the past five years, and for that there are three or four reasons.
Those reasons include the collapse of the former Soviet Union; the fact that the Russian Government are willing to play a constructive role within the Security Council; the success of the Security Council in the context of the Gulf war; and the fact that there is a virtually universal recognition that only the United Nations—though sometimes regional organisations as appropriate—can tackle the crises and wars that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) properly remarked, are beamed into our homes by television and radio.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on the importance of underpinning action with a moral basis. Force which is disengaged from a moral basis is unsustainable and wrong. By that he means, and by that I mean, that, when the members of the United Nations act in a forcible manner, either they should do so within and under the authority of the United Nations or that which they do should be authorised by the principles of international law.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Hogg: No, I am afraid that I will not at this stage.
I come first to the question of peacekeeping. It is clear that peacekeeping will now play an important part in the career of a typical British soldier. That is inevitable, although it was not true a few years ago. But we need to be cautious about it and there are a number of principles to which we should adhere.
The first and perhaps the most important point is that the British Government's responsibility for the safety and security of British service men serving in a peacekeeping role is as great when they serve under the authority of the United Nations as it is when they serve under the direct authority of the British Government or the generals who command. Because of that, when we talk about peacekeeping we must hold to certain principles that were
854
touched on by a number of right hon. and hon. Members —including the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), my right hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall).
First, one cannot make peace by force. To use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Ghertsey and Walton, one cannot insert oneself between warring factions. I entirely agree with that. Moreover, there must be a sustainable ceasefire to keep, and clearly definable political objectives. Those will usually be identified by the existence of an agreement to which parties are genuinely adhering.
Secondly, there must be an effective control and command mechanism. The quality of troops deployed alongside British peacekeepers must be of high quality. I take to heart the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)—that humanitarian missions can often lead to something more substantial.
For those reasons, in many cases it would be right for peacekeeping forces to be deployed by regional defensive organisations acting under the authority of the United Nations. There may be many circumstances in which it would be right for control and command to be vested in NATO. That may be so, for example, in the former Yugoslavia. I can conceive of circumstances in the former Soviet Union in which that role should be performed by CIS forces.
Incidentally, I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington that one cannot expect to participate in each and every peacekeeping force. We are the second largest contributor, but we must not suppose that we are under an obligation to participate in every peacekeeping force that may be mounted.
There has been much discussion, rightly, about the virtues of preventive diplomacy. Clearly, that approach will be built on steadily. We see examples of that already —such as the deployment of United Nations troops in Macedonia, and the increasingly important work of regional organisations. I have in mind the work undertaken by the conference on security and cooperation in Europe—a regional organisation. The CSCE is already heavily engaged in the former Yugoslavia, with observer teams in Kosovo to be reinforced and teams in Sandjak and Vojvodina, then Georgia and Estonia. There is also the work being done by the CSCE to promote peace talks in Nagorno-Karabakh.
In passing, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for the commitment that he has given in Nagorno-Karabakh, along with my noble Friend, Lady Cox. I strongly support the proposition that my hon. Friend brought forward in the Council of Europe.
There has been much discussion, again rightly, abut the reform of the Security Council. If my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington will forgive me, I do not agree with his basic proposition—which he admitted was heretical—to the effect that the United Kingdom should cede its permanency.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made the point that we do not want in any sense to stand in the way of debate, nor could we. He reminded the House—and others through the House, I hope—that a number of principles must be observed. First, it would be perverse to damage the functioning of the Security Council at a

855
moment when, for the very first time, it is beginning to operate in the way that those who created it hoped that it would.
Any reform must surely take account of a number of principles. First, the Security Council's size must be manageable. Its present size is manageable—but if it were greatly expanded, it would not be manageable. Secondly, one cannot have as permanent Security Council members countries whose constitutions preclude them performing the essential functions of membership. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford drew attention to the difficulties faced by Japan and Germany.
Nor could one expand the Security Council's membership by those two countries and expect that discussion to come to an end, because that is not realistic. Countries should proceed slowly and cautiously, and ensure that all member nations that are part of the Security Council's permanent composition are able to perform the essential functions that are expected of permanent membership.
Mr. Wells: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Hogg: I do not think that my hon. Friend has been present for the debate. If he will forgive me, I will not give way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned sanctions. He is entirely right to say that they are an important element in the arsenal the United Nations—one that I hope we shall develop further. Let me say in passing that we are learning more about the implementation of sanctions, and about how to make them effective, as we use the policy more and more.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that I do not entirely agree with his criticisms of the way in which sanctions have operated in what was Yugoslavia. It is true—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made the point—that, fairly recently, oil supplies got through to Serbia, and that is deeply regrettable; but it is also true that, if the oil part of the Serbian economy is excluded, considerable damage has been done to that economy by the policy of sanctions.
If we proceed no further in our talks in Geneva and New York, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) rightly observed, there will be a policy of tightening sanctions yet further—if necessary, by a further resolution, which could have the effect of sealing the frontiers of Serbia-Montenegro and preventing all traffic from passing up and down the Danube.
We need to keep two points in mind. First, sanctions will not work unless the states involved implement them, and the riparian states must be told that they have a moral, legal and international duty to implement them. Secondly, there may be a cost. The rest of us must be constructive and imaginative in considering how we can best help, for example, riparian states that are genuinely implementing sanctions. Sometimes, as in the case of the Gulf war, it may be appropriate to establish a particular fund; on other occasions, it may be appropriate to tell the international financial institutions that it is important to take account of that loss when formulating programme assistance.
Mr. Dalyell: What is the Minister's comment on the hard statistics that I gave about the effect of sanctions on the health of children in Iraq?
Mr. Hogg: If time permits, I shall deal with that point, because it is a fair point and needs to be answered. First, however, I wish to discuss Yugoslavia.
There has been considerable agreement this evening. It has been agreed, for instance, that we must face the grim fact that there are no wholly innocent victims among those responsible for policy in the former Yugoslavia. That innocent victims exist can be seen only too clearly, but those on all sides who are driving policy forward have a responsibility. True, the Serbs are primarily responsible; but, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and others, the Croats and Muslims have also committed crimes.
We are almost all agreed that the conflict in Bosnia bears all the hallmarks of a civil war. It is primarily a civil war, although it is aided and abetted by participants from outside, mainly Serbia. There is general acceptance, too, that it is impossible to enforce by external force a settlement of a civil war; that must be done by agreement. That is why there has been general support for the main pillars of our policy—the attempt to provide humanitarian supplies, using military force in a way that is known to the House; the lending of strong support to the Vance-Owen plan; and the application of pressure through sanctions.
As many hon. Members have said, it is terribly important that when we pursue that policy—particularly when we talk about the use of military force in any way —we are careful not to prejudice or imperil the humanitarian efforts that are saving tens of thousands of people. It would be perverse in the extreme if any military or quasi-military action destroyed that humanitarian effort: we must guard strongly against such an eventuality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury and many other hon. Members have asked what will happen if Lord Owen or Cyrus Vance comes forward and says, "An agreement has been struck by all the parties, and we want to have it underpinned by a peacekeeping force.". That question may very well be put to Her Majesty's Government. As it is hypothetical, I cannot answer it in a clear way. However, from the reservations that have been expressed during this debate and on previous occasions, I know that the Government will be subjected to very searching questions.
Those questions are likely to include the following. Is there a genuine agreement to which the parties are genuinely committed? Is there a sustainable ceasefire that will hold? Who is participating? Will the United States contribute substantial ground forces? Will the Russians commit quality troops? Who will be responsible for command and control? Will it be NATO? If it is NATO, will there be a substantial contribution by other member states? I feel certain that questions of that type will be asked and that, if we cannot respond satisfactorily to them, there will be no political support for participation by British troops in a peacekeeping role.
If there is sufficient time I shall deal with the matter of Macedonia and Albania, but I should like to come now to the question of the middle east. I shall begin by saying something about the peace process. The most urgent objective of us all must be to get the peace process under way again. Therefore, the visit of Secretary Christopher is

857
of extreme importance, and I hope that he will be able to persuade all the participants of the need to get down to talks.
The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) emphasised, and I accept, that the Israeli Government's decision to deport the 415 people into south Lebanon is a serious obstacle to the peace process. We supported Security Council resolution 799, and we have made repeated representations to the Israeli Government that they should comply with it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made the point that what has been done is a useful first step, but he said also that it is but a first step, that we seek compliance.
I go further. The Israeli Government say that they hope that the absence of full compliance will not stand in the way of further talks. I hope that there will be further talks, but I say to the Israeli Government that, even if there are further talks, lack of compliance with Security Council resolution 799 will result in their being conducted in such a frigid atmosphere as to make progress difficult. Therefore, I hope very much that Prime Minister Rabin will feel able to comply fully with that resolution.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned Iraq. First, we must be clear about the fact that the Government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein have failed, in a number of very important respects, to comply with the resolutions of the Security Council or with their mandatory elements. For a start, he has not returned the Kuwaiti detainees. Secondly, he has not co-operated fully in the identification and destruction of his weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, he is abusing his own population in a number of disgraceful and lamentable ways. This is non-compliance on a very large scale. The policy of Her Majesty's Government and of the Security Council is to hold to the sanctions until there has been full compliance.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about the suffering in Iraq, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not present the full picture. I hope he will forgive me for reminding him of several elements. The sanctions regime now in place does not cover food, it does not cover medicines, nor does it cover those goods that are certified humanitarian.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow will come back and ask me about money. Here is my rejoinder. Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 enable Saddam Hussein to sell oil for the purposes of raising money for precisely the needs that the hon. Gentleman has identified. Saddam Hussein has chosen not to do it, and that is the problem which he and we face. For that reason I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the policy of adhering to sanctions until there has been full compliance will be maintained.
It being Ten o'clock the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Hospitals (Armagh)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
10 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon rose—
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In tonight's Belfast Telegraph there is a comment concerning the decision of the electoral court in which there is this statement:
"If everyone guilty of electoral malpractice were to be disqualified, there might be quite a few vacancies declared".
I seek your guidance on whether this should be referred to a committee or whether you can guide us as to what we should do about what I believe is a serious accusation. There are legal procedures, as people are aware, for malpractice, and they ought to follow them through.
Madam Speaker: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he writes to me without delay and lets me have the evidence so that I may see it in full?
Mr. Mallon: I very much welcome the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. Almost by definition, Adjournment debates are parochial. They are confined to one's own constituency and, as of right, I think, they express concerns within our constituencies. But in this instance, while I want to deal with a localised issue in relation to two hospitals in Armagh that most hon. Members have never seen and never will—although, Madam Speaker, I hope that at some time in your arduous duties you will find the opportunity to visit Northern Ireland and especially my constituency and these two hospitals, where you would be more than welcome—there is a much wider and general point to be made. In relation to these two hospitals, the issue encapsulates one of the core tensions within the entire debate about health care provision.
There are three of those tensions. The first is quite simple, and it is the one that the debate centres on: the survival of the small, local, community hospital as against the large, centralised unit, based on the erroneous assumption that large equals better and more cost-effective. I believe that to be wrong and, in this specific case, I believe it to be very wrong. Not only that, but it is contrary to the Prime Minister's own charter, which we all received with great anticipation; contrary to the Northern Ireland Office charter; and contrary to the board charter that we received through the post only three days ago. That is the first false assumption underlying the type of approach that we anticipate in relation to these hospitals.
The second core tension is that of quality of care as opposed to cost-effectiveness. As we progress through the debate, I hope to show that that is another erroneous assumption. The third crucial element, again relating to the citizens charter, is sensitivity to the needs of the community as opposed to bureaucratic requirements, bureaucratic requirements in this instance being those imposed by the Government and, in a very supine fashion, adopted by the boards. The boards have shown clearly that they evaluate and know the price of everything, but the value of nothing, The difficulty is that, once a decision is made on that basis, it is impossible to reverse.

859
I believe that we have a valid case about the community hospital in Armagh and Mollinure hospital. Mollinure hospital was opened 18 months ago by Lord Arran, who described it as
"unique in Northern Ireland",
the first of its kind in Northern Ireland and
"among the best in Europe."
Would not it be a remarkable irony if, 18 or 24 months hence, the same Minister were to close the new purpose-built unit that he described in such glowing terms? The danger is that that may happen.
No doubt the Minister will tell me that I am jumping to conclusions and that we are debating only options. No doubt he will have the booklet that has been issued by the board, "Making Choices", which presents six options, four of which contain the presumption of closure of the hospital that Lord Arran rightly praised so generously. Those options must be questioned. The debate will allow the Department of Health and Social Services to focus its attention on those choices.
Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that those four choices threaten not only his two hospitals but the hospitals in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), two of the three hospitals in my constituency and perhaps one hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). There is a wider dimension.
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is indeed why I tried to make the broader point that this is not just a parochial constituency matter. It affects Banbridge hospital, Lurgan hospital, Loane house and the whole caring service in the north of Ireland.
"Making Choices" is cleverly written. Four of the options contain an underlying presumption in favour of the closure of the two hospitals that I have mentioned. I am not opposed to the development of three acute units at South Tyrone hospital, Craigavon and Daisy Hill in Newry, but they must not be developed at the expense of the smaller unit that caters for a vast area in our community and that is doing an immensely good job.
I referred to the praise that the Minister heaped on Mollinure. It is unique, because it is not just a geriatric hospital: it has a day care unit that allows elderly people to be assessed for perhaps two days a week and to return to their homes in the community to recuperate. That is crucial.
One of the main purposes of the Department is to get people back into the community. Mollinure hospital achieves that. Its assessment unit is unique, because it allows people to be assessed properly, not merely by one doctor but under the multi-disciplinary services it offers. Many people come in whose GPs have decided that they should be in continuous care, but this assessment allows them, after an examination and a period of rest, to go back into the community.
The third crucial point concerns the respite that this allows for carers. How often is lip service paid to carers in our community? Carers are a crucial part of the whole health care service, and a growing part, with the cut that we are experiencing. If elderly people can go into this type of unit while carers enjoy a respite for one or two days, or for a holiday period of a week or two weeks, that caring service will improve substantially. That is what is under threat, and that is what I am concerned about.
860
Armagh community hospital is a small, effective unit. It covers a vast rural hinterland, as well as the city of Armagh. It stretches to the border areas, upwards of 40 miles. For many people, it is their nearest point of contact, and this hospital serves the area exceptionally well. In the past year, it has served 38,000 patients out of a population in the region of 60,000. Not only that, but of that figure, 14,000 attended the casualty unit.
I have not doubt that we shall be told that the hospital is not cost-effective; it is small, it is good, but we shall be told that its work should be done in one of the acute units, because it is not cost-effective. Lest that be given any credence, I will give two examples.
In 1992, the out-patient cost in Armagh community hospital was £9.22 per attendance. In one of the bigger hospital acute units, in the same unit of management—the South Tyrone hospital—the cost was £17.99. I cast no 4spersions on the South Tyrone hospital, nor would I ever do so. I am simply making the point that, if we are to talk about costs, as I have no doubt the Minister will, we should bear that in mind.
My second point relates to the casualty element, and this applies only to staffing. The cost per attendance of those 14,000 people who attended casualty was £12 per head. I believe that that could not be equalled in any of the acute units, or probably in any of the other units available to us.
My next point is that the hospital serves a huge hinterland. The board has told us in its own little booklet —I view the booklet with more suspicion every time I read it:
"If service charges reduce accessibility, compelling reasons must be shown."
There is almost no such thing as public transport in that area; it is almost totally rural. The only way for people to get to any hospital is by car, if they own one. If they do not own a car, they are dependent on the good will of their neighbours.
We are forgetting the basis of the charter again if changes are made and we bring health care to the people rather than people to the health care. I make that point in a very substantive way, because, when it comes to the health care of people, time means lives. The longer people have to travel, the further the distance, the greater the risk to them.
I make a last general point about the loss of jobs that will be involved. It might be said that one should not do that in this type of debate, in which we are talking about a health service issue, but it is crucial, because the people of whom I speak have given an enormous amount to the sick and elderly in the Armagh area. It is only right that I should refer to their position, because I do not want more jobs to leave Armagh. I do not want to see any more young people with expert ability to care for the disadvantaged having to leave the area to seek work.
In his last contribution to the United States Congress, Senator Hubert Humphrey made a comment that was apt to the situation to which I refer tonight and to many others:
"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life—the children; those who are in the twilight of life—the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life—the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
We are dealing with all those categories. I urge the Minister to ensure that whatever decision is made meets the moral test laid down by Senator Humphrey.
10.15pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I must at the outset congratulate the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on his assiduousness in applying for the debate and his tenacity and perseverance in securing it.
There can be no doubt that the issues that he raises are of concern in his constituency, and he is right to raise them in the House. He will not be surprised when I tell him, in the time available to me, that there is still a considerable time left in which to consider the future of the two hospitals in question, and I am sure that he will take part, as will other hon. Members, in that process.
The hospitals in question, Mullinure geriatric hospital and Armagh community hospital, are two of the eight general and acute hospitals currently under review by the Southern health and social services board. In March of last year, following the publication of the Department of Health and Social Services regional strategy and its own area strategy, the Southern health and social services board decided that the time was opportune to review the provision of acute and general hospital services in its area.
A hospital planning liaison group was set up and immediately commissioned each unit of management providing those hospital services to undertake a review of current provision. From the reports received from the units concerned, the planning liaison group prepared a consultative paper, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, entitled "Making Choices". That was issued to a wide range of groups and individuals early in December 1992 inviting responses by 28 February 1993. I understand that, following complaints about the length of time allowed for consultation, the board agreed to extend the period to 31 March.
It is important that the status and purpose of "Making Choices" is fully understood. It reaches no conclusions about the overall pattern of hospital provisions, about the future role of any hospital in the area or about the size of any hospitals or specialties they might offer. The paper is intended to provide the background to a consultation process which will assist the health board, in the first instance, to reach a broad view about the future pattern of hospital care; that process should be completed by about June this year. Thereafter, it will be necessary to undertake much more detailed planning to test and quantify any proposed changes before they can be implemented.
The objective of the present exercise is to reach that broad view on future services. It should be borne in mind that in the detailed planning of any changes, there will be a further opportunity for people in the community or hon. Members to examine the available data more critically. Where the closure of any facility is contemplated, there will be a further public consultation exercise.
As the hon. Gentleman said, "Making Cioices" presents us with six options describing possible patterns of future hospital services. The board has made it clear that they are not recommendations but subjects for discussion to stimulate debate on the future pattern of hospital care. It is easy to say that if an item is suggested as a subject for discussion we are somehow steering the public towards a particular course. That is not so—we hope that the people will take the six choices as an opportunity for general and genuine debate.
As I said, "Making Choices" is not intended to come to a conclusion on the future of Mullinure or any other
862
hospital. I shall concentrate on Mullinure because the hon. Gentleman made a particular point of saying that it has been opened recently. Although it was recently opened officially, it was planned some years ago, based on the best information available and in response to a pressing need to find suitable alternative accommodation for people who were housed in what I think the hon. Gentleman would agree were wholly unacceptable conditions at Tower Hill. The full impact of the community care policy had not become evident and was not anticipated at that stage. The extent of the growth in the private and voluntary sectors could not have been envisaged.
The capital cost of Mullinure was approximately £2.3 million. It is accepted that that is a considerable sum, but it is small in terms of the overall capital expenditure to bring hospital services into the next century, let alone the next millenium. More significant is the revenue cost, which was £1.85 million for Mullinure in 1991–92.
The board will of course seek an alternative use for any buildings which might become redundant. The pattern of service provision has to change in the light of new developments, new treatment techniques and advances in medical science. Paragraph 7.33 of "Making choices" states that there might be other options for the development of geriatric hospital services. Although it is beneficial to have assessment and rehabilitation services on an acute hospital site, it does not apply to continuing care beds. A strong case can be made for their being as local as possible for the sake of convenience and to maintain links with the community. However, as I said, nothing has been decided.
We must consider the fact that we now have a different system of health care. We have come into the modern world. There is an increased emphasis on promoting health and preventing disease, in addition to providing care and treatment for those who need it. There is a continued development of acute hospital services to allow them to develop the role of providing specialised care. There are further shifts from institutional care to care at home or in the community, paralleled by a strengthening of the role of primary care. There is also improved targeting of health and social need to ensure that the most disadvantaged people in the community receive an adequate share of services. Changes in acute hospital services must be viewed in the context of improving the community's health and wellbeing alongside changes in other services, with the overall objective of making better use of existing resources.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the six options which have been tested against the board's core values for service provision. The core values are as follows: appropriateness, as services should meet the needs of individuals and the population as a whole; equity, as there should be no administrative, social or geographical barrier to services and there should be a fair share of the services available to the whole population in accordance with need; accessibility, because as far as possible services should be available locally, as the hon. Gentleman stressed; acceptability, as services should satisfy the reasonable expectations of the population; efficiency, as services should use resources to their best effect; and lastly, effectiveness, as services should achieve the intended benefit.
The board's options reflect the Department's strategy for the provision of acute hospital services, which has two

863
main elements: the concentration of specialised services on a smaller number of sites, using markedly fewer beds overall, accompanied where necessary by supporting services locally; and a substantial shift from in-patient to day and out-patient investigation and treatment. The strategy's aims reflect the public demand for increasingly sophisticated and technically advanced services which lead to more effective treatment, shorter stays in hospital and, more importantly, better results for patients.
I have often said in the Chamber, and repeated during the 16 months that I was Minister responsible for health in Northern Ireland, that the health service in Northern Ireland should be to treat patients and that the social services in Northern Ireland should treat the clients as well as possible. We are not a furniture warehouse, or a job protection scheme, but we must consider the available facilities to make sure that there are sufficient beds for the necessary operations and sufficient people to provide that care.
Mr. Trimble: In his latter comments the Minister set out the criteria that the board has set for itself. He seemed to be concentrating more in its application concerning acute services. Does he appreciate that one has to give more weight to certain considerations when dealing with different aspects of medicine, and that in providing continuing care for the elderly particular emphasis should be placed on accessibility? The carers arc usually also elderly and not particularly mobile; consequently, there is a greater need for local provision. That adds weight to the argument of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh about Mullinure and other hospitals which are providing continuing care for the elderly.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. However, Northern Ireland is better suited than almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom to providing the right care, as we have health and social services boards which combine two aspects of provision within one area of responsibility. The boards are therefore able to plan both the acute services and the social services for the area: instead of what has happened in the past in other parts of the United Kingdom where the service has not always been matched, in Northern Ireland we can plan for the right balance.
Turning to the strategies for elderly people, the options to which the hon. Gentleman referred also reflect the Department's strategy for services for elderly people,
864
which aim to increase the proportion of people aged 75 and over who are cared for in their own homes to 88 per cent. by 1997. It is a well established fact that the vast majority of elderly people prefer to be cared for in their own homes. Of course, people should not be cared for in their own homes if they are not suited to or do not want to be cared for in their own homes, but the basic principle that the vast majority want that, and that it is the best treatment for them, underpins the Government's community care policy.
The three major principles of that within the document "People First" were, first, to help elderly and other vulnerable people to lead as far as possible full and independent lives; secondly, to respond flexibly and sensibly to the needs and wishes of invidual people and the relatives and friends who care for them; thirdly, to concentrate professional skills and public resources on those who need them most.
I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech. We are in a consultation exercise: absolutely nothing has been decided yet. General direction has been given because of the needs of people in Northern Ireland and the best use of resources. The hon. Gentleman said in an aside, "If it's not broke, don't fix it," but life does not stand still, and that also applies to medical treatment. If there are new ways of treating people better, if people can stay in hospital a shorter time, and if elderly people can be treated in their own homes in the way that they want, we should aim for that. We should be treating people as flexibly, professionally and in as modern a way as possible, making the best use of resources.
I stress again, as I often have, that any money saved by the process, if there are savings to be made, will go straight back into patient care; it is not a cost-cutting exercise. Hon. Members may treat that comment cynically, but it is an honest pledge that we shall put any money saved by these exercises into improved patient care in the areas where the money is saved.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has raised the subject today. I hope that I have helped to stimulate more responses to the document than might have been forthcoming otherwise, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to make contributions to this particular procedure, and that ultimately we shall be able to serve the people of Northern Ireland better than in the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has undertaken to date with the Magistrates Association on the way to deal with persistent juvenile offenders aged between 12 and 15 years.

  Mr. Jack
  We intend to consult widely, including with the Magistrates Association, before bringing detailed legislative proposals before Parliament.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the maximum custodial sentence available to the courts for a persistent juvenile offender aged(a) 14 years or under and (b) 17 years in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  There is no legal definition of a persistent juvenile offender. The information in the table therefore relates to the maximum lengths of custodial sentences available for all juvenile offenders subject to statutory criteria being met. The maximum length of custodial sentences, other than detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, for the relevant ages in the specified years are as follows:

  Date

  Sentence

  1979

  Under 14

  No custodial sentence

  14 year old (males)

  Detention centre–6 months

  17 year olds

  Borstal training–2 years

  Imprisonment—maximum term was the same as a court could have imposed for the offence in the case of an adult

  Up to 1 October 1992

  Under 14

  No custodial sentence

  14 year old (males)

  Detention in young offender institution–4 months

  17 year olds

  Detention in young offender institution— maximum term was the same as a court could have imposed for the offence in the case of an adult

  After 1 October 1992

  Under 14

  No custodial sentence

  14 year olds

  No custodial sentence

  17 year olds

  Detention in a young offender institution –12 months

  At all relevant times, section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has permitted courts:
  to impose long—term detention on 14 to 17—year—olds for any offence which carries a 14—year maximum sentence for adults; and,
  to impose long—term detention on 10 to 13 year olds following their conviction for murder or manslaughter.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent re—assessment he has made 486
  of his Department's evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the effect of custody in a penal setting on young offenders.

  Mr. Jack
  At the Committee's request, my Department is preparing a supplementary memorandum of evidence which will deal, inter alia, with the matter to which the hon. Member refers.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to bring forward firm proposals to tackle juvenile crime.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have already introduced a wide range of measures which aim to prevent young people from committing crime. In the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which was implemented on 1 October 1992, we have recently strengthened the powers of the court in relation to defendants under the age of 18.

  Both in absolute terms and as a proportion of all known offenders, the number of juvenile offenders has declined in recent years. But the Government are not complacent. We are currently working on additional measures which should enable the courts to deal more effectively with the small number of juveniles who persistently re—offend and for whom existing measures appear not to be working. My right hon. and learned Friend will be announcing his proposals about this shortly.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the restrictions on taking previous convictions into account when sentencing offenders.

  Mr. Jack
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced new provisions relating to previous convictions which reflected existing Court of Appeal guidance. It is too early yet to make a meaningful assessment of the effect of the Act, which came into force on 1 October 1992. However, we will be monitoring closely the effects of this new Act.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to revise upwards the minimum value of the sentencing unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The principle of the unit fine scheme, which applies to offences committed on or after 1 October 1992, is that fines should cause equal hardship for the well-off and less well-off by depriving an offender of a number of units of his disposable weekly income. One unit is intended to represent a third of the sum left to an offender after essential living expenses have been deducted from his take-home weekly income. For those with very low incomes, who have £12 a week or less after essential living expenses are deducted, there is normally a minimum unit value of £4.

  The operation of the unit fine scheme is being carefully monitored. It is too early to say whether any aspect of it will need to be revised.

  European Forum on Refugees
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on matters discussed and decisions taken at the European forum on refugees held in Budapest on 15 and 16 February.
  487
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend attended the European conference on uncontrolled migration in Budapest on 15 and 16 February, which approved a series of recommendations for tackling illegal immigration from and through central and eastern Europe. I have placed a copy of the agreed document in the Library of the House. The conference also agreed, among other things, that an informal working party drawn from a small group of participating states should be established to monitor implementation of the recommendations and in particular to carry forward work on promoting readmission agreements.

  Football Grounds (Policing)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the chairman of Port Vale football club to discuss consistency and clarity in police charging policy for attending football matches.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not received a request for such a meeting. Charges for policing football matches are a matter for the police authority concerned.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when and on what basis police charges were introduced for policing inside football league grounds.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Charging for additional police services is a long-standing principle, authorised by statutes going back at least to the 19th century. It is not known precisely when charging for policing football matches began, although the practice predated the Police Act 1964, section 15 of which provides the current authority for such charges.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the guidelines to ensure consistency and clarity in police charges for policing league football matches.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A guidance circular on the subject was issued to all police authorities and forces in May 1991. That guidance recommended a basis for calculating police costs suggested by the Audit Commission and one of its main aims was to promote the consistency of practice recommended by Lord Justice Taylor.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the cost per spectator of policing football matches for each team in the second division.

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

  Gloucestershire Constabulary
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of whether the level of the Gloucestershire constabulary's establishment takes sufficient account of the residence of members of the royal family in the county of Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement on the criteria used in making his assessment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is for the chief constable to assess the level of officers needed to police royal residences in Gloucestershire. My right hon. and learned Friend looks to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for 488
  advice when considering applications for increases in police establishments. That advice takes account of any protection responsibilities which a force may have.

  Immigration Detention Centres
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) at which United Kingdom airports and sea ports his Department is extending current immigration detention facilities;

  (2) what plans his Department has for detention centres to house detainees under the Immigration Act 1971; and what construction is currently taking place.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A vacant prison service establishment at Campsfield house, Kidlington, near Oxford will be redeveloped during 1993 to provide at least 120 additional places for Immigration Act detainees. Other possible sites, including sites close to Heathrow and Gatwick airports, are under consideration, but no final decision has yet been taken.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all detention centres or prisons in the United Kingdom in which people are currently detained under the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In addition to immigration service places of detention at Harmondsworth, the Queen's building at Heathrow, the Beehive at Gatwick, Stansted airport and Manchester airport, the following prison establishments currently hold persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971:

  Northern Ireland (as at 18 February 1993)

  Crumlin Road

  Scotland (as at 18 February 1993)

  Gateside

  Barlinnie

  Craiginches

  Saughton

  England and Wales (as at 31 December 1992)

  Bedford

  Belmarsh

  Birmingham

  Brixton

  Dorchester

  Durham

  Exeter

  Gloucester

  Haslar

  Holloway

  Holme House

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lewes

  Lincoln

  Pentonville

  Woodhill

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently detained under the Immigration Act 1971; and what was the total number of people detained in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) for the first month of the current year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information is not available in the form requested, but on 18 February there were 558 people detained under the Immigration Act 1971, including those detained temporarily in police cells. The total number of
  489
  such people initially detained during 1992 and January 1993 was as shown in the table. Equivalent figures are not available for 1990 or 1991.

  Initially detained

  Number

  In 1992

  16,413

  In January 1993

  1510

  1 These figures exclude those detained at ports of entry who did not claim asylum and who were detained for fewer than seven days. Records of such cases are not kept centrally.

  Relate
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial support he will give to enable Relate to evaluate the effectiveness of its work in preventing marital breakdowns and in reducing the damaging consequences therefrom.

  Mr. Jack
  1 have recently offered Relate a sum of £33,000 towards the cost of extending the evaluative work so far undertaken.

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),Official Report, column 406, what is his Department's (a) current outturn estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 and (b) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993–94.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  (a) The current outturn estimate for 1992–93 is £12,395; (b) The proposed publicity budget for 1993–94 is £8,962.

  Unemployed Offenders
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders appearing before the courts in Wolverhampton was unemployed in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply gave to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 15 January 1993,Official Report, column 826.

  Fraud Trials
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider the recommendations of the Roskill report about fraud trials following the conclusion of the case of R.v. Ward.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have already accepted and implemented most of the recommendations of the Roskill report, in the Criminal Justice Acts of 1987 and 1988.

  Nevertheless, in the light of continuing concern about length and expense of some trials, on 3 December 1992, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the legal secretariat to the Law Officers issued a consultation paper seeking views on a number of proposals for the reform of practice and procedure in long criminal trials, particularly those involving fraud. The consultation paper asks for responses by 28 February 1993.

  Any further reforms in this area will also need to take account of relevant conclusions or recommendations from the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which is due to report later this year.

  Prison Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults, major and minor, on prison staff have taken place at each prison establishment in England and Wales between April 1992 and February 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information relates to offences of assault on prison officers, or other members of staff, which were punished under the prison discipline system and is given in the table. Data for offences punished in January and February are not yet available.

  Offences1 of assaulting a member of Prison Service staff2 proved at adjudications in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in April to December 1992: by establishment at which punished.

  Establishment at which punished

  Assault

  Offence Attempted Assault3

  Total

  All establishments

  1,554

  153

  1,707

  All male establishments

  1,388

  148

  1,536

  Remand Centres

  168

  30

  198

  Brinsford

  15

  3

  18

  Cardiff

  4

  —

  4

  Dorchester

  1

  —

  1

  Exeter

  1

  1

  2

  Feltham

  37

  6

  43

  Glen Parva

  19

  2

  21

  Hindley

  13

  6

  19

  Holme House

  1

  —

  1

  Low Newton

  2

  —

  2

  Moorland

  43

  4

  47

  Norwich

  1

  —

  1

  Rochester

  20

  7

  27

  Stoke Heath

  8

  1

  9

  Swansea

  3

  —

  3

  Total Local Prisons

  557

  63

  620

  Bedford

  6

  —

  6

  Balmarsh

  74

  12

  86

  Birmingham

  35

  6

  41

  Bristol

  5

  2

  7

  Brixton

  26

  5

  31

  Bullingdon

  16

  1

  17

  Canterbury

  6

  1

  7

  Cardiff

  13

  2

  15

  Chelmsford

  12

  1

  13

  Durham

  26

  4

  30

  Exeter

  10

  2

  12

  Elmley

  26

  1

  27

  Gloucester

  3

  —

  3

  Highdown

  13

  —

  13

  Holme House

  15

  2

  17

  Hull

  8

  —

  8

  Leeds

  40

  4

  44

  Leicester

  6

  3

  9

  Lewes

  11

  —

  11

  Total short sentenced YOls

  4

  1

  5

  Hollesley Bay

  2

  —

  2

  Werrington

  2

  —

  2

  Wetherby

  —

  1

  1

  Total Juvenile YOls

  6

  1

  7

  Feltham

  2

  1

  3

  Onley

  3

  —

  3

  Werrington

  1

  —

  1

  Total Female establishments

  166

  5

  171

  Total Local Prisons

  118

  5

  123

  Holloway

  47

  2

  49

  Low Newton

  6

  —

  6

  New Hall

  15

  —

  15

  Pucklechurch

  8

  2

  10

  Risley

  42

  1

  43

  491

  Establishment at which punished

  Assault

  Offence Attempted Assault3

  Total

  Total Closed Training Prisons

  27

  —

  27

  Bullwood Hall

  7

  —

  7

  Cookham Wood

  5

  —

  5

  Styal

  15

  —

  15

  Total Closed YOIs

  21

  —

  21

  Bullwood Hall

  14

  —

  14

  New Hall

  1

  —

  1

  Styal

  6

  —

  6

  Parkhurst

  7

  2

  9

  Portsmouth (Kingston)

  1

  —

  1

  Ranby

  3

  —

  3

  Risley

  1

  —

  1

  Rochester

  1

  —

  1

  Shepton Mallett

  5

  —

  5

  Stafford

  34

  2

  36

  Stocken

  9

  —

  9

  Swaleside

  28

  3

  31

  The Verne

  5

  —

  5

  Wakefield

  8

  3

  11

  Wayland

  14

  —

  14

  Wellingborough

  1

  —

  1

  Whitemoor

  36

  9

  45

  Wymott

  7

  —

  7

  Total Open Prisons

  13

  1

  14

  Ford

  2

  —

  2

  Hewell Grange

  1

  —

  1

  Kirkham

  2

  —

  2

  North Sea Camp

  2

  —

  2

  Rudgate

  1

  —

  1

  Standford Hill

  1

  1

  2

  Sudbury

  4

  —

  4

  Total all YOIs

  167

  19

  186

  Total Closed YOIs

  157

  16

  173

  Aylesbury

  31

  3

  34

  Castington

  18

  1

  19

  Deerbolt

  9

  5

  14

  Dover

  15

  —

  15

  Feltham

  18

  3

  21

  Glen Parva

  9

  1

  10

  Hollesley Bay

  5

  —

  5

  Huntercombe

  2

  —

  2

  Moorland

  12

  1

  13

  Northallerton

  6

  —

  6

  Onley

  12

  1

  13

  Portland

  6

  —

  6

  Stoke Heath

  11

  1

  12

  Swinfen Hall

  3

  —

  3

  Total Open YOIs

  —

  1

  1

  Hatfield

  —

  1

  1

  Lincoln

  13

  —

  13

  Liverpool

  11

  —

  11

  Manchester

  7

  1

  8

  Norwich

  15

  1

  16

  Pentonville

  25

  2

  27

  Preston

  7

  1

  8

  Reading

  15

  —

  15

  Shrewsbury

  5

  —

  5

  Swansea

  2

  —

  2

  Wandsworth

  26

  5

  31

  Winchester

  27

  —

  27

  Wolds

  16

  —

  16

  Wood Hill

  1

  —

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  36

  7

  43

  Total Closed Training Prisons

  483

  35

  518

  Acklington

  18

  —

  18

  Albany

  9

  1

  10

  Aldington

  1

  —

  1

  Brockhill

  4

  —

  4

  Blundeston

  30

  1

  31

  492

  Establishment at which punished

  Assault

  Offence Attempted Assault3

  Total

  Camp Hill

  8

  —

  8

  Channings Wood

  3

  —

  3

  Coldingley

  9

  —

  9

  Dartmoor

  21

  3

  24

  Erlestoke

  3

  —

  3

  Everthorpe

  3

  —

  3

  Elmley

  1

  —

  1

  Featherstone

  5

  2

  7

  Frankland

  19

  2

  21

  Full Sutton

  66

  1

  67

  Garth

  33

  1

  34

  Gartree

  3

  —

  3

  Grendon

  3

  —

  3

  Haverigg

  3

  —

  3

  Highpoint

  7

  —

  7

  Lancaster

  4

  —

  4

  Lindholme

  10

  1

  11

  Littlehey

  7

  —

  7

  Long Lartin

  25

  3

  28

  Maidstone

  8

  —

  8

  Mount (The)

  9

  1

  10

  Norwich

  1

  —

  1

  Nottingham

  10

  —

  10

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Includes prison officers and prison staff other than of Prisoner officer grade.

  3 Including attempting, inciting or assisting.

  Wolds Prison (Escape)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the circumstances which led to the escape of an inmate from the Wolds prison on 23 January.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prisoner was unaccounted for at a routine security check at 17.00 on 23 January. In accordance with standard procedures, the police were informed as soon as it was suspected that an inmate might be missing and an extensive search of the entire prison was undertaken, including roof spaces and roof tops. The prisoner appears to have used some items of women's clothing in order to leave in the guise of a female visitor. In this way he would avoid the security procedures to which all male visitors were subjected. The prisoner gave himself up to the prison two days later. An internal review of the incident and procedures has taken place and all the recommendations for immediate action to prevent a recurrence have been put in place. The Home Office deputy controller monitored the incident from the outset.

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Chrichton Roberts Ltd., (f) KPMG management consultants and (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts with each contractor, for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Details of the contracts awarded by my Department during the past 12 months and for 1991–92 to the specified companies are as follows:
  493

  Consultant

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total value

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Restructuring of HMIC Matrix

  Triple CJS Pilots Project

  Market Testing Review

  PSIF MIS Project

  £420,000

  Touche Ross

  Consultancy work for catering contract

  Consultancy work for catering contract

  Study into effective shift systems for the Police Service

  Immigration service survey of staff attitudes

  Survey into motivation amongst police constables

  Review of shiftworking patterns in the Immigration Service

  Spectrum sizing survey

  TAC Project

  £332,713

  Price Waterhouse

  Systems Review

  —

  Systems Review

  Marketing Survey: Police activity sampling

  Mass software project

  £2,758,387

  Ernst and Young

  Validation of IT Strategy

  Police roles and responsibilities

  Court Escort: area survey

  Value and vision for the Prison Service

  Consultancy assistance in ensuring VFM from the Court Escort Service

  ICL Domain Review

  PROMIS Spits Survey

  Holmes Project

  —

  Chrichton Roberts Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  KPMG

  Review of financial arrangements for the funding of Regional Crime Squad in England and Wales

  Study for PNCO

  £81,250

  Leopold Joseph

  —

  —

  —

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts for consultancies were awarded to his Department over(a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The number of contracts for consultancies awarded by my Department for the last 12 months was 113 and for 1991–92 the number was 202.

  Rule 43 Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were on rule 43 in prisons in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland on 12 February.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The following table shows the number of males and females, both adults and young persons, removed from association under rule 43 of the prison rules and rule 46 of the young offender institution rules on 12 February, in prison service establishments in England and Wales.

  Rule 43/46 own protection

  Rule 43/46 Good order and discipline

  Total

  Males

  1,570

  241

  1,811

  Females

  22

  7

  29

  Total

  1,592

  248

  1,840

  494
  The table does not include inmates in designated vulnerable prisoner units where rule 43 and 46 restrictions do not apply.

  Responsibility for prisons elsewhere in the United Kingdom rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Winchester Prison
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date X—ray and metal detection devices were installed at Winchester prison; and on what date they became fully operational.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  X—ray machines were delivered to Winchester on 1 May 1992 and 29 June 1992. One became operational on 20 October 1992. The second will be installed and brought into operation once the necessary alterations to the gate lodge building have been completed. These alterations are scheduled to commence in 1993–94.

  A metal detector portal has been operational at Winchester since 1980.

  Criminal Justice Act 1991
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for he Home Department when he expects to review the working of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and its effectiveness in deterring crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Criminal Justice Act which came into force on 1 October last year contained a range of
  495
  provisions designed to establish a coherent sentencing framework based on the principle that the sentence should match the seriousness of the offence. The effects of the Act are being carefully monitored and evaluated as information becomes available.

  Mr. Maurice Bland
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Maurice Bland will be transferred from Lindholme to an open prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Secretary of State has accepted the recommendation by a discretionary lifer panel of the Parole Board that Mr. Bland should be transferred to an open prison. A decision on the most suitable location for Mr. Bland will be made within the next few days and he will be moved as soon as possible thereafter.

  Small Firms (Regulations)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those regulations affecting small firms which have been abolished by his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Such statistics have never been assembled before. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is finalising a centralised record of Government regulations against which progress on deregulation will be monitored in future. The Home Office will contribute to this record.

  Vehicle Clamping
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the immobilisation of vehicles improperly parked on private land.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are today publishing a consultation document on wheel—clamping on private land in England and Wales. It describes the current legal position as we understand it and canvasses a number of options for tackling the problems which have been brought to our attention. It indicates no preference for any of the options listed, but rather solicits as wide a range of opinions as possible, so that a proper balance my be struck between the interests of the landowner and those of the motorist. The document also seeks information on the extent and nature of wheel—clamping on private property and the problems associated with it.

  Copies of the paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are being sent direct to right hon. and hon. Members, individuals and groups that have already expressed an interest, and to others with an identifiable interest in any of the options. Copies of the document may also be obtained free of charge by writing to C4 Division, Home Office, Room 339, 50 Queen Anne's gate, London SW1A 9AT.

  The document requests that observations of both fact and opinion should reach the Home Office no later than the end of May.

WALES

  Commons
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many areas are designated as commons in each local authority area of Wales; and what were the equivalent numbers in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d)

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not held centrally. However, the project "The Common Lands of Wales", undertaken for the Countryside Commission by the rural surveys research unit at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth in 1988 indicated that the number of areas shown as common land in that year in each local authority area was:

  County

  Number of commons

  Clwyd

  323

  Dyfed

  488

  Gwent

  70

  Gwynedd

  279

  Mid Glamorgan

  53

  Powys

  290

  South Glamorgan

  24

  West Glamorgan

  67

  At the time of the survey some of the areas may not have been finally registered or may have been subject to deregistration.

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department(a) over the last 12 months and (b) in 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has awarded 88 consultancy contracts over the last 12 months and 75 in 1991–92.

  One—stop Shops
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish a series of one—stop shops to advise and support local community initiatives in each of the current district council areas in the south Wales valleys.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A working group has been established to consider how to improve the delivery of enterprise and business support services across Wales. The group will report to the Department in May.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the estimated amounts to be collected in community charge within each local authority area in Wales for(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93; and what are the estimates for the collection of council tax in each local authority area in the first year of its operation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested for 1991–92 and 1992–93 is given in the following table. Comparable information is not available for 1993–94 since local authorities are still in the process of setting their budgets.
  497

  Amount of community charge budgeted to be collected by local authorities when the charge was set1

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–932

  Alyn and Deeside

  5·8

  8·0

  Colwyn

  4·6

  5·4

  Delyn

  5·1

  6·7

  Glyndwr

  2·6

  3·4

  Rhuddlan

  4·8

  5·4

  Wrexham Maelor

  6·8

  10·5

  Carmarthen

  2·2

  4·6

  Ceredigion

  2·9

  6·2

  Dinefwr

  1·6

  2·9

  Llanelli

  3·8

  7·4

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  3·1

  6·2

  South Pembrokeshire

  2·1

  3·5

  Blaenau Gwent

  2·7

  2·8

  Islwyn

  3·2

  4·6

  Monmouth

  5·8

  8·3

  Newport

  9·9

  11·7

  Torfaen

  6·2

  7·7

  Aberconwy

  4·1

  5·4

  Arfon

  2·7

  3·5

  Dwyfor

  2·1

  2·7

  Meirionnydd

  2·8

  3·6

  Ynys Môn

  4·7

  6·7

  Cynon Valley

  2·3

  4·2

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2·4

  4·6

  Ogwr

  6·3

  9·7

  Rhondda

  1·3

  3·6

  Rhymney Valley

  5·4

  8·0

  Taff Ely

  5·6

  8·8

  Brecknock

  2·5

  3·5

  Montgomeryshire

  2·7

  4·4

  Radnorshire

  1·4

  2·1

  Cardiff

  18·6

  22·9

  Vale of Glamorgan

  7·8

  10·0

  Port Talbot

  2·1

  3·8

  Lliw Valley

  2·5

  4·9

  Neath

  3·2

  5·4

  Swansea

  12·4

  17·4

  Total Wales

  166·4

  240·3

  1 Net of deductions on community charge bills: ie community charge reduction scheme (CCRS), community charge benefit (CCB) and community charge grant(1991–92). Excludes arrears for earlier year(s).

  2 As reported by local authorities on form DAP3, but after deduction of CCRS and estimated CCB.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the estimated standard spending assessment levels for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 in each local authority area in Wales (i) prior to and (ii) following the announcement of capping criteria.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The standard spending assessment for 1992–93 for each local authority in Wales is shown in tables 1.3 and 1.6 of the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 4) (HC 241). Assessments for 1993–94 are shown in tables 1.3 and 1.6 of the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1993–94 (HC 412). Copies of both reports are available in the Library of the House. Standard spending assessments are not altered by capping criteria.

  Community Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to issue guidelines to(a) the private sector and (b) the voluntary sector concerning their involvement in community development work in Wales.
  498
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have no plans to do so at present. The Welsh Office supports community development work through a variety of grant schemes; guidance to potential applicants is issued on each of these schemes.

  County Council Assets
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the worth of assets in pounds sterling held by each county council in Wales in each year since 1988.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not held centrally.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what measures he proposes to improve work in the foundation subjects of the national curriculum;

  (2) if he will make a statement on standards in the national curriculum in foundation subjects.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In its review of educational provision in Wales for 1991–92, HMI (Wales) reported that teachers have responded to the challenge of the national curriculum with resilience, personal effort and commitment. HMI found that in 1991–92—a year in which two of the foundation subjects were introduced for the first time—work in the core subjects was satisfactory or better in three quarters of classes and there was satisfactory work in the foundation subjects in two thirds of classes. I congratulate teachers on this substantial achievement. I am also naturally concerned by those classes where performance needs to improve. As teachers become more familiar with the requirements of the orders and planning appropriate schemes of work, I have every confidence that standards will improve further.

  Reading Skills
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to improve the progressive development of reading skills.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The teaching of English under the national curriculum places considerable emphasis on the development of reading skills. There is already evidence of improvement. Last year's national curriculum tests for seven—year—olds showed a higher proportion of pupils had achieved level 2 or above–77 per cent.—in reading compared with the previous year–74 per cent. Level 2 is the level expected of a typical seven—year—old. In July last year I approved specific grant expenditure of £348,000 for innovative projects which are designed to improve primary reading standards in five local education authorities. The projects are being closely monitored and there will be a full evaluation in order that the gains can be passed to other LEAs in Wales.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much his Department owes community pharmacists for periods of up to(a) 60 days and (b) 90 days;

  (2) on how many occasions, and to what extent, in each year since 1990–91 community pharmacists received payment in respect of NHS pharmacy services within (a) 30 days, (b) 60 days or (c) 90 days of the provision of these services.
  499
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Pharmacists receive some 80 per cent. of their NHS fees and payments within a month of submitting the prescriptions they have dispensed to the prescription pricing division. The balance is paid a month later when the authority has calculated the exact payment due.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of anthrax were treated in each of the health authorities in Wales in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There were no notifications of anthrax in Wales in the years 1980 to 1992. This information remains subject to verification for 1991 and 1992.

  Deaths and Discharges with a diagnosis of Hepatitis B (ICD9 70.2 70.3): Hospital Activity Analysis 1980–901

  Year

  DHA of treatment

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Clwyd

  4

  2

  2

  20

  8

  12

  10

  7

  1

  10

  12

  East Dyfed

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  2

  3

  Gwent

  4

  4

  2

  0

  5

  16

  10

  5

  6

  3

  5

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  0

  5

  1

  3

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  2

  1

  Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  2

  3

  4

  10

  3

  5

  2

  5

  2

  3

  6

  West Glamorgan

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  7

  1

  2

  4

  7

  3

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Not known

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  TOTAL

  17

  14

  13

  40

  21

  45

  26

  25

  19

  30

  33

  1 The figures may understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide medical details relating to patient discharges and deaths. A patient admitted more than once in a year will be recorded each time he or she is admitted. Data for years after 1990 are not yet complete.

  Rural Roads
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent on the maintenance of rural roads in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Expenditure on the maintenance of roads is given in the following table. It is not possible to show separately spending relating to rural roads.

  Current expenditure on roads maintenance

  £ million

  Financial year

  Local Authorities1

  Central Government2

  1979–80

  62·9

  6·5

  1980–81

  70·0

  6·1

  1981–82

  89·3

  12·6

  1982–83

  83·0

  10·9

  1983–84

  88·1

  11·7

  1984–85

  89·0

  11·9

  1985–86

  89·7

  13·6

  1986–87

  96·8

  14·6

  1987–88

  109·1

  13·6

  1988–89

  115·7

  15·0

  1989–90

  123·8

  15·3

  1990–91

  3 134·4

  18·6

  1991–92

  n.a.

  20·9

  1 Includes all highways and bridge maintenance, street cleaning for highways purposes, lighting and associated professional and technical services. Includes net expenditure incurred on behalf of other local authorities under agency agreements.

  2 Expenditure on trunk roads and motorways. Figures from 1979–80 to 1982–83 are estimates.

  Hepatitis
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of hepatitis B were treated in each of the health authorities of Wales in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information available from hospital activity analysis data, given in the following table, relates to the number of discharges and deaths from NHS hospitals in each health authority with a recorded diagnosis of hepatitis B. These data relate only to cases for which patients were treated as in-patients or day cases in hospital. Most cases of hepatitis B, however, are managed in the community and do not involve an admission to hospital. Information on the number of cases managed in the community is not identifiable from centrally held data.

  3 A new definition of current expenditure was introduced in 1990–91 and this figure is not therefore strictly comparable to those for earlier years.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed in the maintenance of rural roads in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not available centrally.

EDUCATION

  Business Names
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 51, (1) what steps he took, before approving the name Somerset University under the Business Names Act 1985, to satisfy himself that the degree-level courses provided met levels of educational quality recognised through validation by universities, the Council for National Academic Awards or other educational institutions;

  (2) what consultations he had with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, or other educational interests, before approving the name Somerset University under the Business Names Act 1985;

  (3) when he responded to the owner of the business wishing to trade under the name Somerset University under the Business Names Act 1985; what British

  501
  educational bodies or public representatives supported the application; and if he will publish his response to the request from the owner.

  Mr. Boswell
  The President of the Board of Trade approves names under the Business Names Act 1985. The appropriate regulations, requiring consent under the Act, do not apply to names in use before 1 January 1983. Since there was evidence that "Somerset University" was in use before that date, the opinion of the Secretary of State for Education and Science was not sought.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 51, if he will list those business names, including either of the words university or polytechnic on the use of which his opinion is currently being sought.

  Mr. Boswell
  The opinion of my right hon. Friend is currently being sought on "Eastern International/Huron University, Inc." and "EIEA/Huron University, Inc." as the proposed business name of Lansdowne University Ltd., a South Dakota corporation.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 51, if he will publish his criteria for approving the use of the word university under the Business Names Act 1985.

  Mr. Boswell
  The President of the Board of Trade, who approves names under the Business Names Act 1985, consults the Privy Council where it is proposed that "university" is included in a business name. The Privy Council normally seeks the advice of my right hon. Friend, who is concerned to protect the status of United Kingdom universities and their interests and to avoid any confusion which might arise in the minds of the public.

  Autism
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give an estimate of the number of children classified as autistic in the United Kingdom who attend schools run by(a) local education authorities and (b) voluntary or charitable organisations.

  Mr. Forth
  1 refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to him on 8 February,Official Report, column 454. Under the Education Act 1981 it is the responsibility of LEAs to identify and make provision for children with special educational needs, including those with autism. The Department for Education and the Department of Health are currently sponsoring a research project into the education and treatment of children with autism in England and Wales. The researchers, applying European prevalence rates to this country, estimate that there are in the region of 7,800 children with autism in England and Wales. Of these, approximately 1,000 children attend schools or units which specialise in teaching children with autism. About 400 specialist places are provided by the voluntary sector. I have today placed a copy of the report of stage 1 of the research in the Library.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the amount of resources and manpower that has been made available for the education and treatment of children with autism.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally. It is the responsibility of LEAs and schools to ensure that 502
  individual autistic pupils receive the special education they require. The Department for Education and the Department of Health are currently sponsoring a research project into the education and treatment of children with autism in England and Wales. The second stage of the research aims to evaluate the main types of provision for young autistic children.

  School Meals
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the local education authorities who have contracted out their school meals service to private companies; and what has been the change in employment as a result.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not collect this information. It is up to LEAs to decide whether they wish to delegate the funds for this service to schools. LEAs providing school meals directly are subject to the competition provisions of the Local Government Act 1988. A survey by the Local Government Management Board, published in November 1992, showed that local authorities' direct service organisations have won 91·6 per cent. by number of school catering contracts and 97·2 per cent. by value.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department over(a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  (a) My Department, which was formed in April 1992, has funded 25 contracts for consultancies awarded in the last 12 months; its executive agency, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency, has awarded 29 contracts.

  (b) As my Department was not in existence in 1991–92, this part of the question does not apply.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Chrichton Roberts Ltd., (f) KPMG management consultants and (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts with each contractor, for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  (i) My Department which was formed in April 1992, has funded the following contracts in the past 12 months:

  (a) Coopers and Lybrand Management Consultants: nil.

  (b) Touche-Ross Management Consultants: two contracts have been awarded, one for a management review of the National Film and Television School and one for a market testing consultancy for catering operations at the British Film Institute. Total cost: £24,720.

  (c) Price Waterhouse Management Consultants: two contracts have been awarded, one to look at financial systems and controls for the British Library St. Pancras project, and one to undertake an investment appraisal for my Department's headquarters project. Total cost: £120,000.

  503

  (d) Ernst and Young Management Consultants: four contracts have been awarded; a report on market testing in the British Library, a feasibility study into the computerisation of the listing of historic buildings, which is ongoing, and two consultancies for the BFI, to look at computer facilities management and front-of house security at the National Film Theatre and Museum of the Moving Image. Total cost: £105,915.

  (e) Chrichton Roberts: nil.

  (f) KPMG Management Consultants: a contract was awarded to review British Screen Finance Ltd. Total cost: £38,000.

  (g) Leopold Management Consultants: nil.

  (ii) As my Department was not in existence in 1991–92, this part of the question does not apply.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library an example of the contract signed by British Nuclear Fuels and its foreign customers for the reprocessing of irradiated spent fuel at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The reprocessing contracts in question are a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customers.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the Touche Ross report on the economic feasibility of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant commissioned by British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for the company.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount of funding his Department provided in each of the last three years for development work which aimed to benefit small firms and individual traders.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department funded small firms development schemes at a cost of £89·3 million in 1990–91 and £90·8 million in 1991–92 with a forecast cost of £91.·2 million for 1992–93.

  Other small firms guarantee and support schemnes costing approximately £24·2 million in 1990–91, £34·4 million in 1991–92 and an expected £29·4 million in 1992–93 were, prior to their transfer to this Department in May 1992, funded by the Department of Employment.

  The training and enterprise councils provide business counselling and advice to small businesses from funds provided by the Department of Employment. These TEC activities will be funded by this Department from 1993–94.

  Misleading Prices
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department intends to legislate against misleading price indications.

  Mr. Leigh
  Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it an offence to give a misleading price indication to consumers by any means.

  Fridges
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the production of domestic fridges by United Kingdom manufacturers, for both national and overseas markets, from 1986 to 1991.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Figures for United Kingdom manufacturers' production of domestic fridges are not available separately for the United Kingdom and overseas markets. Figures for manufacturers' sales of these items in total may be found in Business Monitor PAS3460 (Domestic Electrical Appliances), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Insolvencies
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of(a) personal insolvencies and (b) company insolvencies in 1992 and in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The relevant information was published on my Department's behalf by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce in the 5 February issue of "Business Briefing", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who regulates insolvency practitioners in Britain.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Under the Insolvency Act 1986 only authorised persons may act as insolvency practitioners. Authorisation may be granted either by a professional body recognised by the Secretary of State or by the Secretary of State himself. The professional conduct of a person so authorised is regulated by the professional body or by the Secretary of State.

  In addition, the insolvency legislation contains a number of provisions under which those interested in a particular insolvency may have control over the actions of an insolvency practitioner, including power to make application to court for relief where there is dissatisfaction with any act, omission or decision of the practitioner.

  Company Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on which dates inspectors were appointed for investigation into Maxwell, BCCI, Polly Peck and Levitt Group of companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Apart from the inspections into the Maxwell companies in the early 1970s, the only appointment of inspectors in respect of the cases mentioned by the hon. Member is the appointment of inspectors announced on 8 June 1992 to investigate and report on the affairs and on the membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc.

  Auditor Regulation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will invite the public to submit evidence before completing his review of the auditor regulation regime introduced by part II of the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion.

  Department of Trade Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what checks he makes on the fitness of individuals to act as inspectors for his Department before appointing such individuals.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department makes such checks as are necessary and takes all relevant information into account.

  Auditing Practices Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department was first informed of the plans to form the Auditing Practices Board.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In November 1990.

  Auditing Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will propose legislation under which the recognised supervisory bodies would be required to publish the names and addresses of all auditing firms whose standards are considered to be low.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Batteries
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will include reference to the possibility of recycling batteries by using chargers in his Department's planned consultation document on the safe disposal of batteries.

  Mr. Eggar
  Rechargeable batteries, or accumulators, are among those covered by directive 91/157/EEC—batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances—the implementation of which will be the subject of public consultation by my Department in due course. The directive encourages the separate collection, for controlled disposal or recycling, of batteries and accumulators which contain specified amounts of lead, mercury and cadmium. Implementation of the directive in the Community has been delayed by the lack of an agreed marking system for batteries caught by the directive, but resolution of this matter is expected shortly, and a United Kingdom implementation date of 1 January 1994 for the directive is now planned.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many documents from Government Departments which have been asked for by the Scott inquiry have yet to be delivered.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The inquiry team has already received a great volume of documentation from Government Departments. It would be extremely difficult to quantify documents yet to be delivered since Departments are continuing to supply documents in response to ongoing requests from Lord Justice Scott.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received from the Lord Justice Scott inquiry a timetable for oral evidence to the inquiry.
  506
  Mr. Heseltine
  Lord Justice Scott has not yet announced dates for the taking of oral evidence. He has, however, made it clear that he wishes to report as soon as possible.

  Vietnam
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Export Credits Guarantee Department's cover for Vietnam.

  Mr. Needham
  ECGD is willing to consider applications for insurance of United Kingdom investments in Vietnam. Medium-term export credit cover has not been available since the early 1980s when Vietnam defaulted on her trade debts, giving rise to claims on ECGD which remain unrecovered. The availability of further cover will be dependent upon ECGD's assessment of the risks arid payment performance.

  Package Travel Industry
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has decided whether the Airtours bid for Owners Abroad raises questions of consumer choice which should be examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I shall take a decision on whether or not to refer this proposed acquisition to the MMC in due course, following advice from the Director General of Fair Trading. When taking that decision I shall take into account all relevant factors.

  Microwave Transmitters
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has identified from published and as yet unpublished reports available to him pointing to ill effects on human and other life forms from the siting of microwave transmitters on multi-storey domestic premises.

  Mr. Leigh
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave to earlier questions on 14 December 1992,Official Report, columns 26–27 and 22 January 1993, column 497. I am not aware of any unpublished information which would lead me to alter the terms of those answers.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had on proposals to require the declarations of payment practices in company accounts and reports; and what conclusions he has reached.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department issued on 25 January a consultative document on the options for taking forward our commitment that in future large companies will be required to state in their report and accounts how quickly they pay. The deadline for comments in 27 March. A copy of the document has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the working of the current requirements for disclosure of research and development expenditure in company accounts; and what plans he has to extend disclosure.
  507
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no reason to believe that the current requirements, which are contained in the Companies Act 1985 and Statement of Standard Accounting Practice No. 13, are not being generally complied with. I have no plans to extend the statutory requirements.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the membership of the Association of Authorised Public Accountants; and who performs the monitoring arrangements required by the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the association's first annual report under section 37 of the Companies Act 1989, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Textiles
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the current Turkish import regime for textiles.

  Mr. Needham
  A new Turkish tariff was introduced on 1 January 1993 which takes account of the latest reductions in duty granted to EC products under the EC/Turkey association agreement and the abolition of all additional levies equivalent to customs duties, except the mass housing fund. A preliminary analysis of the new tariff regime for textiles has been produced by the European Commission delegation office in Ankara; this notes EC preferences for all textile chapters and a general reduction in overall levels of protection.

  Small Firms (Regulations)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all those regulations affecting small firms which have been abolished by his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Such statistics have never been assembled before. I am completing a centralised record of Government regulations against which progress on deregulation will be monitored in future.

  Coal and Energy Issues
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the counties he and his ministerial colleagues have visited to discuss coal and energy issues since taking office; how many days each visit took; and if he will name the collieries visited.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 17 February 1993]: As regards visits to collieries, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 4 November 1992, Official Report, column 314. No further visits have taken place since.

  Coal and energy are among the many issues my ministerial colleagues and I discuss in the course of the frequent visits we undertake. For example, I discussed these matters during my visits to the north-east on 27 July, 16 October and 10 December last year, in my role as sponsoring Minister for that region.

  Foam-filled Furniture
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he has made to his advice given to charities and voluntary organisations in respect of the sale and distribution of non-compliant foam-filled furniture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 18 February 1993]: The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, as amended, which were made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, apply to transactions involving the "supply" of furniture which takes place
  "in the course of business"
  within the meaning of section 46 of that Act. My Department's view of the general position is that the simple distribution of furniture by a charity, in pursuance of its charitable objectives, either free of charge or at a nominal cost only, would be unlikely to constitute a business activity. Shops selling furniture to raise funds for charitable purposes would, in the Department's view, constitute a business activity.

  As charities may engage in a variety of activities which could have a bearing on the application of the regulations, my Department strongly recommends to inquirers that they should seek legal advice in the light of all the circumstances of the operation of the charity.

  EC Steel Industry
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has to consult(a) the British Independent Steel Producers Association, (b) the British Steel Corporation and (c) the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation on the Government's response to the Braun report on the restructuring of the European Community steel industry;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the European Commission report by Fernand Braun on the restructuring of the EC steel industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 18 February 1993]: I and my officials have discussed the Braun report and the Government's reaction with the British Iron and Steel Producers Association of which British Steel is now a member. There is broad agreement between Government and industry on the need for restructuring and permanent closures in other EC countries. The United Kingdom has alredy taken such steps. I have no plans to consult the Iron and Steel Traders Confederation, which is, however, represented on the European Coal and Steel Community's consultative committee. I am meeting my EC colleagues on 25 February to consider proposals for restructuring the EC steel industry.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost of providing Post Office staff support to the royal family.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: The estimated annual cost of Post Office staff employed on a permanent or seconded basis on postal duties for the royal family is £200,000.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Post Office staff are seconded(a) full-time and

  509
  (b) part-time from Howick place sorting office to the royal family at Buckingham palace and when the Queen is in residence elsewhere or aboard the royal yacht in harbour; and if he will make a statement on the arrangements.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: Five Post Office staff are seconded full time from Howick place sorting office for postal duties at Buckingham palace. When Her Majesty the Queen is in residence elsewhere, locally based post office staff are seconded on a temporary basis, as appropriate. No Post Office staff are seconded to the royal yacht.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account his review of the Post Office is taking of the services provided to the royal family by the allocation of staff to process their mail.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: The Post Office review is considering all matters relating to the future organisation and structure of the Post Office.

  Power Stations
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the criteria presently employed by his Department in considering whether or not to grant section 36 consents to new power stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: It has been my right hon. Friend's policy in considering applications for his consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as a general rule, to treat matters such as the need for a generating station, its capacity, choice of fuel to be used and type of plant as commercial matters for the applicant concerned.

  My right hon. Friend announced to the House on 26 October 1992 that he was reviewing the use of his consent powers under section 36. The outcome of this review will be included in the White Paper, which is to be published shortly.

TRANSPORT

  London Cycle Routes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if his Department will help fund the proposed 1,000-mile strategic cycle route network for London: and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects work to start on the proposed 1,000-mile strategic route network for London;

  (3) what discussions his Department is having to ensure that each of the 32 London borough councils implement their part in the proposed 1,000-mile strategic cycle route network for London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The 1,000-mile strategic cycle network for London was developed by, and is the responsibility of, the London Cycling Forum, a working party of the London Planning Advisory Committee. The Department is an active member.

  The strategic network has the full support of the Department. The majority of routes in London—about 96 per cent.—are on local roads and cycle facilities there will be for the London boroughs to provide. Cycle routes identified on trunk roads and crossing points on the trunk
  510
  road network will either be provided as part of the trunk road improvement programme or through the trunk road priority route local plans.

  From information available from LCF, approximately 125 miles of the cycle network is already in existence with 220 miles in preparation.

  Expenditure on the provision of cycle facilities on local roads is eligible for transport supplementary grant, although it is not separately identified in the annual settlement. The traffic director for London will also fund the development and introduction of cycle facilities which he approves as part of the priority—red—route local plan process.

  My Department and the traffic director for London participate in meetings of the borough cycling officer group, which was set up to discuss provision of the strategic cycle network and cycle matters in general.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the priority given in his national roads programme to the widening and improvement of existing motorways and trunk roads as compared to the construction of completely new trunk roads and motorways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend believes it right to continue the policy of his distinguished predecessors which placed the emphasis in the national roads programme upon upgrading the existing network.

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to introduce to prevent motorists readjusting the exhaust systems of their vehicles after the annual vehicle test in such a way as to increase emissions.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None. The primary purpose of the annual test is to encourage motorists to maintain their vehicles in a good state of tune. Having done so, there should be little incentive for the motorist to readjust the vehicle away from this optimum setting. Those owners who nevertheless might be so inclined would be committing an offence under regulation 61(7) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration was given to the inclusion of a test for levels of oxides of nitrogen in exhaust emissions in the annual vehicle test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The MOT test measures emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons at idle speed. This simple "no load" test is designed for non-catalyst cars and is quite adequate to check the correct tune state of these vehicles. To carry out a meaningful check on the emissions of oxides of nitrogen, which occur only when the engine is under load, would require every MOT station to be equipped with very expensive chassis dynamometer and associated control equipment. A modified test for catalyst cars will be introduced before 1997 in accordance with EC directive 92/55/EEC. This modified test will check the correct functioning of the catalyst to ensure that NOx controls are operating.

  Speed Limiters
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce speed limiters for privately owned motor cars.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None. Speed limiters work at one preset maximum speed and most accidents involving cars occur in built-up areas where the speed limit is well below the maximum of 70 mph.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the extra traffic flows carried by Trainload Freight and Railfreight Distribution since July 1992.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a commercial matter for British Rail.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will set new financial objectives for British Rail's freight businesses; how long those objectives will apply; and if they will be disaggregated by freight market.

  Mr. Freeman
  Shortly. We are currently considering fresh objectives to cover the interim period until our proposals in the Railways Bill take effect.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce measures to ensure that the transport of goods by rail in Wales is and remains commercially competitive.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for BR to take whatever steps it feels appropriate in the light of prevailing market conditions. For the future, privatisation of BR's freight businesses and liberalisation of access to the rail freight network offer the best prospect for a rail freight industry keenly attuned to the needs of customers.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to introduce a subsidy in respect of the transport of oil by rail in Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend recently announced our intention to introduce a new grant scheme to assist rail freight operators to pay their track charges, in cases where there is genuine need and where there are environmental and other wider benefits sufficient to justify it.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost to British Rail of establishing shadow franchises along the lines announced by him on 2 February.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for British Rail. I expect most of the work to be carried out by existing British Rail employees.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines his Department follows in effecting temporary diversions of footpaths as a consequence of the construction of trunk roads and motorways; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend does not rely upon guidelines. He follows the statutory procedures laid down 512
  in the Highways Act 1980. Section 14 empowers him to deal in various ways with affected footpaths by stopping them up, by altering or diverting them, and by providing new ones. On occasion the local highway authority exercise these powers on his behalf. The statutory procedures for making and confirming the requisite orders are set out in the first schedule to the Act; they require the publishing of draft orders, the consideration of objections and the holding as necessary of a local inquiry.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Vietnam
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to establish the British Council in Vietnam.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None at present. The British Council has decided that, whilst Vietnam remains a priority, it cannot establish a presence in Hanoi for budgetary reasons.

  Thailand
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken to put to the Burmese authorities the plight of Burmese women and children who are trafficked to Thailand for prostitution.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The trafficking of women and children into Thailand for prostitution is a matter of serious concern.

  The Burmese authorities appear to be well aware of the problem and to be co-operating with UNICEF and WHO in tackling it. The embassy in Rangoon monitors the situation and is in regular contact with Burmese health officials and UN agencies based in Rangoon.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the penultimate paragraph of the letter of 4 February, ref. GV100/17123, from the migration and visa correspondence unit to the hon. Member for Ilford, South in a form which does not identify the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The penultimate paragraph of the migration and visa correspondence unit letter of 4 February, ref. GV100/17123, was intended as background information only to the handling of a specific application within the requirements of the immigration rules.

  Immigration control policy, as implemented by entry clearance officers overseas, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Raynesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his Department monitors the performance of the BBC world service and its effectiveness in promoting Britain throughout the world.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the world service regularly review the performance and cost-effectiveness of world service
  513
  broadcasts in meeting agreed objectives and targets, taking into account the audibility of broadcasts, the size and profile of their audiences and the impact and influence of programmes. Information comes principally from internationally recognised audience research data, reports from our diplomatic missions, and correspondence received by the world service.

  AIDS (Burma)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken to call for an investigation into the whereabouts of AIDS-infected Burmese prostitutes who have disappeared.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are aware of allegations that HIV-positive Burmese prostitutes returned from Thailand have disappeared but we have seen no evidence to support these allegations. According to the Burmese authorities, prostitutes who are found to be HIV-positive are counselled, and treated for sexually transmitted diseases if appropriate, before being returned to their families.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mordechai Vanunu
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to raise the case of Mordechai Vanunu with President Herzog of Israel during his visit to the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  This matter has been raised informally with the Israeli Government. I do not plan to raise it formally with the President.

  Road Casualties
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a table to show comparable data on road casualty rates for(a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales.

  The Prime Minister
  The latest comparable rates for these countries is published in tables 1, 4 and 8 of "Road Accident Statistics English Regions 1991", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Manufacturing Initiatives
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister what further initiatives he is planning to rebuild the United Kingdom manufacturing base.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government fully appreciate the part played by manufacturing industry in securing the United Kingdom's long-term prosperity. I, and my Cabinet colleagues, will continue to pay close attention to manufacturing industry's concerns across the full range of the Government's decisions.

  Nuclear Weapons (Discussions)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to discuss with President Clinton(a) collaboration on the safety of nuclear weapons, (b) the negotiation of a competitive test ban treaty and (c) article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  There will be no formal agenda,514
  but I expect to have wide-ranging discussions with President Clinton and members of his administration.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others later today.

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Values
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of households where the value of the property is less than the value of the mortgage.

  Sir George Young
  The number of owner-occupiers with mortgages larger than the value of their houses in the fourth quarter of 1992 is estimated at about 1 million, excluding any that have increased their mortgage indebtedness since buying their dwellings. There is insufficient information to estimate their number. The figure of 1 million is subject to considerable uncertainty, due to the very limited amount of information about house purchase loans from lenders other than building societies.

  LAMSAC
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what cost has been apportioned to each local authority association, and each local authority, to meet the debts of the Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee consequent upon its wind-up;

  (2) what contribution his Department made to the Local Authority Conditions of Service Advisory Board and the Local Government Management Board since 1988 to meet the costs of LAMSAC prior and subsequent to its wind-up;

  (3) what proportion of the top-slicing of rate support grant, made available to the local authority associations, was devoted in each year since 1989 to meet the debts of LAMSAC;

  (4) what involvement his Department has in the winding-up of LAMSAC.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Tourism
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Robin Squire
  Together with the Department of National Heritage, we have commissioned research into
  515
  the feasibility of obtaining better information on the numbers of day visitors, to assist the calculation of standard spending assessments. It is hoped that the results of this research will be available for incorporation into SSAs for 1994–95.

  Urban Needs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors he proposes to take into account in his analysis of urban needs based on the 1991 census data; what weighting he proposes to give to each factor; and what additional data not contained in the census he will be seeking.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A report on this subject by the Centre for Urban Policy Studies will shortly be circulated to local authority associations and voluntary organisations. The report will consider the factors which might be taken into account in analysing urban needs in the light of the 1991 census and other data. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the Ofwat report regarding discrepancies in the cost of water and sewerage services.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The system established under the 1989 legislation is designed to encourage companies to become as efficient as possible. Some variation in unit costs between companies will result from their differing circumstances. The Director General of Water Services is continuing to examine differences in unit costs.

  Rent Rebates
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what payment of rent rebates on housing revenue account tenancies was paid to Lambeth council for February, March and April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  A housing authority's expenditure on the rent rebates it grants to its housing revenue account tenants is one of several factors which are taken into account when determining its entitlement to housing revenue account subsidy. For each financial year, on-account payments of HRA subsidy are made to housing authorities by my Department in 10 instalments, from May to February. Payments are not made in March or April.

  Details of on-account payments of HRA subsidy to Lambeth borough council in respect of HRA rent rebate expenditure throughout 1992, were included in the answer given to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 15 February, Hansard, Vol. 219, cols 100–01.

  British Waterways Bill
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the British Waterways Bill on commercial shipping;

  (2) if he will list the British waterways docks planned to be closed as a result of the British Waterways Bill.
  516
  Mr. Maclean
  The British Waterways Bill removes the statutory duty to make the Weston Points docks available to commercial traffic, but does not prevent navigation through the docks or their operation by another party. I understand that for some years there has been no such traffic through Weston Point docks. There should be no effect on commercial shipping. More generally the Bill seeks to enable the British Waterways Board to carry out its functions more efficiently to the benefit of all users, including commercial shipping.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to inform the public about ozone depletion levels over the United Kingdom and the northern hemisphere for the winter and spring of 1992–93.

  Mr. Maclean
  Details of ozone levels over the United Kingdom and the northern hemisphere this winter and spring will be published in the autumn in the next report by the Department's stratospheric ozone review group. Dobson spectrophotomer data would be made available through the Meteorological Office in the event of significant deviations from the normal range of winter and spring ozone levels.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department is funding to monitor the rate of ozone depletion over the United Kingdom for the winter and spring of 1992–93.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department has supported atmospheric ozone measurements at Lerwick since 1991 and will continue to do so throughout the winter and spring of 1992–93 and beyond. In addition, the Department also supports the development of methods for monitoring ground level UVB irradiation at Reading university.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest available information on ozone depletion over the United Kingdom and northern hemisphere for the winter of 1992–93.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest estimate of the average depletion of the ozone layer at British latitudes, based on the 1992 WMO/UNEP scientific assessment of ozone depletion, is 8 per cent. per decade in winter and early spring. I am advised by the Cambridge ozone research co-ordinating unit and the Meteorological Office that the levels of ozone measured over the United Kingdom during the current winter are consistent with the WMO/UNEP assessment of long-term depletion, but still within the previously observed ranges for the time of year.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current ozone depletion levels for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) earlier today.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often the levels of ozone depletion are measured over the United Kingdom; and how the figures are made publicly available.
  517
  Mr. Maclean
  Total ozone measurements are made daily when meteorological conditions permit by the United Kingdom Meteorological Office and the results submitted to the provisional centre for the World Meteorological Organisation's ozone mapping project. The Department supports two ozone profile measurements per week at Lerwick and the results are disseminated through the scientific literature and by the reports of the Department's stratospheric ozone review group. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) earlier today.

  Business Rate Appeals
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many business rate appeals are currently outstanding.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  At the end of December 1992 valuation tribunals in England had outstanding some 460,000 non-domestic rating appeals.

  Following the revaluation on 1 April 1990, English tribunals initially received some 600,000 appeals, mostly towards the end of that financial year. Since then around 470,000 appeals have been resolved, and a further 330,000 received.

  Nitrous Oxide Emissions
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 106, when he expects to publish estimates of nitrous oxide emissions in the United Kingdom during 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  The best current estimate for emissions of nitrous oxide in the United Kingdom will be reported in my Department's Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics No. 15, which is due for release in April 1993.

  An estimate of emissions during 1992 will be released in Digest No. 16, which is due for publication in spring 1994.

  Water Disconnections
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Environment how many people in England had their water supplies disconnected in 1992 for non-payment of bills; and what percentage were pensioners.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on disconnections of water supplies to pensioners is not available. Total numbers of domestic disconnections for 1991–92 were given in my answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on 4 November 1992,Official Report, columns 234–35. Information on domestic disconnections for the six-month period from 1 April to 30 September 1992 was given in my answer to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on 18 November 1992, Official Report, columns 204–5.

  Local Authority Tenants
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to give local authority tenants, living in homes in serious disrepair, the same protection as is afforded to private sector tenants under the Housing Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.
  518
  Mr. Baldry
  None. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the law as it stands is in practice giving rise to any unfairness to council tenants.

  Capital Receipts
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the value of local authorities' capital receipts resulting from(a) sales of council housing and (b) sales of other assets made subsequent to the autumn statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local authorities provide quarterly returns to the Department, giving their current estimates of capital receipts received to date. The first available information on cumulative receipts received up to 31 December 1992 is expected to be available during April.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many EC member countries currently have some system of water metering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Some system of water metering exists in all EC countries. In England and Wales it is for water companies to decide on their preferred method of charging in the light of the circumstances in their operating area.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will order an inquiry into the Isle of Wight water metering project when it finishes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Information on setting up and running the Isle of Wight water metering trial and the small-scale trials is contained in two interim reports, copies of which are in the Library. A final report is expected to be published in the spring. I will ensure that copies of this report are also placed in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the people of the Isle of Wight regarding the water metering project; if he will publish them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a small number of letters about meter installation and billing issues. I do not intend to make these public. For details of reports on the metering trial on the Isle of Wight I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him earlier.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present extent of(a) volumetric and (b) pre-payment metering consumption in domestic properties in England and Wales, region by region.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer Monday 22 February]: The information requested is not held centrally. However, I understand that about 3 per cent. of households receive a metered water supply and that several small-scale trials of prepayment meters are being conducted. The second interim report of the water metering trials indicates that in the small-scale trials the average annual consumption per property was 137 cu m.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made towards the establishment of the proposed environment agency.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the Government's plans for the environment agency on 15 July 1992. Consideration is now being given to the detailed provisions which would be necessary to establish such an agency and legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Packaging
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation to reduce levels of packaging in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no such plans at present. We have been discussing with the packaging industry ways in which the environmental impact of packaging can be reduced and are currently considering whether to introduce economic instruments to encourage the recovery of resources from waste.

  Small Firms (Regulations)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those regulations affecting small firms which have been abolished by his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Since 1979 a series of measures has been taken to reduce and simplify the amount of regulation. All my Department's regulations which impact on business are currently being reviewed to ensure that, where they are necessary, they impose the minimum burden.

  Sellafield
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the alpha discharges were from the B204 stack at Sellafield for the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Using the latest calibration factors the alpha releases from the B204 stack and for comparison the total for all schedule 1 stacks were:

  B204 stack

  All schedule 1 slacks

  MBq

  MBq

  11992

  113

  169

  1991

  158

  274

  1990

  193

  263

  1989

  262

  338

  1988

  376

  459

  1 The 1992 figures do not yet include the December returns.

  The present annual limit for all schedule 1 stacks is 4,300 MBq.

  These should be compared with the range in my answer to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), on 15 February, at column 21.

  Ward Boundaries, Brent
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision regarding the Local Government Boundary Commission's recommendations for changes in the local ward boundaries of Brent.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet reached his decision on the Local Government Boundary Commission proposals for changes to the local government boundaries around Brent. When a decision is reached on boundary changes, he will consult the Home Secretary on any electoral consequences.

  Disused Canals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the protection of the lines of disused canals within local planning procedures.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: Our policy is set out in our planning policy guidance notesPPG4, paragraph 11, and more generally in PPG12. We will consult shortly on more detailed guidance in a revised PPG13, "Transport".

  Office of Water Services
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the administration of OFWAT in each year from 1990–91, and projected for 1993–94.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 154. The Director General's "Annual Report 1990", a copy of which is in the Library, records OFWAT's expenditure in 1990–91 as £4.3 million. £9.7 million has been voted in estimates, class VII, vote 9, to cover the expenditure of OFWAT for 1993–94.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Veal
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what steps he is taking to ensure that veal used by parliamentary caterers is produced by the Quantock method rather than by crating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The Director of Catering Services informs me that the veal used in the Refreshment Department is purchased only from suppliers who use the Quantock method of rearing veal calves.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will report progress on the reform of the sitting hours of the House.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave on Monday 22 February, at column 679, to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Training and Employment Agency
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the assistance and programmes the Training and Employment Agency makes available to assist unemployed people look for work; what changes are planned in these programmes in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Ms. Clare Short, dated 22 February 1993:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he would make a statement about the assistance and programmes the Training and Employment Agency makes available to assist unemployed people look for work and what changes are planned in these programmes in 1993–94. The Secretary of State has passed your questions to me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, for reply.
  The Agency has a network of 31 local offices, linked by central computer, which delivers an all-age guidance and placement service. The full range of employment and training services is available through the network of "one stop shops" which, since April 1992, have helped around 35,000 adults to find jobs or a place on an Agency scheme.
  For those out of work for a lengthy period the Agency runs a Restart programme which is specifically designed to provide help and encouragement to those who have been unemployed for more than six months. In the course of the programme everyone in this category is invited to attend an interview in their local Agency office. During the interview each person is given advice on job vacancies or offered a place on an Action for Community Employment (ACE) Scheme, Jobclub or training course. Responsibility for the Restart Programme will transfer to the Social Security Agency from April 1993.
  The Training and Employment Agency also provides practical help with job-hunting for the long-term unemployed, through a network of 28 Jobclubs. Members are given advice on aspects such as the completion of application forms, CVs, preparation for interviews etc and the Jobclub provides photocopying, typing, telephone, stationery and postage facilities.
  In addition the Agency also provides training programmes for the unemployed. The Youth Training Programme (YTP) and the Job Training Programme (JTP) provide all entrants to the labour market and the adult unemployed respectively with the opportunity to obtain skills and qualifications to help them compete for suitable jobs.
  YTP offers 16 and 17 year olds a structured programme of directed and workplace training of up to 2 years' duration. JTP offers those aged 18 and under 60 an individually tailored programme of up to one year of directed training and practical workplace-based experience.
  The Action for Community Employment (ACE) Scheme provides temporary employment, with training, of up to one year's duration for long-term unemployed adults in a wide range of projects of benefit to the community. Each programme provides an element of jobsearch skills/interview techniques for participants.
  There are no changes planned for YTP/JTP and ACE during 1993–94. However the Agency is currently piloting a single, integrated scheme which may replace both YTP and JTP and which will offer training to entrants to the labour market and to the unemployed.
  I hope that this information is of help.

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the most recent information he has on the destination of youth training programme leavers; and of those who found employment, how many were with the employer who provided their training.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Ms. Clare Short, dated 22 February 1993:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the most recent information he has on the destination of Youth Training Programme leavers; and of those who found employment, how many were with the employer who provided the training.
  As the Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency which has Executive responsibility for these matters I have been asked to reply.
  The most recent information available on the destinations of participants leaving the Youth Training Programme is for the period 1 April 1992 to 31 January 1993. This shows that 6,264 (56%) leavers went into employment, 1,335 (12%) went into full time education and 3,651 (32%) became unemployed.
  Figures for YTP leavers who found employment with the employer who provided their training are not available.

  Job Plan Workshops
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce job plan workshops for the long-term unemployed; what effect this will have on entitlement to benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Ms. Clare Short, dated 19 February 1993:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce Jobplan Workshops for the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland, what effect this would have on entitlement benefit and if he will make a statement.
  As Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency I have been asked to reply.
  The Training and Employment Agency currently provides practical help for long-term unemployed jobseekers through a network of 28 Jobclubs. Members are given advice on the completion of application forms and CVs and preparation for interviews etc. Jobclubs provide photocopying, typing, telephone, stationery and postage facilities.
  In addition assistance towards finding work or suitable training is provided to the long term unemployed through counselling under the Restart Programme.
  At present there are no plans in Northern Ireland to introduce Jobplan Workshops but consideration will be given to what action should be taken to be of further help to the long term unemployed in the light of developments in Great Britain and local circumstances.

  Action for Community Employment
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the latest available date how many people were employed on action for community employment; how
  523
  many of them were employed (a) part time and (b) full time; and if he will divide the figures into males and females.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Ms. Clare Short, dated 19 February 1993:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the latest available date how many people were employed on Action for Community Employment; how many of them were employed (a) Part time, (b) Full time; and if he will divide the figure into males and females. As Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency which has executive responsibility for this matter in Northern Ireland I have been asked to reply.
  At 31 January there was a total of 9,660 people employed on the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme. This figure was made up of 7,245 full time (4,347 males and 2,898 females) and 2,415 part time (676 males and 1,739 females).

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the eligibility rules for the job training programme and action for community employment schemes and on the training and income participants are entitled to when they participate in the programme; and what changes are planned in these schemes for 1993–94.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Ms. Clare Short, dated 22 February 1993:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he would make a statement about the eligibility rules for the Job Training Programme and Action for Community Employment Schemes; the training and income participants are entitled to when they participate in the programme; and what changes are planned in these schemes for 1993–94.
  The Secretary of State has passed your questions to me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, for reply.
  Applicants for the Job Training Programme (JTP) are eligible if they

  (a) are aged 18 and under 60; and

  (b) have been continuously unemployed for at least 26 weeks.

  The Programme is also open to certain other groups who are not registered as unemployed. A full list of those other groups is attached at Annex A.
  Participants in JTP follow individually tailored programmes of training and practical workplace based experience and have the opportunity to acquire vocational qualifications.
  Participants on JTP receive a training allowance equivalent to their normal Social Security benefit plus a premium of £10·00 per week.
  To be eligible for the Action for Community Employment (ACE) Scheme applicants must satisfy the following three conditions:

  (i) be at least 18 and under 64 years;

  (ii) have been unemployed without a break for at least 3 months immediately before starting on an ACE project; and

  (iii) have been unemployed for at least 12 months out of the last 15 months.

  524
  Exceptions to condition (iii) are listed in Annex B.
  Each ACE employee will spend on average 20 per cent. of their time in training. Training seeks to address two levels of need—training for the ACE job and training for future employment.
  All ACE workers are paid the local rate for the job, subject to normal deductions such as National Insurance and income tax.
  There are no substantive changes planned for either JTP or ACE during 1993–94. However the Agency is currently piloting a single integrated scheme called Jobskills which could eventually replace both the Job Training Programme and the Youth Training Programme.
  I hope that this information is of help.

  Training
    Annex A

      Eligibility for job training programme
      Special groups of unemployed people for whom exemptions to the normal 6 months unemployment conditions are applicable:

      (a) People with disabilities (registered or unregistered).

      (b) Single (lone) parents.

      (c) Ex-regular members of HM Forces.

      (d) Returners to the labour market.

      (e) People interested in business start-up or other enterprise training.

      (f) People wishing to train in skills that are in short supply.

      (g) Employees who have been made redundant.

      (h) People who need literacy and/or numeracy training.

    Annex B

      Eligibility for action for community employment (ACE) scheme
      Exceptions to the conditions that a person must have been unemployed for at least 12 months out of the last 15 months.

      (a) Unemployed 18–24 year olds who have been unemployed for over 6 months.

      (b) Young people who have been recently on the Youth Training Programme may count up to a maximum: of 3 months full time training on the programme as unemployment with the balance of the 6 months to be made up of normal unemployment.

      (c) Adults who have recently been on the Job Training Programme or at a course at a Training Centre or in Enterprise Ulster may count all of the time spent as unemployment.

      (d) Registered disabled people need only have been unemployed for at least 6 out of the last 12 months. They are also permitted to remain in ACE for 18 months instead of the usual 12 months.

      Ms. Short
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the most recent information he has on the destination of people who leave action for community employment and the job training programme; how many leavers got jobs, became unemployed or went on to further training; and if he will make a statement.

      Mr. Atkins
      Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

      Letter from J. S. Crozier to Ms Clare Short, dated 22 February 1993:
      You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for information on the destination of people who leave Action for Community Employment and the Job Training Programme; and how many leavers got jobs, became unemployed or went on to further training.
      As the Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency which has executive responsibility for these matters I have been asked to reply.
      The most recent information available on the destination of people who left the Action for Community Employment scheme is based on a sample survey for the period 1 April 1992

      525
      to 31 January 1993. This shows that 28 per cent. moved into employment, 2 per cent. into further education or training, and 70 per cent. into unemployment. A full survey in 1991 showed 35 per cent. moving into employment, 4 per cent. into education and training and 61 per cent. into unemployment.
      Over the period 1 April 1992 to 31 January 1993 in the Job Training Programme 29 per cent. of leavers moved into employment. 16 per cent. into further education or training and 55 per cent. into unemployment.

  Electricity Works
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the nature and cost of major works carried out by Northern Ireland Electricity in the constituency of Newry and Armagh within the last 12 months.

  Mr. Atkins
  Major works carried out by Northern Ireland Electricity in the constituency of Newry and Armagh in the last 12 months were:

  (i) New substation adjacent to Drumalane Playing Fields—£347,000.

  (ii) Strengthening of system to substation at Carnbane Industrial Estate—£50,000.

  (iii) System improvements in Camlough area (continuing)—£195,000)

  Newry and Armagh
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the unemployment rates in each ward within the constituency of Newry and Armagh, or such relevant statistics as are available, for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Atkins
  Whilst unemployment rates are not available at ward level, current and historical information on the actual number of unemployed by age and duration of unemployment for each ward within the constituency of Newry and Armagh is available from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed on-line by House of Commons Library staff.

  Travellers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost to public funds of the "With Not For" conference for travelling people on Monday 30 March 1992; and how many civil servants, district council officers, area health board officers, area education board officers and housing executive officers attended this conference.

  Mr. Atkins
  The total cost to public funds of the "With Not For" conference for travelling people was £18,604·87.

  A total of 160 delegates attended the conference, including 13 civil servants, 18 district council officers, 13 area health board officers, three area education board officers and two Northern Ireland Housing Executive officers.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the number of motoring offences, by category, which incur a fixed penalty and the amount of the penalty in each case.
  526
  Mr. Atkins
  At present there are 153 offences which may be discharged by the payment of a fixed penalty. These have been broadly grouped in the table.

  Category

  Number of offences

  1. Speeding

  2

  Obstruction-waiting-parking

  21

  Pedestrian crossings

  8

  Lighting

  19

  Others

  10

  2. Vehicle or parts-dangerous condition

  46

  Noise

  6

  Neglect traffic directions

  5

  Miscellaneous

  9

  3. Driving licence-vehicle test certificate

  4

  Goods vehicle-PSV offences

  6

  Motor cycles

  5

  Length and width

  3

  Weight and load

  9

  Each offence currently carries a penalty of £20.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the report from the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland on the training and employment of disabled people; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 18 February 1993:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what consideration he has given to the report from the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland on the Training and Employment of disabled people, what action he will be taking and if he will make a statement.
  As Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland) (T and EA), I have responsibility for the services on which the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland has reported.
  We have carefully considered the report. We have noted, amongst other things, the acknowledgement of the improvements made since the Agency reorganised its services to people with disabilities in January 1991.
  The Agency is determined to maintain this improvement in its services available to disabled people and is drawing up a programme of further action to this end.

  Employment Statistics
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current percentage employment in the Belfast Education and Library board of Protestants and Roman Catholics in the various grades; and what are the corresponding figures in the 1981 and 1991 census returns covering the Belfast travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:
  527

  1. Belfast Education and Library Board Staff–1 January 1992 (extracted from the Belfast Education and Library Board's Fair Employment review.)

  (a) Headquarters

  Job Title

  Total number of staff

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Non-Determined

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Chief Executive

  24

  17

  70·84

  5

  20·83

  2

  8·33

  Head of Department

  Senior Assistant Education Officer

  Education Officer

  Assistant Advisory Officer

  Adviser

  Principal Psychologist

  13

  6

  46·16

  5

  38 ·46

  2

  15·38

  Senior Psychologist

  Psychologist

  Professional Architectural Posts

  31

  18

  58·06

  11

  35·49

  2

  6·45

  Chief Education Welfare Officer

  25

  12

  48·00

  13

  52·00

  —

  —

  Divisional Education Welfare Officer

  Education Welfare Officer

  Senior School Meals Organiser

  7

  5

  71·43

  —

  —

  2

  28·57

  School Meals Organiser

  Peripatetic School Meals Organiser

  Youth Officer

  6

  3

  50·00

  3

  50·00

  —

  —

  Divisional Youth Officer

  Principal Officer

  7

  5

  71·42

  1

  14·29

  1

  14·29

  Assistant Principal Officer

  Senior Administrative Officer

  6

  4

  66·67

  2

  33·33

  —

  —

  Administrative Officer

  8

  7

  87·50

  1

  12·50

  —

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  12

  6

  50·00

  4

  33·33

  2

  16·67

  Executive Officer

  33

  20

  60·61

  12

  36·36

  1

  3·03

  Senior Clerical Officer

  56

  18

  32·14

  34

  60·71

  4

  7·15

  Clerical Officer

  61

  33

  54·1

  23

  37·7

  5

  8·2

  Clerk Typist

  Telephonist/Receptionist

  Comptometer Operator

  Technician/Assistant Technician

  (b) Library Headquarters

  Grade

  Total number of staff

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Non-Determined

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Chief Librarian

  6

  3

  50·00

  1

  16·67

  2

  33·33

  Assistant Chief Librarian

  Senior Librarian PO1–7

  Librarian PO1 2–5

  22

  13

  59·09

  8

  36·36

  1

  4·55

  Librarian AP5

  Assistant Librarian AP3/4

  Senior Library Assistant (i)

  76

  41

  53·95

  30

  39·47

  5

  6·58

  Senior Library Assistant (ii)

  Library Assistant

  Administration/Technical

  8

  5

  62·5

  3

  37·5

  —

  —

  528 529

  (c) Library - Branches

  Grade

  Total number of staff

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Non-Determined

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Librarian PO1 2–5

  2

  1

  50·00

  1

  50·00

  —

  —

  Librarian AP5/SO1

  Assistant Librarian

  14

  5

  35·72

  8

  57·14

  1

  7·14

  Senior Library Assistant II

  18

  6

  33·33

  9

  50·00

  3

  16·67

  Library Assistant

  54

  29

  53·70

  21

  38·89

  4

  7·41

  (D)School-Based Staff

  Grade

  Total number of staff

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Non-Determined

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  AECP and T; includes nursery assistant clerical and technical grades

  470

  196

  41·70

  232

  49·36

  42

  8·94

  A and G staff, IE

  1,552

  634

  40·85

  755

  48·65

  163

  10·50

  Caretakers/cleaners

  Security posts

  Porter

  School meals

  616

  268

  43·51

  302

  49·02

  46

  7·47

  (E) Further education (non-teaching)

  Grade

  Total number of staff

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Non-Determined

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Ancillary (eg cleaners, porters, tradesmen etc)

  144

  103

  71·53

  29

  20·14

  12

  8·33

  Administration/technical

  166

  92

  55·42

  64

  38·56

  10

  6·02

  Typist

  50

  28

  56·00

  16

  32·00

  6

  12·00

  Telephonist

  Receptionist

  Clerical

  (F) Further Education (Teaching Permanent)

  Grade

  Total number of staff

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Non-Determined

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Lecturer

  395

  204

  51·64

  140

  35·44

  51

  12·92

  Senior Lecturer

  150

  89

  59·33

  46

  30·67

  15

  10·00

  Principal Lecturer

  27

  15

  55·56

  7

  25·92

  5

  18·52

  Head of School

  18

  11

  61·11

  5

  27·78

  2

  11·11

  Vice-Principal

  4

  2

  50·00

  —

  —

  2

  50·00

  2.Economically active population (aged 16 and over) in the Belfast travel-to-work area

  (Supplied by the Census Office, Department of Health and Social Services)

  1981 Per cent.

  1991 Per cent.

  Roman Catholic

  18·05

  24·80

  Protestant and others1

  63·78

  60·00

  Answered 'none'2

  —

  6·79

  Did not answer religion question

  18·17

  8·41

  1 A very small proportion of this category were members of non-Christian religions.

  2 This was a new category introduced in the 1991 Census.

  530
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the percentages of the working population in Northern Ireland of Protestants and Roman Catholics and others derived from the 1981 and 1991 census returns.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information, in relation to the economically active population aged 16 and over, is as follows:

  1981 per cent.

  1991 per cent.

  Roman Catholic

  25·70

  35·00

  Protestant and Others1

  56·28

  53·02

  Answered "None"2

  —

  4·69

  Did not answer religion question

  18·02

  7·29

  531

  1 A very small proportion of this category represented members of non-Christian religions.

  2 This was a new category introduced in the 1991 Census.

HEALTH

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in spreading the effects of the GP fund-holding initiative in Dorset to patients of GPs who are not fund holders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fund holders are achieving real benefits for their patients by innovative and sensitive purchasing of health care. District health authorities can reflect the standards set by fund holders in contracting for the patients of other GPs. In Dorset this is being achieved through the Dorset Health Commission, set up by the Wessex regional health authority, which is taking account of all GP's views, including fund holders, in developing purchasing plans.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend the GP fund-holding scheme to smaller practices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The minimum list size criteria for general practitioner fund holders is being lowered from 9.000 to 7,000 from 1 April 1993. We are enabling smaller practices to join either by linking with another practice, or through an agency arrangement with their local family health services authority or district health authority.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that patients on waiting lists of fund-holding and non-fundholding GPs are treated equally.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance agreed with the joint consultants committee was issued to hospital consultants in June 1991. It set out the criteria for contracts between general practitioner fund holders and all national health service hospitals, and clearly states that common waiting lists should be used and the fund holders should not he offered contracts which would disadvantage other patients.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of how GPs' interest in the fund-holding initiative has changed since the scheme began.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) earlier today.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the 1992–93 budget allocation by region and family health service authority for hospital costs generated by general practitioner non-fund holders for those parts of the hospital and community health services that a general practitioner fund holder would have had allocated funds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regions give allocations to district health authorities on the basis of their resident population and not in relation to the number of non-fundholding general practitioners within the district. Furthermore 532
  district health authorities and family health services authorities are not usually coterminous. Information is not therefore available in the form requested.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 752, what steps she has taken to ensure that the joint guidance issued to hospital consultants on general practitioner fund holding is being properly enforced; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We remain committed to the principles set out in the guidance. Providers should not offer contracts to one purchaser which would disadvantage the patients of another, and common waiting lists should apply for urgent and serious conditions. Equally, we stand by the principle that purchasers, both fund holders and district health authorities, should be able to purchase spare capacity if this becomes available. Regional health authorities are responsible for monitoring compliance with the guidance.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to her answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 203, what reasons underlie the different treatment of general practitioner fund holders and non-fund holders for sessions for tests and minor surgery.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners are not being treated differently. Regulations have been changed to allow fund holders to receive remuneration from the fund for treating their own patients, putting them in the same position as non-fund holders, who may already provide these services under contract to district health authorities.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region the allocation, for general practitioner fund holders in 1992–93, for prescribing.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is in the table.

  GP fund holder prescribing budgets, England 1992–93 First and second wave fundholders combined, in actual cost

  Region

  £ Million

  Northern

  26·1

  Yorkshire

  40·1

  Trent

  33·5

  East Anglian

  9·2

  North West Thames

  21·9

  North East Thames

  10·4

  South East Thames

  15·7

  South West Thames

  20 1

  Wessex

  21·8

  Oxford

  26·6

  South Western

  22·3

  West Midlands

  34·6

  Mersey

  26·7

  North Western

  19·3

  Tomlinson Report
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she has instituted on the effects on health care in London of implementing the Tomlinson report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  .We have announced our response to the Tomlinson report in the policy document "Making
  533
  London Better", after fully considering the evidence both in the report and in other studies. We have accepted the need for radical change and our policy will deliver the high-quality health service Londoners need.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the recommendations in the Tomlinson report which were not accepted.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government have accepted the key principles of the Tomlinson report and 96 of its 106 recommendations. The Government's full proposals for improving London's health services are set out in "Making London Better".

  Hospitals (Costs)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received suggesting national health service hospitals will be taking action to cut costs by reducing patient care during the current financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  My colleagues and I have received and responded to correspondence from a range of sources concerning this.

  There is no reason why hospitals should not be able to plan their activity over the whole year, without cost cutting. We are spending more on health and treating more patients than ever before.

  Removal of Children (Essex)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with Essex social services regarding their actions in removing children from their natural parents; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been in contact with the chairman of Essex social services committee and discussions have taken place between the chief inspector of the social services inspectorate and the director of social services about two cases in which children in Essex were removed from their natural parents, one in 1989, the other last year. The local authority were asked to review current child care cases and consider what other action is necessary for the future.

  Primary Health Care (London)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her proposals for improving primary health care in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's proposals for London's health services, including primary care, on 17 February. We are setting in place a major programme to develop higher-quality, more accessible primary health services at local level. Our aim is to bring primary care in London up to the high standards found elsewhere in the country and to equip it to face the challenges and opportunities of health care provision in the 21st century.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue further guidance to local authorities on the operation of the Children Act 1989 in the light of the report on the first year of the Act's implementation.
  534
  Mr. Yeo
  We have no immediate plans to do so, but we are keeping under review the Children Act guidance and will issue more as and when the need arises.

  International Adoption
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further discussions she intends to have with adoption agencies about international adoption; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We will continue to discuss international adoption issues with adoption agencies as necessary, as part of our normal contact with them.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards reaching patients charter targets for waiting times for out-patient appointments.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under the patients charter, health authorities have already set and published local charter standards for first out-patient appointments. We shall develop these standards further in 1993–94.

  Community Treatment Orders
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received regarding the possibility of introducing community treatment orders.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received views from many organisations and individuals. They will be taken fully into account by the departmental team which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 13 January at column 731, is reviewing the legal powers in this field. The team will be seeking further views as its work proceeds.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies her Department has made of the effect of the closure of Leyland-DAF on the ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Leyland-DAF has entered into administrative receivership with a view to operating the business as a going concern. National Health Service Supplies is currently in daily contact with the company to monitor the situation in respect of the placement of future orders for vehicles for the ambulance service.

  Community Care
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions are being made for the new community care programme to ensure that improvements are introduced into the care of the elderly and the disabled; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The introduction of assessment of individuals' care needs will ensure that services are increasingly tailored to need rather than need to services. Improved responsiveness to need will lead to a wider choice of services being delivered by an increasing variety of
  535
  providers. A total of £565 million is being made available to local authorities in 1993–94 through a ring-fenced special transitional grant to enable them to implement the new arrangements.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met representatives of the British Association of Social Workers to discuss the implementation of the community care proposals.

  Mr. Yeo
  I met representatives of the British Association of Social Workers on 11 November 1992. A number of issues were discussed including the implementation of community care.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been released into the community from psychiatric institutions in each of the past three years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The table shows the estimated number of discharges into the community from national health service hospitals in England from 1987–88 to 1989–90. The figures do not reflect the number of patients leaving hospitals, as a person can be discharged more than once during the year.

  Discharges from national health service hospitals and units in England

  Year

  Number

  1987–88

  175,910

  1988–89

  182,903

  1989–90

  177,752

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received about the continuing closure of psychiatric hospitals and the finding of community care.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received seven representations from interested organisations and 57 from individuals since 1 January 1993 about the closure of psychiatric hospitals and the funding of community care.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 474, what information she has on the number of times permission was granted by the Secretary of State for the emigration of a child in care between 1967 and 14 October 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  Archive papers are stored under the name of the individual child. As I explained in my answer of 8 February at column 474, information regarding the numbers involved could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Hospital Beds (London)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the need to increase or reduce the supply of hospital beds in London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The demand for hospital beds in London in the future will depend both on improvements in efficiency and primary services, and on how many patients are treated locally rather than being referred to London. While it is impossible to predict precisely the speed of these 536
  changes, in our policy document "Making London Better" we made a cautious estimate of 2,000 to 2,500 fewer acute beds in four to five years' time.

  Mental Health Services (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being funded by her Department into the provision of mental health services to meet the needs of ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department is currently funding two research projects in respect of black and ethnic minorities. Both relate to aspects of psychosis in Afro-Caribbean people. The Medical Research Council is, however, the main route for funding research in psychiatry.

  Folic Acid
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the folic acid supplements recommended for women intending to have children in the recent report of the Chief Medical Officer's expert advisory group will be available without a prescription; and what charge will be made.

  Mr. Sackville
  The report recommended that to prevent a recurrence of neural tube defects women should be prescribed folic acid supplements until the 12th week of pregnancy at a dose of 5mg per day. As there are rare but potentially serious hazards of folic acid therapy at these levels in particular groups of people there are no plans to make this dose available without a prescription.

  To prevent a first occurrence of neural tube defect women planning a pregnancy are advised to take a supplement of 0.4mg folic acid from the start of trying to conceive until the 12th week of pregnancy. These supplements are available over the counter at many health food stores and chemists at a cost of around £1 for a month's supply.

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the contracts awarded by her Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Chrichton Roberts Ltd., (f) KPMG management consultants and (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts with each contractor, for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92;

  (2) how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department over (a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Hartley Hospital, Colne
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Hartley hospital in Colne ceased to be used as an NHS hospital; what amount has since been spent on its maintenance; what valuation has been made of it; and what plans there are for an open market sale.
  537
  Mr. Sackville
  Hartley hospital was vacated in December 1989. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Bruce Martin, chairman of North Western regional health authority, for further details.

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 2 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),Official Report, column 463, what is her Department's (a) current outturn estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 and (b) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Estimated expenditure on communications and publicity for 1992–93 is £22 million.

  The budget for 1993–94 is £23.7 million.

  "Caring for People"
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to issue further guidance to local authorities on charges to users of social services provided under "Caring for People".

  Mr. Yeo
  As envisaged in "Caring for People" we have issued guidance and made regulations about charges to people in residential and nursing homes from April 1993. Local social services authorities also have powers to charge users of day and domiciliary services where this is reasonable. The Government's long-established policy on the use of these powers is well known. we consider that further guidance will be more useful if it can reflect early experience of implementing "Caring for People". We plan to issue such guidance once that has been assessed.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further consideration she has given to calls from disability organisations for the implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Most of the major provisions of the Act have now been implemented, bringing substantial benefits to disabled people and their carers. The requirements of the non-implemented sections of the Act are now, to a very large extent, reflected in the new and wide-ranging reforms of community care, which demonstrate our commitment to high-quality care responsive to the needs and wishes of service users and carers. The need to implement these sections will therefore be reviewed in the light of several years' experience of the community care arrangements.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health what representations she has received on the need to empower local authorities to enable them to make direct cash payments to disabled people to make their own personal assistance arrangements.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have received a number of representations. I have, however, no plans to amend long-standing legislation in this way.

  District Health Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health how many district health authorities will receive less funding through the transfer to weighted capitation in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1993–94 the following 24 district health authorities, all of which are currently receiving more than their share of their region's resources, will receive less funding, at constant prices, than in 1992–93.

  DHA's which will have their funding reduced in 1993–94

  Regional health authority and district health authority

  Amount £'s

  Northern RHA

  Newcastle

  1,000,000

  Yorkshire RHA

  None

  n/a

  Trent RHA

  None

  n/a

  East Anglian RHA

  None

  n/a

  North West Thames RHA

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  500,000

  Brent

  500,000

  Barnet

  1,500,000

  North East Thames RHA

  Hampstead

  400,000

  Bloomsbury and Islington

  900,000

  Haringey

  750,000

  Redbridge

  350,000

  Waltham Forest

  600,000

  South East Thames RHA

  Dartford and Gravesham

  463,000

  Tunbridge Wells

  59,000

  Greenwich

  452,000

  Bromley

  722,000

  South East London1

  6,000,000

  South West Thames RHA

  Wandsworth

  1,032,000

  East Surrey

  85,000

  Kingston and Esher

  50,000

  Wessex RHA

  None

  n/a

  Oxford RHA

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,069.000

  Wycombe

  499,000

  Oxfordshire

  44,000

  South Western RHA

  None

  n/a

  West Midlands RHA

  West Birmingham

  250,000

  South Warwickshire

  250,000

  Mersey RHA

  Liverpool

  2,000,000

  Macclesfield

  500,000

  North Western RHA

  None

  n/a

  1 New authority containing Camberwell, Lewisham/north Southwark and west Lambeth DHAs.

  Fluoridation
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities in England and Wales have requested fluoridation of water supplies in their region; and in which health authorities water is currently fluoridated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Patients (Protection)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what quality assurance mechanisms she is considering to protect vulnerable groups of patients; and what assessment she has made of the appropriateness of BS5750 accreditation.

  Mr. Yeo
  Purchasers are required to set standards of quality in the contracts they place with providers.

  The Department is funding an evaluation of major accreditation and organisational audit schemes, including BS5750, to establish the benefits relevant to the national health service.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy advice or guidelines she has issued concerning the treatment of those suffering from mental illness in secure units; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The treatment of mental illness is the responsibility of the professionals involved. The code of practice issued under the Mental Health Act 1983 provides guidance on the operation of that Act. Current needs for treatment in secure conditions are among the issues considered in the reports of the joint Department of Health/Home Office review of services for mentally disordered offenders (Cm. 2088, 1992). In the light of the review's recommendations we have increased capital funding for medium secure services from £3 million in 1991–92 to £17 million in 1992–93 and £22·4 million in 1993–94.

  Health Advisory Service
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent changes there have been in the strategic brief, method of operation and independence of the health advisory service; and what announcements she has made of them.

  Mr Yeo
  Following a ministerial review in 1991, the national health service health advisory service now has a new remit compatible with the NHS reforms and the Government's new policies for care in the community. The HAS will continue to undertake reviews of local services, but a proportion of its resources will be allocated to examinations of particular aspects of the management of care and quality standards. These changes were announced in January 1992. The HAS remains independent and it retains the status of a non-departmental public body.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are made for the publication of annual reports by the health advisory service.

  Mr. Yeo
  Following the review of the national health service health advisory service and the appointment of the new director, all future annual reports will he published as soon as possible after receipt.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in discussions between the health advisory service and other monitoring bodies concerned with health and social services care.

  Mr. Yeo
  During his first months in office, the present director met many other monitoring bodies whose views 540
  have been taken into account in the formulation of the national health service health advisory service's forward programme.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits were completed by the health advisory service other than in respect of drug services; how many reports were published in each quarter since 1991; how many person/days were employed on these visits and subsequent report writing, for each quarter, in respect of(a) psychiatrists, psychogeriatricians and geriatricians, (b) nurses, (c) therapists representing the professions allied to medicine, (d) managers and (e) social service inspectors; how many visits are planned for the period 1 January to 31 March; and how many person/days of each of the professional groups it is planned to employ.

  Mr. Yeo
  No visits to review services for mentally ill and elderly people have taken place since 1991. Twelve reports were published during January-March 1992 and six during April-May 1992, relating to the final 18 of the 40 visits undertaken during 1991. No visits have been planned for the period January-March 1993.

  Nurses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many enrolled nurses, working within the national health service, underwent professional development training(a) prior to and (b) following the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to(a) directly managed hospitals and (b) national health service trusts with regard to funding for conversion courses for enrolled nurses; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities and employing authorities are aware of their responsibilities regarding enrolled nurse conversion.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department is taking to ensure that opportunities for professional development are open to all enrolled nurses irrespective of ethnic origin.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all staff in the national health service. It is an employer responsibility to ensure that professional development opportunities are made available irrespective of ethnic origin.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department is taking to encourage enrolled nurses who are not in employment back into the nursing profession; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for the recruitment of qualified nurses rests with employers.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has(a) to increase and (b) to standardise professional development opportunities for enrolled nurses working within the national health service; and if she will make a statement.
  541
  Mr. Sackville
  We are committed to increasing the number of places available for level two to level one conversion as part of the Project 2000 reforms. Central funding has been made available to facilitate this and on 12 February we announced additional funding for Project 2000 in 1993–94. However, it is for regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, to plan for enrolled nurse conversion.

  Chemists
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will arrange a meeting with the pharmaceutical industry to discuss whether chemists will check, in return for a small fee, the eligibility of those claiming free prescriptions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mechanisms already exist to check eligibility for prescription charge exemption and charge remission under the national health service low income scheme. The adequacy and operation of these arrangements is kept under review.

  "Making London Better"
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has of the cost of implementation of "Making London Better" for 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 16 February, there will be some £158·;5 million funding for changes in London in 1993–94. An additional £43·5 million will be available for investment on improving primary and community health services, together with £105 million for changes in secondary care. We will also provide £10 million to ease waiting times in London.

  Thames Regional Health Authority
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total activity levels in the Thames regional health authority for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of finished consultant episodes in the general and acute specialties purchased in the four Thames regions in 1991–92 was 1,958,681. The corresponding number forecast for 1992–93 is 2,025,474.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 153, if she will show for each trust into which band the chairman's salary falls.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: This information is not held centrally for national health service trusts in the first wave. These details can be obtained from the individual trusts. Remuneration bands for the second and third wave are as follows:

  SECOND WAVE TRUSTS

  Northern Region

  BAND 1

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  The RVI Infirmary and Associated Hospitals Trust

  BAND 2

  North Tees Health NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  542

  Cleveland Ambulance NHS Trust

  Gateshead Community Health NHS Trust

  Northgate NHS Trust

  Yorkshire Region

  BAND 1

  York Hospitals and Community Services

  BAND 2

  Airedale NHS Trust

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

  Bradford Community Health NHS Trust

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Northallerton Health Services NHS Trust

  Trent Region

  BAND 1

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Health Services

  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Mulberry South Lincolnshire Mental Handicap Nottingham Community Unit

  Weston Park Hospital NHS Trust

  Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  East Anglian Region

  BAND 2

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  Kings Lynn and Wisbech Hospitals NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Allington

  North West Thames Region

  BAND 1

  Parkside Health NHS Trust

  Wellhouse NHS Trust (Barnet and Edgware)

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  East Hertfordshire Health NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  Ashford Hospital NHS Trust

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  South Bedfordshire Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Bedford Hospital NHS Trust (Formerly North Bedfordshire General Hospital)

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  Dacorum and St. Albans Community NHS Trust (Formerly North West Hertfordshire Priority)

  Horizon NHS Trust (Formerly North West Hertfordshire Mental Health)

  Barnet Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Harrow Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Hillingdon Community Health NHS Trust

  Harefield Hospital NHS Trust

  North East Thames Region

  BAND 1

  The Bart's NHS Trust

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust (North East Essex Acute)

  BAND 2

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  Southend Community Care NHS Trust

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Essex Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  North East Essex Mental Health NHS Trust

  New Possibilities NHS Trust (formerly Turner Village)

  South East Thames Region

  BAND 2

  South Downs Health NHS Trust (Brighton Community)

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  West Lambeth Community Care NHS Trust

  543

  Ravensbourne Priority Health NHS Trust

  Optimum Health Services NHS Trust (Lewisham and North Southwark Community)

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Thameslink Healthcare Services NHS Trust (Dartford and Gravesham Priority)

  Maidstone Priority Care NHS Trust

  South West Thames Region

  BAND 2

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  St. Peters Hospital NHS Trust (North West Surrey Acute)

  BAND 3

  Weybourne Community NHS Trust (North West Surrey Community)

  Wessex Region

  BAND 2

  The Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  Wiltshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Royal United Hospital, Bath NHS Trust

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Dorset Healthcare NITS Trust (East Dorset Community)

  Bath Mental Health Care NHS Trust

  The Bath And West Community NHS Trust (Avon and Somerset)

  Oxford Region

  BAND 2

  Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust

  Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Milton Keynes Community Health NHS Trust

  East Berkshire NEIS Trust for People With Learning Disabilities

  Aylesbury Vale Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  South Western Region

  BAND 1

  Frenchay Healthcare NHS Trust

  The Royal Cornwall Hospitals and West Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust

  Southmead Health Services NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  Avon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Plymouth Community Services NHS Trust

  Exeter and District Community Health Service NHS Trust

  Phoenix NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Devon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  West Midlands Region

  BAND 2

  Premier Health NHS Trust (South East Staffordshire Community)

  Herefordshire Community Health NHS Trust

  East Birmingham Hospital NHS Trust

  Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  South Warwickshire Health Care NHS Trust

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mersey Region

  BAND 1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  The North Mersey Community NHS Trust (Liverpool Community and Priority)

  BAND 2

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Services NHS Trust

  Southport and Formby NHS Trust

  544

  BAND 3

  The Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS Trust

  Clatterhridge Centre for Oncology NHS Trust

  St. Helens and Knowsley Community Health NHS Trust

  North Western Region

  BAND 1

  Burnley Health Care NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  The Oldham NHS Trust

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Lancaster Priority Services NHS Trust

  Lancaster Acute Hospitals Trust

  BAND 3

  Wrightington Hospital NHS Trust

  THIRD WAVE TRUSTS

  Northern Region

  BAND 2

  Gateshead Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Tees Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Durham County Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Northumberland Mental Health NHS Trust

  South Cumbria Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  South West Durham Mental Health NHS Trust

  Westmorland Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Cumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  Yorkshire Region

  BAND 1

  Calderdale Health Care NHS Trust

  Huddersfield NHS Trust

  Grimsby Health NHS Trust

  Royal Hull Hospitals NHS Trust

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Pinderfields Hospitals NHS Trust

  Pontefract Hospitals NHS Trust

  Wakefield and Pontefract Health NHS Trust

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Humberside Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Scunthorpe Community Health Unit NHS Trust

  Trent Region

  BAND 1

  Fosse Health, Leicestershire Community NHS Trust

  Leicester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  Glenfield Hospital NHS Trust

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  South Lincolnshire Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Derby City General Hospital NHS Trust

  Leicester General Hospital NHS Trust

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Community Health Services, Southern Derbyshire NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Gainsborough and District Health Care NHS Trust

  Nottinghamshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Rotherham Priority Health Services NHS Trust

  Southern Derbyshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  545
  East Anglian Region

  BAND 1

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Addenbrookes NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  James Paget Hospital NHS Trust

  Northwest Anglia Healthcare NHS Trust

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Lifespan Health Care Cambridge NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Mid Anglia Community Health NHS Trust

  East Suffolk Local Health Services NHS Trust

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  North West Thames Region

  BAND 1

  Northwick Park Hospital NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  Riverside Mental Health NHS Trust

  West London Healthcare NHS Trust

  Hounslow and Spelthorne Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  North West London Mental Health NHS Trust (Park side)

  North East Thames Region

  BAND 1

  Redbridge Healthcare NHS Trust

  Camden and Islington Community Health Services Trust

  Barking Havering and Brentwood Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  Enfield Community Care NHS Trust

  Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  Thameside Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Mid Essex Community Health NHS Trust

  Bedford and Shires Health and Care NHS Trust

  Royal London Homeopathic Hospital NHS Trust

  South West Thames Region

  BAND 2

  Crawley and Horsham NHS Trust

  Merton and Sutton Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Healthcare NHS Trust

  East Surrey Hospital and Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Worthing Priority Care NHS Trust

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  South East Thames Region

  BAND 1

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  Thanet Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mid Kent Healthcare NHS Trust

  Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  Eastbourne and County Healthcare NHS Trust

  Canterbury and Thanet Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  Wessex Region

  BAND 1

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Southampton Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Portsmouth Acute NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  St. Mary's Hospital NHS Trust (Isle of Wight Acute)

  North Hampshire, Loddon Community NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Isle of Wight Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  546

  Andover District Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Dorset Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Wiltshire Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  Oxford Region

  BAND 1

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust

  West Berkshire Priority Care Service NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Horton General Hospital NHS Trust

  Oxford Learning Disability NHS Trust

  Radcliffe Infirmary NHS Trust

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust

  South Western Region

  BAND 1

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  Severn NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Avalon NHS Trust

  West Midlands Region

  BAND 1

  North Staffordshire Hospital Centre NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  North East Worcestershire Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Burton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust

  North Warwickshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospital NHS Trust

  Walsall Community Health Services NHS Trust

  The Princess Royal NHS Trust

  Kidderminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Shropshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  South Warwickshire General NHS Trust

  South Worcestershire Community NHS Trust

  Wolverley NHS Trust

  Mersey Region

  BAND 1

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  Warrington Community NHS Trust

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  Cheshire Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Halton General Hospital NHS Trust

  Southport and Formby Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Warrington Acute Hospital NHS Trust

  North Western Region

  BAND 1

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  BAND 2

  Calderstone NHS Trust

  West Lancashire NHS Trust

  BAND 3

  Mancunian Community Health NHS Trust

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  Private Hospitals
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent in the last five years by district health authorities and regional health authorities on purchasing services from private hospitals.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on the purchase of private
  547
  health care for NHS patients in 1991–92 and the first three quarters of the financial year 1992–9293; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 15 February 19931: The annual accounts and financial returns of health authorities do not separately identify expenditure incurred specifically on the purchase of private health care. However, the summarised accounts of health authorities in England for 1991–9292 show that the total of health care and related services purchased from all non-national health service providers was some £182.3 million.

  This figure will include expenditure incurred under contracts with variously constituted nursing homes and hospices, voluntary organisations, local authorities and military hospitals in addition to those with private hospitals as such. Similar information is not collected on a quarterly basis.

  Optometry
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government funding is made available annually towards the cost of the training course for optometry.

  Mr. Boswell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Funding for subjects and professions allied to medicine, including optometry, is the responsibility of the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and
  548
  Colleges Funding Council. The UFC's teaching unit of resource for funded places in subjects allied to medicine is £4,614 in 1992–93. The PCFC's mean funding per full-time funded place in its health and social services programme is £3,079 in 1992–93. These categories cover different subjects and are not directly comparable. Funded places for optometry are not separately identified. It is for institutions to decide actual spending on each subject.

  Radiation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to appointing a replacement chairman for the study on the links between the development of cancer and exposure to occupational radiation.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The study in question is funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its grant in aid from my Department.

  The MRC's environmental epidemiology unit is conducting a programme of research on occupational and environmental hazards. Included in this programme is the study to follow up the findings of an association between the risk of leukaemia and lymphoma and the father's occupational exposure to radiation. The director of the unit is Professor David Barker.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Infrastructure (Private Investment)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has had from private business to his invitation on 9 December 1992 to come forward with proposals for private sector investment in Britain's infrastructure.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Numerous firms in the financial and construction sectors have put ideas to the Treasury, either in writing or in discussion with Ministers or officials.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has had about the compliance costs for small brewers of the new collection system for beer duty; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what estimate he has of the compliance costs to the United Kingdom brewing industry arising from the requirements proposed in the Customs and Excise draft notice 226 on a new collection system for beer duty.

  Sir John Cope
  Studies when the change was under consideration indicated that end product duty would reduce compliance costs for brewers. A study of the costs of the new system has been commissioned but it is too early to estimate the results. Small brewers have generally welcomed the changeover to an end product duty and none has made representations about the cost of compliance.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of a windfall tax on United Kingdom companies on employment and on prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The precise impact of such a tax would depend on what form it took, but any increase in business taxation would be likely to impede job creation. Furthermore, the Government believe that excess profits should be avoided by encouraging competition and providing effective regulation of monopolies. We do not believe that excess profits should be tolerated in order to provide extra taxable capacity.

  Inland Revenue (Privatisation)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will continue to require Inland Revenue staff to sign the Official Secrets Act when the work is put into private agencies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All Inland Revenue staff and staff of contractors working for the Department who have access to information about taxpayers are, and will continue to be, required to sign an acknowledgement that improper disclosure may lead to imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine or both.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to arrange the sales of British Coal, Caledonian MacBrayne, Channel Four Television 550
  Company, Commonwealth Development Corporation, Covent Garden Market Authority, English Industrial Estates Corporation and Welsh Fourth Channel Authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government remain committed to the privatisation of British Coal. However, no decisions on the form or timing of privatisation will be taken until after the coal review White Paper has been debated. The future status of the Commonwealth Development Corporation is currently under review. Ministers have announced their intention to dispose of the assets of the Covent Garden market authority as soon as practicable. There are no current plans to privatise Caledonian MacBrayne or English Industrial Estates Corporation. Channel Four and Welsh Channlel Four are private sector bodies.

  Value Added Tax
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement setting out the nature and extent of the obligations taken on by the United Kingdom in respect of its zero rates for VAT on 24 June 1991, and on 27 June 1992.

  Sir John Cope
  At the meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers Council on 24 June 1991 the member states including the United Kingdom agreed that under transitional arrangements member states which at 1 January 1991 applied for zero rates for VAT to particular goods and services in accordance with the provisions of Community law in force, would have the option of retaining them.

  The transitional period will continue at least until the end of the 1996 and thereafter until there is unanimous agreement on the definitive (origin) VAT system to operate after that. The United Kingdom has made clear that such agreement will not be forthcoming unless, among other conditions, our right to continue with our zero rates is fully protected.

  No obligations were taken on by the United Kingdom in respect of its zero rates for VAT on 27 June 1992.

  Drug Smuggling
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the information concerned with drug smuggling sent to the Attorney-General since 7 February by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: I understand from the Attorney-General's Department that it has no record of having received any such correspondence.

  Friendly Societies Commission
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the criteria he applies when appointing members of the Friendly Societies Commission; and if he will list the relevant experience and professional qualifications of its current members.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: The factors which the Treasury takes into account in making appointments to the Friendly Societies Commission include: the requirement for a mix of relevant skills and

  551
  experience; the need to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest which might prevent prospective commissioners from carrying out their statutory duties; the importance of having a commission which can work as a team; and the need for enough commissioners to carry out the commission's statutory functions.

  The relevant experience and professional qualifications of the current commissioners is:

  Mr. D. W. Lee (Chairman)
  Full-time civil servant for last four years. Registrar of Friendly societies since December 1989. Formerly with Lloyds Bank and Barclays; Director of various companies in financial services and other sectors. Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Bankers, with a degree in law, LL.B (Hons.) London.

  Mr. P. E. Couse, FCA
  Retired Chartered Accountant. Formerly partner, Coopers and Lybrand and President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

  Mr. F. da Rocha
  Civil servant for 24 years (18 years in the Registry of Friendly Societies).

  Dr. J. Dine
  Barrister. Reader in Law at Essex University, with a doctorate in law.

  Mr. J. A. Geddes
  Actuary—Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries (retired). Formerly partner, R. Watson and Sons.

  Mr. A. Wilson
  Retired Civil Servant—formerly Registrar of Friendly Societies—and a qualified solicitor.

  Brian Charrington
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the release of Brian Charrington, arrested on a charge connected to the illegal import of cocaine, at the Manchester magistrates court in January.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 19 February 1993] On counsel's advice the Commissioners of Customs and Excise agreed that the proper course of action was to drop the prosecution against Mr. Charrington on the basis that the evidence against him would not secure a conviction.

SCOTLAND

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the claims made by solicitors for payment by the legal aid fund in 1991–92 were settled within one month.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of accounts submitted under each category of legal aid in 1991–92, and the percentage paid within one month, are as follows:

  Number

  Per cent. paid within one month

  Civil legal aid

  21,015

  35.4

  Criminal legal aid

  61,777

  61.0

  Advice and assistance

  209,043

  47.4

  TOTAL

  291,835

  49.5

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons received help under the legal aid advice 552
  and assistance scheme with a nil contribution in the latest year for which figures are available; what percentage this was of the total number receiving advice under the scheme; and what he estimates that percentage would have been if the changes in eligibility for civil legal aid had been in effect in that year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: In 1991–92, 271,759 grants were made under the advice and assistance scheme. Of these, approximately 980 per cent. (244,000) had no contribution to pay.

  Since there would have been no contributory band, the number of grants would have been smaller had the proposed changes in legal aid eligibility announced on 16 November been in force in 1991–92. All of those who qualified for assistance would have received it free of contributions.

  Fishermen
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deep sea and inshore fishermen were employed full time in Scotland in(a) 1972, (b) 1982 and (c)

  Sir Hector Monro
  The number of fishermen regularly employed in Scotland in each of the years requested are as follows. Separate figures for inshore and deep sea fishermen are not available. Part-time fishermen and crofters are excluded from the figures.

  Fishermen regularly employed in Scotland

  Year

  Number

  1972

  8,110

  1982

  7,247

  1992

  17,181

  1 Provisional.

  Nurse Gradings
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of appeals against nurse clinical grading are outstanding in each of the health boards and at the national level.

  Mr. Stewart
  I understand that virtually no nurse clinical grading appeals submitted under section 32 of the General Whitley Council conditions of service are outstanding at health board level. On 1 February 1993 there were 729 appeals to the Scottish Appeals Committee outstanding. On the same date 586 appeals at national level remitted by the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council to the Scottish appeal team secretariat were outstanding; the breakdown of these by health board is given in the table.

  Health board

  Appeals outstanding

  Argyll and Clyde

  37

  Ayrshire and Arran

  47

  Borders

  14

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8

  Fife

  35

  Forth Valley

  70

  Grampian

  39

  Greater Glasgow

  77

  Highland

  25

  553

  Health board

  Appeals outstanding

  Lanarkshire

  72

  Lothian

  58

  Orkney

  —

  Shetland

  3

  Tayside

  81

  Western Isles

  8

  CSA

  12

  State Hospital

  —

  TOTAL

  586

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to designate further areas within Scotland as environmentally sensitive areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 February 19931: Five areas selected for further designation as environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland were announced by my hon. Friend, Lord Strathclyde, on 6 March 1992 and will be introduced during 1993. They are the Argyll Islands, the Cairngorms Straths, the Central Southern Uplands, the Shetland Islands and the Western Southern Uplands. There are, at present, no plans to designate any further areas in Scotland.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total area within Scotland currently designated as environmentally sensitive areas; and what is the total size of the additional areas whose designation comes into effect on 1 April.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: The total area currently designated in Scotland as environmentally sensitive area is 288,000 hectares. This area will be increased by a further 1,098,000 hectares when the third round of environmentally sensitive areas is implemented during 1993.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what percentage his Department's budget for payments to farmers in environmentally sensitive areas is due to change in 1993–94.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: The provision for environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland for the financial year 1993–94 is £5.3 million. This is an increase of approximately 36 per cent. over that for 1992–93.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what date he expects all contracted-status ambulances to be phased out within the Highlands; and how much money has been made available for such purposes since such a policy was instituted.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: It is the policy of the Scottish ambulance service to phase out the use of ambulance contractors where demand justifies such a change and where it would be economical to do so. No specific date has been set, but the position is kept under review.

  Mineral Rights
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the sites owned or formerly owned by the Forestry Commission where mineral rights have been sold in each of the last 10 years, giving the name of the site, the country in which it is located, and the amount received for the sale of those rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 February 19931: The Forestry Commission does not sell mineral rights; it grants licences and leases permitting the extraction of minerals, subject to the licensee or lessee obtaining planning permission. Details of individual licences and leases are not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Forestry Commission has received over £5 million from these licences and leases in the last 10 years.

  Scottish Students
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish students are in(a) full-time and (b) part-time education within the United Kingdom.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 February 1993]: The available information is given in the table. Full information is available for Scottish students in Scotland. No information is available for Scottish students on courses of further education outside Scotland, nor for those on part-time courses of higher education outside Scotland. The figures for Scottish students on full-time courses outside Scotland include only those studying in the traditional university sector in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and those studying part-time in Scotland are assumed to be Scots-domiciled.

  Scottish Domiciled Students in 1991–92

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Higher education in Scotland

  80,036

  43,010

  Higher education elsewhere in United Kingdom

  3,462

  n.a.

  Further education in Scotland (provisional)

  35,895

  188,645

  Further education elsewhere in United Kingdom

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students have been in(a) full-time and (b) part-time higher education in Scotland in each year since 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 February 19931: The information requested is given in the table. The table includes figures for all higher education institutions which will be funded by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council from April this year. The figures given are for students on courses of higher education; in addition, some of the institutions have some students undertaking courses of further education.
  555

  Students on higher education courses at higher education institutes in Scotland 1985–86 to 1991–92

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Name

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Full lime

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Full lime

  Part time

  Aberdeen University

  5,482

  411

  5,629

  549

  5,690

  575

  5,681

  570

  6,087

  631

  6,374

  687

  7,180

  728

  Dundee University

  3,222

  161

  3,300

  180

  3,444

  203

  3,613

  213

  3,762

  214

  4,166

  285

  4,482

  357

  Edinburgh University

  10,039

  707

  10,127

  764

  10,162

  775

  10,403

  922

  10,862

  971

  11,395

  1,016

  12,550

  1,115

  Glasgow University

  10,412

  2,505

  10,521

  2,587

  10,810

  2,533

  11,049

  2,097

  11,523

  1,970

  12,226

  1,632

  12,798

  1,485

  Heriot-Watt University

  3,319

  444

  3,487

  508

  3,798

  450

  4,108

  512

  4,396

  547

  3,570

  512

  3,733

  517

  St. Andrews University

  3,560

  112

  3,627

  116

  3,619

  144

  3,782

  121

  3,939

  108

  4,187

  106

  4,225

  80

  Stirling University

  2,589

  335

  2,897

  432

  3,059

  410

  3,207

  525

  3,416

  577

  3,472

  507

  3,972

  618

  Strathclyde University

  7,586

  943

  7,642

  1,291

  7,759

  1,226

  7,936

  1,355

  8,368

  1,558

  8,652

  1,666

  9,588

  1,948

  Duncan of Jordanstone

  1,006

  26

  1,026

  41

  1,059

  9

  1,073

  12

  1,188

  10

  1,272

  9

  1,312

  11

  Dundee Institute

  2,022

  199

  2,041

  179

  2,009

  198

  1,983

  199

  2,088

  290

  2,194

  343

  2,498

  498

  Edinburgh College of Art

  968

  142

  970

  139

  973

  165

  978

  180

  1,062

  152

  1,236

  35

  1,308

  77

  Glasgow Polytechnic

  3,370

  3,513

  3,376

  3,310

  3,352

  2,700

  3,535

  2,542

  3,749

  2,657

  4,503

  2,855

  5,013

  2,681

  Glasgow School of Art

  848

  120

  865

  268

  776

  270

  816

  162

  920

  202

  990

  211

  1,084

  174

  Napier

  4,301

  3,346

  4,572

  3,622

  4,741

  3,794

  5,221

  3,807

  4,905

  3,510

  5,091

  3,512

  5,595

  3,392

  Paisley

  2,861

  291

  2,860

  1,507

  2,870

  1,386

  2,971

  1,345

  3,072

  1,902

  3,242

  2,000

  3,899

  2,017

  Queen Margaret College

  1,225

  91

  1,263

  96

  1,283

  60

  1,376

  88

  1,522

  204

  1,588

  233

  1,712

  279

  Queens College

  837

  20

  851

  0

  884

  32

  981

  47

  1,260

  116

  1,369

  115

  1,679

  197

  Robert Gordons

  3,197

  475

  3,261

  450

  3,284

  442

  3,444

  437

  3,906

  622

  4,213

  825

  4,519

  1,008

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  360

  0

  347

  0

  364

  0

  375

  0

  425

  0

  378

  0

  402

  0

  Scottish College of Textiles

  597

  63

  625

  48

  640

  100

  665

  52

  642

  41

  679

  31

  755

  30

  Craigie

  226

  37

  244

  47

  286

  0

  278

  0

  327

  0

  406

  0

  453

  0

  Jordanhill

  1,372

  757

  1,447

  698

  1,321

  658

  1,286

  675

  1,518

  669

  1,813

  673

  1,976

  653

  Moray House

  1,390

  257

  1,387

  197

  1,539

  9

  1,388

  150

  1,563

  60

  1,833

  55

  1,925

  42

  Northern

  872

  146

  929

  228

  883

  81

  866

  104

  1,055

  73

  1,318

  43

  1,438

  59

  St. Andrews

  573

  182

  608

  134

  581

  0

  555

  0

  669

  0

  858

  0

  1,005

  0

  Total

  72,234

  15,283

  73,902

  17,391

  75,186

  16,220

  77,570

  16,115

  82,224

  17,084

  87,025

  17,351

  95,101

  17,966

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time students have attended each separate higher education institute in Scotland in each year since 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 February 1993]: The information requested is given in the table. 1991–92 is the latest year for which figures are available. The figures exclude students studying with the Open university. Sandwich students are included in the full-time figures. Part-time in-service teacher training students are excluded from the part-time figures.

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1985–86

  79,761

  39,192

  1986–87

  81,640

  40,022

  1987–88

  83,551

  40,136

  1988–89

  84,968

  39,757

  1989–90

  90,712

  40,886

  1990–91

  96,844

  41,084

  1991–92

  108,079

  43,010

  Student Grants
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish students receive a full grant for(a) living at home and (b) living away from home.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 February 19931: As at 17 February 1993, the number of Scottish students who had been offered a full grant at the home rate for session 1992–93 was 10,775, of whom 469 subsequently withdrew. A further 27,162 were offered a full grant at the away from home rate, of whom 1,087 subsequently withdrew.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioner fund holders within Lanarkshire health board have applied for and been granted fund holding status.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: Latest information received from Lanarkshire health board indicates that 14 practices have applied to become fund holders and have been granted formal approval by the board. Eight of these practices will commence fund holding from 1 April 1993. The other six will commence as soon as practicable.

  Overseas Trade
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to encourage trade between Scotland and(a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) New Zealand and (d) the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 February 19931: My right hon. Friend established Scottish Trade International in December 1991 in order to offer Scottish companies one-door access to the wide range of export services and assistance available from the Scottish Office and Scottish Enterprise. These include the Government's overseas trade services (OTS) which STI promote and administer in Scotland on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. OTS can assist companies enter the markets of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA. Complementing OTS, STI has its own north American business development programme.

  In addition, particular events and promotions are planned. This month STI is co-operating with the Australia and New Zealand Trade Advisory Committee in the organisation of a seminar on the Australian and New

  557
  Zealand markets. STI will also participate in a campaign to be launched in March which will aim to increase sales into the north American market.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance is given to health boards on the European Acquired Rights directive 77/187 in relation to compulsory competitive tendering; and what plans he has to issue further guidance.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The existing guidance to health boards on competitive tendering does not specifically refer to the 1977 directive. However health boards have been advised to consult the central legal office where they are uncertain about the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 which are derived from this directive.

  Further guidance on best practice and procedures for market testing will be issued to health boards in the near future in line with the Government's White Paper "Competing for Quality" (Cmnd. 1730).

  Fish Landings
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total landings of(a) haddock, (b) whiting, (c) cod and (d) monkfish at each Scottish port in January; and if he will list the corresponding figures for the same month for each of the past five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: Figures for January 1993 are still too incomplete to alow meaningful comparisons with earlier years. Reasonably firm figures should be available by 25 February. As soon as possible thereafter I will arrange for copies of all the figures to be placed in the Library and I will send a set to the hon. Member.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) burglaries of a dwelling, (b) burglaries other than of a dwelling and (c) burglaries in total were reported (i) in each police force area and (ii) in total for Scotland in each calendar year since 1979, and in the 12 months ended June 1992.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The available information collected centrally for calendar years 1979–1991, was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on 3 February 1993 at column 231.

  The available information collected centrally, for the 12 months ended June 1992, is given in the table.

  Number of cases of housebreaking1 recorded by the police in Scotland, 12 months ended June 1992

  Police Force

  12 months to June 19922

  Central

  4,517

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,254

  Fife

  8,710

  Grampian

  7,132

  Lothian and Borders

  17,837

  Northern

  31,531

  Strathclyde

  69,802

  Tayside

  9,183

  558

  Police Force

  12 months to June 19921

  Scotland

  3120,966

  Notes:

  1 Includes cases of attempted housebreaking and housebreaking with intent to steal.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Estimated.

  Police Overtime
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure on overtime for the police force in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in each of the past four years; and what is the estimated expenditure for overtime in 1992–93.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Year

  Strathclyde £

  Scotland £

  1988–89

  12,819,000

  21,588,000

  1989–90

  14,407,000

  24,517,000

  1990–91

  12,897,000

  23,166,000

  1991–92

  112,923,000

  123,679,000

  1992–93

  214,737,000

  227,336,000

  1 Provisional.

  2 Estimated.

  Private Roads
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the ways by which individuals may challenge, or seek to change, the status of a road which is held by the local roads authority to be a private road in terms of the the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in circumstances where there is evidence that the road in question should be a public road in terms of the 1984 Act.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The procedures by which individuals may seek to change the status of a private road to a public road, for which a local roads authority would have responsibility, is set out in section 16 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Briefly this obliges the local roads authority to adopt a private road, on request, where the road is of a satisfactory standard in accordance with that authority's requirements. This section of the Act makes provision for any disputes to be determined by arbitration by a single arbiter, appointed in default of agreement by the sheriff on application by either party.

  Additionally section 1(4) of the 1984 Act gives authorities a discretionary power to add roads to their list of public roads. An individual with sufficient title and interest in the matter may challenge the acts or omissions of a local roads authority in the discharge of its functions, with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of a road in its list of public roads, by means of an application to the Court of Session for judicial review.

  Forestry Commission
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the aims and duties of each branch of the Forestry Commission; and what plans he has to split the two branches of the Forestry Commission into separate organisations.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The Forestry Commission carried out an internal reorganisation in April 1992 to distinguish clearly between its functions as a Government Department (the Department of Forestry) and its role in managing publicly owned forests (Forest Enterprise). The Department of Forestry comprises a policy and resources group and the Forestry Authority.

  The policy and resources group is responsible for providing support to forestry Ministers on parliamentary matters, developing and monitoring forestry policy, dealing with European and international forestry matters, and providing central services for the commission as a whole.

  The Forestry Authority is responsible for administering the commission's grant schemes for private woodlands, controlling the felling of trees and woods, administering regulations to prevent the introduction of potentially harmful forest pests and diseases, and conducting research. These functions are carried out with the aim of ensuring that trees, woodlands and forests in Great Britain are protected, managed, extended and promoted in ways which best serve the public interest in accordance with Government policy.

  Forest Enterprise is responsible for managing the commission's estate in Great Britain as a multi-use resource for recreation, wildlife, landscape and conservation, as well as for timber production. This is done with the aim of creating and maintaining attractive and productive woodlands and managing them for public benefits.

  The Government have no plans at present to split the two parts of the Forestry Commission into separate organisations.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any details on the number of times other EC member states' Governments have intervened in their domestic potato market in each year since 1988; and what was the tonnage and cost.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The information is not available.

  Mitsubishi
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the negotiations taking place with Mitsubishi in respect of its proposed semi-conductor plant; and what account is being taken of offers of assistance being made by other countries.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: Discussions that my officials may have with individual companies are held on a commercial in confidence basis.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Allowances
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington can expect a reply to his letter of 21 December 1992 about the operations of the Benefits Agency attenance allowance unit at Norcross, Blackpool, the disability benefits centre, Birmingham and the disability living allowance unit at Warbeck house, Blackpool.

  Mr. Scott
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 22 February 1993.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to advertise his Department's policy on compensation and to take steps to identify and inform claimants who might be entitled to compensation, either because they have waited over 12 months to hear the outcome of a disability living allowance or attendance allowance claim or because an existing award has been interrupted for longer than three months; and what is the total number of cases where compensation has already been awarded by his Department on either of these grounds.

  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. Paul Flynn, dated 22 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 his plans to advertise his Department's policy on compensation, and to take steps to identify and inform claimants of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or attendance Allowance (AA) who might be entitled to compensation and the total number of cases where compensation has been awarded.
  There are no plans for specific advertising of the Department's policy on compensation. The Benefits Agency Customer Charter informs people that a payment can be considered if someone suffers financial loss as a result of our mistake and it guides customers to make contact with their local customer service manager.
  The staff at the DLA Unit are aware of the compensation arrangements and we regularly remind staff about the procedure for identifying and referring cases for compensation.
  Up to the 18 February 1993, one hundred and forty-two (142) DLA customers and two (2) AA customers received such compensation payments.
  I hope you find this rreply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Chrichton Roberts Ltd., (f) KPMG management consultants and

  561
  (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts with each contractor, for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested for the years 1992–93 and 1991–92 can be obtained from the DSS management consultancy contracts, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department over(a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department of Social Security has awarded 127 management consultancy contracts in 1991–92 and 126 to date in 1992–93.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the regulations regarding availability for work and actively seeking work in the social security regulations so as to encourage those on unemployment benefit to seek work experience in the voluntary sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Unemployed people can take part in voluntary work as long as they are available for, and actively seeking, work. Within these conditions there are no set limits on the amount of voluntary work that they can do.

  These conditions also include easements for volunteers whereby volunteers may be allowed 24 hours' notice in which to make the necessary arrangements to give up or rearrange voluntary responsibilities before taking up an offer of employment. Voluntary workers attending work camps away from their home area may be deemed to be available for work for a period of 14 days in any year.

  The adjudicating authorities will look positively at the time spent on voluntary work when deciding whether a person has taken reasonable steps to find work.

  We are considering measures to help the long-term unemployed to use their time constructively in a range of activities including voluntary work.

EMPLOYMENT

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she will make a statement on the future of the construction industry training board.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am pleased to announce that the review of the construction industry training board has now been completed.

  While it remains Government policy that sector training arrangements should normally be non-statutory, the Government are persuaded that different considerations apply in the building and civil engineering industries. My right hon. Friend has therefore decided that the CITB will be reconstituted as a statutory training board for a five-year period with effect from 1 May 1993.

  Disabled People (Special Schemes)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places will be available in 1993–94 in the special schemes provided by the Employment 562
  Service for people with disabilities; what changes are planned in those programmes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Service's special assistance schemes for people with disabilities provide a wide range of help to overcome different kinds of problems faced by disabled people in obtaining and retaining employment. It is not possible to predict with precision the numbers of people with disabilities who will be helped or the kind of help they will need. However, in 1993–94, it is forecast that 13,140 grants to people with disabilities will be made under the main three schemes—special aids to employment, adaptations to premises and equipment and help with fares to work.

  The Employment Service's planned expenditure for 1993–94 on special schemes for people with disabilities is £14.8 million.

  The special schemes for people with disabilities are currently under review; an announcement about their future development will be made as soon as possible.

  Trade Unions (Training)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money is paid to trade unions for training.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 December 1992,Official Report, columns 254–55.

  Chemical Manufacturing Sites
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to review the regulations and guidance on the design and location of control rooms and office accommodation at chemical manufacturing sites in the light of the explosion in September 1992 at Hickson and Welch of Castleford.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On 22 September 1992 the Health and Safety Commission directed the Health and Safety Executive, under section 14(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, to hold a formal investigation into the incident at Hickson and Welch and to make a report. Once this has been concluded, the Health and Safety Executive will decide what action may then be appropriate.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many non-manual workers are unemployed on the basis used in the answer given on 30 October 1992,Official Report, column 911; and what percentage of the work force this represents.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The most recent figures from the summer, June to August, 1992 Labour Force Survey show 822,000—not seasonally adjusted—non-manual workers unemployed on the internationally agreed ILO definition. This represented 5.4 per cent. of all economically active non-manual workers in Great Britain.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) casual staff, (b) temporary staff and (c) permanent staff she plans to shed from jobcentres; and if she will list the locations of the jobcentres affected.
  563
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Richard Burden, dated 23 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 adjustment of staffing levels in Job Centres. This is something which falls within responsibilities she has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I must point out that the level of our workforce regularly fluctuates during the year to reflect local circumstances and seasonal trends in unemployment. Casual and temporary employees are always told that their appointments may be terminated at short notice, according to the local needs of the Employment Service.
  We have no plans to cut the overall annual number of people employed to provide our services. Indeed, next year will see an increase in the number of people employed to provide our customers with a range of services to help them return to work. In 1993–94, we are funding our regions to employ some 47,800 people compared with some 44,500 at the start of 1992–93. This illustrates our firm commitment to meeting our clients needs.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, the 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.

  Workers (Social Rights)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to improve the availability in the United Kingdom of the second report of the European Commission on the application of the Community charter on fundamental social rights for workers; and what is the current price of the document.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: The report in question is a Commission publication. In the United Kingdom the main agent for Commission documents is HMSO. The price of the report is £49.60. A copy of the report is available in the Library. The report can also be consulted free of charge at any of the four Commission offices, 47 European documentation centres or 26 European information centres in the United Kingdom.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),Official Report, column 430, what is his Department's (a) current outturn estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 and (b) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993–94.

  Mr. Curry
  This Department's forecast outturn for paid publicity for 1992–93 is £4.5 million. Planned paid publicity expenditure for 1993–94 has been set at £4·8 million.

  Pay Rates
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to retain the statutory basis for the system for determining pay in agriculture.

  Mr. Curry
  The agricultural minimum pay arrangements are scheduled for review later this year. On the basis of the outcome of the review, Agriculture Ministers will decide on the future of these arrangements, including their statutory basis.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available a freephone line for complaints and inquiries about toxic incidents involving pesticides.

  Mr. Soames
  The Health and Safety Executive is preparing a free leaflet for the general public explaining how to report incidents involving pesticides. The draft will be issued for external consultation shortly with a view to publication by the summer.

  A freephone is available for reporting wildlife-related incidents. There are at present no plans to extend this facility.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines he has given to the Health and Safety Executive concerning dealing with complaints of ill effects stemming from pesticide handling.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department has not given the Health and Safety Executive any guidelines concerning dealing with complaints of ill effects stemming from pesticide handling. Procedures for dealing with such complaints are a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the number of staff and contracted consultants that will be required in the United Kingdom to administer schemes under the reformed common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Curry
  Information on administration—staff numbers and running costs—for MAFF and the Intervention Board is set out in the departmental report on the Government's expenditure plans 1993–94 to 1995–96 which was published earlier this month. A copy has been placed in the Library. It is not possible to allocate a figure to the number of departmental staff purely working on duties connected with the common agricultural policy, including the reformed schemes, as the work of the Department is not recorded in a way which would enable the extraction of this figure without disproportionate cost. Almost all the staff in the Intervention Board executive agency, approximately 1,000, are directly involved in administering schemes under the CAP. Furthermore the Agriculture Departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also have responsibilities for certain CAP schemes. It is possible that contracted consultants may be employed to deal with some of the work involved with the CAP. The extent of such involvement has not yet been decided.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the effect on the level of sheep annual premium of movements in the pound sterling/ecu exchange rate in the coming year to(a) 1.20 ecu, (b) 1.25 ecu or (c) 1.30 ecu.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 22 February,Official Report, columns 472–73.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Curry
  In considering the effect on staff numbers a distinction has to be made between contracting out work previously carried out in-house and the contracting out of new work for which in-house staff would otherwise have had to be employed. Moreover, changes in workload in other areas may mean that staff from a contracted-out area are redeployed elsewhere without any overall reduction in numbers.

  Since 1979 it is estimated that some 240 posts have been lost as a direct result of contracting out, but that potential increases of several hundred staff have also been avoided.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate his Department has made of the number of abattoirs that cannot afford to meet current meat hygiene regulations which will cease business in the next two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Any premises which could not comply with the structural requirements of the regulations on 1 January was able to apply for aid temporary derogation to enable it to continue to operate whilst it upgraded. These derogations may last until 31 December 1995, some four and a half years after the EC directive was published. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have ensured that the regulations have been interpreted as flexibly and sensibly as possible without compromising hygiene.

  So far some 544 slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom have applied for temporary derogations for varying times. We believe the applicants are committed to upgrading their structure and would expect them to have made adequate financial provision to finance the work. We have not been advised by any of them that they intended ceasing business in the next two years.

  Levels of veterinary inspection are now considerably less than abattoirs would have expected them to be when they were drawing up their temporary derogation applications. We would expect the associated costs to have been a significant consideration in their financial projections.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will apply the criteria of the deregulation initiative to hygiene regulations governing abattoirs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have sought always to ensure that the EC red meat 566
  directive has not been interpreted in Great Britain in an over-zealous or over-regulatory manner. We are both well seized of the need to apply the Fresh Meat Regulations pragmatically and sensitively; balancing the essential requirement of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the food supply against the equally important responsibility to ensure that excessive burdens are not imposed on industry.

  Departmental Fishery Vessels
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the vessels and tonnage of vessel owned or operated by his Department; and which are registered on the United Kingdom fishery register.

  Mr. Curry
  There are two vessels owned, and operated, by this Ministry on the fishing vessels register, namely research vessels Corystes of 1,280 gross registered tonnes and Cirolana of 1,759 gross registered tonnes, both engaged in fishery research and monitoring work.

  Flooding
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 783, to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on high tides in March, if he will now reconsider his policy on an evacuation exercise in the eastern counties set out in his answer of 8 February, Official Report, column 509.

  Mr. Curry
  No. The points made in my answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 509, remain valid.

DEFENCE

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which current uses of ozone-depleting chemicals by his Department are considered essential.

  Mr. Aitken
  Only a few critical applications of the ozone depleting substances within the Department are considered essential. These applications were rigorously selected in accordance with international criteria.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what date his Department's use of ozone-depleting chemicals will conform to EC Regulations on limits on these chemicals.

  Mr. Aitken
  Current EC regulations govern the supply of ozone-depleting substances, through production and consumption controls, to the market. No constraints are placed, other than by supply, on users such as the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been sought and received on alternatives or substitutes to the ozone-depleting chemicals in use by his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Department has sought and received guidance on alternatives or substitutes to the ozone-depleting substances it employs from a wide range of sources both at home and abroad. These include commercial specialists, Government Departments and agencies, consultants and British and foreign service users.
  567
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances become controlled waste in terms of section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Aitken
  All those ozone-depleting substances consumed by this Department, once removed from their existing systems, become Controlled Waste under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets have been set for the recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals within departmental buildings.

  Mr. Aitken
  Most of the applications using such chemicals will be converted to use non-ozone-depleting alternatives. Any material withdrawn will be recycled.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the quantity of ozone-depleting substances recycled within his Department and returned to the manufacturer.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Department returns ozone-depleting substances to suppliers for recycling under a number of individual supply and maintenance contracts. Information on the quantities transferred could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much funding has been allocated or spent to specifically deal with measures to reduce his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Aitken
  The cost of our programme to phase out usage of ozone-depleting substances is being evaluated. However, £10 million has already been allocated for recycling and banking.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many catastrophic leaks of ozone-depleting substances have occurred within his Department's buildings in the last five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  Releases of ozone-depleting substances to the atmosphere have been monitored by my Department for the past three years. No major releases have been reported over that period.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances in use by his Department identified as controlled waste under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 do not reach the atmosphere.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is this Department's policy to prevent emissions of ozone-depleting substances to the atmosphere during maintenance, servicing, decommissioning and disposal. This is achieved through a wide range of measures, including the use of reclamation equipment and the provision of secondary seals.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details from the maintenance and servicing record of the quantity and type of ozone-destroying chemicals used annually in the Department's refrigeration and air conditioning equipment for servicing and in leakages; and what proportion is removed for recycling.
  568
  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances consumed by the Department are identified as controlled wastes when they are no longer in use.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is my Department's policy that all ozone-depleting substances when no longer required are treated as controlled waste, and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.

  Fire Extinguishers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many portable halon fire extinguishers are contained within departmental buildings; and what measures are being taken to ensure their recycling and replacement.

  Mr. Aitken
  It would require a disproportionate cost and effort to establish the number of hand held Halon fire extinguishers currently in my Department's buildings. My Department has a programme to replace these fire extinguishers with non-ozone-depleting alternatives; withdrawn material will be recycled.

  Ozone Layer (Protection)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the Departmental Green Minister has promoted protection of the ozone layer with specific policy measures; and which possible measures have been considered and rejected, and on what grounds.

  Mr. Aitken
  This Department's major protection initiatives include the cessation of venting to atmosphere and a programme to phase out uses of ozone-depleting substances. Only those critical uses which cannot be substituted will continue to be supported for a limited period.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many CFC domestic fridges are contained within his Department's buildings.

  Mr. Aitken
  There is no central register of domestic fridges held in departmental buildings. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an undertaking to purchase only ozone-friendly fridges that do not contain CFCs or HCFCs for his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  Domestic fridges are replaced on an individual basis to the prevailing commercial standards. Bulk food storage facilities are to be redesigned to comply with the latest EC food storage requirements, and use of a non-ozone-depleting substance will be specified.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many refrigeration and air conditioning systems in his Department are equipped with automatic leak detection systems.
  569
  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  CFCs and HCFCs
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest available figures are for his Department's total purchase of CFCs and HCFCs.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested is not held centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate cost and effort. However, a total of 114,300 kgs of CFCs and HCFCs have been procured through contracts let by my Department since January 1992.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many CFC and HCFC installations are contained within his Department's buildings.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Asbestos (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel who served with the Royal Navy during the second world war have made successful claims for compensation as a result of exposure to asbestos.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Submarines
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to extend the subfacts scheme into the Minches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is planned to extend the subfacts scheme to cover the Minches and the Sea of Hebrides. At present, we are considering, in consultation with the chief coastguard and others, the detailed practical arrangements for the operation of the scheme in these areas. An announcement will be made as soon as these arrangements have been decided.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to alter the code of conduct for submarines following the Lupina incident in September 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We shall consider whether changes to the arrangements governing the conduct of dived submarine operations in waters frequented by fishing vessels are warranted once the report by the United States authorities into the incident has been received and studied.

  Armaments Exports
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the amount of military armaments exported by the United Kingdom in each year since 1979; what percentage was exported to(a) Africa, (b) Asia, (c) central America and (d) south America in each year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  A breakdown of the total value of defence exports by geographical region for 1975, 1980 and between 1985 and 1991 is given in the "Defence Statistics 1992 Edition", table 1.12, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Military Land Byelaws
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many persons have been prosecuted under military land byelaws at(a) Fylingdales, (b) Molesworth, (c) Lakenheath, (d) Mildenhall, (e) Burghfield and (f) Aldermaston in (i) 1990, (ii) 1991 and (iii) 1992; what signs are displayed on this land warning citizens that byelaws will be enforced; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many persons were arrested under Her Majesty's Forest Moor and Menwith Hill station byelaws 1986 in (a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992; how many such persons were convicted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member.

  Surplus Equipment
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current arrangements for disposal of his Department's equipment which is surplus to requirements; how decisions about which equipment is surplus are arrived at; who decides on the arrangements for disposal; what procedures there are for fixing reserve prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Decisions on whether equipment is surplus to my Department's requirements take into account the required levels of spares holdings and the defence equipment programme. Authority for day-to-day decisions rests with the appropriate service commodity and supply manager in consultation with the technical and engineering authorities and operational sponsors. The directorate of sales (disposals) arrange sales of surplus equipment through Government-to-Government and Government-to-industry contracts, competitive tenders and public auctions. These take into account the type and condition of the equipment and the available market opportunities. Sales prices are determined by competition. Auction reserve prices are based on a technical assessment by the directorate's staff of expected saleability. Unsold and unsellable items are disposed of under waste contract arrangements.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Lord Kindersley Lord Kindersley— Took the Oath.

Christmas Island Tests
Lord Parry Lord Parry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give any further information about the exposure of South Sea Islanders indentured to service on Christmas Island during the period of the atomic tests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we have no information indicating any significant exposure to ionising radiation on the part of South Sea Islanders as a result of British nuclear tests.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I believe that the Minister knows, as I do, of the dependence of the governments of Kiribati and Tuvalu on external aid. Will the Government increase that aid in order to ensure that those who were on the island and who left it can be identified? Their present state of health can then be measured and it can be properly ascertained whether they have ongoing health problems as a result of our taking them into the testing area.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I should make it clear to your Lordships that no islanders were employed on duties involving exposure to ionising radiation. Care was taken not to expose either them or British personnel to danger. I should perhaps add that studies have been made in regard to the state of health of the islanders; I refer particularly to the study entitled, Environmental Radiation Survey of Christmas Island Kiribati; Mathews and Gregory, New Zealand Department of Health, National Radiation Laboratory, Christchurch, New Zealand, in which a number of helpful and constructive points were made exonerating Her Majesty's Government at that time.
Lord Parry: My Lords, perhaps the House will permit me one more question. In view of the fact that the Minister is aware of that study—he will accept that I am aware of it also and of its findings—is he aware that when the bomb was actually exploded over the island from 30,000 feet up, the people we took in there were placed in a manyatta within 27 miles of ground zero? The manyatta had no sides and a grassed roof. They were asked to remain in there while canvas sheets were lowered around the building and subsequently allowed to move out some minutes after the explosion.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I and, I am sure, the rest of the House accept and admire the noble Lord's concern for the good health of the islanders. Her Majesty's Government certainly will accept responsibility if radiation has harmed them. However,
80
there is absolutely no evidence, in spite of our best efforts, to sustain that allegation. If the noble Lord can provide that evidence, we shall be happy to look at it again. But he knows as well as I that that evidence is not at present available to us and, as far as we know, nobody has made it available.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government accept any responsibility for naval officers or men who lost their lives following the explosion on Christmas Island?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, in reply to an Unstarred Question he tabled in your Lordships' House late last year. It is clear that the NRPB has reported, and that the obligations for compensation which the Ministry of Defence established and published, have been observed. The Department of Social Security, whose criteria were well explained by my noble friend Lord Henley in a successful debate in your Lordships' House some time ago, are also made clear.
There is no evidence whatever to suppose that, as a result of the activities on Christmas Island, there was a higher incidence of death from various cancers among those who took part in supporting and executing the tests. That is supported by the evidence as a result of research carried out with a large control group of 23,000 people. In the control group the incidence of cancers was higher than the incidence of cancers among those who took part in the tests.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when he speaks of lack of evidence it is a grey area in which there is rarely concrete evidence for, or concrete lack of evidence? The United States authorities have shown a willingness to give the benefit of any balance of doubt to nuclear test veterans and people concerned. In this country the department has failed to do that. The benefit of the balance of doubt should be given by the Government to the islanders. Will the Minister look at the situation more kindly and less pedantically in regard to lack of evidence or presence of evidence on the issue?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am always nervous when accused of being pedantic by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. However, I think that he is in danger, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, of mixing apples and oranges when comparing the British system with the system of support produced by the Veterans Administration in the United States. There are differences, but then we live in different countries and under different systems. I could equally well produce a reasoned case, with which I shall not risk boring your Lordships at the moment, which would support the contention that in some areas we do better than the United States Veterans Administration just as in some areas the noble Lord might say that it does better than we do. The balance of advantage is at least arguable and can in some degree be attributed to the different systems for compensation, to use the American sense of the term, operating in the United States.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm who carried out these tests? When was the last one carried out?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I assume that my noble friend is asking who carried out the tests on the islanders rather than on the people from this country who supported the tests. I have given one example at some length, for which I apologise to your Lordships, which was a New Zealand example. There are also, I understand, American examples which I could quote to your Lordships.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, there appear to be certain differences of fact. The noble Viscount said that no islanders were affected by this event. Is it not the case that islanders who are not native to Christmas Island were largely imported from Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony by Christmas Island Plantations, a company owned by the colonial government, to assist with work on the base? They were indentured for two years and remained there for two years. During early tests those islanders were kept in a village meeting house with thatched roof and roll down canvas sides. They were allowed out after the blast with dark glasses as were servicemen, subsequently seen in television broadcasts. Would the noble Viscount like to revise his opinion on whether islanders from outside Christmas Island have not been affected?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that the wearing of dark glasses has a remarkably emotive effect on your Lordships. However, all I can do is rely on the facts as I have endeavoured to ascertain them and to report them to your Lordships. Monitoring of the Christmas Island environment during and after the detonations showed no significant radioactivity in places where it could have affected people, either British servicemen or South Sea Islanders. There was testing of water, fish, local food, coconuts and the whole range of flora and fauna, including temporarily resident two legged fauna of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, refers.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his reply to the main Question could not have been more definite and categoric? In the absence of authority greater than that which will cast doubt on the reply, are we not doing a disservice to the people of that area by presuming all kinds of things for which there is no supporting evidence?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am, as always, grateful to my noble friend. I have really nothing to add to what he has just said.
Lord Parry: My Lords, may I test the House for one second?
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Regional Government
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether consideration is being given to establishing elected regional councils.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, no.
Lord Dormand of Essington: My Lords, is not the establishing of elected regional councils long overdue? Does the Minister agree that there is strong feeling for, and attachment to, our regions? Does he further agree that some services are naturally fitted for regions? Perhaps most important of all, would not the establishment of elected regional councils lead to effective decentralisation from central government, which is something we are constantly told is one of the main aims of the Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot see any reason for promoting a second tier of government that can only be more expensive and bureaucratic and take away from the rights of individuals.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many areas in the country are already subject to two levels of elected authorities? Would it not be nonsense to create a third?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend puts the case rather better than I did.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, speaking for a party that has to my certain knowledge believed in elected regional government since 1964, there are many areas at present covered by quangos where there is no recourse to the electorate whatever? Would not many of those functions be better placed in the hands of elected regional government than left to the whim of patronage?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I still do not recognise that a significant case has been made. Perhaps the fact that the noble Lord has been saying that since 1964 and his party has still not succeeded in any great electoral achievement indicates that his case is not made.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that regional councils have existed and have been elected in Scotland since county councils were abolished there in 1975. Is he aware that they are by no means universally popular?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. But the regional councils in Scotland are performing a rather different function from that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would not the establishment of these elected councils assist two important aspects of the Maastricht Treaty for which the Government have not opted? First, there is the

83
establishment of the committee of regions and, secondly, the proposal in the treaty that deliberation shall be taken to the lowest possible level, close to communities and citizens.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am all for decisions being taken locally and at their lowest common denominator. That is why we promote the rights of individuals rather than those of local authorities. As regards the European Community, there are many examples where local authorities voluntarily work together in partnership to further their cause with the European Community. Surely that is the right way to go.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the abolition of the GLC has resulted in quite a saving in public expenditure?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct in saying that the abolition of the GLC —although it was perhaps not a very good example of regional government—has certainly resulted in a substantial saving for the ratepayers of London.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since the GLC was abolished the people of London are very much worse off than they were before?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in 1984 we estimated that about £100 million of long—term savings every year would result from the abolition of the GLC.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in our relatively small country the great majority of people relate either to the city in which they live or to a county? Does he further agree that the idea of adding another level of government to the many we already have would result in too many? Is he aware that we look forward to the formation—on the organic basis on which the government have decided to work —of unitary authorities to which people will be able to relate? Equally, does my noble friend believe that perhaps there is a case for the representatives of central government in the regions to have a slightly higher profile so that people feel that they have a better channel with central government at official rather than at political level?
Lord Stratnclyde: My Lords, we are encouraging central government to set up posts in regional government and to work together as a conduit for dealings with local people. My noble friend is absolutely correct when he says that in a country of our size it really is not worth going down the route of regional councils.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I last counted there were about 20 quangos in East Anglia spending public money but accountable to no one? Does that not suggest that we already have regional government in this country, but that what we do not have but need is regional democracy?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. The noble Baroness will know perfectly well that quangos are there as an arm of Parliament and are accountable to Ministers and to Parliament.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be rather fun if we had regional, unelected councils; namely, regional Houses of Lords?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that one House of Lords is more than enough.

Housing the Homeless: Funding Policy
2.55 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the new money available under Section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 for housing projects is limited to national voluntary organisations; and how many city-based schemes will therefore be ineligible to apply for such funding.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, funding is not restricted to national organisations. Any national or local voluntary organisation offering direct, practical help to homeless people has been eligible since 1990 to apply for grant under Section 73 of the Housin Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, funding is not restricted to national organisations. Any national or local voluntary organisation offering direct, practical help to homeless people has been eligible since 1990 to apply for grant under Section 73 of the Housing Act 1985.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the fact that the Housing Corporation, which is responsible for these matters, produced a document which was leaked—it therefore became hallowed through being made a discussion document—proposing just that. Is the Minister aware that there are 40 city-based housing associations in Birmingham alone which particularly cater for ethnic and handicapped people? Is the Minister further aware that they would face tremendous hardship if the proposals went through? Can I take encouragement, based on what the Minister said, that the Government will reject any such proposals?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have no intention of changing the current policy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does that mean that the Minister is disavowing the Housing Corporation and if so, will he say so clearly and plainly?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there may well be some confusion in the understanding of what the Housing Corporation is putting forward and this is the first time that I have heard of it. The point is that government policy is totally clear and unequivocal.

Royal Family: Interception of Telephone Calls
2.56 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any employees of government agencies have been questioned under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 about the interception of telephone calls of members of the Royal Family; and, if so, under what circumstances.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, no individual employees of government agencies have been questioned about the alleged interception of telephone calls of members of the Royal Family. Operational procedures ensure that there is no question of staff being able to make unofficial use of the facilities of the agencies for improper purposes of this kind.
Heads of all the agencies have given assurances that their agencies have had no part in the interception of telephone calls of members of the Royal Family.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. He will be well aware that I had to ask that Question because he failed to answer it twice on a previous occasion. It is good to have the answer now. Can he say whether there have been any requests from the household of any member of the Royal Family for investigations of this kind?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
2.57 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is rare that a Bill should come to this House which has already had quite so much discussion outside the House. But I am glad to say that the discussion which has taken place both in another place and outside this House has certainly created a great deal of interest.
The Bill has had a long gestation. It fulfils no fewer than 10 separate commitments given in the Conservative Party's manifesto. It will give many more people the opportunity to own and control their homes; it will bring much needed improvement in the management of local authority housing; it will give council tenants the right to a decent standard of service from their landlord; and it will help to revitalise our inner cities.
Part I will give most long leaseholders of flats the right to purchase collectively the freehold of their building; and it will extend the right to buy the freehold at a fair market price to the owners of high value long leasehold houses. The first Bill to provide a right to enfranchise was introduced in 1884. The Conservative Party promised enfranchisement on fair terms in 1966, although it was of course a Labour Government who introduced the Leasehold Reform
86
Act 1967. That gave most long leaseholders of houses the right to enfranchise. The Conservative Opposition welcomed the principle of that Act, although we had grave concerns about the basis of the compensation which it introduced. In 1974 the Conservative Opposition moved amendments which brought medium value houses within the scope of the 1967 Act but on a new and fairer valuation basis. However, leaseholders of flats and of high value houses remained unable to enfranchise.
People who buy long leases at low rent are generally thought of as owner occupiers, even though they are tenants in the eyes of the law. This contradiction produces two distinct problems for the leaseholder. The first is that a lease is a wasting asset. A new long lease is equivalent in price to a freehold but its value declines inexorably as its term expires. This makes a lease increasingly difficult to mortgage, since building societies are usually only prepared to lend on an unexpired lease of at least twice the mortgage term. This problem is now becoming acute because so many long leases of flats date from the new owner occupiers of the 1950s. As they have become unmortgageable, so the urgency for this reform has increased.
The second problem is that because a leaseholder remains legally a tenant, control remains with the freeholder. This is a particular problem with flats where the communal nature of repair, maintenance and insurance gives control of the block to the freeholder. Yet all the costs fall to the leaseholders. Research by the Consumers' Association found that two-thirds of leaseholders reported problems with their landlords, nearly half of which they considered to be serious. Typical problems identified included overcharging for services, misuse of funds, suspected non-payment of insurance and harassment.
This Bill addresses these problems. It is one more stage in the Government's commitment to encourage owner occupation and to enable an estimated 750,000 long leaseholders to take full responsibility for their own property.
I have explained that the Bill will give most long leaseholders of flats the right to purchase collectively the freehold of their building. To qualify, a leaseholder must have a long lease—with an original term of over 21 years —at a low rent in a building in which two-thirds of the flats are let on long leases. This will provide a test of whether the main equity in the property has passed to the leaseholders.
A majority of at least two-thirds of those qualifying long leaseholders in the block will have to agree to enfranchise. Properties with more than 10 per cent. commercial use or of four or fewer flats with a resident landlord will be excluded.
I know that there is concern that landlords will not receive proper compensation for the loss of their asset. I am happy to reassure your Lordships that there is no element of confiscation in our proposals. Landlords will receive the full market value of their asset plus reasonable costs. The price will include at least half the marriage value, which is the extra value created by bringing the leasehold and freehold interests together. This extra value can be released only by a sale to tenants and will be capital gain to the landlord. These

87
terms are designed to replicate the free market value of the property. As such, there will be many occasions when it will be appropriate for the landlord to receive more—perhaps even substantially more—than 50 per cent. of the marriage value.
I am also happy to reassure your Lordships that public sector renting tenants will be protected. The Bill obliges public sector landlords to lease back the flats of their tenants, thus safeguarding their right to buy. Long leaseholders who do not wish to enfranchise, and renting tenants, will continue to be protected by the contractual rights in their leases or tenancies.
Where a block is not eligible for enfranchisement, the Bill will give long leaseholders the right to individual lease extensions at the market price. This will tackle the problem of diminishing leases. Extension will be for a 90-year term and at a peppercorn rent.
The Bill will allow higher value houses to be enfranchised by removing the rateable value limits. It will also provide an additional low rent test for houses. We consider it right that we should not exclude this very small group of house leaseholders.
Chapter IV of the Bill will protect the well-managed, large estates by providing for estate management schemes. A scheme will be approved if it is in the general interest that an estate retains powers of management in an area. Many areas have already benefited from a similar provision in the 1967 Act: Belgravia and Dulwich are two such examples. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome that provision in the Bill.
This Bill has been given careful consideration in another place. The Government have accepted amendments in the interests of fairness and to prevent abuses. These will ensure that head leaseholders cannot speculatively enfranchise and that broom cupboards cannot be used as units to prevent enfranchisement. The Government's own amendments ensure that mews houses are within the scope of this Bill or the 1967 Act, and that a "Prince of Wales clause" in a lease will not prevent enfranchisement.
The Government will be bringing forward further amendments for your Lordships' consideration in fulfilment of promises made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. These will ensure that severance can be paid to the landlords of high value houses which are enfranchised and that the right to new leases will be subject to a residency qualification. In addition, I am sure that in Committee we shall have the opportunity to discuss these Part I provisions in great detail. I am aware of the great concerns of some of my noble friends, but I hope that during the passage of the Bill I shall allay some of those fears.
I should now like to turn to the public sector housing provisions in Part II of the Bill and, first, to the new rent-to-mortgage scheme. In 1980 we gave council tenants the right to buy. It gave them choice and the opportunity to take responsibility for their housing. Over 1.1 million tenants have taken up that challenge and now own their own homes. But there are still nearly 1.5 million local authority tenants who pay their full rent unaided.
88
The rent-to-mortgage scheme will offer a new deal to those tenants who have the right to buy but cannot afford to buy outright. They will have the option of taking on a mortgage with repayments the same as their current rent. In return for this initial payment they will become the full legal owners of their homes, with a further payment to be made to the landlord if they sell or on their death. Rent to mortgage will complement the existing right to buy and provide new impetus to the drive to home ownership that has already benefited more than 1 million council tenants.
But the Government are also committed to ensuring that those who remain as tenants in the public sector receive a decent level of service from their landlord. The new right to repair will ensure that tenants can get urgent minor repairs carried out with a minimum of bureaucratic complication, and the right to improve will enable them to claim compensation for certain improvements they carry out to their homes when their tenancy ends.
The Bill also introduces more fundamental change to the management of local authority housing. It sets a clear framework for local authorities to delegate their housing management and prepares the way for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to that function. Local authorities will be required to consult their tenants fully about levels and quality of service and to involve them fully in the monitoring of a manager's performance.
For those tenants who want to go further, the Bill provides a new right to manage. Local authorities will be required to transfer the management of estates to tenant organisations where tenants are willing and able to take it on.
With the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, the present tenants' veto power on management delegations will cease to be relevant. In its place the Bill will give tenants real and direct influence over the management of their homes.
The Government are also taking the opportunity of this Bill to empower local housing authorities to provide the full range of welfare services to their tenants who need them and to account for the cost of those services in their housing revenue accounts if they wish. Part II also restores a power to contribute to loan charges arising from expenses incurred by local authorities before 1st April 1989 in assisting owners of defective housing.
During the consideration of this Bill in another place, the Government added two further public sector housing provisions in Part II. The first will enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to run a programme for large-scale voluntary housing transfers within an agreed cash limit and comprising those disposals which best meet the pre-set criteria described in the Bill and to impose a levy on the sale proceeds. The second will provide a right for all tenants of a housing action trust to transfer to the local housing authority when the HAT disposes of their property.
The Scottish provisions in Part II stem principally from the Tenant's Charter for Scotland. Several of them mirror provisions that I have already described for England and Wales. These include the statutory

89
rent to loan scheme, the right to repair, the right to compensation for improvements and the right for tenants to manage their homes. In addition, they give effect to a manifesto commitment to prevent housing allocation decisions being taken on arbitrary or subjective grounds. The Scottish provisions in the Bill will strengthen and improve quality and choice in housing for public sector tenants in Scotland.
Part III of the Bill establishes the urban regeneration agency. There are 150,000 acres of vacant and derelict land in the towns and cities of England. Just as important are the large sites outside urban areas which formerly had an industrial use but now lie derelict. Such land is at best unattractive and unproductive; at worst, hazardous. It is often in prominent locations and can depress the whole local economy.
The URA will tackle those problems. It will work in partnership with local authorities, the private sector, voluntary bodies and others involved in the revitalisation of vacant and derelict land. It will encourage the whole spectrum of development, including retail and office space, new industrial premises, housing, green space and recreational facilities.
The agency will incorporate derelict land grant, city grant and the English Industrial Estates Corporation, a sponsored body that provides or aids the provision of commercial and industrial premises in areas of need. It will replace those programmes with a new more flexible grant regime, supported by a range of powers including the power to buy land by agreement or compulsory purchase.
Wherever possible the URA will act as an enabler for the private sector to carry out development rather than develop land itself. It will build on the success of city grant, which at present attracts about £4 from the private sector for every £1 of public money devoted to it. It will thus bring to run-down urban areas vital private investment. It will also be able to operate outside urban areas to continue the existing work of derelict land grant and English Estates.
The URA will seek to work in partnership with local authorities wherever possible. In the past, however, not all authorities have shown a willingness to make the most of our inner cities programmes. The Bill therefore enables the Secretary of State to give the agency development control and some highway powers within limited areas designated by order. In some cases local authorities may ask for areas to be designated, as happened with the UDCs in Birmingham heartland and Plymouth. Designation without agreement will be used only as a last resort.
The agency will operate within the framework of the planning system at all times. It will take account of local authority development plans and planning policy guidance. Even where it has development control powers it will still be expected to work within development plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
We have announced that we intend to appoint my noble friend Lord Walker of Worcester as the first chairman of the URA. His track record speaks for
90
itself. He is clearly the right man for the job. He will head a small, dynamic board, picked not for whom it represents but for what it can achieve. The URA will have the power and the vision to transform our view of vacant and derelict land. Such land need no longer be an obstacle to growth. Instead, it will be an exciting opportunity for wider renewal.
Part III will also introduce a single flexible grant-giving power for urban regeneration. That will simplify the operation of City Challenge which has already succeeded in bringing together local authorities, the private sector and local communities in a new spirit of enterprise and vision.
Finally, Part III will also simplify the procedure under which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can direct a public body to dispose of surplus land and make minor amendments to the legislation governing urban development corporations.
I commend this Bill to your Lordships on behalf of the 750,000 leaseholders who will be given the chance to control their own homes. I commend it on behalf of the 1.5 million council tenants who will have a new opportunity to buy their homes, and the further 2.5 million who will be given the right to a decent standard of service from their landlord; and I commend it on behalf of all those who stand to gain from the regeneration of our inner cities.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
3.14 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill and explaining its contents, even though some of your Lordships may think that, from its size, let alone the content, it is a rather heavy burden to place before the House on a fine spring afternoon.
First, I should—indeed, it is my duty—declare an interest. I, together with my wife, am the holder of a lease which will qualify under the terms of the Bill as at present drafted and if enacted in its present form. Despite that, and upon advice, I do not feel myself disqualified from speaking for the Opposition since I imagine that being one of the some 750,000 or so who the Government claim will be affected, my personal pecuniary advantage is minimal. Of course, as I look down the list of speakers, I note that certain noble Lords opposite may well be in a position somewhat analogous to mine, but perhaps with a rather greater pecuniary interest. Equally, I have no doubt that —in the true traditions of the House in which we all speak on our honour—they will each, in his or her turn, wish to declare the extent of his or her pecuniary interest.
The Bill which the Minister has set before us this afternoon is, if the truth be told, at least three Bills in one. I have no particular objection to that. Indeed, I am quite used to the procedure of the Government in compressing several Bills into one omnibus measure. However, the Short Title of the Bill, as your Lordships will be aware, is the Housing and Urban Development Bill. That Short Title is, I am bound to say, wholly misleading. None of the Bills compressed into the measure has anything to do with the real housing problem, and precious little to do with the real

91
problem of urban development. Despite the sometimes stupefying complexity and immense size of the whole exercise, not one extra house will be built as a result of it, nor will one homeless person be taken off the streets. So our first objection to the Bill is that it represents an opportunity for action in the middle of our housing crisis, admitted on all sides to be of extreme gravity, which has been seriously missed.
When we come to the meat of the Bill, we can discern some merits, and some, perhaps more serious, demerits. In evaluating those, I have to tell your Lordships that I am fortunate enough to have had the advantage of a brief prepared by the Conservative Central Office. It has, if I may say so, been extremely informative, and I should like to compliment a Mr. George Bridges, who appears as the author of this brief, on his work. In the rest of what I have to say, I shall be bearing in mind, and commenting upon, what Mr. Bridges, if he is indeed the author, writes, and, I am afraid, dissenting from it with increasing vehemence as I move through the Bill.
In Part I, as the Minister described it—or as I would say the first Bill of three—our differences with Mr. Bridges of Conservative Central Office and with the Minister are on matters of scope rather than principle. In our view it simply does not go far enough, and that is a matter that we shall attempt to rectify. But Mr. Bridges is right to claim that the measures contained in Part I are a continuation of the Leasehold Reform Act of the Labour Government in 1967, although he fails to mention that it was also the Labour Party that first proposed the extension of that right to flat dwellers in evidence to the Aldridge Committee. But he is also right in saying that leasehold reform was a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party —and in this House we must pay attention to those matters —receiving its final endorsement from the present Prime Minister on the last day of the election campaign of April last year.
So far, as it were, so good. But we move into muddier waters when we look at some of the realities. Now there is one with which I can deal straightaway. Judging from the list of noble Lords opposite who are due to speak, I imagine that there might be some resistance to the idea of leasehold enfranchisement on the grounds that it is improper for a government to legislate in a manner that cuts across the law of contract. Now here I and Mr. Bridges are at one. It is up to the Government to keep forms of contract under review; and Mr. Bridges instances examples, which he calls numerous, such as in the privatisation of nationalised industries or the abolition of the closed shop, when—to use Mr. Bridges' own words—
"the Government has overturned contracts and reformed the whole system."
Quite so!
Of course, there is nothing wrong with the principle. Government—any government—have to do those things; it is only how and in what manner the principle is applied that matters. In the present case, we believe that the principle is being applied justifiably. Therefore, in so far as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, presses the principle of leasehold enfranchisement he will have the support of these
92
Benches; and we will support him even though, as I suspect, some of his noble friends may try to do him down. On the scope, of course, the noble Lord may find us in disagreement, since we believe that the provisions are too narrowly drawn.
There will be other Committee points—for instance, the future position of housing associations; in particular, those which provide sheltered accommodation. We shall be concerned about the position of local authority tenants remaining in blocks where the freehold is purchased from a local authority. We shall probe the whole question of how enfranchised estates are to be managed and, indeed, who should be enfranchised or how lease renewal should operate. There will be other matters on which we shall be moving amendments.
These are matters to be considered in Committee, and they will be. But I wish to be clear to the House —and I repeat what I said, "for the avoidance of doubt", as the lawyers say—that we shall support the Government on the principle of leasehold enfranchisement. On that point there should be no misunderstanding.
There is, however, one matter on which I seek an equally clear statement from the Minister. Whatever happened to the principle of commonhold? It is my understanding that a Bill has already been drafted. If that is the case, why is it not being introduced? I believe that we need some answers and I hope that in winding up the debate the Minister will provide them.
Part II of the Bill—or the second Bill, as I would prefer to call it—deals with a wholly different matter; that is, the position of local authority tenants. It has nothing to do with leasehold enfranchisement and I dare say that noble Lords opposite who are due to speak this afternoon may be unable to devote as much time as they would like to the proposals about which Mr. Bridges of Conservative Central Office is more enthusiastic than I am.
In the event that noble Lords opposite wish to spend their time analysing Part II of the Bill with the diligence it deserves, we shall be glad to hear their views on the rent-to-mortgage scheme, on the new right-to-repair scheme for council tenants, on the clauses which give local housing authorities temporary powers to provide housing welfare services, on the extension of compulsory competitive tendering and on the abolition of tenants' veto over the management of their homes. My noble friend Lady Hollis will be listening attentively to the contribution of noble Lords opposite on these matters—which are of the greatest importance to those members of our society who are least able to fend for themselves—and will put our view when she winds up. All I propose to say is that we have serious objections to this part of the Bill. I believe that at this stage Mr. Bridges has started to slide—elegantly, I admit, but decisively—off whatever rails he was on.
The slide becomes much more pronounced when we consider the third Bill, or Part III of the Bill, as the Government would have us believe. Part III of Mr. Bridges' brief is entitled "Help for our Cities". "Help", my Lords, "for our ciites". Now what on earth have a Conservative Government, in office for nearly 14

93
years, been doing to our cities that provokes Mr. Bridges' cri de coeur? Why do our cities need such "help"?
I will tell your Lordships why. Many of our once proud cities have become so run down that in places they are wholly blighted. There is poverty in our cities such as Members of this House, sitting as we do on these elegant red Benches, would never dream of. There is a new culture of drugs and drink, of mindless violence, of crooked deals and of shifty law enforcement. That is what has happened to our cities after 14 years of Conservative government, and that is why they need help.
So what are the Government now proposing? It is something, as your Lordships will have seen, called the urban regeneration agency. It was, of course, an election gimmick at the time and nothing in the Bill suggests that it will last even as long as the previous election gimmick. Do your Lordships remember the enterprise zones, the Enterprise Initiative, the derelict land grant, the urban development grant, the city grant, the City Challenge, city action teams, or the inner city task forces? We have had a succession of such initiatives from the Government and they have turned out to be little more than a public relations exercise.
So what is the essence of the new proposal? It is a new quango headed, of course, by a former Tory Minister with—as we are now accustomed to expect —almost certainly six other Tories as members. The new quango will operate only in England but it will not be committed to any regional structure or to the involvement of local authority elected members. Not only that, but the quango will actually remove powers from local authorities, particularly in the area of planning. The result, of course, will be a series of futile public relations initiatives, uncoordinated development and expenditure of scarce resources on non-priority issues.
Nor is it even certain what the whole object of the exercise is. We hope to find out that in Committee. The Bill gives the new quango wide powers, but in another place the Government said that it is a limited body dealing only with land.
Until I am persuaded otherwise, I believe that the new body is just one more politically-motivated initiative, repackaging existing schemes, with limited resources and, in general, not doing very much more than the existing schemes. I also believe that the situation will persist until the next general election when there will be another glorious initiative, announced with the usual fanfare of trumpets, to supersede the proposal for the quango that we now have before us. I have equally no doubt that, the dutiful Mr. Bridges of Conservative Central Office —unless the poor man has been sacked by the new management there—will be wheeled out again to write a brief. And the title will undoubtedly be "Help for our cities".
I shall now try to sum up our views on this multi-faceted and complex Bill. We shall not oppose it. Parts of it are, after all, manifesto commitments and there are parts of it with which we agree. Perhaps I
94
may say in passing that there could be more of the Bill with which I might agree if only I could understand its draftsmanship, which is difficult. But it is something of a mish-mash; a hotch-potch of ideas thrown together without logical sequence. As such, we shall take each idea as it comes along and subject it to the scrutiny that your Lordships quite properly expect of the Opposition in this House.
Although, from what I hear, some noble Lords opposite may wish to occupy a certain amount of time in Committee, that will not deter us from moving amendments of our own on the issues on which we wish to concentrate. If the Government are faced with a rebellion on their own side that is their problem, not ours. We shall give our support on those matters which we believe to be right. That is our position and we shall stand on it. If the Government wish more from us, because of their failure to convince their own supporters of their arguments, we shall have to see what they are prepared to offer. But for the moment we stand our ground and will play the role that we have always played—that of tough but constructive opposition to what is, when all is said and done, at best something of a curate's egg of a Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his introduction of the Bill, and not least for his improvisation when many of your Lordships were caught by the Second Reading being introduced rather earlier than expected—although the exit was not such as some of us have been accustomed to see when we reach this type of business.
I know that the Bill is causing many of your Lordships a great deal of heart-searching. After all, the issues raised in the first part of the Bill are food for hours of philosophical discussion on the rights of ownership, on agreements freely entered into and on other aspects of property. I hope that in the heat of the debates those parts of the Bill concerned with public sector housing and urban regeneration will not receive less attention than they merit for it seems to me that there are common issues which we should do well to remember throughout the course of the Bill.
Perhaps the theme of the Bill is the extent to which each individual in our society has the right to live his own life, to take his own decisions and to control his own property. At what point do the rights of all those with an interest in a property conflict? Should leaseholders be entitled to acquire freehold rights? What price is a fair price? Can any price be enough? Should certain leaseholders be excluded? Are freeholders thereby disentitled, subject to some form of compulsory purchase and liable to be stripped of their rights?
Public sector tenants are to have a new right to buy. Their landlords—the local authorities—do not argue that they are being stripped of property, although they might well do so. That they hold it in trust for their communities does not invalidate that argument. At the same time, the management of local authority housing is to be subject to what the Bill calls delegation, although that implies a degree of freedom of decision and discretion. The local authorities will

95
have no discretion and, although one might assume that that is because discretion and the responsibility for their own lives pass to the tenants, it will not be open to the tenants to veto new management arrangements. In that case, the state knows best.
The third part of the Bill creates a new agency. The theme continues. Should an arm of the state, a new creature, be imposed over a democratically elected and accountable body? Where the writ of the urban regeneration agency is to run, will local authorities have their discretion fettered, their freedom and its concomitant responsibility curtailed? Are we really presented with the recipe for a partnership, which the Government have promised?
In commenting on some of the detail of the Bill I shall start with the urban regeneration agency, although it features last. That is not out of perversity but because of my concern that the last should not be regarded as the least. What do we mean by regeneration and for whom? The lesson of experience must be that regeneration must not be imposed on local communities but that the local community must be part of the process.
I welcome comments made by Ministers about partnerships with local authorities and the role of representing communities. However, we must ensure that there is a real partnership. I will not be alone in having a natural distaste for an unelected body which is unaccountable directly to the people whose lives it affects. The only valid reason for centralisation of local affairs is if the centralised body can do better. Will the new quango harness talents which have not found expression in the current system? Will it build on the skills of those whose skills are not now well used? I hope so. I hope that it will not be the dead hand of central government—although we heard earlier this afternoon that quangos exist as the arm of government—because the health of local democracy is vital to the health of the community. Perhaps a little humility is needed on all sides to accept that it is not healthy to create a ghetto of dependency among our communities as some local authorities have done, nor that it is healthy to stifle the freedom of expression of that community.
I cannot help but note the term in the consultation paper at paragraph 11 that the agency should act entrepreneurially to encourage redevelopment by bringing together all parties with a role to play—an entrepreneurial approach which has not been encouraged among local authorities. Nor can I help but note the words of the Minister, Mr. Redwood, on 10th February at col. 1021 of Hansard. When commenting on the end of designation provisions, he talked about restoring local democratic accountability. Therefore, we are right, are we not, to understand that democratic accountability will have been lost?
My anxieties are not limited to structure and accountability. Is this the best way to regenerate and is regeneration just a matter of land? Urban regeneration needs to be co-ordinated across a wide and varied front covering a range of land use and non-land use matters. We need to recognise the potential contribution of housing as well as
96
employment and the role of affordable housing. We must show imagination in recognising the role of leisure and community facilities.
The agency may become the local planning authority in effect and I have considerable reservations about the displacement of local authorities. On Second Reading the Secretary of State described them as "obstructive" local authorities. I have reservations about the imposition of another system. At the very least we must ensure that the agency cannot override the unitary development plan or the structural local plan.
We have what is now called a plan-led system; that is, that development decisions are taken in the context of a plan constructed by a democratically-elected body with wide community input. Having reached that point in planning law, let us not jeopardise it. Let us ensure that the agency has express environmental duties. We should not leave that to merely an expression of good intent. There may be a difficulty as regards agreeing a definition of "sustainable development", but because we cannot arrive at a perfect definition does not mean that we do not know what the aims should be and we must ensure that those aims are being achieved. Local authorities increasingly see the need to co-ordinate land use and transport matters. Often transport infrastructure is vital to regeneration. How is that to be achieved?
As regards funding, the agency will take over the derelict land grant and city grant. That is not new money, nor is it complete co-ordination. There are at least 20 government initiatives operating in London alone.
We understand that we are in difficult times, but we understand also the role which investment can and should play in regenerating the economy as well as particular areas of land. I await with keen interest government announcements on how the East Thames corridor will be dealt with as an obvious candidate. The fact that the decision seems to be stuck somewhere in Whitehall makes me fear that it is stuck not at the Department of the Environment but at the Treasury.
Efficiency and effectiveness should be criteria which apply to the agency just as they do to local government. It is ironic perhaps that in considering the Bill we have recently heard reports of poor performances by development corporations in the year 1991–92. The Local Government Chronicle called it a miserable performance. It states that six out of eight failed to meet their targets on land reclamation; four out of seven failed to secure the number of home completions for which they were aiming; six out of nine failed on industrial and commercial development, and so on. It states:
"The UDCs had a bad year. No council would have been let off as lightly by the hawk eyed ministerial team. The government should do as it preaches".
The second part of the Bill dealing with public sector housing introduces a new rent-to-mortgage scheme, even though the take-up in pilot schemes run in Milton Keynes and Basildon have been low. I had thought that we were taught in the last election that we should regard Basildon as typical. Perhaps we have

97
not learnt that lesson. The present right-to-buy scheme will continue to offer bigger discounts and the new scheme will have only a minority appeal.
The Government have been criticised for seeking to extend home ownership to financially vulnerable households, especially during a recession. That is not a view that I necessarily share. I believe it is up to the tenants to decide what is best for each one of them. But why exclude tenants who are on housing benefit? If they are excluded because they cannot afford to buy, or cannot afford a mortgage, that constitutes imposing a nanny state. I do not subscribe to that view. Why exclude those whose rent, as a mortgage, would buy more than an 80 per cent. share of the home? That will mean that in many authorities tenants of over five years' standing will be excluded.
There are concerns, too, among non-charitable housing associations whose secure tenants will have a right to acquire property on a rent-to-mortgage basis. They are worried about the erosion of their asset base. They are right to be concerned. Having seen off local authority housing, are the Government starting down the same road with housing associations? On the subject of disposals, I agree with the district councils which are concerned that increasing restrictions on the voluntary transfer process will inhibit the freedom of local authorities to make their own decisions regarding the management and ownership of their housing stock.
I shall now deal with the CCT regime as applied to housing management. We have said before that we are not opposed to competitive tendering. Indeed, we support measures to improve local authority services, but we are opposed to compulsion. We are especially opposed to compulsion which rides roughshod over those it affects most. Currently tenants have the right to be consulted to veto the extension of CCT to housing management. While I welcome the delegation of approval of management agreements to the local authority instead of the Secretary of State, surely the tenants themselves should have a right to say no. That right is not irrelevant. The Minister said that it was irrelevant this afternoon. If the Government refuse this right because they think they know best, that is paternalism of the worst kind.
The current consultation document, Tenant Involvement and the Right to Manage, was launched in December. It was claimed to be a significant advancement of tenants' rights. How are we to regard the statement in it that it should be for tenants and tenant organisations themselves to choose from a wide range of options the model for their level of involvement? The housing Minister has said that tenants deserve the best. However, it is not easy to determine what the Government's consultees think is the best way forward. The Department of the Environment tells us there were more than 450 responses to last summer's consultation on CCT for housing management. No doubt the Government will, as they say, take account of the results of that consultation. I always treat with caution that formula because one can take account of something while not
98
acting on it. As the department has not published the details of the responses, how are we to know what they are? That does not constitute open government.
I now turn to that other right to buy: leasehold enfranchisement and extension. I deliberately use the term "right to buy", as used in the Bill, to remind your Lordships that there are similarities in the issues raised. Broadly we, too, support these measures. The argument that an agreement freely entered into should not be overturned is a powerful one. I recognise that. But often it is the case that, while the agreement itself was freely entered into, the choice of the property was not. It is simply not the case that every long leaseholder could have bought a freehold property.
I, like many other noble Lords no doubt, must declare an interest in this matter as regards Chapter II of the Bill. I will potentially have a right to extend my current lease. In considering that interest, I realise I have owned—in the sense that that term is normally understood—only leasehold properties and never freehold properties over a period of 20 years because those were the properties that were available. Some 20 years ago one raced to buy any property and certainly at that time building societies considered that those who lived in leasehold properties owned their properties. That is still the case now. I understand the concerns of the good landlords of the great estates. Why should they be prejudiced by the action of bad landlords? However, it is the neglect, exploitation and fraud of the bad landlords that are at issue. That has meant that many leaseholders have less choice and less control over the enjoyment and security of their homes and less protection for their investment.
If we accept the underlying premise of the right to enfranchise or the right to extend, why are there restrictions in this area? Why exclude premises if more than 10 per cent. of floor space is non-residential? Many leaseholders will be excluded by that provision. The low rent test has attracted much criticism. The separate treatment of those entitled to enfranchisement and those entitled to extend their lease also seems to stop short of putting the principle into practice. In the real world rights will not be available because of the unwillingness of some tenants in a block to enfranchise. Should those tenants be in a position to scupper the right of other leaseholders? We should not permit a "pick 'n' mix" approach.
Whether some specialised types of housing should be exempt is a matter that needs to be explored. Charitable and non-charitable housing associations are concerned at the inclusion of sheltered housing schemes for elderly people. They are concerned that over time the specialised warden and care provisions may be discarded to save costs and the loss of an important housing provision will follow.
I am sure we will hear about conservation areas and other measures open to local planning authorities. Certainly those measures are better than they were, but they are not strong enough in their current form because planning authorities do not have the necessary resources or powers. However, that is an argument for ensuring that the powers are sufficient and not for exempting certain properties.

99
Poor management and the neglect of buildings in leasehold tenure are often apparent from the outside as well as the inside. We must ensure that provisions which address heritage concerns are appropriate. The frequent comment that is heard as regards so many aspects of this Bill is, "I simply want a good landlord". It is salutary to remind ourselves that the right to buy, in whatever sector, is not a solution to our current housing problems, neither for those who are without a home, nor for those in whatever sector who rightly say that the Government's actions and inaction have meant that, although they have the right to buy, they have no right to sell. Those people may well regard this Bill as interesting and not irrelevant but they will not regard it as a Bill that deals with the most urgent housing priorities.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has promised your Lordships tough and constructive opposition. We will, if I may say so, particularly welcome the constructive part, if and when it is forthcoming. Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me if, in the interests of time, I do not follow her in any detail. However, I welcome her broad and balanced approach to the problems.
I am neither landlord nor tenant but I am not unaware of the problems and difficulties that beset tenants. I wish particularly to stress that I am not unaware either of the ghastly problems and conditions which prevail in our inner cities. Those who use those conditions as a background for accusation should at least bear in mind that the dereliction has been growing up over many years.
My objection to the Bill and indeed my distaste for it spring from the fact that the Government seem to have adopted a broad brush approach to what is, admittedly, a very complicated and complex problem. They seem to be decreeing that this should be the end of long leases, no matter how or when they were arrived at, between whom, or under what circumstances. The noble Baroness made the point, and I agree, that governments should be more careful before they trample over agreements freely entered into simply on the very doubtful premise that they know best. If agreements freely reached are to be put on one side, and if the Bill registers a lack of concern as to the direction in which the benefits which result will fall, then I believe that the Government deserve some criticism.
I appreciate that my noble friend has the unwelcome task of representing others who decide policy, but I look forward during the passage of the Bill to hearing him expound the views of his right honourable friends on the future of leasehold property in this country. I had previously understood that the Government attach some importance to the survival of leaseholds but I now find it difficult to understand how anyone will be encouraged to let property in the future. There must surely be some apprehension that, whatever the Government may say now, this is far from being the last word on the subject.
I would have been able to overcome my distaste for the measure if it had paid more attention to the
100
question of the main home and the length of time a tenant had occupied that home. In the event, however, it is my impression from reading accounts of the Bill's progress in the other place that the Government seem to have put those considerations on one side.
I turn now to the question of charities. I am a governor of a charity which has a well run estate. The charity will lose a few houses but it is not a serious matter in the particular case. However, I seriously question whether the Government are right in not excluding charities from the operation of the Bill. We live in a time when generosity should be encouraged, and any indication from the Government that they are prepared lightly to put on one side the wishes of benefactors would be very undesirable and dangerous.
In the presence of a right reverend Prelate, who am I to speak? However, I should like to hear how the Government view the future of our beautiful cathedral closes, which have been preserved over hundreds of years. They are oases of beauty and calm in a world sadly short of both. I wonder what the future holds and what people will say if, as a result of the Bill, the beauty of those precincts is sacrificed at the whim of this particular Administration.
I wish also to raise the question of estate management. In London there are many examples of streets, crescents and squares whose beauty has been well preserved by good estate management. I expect my noble friend may say—and doubtless the answer will be found in the words of Mr. Bridges whom the noble Lord, Lord Williams, built up into such a figure —that there is full provision in the Bill. There is extensive provision, but I question whether it will work. Which landlord, having already lost the bulk of his estate to his tenants, will be prepared to stay on and engage in all the hassle of enforcing a complex management scheme? He will have neither the power nor the interest to do so. I sometimes suspect that governments have ears only for ornamental purposes, but I hope that the Government Front Bench will digest that concern and not treat it merely as ammunition flung at them from behind by someone who wants to be nasty. That is very far from my purpose.
I should like to offer more than the conventional apology. I am afraid that I shall not be here at the end of the debate. I know that practice and courtesy demand that one remains, but I have a very long-standing engagement tonight and I hope that I may be forgiven.
I should like to conclude on this note. If the aim of the Bill were simply to curb greedy landlords, to enforce the obligations of negligent landlords, or to give comfort to tenants who have long occupied the same premises as their only residence, then my approach to the Bill would be very different. As it is, I repeat the objection with which I opened my remarks, namely that the Government have taken a very broad brush to a highly complicated problem.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I was somewhat surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, thought it necessary to remind your Lordships to

101
declare an interest. In my experience noble Lords always do so. I make it clear that I have no such interest to declare.
I propose to confine my remarks to Part I of the Bill. I do so because it not only affects the great estates which have been mentioned but because it has a tremendous impact on tens of thousands of other landlords and tenants throughout the United Kingdom.
Reference has been made to contracts. My noble friend Lord Peyton has just done so, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. One of my reservations about the Bill is that it appears to disregard one of the fundamental aspects of Conservative philosophy in regard to contracts in that it does not recognise the sanctity of contracts unless—which I accept—there is an overriding public interest which requires it. In parts of this Bill there is no such overriding public interest.
The Bill contains provisions for the compulsory sale of flats by a private freeholder to a private, non-resident, leaseholder. That appears to me to offend the principle. It offers a benefit to one private individual over another private individual, and there is no public interest of which I am aware in the case of non-residents.
The argument which has been put forward in an attempt to justify the measure by those lobbying in support seems to rely on very thin precedents. One which has been prayed in aid is the 1833 slavery Act. I believe that we would accept that there was a public interest in that case, but times have changed. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the 1967 Act, but that Act enabled purchases to be made by resident occupiers—people who lived in the premises. There was clearly a public interest in that being permitted. This is different, and I shall try to develop it shortly.
Following what has been said earlier in this debate, may I make one reference to the position of long leaseholders under contract. First, when they entered into those leases they knew the terms that were on offer. They knew the period of the lease, the amount that was going to have to be paid, and they knew all the provisions. There is no doubt they took wise advice, and on wise advice they probably set up sinking funds. There is no sudden hardship on those terms for breaching that contract purely on the ground that they have a wasting asset. I wonder whether freeholders should be compelled to bale them out, and to give them, as well, a bonus.
The Bill does not, as the Conservative manifesto clearly did, confine the right to buy to those living in flats. I fully accept the Conservative manifesto. Certainly I support the increase in home ownership for which it aimed, and I would not dream of suggesting that there should be any reneging on those undertakings and pledges, but I ask what they were. The manifesto promised that the right to acquire the freehold of their block of flats at market rate would be given to "residential leaseholders living in such block." Leaseholders who live in a block which does not qualify will have a new right to buy an extended lease.
102
The whole emphasis in the manifesto and in the Conservative commitment has been to extend the benefits of home ownership. But the Bill appears to disregard completely the requirements for "living in" or "home ownership" so far as flats are concerned. The right to purchase is given to a leaseholder who may never have lived in the flat, may never have seen it, and has no intention of doing so.
I have been given an example—I do not know whether or not it is true—of a Libyan holding a long lease as an investment. He has never resided as a tenant in the flat. The tenant is someone on a short lease, although she has lived there for some 15 years. But under this Bill the Libyan will have the right to buy, not the resident who is living there. I am sure that that was never contemplated by those who read the manifesto. Under the 1967 Labour Act it was not possible. That Act provided that the purchaser should be resident, and have lived in the flat for three years or five years, or something like that.
There is also an equally unfortunate consequence of this Bill as it stands at the moment as regards those residents in a block of flats who do not qualify, or do not want the right to buy. They can become tenants of some unknown landlord. It may be their fellow tenants, or it may be the Libyan gentleman to whom I referred. It may be a Mr. Rackman who turns up from somewhere representing the 44 per cent. of the leaseholders, the minimum number, who are able to buy the flats, none of whom may ever have lived in the block of flats concerned. I ask, is that the intention of the Bill?
Are the tenants living there under this unknown, absentee landlord going to be better off than they are under the present landlord? Will they have better service agreements? Better management contracts than they have at the moment from those from whom the premises will be acquired? I wonder whether it is not a case of better the devil you know than the one you do not. I ask whether justice would be better done, and the terms of the manifesto fully implemented, if the right to buy were limited to long leaseholders with a resident qualification, as in 1967? It should permit too those who are disqualified to be able to buy an extension to their lease. That would be fairer to all.
The media—and I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Williams, from his opening speech—seem to suggest that these objections that I am airing are made on behalf of large central London estate owners. Of course, as will be raised in Committee, the arguments apply to them as they do to a number of others, such as National Heritage. But my concern is for the thousands of small freeholders who are going to be seriously affected. I have a letter that I received today, and with your Lordships' permission I shall read it. The letter says:
"I am a resident freeholder of a building divided into eight flats, and thus not covered by the 'resident freeholder' exemption in the Housing and Urban Development Bill.
"Most of the eight flats in the building are not lived in by home owners. They are owned by investors—by professional landlords and people not resident in the UK. One lessee used her flat for one week last year.
"This is my only residence. I know of two other neighbours in my sort of position. One is a widow of over 80 who has

103
owned the freehold of her building (seven flats) for forty years. Another in this square divided her own home into nine flats. She too is an elderly widow.
"I am a middle-aged single woman, an Oxford graduate, with poor health, who has been unemployed since my business had to close 12 years ago. I do not need this worry. I was advised to buy the freehold when it was for sale in order to secure the building's long-term good repair. I do not see why I should have to sell when a majority of the owners in the building are not even resident in the UK, and/or professional landlords."
I have had other letters, but that is an illustration of the hardship that will come upon people against whom I am quite sure the Bill was not intended to act, and certainly were given no warning under the manifesto that this would be so. There are many other special cases which do not appear to have been contemplated when compiling the Bill, and I am sure they can be ironed out in Committee. There are such cases as leaseholds which are nominally residential but which are in fact used for business purposes. Harley Street is a case in point. We can get round to those cases in Committee. Despite the title of the Bill, which suggests that it is purely an urban problem, there are also those who will be faced with considerable problems that will arise in the countryside. Houses there that will have been let on long leases in circumstances that will give persons who may, or may not be, resident there the right to buy. Again, that is a matter we can deal with in Committee.
I support the Bill in so far as it carries out pledges that we gave in the manifesto. I find grave difficulty in accepting some parts of the Bill outside those pledges, because I believe they will cause much unfairness.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, in making my contribution to this Second Reading debate on the Bill may I first apologise to the noble Lord the Minister for my absence from my place. He may not have noticed it, but in fact I was dealing with a telephone call from the Law Society of Scotland. Therefore, I did not hear what he had to say about the Scottish element in the Bill, if indeed he said anything about it, but I shall look at it in due course in Hansard.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course I accept the noble Lord's apology. I can say to him that I certainly dealt with the Scottish provisions in the Bill.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I shall look with care at what he said.
It will be fairly obvious from the list of speakers in this debate that I shall be speaking to the purely Scottish element—or tartan element, as you like to call it down here—of the Bill. In so doing I lodge, not for the first time, a protest at the manner in which Scottish interests are dealt with in legislation. The main thrust of this Bill —and it has become perfectly obvious from the speeches we have heard so far—is to deal with English and Welsh matters, and is completely alien to the Scottish legal system, housing system, and so on. Scotland has been slotted into a Bill containing 171 clauses. Fifteen of those 171 clauses deal with Scotland, plus three others which are of little significance.
104
Any legal practitioner in Scotland looking for guidance to find out what the housing law in Scotland will be would not easily find it by looking at the Long Title of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Williams referred to the Short Title, but in the Long Title there is only one reference out of 26 lines to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. That is quite a preposterous situation. It again emphasises this Government's inability to prepare legislation for Scotland so that Scottish people can have their own way of dealing with it, and, where a Bill makes major changes to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, their inability to have it properly considered outwith the context of English and Welsh legislation.
I ask the Minister why no identifiably Scottish Bill has been introduced, rather than putting a Scottish element, almost in passing, into the Bill. In another place the Minister described it as a "United Kingdom Bill". Looking at the list of speakers, up to this point, anyone will readily see that it is not a United Kingdom Bill; it deals with a particular situation south of the Border. It is wrong in principle that Scottish legislation should be dealt with in this off-hand way. Of Course, if the Government have problems in another place they should face up to them and do something about them.
Once again the Government give fuel to those who cry out for devolution and a break from the United Kingdom so that Scottish legislation which does not affect the UK can be properly discussed and dealt with. The process followed in this Bill should make the Government think again, as part of the so-called "taking stock" exercise of Scottish legislation, about what is the proper procedure for dealing with legislation purely relating to Scotland. Whether that amounts to giving the Scottish Grand Committee full legislative powers, or otherwise, is a matter for them.
The principle behind the Bill—and here I reach the point of the Bill; namely, the rent-to-loan scheme—will plainly not be defeated. What has to be faced is the scrutiny of the proposed legislation with a view to improving it.
Having examined the provisions relating to Scotland, and having glanced through the others, I must say that as a lawyer—let alone as a layman affected by the Bill—this is nothing more nor less than a welter of legislative terms, many of which are not readily understandable even to a lawyer. Phrases such as "the initial capital payment", "the "deferred financial commitment", "the resale value of the house", "the initial notice of delay", "the response period", "the operative notice of delay", "the qualifying improvement work", "the qualifying person" and many other terms in the Bill, even with the attempted definitions, are almost impossible to understand. It has been pointed out to me that in Clause 127, amending the Scottish Bill, the proposed Section 73C is like a bad mathematics lecture in statutory form. Those are typical examples of a legislative nightmare even with the definitions, which are not readily understandable to anyone.
There will be many criticisms of the Bill in due course, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has already said. I take Clause 131 as an example. It

105
concerns the right to have repairs carried out, but nowhere in the clause does the citizen appear to have any right to specify the contractor. The Bill refers to "the usual contractor", but nowhere does the Bill state that a tenant can choose his own contractor. What happens if a tenant finds out who the usual contractors are and they turn out to be a bunch of building bandits or cowboys? The tenant may not trust any of those people. Does he have the right to say, "You may have your list of contractors, but here's the man I want to do the job and I'll abide by the work that he does"? I wonder where the Citizen's Charter fits into all this. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in due course.
The nonsensical style of the Bill is epitomised in Clause 132, at page 140. I give an example of legislative gobbledegook:
"(3) Compensation shall not be payable if—

(a) the improvement is not of a prescribed description; or

(b) the tenancy comes to an end in prescribed circumstances; or

(c) compensation has been paid under section 58 in respect of the improvement; or

(d) the amount of any compensation which would otherwise be payable is less than such amount as may be prescribed;

and for the purposes of this subsection a prescribed description may be framed by reference to any circumstances whatever".
If any noble Lords can tell me what that means I shall be glad to meet them outside during the course of the debate, having in due course heard the Minister. I believe that that typifies the style of the Bill which has already been referred to by other noble Lords. It just does not make any sense.
In passing, perhaps I may also observe that in Clause 127—and I hope I refer to the right copy of the Bill—there is a reference to passing on property to a partner. The partner appears to be envisaged in the Bill as only the husband or wife. I wonder how that fits in with modern social structures. What happens, for example, in relation to the so-called stable homosexual partnerships or stable lesbian partnerships? What happens where property is passed between a father and son, mother and daughter, brother and sister? No provision is made in the Bill for that to take place.
It may be that the Government will wish to have another look at that clause in the Bill. So far as I can see, there is no definition of "husband/wife" for the purposes of the Bill. That could create social and legal confusion in due course. It may be—indeed, this was suggested by the Law Society of Scotland—that the Government will wish to take the advice of the Law Commission.
Most of the legislation as concerns Scotland is politically designed to put pressure on local authority landlords to move quickly to ensure the transfer from tenant to owner in mortgage terms. It punishes the local authority financially by reducing the price payable by rent offsetting provisions. It takes no account of staff costing within an authority acting under pressure. I should like to know whether the
106
Government will give an undertaking to entertain applications from local authorities to offset the cost of administering the Bill.
Optimistic views are expressed on the assessment of the financial effects of the Bill, suggesting that they will be "minimal" and "neglible", but it is noticeable that no figure is put on its possible financial effects. With local authorities under severe pressure it seems to me that it is putting an additional financial burden on the local authority for which the Government should pay, because the Secretary of State has a hand in everything that is happening.
When it comes to the publication of standards and performance, local authorities have to publish each year their view of their standard and performance. Since the Secretary of State obliges local authorities to do that, will he undertake to meet the cost—independent of any other local authority business—of funding the publication and its distribution?
Before I conclude, I refer to Clause 138, which is the most obnoxious clause in the Bill as it stands. I believe that your Lordships should hear it in full because it makes an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 It states:
"A member of a local authority shall be excluded from a decision on the allocation of local authority housing, or of housing in respect of which the local authority may nominate the tenant, where—

(a) the house in question is situated; or

(b) the applicant for the house in question resides,

in the electoral division or ward for which that member is elected".
I pose this question: if that is the approach of the Government, why on earth do we elect local councillors at all? Who best to know who should get a house? Who best to know who the anti-social tenant may be who should not get a house within the ward?
In Committee in another place the Minister stated:
"It is undesirable for allocation decisions to be taken in that way. We believe that such decisions should normally be made on the basis of clear and objective rules. That can be achieved by excluding from the decision those members in whose electoral division or ward in which the applicant currently resides. The intention of that provision will be generally welcomed".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 15/12/92; col. 729.]
Unfortunately, the Minister did not say from whom the welcome would come. In considering the terms of the clause (which then had a different number) he went on to say:
"On one hand, we needed to draft the provision tightly enough to prevent individual councillors from exercising unreasonable powers of patronage; on the other hand, we needed to ensure that councillors could continue to perform their proper role of representing their constituents' interests". —[Col. 730.]
How on earth can those two objectives be achieved? They are self-contradictory. Either the councillor performs his functions within his ward or he does not. The Minister went on to say that the proposal,
"will achieve its aim of preventing blatant examples of unreasonable patronage, yet continue to recognise the important role that councillors rightly have".—[Col. 730.]
What on earth was the Minister saying? I do not understand it. How can a councillor fulfil the important role that he rightly has and not have an interest in the allocation of housing?
I should like to ask the Minister whether he can tell us, either now or later, on what factual basis the

107
observations made by the Minister in another place were made? Which councillors are we talking about? Which areas are we talking about? Which towns are we talking about? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, smiles to suggest that perhaps I know the answer. I know the answer but in some places there have been rumours—and confirmed instances—of councillors who have acted dishonestly. The Palace of Westminster is not immune to corruption and deceit. No doubt in the past Members of both Houses have and in future will succumb to that. But to put a blanket provision in a Bill of this nature that condemns the councillors of Scotland and to say, "You have been elected by the local people but we cannot trust you to make an objective decision", is an insult not only to the individual councillors of Scotland but to the people of Scotland who are looking for houses.
I should like the Government to put down in the Library, or anywhere else, a table of councillors who are believed to be corrupt and houses that have been the subject of corrupt allocation. If they cannot answer that question they should take this obnoxious clause out of the Bill and bury it where it belongs. We will wait to see what the provision is for England and Wales. At lunchtime today I had a brief conversation with the Minister. He indicated that he thought there was a similar provision for England and Wales. I do not believe that that appears in the text of the Bill, but if there is a similar provision I am surprised that it has got through either this House or the other place without considerable dispute and contest.
These issues are raised from purely a Scottish point of view, as I hope will have become clear, and I look forward to the Minister's observations at the close of the debate. No doubt these matters will be taken up at a later stage as indicated by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel.
4.24 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am a little concerned to follow the pointing finger about corruption in both Houses. If it is so, I believe that the finger should be pointed more specifically rather than at all of us. I hope that the noble Lord is not expecting us to pay too much attention to that point.
I welcome the Bill. Like others, I must declare an interest. Although I do not live in a leasehold property I have an interest in a flat that I own. Since coming to this country from Australia I have gone to great trouble to live in a freehold house. I believe that my first home was a leasehold property, but when I knew enough about leasehold properties I went to great trouble to find a freehold property in which to live because I strongly resented the enormous number of restrictions attaching to leasehold properties. For example, one was not allowed to put up a blind, use a particular colour of paint and so forth. I was also stunned that at the end of the lease the property usually reverted to the ground landlord, even if he had not built the property in the first place. The leaseholder of the property usually had to return it to
108
the ground landlord in its top quality condition when first built—possibly 99 or more years earlier. That is a very onerous burden on leaseholders.
I know of many cases of elderly widows living in leasehold houses. Unlike the situation that applied in the days when their husbands had quite a lot of money, the houses are restricted to one-family ownership and so cannot be sub-let to relieve the financial burden. The occupants may be down to the last half-dozen or perhaps three or four years of a 99-year lease. They simply cannot sell those properties, much as they desperately need to do so, because the policy of the ground landlords is that they will not allow anyone to be told anything about the new terms that may be granted under a new lease if those properties are up for sale. They are caught in a Catch 22 situation. No one will buy: a person will not know what he is letting himself in for. Therefore, they cannot sell if they are simply refused an opportunity to consider a new lease. In the case of many leases that have run 99 years in London and are now being renewed, the ground rent is set as a percentage of the capital value or the freehold value of the property. That may be a frightening and almost open-ended commitment for someone. I do not believe that anyone could have envisaged that property would have doubled in value a few years ago. The ground rent could have doubled.
I welcome the changes of values to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. I know of many people whom I consider to be very badly treated at the moment who will benefit from that. It is interesting to note that when the Church Commissioners voluntarily offered freeholds to people in large areas of London not everyone took them up. In some cases they felt they were too old to bother; in others the freeholds were sold separately and independently to different people. In the case of one house where I lived in the sixties I had to buy the leasehold and freehold interests separately and put them together. That is where the marriage value in this Bill comes in. At the time I bought the property—for £27,000—I was told that to pay so much for the freehold as for the remaining 17 years of lease was a terrible waste of money. However, at that time, unless I could obtain the freehold, I had no hope of getting a mortgage to buy the property. I believe that those restrictions were imposed by the Wilson Government at the time. The banks were not allowed to lend to anyone with short leasehold property.
The same situation applies today, not because the Government decree it but because it is the policy of the building societies. I declare that I am a director of a building society. The building societies will not lend on properties where there is less than 25 years remaining after the mortgage is taken into account. The reason is that the building societies are using their members' money to help other people to buy houses and they have to be sure that at the end of the period there is sufficient security in the property. We all know that at the moment negative equity is occurring in a large number of cases. I believe it is understandable that the building societies and other lending authorities require the equivalent of a 50-year lease in

109
order to grant a 25-year mortgage so that 25 years remain at the end. That greatly disadvantages many people who wish to buy a flat.
As I understand the terms of the Bill, each person occupying a flat in a block will have the same voting power as any other occupier. I would appreciate clarification of that point at the end of the debate. Service charges for blocks of flats are usually set according to the area. However, I understand that if one has a flat that is twice as large as somebody else's, one will not have two votes but just one. I should like to know exactly how that percentage is calculated. I am unhappy with the figure of £1,000 as the low rent figure because there are far too many properties where £1,001 is the current rent. It seems to me that either the people who set the figure at £1,001 have had too much influence or that the Government do not realise just how many properties are at that figure. I hope that amendments in this House will change that figure to at least £1,500 or possibly remove the restriction altogether.
I am unhappy that properties—I speak specifically of flats—are ineligible or unqualified for enfranchisement. I may be wrong and it may be only one of those two categories that will not have any right to longer leases. One cannot have both—either a longer lease or an enfranchisement. If the other people in the block of flats will not agree to an enfranchisement, one does not have the option of a longer lease. That is quite worrying.
Discussion has taken place regarding council tenants managing their own estates. In theory it is a marvellous idea. But my GLC housing experience, when I was a district housing chairman, indicated that it is not as easy as it sounds. In those days we had tenants' associations which did not do the actual management but did a great deal of the day-to-day running. It was extremely difficult to find people who were competent, willing and able to give the time required for that.
Management of anything the size of a council estate requires a lot of skill. It is important to remember the recent scandal, for example, in Lambeth Council, about which we heard. As long as I can remember in local government there have been scandals about building contractors being paid for work that either was not done or was not done well. Therefore, if people are given the right to run their own blocks of flats, it is important that there should be some sort of scrutiny. Most of the people in the blocks of flats will not be too interested in following up work carried out and there would be an opportunity for unscrupulous people to come in and make the most of loopholes in terms of building repairs. The noble Lord who spoke before me made an interesting but different point in regard to what would happen if one did not like the contractor. But there is a need for a lot of control over the contract of works.
Can the Minister say whether, if the councils have to transfer the block of flats to the people, they have to give a dowry for repairs? How will that be dealt with? Under the present circumstances there are some
110
cases where the councils have to give quite large dowries to the company to which the estate is being transferred.
Many leaseholders will be disappointed by the Bill. Apart from the points I am making, which will change the Bill if the amendments are accepted, many leaseholders believe that it will give them money in their pockets. They are quite wrong. Many leaseholders will be disappointed by the fairness of compensation that will be offered to the landlords. I am not opposed to landlords being fairly compensated. It is a good provision in the Bill. But many leaseholders do not have an appreciation of the fact that one will not obtain the freehold for nothing. That is another reason why it is particularly important that those who cannot obtain the consent of others in the block to buy the freehold should have a right to longer leases. Many people will feel that they cannot afford the cost of buying a part of the freehold and that may disadvantage the others who would like to extend their leases.
My noble friend Lord Peyton mentioned management, schemes. I believe that they are working well in protecting the visual appearance of squares in London and I see no reason why they cannot continue to work well. In addition, local authorities have rights and duties to ensure that property is maintained to a certain standard. They can take action to see that it is if the landlord or owner fails to do so.
My noble friend Lord Boardman made the point that landlords will be able to change without the tenants knowing. That is no different to what happens now. One can find one's block of flats sold by one pension fund to another or one owner to another without the tenants having any idea that the freehold has changed. Many tenants obtain leases from head lessors and not directly from the bound landlord. Therefore there will be no change. Whoever owns the block, if it is not the tenants themselves, it will not be significantly different. I believe that there are other powers to ensure that the block is managed well.
I welcome the Bill and hope that as it goes through the Committee and other stages we will be able to persuade the Government to accept amendments to improve it.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I wish I could share the enthusiasm of my noble friend Lady Gardner for the Bill, although I appreciate and am impressed by the points she made with such clarity.
I have heard it said that Part I of the Bill is in the honourable Conservative tradition of reform of land tenure. Legislation compelling an owner of property to sell it to a tenant for less than its potential market value in breach of an existing contract is already in place. As we have been reminded, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 followed by the 1974 Act were both brought in by the party opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, thoroughly approves of the underlying principle.
Sir Robert Megarry, former Vice-Chancellor of the Supreme Court, referring to the principle underlying

111
the 1967 Act that under a building lease the land belongs in equity to the landowner and a house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder, said,
"Whatever political or social expediency there was in this principle it is difficult to perceive any equity in it in any sense of the word".
The Government justify the appropriation of property through leasehold enfranchisement by comparing it with compulsory purchase for development. That has long been accepted on the principle of the greater public good overriding private property rights. I do not believe that the comparison is a good one. The 1967 Act was part of a series of enactments passed by the Labour Party with the object of improving the position of the tenants of private landlords. Therefore, inequitable though it may have been in principle, that Act at least had a social justification. It was aimed at removing injustices suffered by leaseholders at the poorer end of the housing market.
I am at a loss to find any social justification in the Bill which extends the right of enfranchisement into the top end of the market. There is no relief in the Bill for the poor and deprived. If a tenant can sell enfranchised property at an enhanced price, it is like robbing the rich to pay the rich. That is not to say that I am unaware that many tenants of high-value leasehold property want a reformed system. They have grievances. Landlords of flats are failing to perform their obligations. There are exorbitant charges.
But those were the kinds of abuse with which the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was meant to deal. If that Act is not working properly—as is admitted by the Government—then it would have been better for the Government to reform their own Act so that it does work rather than go down this dubious route.
I share some of the concerns of my noble friend Lord Peyton. I remember gathering information for a debate on housing in this House, when we were in Opposition in the 1970s, and being told by a senior civil servant in a regional office,
"The private rented sector is in terminal decline and, the sooner it is finished off, the better".
Whether or not that was the view then of the party opposite, I believe that the Labour Government of the 1960s and 1970s were trying with the best intentions by means of their Rent and Housing Acts and Leasehold Reform Acts to improve the lot of tenants in the private sector. However, the effect on the supply of private houses coming forward for renting was marked. The decline of the private rented sector was accelerated. What is known to some of us as "Earl Ferrers' law" began to operate. It states that,
"the effect of any legislation is invariably contrary to the intentions of those who promoted it".
Now the Government are repeatedly on record that they want to support private letting, and indeed they have legislated to reverse this decline.
I am particularly concerned with the problems facing our rural areas. Young people are finding it more and more difficult to buy houses and are looking for houses to rent. These are increasingly becoming available often on assured shorthold tenancies. This Bill does not hit directly at the private rented sector in
112
the countryside, but what it may do —this was the worry of my noble friend Lord Peyton—is to undermine confidence on the part of owners of lettable houses. If a Conservative Government can compel the sale of council houses, can endorse the purchase of long leasehold houses on comparatively unfavourable terms and can extend leasehold enfranchisement for no obvious socially justifiable reasons, what, they may ask, will be the next target for land tenure reform?
The Government have chosen this particular road to reform, so we in this House must do our best to improve Part I of the Bill. Noble Lords have indicated where amendments are desirable. To those I would add that freeholders of high value houses are not, whatever the Government may say, given adequate compensation. There is inconsistency as between freehold house owners and flat owners. Special treatment should be available both for heritage property and for houses managed for charitable purposes, as the Bill already provides in the case of flats managed for charitable purposes.
Finally, I would ask the Government to confirm their undertaking to provide for compensation for injurious affection in respect of "1993 houses" and that they will apply this consistently with the "1974 and 1967 houses". I very much hope that the Government will look favourably at these suggestions during the later phases of the Bill.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Middleton will not find that I am in agreement with all that much of what he has said but he will learn that I approve in the same way of the words of Sir Robert Megarry which he quoted in relation to the 1967 Act.
I am today speaking in support of the first part of the Bill on collective enfranchisement and lease extensions, especially in relation to flats. I have an interest to declare. I am the lessee of a flat in a block of eight flats and all of us are entitled under the Bill to collective enfranchisement. The block is in Kensington, so it is right that I should pay tribute to the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who for so long ploughed the field of flat enfranchisement on behalf of his constituents, and also to Dudley Fishburn in another place, who has recently played his not inconsiderable part in keeping enfranchisement before the eyes of the Government and in bringing it into the Conservative election manifesto last year.
I shall be speaking to a number of amendments during the later stages' of the Bill. I shall touch on one or two of those in a general way this afternoon. Long leases in relation to flats in blocks are not part of our national heritage. They are a relatively modern phenomenon, coming during the past 50 years. Difficulties with the enforcement of positive covenants may have played some part in bringing them about, but long lease flats are largely the result of the statutory rent controls and security of tenure of the early and middle decades of this century, which left landlords with no practical alternative but to sell their flats on long leases rather than to rent them to tenants. This created a speculative market and any number of intractable problems which are coming to plague us

113
now. I would add my personal view that the reverse of that coin is the inflation of the past 20 or so years and the fiscal incentives which have turned a whole generation of home seekers away from the desire to rent and caused them to rush headlong into buying these flats.
Leaseholders affected by the ill effects of this form of tenure are not just those found in the crumbling mansion blocks of Maida Vale, whose Member of Parliament, my right honourable friend Sir John Wheeler, so strongly supported in another place during the early stages of the Bill there. These leaseholders are also to be found in the turn-of-the-century terraces of houses, now cheaply converted into long lease flats, in traditional Labour voting areas. I could give as an example Finsbury Park—not leafy Finsbury, but the parts of North Islington, far beyond the Georgian squares of Islington that we know.
I have heard it suggested in some quarters that the Bill is about a power struggle between some rich lessees and their landlords. Nothing could be further from the truth. The back streets of the seaside towns, the outer areas of inner London and the inner areas of our provincial cities have their stories to tell of the one- and two-bedroom leasehold flats of low income working people. The Bill is for them. Let there be no doubt about that.
The Minister has given some of the reasons why, as a matter of public policy, the Government have determined that the end is desirable. I stress that the leasehold system, for flats particularly, strikes at social cohesion, promotes a "them and us" culture, saps the personal responsibility of the citizen for his home, limits the transferability and mortgageability of property, adversely affects the value of flats, brings about serious deterioration in the housing stock and provides opportunities for fraud against the flat owner. This system persists in this country almost alone in the world.
So I heartily congratulate the Government on this legislation. It is one of the reforms of the law of land tenure which the changing needs of our people seem to call forth every fifty years or so. It is comparable perhaps to the legislation of 1925, or, looking back a little further, to the Copyhold Act of 1894, under which copyhold owners were given the opportunity to buy out their lords, enfranchise their copyholds and extinguish the feudal manorial incidents. It is by measures such as this one that in the long run, when we are all dead, the rights of property will be seen to have been preserved. I say that to my noble friend Lord Middleton, who has taken a contrary view.
Your Lordships will not have failed to notice that it was the promise of enfranchisement, from the Conservative manifesto, that John Major homed in on, from his soap box as it were, in the final lonely hours of his election campaign last year. But I have to tell the House that the Act will have only a limited success if the Bill is not amended. The Government and the Department of the Environment, having willed the end, are in danger of failing to provide the means. There is a real danger that the Act may turn
114
out to be no more than a paving Act providing a flawed mechanism by which enfranchisement can be achieved but without actually making it possible in practice for more than a very few flats to be enfranchised.
Turning to specific points in the Bill, it is evident to me that the Bill must provide—this is what the Government have tried to achieve—fairness to the landlord whose property is being expropriated, coupled with an effective machinery for bringing about the enfranchisement objective. The question of fairness to landlords brings me to Schedule 5, which sets the price to be paid by flat owners for enfranchisement. It is a matter to which we shall come back in Committee, but, if enfranchisement is to take place, the price must be both fair to landowners and a price which flat owners will and can pay.
Price will have to be looked at in conjunction with the other hurdles which stand in the way of enfranchisement in the Bill. It is a complete fiction that flat owners will be standing with their cheque books in their hands when the Bill becomes law, ready to pay whatever price Parliament fixes. From my own professional and personal experience I testify to the fact that there are not many blocks of flats in which the flat owners will cope with all the realities of collective enfranchisement. The expense and uncertainty attendant on the preliminary stages before even the initial notice is served, will alone prove a serious deterrent to many flat owners.
Yet some have said that the price should be higher. We have heard cries of, "daylight robbery", and "windfall profit" from time to time during the past few months. It may be that we shall hear those words again. I am confident that the Minister will answer those cries as effectively as did the Secretary of State in another place two weeks ago.
I remind the House that many on these Benches and in other parts of the House who deplored the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 did not do so because it involved the transfer of property from one citizen to another. That was in the Conservative manifesto at the time. They did so because of the grossly unfair compensation terms which freeholders received.
I wish too to mention Section 23 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986, which may not be familiar to many. It closed a loophole and provided a fairer measure of compensation for the freeholders of houses in the higher rateable value bands who were given the right of enfranchisement by the 1974 amendment to the 1967 Act. It was I 'who pressed for and moved the amendment which brought about the change in the law. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that I can claim that no other amendment of the 1967 Act has from 1967 until this day been made in the landlords' interests by either Government or private Member. Therefore I believe that I may make some claim to an understanding of the right of a landlord to be fairly compensated when I remind the House today that under the Bill a flat owner will only be able to enfranchise on compensation terms which are very fair indeed to the freeholder.
In Standing Committee, Sir George Young said that marriage value was the sum left over when you

115
deducted from the value of a block of flats with vacant possession the sum of the investment value of the freehold reversion and the aggregate values of the flat owners' leases. In the example that he quoted—I believe it to have been a representative one—the freehold was worth £30,000 and the leases with 50 years unexpired were worth £1,600,000. On that basis the marriage value was £370,000 and the freeholder would receive a premium on enfranchisement of half that sum; that is, £185,000. That can hardly be said to be a bad return on investment. That example shows just how generous the Bill is to freeholders.
One question perplexes me, and I have given the Minister notice of it. It is perplexing, when the price to be paid by flat owners is said to be the market price, to learn from the Bill in paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 that the marriage value will be shared as the market would share it but that the freeholder will never get less than 50 per cent. of that value. There is a logical conflict which has caused considerable worry among flat owners. Some say, however, that the Government's actual intention is that, apart from exceptional cases where there are special facts, the freeholder will not receive more than 50 per cent, except at the very end, say in the last year of a lease's life. If the Minister can confirm that to me, it will give much relief to many worried leaseholders.
On the other hand, if the Minister says that there are many cases where freeholders may receive substantially more than 50 per cent. of the marriage value, perhaps he will square the circle and explain why the freeholder will never get less than 50 per cent. of marriage value when what the Government are trying to do is to replicate market conditions.
My other enfranchisement concern is about the requirement that enfranchising flat owners must buy the non-qualifying flats in a block. I can best illustrate this aspect by taking the example of a late Victorian mansion block in Maida Vale. In such areas, there are numerous blocks containing flats which have been sold on long leases over the years. The opportunity to sell the long leases has arisen when the old Rent Act-protected and statutory tenancies have fallen in. Nevertheless, there still remain substantial numbers of flats let to statutory tenants on fair rents in those blocks. In one such block, Morshead Mansions, there are 79 long lease flats with about 80 years unexpired which may wish to enfranchise, and 25 fair rent flats. The reversions to the 25 fair rent flats are worth in total about £1 million. That is very much more than the value of the reversions to the 79 long leases. The 25 flats produce net rents of only £43,000 a year, a return of just over 4 per cent. There is no way in which the qualifying tenants can borrow against that flow of income to finance more than a part of the price of the fair rent reversions. The freeholder of such a block is not covering his borrowing costs and cannot even afford to carry out the repairs.
The freeholder's main interest in the block is speculative —a gamble on the fair rent tenants dying or leaving so that he can sell more long leases. Yet the Bill requires the enfranchising flat owners to buy the reversions to those tenancies unless the freeholder requires a leaseback. The qualifying tenants are in a
116
very difficult situation when they wish to enfranchise. They will take all the lengthy and expensive preliminary steps to arrange finance to enable them to buy the Rent Act tenancies, and they may or may not be successful. However, they can be certain of one thing: that, when they have arranged everything and all is in place, the freeholder will step in and ask for his leasebacks. That is a point on which amendments will need to be moved in Committee. There must be some better way of dealing with what is a real disincentive to flat owners embarking on the collective enfranchisement course.
I turn now to lease extensions. I have no doubt that that is one of the most important elements of Part I of the Bill. The debates in Standing Committee seem to me to show that the Government have it wrong. The claims of the non-enfranchising lessees to have lease extensions were pressed in the Commons, in particular by Opposition spokesmen. The Government listened but did not give. The Bill provides that the lease extensions can be permitted only where collective enfranchisement is legally not possible. I refer to cases such as those where fewer than two-thirds of the flats are held on long leases, or where more than 10 per cent. of the block is let commercially.
What seems to have been overlooked in the preparation of the Bill is that any lessee who did not participate in a collective enfranchisement would lose his right to do so in the future except with the consent of the lessees who had enfranchised and had become his landlords. He would have no right to an extended lease. His lease would be second class and less valuable. The reason given by the Government for resisting the liberalising of the right to lease extensions was that the intention is said to be to bring about the end of the long leasehold system. The argument continued that anything which gave an excuse for leaseholders not to join in the collective enfranchisement was to be discouraged. What is so illogical about the argument is that, unless the collective enfranchisement is seen as a step towards commonhold, we shall finish up in many cases with the long leasehold system continuing much as before but with first class lessees inside and second class lessees outside the enfranchising freehold-owning company. My honourable friend Sir George Young made it quite clear in Standing Committee that it is no part of the Government's thoughts that collective enfranchisement should lead to commonhold.
We now have the red pamphlet from the Lord Chancellor's department entitled, Commonhold—the Way Ahead. The pamphlet states that all the long leaseholders in a block will need to agree for conversion to commonhold to take place. It is made quite clear, therefore, that, except in cases where only a few flats are involved, only new blocks and new conversions will be owned in that new way. The long leasehold system will continue on its way unabated and in some cases in a more perverse form than before. The pamphlet makes clear the lack of a truly firm commitment to commonhold and strengthens the case for liberalising the provisions of the Bill relating to lease extensions.

117
Finally, I am sure that it will not have escaped attention that the lease extension option, seen as an alternative to collective enfranchisement, has two advantages. By providing the possibility to flat owners of not enfranchising, the liberalising of the lease extension option would satisfy those who feel, as I do, that not all landlords need lose their freeholds by enfranchisement. It would also be in the interests of, and in accordance with the wishes of, the not inconsiderable number of flat owners who are, let it be said, satisfied with the existing management of their buildings. Why should they be socially engineered into enfranchisement in order to protect their homes? With that question, I leave the Bill to the House and commend Part I.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, this Bill is probably one of the most controversial measures which has come before your Lordships in this Session. It will be greatly welcomed by about 750,000 long leaseholders of flats and no doubt fervently denounced by the freeholders of very large properties in London and other cities throughout England and Wales.
Like other noble Lords, in respect of Part I of the Bill, I must declare an interest since, as a long leaseholder, I may stand to benefit when the legislation is enacted. However, that situation will not occur if one of the exclusions currently contained in the Bill is not modified. I refer to the rule that excludes any block of flats containing more than 10 per cent. of non-residential premises by floor space. If that condition is retained at that low percentage, I believe that a significant number of buildings, which in every other respect are suitable for conversion, will be disqualified, thus partially defeating the objective purpose of the Bill. When the Minister winds up, I hope he will explain the rationale for that limitation. Nevertheless, I support the Bill as an appropriate and desirable modernisation of the housing regime.
In a free society it should be a basic right for an individual to continue to own outright an asset for which he has paid full value at the time of acquisition. Any curtailment of that right cannot have any validity in a democratic society. That right has been denied under the leasehold regime which has existed for some years in England and Wales.
But this Bill is in fact an extension of the principle involved in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 which, for whatever reasons, was not extended to residential flats. I believe that the argument that these proposals interfere with "contracts freely entered into" has little force since the principle was affirmed by the 1967 legislation with no apparent disastrous results. The basic concept existed then, as it does now, and the reason that a freehold contract was not readily available was because enabling legislation such as we are discussing today, did not exist. But whatever that situation may be, the objectives must be achieved fairly.
Apart from the anomaly to which I have referred, I believe that this Bill strikes an equitable balance in the equation. The rights of the landlord to establish a
118
legitimate price for the surrender of the freehold are reasonable. The position of the leaseholder to acquire an enduring equity in the property for which he has paid full value seems to be adequately protected. Therefore, one would hope that in the last analysis there would be no reason why these conditions are not acceptable to both parties.
Historically, the fraught relationship between landlords and tenants has been a source of turbulent discontent since feudal times. It has frequently erupted into insurrection and even revolution. The natural human aspiration has always been the outright ownership of the land and property which he or she could succeed to acquire. No matter what sacrifices may be involved, that objective will be pre-eminent in the minds of men and women. It is time therefore that this country, which has shown the way to social emancipation over many years, should take the appropriate action to resolve an anomalous situation with respect to the tenure of property that exists in almost no other developed country in the world. I hope that the Bill will at least go as far as possible —given the adoption of some important amendments —to achieve what must be a wholly desirable objective.
In conclusion, I should like to echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in respect to the Bill as a whole. I agree with him that in as compendious a piece of legislation as this, there appear to be no significant measures to address the problem of the lack of housing and the grisly spectacle of homelessness which is still with us.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Kindersley: My Lords, there is a danger of repetition when so many speakers are critical of a government Bill from whatever angle they may be coming at it. But there are some things which bear repetition to make sure that the message is well and truly received by this Government. I can only hope that by the end of this debate the ornamental ears referred to by my noble friend Lord Peyton will have understood the real purpose of their design and will listen—a characteristic which seems to have been notably absent up to this point in government quarters.
I must now declare an interest as chairman of Henry Smith's Charity which owns about 70 acres in Kensington. It was bought by the original trustees in the early 17th century and a very farsighted investment it has proved to be. Judging by many of the remarks made in the other place on both sides of the Chamber, that is now regarded not as an enlightened investment, but as an unfair privilege which must be stripped from the charity and distributed by forced sale to our tenants. It is a far cry, one would think, from the Government's policy of encouragement to entrepreneurs and to investment in the future which was the basis of the original decision of our trustees.
However, there is not much point at this stage in moaning about the principles underlying this unfair piece of retrospective legislation when a majority government have made it quite clear that nothing will make them change their minds. Much support is

119
visible through the politics of envy which are transparent in the comments of members of both government and opposition parties.
Envy surely cannot extend to a charity with thousands of beneficiaries who are in a considerably worse plight than the tenants of our Kensington estate. Is it really unreasonable to suggest that charities should be exempted from this legislation? I hope that your Lordships think that it is not. However, if the Government continue to turn an ornamental ear to this suggestion, would not your Lordships feel that any windfall gain arising from the forced sale of its freehold should go entirely to the charity and its beneficiaries? Again, that seems not unreasonable. If we as trustees do not do our utmost to ensure that this happens, we should rightly be censured by the Charity Commissioners for failing in our duties towards our beneficiaries. Neither the present drafting of the Bill nor the comments made by its architect, the Minister, Sir George Young, give us any confidence at all on that point.
If there is to be no change and we are forced not only to sell but to share the marriage value with the leaseholder, surely that windfall gain should go only to those who use their flats as their principal private residence. It would be too ridiculous to hand out such a gain at the expense of the charity to the many companies, mostly based overseas, which use the estate.
Leasehold reform is claimed to be a manifesto commitment which must be honoured. But, if one reads it carefully, the manifesto makes it clear that the pledge is to home owners, and the Bill should surely reflect that by including a "principal private residence" clause or something very similar.
Finally, there is a factor which transcends the mercenary elements to which I have referred but which nevertheless also affects the fortunes of the charity. I refer to the heritage factor. The trustees, their managing agents and, if I may make so bold as to add, their leaseholders have a pride in the standards set in the estate. Two million pounds has recently been spent by the trustees in the restoration of the railings and the relandscaping of the gardens throughout the estate. Can one imagine a series of separate and squabbling freeholder associations contemplating anything of this sort? Indeed, it is far from clear in the Bill who would take the responsibility post-enfranchisement for even the basic maintenance of the gardens. They would become a liability rather than, as now, an asset enhancing the overall value of the estate in the interests of the freeholders, the leaseholders and, I believe, the citizens of London generally.
Rather than let this and other aesthetically pleasing areas of London risk falling into an uneven patchwork of maintenance, surely there is a case for excluding conservation areas from this ill-thought-out piece of legislation, which appears now to be directed more at the landlords who have proved their competence over the centuries than at those fly-by-night speculators of whom tenants can justly complain. If the objective of this legislation has moved away from its original purpose, which was to defend leaseholders from bad landlords, and into the more general objective of abolishing leaseholds altogether, surely it would be
120
simpler to tear up this complicated leasehold reform, which has been so criticised for all those complications and clauses, and merely abolish the leasehold system —but not retrospectively—so that the present leases, freely entered into by both parties, would in due course come to an end. The freeholder would then decide whether to sell the property or to rent it on a short-term basis.
Under the Bill as it stands at present, there is the fatuous situation of flat owners (who are unqualified and thus unable to buy their freehold) being given the right to buy a long-term lease from the landlord, thus perpetuating the very instrument that we are told that the Government want to destroy. The whole thing is marvellously Alice in Wonderland, but the issues are too serious to be humourous.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Crawahaw: My Lords, in speaking in your Lordships' House this afternoon, I do so entirely in the role as supporter of my noble friend Lord Kindersley, who has just sat down. As he has said, he is the chairman of the Trustees of Henry Smith's Charity. I am another trustee and I hope that what I have to say will not be simply a repeat performance. I shall confine my speech to Henry Smith's Charity and its workings, and shall seek assurances from the Government that the working of the charity will not be disrupted under the provisions of the Bill.
On Henry Smith's tombstone in Wandsworth, it is written:
"Here lyeth the body of Henry Smith Esq., sometime Alderman and Citizen of London, who departed this life the 3rd day of January 1627, and not here stinting his charity and bounty, did give and bequeath the most part of his Estate —being to a great value—to the purchasing Lands of Inheritance for ever for Relief of the Poor".
Consequently, 84 acres of land (including roads) were acquired in what was then the village of Brompton, which is now known as Kensington. This area is still the kernel of Henry Smith's Charity. Over the centuries, squares and streets of houses, flats, gardens and offices have been developed. All of these are let on long leases. The whole area is one of great character and distinction, well and professionally managed, and maintaining its capital value under the present arrangements. It includes Onslow Square and Gardens, Lennox Gardens, Pelham Crescent and Egerton Crescent. It has been a very well run, estate over a long period and is in every way what one might refer to as a "heritage estate".
It has attracted several Members of your Lordships' House to take out leases, including—to name but a few—my noble friends Lord Newall, Lord Holderness, Lord Caldecote, Lord Ingleby and, in particular, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who, I am delighted to say, is present this afternoon and intends to speak in this debate. I am sure that he will have a lot of constructive things to say. I look forward to hearing his speech. In conversations with those noble Lords, and others, I have found friendly banter rather than outright criticism to be their tactics. It usually has something to do with window cleaners or painters peering into bedrooms or with garage rents that are too high, and such matters.

121
Much experience is gained and vital stability is introduced over four centuries. If one translates all that into the national scene, we have the ingredients of a cure for this country's economic ills. A period of stability, building upon what we have inherited, as opposed to endless experiment and upheaval, is what this country needs above all else. While I do not want to preach, I am bound to say that a Conservative Government should conserve.
One point on enfranchisement within blocks of flats worries me especially. Let us suppose that two-thirds, or four-ninths, or whatever the fraction may be, of leaseholders wish to enfranchise, and enfranchisement goes ahead, then I fear for the remainder who, for very good reasons, may wish to retain their leaseholds. The landlord —in this case Henry Smith's Charity—may well take the view that the fragmented property is unmanageable, and sell up; thus removing the honest broker with whom the leaseholder did his deal in good faith. My noble friend Lord Peyton mentioned that point and I support his doubts about the proposed management system. As I see it, the spivs and the speculators will move in and great pressure, seen or unseen, is likely to engulf the remaining leaseholders. I hope that I am wrong, but I have visions of an ogre who will make Mr. Rachman seem like Father Christmas.
I leave Count Dracula and return to the admirable Mr. Henry Smith and his,
"Lands of Inheritance for ever for Relief of the Poor".
Last year, the income from the charity's freehold estate enabled the trustees to distribute over £12 million to thousands of charitable causes throughout the United Kingdom. Even today, £12 million is a considerable sum. I know of many charities for which the Henry Smith's Charity's contribution is a lifeline. In other cases it is a catalyst or pump primer. I know how much noble Lords value the part played in this country by voluntary organisations, especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out in what one might call the bad areas.
Many noble Lords have conferred with me to enlist support for a charity in which they have an interest. Some of them are here today. All those charities are scrutinised by the Charity Commissioners. On Second Reading I shall not go into great detail, but I shall probably produce a mass of evidence at later stages of the Bill. Suffice it to say today that the NHS and the social services will be under even greater strain in thousands of cases without help from Henry Smith's Charity.
It may be argued that the compensation paid to freeholders will enable the likes of Henry Smith's Charity to carry on as before; but the Kensington Estate has been the nub, the essence, the soul of the operation for nearly four centuries. I should not like to see it replaced by potentially ephemeral pieces of paper on the Stock Exchange. I cannot speak for the other large London estates, including the Church—I hope that someone will speak for it in due course—but in the sphere upon which I have concentrated I have not heard a great clamour for the Bill. I shall be looking for assurances from the Government and support from noble Lords in future stages of the Bill.
5.26 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I am somewhat hesitant about addressing your Lordships on the Second Reading of this important Bill because, unlike many of your Lordships, I have no vested interest in any lease. There are many noble Lords here who are far more qualified than I am. I feel that it will be refreshing to get away from the subject of leasehold for a few moments, and I intend to talk about urban regeneration. I must declare an interest as, first, I have the honour of recently succeeding my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn as president of the Building Societies Association; and, secondly, I have an involvement with a property company in the Black Country in the West Midlands, a region for which I have the highest regard and where of course the Industrial Revolution had its beginnings.
I should like to pay tribute to the building societies movement for the responsible way in which it has started to tackle the appalling problems of homelessness throughout this country; for example, the Bradford and Bingley Building Society, in conjunction with a housing association, runs a scheme which has become the model for the industry. To date, it has been most successful.
During my research into this subject I thought that it would be strange if I did not say something about leaseholds. First, I am aware that many of my noble friends are not happy about the Bill, especially the leasehold reform part of it. Indeed, I have been told that this is a Conservative Government putting forward Socialist proposals. However, it must be said that leasehold reform has been part of Conservative Party policy since 1966. It was a commitment in the party's manifesto last year and one mentioned by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the last day of the election campaign.
It is often said that your Lordships' House is an anachronistic establishment. I am sure the same can be said about leaseholds. They have many disadvantages. Government have a clear duty to keep forms of contract in all walks of life under review and to ask Parliament to reform them when and if necessary. There are numerous precedents for that.
The Bill has the support of the Building Societies Association and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. I shall quote from the CML newsletter of November last year in which it said:
"There is of course Opposition to the enfranchisement proposals. The large estates, particularly, are believed to be planning to fight this part of the Bill in Parliament, arguing that the current system is in principle not flawed and that, if there are bad landlords, they should be dealt with specifically. The CML has never accepted this argument, believing that in effect the landlord-tenant relationship is incompatible with real home ownership. The Government seems to have been convinced by this argument and, although the Bill contains one 'concession' to the estates in the form of the proposal that 'estate management schemes' should be allowed to continue as part of the enfranchisement framework, it is believed that the Government is determined to persevere. The Opposition has always supported the basic proposals although in its General Election Manifesto, it was in fact prepared to go even further than the Government, by, for example, making the voting requirements less stringent".

123
Therefore we are lucky that the Government, rather than my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, are taking the Bill forward.
A much wider public interest is of course addressed by the Bill. It will allow home ownership for about 750,000 people who in the past have been tenants. That cannot be a bad thing. I support the Bill in general, but I am sure that our lives will not be dull in Committee and on Report.
I wish to turn now to urban regeneration, a subject which I know a little more about. I hope to raise some constructive points which are of considerable concern to those in the private sector. The points that I shall address relate to planning and contaminated land. I see that my noble friend on the Front Bench is grinning at me. He and I have had many conversations on the subject. I shall deal also with the incentives which will need to be provided in order to attract private sector involvement in the redevelopment of this country's run-down urban areas.
First, I shall deal with contaminated land. That is a major and complex problem which has become the flavour of the month since the Government's original proposals early last year to establish a register under Section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The threat of such a register has caused the widespread blighting of properties throughout the West Midlands conurbation and in virtually every area of this country. Many of the areas have a history of heavy contamination from the old industries which were based there.
At first the general perception was that the proposed registers would affect only industrial and commercial sites. But as public awareness grew the general public realised that many of the residential areas where they had purchased homes would also be affected. That did not come to light until a couple of documentary programmes were shown on television. Then all of a sudden everything hit the fan.
I know full well that the building society's movement is acutely aware of the great difficulties which it would encounter should a register be implemented on the original proposals. With house prices having fallen dramatically during the past two years and with many mortgagees in a tragic situation of negative equity, the consequences to both borrower and lender of having their house entered on the register would be disastrous. To the lender it would mean a further heavy fall in the value of his security. To the borrower it would mean the ghastly situation not only of having a house which will be greatly reduced in value (and which has already dropped in value out of all proportion) but also a property which will overnight become almost impossible to move in an already severely restricted, congested and depressed market.
Private sector developers have already suffered from the blight caused by the Government's proposals, even though the original proposals were scrapped and less punitive ones put forward last July for discussion. The commercial and industrial property markets are at a very low ebb, with no sign of an early recovery, no matter what one reads in the papers. The major lenders
124
have been scared stiff by the proposals for contaminated land registers. But perhaps also they have been provided with a gift horse which gives them a valid excuse to decline involvement in this troubled sector —an excuse which they have been looking for for a long time—and the development of existing sites with a history of previous industrial use is becoming nigh on impossible.
My noble friend the Minister knows only too well my thoughts on the subject. I imagine that he is getting pretty bored with my comments but I assure him that I shall continue to bang on about it until the Government change their mind about the registers. I hope that he may be able to give me some encouragement in his winding-up remarks today. But somehow I doubt it. I look forward to listening to him. But even if it is true—as stated in The Times last Thursday in another governmental leak—that HMG are on the verge of withdrawing the proposals, already severe damage, which may well be irreparable, has been sustained by the commercial property sector and also by owners of residential property.
The clean-up costs relating to contaminated sites are horrendous. I have heard figures from experts in the field stating costs per acre of between £100,000 and £1 million. Tips licensed to accept potentially toxic materials are few and far between and are extremely expensive to tip in. Often material from clean-up programmes in, for instance, the Black Country has to be taken to tips as far afield as Bedford. The transport costs alone of such an operation are large, to say the least.
There is no way that such sites will be dealt with unless there is a basketful of incentives from the Government to assist developers to tackle the problem. But developers are not simply looking for handouts from the Treasury. Many of the areas where urban regeneration is needed have a history of contamination. To address the financial aspects of regeneration I suggest that direct grant-aid is a lengthy process, with much paperwork needed, and at considerable cost to the Treasury, which I believe does not have the money, and ultimately the taxpayer, who certainly does not.
Surely a more simple system would be to use the enterprise zone model, where 100 per cent. industrial building allowances are made available to. those willing to commit themselves to the development of those areas of land. Those allowances can last for 10 years, or however long the Government choose. With the evidence over the past few years of schemes whereby private investors are able to take advantage of putting their cash in to back developments in such areas, the benefits are numerous. First, the land is developed (and no longer stands idle as an eyesore, covered with the products of illegal fly-tipping) and is made to be attractive; secondly, private investors are persuaded to back the finished product while benefiting from generous tax advantages; thirdly, new employment is produced; fourthly, the need for making use of greenfield sites is dramatically reduced; and, fifthly, the Treasury benefits from the tax gain from new businesses and their employees.

125
I realise that those benefits are long term, but we must renew the derelict urban areas and such a suggestion seems to me to be a least cost option. It is completely unacceptable to pass the buck and say, "To hell with the problems of developing old and derelict sites in urban areas. We can find a nice place in the countryside where our costs of development on a greenfield site will be less. We shall have to fight a few planners and probably the locals, and maybe the CPRE and also the Friends of the Earth. But in time we'll achieve what we want". That simply is not good enough. Too much pressure has already been placed on greenfield areas and we have a great opportunity now to renew and revitalise urban sites which have been allowed to decay in recent years. Yes, it will cost a great deal of money. But if addressed in a responsible manner the future vision of urban areas devoid of dereliction and with vibrant commercial and industrial activity could well become a reality.
The final subject which I would like to address is that of planning. I am not expert in this matter but I hear the comments delivered to me by my colleagues in both the property development industry and the construction industry. They are adamant that they face on a daily basis not so much the negative attitude of the planning authorities but the extremely slow and arduous process which they have to go through. There is far too much bureaucracy.
When the situation arises developers need to move quickly, otherwise they stand the risk of missing the market, losing investors' funds and finding severe problems in doing business. The market changes rapidly. I know of many cases where sites have been purchased, thoughtful plans developed and tenants in place ready and eager to move into the finished product, bringing with them jobs—often many jobs. But then the frustration begins, with schemes being delayed by the planning authorities, and sometimes being called in to the DoE. In numerous cases applications agreed (or at least not opposed) by the council officers are then turned down by the lay committee members. The results are most damaging to the viability of the locality, with job opportunities lost through the intransigence of those who sit in judgment and the slowness of the system.
The present system needs careful consideration and probably some certain reformation. Time spent dealing with local authority planners—it is always a great deal of time—costs large sums of money. As I have mentioned, too many proposals are being called in where the opportunity to develop with a tenant in place is being lost. Planning committees should for a start meet more often and the time which it takes to process an application at present must be greatly reduced.
If we are serious about redeveloping the large stocks of derelict land in our urban areas let us make moves to cut the bureaucratic process and get rid of the restrictions and the involvement of many councillors who know not the least about planning. Let us have, for instance, local boards of truly professional people who know just what is needed, and who from a professional point of view are able to
126
ascertain just what that particular area needs and what industry might be attracted to the area. Can we not have a new system run not by civil servants, but where the red tape is cut and where entrepreneurs with funding from the private sector are able to put their skills to good use? In order to "incentivise" the private sector—and many incentives will be needed to attract developers into urban renewal schemes —the Government must address those issues. A pro-active stance by both central and local government must be adopted.
Finally, there is an anomaly with regard to historic houses and their exemption from inheritance tax, a provision contained in the Bill. That needs to be addressed and in Committee I intend to bring forward a necessary amendment to rectify it.
I know that I have digressed probably very wide of the mark but I believe that the convention of your Lordships' House is that at Second Reading almost anything goes.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I almost feel like apologising because I appear to be interfering in a debate within the Tory Party. There appear to be many divisions. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, admitted that he is not an expert in planning. He then proceeded to read out what I considered to be a perfect brief produced by some private developers who are supposed to be experts in planning and who are working somewhere in a remote office. He dismissed the question of planning by saying, "We shall have to deal with a few planners and locals". That is the same attitude which has prevailed in this new science of looking at planning. It is said, "We shall have to deal with a few locals"—that is regardless of the fact that those few locals may be several thousands of people in London Docklands who have been displaced through the principle that the expert knows best.
I am glad that somebody has referred to what is the most important part of the Bill, Part III. Part III contains many extremely fundamental principles. I bow to the knowledge of others as regards charities and agree with the professed belief that charities should be exempt from the provisions of this Bill. Charities perform a useful function.
I do not believe that anybody has a moral responsibility or duty to control somebody else's basic form of shelter. I believe that everybody has a right to own and control their own shelter. That is the situation in Part I, which I shall not deal with.
The noble Earl referred to historic houses. Chapter I contains a clause which practically forces local authorities to take welfare payments for the upkeep of those houses out of the housing revenue account. I shall be interested to see the details of that later, and that will be dealt with when we are discussing amendments. However, I believe that that is fundamentally wrong. Such welfare should be a charge on the community.
I give an example of what I mean. I received a letter saying that as a direct result of the Government's announcement the council's urban programme in

127
Liverpool had been reduced to £11.3 million from £17.2 million and for 1994–95 it had been reduced to £5.7 million. At the same time the Government are saying that we can spend £60 million or £80 million on rebuilding Windsor Castle; that is an obscenity. I believe that it should stay as an historic monument. That is what I mean by Part III of the Bill.
The URA is to occupy a similar position to that occupied by new towns. It does not take into consideration local authorities and it will not be made up of members of local authorities. The Government are moving towards a situation in which all the new planning organisations are centralised in Whitehall. It is anathema to socialists to talk about central bureaucracy. It may be that some socialists lost their lives while opposing the kind of centralised bureaucracy which existed in the Soviet Union many years ago. It is ironic that they are now supposed to be moving into a freer society and we are moving away from it. Why are we doing that? We are moving away from it because it is the bureaucrats who now have the power in this country.
I give an example of what has happened in the past 10 to 15 years. The legislation on the police provided that, because of some problems which the police force were having, there should be an amalgamation of forces. We then abolished the watch committees, and having reduced the powers of local authorities, JPs were appointed to police authorities. What power do local authorities have now as regards the administration of the police? We are slowly moving towards a situation in regard to that so-called service where we are reproducing what used to happen with the Metropolitan Police in London. Nobody bothered about the fact that there was more corruption in the Metropolitan Police than in any other police force in this country. Why was that? It was because it was not responsible to anybody. There was no watch committee. It was responsible only to the Secretary of State. That is what is happening in all aspects of society today.
At present there is hysteria. People are talking about crime and the power to control it. The same demands will be made for a national police force. I can remember in my lifetime that to suggest that we should have a national police force at one time was considered to be the worst thing that could happen in this country. Nevertheless, slowly but surely we are moving towards that situation. Local authorities could implement all the provisions contained in this Bill were they given the resources which are now to be given to these new organisations.
New towns were brought into existence because it became quite evident that the problems in London and the major cities were such that we needed those new towns. By the very nature of things, those areas had to be within green fields. No local authority existed which had experience of administering such matters. Therefore, the idea was born that there should be representatives from areas from where the people were moving and representatives from the areas to which they were moving. The new town movement was extremely successful. Useful and efficient areas were created for development.
128
Why were the new towns not kept like that? The new towns were something of a nuisance to Whitehall. Movement had always been towards the centre. Whitehall did not like the new towns and the awkward councillors. Whitehall was not bothered about the few planners and locals. Whitehall wanted power to be contained in Whitehall and this Government did not have the sense to control that.
This Bill is the same Rake's Progress towards centralised authority. Many small matters can be dealt with at later stages by amendment. However, the fundamental fault in this Bill is that Part III should never have been included. It is too fundamentally different. My noble friend Lord Williams said that there should have been three Bills. Had that been so, it might have been possible to have had a proper discussion and we could have seen exactly where we were going. However, we are submerged in a plethora of appeals, which almost breaks my heart. I hear the appeals from landlords who own those long leases. I literally almost wanted to start crying for people like the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster, who owns half of London. It is about time that somebody asked a fundamental question, and your Lordships will forgive me if I ask it, although I know that I shall not receive a reply. We should look at how the noble Duke acquired his estates and whether it is morally right that he should be in a position to dictate to others how they should live their lives. Those are fundamental questions.
When I hear the appeals from such people or their representatives in this Chamber, it does not make the slightest difference to my feelings. In this country we built up a very efficient system of local government. There is no doubt that local government could do the job were it given the opportunity. From their very inception this Government have been hostile to local government and have slowly strangled it. I believe that the Bill will be the last chance that we have to try to prevent that. After the passage of the Bill I doubt whether there will be any local government worthy of the name.
5.50 p.m.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I have no interest to declare. That may surprise some noble Lords but it is the truth. Many landlords accept, for better or for worse, that the logic of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and its extension by the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 should be extended to include leasehold flats. Many landlords also support the introduction of commonhold tenure: the removal of bad landlords and the granting of rights to leaseholders of all residential flats to control their own buildings. A great amount of consultation has taken place in relation to commonhold.
Power has already been given by Parliament in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to leaseholders to take over the management of their buildings and to combat bad landlords. However, for various reasons that Act has been totally ineffective in that respect. Why cannot that legislation be amended and made effective? At no time, not even in the Conservative Party's previous election manifesto, was it made evident that the true

129
intention was to abolish all residential leaseholds in excess of an original term of 20 years—a length of term that makes it virtually impossible for a mortgagor to obtain a mortgage from any building society of repute. That cannot be identified with the election promise that was made in the following terms:
"We will introduce Commonhold legislation giving residential leaseholders living in blocks of flats the right to acquire the freehold of their block at the market rate. Leaseholders of higher rate houses will also be given the right to buy the freehold of their property … Leaseholders who live in a block which does not qualify will have a new right to buy an extended lease".
That is an exact reproduction of what was printed. There are no residential requirements in the Bill despite the implication in the manifesto that only residential leaseholders living in blocks of flats would qualify. There is a clear, positive and unambiguous undertaking that the market rate will apply in the purchase by those who qualify but, as I am sure your Lordships are fully aware, we have heard this afternoon that that is not an entirely accurate statement.
I propose to concentrate on just two aspects of this Bill. The intention not to speak for too long is good but the fulfilment of that may err slightly. I hope that is not the case. There are two serious errors of omission of which I am sure the Government are aware. However, I suspect they may not yet have fully addressed those errors of omission. I hope they will do so. The two important headings are residence and the formula for calculating the purchase price payable. Those matters are dealt with in Clause 28 and Schedule 5 of the Bill.
I shall deal with residence first. In all previous parliamentary measures going as far back as 1915—I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench went further back in time in his opening speech—the purpose of Parliament was to give protection and security of tenure to tenants provided there was a residential qualification. This Bill shirks dealing with that question entirely. It is necessary therefore to look at the provisions of other landlord and tenant legislation and related legislation to see what Parliament in its past wisdom has thought fit to enact. I hope noble Lords will not be alarmed and think I shall take too long over this.
The various Rent Acts, including the 1977 Act, require the tenant simply to occupy the premises as his dwelling. Those are the important words. That enabled a Rent Act protected tenant to have two homes provided the tenant could meet that residential qualification. The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 had a more demanding test than that required by the Rent Acts. It required the enfranchising tenant to establish not only that the premises were his only and main residence but also that he had lived in them in the three years immediately preceding his application to enfranchise. Both those requirements were designed to ensure the exclusion of speculators, property developers and all such other persons whose interest in the property was not residential. Those measures succeeded in achieving that aim.
130
A common factor running through the entirety of that legislation which seems to be missing in this Bill was to give protection to people's residences by preventing the ills that would flow from the eviction of people from their homes. I should perhaps point out to noble Lords at this stage that while there is no residential qualification stated in the Bill the extension of the enfranchisement rights under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 has been permitted to continue in respect of residences. I believe that matter has entirely escaped the notice of those honourable, gallant and learned Members in another place. If this Bill receives the Royal Assent in its present form, a veritable cocktail of residential requirements ranging from none to entirely strict qualifying requirements will range throughout the legislation.
The Housing and Urban Development Bill achieves a quite different result. It is not primarily concerned with giving protection to tenants in their homes. Its primary concern is the actual transfer of assets in freehold ownership to the least superior—or perhaps he could as accurately be described as the most inferior—tenant of the flats. I use those terms as normal legal terms. They have no other connotations. The Bill's provisions on the right to enfranchise extend to the most palatial mansions. They extend beyond home owners to those for whom property is an investment. That will include companies resident here and overseas and companies resident in tax havens sheltering under untraceable nominee names.
All of those inanimate legal persons have one object only, and that is to make money out of their investment. They are incapable in any physical sense of living or residing in the premises. Will my noble friend on the Front Bench therefore do his best to ensure that all companies be excluded from obtaining any rights of enfranchisement and that any such rights, if granted, will be limited to properly qualified home owners?
It should be possible, and within the wit of Parliament, to extend either the test applying under the 1967 Act or the test applied in the various Rent Acts and housing legislation to ensure that the promise made in the election manifesto is kept and is not extended beyond what is stated there. Perhaps later in the debate my noble friend will explain the reasons why it is the intention of the present Government to extend these rights to all persons within the leasehold chain of interest and why it is their intention to include companies.
I now turn to the matter of price. I mentioned that a minute or two ago. I have reason to believe that it is the Government's intention that leaseholders should pay a fair price and should not be able to make a windfall profit; and that they will be required to pay a full market value for the interest they are acquiring. Market value is a concept well and truly tried and understood by everyone in the property world. Yet the conclusion I am compelled to draw, after reading the text of the Bill, is that the Government are uneasy about allowing the free market formula to operate, for they have tampered with it instead of leaving well alone something which operates well and is

131
understood. They have tampered with it by introducing into Schedule 5 of the Bill an alternative formula.
Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will explain why he considers that the market value formula is itself unsatisfactory. Alternatively, if the Government are satisfied with the market value formula perhaps my noble friend will explain why they have to introduce what I call a fall back position and specify a minimum marriage value of 50 per cent. That itself provokes a further question concerning why that figure should not be 100 per cent., 10 per cent. or 80 per cent. How is it arrived at? This provision genuinely puzzles me. If the market value formula is truly effective, it seems that the Government do not need to fall back on this mechanism.
It is an indisputable fact that the marriage value belongs entirely to the freeholder. In a free market no one but the freeholder can give it or withhold it. It is his entirely. In this Bill he is compelled to part with his property if an application is made by a most inferior leaseholder to enfranchise. The proposal before your Lordships in this Bill is that the minimum a prospective enfranchising freeholder will have to pay for it is 50 per cent. of its value.
I should like to add one further point concerning commonhold. I do not understand, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlighten me, why commonhold is not yet to be introduced. I learn through the grapevine that it is to happen "when parliamentary time allows". I suspect that that is a euphemism for "this year, next year, sometime, never". The advantage of commonhold and its relevance to the debate today is that it is a universal system of tenure and management for property occupied in common. It has been considered for at least the past two or three years. The system simplifies transactions on leasehold flats. It seems ill-advised to introduce enfranchisement for flats in this Bill without the availability of commonhold. The relevance of commonhold to the Bill is that under the Bill each purchase of a freehold will entail a different management regime and tenure, leading to more complications, more expense for leaseholders in the future, and more uncertainty.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am particularly interested in Part III of the Bill and the proposal to establish an urban regeneration agency. That is an initiative which has profound environmental benefits.
We should not forget that land is one of our most important environmental resources, and the new agency has a significant role to play in making the best use of it. Every acre of urban derelict land reclaimed is an acre of land improved for city dwellers and thus an acre of countryside saved from urbanisation.
The environmental role of the urban regeneration agency is so important that I am disappointed that it is not recognised on the face of the Bill. I believe that the agency should be guided by a specific environmental duty and should undertake an environmental assessment of its own activities.
132
I am also concerned by the agency's name. It is to be called an urban agency, yet half of all derelict land is in rural areas. That is largely the legacy of the mines and quarries which have been allowed to scar our countryside. I believe that it is the Government's intention that the agency should work in rural areas. Certainly that is a priority for such bodies as the Countryside Commission and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that the proportion of funding for derelict land reclamation in the countryside will not decline as a result of the creation of the new agency. To reflect its purpose perhaps it would be better to call it a land regeneration agency.
My noble friend will not be surprised to learn that I should like clarification of how the agency will work in relation to national and local planning policies. We have a much stronger and more environmentally aware planning system as a result of the recent Planning and Compensation Act and the subsequent government policy guidance. National policies and local authority development plans aim to steer development away from the countryside and make the best possible use of land in urban areas. I hope that the agency will be required to further those objectives. The Bill only requires the agency to work within the planning system. That would not prevent it from promoting inappropriate development on a green belt site or damaging the wildlife value of protected waste land. If it were required to further planning objectives such conflicts could be avoided.
Finally, I turn to the issue of preventing the creation of derelict land. It is a well-known saying that prevention is better than cure. That is particularly apt when it comes to policy in relation to derelict land. For every acre of derelict land which we reclaim another acre is created. Unless we prevent land from becoming derelict in the first place we shall never be able to solve the problem. The Department of the Environment review recognised that in 1989 when it said that the Government should give as much priority to prevention as to cure. Little has been done since. There is nothing to reflect that intention on the face of the Bill.
I hope that my noble friend will concede the need to add derelict land prevention to the objectives listed in Clause 142. The new agency could be a potent force in advising local planning authorities and in monitoring progress. I look forward to my noble friend's response at the end of the debate.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I shall address my remarks today not so much to the purpose of the Bill but to the philosophy behind the Bill which is, to some extent, based upon change.
We on these Benches have supported our Government throughout in their desire to promote wider home ownership because the ownership of a home is a great and gracious thing. There is perhaps a similarity with the feeling one has as a child when

133
one first has a room of one's own. Then the moment comes when one seeks to buy one's own house, with all the trauma and trouble which that involves. There are the questions of whether one earns enough to pay the mortgage and whether one's wife will have enough money.
In this country home ownership is not simply a question of a home but also one of savings. The bulk of people's savings are in their own homes. Here we differ from almost every other country in the developed world. We believe in home ownership. Often the prices of our land and our houses are higher than those in other countries, for one basic reason: the pride of ownership.
Here we go back to a number of basics. Perhaps I should declare an interest. For almost all my life I have lived in houses or flats belonging to the great estates. I was born in a house belonging to Mr. Smith. We had five or six living-in staff. It was not a poor house; in those days we were not a poor family. Since then I have moved on from one estate to another. I believe wholeheartedly in the desire on these Benches to encourage people to own their own homes.
Why, therefore, is there so much fuss about the Bill? What has changed since the 16th century, or more recently? There was a period, perhaps 50 years ago, when people were proud to say that they lived in a house which belonged to a great estate. Perhaps they felt greater comfort and greater protection. It is not a question of a good or bad landlord. That argument is immediately lost because surely, in principle, the best person to look after a property is the person who owns and lives in it.
There appears now to be a psychological difference in attitudes towards freehold and leasehold property. There was a time when people would have said that a good leasehold was worth the same as a freehold, or that there was only a marginal difference. Those who had leaseholds would extol the advantages of their landlords and their relationships with their neighbours and with the community as a whole. Homes are not merely places in which to live. They represent savings, and they are part of the community at large. Here I shall try to link housing with urban regeneration and the strange breakdown which has taken place within our society, where men and women no longer know and do not help their neighbours. They live in an isolated environment, despite being surrounded by people.
There was a time when in the East End and all over London—in the properties of Mr. Peabody as well as of Mr. Smith —nobody locked their doors. There was trust between neighbours and friends. I do not know what has happened to that society and why property laws and structures have so changed that there is no longer that relationship between the person in one house and the person in the next.
Not so long ago I had the privilege of meeting with a great American architect who had been given the job of dealing with the problems of urban regeneration in the middle of New York. People are frightened to go to work or to go home from work. They are frightened to walk down the streets. Looking at London, he said,
134
"You know what it is. You need more doors opening onto streets". If a large building which runs the length of three blocks has only one door people are nervous as they go to the tube station or take a bus because there is too long a distance without a door. Doors, especially open doors, always give a friendly aspect.
I am intrigued by the position that seems to have been adopted. Although a leasehold is no longer as valuable as it was, the principle of allowing people their freeholds must be acceptable. Why are there objections? Why do the problems exist in the Bill which no doubt will rear their heads at Committee stage? What is a great estate? What is a freeholder? What is a charity which owns property? I believe that the debate will concern money, gain and wealth. People may hide behind names. They may even hide behind charities. But effectively, those charities, or those who run estates, are in one way or another property companies seeking to maximise the return from their properties. They seek capital gain. They seek all the benefits of corporate entities. They often pay no tax. I do not criticise that. However, we have a different scene today. I believe that the Government can take great credit for having reduced inflation so dramatically that it has had a major impact upon the property market. People's homes were once their savings. Values have tumbled. People might have said that the happiest day was when one bought one's house; but now the happiest day is when one sells it. The fall in values has been dramatic.
Coincidentally, it may be a good time to push such legislation through Parliament because, with low inflation, the desire to invest in property for major capital gain no longer exists. The subject of valuation has been raised and will arise again. To share the marriage value is undoubtedly correct. However, if anyone can tell me the name of a valuer who has managed to get valuations right in the past two or three years, I shall be surprised, because the market has shifted.
I find the Bill difficult to understand in many ways. There are technical aspects of which I am not aware. However, one aspect worries me. If people wish to exercise their right to buy they will require money. The financing of those purchases may often prove beyond their means. My noble friends have pointed out that there is negative equity around. The difficulty of financing purchases needs to be addressed by Government. Can the Minister give us some idea of the total amount if everyone were to exercise their rights? We are talking of 750,000 people. How much is involved? The sum may not be great but it may cause even greater tensions within society.
Although I do not wish to speak from my position as a leaseholder, I have received numerous letters and spoken to several hundred people. Everyone is anxious. There is a certain nervousness around. In general, people wish to buy their freehold. Why, my Lords? It is because they believe that it will enhance their position. There is a belief that because the purchase of leaseholds cannot be financed as the leases become shorter a leasehold is no longer a rising but a declining asset and that a freehold is a safe haven for investment.

135
Arguments that flats owned by companies and dual residencies should not qualify are fair and sound. But within the arguments there are anomalies. I refer to the person who goes abroad to work and lets his flat with a view to returning when he retires. A family decides that its pensions and savings would be best put into property which it can pass on to its children or grandchildren in due course. Foreign investors may look to London as a safe haven in which to invest. The value of property in the United Kingdom has decreased by about 25 per cent. in three years. That is an enormous decrease. Add to that the fall in the value of sterling and, relatively speaking, the London property market has dropped even further.
I support many aspects of the Bill. Above all, I support the principle and intentions underlining the Bill. Wider home ownership and leasehold reforms are good. I have the utmost sympathy with the charities, and with many points raised by noble Lords. I hope that at Committee stage we shall be able to iron out some of the differences between us in a constructive and friendly manner.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should be sorry if a disinclination on my part to oppose the Bill outright were seen as my having any degree of enthusiasm for it. I took part in the campaign to secure a return of a Conservative Government at the time of the general election and I have to recognise that the measure was flagged up in the party manifesto.
I also have certain interests to declare. I hope that noble Lords will believe me when I say that I do so spontaneously and of my own free will rather than at the behest—I considered it slightly gratuitous—of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I recently acquired through gift the leasehold on a flat in central London which will almost certainly qualify for enfranchisement if the Bill becomes law. It will be a privilege that I have not sought and few would say that I deserve. On the other hand, my family business owns a block of flats in a northern industrial town. It would seem likely that that property could be expropriated under the terms of the Bill regardless of my stewardship or any investment that has been made or is planned to be made. In declaring those personal interests it may be that I stand neither to gain nor to lose. But an interest there certainly is and I have concluded that it would be wrong to seek to change the main objective of the Bill.
Following the refreshingly free-ranging speech of my noble friend Lord Selsdon, I return to more specific matters. I wish to focus on the reservations that I have on the potential impact that the Bill has on important elements of our built heritage about which concern has been expressed by a broad spectrum of opinion within the field of conservation, including English Heritage (of which I am a commissioner), the Civic Trust and the national amenities societies speaking through their joint committee.
I shall advocate changes affecting only a small percentage of what would otherwise be eligible property. The changes that I propose I believe to be
136
entirely necessary to protect heritage interests of acknowledged importance. The anxieties lie in how the Bill will impact on two distinct aspects of the heritage which are outstanding in the national context.
The first aspect is historic entities which have met the stringent criteria for conditional exemption from inheritance tax. The second refers to urban estates whose distinctive historic character and environmental quality depend to a great extent on the active involvement of landlords. I acknowledge that the Government have recognised the legitimacy of those heritage interests and have sought to address them through strengthening the provisions for schemes of estate management which were originally established under Section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
I applaud those concessions and know they have been welcomed by English Heritage. They will go a long way to improve the effectiveness of such schemes in maintaining that special character in particular of urban leasehold estates which has resulted in so many of them being designated as conservation areas. What I do not accept is that they will provide sufficient means of safeguarding the character of those few estates, both urban and rural, which are of outstanding importance.
For almost 20 years now the principle has been accepted that it is in the public interest to keep under common control historic entities of outstanding importance in the national context. Typically such an entity might be a country house, its contents and its historic setting. Without exemption, it would be exposed to the risk of break-up as a consequence of the imposition of inheritance tax. Again, I believe it is accepted that the loss of tax has been outweighed by public benefit, enforced through conditions requiring a high standard of maintenance and significant public access. The number of such properties is small. To date, only some 160 have been recommended on the grounds of "outstanding importance", and of these only about 60 have been designated. Furthermore, the number of potential new cases is extremely limited.
However, I believe that there is a hugely important issue of principle at stake, which is this: by permitting enfranchisement and thus the possible break-up of estates, the intention and benefit of existing legislation could be frustrated. And that intention, remember, and that benefit are already widely accepted as being in the public interest. It seems inconceivable that the Government will be prepared to gamble the fate of some of our most important heritage sites simply because it seems to them a convenient route to widening home ownership and bringing to heel a number of delinquent landlords. A better way should be found.
The properties of which I speak, and which are eligible for designation, are comparable in quality, importance, and the degree to which there is public access, to those houses held inalienably by the National Trust and which are specifically exempted under Clause 85 of the Bill. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister sees any irony in the fact that the arrangements for provisional exemption from inheritance tax and its precursors were designed

137
precisely to obviate the need for some of these entities to be taken into the care of the Trust or into the care of the state.
I certainly do not begrudge the many and varied privileges enjoyed by the National Trust. But why on earth must private owners, some with properties at least as important as those of the trust, and sharing the same problems and the same aspirations, be discriminated against? I might say in passing, and the point will not be lost on your Lordships, that potential tax consequences for private owners may be significant. Those owners may find that in addition to their entities being broken up, they are also victims of a mean-spirited redistributive measure, hardly to be expected from any administration, still less a Conservative one.
Some of the proposed Crown exemptions recognise the importance of continuing the long, or particular, association of a single landowner. I give as an example the terraces around Regent's Park. The number of areas of our historic towns and cities whose distinctive character and environmental quality depend very much on the active involvement of landlords is limited, although diverse. They range from the closes around our great cathedrals, referred to so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Peyton, of which Salisbury is probably the most extensive. I have to say that I am a little surprised that there are no right reverend Prelates here to take part in this Second Reading when so much is at stake for the cathedrals.
At the other end of the range stand the more obviously, dare I say, emotive examples like the Grosvenor Estate in London. Here the maintenance of distinctive quality and character owes as much to active management, investment and aesthetic control as to the enforcement of covenants, which would remain possible under schemes of management. It is, however, hard to see how schemes of management could deal with very many issues, some of which I will briefly touch on.
How can a management scheme cover, for example, managing uses to ensure that the historic character of an area is not lost through pressure to maximise individual property returns solely within the constraints of planning legislation? It may be remembered that, under the use classes order, no distinction is made between small craft workshops, for instance, and offices. An example of this causing a change of character might be Savile Row, where, when the tailors' workshop leases fall in, they are taken over by office blocks, and in consequence the character of the area changes.
While most commercial properties are not directly affected by the provisions of the Bill, their management as a small element of a predominantly residential area plainly would be. Again, schemes of management cannot be structured to deal with environmental improvements; for example, re-paving mews and footways with historically correct materials. How will schemes work in promoting active steps to prevent historic buildings from falling into decay, including ultimately forfeiting a lease? How can schemes of management be brought to bear in the
138
matter of, for instance, the painting of stucco terraces, not only the same colour every five years but painting them at the same time? Finally, how will schemes of management influence the exercise of a patron's aesthetic control over new buildings and alterations?
To justify exemption, such a "heritage area" would need to be of outstanding importance in the national context, and the number is clearly limited. By maintaining quality and character through attention to detail, landlords in such areas do of course ensure that the investment of both freeholder and leaseholder is protected. However, I entirely accept that there would need to be stringent safeguards to protect the interests of tenants by the landlords being held to a strict code of estate management, and provision for lease extension as of right on favourable terms.
The exemptions that I have outlined do, I believe, enjoy wide approval among those who are concerned with the protection of the built environment. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister therefore to recognise these anxieties and, I hope, to bring forward amendments that will meet them. Finally, I am concerned also that this Bill, by extending the scope of enfranchisement, will make it marginally more difficult for building preservation trusts to control the future of the properties which they repair, and whose long-term management they must be able to safeguard if they are to retain their charitable status.
I accept that the answer to this problem may well not lie in amending the Bill but through the introduction of positive covenants which run with the title. I shall be grateful, therefore, if my noble friend the Minister can give some reassurance that such provision will be incorporated possibly in the commonhold Bill if, as I have heard, it is to be introduced shortly.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I shall confine myself to Part I of the Bill, most of which I oppose on the grounds that it violates property rights and the sanctity of contracts. Let me say straight away that I have no interest to declare. I do not own any freehold property subject to long leases, nor am I trustee of any charity that does so. Indeed, like tens of thousands of other people, most of them, ironically, Conservative voters, several of my relations have each made tens of thousands of pounds in consequence of the Labour Government's Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Of course, on a purely personal level I am delighted at their good fortune, while rather wishing at the same time that they had come by their money by an ethically superior route, such as winning the football pools.
I am well aware of the problems caused to leaseholders by a minority of bad ground landlords. We have old family friends—old in both senses of the word—who have suffered terribly from the actions and inactions of such individuals, but the 1987 Act was specifically designed to cope with this undoubted problem. To the extent that the 1987 Act is deficient, it should be extended and built upon. Indeed, Chapter V of Part I of this Bill, embracing Clauses 68 to 76

139
inclusive, does just that; and if Chapter V is inadequate for the purpose it should be strengthened by your Lordships' House in Committee.
For various reasons the rest of Part I will not necessarily help the victims of unscrupulous ground landlords. You do not help a man who has bought a dud television set by giving him the right to buy at a substantial discount the freehold of the premises where he acquired the faulty set. Moreover, it is a fallacy to imagine that self-management of the common parts of a block of flats always equates to good management.
If time permitted I could give your Lordships first-hand experience of where management of common parts of flats has already been delegated to the lessees. This has led to chaos and inefficiency, owing to the reluctance of lessees —most of them university graduates and most holding good jobs—to turn up for meetings of lessees or to pay the bills on time, if at all. Sometimes it seems that fair but firm outside managing agents are needed to ensure that lessees fulfil their repairing and maintenance obligations.
Turning from practical considerations to considerations of principle, on 7th March 1967 in another place Mr. Anthony Barber, as he then was, attacked the Bill on behalf of the Conservative Opposition from the Front Bench. He said at col. 1287 of Hansard for the other place:
"It is no light thing to interfere with contractual or private rights".
A little while later, Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter, as he was then, quoted the following wise words, as he put it, from the report of the Jenkins Committee:
"While freedom of contract should certainly be subject always to public policy, private property should only be taken for the benefit of the community as a whole—never for private advantage, and on terms of full compensation for the freeholder".
How does this Bill differ from the one attacked so vigorously by the official Conservative Opposition 26 years ago? Certainly, the compensation terms are better, but they are still below the price at which a willing seller would sell to a willing buyer. If that were not so, there would be no need for compulsion. Hence, the Bill is still semi-confiscatory. The legislation takes from both the very rich on the one hand and the poor on the other (by which I mean the beneficiaries of charities) to give in the main to the fairly rich although some of those who benefit in areas like Belgravia would almost certainly be millionaires.
Where is the benefit in all this for the community as a whole cited by the Jenkins Committee as a prerequisite for interfering with property rights and the law of contract? I have read carefully the literature put out by the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association. I have to say that almost all the alleged imperfections of the present system which the association instances apply equally to ordinary rented property, whether it be rented from a private landlord, a housing association or a local authority. The only exception relates to the difficulty of obtaining a mortgage once a lease has only 30 or 40 years to run. I agree that that is a problem, but not one so great as
140
to justify one private individual being able to confiscate in part another private individual's property.
Apart from that, what is wrong with the leasehold system in principle? Why should not people buy and sell wasting assets if they so choose? Most things people buy in their daily lives are wasting assets, after all: motor cars, washing machines, double beds or holidays abroad. Why should not people have the choice between buying expensive freehold property, less expensive leasehold property or rented property? True, there is not much freehold property available in Belgravia, but no one is actually forced to live in Belgravia.
I make no apology for referring yet again to the late Lord Brooke of Cumnor who pointed out to your Lordships over 25 years ago that the existence of the leasehold system had enabled his family to live in much better accommodation in a much better area than would have been the case had only freehold property been available. Many of today's problems arise from the fact that too many people since that time have been willing to pay freehold prices for leasehold property, in the expectation and hope that some future government would bail them out. My noble friend Lord Shaughnessy talks about people paying full value for their leasehold property, but what he actually means is the full freehold value. If they do pay the full freehold value, then I am afraid they have only themselves to blame.
Perhaps I may instance a typical case where the grant of a long lease at a low rent is positively beneficial to a large number of people: hence it might be said that it is very much in the public interest. This is not a hypothetical case but an actual one. A family inherits a farm and a comfortable farmhouse, together with a number of redundant, semi-derelict farm workers' cottages. They have no spare capital and they do not wish to borrow from the bank to modernise the cottages with a view to letting them because that would not be economical. Nor do they wish to sell. They are a large family, they happen to be Roman Catholics and they hope that one or more of the younger children will eventually settle in the same area.
Along come a wealthy couple in their late forties or early fifties who have no children and are too old to have any. They do not wish to spend money on buying a freehold because there is no one to whom they wish to leave it. All they want is a comfortable cottage to which to come for weekends and eventually retire to. So, hey presto! A perfect deal is struck whereby the childless couple take one of the cottages on a 40-year lease for no capital consideration and at a nominal ground rent of, let us say, £150 a year. In return, they guarantee completely to modernise and in every way improve and renovate the cottage. They have what they want, and in 40 years' time one or more of the family's children will inherit a splendidly restored and modernised house capable of a great many more years' use. What is more in the interests of the community as a whole than that arrangement? Yet, under the leasehold enfranchisement system, the landlord would be unwise to enter into such an

141
arrangement because the unscrupulous leaseholder could take advantage of the situation and virtually confiscate the cottage for which he has paid not a penny in capital terms. He could then immediately, or after three years, resell it at a huge profit. Indeed in that unfortunate case, that is exactly what happened.
The big urban ducal estates can doubtless look after themselves. I am concerned with the problems of rural areas and of universities, ecclesiastical landlords and charities whose representatives we have heard speak so well this afternoon. Any amendment to ensure that they receive a minimum of, say, 75 per cent., rather than 50 per cent. of the marriage value would help them. I hope that just such an amendment may be agreed in Committee.
However, unless the estates in question are sold in their entirety, their overheads will not fall as fast as their declining revenues. They will still therefore be worse off, with the unhappy results that the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Crawshaw, forecast this afternoon.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and others, I find that quite the most objectionable feature of the Bill is the proposal to allow non-residents to acquire flats at substantial discounts and then immediately sell them on at a massive profit. In most cases it would probably be a tax free profit since many of those taking advantage of that provision will be domiciled abroad. I hope that all quarters of the House—not necessarily those on the Conservative Back Benches—will join together to resist this "spivvery" at the expense of the beneficiaries of charities.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that when in opposition the Conservatives supported in principle the 1967 Leasehold Reform Bill on Second Reading. Would he be kind enough to give the voting figures for that debate during his reply?
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pour scorn on the Government's initiatives in the towns for redevelopment. I hope that one of these days he will come up to the North East and look at the cities there. He may have a surprise and perhaps lose some of his scorn.
A few years ago I was asked to visit an old lady in a block of flats in Kensington. In her day she had been a nanny and had lived in her flat for many years. Recently the service charge had been doubled and the rent increased, and she was being driven out of her home. She had always expected the rent to rise but not by more than the increase in her pension. No one could find out the name of the new owner who had bought the block and who was trying to increase the value of his investment.
When I heard that legislation was arriving to look after such unfortunate cases, I was naturally delighted. It would, I thought, help a great number of similar cases and be welcomed by those landlords who are sympathetic to the situations of their tenants and who do not like to see the name of landlords
142
besmirched by those of them who are greedy. So I was very disappointed to discover that this Bill does little if anything for the old lady in Kensington and many others like her, but instead is a confiscatory measure against freeholders.
What the Bill should do is to extend the rights and protection for vulnerable tenants and provide for leaseholders to be able to manage their blocks without the expense of having to buy the freehold and to extend their leases at reasonable cost. But there is no justification or relevance for the forced transfer of the property at a concessionary price from the freeholder to any leaseholder.
If the object of the Bill is to protect leaseholders from rapacious and anonymous freeholders, there is a perfectly good alternative that would achieve the desired result; that is, to give occupiers of properties the right to manage their blocks and to be told the identity of the freeholder and leaseholder.
Under this Bill the majority of the tenants in a block may want to buy their freehold, but the most vulnerable and less well off tenants whom we should be seeking to assist in this Bill will be unlikely to have the resources to benefit from the measures that are being proposed. Instead, they will be faced with two alternatives. First, the other tenants can buy the freehold interest of those unable to afford to do so and charge rent. Alternatively, an outside investor, who may well be a Rachman, can buy the freehold interest and charge a rapacious rent.
These provisions do not attack bad landlords; they attack all landlords. The greatest loss and damage are inflicted on the best landlords—for example, the trustees of the Henry Smith's Charity, who will be obliged by the Bill to transfer charity assets to those who some may think are in no need of charity—the leaseholders of Onslow Square, for example. These assets will take the form of windfall gains which will accrue to leaseholders thanks to the terms of Clause 28 and Schedules 5 and 12 to the Bill.
This Bill does more, much more than was promised in the Conservative manifesto. Indeed, a careful reading of its contents and of statements made by Ministers during the Bill's progress through the other place reveals an even more disturbing intent; namely, the abolition of leasehold as a form of housing tenure. There was no mention in the Conservative manifesto of the abolition of leasehold as a form of housing tenure; and there has certainly been no debate within the housing profession about such a major change. There is a fundamental difference between a policy that proposes to enfranchise along the lines of the 1967 Act and a policy to abolish leasehold as a form of tenure.
It has been suggested in the other place that long leasehold has been abolished in countries such as the United States and Australia. This is not correct. Those countries took the democratic approach of providing an additional form of tenure (which in this country we are going to call commonhold) and letting the marketplace make the choice between them.
Abolition of leasehold would require widespread discussion and consultation as it would fundamentally alter the balance of tenures within the housing market

143
—at a time when there is already too little choice in the types of tenure offered within the British housing market. Yet on 24th November Tony Baldry, MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, made clear in Committee that,
"it was common ground that leasehold was an outdated form of land tenure which as far as possible, we should seek to remove".
With whom was it common ground? With those who would seek to make windfall gains from enfranchising?
Leasehold is a convenient form of tenure for many who do not wish to commit themselves to a freehold purchase at the market price but who may for all kinds of reasons wish to live, for example, on the extremely well kept estates of Mayfair, Belgravia and South Kensington. Leaseholders were never forced to buy the lease on their properties but chose to do so under a legally binding agreement, fully understanding the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. If legal agreements can be torn up at the whim of the Government, what value can be attached to them in future, and how can the law of contract be relied on?
Leaseholders in areas of high value properties will make the biggest windfall gains under the Bill's compensation arrangements. A further inequity is that the leaseholder, as well as forcing the purchase, may determine the timing of the purchase, which could be when the market is low and no freeholder would want to sell.
I have seen tables based on research by the respected property company, Savills, which show the likely profits to leaseholders on enfranchisement. The profits are higher the shorter the lease and the bigger the property. On a small mews house in Belgravia—in one of those delightfully well-kept side streets off Sloane Street—the windfall gain on a lease with 80 years to run would be £24,000. The windfall gain on the same house with a 50-year lease would be £67,000; with a 40-year lease, £83,000, and a 30-year lease, £90,000. That on a large house with a 40-year lease to run would be £255,000; and a 30-year lease would enrich the leaseholder at the expense of the freeholder for a sum higher than £275,000.
That a Conservative Government are legitimising the expropriation of such large sums of money and depriving freeholders of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and property comes as something of a surprise to those of us who take seriously the commitment of Conservatives to property rights. That commitment was best expressed by Edmund Burke, when in his book Reflections on the Revolution in France, he said:
"The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends the most to the perpetuation of society itself".
There may be some who believe that Edmund Burke's views are no longer appropriate to 20th century society. Frederick Hayek was not among them. In his book Road to Serfdom he spoke of:
"The system of private property [as] the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not".
There are leaseholders eagerly looking forward to the gains to be made from enfranchisement. They may
144
not be aware that the legislation that will facilitate those gains may also set a precedent for the future expropriation of assets—including their own. I submit to your Lordships, for the sake not only of those who own property but scarcely less for those who do not, that this Bill must be well amended and modified.
6.47 p.m
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I speak as a landowner and a trustee of Smith's Charity, but I have no houses that are likely to be enfranchised under the Bill and therefore have no financial interest in it whatever. However, I have an interest as a landowner who suffered enfranchisement under the 1967 Act. My estate lost two houses.
I dispute the Government's contention that this new legislation can be built safely on the 1967 Act. I find it rather difficult to convey to your Lordships the outrage of having houses taken from under one's nose that one thought were one's property. It is not just a matter of money. It is admitted that the money received under the 1967 Act was derisory, but it was 25 years ago and we have forgotten it. What is of interest is that the house is there today; it is bound to the future uses of one's children. This Bill is an invasion of one's privacy; it stops one planning the future accommodation of expanding generations and therefore is diabolical. For 25 years I have hated the 1967 Act and I like its successor no better. It seems clear to me that the Government were persuaded to bring forward the Bill by pressure from a lobby wishing to obtain freeholds in houses and flats mainly in central London, where the debate has tended to centre.
I can understand the frustration and anxiety of tenants, particularly when faced with the astronomical rise in prices which took place in the late 1980s. Now the boom has turned to bust. Now the people to be envied are those who have not yet committed themselves to a freehold investment in property worth far less than they paid for it. The attractions of leasehold are improving, but the Government have made a manifesto commitment to abolish it.
Government legislation in the field of residential housing has a poor record. As my noble friend Lord Middleton said, whenever they interfered the results tended to be unexpected and, generally, malign. The legislation after the war enforcing low rents led directly to Rachmanism. The necessary legislation to give security of tenure to counter that evil helped to eliminate the private rented sector over a period, until now it stands at about 7 per cent. of home use. The unexpected result was that low rents raised the irrecoverable costs of local authority housing to such a level that it pays to sell council houses at discounts of 70 per cent.—the plans for which appear later in the Bill.
The Government have now correctly detected a demand for rented accommodation, which is particularly strong in country areas. They have started a campaign to encourage the private sector to build houses to rent. They must be joking! The mathematics show that without a huge subsidy it would cost an enormous amount of taxpayers' money. There is no

145
way in which the rental required can be different from the mortgage rate, which still carries tax relief. It is tax relief on mortgages which has contributed to the growth of leasehold in this country by making it financially attractive to roll up rent in a premium—a result of government policy now detested and which they wish to abolish.
The object of the 1967 Act was to relieve the genuine problems of coalminers in Wales who found themselves caught with expiring 99-year leases. The landlord was the Coal Board. The unexpected result of tabling legislation to abolish long leases for their benefit was that it would also abolish the great London estates. The way round that was to amend the Bill to give a high rate restriction to enfranchisement. But that was not totally effective, particularly in the countryside where comparatively wealthy people had made arrangements with landowners—as my noble friend Lord Gisborough mentioned—to restore cottages and make them into highly desirable residences. That arrangement commended itself to landowners as the only alternative to selling them. However, the rateable value was never changed to reflect the improvements and they were therefore bought by their tenants who profited enormously.
The secondary effect was a big increase in the number of unoccupied houses for which that mutually advantageous arrangement is no longer available. I now have many empty houses on my estate for that reason, waiting for the money to bring them up to proper standard so that I can let them on short lets.
But the leaseholders scented blood and now, 25 years later, the present Bill appears before your Lordships' House. What will be the effect of the legislation? My belief is that in the first instance nothing will happen. Who will want to increase an investment in property when it may well fall further in value? The freeholder will have to continue to suffer the loss with no hope of recouping it when the market rises again.
In time the market will turn and leases will then be enfranchised or extended. Nobody will want to sell a lease without enfranchising because of the inbuilt share in the marriage value. In the end, leaseholds both long and short will disappear. That will have its own effect. First, it will increase the supply of expensive properties available for purchase, particularly in London. That must tend to depress their relative price to the disadvantage of existing freeholders and people with long leases. Large sums of money will be paid over to London's landlords, which will never return to the residential market and therefore do nothing to help maintain prices.
Anybody who wishes to come to work and live in central London will have to pay the full freehold price. I am thinking of foreigners on medium-term appointments to foreign banks; businessmen who make their way in London, and perhaps even new Members of another place. The system of leasehold in London has grown up over the ages to serve the needs of the City of London and the capital, to which it is the dormitory. It must be an important element in the success of a great international financial centre for
146
those who want to do business in it to be able to find the accommodation they need at a price that is competitive with other centres. Have we placed a social contract on London?
While landlords, good or bad, will be abolished, the new system will rely on good relations between neighbours—one of the most difficult conditions in human experience. I can see the occasional little Bosnia appearing in central London. Far from creating the development of a universally peaceful and just enjoyment of property, free of the hated landlord, I also see the opportunity for the bullying and intimidation of tenants who cannot or will not enfranchise.
Finally, it is a hard task in these iconoclastic, egalitarian days of a classless society to argue for the rights of those who have inherited positions and wealth, even when one of them is a charity. The Bill will have unforeseen and damaging results, but above all it remains an infringement of the rights of a small minority. I read in the Spectator last week, commenting on a similar point, of a simple test which I commend to both sides of your Lordships' House: for the word "freeholder" substitute the word "Jew", before deciding what one should do with it.
6.58 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his clear and detailed explanation of the Bill. My interest in the Bill revolves around Part IV, and its implications for the architecture, the environment and the landscape that have been created and maintained by the better leasehold estates. I speak primarily from two standpoints; first, as a landscape architect with considerable experience of working both within the traditional leasehold estate and in similar circumstances without; secondly, as chairman of a London property management company which runs a group of mews houses and their common grounds on behalf of the covenanted freehold owners, of whom I am one.
Few would argue against the assertion that some of our finest urban heritage has been conceived, developed and maintained to an extraordinarily high degree through the leasehold estate system. What such estates have achieved has been of benefit to many more than just their own residents. Comparative examples between leasehold development and control and freehold development and control are thick on the ground and some are mentioned in the Bill. For instance, there are the differences between Victoria Square and Argyle Square, between Pimlico and Belgravia; or the Cadogan Estate or Smith's Charity's London streets and those in Lambeth or King's Cross. Much of South London, despite the covenants placed on freeholders, exemplifies the erosion of the initial concept under a barrage of modern short-term pressures.
Much of the architectural cohesion we admire in Continental cities results from different planning codes, planning enforcements and legislation. It also results from different proportions of rented accommodation versus freehold ownership. It must also be remembered that cities such as Bath and Edinburgh

147
have much of their heritage vested in stone facades which involve very much less frequent maintenance than London's 18th and 19th century painted stucco facades.
The comparative excellence of some of the leasehold estates does not come as a surprise to me, having worked on urban commissions there. In such cases, designs, materials and methods have quite rightly been subjected to conscientious scrutiny and there has been no hesitation on the part of the landlords' agents in querying details and insisting on changes. In doing so they not only maintain the leaseholders' covenants to a high standard but they also follow all modern planning and conservation law with a rigour and watchfulness that is rarely seen from our overworked local authorities.
The weight the agents of these estates bring to bear is impressive. It sometimes feels intrusive, but were they not so attentive and meticulous the results would be more akin to the kind of townscapes that too often predominate elsewhere. Pursuing similar commissions outside these traditional estates one often finds less, if any, scrutiny, less compromise and less respect for either the surrounding heritage or, inevitably, the finer points of the law.
I have also seen at first hand the extent to which these landlords are prepared to commit their own funds to large capital projects, incurring costs and overheads that are largely irrecoverable and are unlikely to be repeated in enfranchised areas. My noble friend Lord Kindersley mentioned the £2 million spent by Smith's Charity on its railings. Such projects are driven by long-term interests and long-term stewardship taking priority over short-term considerations. This is something of a rare phenomenon nowadays. In relation to the £2 million spent by Smith's Charity on such projects, I would also emphasise the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw. I refer to the extraordinarily large donations which are still made to charities over and above the capital projects on the fabrics of their estates.
For how long will the estates keep their offices fully staffed if their estates are fragmented is unknown and the risk of a deterioration in the management, heritage and environment is one of the disturbing features of the Bill. I would question whether in Clause 4 there is as yet sufficient and effective regard for the environmental and heritage consequences, some of which may turn out in the long term to be damaging to some of our finest townscapes. Enabling the fragmentation of the ownership of some of the finest areas without positively and deliberately ensuring effective and similar controls and management schemes is unsound. If I understand the Bill correctly, all we have at the moment is a possibility rather than a certainty. I notice that the Financial Times commented:
"No landlord is perfect but it is hard to see any hint of intelligent alternative management proposals in the current legislation".
That is probably a little unfair, as Clause 64 may contain a hint, but before the Bill leaves the House it may be that this hint could become a certainty.
148
What the Bill and its proposers are suggesting is not totally convincing for anyone who has working experience of town and country planning, for anyone who is involved in the urban heritage and for anyone involved in communal management systems. Those with first-hand experience in all those areas have felt the modern tide and the extraordinary strength with which the private leasehold estates have acted as a breakwater.
The estate management schemes being put forward in Clause 64 of the Bill may contain insufficient incentives for the estate landlords to take them up. Should not greater encouragement be given to the traditional management systems to continue? My noble friend Lord Cavendish mentioned some of the crucial environmental improvements that have been carried out by traditional landlords which may not be carried out in the future.
What is certain in London is that the existing planning system, and the resources and wisdom with which it is enforced, are inadequate for the task of preserving, let alone upgrading, so much that the better leasehold landlords have created. The statutory framework, particularly the "conservation area" designations and listed building legislation, has neither the teeth nor the resources to replace long-term vision and committed management. It has failed to prevent the steady erosion of architectural detail, unlike the traditional landlords. And, where it fails, individual whims and excesses begin to assert themselves in a piecemeal fashion on to the original pattern. Negative forms of planning control are no substitute.
To add to the problems, there is the decision of English Heritage to rescind its statutory controls over Grade II listed buildings in London, passing them on to the same hard-pressed boroughs. Most boroughs have far too few conservation officers; some, in fact, have none. Many have been forced to shed planning staff and responsibilities because of financial pressures. Very few of them are increasing staff or resources. They are also burdened by the fact that they can only step in after a situation has deteriorated to a certain point.
Another problem that can sometimes pertain to local borough control over national heritage assets is that some boroughs will inevitably have vested interests which make independent decisions on listed buildings difficult, especially where demolition is involved. I shall therefore welcome any further thoughts that my noble friend may have on how Clause 64 might best encourage the continuance of a traditional management structure.
I have experience of what happens when covenanted freeholders set about managing their own interests on the departure of a ground landlord. Since 1984 I have been the covenanted freehold owner in a private mews in North Kensington. Each of the 17 freeholders owns a share in the company that owns and manages our joint interests. These include the roadway and services, various pieces of planting and other common grounds, and respect for the covenants that are intended to preserve the architectural and general character. I have been a director of that

149
company since 1987, and chairman since 1989. The management is at times a nightmare and is never satisfactory. My noble friend Lord Kindersley mentioned the problem of separate and squabbling freeholders. That is exactly what we have. Finding the four directors or committee members among the shareholders to run the area on behalf of everyone was only a modest problem when there were seven owner-occupiers out of the 17 properties. There are now only four owner-occupiers, of whom one speaks no English and therefore cannot be involved. That leaves three of us—two British and one, thank God, English-speaking German. The rest are absentee landlords, and virtually all of them have little interest as they see their properties as a short-term investment and accordingly fill them with short-term tenants while watching the property market. Short-termism and self-interest rule supreme.
If the three of us directors propose an initiative or an investment which exceeds the definition of minimal and the cheapest possible maintenance, we are unlikely to gain approval from the absentee shareholders who form the majority. Expenses have to be justified over the shortest possible timescale. The majority, for instance, have no interest in planting and replanting, or in redesigning the bin and refuse area, which turned out to be badly flawed and an unhygienic disaster. The largely absentee majority also have no interest in abiding by, or enforcing on themselves, their tenants or others, the covenants which are meant to preserve the character of the area. Extensions have crept in at the backs of houses. Much the worst flouting of covenants relates to those that govern cars and car parking. Quite rightly, only a certain number can be parked and only in a certain configuration. In addition, everyone has a garage which must be kept and used as such. Cars are parked where and whenever, and garages have been converted into dining rooms, dark-rooms, open-plan hall extensions and so forth. At each owners' AGM any suggestion that the covenants should be obeyed more strictly finds no favour with the majority. In the best traditions of English freehold law, they are cheerfully ignored. One tenant even suspended across part of the common ground a heavy chain in order that he could arbitrarily reserve part of it for his own exclusive use. He refused to take it down and his absentee landlord could not care one way or the other.
The majority of shareholders are reticent about these covenants. They are nervous that, if they enforce them on someone else, they may themselves in time want to break them but will find them enforced on themselves. The AGMs are scenes of memorable arguments about who should pay how much for what. If a tree has been planted which cannot be seen by the man who lives at the entrance, he wants to pay less than his fair share. If this comprises estate management by a willing group of freehold owners, it is laughable.
The Minister in another place, in explaining that estate management schemes might take over, said that there was no need to worry because they would not mean the break-up of an estate as the buildings would
150
still be there in the same relation to each other. Since we acquired the management of our estate, the buildings, noble Lords will be glad to hear, are still there in the same relationship to each other. But the conception of the estate as created by the developer and the planners in the early 1980s, has failed to last because of the flouting of the covenants. If there is a common purpose which brings cohesion to our management it is that the absentee majority require that the least commitment is made at the lowest cost with the minimum of administration or management, and that the highest short-term profit margin on the property is retained. When I moved into the property in 1984 it was brand new. Over nine or 10 years I have seen how one co-ordinated development can decline under the wrong management system.
In conclusion, I look forward to assurances from my noble friend the Minister that some of the wider consequences of this Bill, primarily as they affect areas of notable urban heritage, have been properly considered and that the management schemes appropriate to the circumstances will be a certainty and not just a possibility. Managing any urban environment is one of today's continuing challenges. Managing large urban sprawls such as London presents possibly the worst kind of challenge that there is. What this Bill must not do is undermine without guaranteeing its effective continuance the stewardship which has been so successful in meeting that challenge.
7.11 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I realise that there is much good in this Bill, but human nature being as it is, I am afraid that we as a breed tend to concentrate on that which is bad. Being a typical member of the breed, that is exactly what I intend to do. I apologise to the House if it is becoming repetitious, but like other noble Lords I would like to concentrate my remarks principally around Part I of the Bill.
I have no interest whatsoever in that part of the Bill except to say that perhaps I have more friends who will gain from the Bill than those who will not. But that does not prevent me from having very serious doubts about the implications of Part I of the Bill. As other noble Lords have said, I appreciate that the Government cannot be accused of inconsistency and with breaking with the traditions of previous Conservative doctrine because I am aware that in opposition they supported both the 1967 and the 1974 Acts in principle. However, I find the principles of both those Acts difficult to come to terms with, although I accept that, certainly in the 1967 Act, there were considerable cases of hardship which needed to be addressed.
I find it very difficult indeed to come to terms with the leasehold enfranchisement in this Bill. Very simply, it is because I am someone who believes in the principle that when an agreement is made in law between two willing participants, it should be upheld. It is of very considerable concern to me and to many others whom I know, when that particular principle is undermined by government using retrospective legislation and particularly by a government which I

151
support and whose philosophy, I would have thought, should lean very much towards the principle that the ownership of property is sacrosanct.
When there is an overriding need such principles of course can be overcome, but I am not convinced that such an overriding need exists through the Bill that is before us today. I very much concur with the point made by the Country Landowners Association in its comments leading up to this Bill when it said that this is really,
"not so much the right to buy—more an obligation on the freeholder to sell".
I very much subscribe to that, and I regret it.
I do so agree with my noble friend Lord Middleton when he made the point about the worrying implications as far as other property rights are concerned. Certainly as regards countryside matters, there is a real worry and a real doubt that people will consider whether letting is going to be a genuinely future market and something on which they can rely. The implications there, as I am sure all noble Lords will appreciate, are very considerable indeed.
I understand that there are too many cases when unsatisfactory landlords exploit leaseholders. But, as has been said by many noble Lords, surely it must be possible to devise legislation to give such people a more satisfactory means of redress by increasing the rights in the 1987 Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out and which is a very valid point indeed. It is quite wrong that to overcome that problem we should be considering dismantling a large part of the leasehold sector of the property market and with it the business activities of many first-class landlords. What is more, a large section of choice is going to be removed from people entering into the property market.
At this point I take issue with a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, who is not in the Chamber to respond to what I am saying. But I hope that in the remarks that he was making about my noble friend the Duke of Westminster, he was not implying that he is not anything but an exemplary landlord. Furthermore, I believe that it is fair to say that through his good management a local authority has certainly been saved a great deal of time and money.
Moving away from the principles behind Part I of the Bill, there will obviously be a great number of specific points which will be heavily scrutinised during later stages. Perhaps the one which we shall be concentrating on as much as any other is the formula under which the leaseholder will be able to acquire the property. It seems fairly clear to me, from what I have read and heard, that if the present proposals are to be accepted, the landlord is going to get a pretty bad deal. Bearing in mind that in most cases the landlord is unlikely to be a willing seller, it seems to me that we should endeavour to ensure that the formula should, if anything, work in his favour and more towards the true freehold value. That seems to me to be quite fair and reasonable.
Furthermore, it would be quite unacceptable for a leaseholder, having exercised his right of enfranchisement, to sell the property shortly afterwards for a
152
sizeable gain. My noble friend Lord Gisborough gave us some fairly stark examples of what may happen if the present formula is accepted. It seems to me that we should look towards introducing some safeguards so that if a property were sold after a certain period of time and large profits were made, the landlord should have some form of redress to get back those profits. I believe I am right in saying that there is a minimum qualification clause in the right to buy council houses under the 1985 Act. I am sure that something along those lines could be introduced to safeguard that particular point.
I would like confirmation from my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Government have agreed to introduce an amendment covering injurious affection for houses as well as for flats. I welcome that. If that is indeed the intention of the Government it would be logical to extend that to properties covered under the two previous Acts. My noble friend may say that that is unacceptable because it is retrospective, but I believe it is fair to say that a number of matters in this Bill are retrospective and I certainly do not like them.
There are other areas of concern which I do not wish to dwell upon at the moment, but they include the prospect of corporations, foreign companies and property speculators acquiring freeholds. That problem was identified in an article in the Sunday Telegraph, which I am sure that some of your Lordships will have read, which suggested that such people might be able to acquire a freehold and, with it, considerable profit. It would not be the occupant who gained from such a buy-out.
The question of principal residence is also very important. We should look at it carefully to prevent those without such a fundamental involvement in the property from gaining it so readily.
I do not want to dwell on charities. I am sure that Members on both sides of your Lordships' House will have been impressed, if not moved, by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kindersley. I am sure that that is a point that we shall have to consider most carefully at a later stage. His arguments were very powerful and we cannot ignore them.
My noble friend Lord Middleton was concerned about rural low-cost housing. I very much hope that the Government will consider carefully the effects of the Bill on any such scheme that is protected now, or would be in the future, by charitable status.
As I said earlier, I find myself at loggerheads with the principle behind Part I of the Bill, and whereas I know that it represents an extension of previous Acts, there seems to be one major difference. For the first time, we are seeing —certainly with regard to houses and, I think, high value flats, a new type of leaseholder who needs no assistance, who is quite capable of looking after himself or herself, who is financially well off but who is now being given the right to acquire a property against the wishes of the landlord and, from all accounts, laughing all the way to the bank. I cannot accept that that is right.
7.22 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, as is the case with many other noble Lords, my remarks on this Bill relate primarily to Part I and to the leasehold enfranchisement provisions. I declare an interest only in so far as I am a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and am therefore a valuer in practice. I am also a member of the Country Landowners' Association, and a private landlord, but not of long leasehold property. I can therefore disclaim any interest, personal or professional, in the matters affected by this Bill.
Perhaps I should say first that I support several aspects of the Bill. First, I support Clause 78 which refers to codes of management practice. I know that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has worked hard on this and has issued some draft proposals of which I hope that the Government will take due note. I feel strongly that the management of flats and of houses in multiple occupation which are subdivided into flats is close to the heart of the problems which have been experienced and which have led to the Bill now before us.
I support also the principle of establishing an urban regeneration agency. Whatever form that takes, it is an initiative which should be supported. The areas of derelict land in our inner cities are something of which none of us can be proud—certainly not those of us who, like myself, are in some way responsible for property matters.
I should now like to touch on some of the points made by the Minister. First, he equated in value long leasehold properties with freeholds. It is not clear to me that that is universally the case. I feel certain that the Minister had good reason for making that point, and at this stage I would merely ask him whether he will be kind enough to write to me, giving concise details of the background, before we reach the next stage of the Bill. I should be most grateful for that. The Minister referred also to research by the the Consumers' Association. I take him to mean in this instance the research that was carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. At my request I was sent a copy of that research by the Consumers' Association. I have to say that I did not regard it as a reliable document either statistically or in terms of its coverage for the purposes of a justification of this Bill. To my way of thinking, it was little more than a litany of commonly encountered tenants' complaints. It made no attempt to dig deeper into the underlying reasons why, from the landlord's point of view, that situation might have come about.
In addition, something was missing from the Minister's opening remarks. Previously, the Government have indicated that there would be a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal for the settlement of disputes. I cannot find that anywhere in the Bill. I should be grateful for a reassurance that such a provision will be introduced at a later stage. It is a valuable and much-needed safeguard.
I take a technician's view of the Bill, so I shall not comment on the morality or the politics of it. As someone who uses legislation and who has to implement it in the course of my normal business, I
154
expect legislative provisions to operate fairly, without undue complexity, and to have a reasonable chance of meeting their stated objectives. However, for all the comment that has been made about this Bill and for all the claims that have been made for it, I have to say that a large part of it is, in my opinion, unnecessary. The clear demand of tenants is to have the provision for extending their leases guaranteed and to have management control of the property where they have the majority interest. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, also made that point. However, the Bill guarantees neither. Indeed, I rather take issue with the Bill to the extent that it purports to deliver something which, on my reading of it, it does not succeed in delivering.
The chosen mechanism of enfranchisement is, at best, long-winded and complicated. Perhaps I may illustrate that. A leaseholder in a block of flats only ever has partial control of the building as a whole. That is particularly the case where the flats were originally designed to be rented and not to be sold. There may, therefore, be deficiencies in the nature of commonways and accesses. Perhaps I may put up a marker that the concept of the freestanding "Englishman's home is his castle" is, in these circumstances, unattainable. My allied complaint about the Bill is that it attempts to force a large number of different types of occupation, different lengths of lease and different patterns of service charge into a communal mould—and that is a mistake.
There are other problems with the Bill. Where there is a complex of flats, possibly covering several acres and comprising many different buildings with several different entrances, the operation of the Bill as it stands will take no account of the physical and legal realities—nor, for that matter, does it address the problem of potential service charge deficiencies. The Bill allows partial enfranchisement in such circumstances of blocks or parts of blocks in much larger developments. That is a recipe for muddle, if not disaster.
I am worried that the Bill will be divisive as between existing contented tenants and landlords, and, in my opinion, needlessly so. That apart, it will also be divisive between different classes of tenants, as has been pointed out. Some problems are already arising where long leaseholders and rack-rented tenants in the same building do not see eye-to-eye. They view their positions and interests as being different.
Moreover, the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, pointed out, will introduce a further category of tenant; namely, those who at a particular moment choose not to enfranchise and who will, for ever and a day, be left out of account. That cannot be right. Following that, the freehold may be purchased on behalf of tenants by a nominee purchaser; but there is no obligation placed on that nominee purchaser to hand over the freehold to the tenants whom he purports to represent. In the course of my business I have experience of a case where the freehold of a building, comprising flats and shops, was purchased by a nominee on behalf of eight other tenants. The nominee then proceeded to put the freehold into his own name. Without a tying-in procedure of some kind in the Bill, the avenue for fraud is wide open.

155
I feel also that there should be a firm link between those leaseholders and the freehold which is supposedly acquired for their benefit in the public interest. I do not see that link. Many of the existing problems between landlord and tenant will be replicated, despite this legislation. My anxiety is that the Bill represents a failure to grasp an opportunity. I should have liked to see the whole vexed system of residential landlord and tenant sorted out once and for all, to restore order and consistency to a marketplace which is bedevilled by antagonism; to provide security for long-term tenants and an opportunity for long-term investment; a range of lease lengths of all types and values; but this rather overweight Bill merely makes the position more complex. As I see it, its effect will be that only mortgage lenders will have an opportunity to invest in residential property by way of a financial commitment for longer than 21 years. Is it intended that they should have a monopoly which is denied to existing long leaseholders? I see no reason to protect the position of mortgage lenders twice over, or to give them a monopoly in those circumstances. It is a mistake to alienate some existing and important economic players in the urban market.
As has been pointed out by others, that would also be a warning to potential investors of a lack of an integrated policy in this area. Why stop at 21 years? Why stop at residential property? I am also worried that some legitimate and uncontroversial investments will be compromised without public benefit. Many of them will be extremely complicated and awkward to unwind. In applying the broad-brush approach the Government should give special consideration to areas of hardship.
The Bill produces a whole new crop of problems. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, about the mechanics of the proposal. I hope that the Government too will take due note of what has been said. I should like to leave them with the thought that revision rather than abolition might be a better way forward.
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, the Bill is in three parts and is very comprehensive. It is really three Bills, and I propose to concentrate, like many speakers, on Part I. This has been an unusual debate in that the arguments have ranged long and heatedly, mainly, but not exclusively, on these Benches. I note that they have been mostly against the Bill. I am pleased to assure my noble friend the Minister that I shall speak in favour of it. In that, I am in the minority, but that is not unusual. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Selsdon said in an excellent speech and with what my noble friend Lord Coleraine said.
I too must declare an interest in that for the past 35 years I have moved around west London and lived in a number of different long leasehold properties on the so-called great London estates and others. They vary enormously in quality. That is an important point. It
156
is no good lumping them all together, although for the purposes of the legislation of course everyone must be equal.
My noble friend Lord Crawshaw mentioned me and so I shall take up the issue of Henry Smith's Charity which was also mentioned in an excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Kindersley. The Henry Smith's Charity estates are exceptionally well run. Its flagship estate, Onslow Square, is superbly managed. It is expensive but efficient. One receives good value for money. That is not to say that the Henry Smith's Charity does not do great work, but it is run as a commercial concern. It gives away large sums of money but it earns large sums of money. I believe I am right when I say that the percentage of profits that it distributes is modest for a charity because it is run commercially. There is nothing wrong with that. Let us be under no illusion. It has every right to be commercial. But it must be made clear that that is what happens.
Another interesting point raised in the debate relates to heritage. There is an idea that if leaseholders on an estate are enfranchised, the whole heritage of the London squares will somehow collapse. That argument is dubious because there is a great deal of legislation already in place. Planning regulations of all kinds exist. Conservation areas have been designated. We already have an enormous number of measures designed to protect the environment. I do not see that that is a good argument.
The provisions of the Bill—this point has not been mentioned—which are contained in the manifesto, are about choice. Choice, I am glad to say, is at the heart of the policies of all the main parties now. It is all very well to talk about contracts freely entered into, and to say that the proposals are retrospective, but if one has tried to buy a flat in central London over the past 25, 30, 40 or 50 years, one will have found that only one type of flat has been available, and that is leasehold. One is obliged to accept all the onerous obligations which may in some cases be beneficial but in others irrelevant and unnecessary because conditions are changing all the time. They are imposed by landlords for their own benefit. Leasehold is an archaic form of land tenure which has been largely discontinued in all parts of the world. The position in the United Kingdom is unique.
Another curious point that is made relates to windfall profits. The windfall profits that have been mentioned are modest by comparison with the magnificent profits that will be made by the freeholders at the end of a lease. They are staggering sums of money. The subject of profits is not a good one to explore, although no doubt it will be explored during the passage of the Bill.
As regards the matter of choice, people will not necessarily wish to take up the enfranchisement which is proposed. There is no obligation for leaseholders to do so and, therefore, there is no question of leasehold abolition. I believe that the good estates, which offer long lease renewals on reasonable terms, will find that their leaseholders stay with them. There is no reason why that should not be the case. There appears to be a certain amount of panic on the part of people who

157
own large areas of land—mostly Peers on these Benches—which appears to indicate that the Government may well be on the right lines. The owners of the great estates have used their not inconsiderable resources to mobilise a great lobby against the Bill.
I hope that the Government will stand firm. As the 1967 legislation progressed through Parliament its effect was whittled away by the pressure groups. I am worried that the same may happen again; indeed, there is an indication that that has already begun in another place. I urge my noble friend not to be put off or to be cajoled by the siren voices which he heard from behind him but to stand firm so that we can provide a choice to the benefit of all concerned.
7.42 pm
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, unfortunately I do not own Onslow Square; I wish that I did. I was interested to hear the comments of my noble friend Lord Montgomery. He reminded me irresistibly of my grandmother when in 1907 she was engaged to my grandfather. He said to her, "Marriage is all give and take". Her reply was, "Yes, you give and I take". That appears to be my noble friend's description of the choice that has been offered to the tenant; in other words, the tenant says to the landlord, "You give and I take".
I believe that the presentation of the Bill is an extremely bad day for this House and for the Government. I say that with regret. We are seeing a considerable amount of social upheaval, of dissatisfaction with society and of a society which is in no way at ease with itself. It is a society which has fewer morals and shows less care for its neighbours than has been the case for a long time. I can think of nothing which will do more to make the situation worse than this Bill.
The Government were approached by people who said, "We have something which we entered into quite reasonably. We want to get something for nothing. Please, will you go and take it from the freeholders and give it to us?" My noble friend Lord Dilhorne established that beyond peradventure. The Government then said, "Well, there are 750,000 leaseholders. They have votes and we are frightened of them. There are not many freeholders. Some of them are noble and they do not have votes so we could not care anything at all about them". I thought that Conservative governments cared about contracts and about property. It was not only Hayek who said that liberty was based on property; it was said earlier by Locke.
Several noble Lords have spoken in favour of leasehold enfranchisement. Most have a personal benefit to gain. We have heard a Front Bench Opposition spokesman who is a director of a Maxwell company promoting with relish the idea of a Bill from which he personally will benefit. I do not know about other noble Lords but I do not find that particularly attractive. The whole concept of the Bill is to take from one person and to give to another for the
158
purposes of political bribery. I find that unattractive. I also find unattractive the concept of Peers voting for their own interests.
It has been said with reason that the law of contract was previously upset. The Irish Land Acts are obvious examples. I do not see that Belgravia is full of Greeks on donkeys digging rotten potatoes out of the square in order to feed themselves. I do not see in Harley Street surgeons' wives with seven children, no shoes and threadbare shawls around their shoulders shivering in the cold while begging to feed their children. There is no great social need for this piece of confiscatory legislation. If there is, it has failed to appear. It is not as though the inhabitants of Chester Square or Gerald Road live in back-to-back cottages full of Welsh miners whose villages are decaying. It is extraordinary that a Conservative Government can confiscate from the BP pension fund and give to rich South African and Californian millionaires. I know that to be the case.
Those are my reasons for believing that this is a rotten Bill. I find unattractive the behaviour today of some noble Lords speaking in favour of a Bill which will benefit their interests. I have no interest in the Bill. I have not been marshalled by anyone, nor would I be. I know that there have been frequent complaints about the degeneration of moral behaviour. It has been said that the youth of today have ill manners and show no respect for their parents. That was found on the clay tablets in Samaria 2500 years before Christ. That still does not prevent one on occasions from pointing out a piece of scruffy and rotten legislation.
7.47 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, one of the consequences of rising to speak at this stage in a debate is that almost everything one wanted to say has already been said far more eloquently. Looking at the clock I am aware of the lateness of the hour and I hope that your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I shall endeavour to be brief. I must declare an interest in regard to Part I of the Bill. Indeed, it was declared by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It is that I am the owner of a long-lease flat in London and I shall be in a position to purchase its freehold if the legislation becomes law.
I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for the detailed and clear way he explained the objectives of this wide-ranging Bill. Part I has been the subject of much debate. There is only one aspect of that part to which I wish to refer. It is my abiding concern that the Bill may not enable the less well-off lessees to acquire their freeholds. A two-thirds majority of tenants is needed to register an interest in acquiring the freehold. Even if a residents' association can obtain a two-thirds majority to register an interest in purchase, they may lack the funds to proceed if a landlord has submitted excessive service charges over the years or mismanaged the block in some way. If that is the case, the tenants remain trapped with leases which they can do nothing about. Yet surely those are the very people whom the Government are trying to help. They are often burdened by debt and are in no position to increase their debts. With ever-growing

159
restraints on public expenditure it may be a forlorn hope, but I ask the Minister whether it might be possible to make available some central funds which could be loaned to facilitate genuine cases so that those people would be able to take advantage of this legislation which they would otherwise be unable to do. That was a point raised so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Selsdon.
Part III of the Bill relates to the setting up of the urban regeneration agency. I have a further interest to declare in this regard as I am a director of a property company which has been involved in the cleaning up of a derelict and, in part, contaminated site at major expense. I believe that the aims of this part of the Bill are to be welcomed and are generally regarded favourably by the local authorities and the regional development corporations. However, I wonder whether the Minister can give some insight into the Government's thinking on a number of aspects.
Clause 142(2) (c) and (d) states that the task of the URA will be to seek to regenerate land which is:
"contaminated, neglected or unsightly; and land which is likely to become derelict, neglected or unsightly".
Those are commendable objectives. Clause 153 goes on to say, as I understand it, that those and other areas which in the opinion of the Secretary of State are suitable for urban development shall under a "designation order" become "designated areas". The designation order may provide for the URA to become the local planning authority. That being the case, I wonder whether my noble friend can reassure me that the code of consultation which currently exists between local authorities and urban development corporations, which I believe have similar powers, will be fully adopted by the URA.
Clause 147 provides for the URA to carry out development or redevelopment of land and to provide finance in a variety of ways to achieve that. However, subsection (3) of that clause goes on to state:
"but the Agency shall not in giving financial assistance, purchase, loan or share capital in a company".
So far, so good, hilt I wonder whether my noble friend can help me as regards what appears to be an anomaly, since Clause 143 states in subsection (1) (g) that the agency may:
"with the consent of the Secretary of State, form, or acquire interests in, bodies corporate".
While on the face of it I am not opposed to the URA entering into what might be called joint venture development, perhaps the Minister will give me a little guidance as regards what is proposed here and whether, as I have suggested, there is an anomaly in the legislation as presently drafted.
In the case of any development proposed by the URA I hope that it will work closely and consult fully with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, the Health and Safety Executive and the NRA. I hope also that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, care will be taken not to affect the unitary development plan.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly in the context of urban regeneration, I should like to turn to the question of the blight which currently affects cleaned up sites which are threatened with inclusion on a contaminated land register. The Environmental
160
Protection Act 1990 requires local authorities to complete a register of contaminated land but makes no provision for grading the land: for example, to show, first, land which is contaminated where no remedial work is in progress; secondly, contaminated land where work is in progress; and, thirdly, contaminated land where work has been completed to the specification laid down and passed as fit for development use. In many cases those latter sites provide an even better building foundation than sites which are regarded as clean at the outset since far more is known about the nature of the substrata of the treated sites.
The continuing uncertainty as to how the contaminated site register will be compiled and the fact that there is no provision for treated sites to be either removed from the register or separately registered are a positive disincentive to developers to undertake the much-needed work. Sources of finance to commence the work and mortgage funds to prospective house buyers at the other end of the scale are simply not available while that uncertainty exists. That was a point made extremely persuasively by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. At the very least I hope that land which has been treated will not be retrospectively included in the register and ideally I should like to see the whole idea of the contaminated land register scrapped.
The press has recently reported that that may be about to happen. It may be a forlorn hope, as was that expressed by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, but I hope that the Minister can give me some reassurance that that is indeed the case. I apologise for posing a number of questions to my noble friend, who I know will be hard pressed to answer fully all noble Lords when he winds up the debate, but I live in hope that, as on past occasions, he may make the most of what on the face of it appears a challenging stint at the Dispatch Box.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I shall speak briefly, since most of what I might have said has already been said.
I should start by declaring an interest in this unfortunate Bill. When I live in London I live in a house which I lease from the Grosvenor Estates, the properties in London of my noble friend the Duke of Westminster. My lease runs for another 52 years.
If this Bill goes through unamended, I understand that Part I would enable me to buy the freehold, perhaps against the wishes of my landlord and at a price very advantageous to me and my heirs.
Tempting though that prospect may be to me personally, it pales into insignificance beside the importance of the principle at stake which the Government propose to set aside. I shall therefore vote against those parts of this Bill which, without good reason, would force anyone to sell something which he does not wish to sell, which would allow contracts freely entered into to be unilaterally broken and which would generally undermine some of our most important freedoms, privileges and duties.

161
The fact that the rot envisaged by Part I started to set in with socialist legislation in 1967 does not impress me favourably and I am surprised that the Government are praying it in aid of their present intentions. It seems to me that this Bill's envisaged powers of compulsory purchase under Part I should only be granted to genuine residents who either cannot find their landlord or who can show that he is acting unreasonably or negligently. Such unreasonable or negligent conduct could easily be defined in law and decided by the county court. Indeed, parts of Clauses 78 to 81 seem to go some way to providing just such a possible framework, or perhaps the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 could be amended to spell out the necessary criteria which a landlord should meet if he does not do so already.
I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister for speaking in these terms. He has the unenviable task of dragging this Bill through your Lordships' House and I hope that he will be able to convince his colleagues in government of the need for compromise as the Bill proceeds. He has shown his wisdom and ability to do that when dealing with other pieces of bad legislation which have come before your Lordships for improvement. I wish him well this time. I say this also because, like other noble Lords, I cannot believe that this Bill is his fault and so my criticisms are not in the least bit directed at him. Indeed, I understand that the Bill is largely the brainchild of my old and honourable friend in another place, Sir George Young, who was at school with me; and of my honourable friend Mr Dudley Fishburn, who was also at school with me, where he had the doubtful privilege of fagging for me. I must say that until this Bill came along, I did not think that these experiences had done either of my honourable friends much harm, but now I clearly need to think again.
I believe that the Government too should think again before they sell some of the great principles which are at stake in this Bill for a few thousand votes in London and the South East.
8 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in my experience of debates in this House I have rarely seen a situation such as we have here today, in which almost without exception speakers have made declarations of interest or declarations of non-interest. I wish to follow suit by declaring my interest, which is that I am chairman of a residents' association located in the City of Westminster. My declaration of non interest is that I live in premises which would not be affected by the provisions of this Bill.
Another interesting feature of this debate has been the sharp division of opinion on the Benches opposite. Many noble Lords on those Benches have become worked up about this issue. Those noble Lords opposite who have been courageous enough to support the legislation have been few and far between. I admire their courage and I support them. I think that the broad thrust of this legislation is right but, as we pass through the various stages of the Bill, we shall no doubt propose various amendments.
162
Two points have been made in the course of the debate which I feel merit further consideration. A cogent point was made about charities. We need to reconsider that matter. There is also the question of historic houses. My noble friend Lord Cobbold could not be with us today. He is the treasurer of the Historic Houses Association. He would have spoken on that subject and he will move amendments to the Bill at a later stage.
There has been much talk about good and bad landlords. Certainly there are a number of bad ones. The Consumers' Association has listed the kind of things from which leaseholders have suffered, such as the neglect of the buildings in which they live, delays in repairs being carried out or escalating costs for those repairs being charged without any justification being given. The Consumers' Association has also listed the effects of absentee landlords, a lack of contact with such landlords, a lack of indication of how service charge accounts are prepared and other such matters. A number of leaseholders are suffering difficulties as a result of such behaviour. There are, of course, good landlords. The large estates have been mentioned in this respect. I commend Grosvenor Estate's management from my own experience. I hope the impeccable appearance of the estates will be maintained under the proposals in the legislation for many years to come.
A number of specific points have been made about the problems with which leaseholders would have to contend under this proposed legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, mentioned some of them. The hurdles to be overcome are not inconsiderable. I cannot envisage a rapid rush towards enfranchisement as a result of the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, mentioned low rentals. Many feel such rentals are fixed at far too low a level and should be increased.
The noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, referred to the situation where accommodation in a block is occupied by commercial interests. As he mentioned, if more than 10 per cent. of a block is occupied by commercial interests the enfranchisement process cannot be undertaken. Then there is the whole problem of the assessment of the purchase price and the debate about the marriage value. Several noble Lords have referred to that.
There is also the matter of the option to extend leases, which is limited to those who do not qualify for enfranchisement. That seems to be a retrograde step in comparison with the 1967 legislation, which allowed any qualifying leaseholder to opt either for a longer lease or for enfranchisement. My own view is that, if that option were open to those who qualify for enfranchisement, many people, rather than go through the arduous process of seeking enfranchisement—which involves having to obtain the agreement of two-thirds of the occupants and having to buy out the remainder and working out what the eventual price will be—would be quite happy to opt for an extension of their lease. I hope we shall get the Bill amended to that effect.
I have indicated some of the issues to which I believe we shall return as regards the first part of this

163
Bill. A number of issues have been raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee in regard to Parts II and III. I do not wish to repeat the points that have been made, except to emphasise one point that my noble friend made in relation to Part II on the abolition of the right of tenants of local authority housing as regards the contracting out of the management of their homes. Hitherto they have had the right to be consulted, with an effective veto if there was a majority against the contracting out proposal. I believe the abolition of that right is a retrograde step. It offends against the whole concept of the Citizen's Charter. I hope an amendment will be tabled to correct that.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I, too, declare what interest I possess, which is that I hold a lease under the Crown Estates which may voluntarily conform to enfranchisement. A number of speeches have been made. Almost all of them were concerned with leasehold reform. Two or three speeches were concerned with urban regeneration. To my regret no one, except on the Front Bench, mentioned housing.
I wish to comment first on leasehold enfranchisement. We on this side entirely support the need to abolish a tenure that is not only an aberration—I believe it is seldom found outside Hawaii—but is too often exploitative, with all the rights and benefits on one side, namely, the freeholder; and all the costs and obligations on the other side, namely, the leaseholder. Any Bill which seeks to reform property law invariably affects vested interests, which in this case are those of the rich, the powerful and those who inherit property.
We have been told by those who oppose the Bill, by the noble Lords, Lord Gisborough, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, Lord Boardman, Lord Hamilton, Lord Pearson and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that this Bill represents compulsory interference with contracts that are entered into freely. I have to say that the three-quarters of a million leaseholders know that if they need a flat—notwithstanding the views of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—and they are either young, retired, single parents or poor, they have virtually no choice but a leasehold flat. It is hard to talk about freely entered contracts in that situation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have talked about confiscation. However, on the contrary, not only will landlords who have disposed of all but a minimal interest in their property to a long lease nevertheless enjoy half the marriage value, but it could be argued—I am not arguing it—that the full marriage value belongs to the leaseholder as compensation for his declining asset.
We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, speaking on behalf of English Heritage—some of his fears were shared by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay—that this Bill may threaten the stewardship of the great estates. As a former commissioner of English Heritage I understand and sympathise with their fears. However, all the experience we have of the enfranchisement of houses in 1967 and of the efficacy of estate management agreements in the Bill, together with the safeguard of
164
diligent local authorities operating their conservation powers, shows there is protection enough, especially if the Government make some concessions as regards the efficacy of Article 4 directions.
Finally, we have been told—these arguments were eloquently put by the noble Lords, Lord Kindersley and Lord Crawshaw—that churches and charities should be exempt. But just because churches and charities spend their money in charitable ways does not always mean that they derive their income in charitable ways. Lines may have to be drawn clearly between those churches and charities which let their properties on a commercial basis to finance charitable works and those which let their properties on a non-commercial basis for charitable ends. Noble Lords may be sympathetic to drawing that distinction.
We have heard voices tonight putting those arguments, but we have not heard voices putting arguments with equal weight from the other side. We have not heard about the problem of the diminishing lease which is impossible to sell and, given the reluctance of mortgage lenders, almost as impossible to buy. Above all, we have heard little about the problem landlord whose management is too often shoddy, non-existent or over priced.
Three quarters of leaseholders have experienced problems with landlords. Half of those problems were serious. A quarter of leaseholders considered going to court and a quarter of those actually did so. We are speaking here of unknown landlords, scurrilous managing agents, soaring service charges, repairs not done, accounts not audited and lease extension refused. This will not do.
We on this side of the House believe that that part of the Bill is a brave measure. It seeks to abolish leasehold and to define tenures as either broadly rented or freehold. However, here we would want to part company with the Government because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly said, the Bill offers a twin-track procedure of either enfranchisement or extension. I believe that there are better ways.
As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in opening the debate, to enfranchise leaseholders must overcome a series of hurdles, such as low rent, long lease, two-thirds eligibility and no more than 10 per cent. of the property being commercial property. We understand the thinking behind those hurdles, particularly in the case of long leases and the 10 per cent. commercial property rule. Nonetheless, such hurdles may be improved by amendment. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in November 1990, the complication of a low rent qualification cannot be justified. We on these Benches agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it is an unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem. We shall return to those points in Committee.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, rightly said, the core problem lies with the very concept of the twin track. Under the Bill if one can enfranchise then one must. Only if one is not qualified to enfranchise can one extend one's lease. Again, we understand the Government's thinking. They fear that if extension is a viable alternative individual flat

165
owners may follow that path and make it impossible for the others statutorily to overcome the enfranchisement hurdles and obtain a two-thirds majority. As the Government wish to enfranchise they wish to reduce the number of those in the betwixt and between land of leasehold.
I wonder whether the Government thinking on the matter is right. All consumer research shows that tenants overwhelmingly prefer enfranchisement to extension. According to consumer research two-thirds say that they would not extend their lease, whereas over half would buy. Under the Bill many would be able neither to enfranchise, because they cannot obtain the majority, nor to extend, because they have been forced to go down the track of enfranchisement. We have a twin track.
I do not know what the noble Lord does when he goes down a track which becomes a dead end. As the noble Lord's family probably owns the fields he would probably cut a swathe across them, but the rest of us would backtrack and go down the other path. We shall be arguing in Committee for a similar approach. We shall be arguing that where those eligible to enfranchise have failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority vote on, say, three occasions, perhaps two years apart, they should then have the right to opt for extension. It is the only way to avoid a situation in which the minority, perhaps non-resident, leaseholders can deny the majority of home owners the right to enfranchisement, the right to extension and the right to anything else. Such an amendment would still privilege enfranchisement as the Government want, but if we do not amend the twin-track procedure we shall be left with three categories of former leaseholder: the enfranchised, the extended and the stranded. As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, we cannot believe that that is the Government's intention.
I now move on to the second part of the Bill, dealing with housing. It is a pity that we have to do so because this would be a much better Bill if, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said, it was confined to leasehold enfranchisement and that had been combined with a full commonhold scheme. Indeed, it is significant that very little reference has been made to housing, except by the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite. That is perhaps understandable because this is not a housing Bill, despite its Long Title. It is essentially a tenures Bill. It adds not a single house to the stock, houses not a single homeless family, employs not a single building worker and takes not a single family out of bed and breakfast accommodation.
Therefore, apart from the welcome which we shall give to the tidying up of the consequences of the Ealing judgment and thus clarifying the funding of housing welfare services, we shall be arguing that there is little in the housing part of this Bill which is either necessary—such as the right to compensation and the right to repair—or desirable in terms of the rent-to-mortgage scheme or the loss of tenants' veto on changes in housing management.
166
The right to repair is unnecessary and, in the form in which it appears in the Bill, probably unworkable. Many local authorities now have schemes whereby if the local authority does not complete work in a given time tenants can call in a contractor from an approved list. That is absolutely right. However, I am afraid to say that the Government have produced a scheme that will not work, like the last one they produced in 1985 in which all of 70 tenants spent £7,300 on repairs at a cost to the Government of £40,000 in publicity.
Why is there a problem? Under compulsory competitive tendering a private contractor will, for the most part, be responsible for housing repairs. Under the Bill if the private contractor fails to do the job on time, often simply because he cannot gain access because the tenant is out, the tenant may call in a second contractor, also within the competitive tendering procedure, to do the work in lieu. Who is responsible for what, at what price, under what authority and for what reason will be impossible to determine and control. If the Government want the scheme to work—and I believe that the proposal is well intentioned —will they please listen to professional and local authority advice this time round? We shall take no pleasure, or not much, in saying, "I told you so".
I now turn to the aspect of the housing Bill which I believe to be downright irresponsible, namely, the rent-to-mortgage scheme. It has not been referred to today, except by noble Lords on the Front Benches. The Minister, Sir George Young, said in July 1992, in Inside Housing:
"No responsible government would want to encourage people who cannot afford it to take on the responsibility of owner occupation".
One has only to look around. We are already living with the consequences of pushing marginal buyers into owner occupation, especially as the economic slump deepens. We are surrounded by the 75,000 families a year whose homes are being repossessed, the 300,000 families who are more than six months in arrears with repayments of whom half will lose their homes, the 1 million families with negative equity and the more than 1 million families who are in multiple debt. Even more repossessions have only been avoided because building societies are rescheduling payments, which adds to the problems of negative equity and long-term debt. Sir George Young was right last July. So what on earth are the Government doing producing a rent-to-mortgage scheme when every Member of this House, I am sure, would agree with John Perry of the Institute of Housing that:
"effective measures are needed to convert mortgages into rents, not more ways of persuading people who can barely afford it to become owner occupiers"?
Local authorities are flooded with former owner occupiers who are now homeless and seeking council housing, and we shall be adding to that list.
The Government have already experimented with shared owning/renting schemes in 1984. That failed. Only 600 people took it up. We told the Government at the time that it would fail. Now we are to have another version of a similar scheme—a deferred purchase scheme, which is bad when it is in local government and good in central government. It has

167
been piloted with little enthusiasm in Milton Keynes and Basildon. Every local authority and professional association is saying that it will not work.
Certainly no tenant should touch the rent-to-mortgage scheme. They will have poorer discounts than under the right to buy, they face heavy outgoings on repairs and insurance, they will lose any future right to housing benefit if their income falls, and precisely because they are too poor to buy outright their cases are marginal enough to risk repossession. Because the local authorities have no power under the Bill to repurchase those people's homes, they face foreclosure with no way back. For many families that section of the Bill is a tragedy waiting to unfold.
The Minister may say, as the Minister stated in another place, that tenants know best, and that they, and not the Government, will decide. I accept that. But why is it that the tenant's right to know best, and to decide, is being removed from the last and most important housing issue: that is, of housing management? Why do the tenants know best under rent-to-mortgage but do not know best under housing management? Housing management is not just about giving out keys and getting in rent. It relates to housing the homeless, prioritising applications, resolving disputes and complaints, determining housing benefits, recovering arrears, offering debt counselling, supporting the mentally and physically frail in sheltered housing and running local community offices. It touches people's lives intimately. Therefore, whoever manages the housing stock is central to people's and tenants' wellbeing.
Yet under the Bill, whether or not council tenants wish it, housing management will go out to compulsory competitive tendering; and whether or not tenants wish it, an alien company may manage their homes and part of their lives. I do not wish to sound complacent but there is no evidence that tenants are unhappy with local authority management. MORI research suggests the contrary. There is no evidence that compulsory competitive tendering will cut costs, especially in the light of the TUPE regulation and the cost of contracting out. There is no evidence that compulsory competitive tendering will improve quality of service. Indeed, in so far as it splinters services, which Cullingworth urged in 1969 should be integrated, we shall see a comprehensive service deteriorate.
The Bill imposes compulsory competitive tendering on tenants. It is without their consent, they have no choice. Government do not need the Bill to introduce compulsory competitive tendering. They need the Bill to overturn what your Lordships insisted on in Sections 105 and 27 of the Housing Act 1985: the right of tenants to be consulted and to determine who manages their homes. Your Lordships safeguarded tenants' rights in 1985 against the wish of the Government. That safeguard has proved exemplary.
Elsewhere in the Bill leaseholders and local authority tenants have a final say on who owns their homes. But they are to be refused the final say on who manages them. If they are affluent enough to buy, they have that right. If they are too poor to buy, they are
168
denied that right. Will your Lordships protect the right of those who are too poor to buy to say who manages their homes, as you did in 1985?
The Greenwich tenants wrote to the Minister saying,
"We are led to believe that this Government believes in giving more choice to tenants over the running of their homes, not in taking it away … CCT does not allow us to choose… We should be able to decide by whom and at what cost our homes are managed".
The Secretary of State is saying that tenants can only choose what he, the Secretary of State, has already chosen. Will your Lordships empower the tenants to defend their rights as you did in 1985, and reclaim for them the moral adulthood that we expect to enjoy over our homes? We shall be asking your Lordships to do so.
Finally, I turn to the Urban Regeneration Agency. I have little to add to the comments made so forcefully by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. We welcome the bringing together of three land-related programmes: English Estates, derelict land grant and city grant. We welcome the fact that, belatedly, market forces alone are not now considered available to deliver land regeneration. As the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, rightly noted, we welcome the pressure that we shall put on developers to move from the "easy anywhere greenfield sites" of the 1980s to developing the inner cities.
We welcome, too, the fact that it is a multi-agency. However, we are worried about the adequacy of funding. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred to this factor. We are worried whether that part of the Bill is sufficiently environmentally conscious. As my noble friend Lord Sefton stated so eloquently, we are worried that the Government have not learned the lessons of the 1980s: that without full participation with local government the agency will be remote and top down.
Above all, we are worried that it is assumed that the inner city problem is one of land and property. We believe that the problem relates to the loss of jobs and of hope, of lack of nurseries whereby single parents cannot go out to work and the lack of support for carers so that the elderly cannot remain in their community to stabilise them. The problem relates to the lack of leisure facilities which will be a challenge to the problem of illicit drugs, stolen cars, illegal, goods and casual vandalism. Those issues will be explored at Committee stage. But at the core, if development is not owned by and accountable to local people then, as in Docklands, it will fail. One can no more have trickle-down development than one can have trickle-down wealth or trickle-down economics.
We have three Bills in one, with 130,000 words and 250 pages. As my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar said, those pages are obviously full of democratic deficit and undermining of local authority rights. We hope constructively to strengthen the brave part of the Bill on leasehold reform. We shall seek to make the clauses on urban regeneration work. Too many of the housing chapters are perverse. With the help of your Lordships we hope to amend them to empower tenants and to offer them full citizen rights.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it comes as no surprise that we have had a most interesting and informed Second Reading debate. We shall of course have the opportunity to consider many points in the Bill in greater detail in Committee. However, it might be useful if I take the opportunity to comment on the main issues and points of concern raised in the debate.
I shall not pretend for one moment that it has been an easy debate to reply to. It is often the case that a Bill provokes a great deal of interest before coming to the House. But it is rare that that interest should concentrate so much on one aspect of the Bill and that it is my noble friends who have been so uncharacteristically provoked.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed today. We have had some powerful speeches and I have had some uncomfortable moments today. However, I was not made uncomfortable by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It was a good speech. In fact the noble Lord made a very good speech and had the grace to tell us why: because it was written for him by Conservative Central Office. I understand that the noble Lord can subscribe to the Conservative research department publications and I am sure that he will be delighted to do so.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I propose to start at the end of the Bill with urban regeneration. My noble friend Lord Norrie sought further clarification on the environmental duties of the urban regeneration agency and its role in rural areas. I can assure him that the Bill gives the agency the power to continue the full range of the present work of the three programmes that it will inherit. However, it is a particular strength of the agency that it will be able to do far more than that. It will be able to develop its own imaginative new programmes in response to the needs and opportunities of both urban and rural areas. It will do that in accordance with guidance that we shall issue which will take account of the current priorities of derelict land grant, city grant and English Estates.
Environmental objectives lie at the heart of the agency. It will decontaminate land. It will make unstable land safe. Every piece of vacant and derelict urban land that it brings back into use will relieve the pressure on greenfield sites. The means by which the agency's objectives are to be achieved in Clause 142 already include the creation of a safe and attractive environment. Any further environmental duty is unnecessary and could confuse the present emphasis on the regeneration of land in areas of need.
My noble friend Lord Norrie also referred to the need for environmental assessment. The Community directive requiring those assessments to be carried out in major schemes likely to have significant environmental effects has already been implemented for projects in England and Wales which require planning permission. It will apply to projects for which the agency seeks planning permission. Any separate requirement for environmental assessment could undermine the directive by appearing to set up a parallel system.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, complained that the Government are repackaging a
170
succession of initiatives rather than providing real help for our cities. The Government are helping our cities. For a start, they are spending nearly four times as much in real terms on the urban block as the previous Labour Government did. More importantly, they are achieving output: 69,000 jobs created; £12 billion private investment attracted by UDCs since 1981; 284,000 dwellings improved under estate action since 1988; and 13,000 acres of derelict land reclaimed through DLG since 1988.
I turn now to the point raised by my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Liverpool on contaminated land registers. We have recently consulted. We have received over 450 responses to our consultation exercise on registers and we are considering these carefully. We are particularly concerned to avoid any unnecessary blight, and we want to encourage the full and effective use of sites which have previously been developed, including contaminated land. We hope to announce our decisions on the consultation exercise shortly. In the meantime, it would be inappropriate for me to make any further statement or to comment on any speculation in the press.
As for my noble friend Lord Liverpool on joint ventures, there is no conflict between Clauses 143 and 147. The agency can form joint ventures subject to the Secretary of State's consent. The restriction in Clause 147 simply stops the agency buying shares in a company for the sole purpose of giving financial assistance to that company. In other words, the agency could not buy shares for the purpose of propping up a lame duck company but it could form a joint venture with a company to meet its statutory objects.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, complained that the URA was a further attack on local government. It is not. City Challenge has shown that the Government are happy for local authorities to take the lead in urban regeneration provided they work with the private sector, with local communities and with other public agencies. Similarly, the URA will do all it can to work in partnership with local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, in his discussion on the Scottish provisions complained that they were included in this Bill. But since the Scottish provisions are similar to those for England and Wales there are clear advantages in both sets of provisions being considered together. This is well precedented, and the Government could have been criticised for not bringing forward these important new rights for Scottish tenants at the earliest possible opportunity. The noble Lord made reference to the drafting of the Scottish provisions. While I do not share his concerns, he will of course have the opportunity to explore these further in Committee, when he will be delighted to hear that my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will be standing in my place.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked about housing management and CCTs. Why should we trust the tenants? Cannot the local authorities do better? These are the questions that have been asked. The point is

171
that councils will not delegate the core functions to tenants; for instance, the policy on rents, the allocations, the strategic and enabling functions. We believe that we are providing more effective consultation procedures which will enable them to influence in a positive way significant decisions affecting the management of their homes.
On the right to repair, we want to listen to advice. We want to listen carefully to advice from local authorities and from tenants. The consultation paper on the detailed new scheme was issued in January, and that consultation period ends in April of this year. The purpose of the Government's proposals on right to repair is equal rights for all tenants. We could leave decisions on the form of schemes to local authorities' discretion, but this would mean that the best authorities will introduce comparable schemes whereas the worst will not. We want to ensure that those tenants in the worst areas have a workable and effective right to repair.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on rents to mortgages for local authority tenants who want the opportunity to own their own homes, the rent-to-mortgage scheme offers an important extension to the highly successful right-to-buy programme. Rent to mortgage is an attractive route to owner occupation because mortgage repayments will need to be no greater than the current rent. Tenants who pay full rent often see this as dead money going into the landlord's pocket each week. Rent to mortgage enables them to invest this money in their own homes. It offers a safer route into home ownership for people who would like to exercise the right to buy but cannot quite afford it. This is a low-risk route.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put two questions to me about rents to mortgages. She asked why tenants on housing benefit are excluded. It is because even if they could raise the purchase price—for instance, by help from their families—they would be likely to have difficulty in meeting the other costs of home ownership. We are concerned that rents to mortgages should not lead tenants to making unwise decisions to buy.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked why the scheme is not open to tenants whose rents equate to more than 80 per cent. of the normal right-to-buy price. That is because the added complication of an existing mortgage from the landlord is really not justified if the tenant could afford the ordinary right to buy, and tenants who can buy outright are probably well advised to do so.
In answer to the accusations from the Opposition that we are not doing enough in housing policy, I can tell noble Lords opposite that Parts I and II of the Bill are but one element of our housing policy. They address real problems and needs in practical ways, but they are not the whole story. Indeed, perhaps the most significant action that we have taken to the benefit of housing in this country is to reduce interest rates from 15 per cent. to 6 per cent. in the space of two years. We have also provided £630 million to boost the housing market in England this year. Through our capital partnership programme we hope to bring some of the 83,000 empty council flats and houses back into use.
172
There are now 2 million more homes in this country than there were in 1979. Home ownership in Great Britain is up from 55 per cent. in 1979 to 68 per cent. today. The quality and standard of housing are now higher than ever before, and we have boosted low-cost housing. By 1993–94 a £2 billion per annum programme will have seen housing associations having built over 150,000 more homes. That is a record that we are proud of.
It is now appropriate for me to turn to the provisions in Part I of the Bill; those on leasehold enfranchisement. I have listened carefully to the debate on enfranchisement. I accept that it is a serious step to require one person to sell an asset to another, but I believe that it is necessary and justified in this case.
Let me deal with some specific points that were raised before I deal with some more general items. First of all, to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and other noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Coleraine and Lord Dilhorne, on why we have not brought forward proposals for commonhold in this Bill: as the House will know, this is a matter for the Lord Chancellor, and the House will also know that a draft Bill was published for consultation purposes in 1991. It was incomplete. Technically it is very complex to introduce commonhold, and it is important to get it right. The Government decided that it was more important to bring forward enfranchisement to allow leaseholders to take control within the existing tenure framework. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, complained that already this Bill was too complicated and too long. To have included an incomplete Bill on commonhold at this stage would have been a retrograde step.
My noble friend Lady Gardner asked about the number of votes per leaseholder. I can confirm to her that there is one vote per flat. Size or value of individual flats in a block are immaterial. There is not a ballot for collective enfranchisement. Those tenants who qualify and who wish to participate must sign the note, which is then given to the landlord.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine said that there was no option to buy new leases for individual tenants in enfranchiseable blocks. I can say to him that this is a firm policy. An option would wreck the chances of widespread enfranchisement; individual action would always be more popular than collective action so tenants would renew to protect their asset value rather than go down the route of collective enfranchisement.
My noble friend 'also asked why the tenants' nominee had to buy non-qualifying parts of the block. The nominee purchaser must buy leases over tenanted flats and commercial parts unless the existing freeholder opts to lease them back. This is logical, of course, because the objective is to control the whole building and allow the existing freeholder the opportunity to withdraw completely. If the participating tenants have difficulty financing the purchase of the entire block they are free to arrange deals, to release the rack-rented parts and the commercial parts as part of the finance package.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough asked about new freeholders. He said that new freeholders could

173
not change non-participating tenants' rents. Those tenants remain with their original lease and all its terms unaltered under the scheme.
Much has been made about the principle of the Bill in regard to what happened in the 1960s with the general election and when the 1967 legislation was going through Parliament. In 1967 my noble friend Lord Barber, then Mr. Anthony Barber, welcomed the principle of the Leasehold Reform Bill 1967—I refer my noble friends to the debate on 7th March 1967 at col. 1284—but we disagreed with the terms of compensation. This Bill, however, says explicitly that the marriage value is to be shared, as the market would have done if it had operated fairly.
As my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein put it, extremely well, people have virtually no choice about leasehold if they can only afford a flat. The markets demand that they pay close to a freehold value, despite it being a wasting asset.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough also asked whether I had the voting figures on the Second Reading of the 1967 Act. He will be delighted to hear that I have. The ayes for the Government were 319; the noes, the Conservative Opposition at the time, were 197. What that tells him is entirely up to my noble friend.
My noble friends Lord Cavendish of Furness and Lord Peyton asked about cathedral closes, among other points. No exemption is given in the 1967 Act for houses of low and medium value in cathedral closes, but landlords could have applied for estate management schemes then. The same treatment will arise under this Bill for higher value houses in cathedral closes where they arise. They can be the subject of estate schemes. I am well aware that during the course of the Committee stage we shall have many discussions about how estate management schemes will work in practice. There is a great deal of detail already in the Bill, but I am happy to receive suggestions from my noble friends.
I also think that my noble friends will be pleased to hear that there is a definite Government commitment to amend the Bill to add injurious affection for houses as a head of compensation for all new entrant houses brought in. The Government will bring forward an amendment on that.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked why the appeals to the Lands Tribunal is not on the face of the Bill. That is because it is set out in earlier legislation which controls leasehold valuation tribunals which are rent assessment committees. It is therefore not necessary on the face of the Bill.
The Bill seeks to redress two problems which are becoming urgent. Leaseholders are faced with a wasting asset which is almost impossible to sell. This problem became acute for the leaseholders of houses before the 1967 Act was passed and has now become acute for flats.
In addition, leaseholders have no control over their asset, which is particularly difficult in the case of flats. I mentioned earlier that recent research by the Consumers' Association had found that two out of three leaseholders reported problems resulting from
174
their freeholders' action or lack of action. Amazingly, as many as one-in-four long leaseholders have considered taking their landlord to court and one-in-20 have actually done so.
I cannot think of any other area of contractual relationships which generates such a level of dissatisfaction and litigation. Abuse by some landlords of their unfairly weighted power over tenants is widespread. It is wrong that the person who has the smallest financial interest in a block and for whom a block is most often just an investment, has full control over what to the leaseholder is often his greatest investment and his home.
The position of long leaseholders excluded from previous reforms is now so serious that the Government made a clear manifesto commitment to give long leaseholders of flats and higher value houses a chance to take over full control of their own property. We must take positive action and the Bill does just that.
However, I am aware that there are some substantial hurdles that I have to get over with my noble friends. May I deal first with the question of valuation? This was raised particularly by my noble friend Lord Kindersley who made a most important speech on the role of valuation and of charities. It has been the particular concern of the Government to ensure that our proposals are fair. I must emphasise again that landlords will receive the market value of their assets. I know that my noble friend Lord Dilhorne disputes that, but in the case of flats they will receive the open market value of their interests, at least half the marriage value, compensation for loss of value to retained land and all their reasonable costs.
It is the apportionment of marriage value about which most concern has been expressed. This is the extra value which enfranchisement will release because it represents a sale to the tenants and brings together the freehold and all the leasehold interests into the same control.
We have provided that landlords shall receive at least half of this additional value. It represents a real capital gain to the landlord. It is fair that this value should be shared as it can only be released by a sale to the tenants. Should a landlord sell to any other purchaser, marriage value would not arise.
I believe that this is a fair basis for valuation. It reflects how the market works in practice where it has been usual to give 50 per cent. to the landlord, following the Lloyd Jones v. The Church Commissioners case. That reflected market evidence submitted by the landlords. I believe strongly that the provisions in the Bill are therefore fair. They follow normal market practice and allow a landlord to maximise his asset.
There is also a secondary problem. We have heard speeches from both sides; not necessarily from both sides of the House but from the side of the landlords and the side of the tenants. The Government are trying to walk a delicate path and endeavouring to be fair. That is why I believe we have come to the right conclusion.
Much was made in the debate this afternoon of the residency test. My noble friend Lord Boardman gave

175
an example of a Libyan and my noble friend Lord Dilhorne referred to the residency test. One or two noble Lords mentioned Texan millionaires and non-English speakers. I sense that there is an air of xenophobia in all this and I do not believe that we should be overly concerned about it.
The Government believe that a residence condition as qualification for enfranchisement in flats is not acceptable on the ground that it would reduce the number of blocks in which enfranchisement could take place. The reasons for this effect are that individual blocks could move frequently in and out of eligibility, making it harder to find an opportunity to enfranchise. Tenants would have difficulty in ascertaining the status of their block because they could not always readily discover the residential status of non-participating qualifying tenants.
However, we accept that these arguments are less compelling for individual lease renewals in unenfranchiseable blocks. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place that the Government would bring forward an amendment in this House to add such a residency test for the purposes of the grant of a new lease. I look forward to proposing this in due course.
I turn to the question of charities, raised so effectively by my noble friends Lord Kindersley, Lord Crawshaw and Lord Peyton, and also many others. Charities, per se, are not exempt from the provisions of the Bill. That would be unfair to the tenants of those charities. The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 did not exclude charities and I can see no justification to do so now. The real distinction that must be made is between the derivation of a charity's income and the charitable use to which that income is put. I am fully aware of the very good work that charities such as the Smith's Charity undertake and it is important that they should continue to be in a financial position to sustain their work. But the benefits that a charity can give have no obvious connection with the source of its income.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Selsdon made the most valuable contribution to the debate in dealing with that point. He asked how much money was involved. I am afraid that I cannot tell him because it depends upon the value of leasehold flats, current ground rents and the length of leases outstanding. We do not know precisely how many blocks will qualify nor how fast people will want to take up their new rights.
It is the duty of charities to maximise the income from their investment portfolios. Charities holding housing or flats purely as an investment do not generally let them at social rents. Where a charitable housing trust lets a property on a long lease in pursuit of its charitable purposes it is a quite different matter. Tenants with such leases will not qualify for the rights of collective enfranchisement or lease renewal. A charity will, like any other landlord, receive the full market value of its asset. Indeed, it will receive more from the tenants than it could from a third-party purchaser and will thus maximise its asset. It will be free to reinvest the gains made from the sale, and rollover capital gains tax relief will be available so that
176
reinvestment can be without penalty. Where a charity has let a property on a long lease it has already disposed of its major interest in that property. It will not be fair to discriminate against the long leaseholders in such a property, who now own the greatest financial stake and whose home the property very often is, on the basis of their landlord. That would be unfair.
Those who wish to put forward in Committee the view that charities should be dealt with separately will have to prove that it is in the interests of tenants that they should be treated differently from any other landlord or any other charity that was affected by the 1967 legislation.
I was not at all surprised that some of my noble friends' speeches made me feel uncomfortable. I know that there are issues here of very great concern. However, I am grateful for the substantial support that the Government's proposals have received this afternoon.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that Government Ministers are not ornamental. I shall listen most carefully to the points put forward. I have indicated those areas where I believe your Lordships' consideration can improve the Bill. The Bill offers important new rights and opportunities to many hundreds and thousands of people in both the public and private housing sectors. It offers the prospect of a better environment for all those who live or work in our inner cities. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may say that he answered as questions three of the points I made as criticisms. I was interested in his answers, but perhaps he would answer the question of which I gave him notice. Referring to paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the Bill, what are the circumstances in which a landlord may expect to receive more than 50 per cent. of the marriage value?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the House will forgive me if I cannot give my noble friend a detailed answer at this stage but I understand that that precedent is well set on the basis of evidence of ordinary housing legislation and enfranchisement. If I can be of more help to my noble friend Lord Coleraine, naturally I will write to him.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Adult Education: Funding
8.54 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for adult education and its funding.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have been good enough to stay to start a debate at this time of night.
It was on 15th July 1991 that I asked an Unstarred Question on adult education. I now ask another. It is a "before and after" situation. Last time we were

177
debating the White Paper. Today we shall be debating the expected results of the legislation that followed it; that is, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
What is absolutely certain is that the demand now for adult education is enormous, for both economic and social reasons. It is significant that a very large proportion of that demand comes from middle-aged men because of the increase in unemployment and the need for retraining. Many of those middle-aged and often middle-class men are attending classes in business or computer studies. The freedom—or enforced leisure as one should call it—that unemployment creates accounts for the presence of many of those people, many of whom are new students. Those who work in the adult education field have a number of anxieties. The one that has given rise to the greatest number of letters in my post bag has been the fear of the introduction of VAT. Part of the trouble stems from the ridiculous division into two classes: vocational and recreational. In the last debate it was pointed out over and over again as we went through the Further and Higher Education Bill that it was an impossible division to make. Where would one put a class for governors? Where would one put a course for foreign language, which may include people who are there merely to get an acquaintance with the language for a foreign holiday, to talk to a new in-law or for job or business purposes?
The other strong argument against such a division is that a so-called leisure class that someone may start, such as floristry or flower arranging—the most often quoted example—may lead on to a vocational course that may well in turn lead on to employment or the setting up of a small business.
To return to the question of VAT, I believe that there have been enough statements from Ministers for us to know that vocational courses are safe but recreational leisure classes are not. As a result of the changes brought about by the Further and Higher Education Act, the principal for VAT administration at HM Customs and Excise Office gave advice to the Further Education Funding Council on the VAT implications for further education. His letter stated that bodies receiving funding from the funding council would be exempt from VAT, subject to ministerial approval. Recreational evening courses would be exempt if the institutions provided vocational training or education. While he noted that the definition of such courses was not easy, he stated that he did not propose to challenge the exemption currently enjoyed by the further education colleges. Since many adult education institutions will be receiving funding from the funding council, can we be certain that they will be included within the definition in that letter? If VAT inspectors are to be left to decide upon the educational value of courses there is concern that they are perhaps not the best people to judge the merits of programmes of study.
Where does that leave the local education authorities providing such courses not funded by the funding council? They are very worried. The addition of 17½ per cent. will mean a large increase in fees. LEAs are already under severe financial pressure. I
178
have abundant evidence that they have been forced to make significant reductions in their budgets, and it is the non-statutory services—the youth service, adult education and discretionary grants—that suffer and in some cases vanish altogether.
Increasing the subsidy for adult education to absorb the additional cost incurred by VAT would be impossible, and increasing charges will drive off the less well off members of the community, leaving a mainly middle-class clientele. Naturally, the effect of pricing courses out of people's reach will mean that the Government will fail in its attempt to raise additional revenue. It will simply kill off adult education for little or no financial return. William Tyler, principal of the City Lit, reckons that the cost of levying VAT will not only be an added cost to students but there will also be the cost of employing VAT clerks, changing computer software, and so on. He estimates that the entire exercise may add something like three-quarters of a million pounds to the college budget.
A letter from Sir John Cope, Paymaster General to Robert Jackson, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, in October last says,
"Certain courses fall clearly into either the taxable or exempt category. Flower arranging and bridge would be taxable while accountancy and business studies would be exempt. However, there are borderline types of course".
He said that there was to be a review of the entire educational exemption. Can the Minister say whether that review is now complete? NIACE (the govern-ment-funded body to support adult and continuing education) believes that any proposal to limit VAT exemption to Schedule 2 courses would be inimical to effective access to adults, particularly those on low incomes.
I want to make absolutely clear to the Minister the strength of feeling in the whole educational world against the imposition of VAT and ask for her help and support in making sure that that threat does not become a reality. I remind her of what Alan Howarth, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, said in committee in another place on 19th February last year. At col. 126 he said that,
"education is not simply some sort of annex to the economic production line. Clearly, the role of education is to enlarge personal opportunity, to enable more people to have the fullest possible opportunities in life and to make their contributions to the community".
I mentioned the difficult financial position in which LEAs find themselves. Many believe that one contributory factor is that the methodology used to calculate the level of resources to be transferred to the funding council from LEAs was seriously flawed and that the amount of funding transferred to the funding council was too large. Some £2.34 billion was transferred to provide the base for the funding council budget, whereas the LEAs estimate that the transfer should have been only £2.2 billion. The exercise was based on guesswork. The view that the DFE assumptions were over-generous was confirmed by the subsequent success of LEAs in negotiating increased capping limits. But without a corresponding adjustment to standard spending assessment, that is not a

179
great help. The only way to spend more would be to put it on the council tax, an extra burden on local people.
During the course of the Further and Higher Education Bill through this House, we tried to prevent LEAs, adult colleges and institutions, having to apply through the local further education colleges to the funding council for funding those Schedule 2 courses they wish to go on providing, assumed to be some 28 per cent. of their adult provision. That seemed to us possibly unfair and certainly cumbersome. The application goes to the college. If it is approved there it is passed on to the funding council which comes to a decision and, I understand, then lets the local college know, which lets the LEAs know. How many hands the funds for the course pass through I am not sure, but it really is bureaucracy gone mad. We felt that savings on that sort of exercise were what the Government were encouraging.
We understand that bids had to be in by November and the LEAs have now received notification of their allocation. The Further Education Funding Council stated that 60 per cent. of bids have been met. What is to happen to the other 40 per cent? I am particularly worried by what will happen to young people with special needs who will lack the confidence to move to another institution to take a course when they would have had the courage to go ahead where they know the teachers and are known.
The national picture is not clear. It looks as though the reduction in adult education provision by LEAs and the shortfall in resourcing Schedule 2 courses may lead to great losses in provision on a national scale. I appeal to the Minister for clarification. There is uncertainty and I believe that there have been some recent decisions. I hope that in winding up the Minister will be able to explain what has been going on and where we are, so that everyone—colleges, institutions, staff of LEAs and of the colleges—know exactly where they stand and how they got there. There was a feeling that treatment had been unfair, but changes may have been made.
There are other providers contributing to the variegated tapestry that makes up adult and continuing education, and I want to speak briefly of two—the departments of continuing education in the universities (I include the polys) and the Open University. The Higher Education Funding Council is reviewing the future of its funding and I do not believe that the result of the review is yet available. But there is a fear that there is a strong drift towards making funds available only for courses which lead to awards. Such a move would put at risk the university extra-mural tradition and the value that that brings; the links between universities and their regions; access to non-traditional students; developmental work and, indeed, the notion that education has a value in its own right. Of the options on offer, option two, which would continue the Universities Funding Council practice of special funding for continuing education, seems by far to be the most attractive. Such funding would be available to any university willing and able to make that provision.
The other options could destroy the large and growing programme of liberal adult education provided by universities with a quarter-of-a-million enrolments a year. The University Council of Adult and Continuing Education sees the provision of non-examined courses as a vital part of the mission of higher education. The acquisition of "credit" is irrelevant. Such provision is a cheap and effective way of reaching out to people both in the inner cities and in rural areas. My noble friend Lord Morris will be speaking on the extra-mural departments and I shall leave him to enlarge.
Costs of courses in the Open University are a worry. I have seen tables containing updated figures by its director of finance. They show that tuition fees have increased by over 90 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1983, and that the grant per full credit equivalent student course has fallen in real terms by 24 per cent. between 1980 and 1993. It has become more and more difficult for the less well off to study. Full-time students have their tuition fees paid; part-timers do not. They carry heavy costs, having to attend residential schools and tutorials, purchasing books and equipment, stationery, postage and often supplying or renting personal computers. But the OU really is "O", bringing in higher numbers of those with minimal qualifications or in special groups—the disabled, ethnic minorities and so forth—every year. I shall yet again make the plea, so far to no effect, that in all fairness part-time students, who are highly motivated, should have help with their fees or, at minimum, tax relief on them.
I want to ask one question about family/parent education. Valuable work goes on in schools where parents come into classes to work with the children, perhaps just to help them to read and to write, with an adult education tutor in charge. The regulations made following the 1992 Act say that a member of the school teaching staff must be present, which is ridiculous. Could the wording of the regulation be changed so that it read,
"provided that there is at all times supervision by a member of the school's staff or teaching staff employed or approved by the school",
thus allowing the valuable work of parent education to continue? I understand that the staff at City Lit. have talked to people in the department, but I would like the Minister to give reassurance on this point. That would help a great deal.
I should like to end on a hopeful note. The hope comes from knowing the enthusiasm and dedication of those teaching in all and every kind of institution where adult education goes on and the enthusiasm of the students. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I went with the all-party adult education group last month to visit the South Norwood continuing education and training centre. It was a cheery experience to talk to the students and a lot of imagination had gone into the provision. There was a créche and a play group on the premises. Talking to the staff and to Margaret Davey, head of continuing education in Croydon, we realised that we must fight to preserve this. Their worries were the worries I have tried to outline in my speech. I ask the Minister to impress on her colleagues the immense

181
value and quality which this work has—the economic value and the social value. I ask for generosity. The investment will bring in very good dividends.
9.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important topic and in particular for her helpful, informative and challenging speech. Education is an issue which is receiving much attention nowadays, particularly in relation to schools and the national curriculum, testing for seven year-olds, and so on. What may not be making the headlines is the extent to which those who are no longer of school age rely on the educational opportunities provided by adult education services, and the fact that this provision is steadily being eroded, particularly in the area of non-Schedule 2 studies.
There is a temptation to think of non-Schedule 2 provision as being less important than vocational subjects—hence the different funding arrangements—but I would argue that this is an artificial divide, and one which will affect the disadvantaged members of society—the poor, the frail and the infirm, as well as the active older members of society.
I was particularly interested to read that during the passage of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 Peers and Members of Parliament of all parties recognised the need for a continuum of educational opportunity and the need for a system of education and training which encouraged the development of a lifetime learning culture. This is not a matter of looking only at courses leading to qualifications, whether vocational or non-vocational, but of enabling people of all ages to learn how to learn. Many so-called leisure activities in adult education provide an unthreatening and encouraging means of learning, and they should not be undervalued. The sad fact is, however, that there is already evidence that the non-Schedule 2 provision in local education authorities is at risk, with increased fees, shorter terms and redundancies of adult education teachers throughout the country.
In my own diocese of Southwark severe problems are being faced with the transfer next month of adult education in the London Borough of Southwark from the Adult Education Institute to Southwark Tertiary College. As with other adult education services around the country, a large percentage of the work is not regarded as satisfying the criteria for inclusion under Schedule 2, and therefore cannot be funded by the FEFC. The amount of money being made available for adult education will have to take into account the contractual obligations to those who are being made redundant, as it is clear that there are not the same number of jobs available in the new scheme. This will reduce the amount available to provide the actual teaching in the future.
The implications of these developments for an already depleted service are ominous. It is not yet clear what the future of adult education in Southwark College will be, or whether it will be able to maintain
182
its traditions of community outreach, and drawing in students who have no experience of formal education since school, or indeed at all in this country.
If we are to take seriously the need for a continuum of educational opportunity, we must remember those who, for whatever reason, have not been able to take advantage of the educational system while at school. It may well be that, through an adult education class, not necessarily vocational, they may develop a hobby to the extent that they wish to take it up as a means of employment, as we have already heard. To prevent people from gaining access at a level which meets their immediate needs may deny them the opportunities they so desperately need.
From all that I have heard and read on this topic, I must express my concern at the evidence that higher fees and shorter terms are being introduced as a result of the cutbacks LEAs are making. From my past experience as Bishop of Bradford, I know that adult education is an important part of community outreach, particularly in areas of ethnic minorities and refugees. For many the very basic courses are vital if they are to integrate fully into our society.
It is also ironic that in the European Year of Older People the opportunities for learning and remaining mentally active are being put beyond such people's reach by a weakened commitment to concessionary fees. The chance to learn new subjects and to partake in classes with others is an effective way of keeping many older people active and contributing members of our society. That provides not only advantages in terms of stimulus, but does much to prevent depression and mental illness from dominating a person's life.
At a time of desperately high levels of unemployment, education and training must not be seen as a once-for-all stage of life. As a society we need to learn continuously, as I have said, so that we can learn to cope with change. We cannot afford to have in our economy large numbers of unskilled people or of people who are unable to learn. That learning should not be restricted to so-called "vocational" courses. We need educational opportunities that stimulate individuals to face change in a positive way.
So I ask the Minister to consider very carefully the impact which increased fees resulting from the rumoured introduction of VAT on non-Schedule 2 provision would have on those least able to bear the burden. These basic levels of educational opportunity are vital. They may not lead to a formal qualification in themselves, but they often form the bottom rung of the educational ladder. We owe it to all sections of society to ensure that they have the continuum of educational opportunity which we all regard as essential for a healthy society.
9.16 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important Question. Adult education in all its forms has made an enormous contribution to both the growth in qualifications and to the understanding of our cultural heritage as well as our economic and social problems. But it is not a service that can be neatly packaged into any one sector

183
of the education system. There are many providers for that "seamless system", which are the words the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, used on the occasion of a debate in this House on 21st November 1991 (Official Report, col. 110).
Regrettably that seamless system is now in danger of fragmenting. My noble friend and the right reverend Prelate have referred to the problems facing some of the providers. First, I would like to say a word about the seven residential colleges which, though small in number, have made a contribution to adult education out of all proportion to their size. Whereas size is an advantage in relation to the development of adult education, it could be a disadvantage in relation to funding.
The special needs of the adult residential colleges can so easily be overlooked in comparison with the larger provision needed for the FE colleges generally. Does the Minister agree with me that within the FE Funding Council there could be an advantage in having a unit specialising in the needs and provision of those colleges? I believe it is something which has been mooted. I would like to know the Minister's attitude to that.
I turn now to that larger area of provision of adult education; namely, the universities. Currently there are about 350,000 adult students attending part-time, non-award-bearing courses provided by the old universities; that is the university system excluding the former polys. They cater for about 50,000 full-time equivalents. Much of that provision is liberal adult education at undergraduate level.
In the field of archaeology alone in 1990, 720 adult education courses were offered by universities, with over 17,500 participants. The Council for British Archaeology has evidence indicating that since 1990 there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of students. The council indicates in a recent submission to the Higher Education Funding Council policy review that:
"Although only a minority of these courses offer certification, it would be difficult to exaggerate the extent to which non-accredited courses have stimulated public interest in Britain's past. Some classes have made original contributions to research through fieldwork and excavation, on occasion involving sustained campaigns of study. The UGC report on archaeology in 1989 stressed the strength and versatility of archaeology as a discipline, demanding as it does a range of transferable skills, the analysis as well as accumulation of data, and the practical and intellectual interaction of sciences and humanities".
What a tremendous contribution this is to the traditional work of the universities.
I know how true this is from the Archaeological Sciences Department of my own university of Bradford, having visited that department only on Friday of last week. The University of Bradford, which is a smallish university, has only recently been designated a university for adult education, but it has over 3,000 students or 115 full-time equivalents. These are organised by the Centre for Continuing Education, which also has successful programmes for continuing professional development and for access courses, some of which are outreach courses. In addition, it runs a very successful community
184
education programme aimed at local minority ethnic communities. Some of these courses are held in four languages.
It is difficult to draw a clear demarcation line for this variety of programmes. At the extremes, some are clearly and rightly self-supporting, while others can never be. In the middle, lines can be blurred from time to time, but all the courses are valuable to both the individual and the community. Evidence from other universities presents a similar picture, yet there is a very real fear that some of that work might be sacrificed because of what I suspect is the bureaucratic drive towards cost-effectiveness—towards the cost-effectiveness of something that cannot be costed on present criteria.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England offers three options in its policy review, none of which appears to be completely satisfactory in adequately covering the funding for such diverse activities. My noble friend referred to one option which appears to me to be the least satisfactory. I refer to the option to fund only award-bearing courses or courses contributing towards awards. That would be far too rigid. It would destroy much of the work that has already been done, either by deterring students who have never thought of and do not wish to enter for awards or by undermining the funding of the courses because the criteria would be based on outputs —that is, on modules or courses leading to modules for a qualification.
It is hoped that the options will provide an opportunity for compromise to emerge. I hope that that will be along the lines of the submissions from UCACE, which wants to see a balance struck between the two types of activity and which urges the Higher Education Funding Council to maintain and extend the funding for non-award-bearing continuing education. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate this evening that she fully supports that principle.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, although everyone is conscious of the economic constraints upon the provision and expansion of adult education, the noble Baroness, Lady David, has introduced an important Question. It is a subject upon which our national thinking, plans and priorities need constantly to be updated in the light of what is happening not just in adult education but in universities and schools throughout the country, and elsewhere.
I venture to mention one matter which for a long time has seemed to me important not simply for the individual student but for the country as a whole. It is a matter which should be borne in mind in our planning and budgetary priorities. That matter, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, is the teaching of foreign and, in particular, European languages.
Adult education must be seen in context. In the first place, it is salutary that our universities are now increasingly providing courses which involve a period in a Continental university where, in addition to their particular disciplines, the students will learn a language. Among others, the universities of

185
Birmingham and Exeter have for many years done that for law. Our private University of Buckingham now insists that students in all disciplines who do not have a second language in which they are fluent should learn a language during their course. Many of them become proficient in the second, and in particular in Continental languages. The Erasmus scheme and school exchanges at all levels give a great advantage to those studying a foreign language. I understand that the professions—even the legal profession—have begun to catch up.
I am told that one distinguished firm of solicitors in the City—there may well be others—now provides French classes early in the morning for the young lawyers in the firm who wish to take advantage of them. It is essential, if we are to exercise in Europe the influence which, since we are in the Community, we should have, that that should happen. We must not just be at the heart, we should be at the head of Europe.
What is happening in the schools and universities is important, but we must not stop with those relatively privileged categories. Our national policy should be to encourage adult education authorities to give particular prominence to the teaching of modern European languages, especially French, German and Spanish. It should be borne in mind in our planning and budgetary thinking that those subjects do not necessarily require expensive scientific equipment, even though it is obviously nice to have modern language laboratories. It is important to bear in mind that these are subjects with a practical application; that they can be learned by couples and in groups, so that they are likely to interest and attract adults who would not be attracted by purely theoretical, academic subjects. It is not romantic, idealistic nonsense to think that these are subjects which could be studied by parents and children at the same time, even if in different schools. Modern languages can be studied more easily and perhaps more agreeably than many other subject, thereby giving a sense of satisfaction and intellectual interest in particular to the parents. Account is therefore taken of many of the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate in regard to the present need for educational opportunities.
The importance of this subject and the practicality of doing something about it through adult education were brought home to me forcefully two weekends ago when I visited in Santander in Northern Spain a language school providing for the education of adults. Evening classes each lasting one hour are held between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. on five days a week throughout the winter and spring months. The courses, graded in difficulty, can run for up to five years. What I saw brought to my mind four factors which are important for us in this country to consider. I respectfully suggest that the Minister and her department should consider the scheme which I found.
First, the school was provided by the state in order to encourage the learning of other Community languages. It was not alone; there are more than 100 such language schools provided by the state throughout Spain. Secondly, the fee charged by the
186
schools is the equivalent of £30 and reductions and assistance are available for those who cannot afford to pay. In that town, which is important but by no means one of the largest in Spain, 4,000 students attend the school, some learning more than one language. I was struck most forcefully by the enthusiasm of the students, whose ages cover a wide range, and of the teachers. It was obvious that the students and not least the teachers derived great satisfaction from their work. I was full of admiration for what I saw.
But the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. I was most surprised to discover that more than 200 students and former students of the school attended a couple of public lectures away from the school. One was in English and the other was in French and a running translation, often in summary, was provided in Spanish. It was plain that the students understood English, if only because they laughed in the right places at the somewhat feeble jokes of the English speaker.
The fact that 80 per cent. of those 4,000 students are learning English is not a ground for saying that we should maintain our eccentric and sometimes over-proud attitude to the learning of foreign languages. "Let them speak English", is about as realistic in the contemporary world as was "Let them eat cake" at the time it was said, even if taken literally.
As a result of my experience in the EC I profoundly believe that because of our position in Europe we should encourage adults—I mean those who have finished full-time education at whatever level—to learn another Community language. We should do so by providing as soon as resources permit the teaching of other European languages. If we do not do so we shall suffer in industry, in commerce and in the professions. In the Community I often heard it said that not enough English people applied for jobs in the Commission, in the Parliament and in the court. Again there were jobs at all levels. A significant reason was that the English did not have the language qualifications or experience necessary to apply. I hope that, in future programmes for adult education and in considering her budgetary priorities, the Minister will give a high priority to European language teaching at all levels. The chance to learn languages should simply not be available only to the elite.
9.35 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady David who speaks on this subject with such formidable expertise. We can all agree that education is never finished. I hope that we all go on educating each other. I believe that it was Dr. Johnson who said that whoever tires of London, tires of life. Anybody who ceases to try to educate himself at whatever level is halfway to the grave.
I have been educated by the speeches already delivered and no doubt I shall be educated by those yet to be delivered. I have no doubt that I shall be educated further when the Minister replies. I hope that she will not think that I am showing her any disrespect as someone who has a bright political future if I say that I see her as an ideal adult education tutor. I

187
should have loved to have been in her class. I am sure that she would not have spared the rod, but in the old days—and I dare say now—she would have been very acceptable.
I speak from the point of view of the WEA, which was founded in 1903. It still runs 10,000 courses for 180,000 students per year. I declare not a financial but an emotional interest. My wife and I courted one another when we were both tutors for the WEA in North Staffs. We used to conduct that courting in the old North Staffs Hotel, which in those days was a much less pleasant place than it was when I last visited it. At the end of the week we used to catch the 1.45 a.m. train back to London. Our courting went on in the old North Staffs Hotel. One day the manager, who was very aggressive—I hope that he is not listening to the debate this evening—interrupted and said, "Look here Pakenham", because that is what I then called myself, "We can't have this sort of thing going on in a respectable hotel like the North Staffs". Therefore, we were shipped out into the station waiting room where we got engaged to be married.
Sixty years, eight children, 26 grandchildren and four great-grandchildren later, I salute the WEA in North Staffs and even that rather unpleasant hotel manager. That is the background against which I approach the discussion on adult education. My wife and I both had our first jobs there and that brought us together in our life-long partnership.
There were certain features of life in the classes of the WEA in the old days. As I understand it, they still exist. The atmosphere was very democratic. Many of the students were quite mature and my wife and I were quite young. I had just left Oxford. The students were determined to prove that they had more to teach us than we had to teach them. They may have been right because they had more experience of life. There was always that democratic atmosphere.
Also, the tone was entirely cultural. I taught political theory. We have a professor of political theory here now, but I was not a professor. However, I could chat away about Rousseau, Mill, Karl Marx and the others with the best of them. My wife taught English literature. That is what we taught them and they seemed to enjoy it. I am sure that we benefited from it and I honestly believe that they did too. There was no question of their taking examinations. We used to set them essays. We were young and fairly critical of our students' work and in that sense we demanded a certain standard. Our arrogance may have been good for them, although it was bad for us. We lectured for three years. Was that experience of value? I personally believe it was of great value to our students. That was the culture of the WEA. The courses were non-vocational and did not involve any examinations. However, I am told that now a proportion of WEA students take some examinations. The WEA sought to instil culture and human values in its students. Personally I believe there will always be a place for that.
Substantial help is required from the state to enable such courses to be run. I believe the fees today cover
188
the tutors' costs but not the overheads of the courses. Therefore substantial help is required from the state if the WEA is to stay in existence and expand.
I am well aware that the finances of this matter constitute a complicated subject and I am not sure I understand that subject myself. There was one set of financial arrangements until 1990 and another that lasted to 1993. Some new financial arrangements are now being established. I shall not discuss those in detail except to say that the WEA is concerned for its future. The noble Baroness appears to be sympathetic on this matter. I hope she is as sympathetic as she appears to be and that she will say something which shows that the Government continue to hold the WEA in high esteem and will do all they can to aid its future progress.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I approach this subject with perhaps too much earnestness and insufficient knowledge of the complexities of education as it exists today. Nevertheless I believe this Government undervalue adult education in a way no government in our time have ever done before. They seem to have real concern only for the full-time colleges of education which enable people to gain certificates of achievement in trade and professional skills. Concern for full-time adult education is vital. It serves both ambitious students and a nation which is anxious to maintain and perhaps improve its standard of living. Let no one deny a penny of support or an ounce of prestige to those colleges. They play an important and material role. However, they are only part of adult education.
Each year a million and a half students of all ages enrol, pay a substantial fee, turn their backs on television and attend one, two or even three sessions a week in an adult education establishment. They study a wide variety of subjects. Some of the educational institutions they attend provide them with qualifications that are useful in their jobs. However, most students study non-material subjects such as languages, literature, the visual arts, history, household skills or recreational subjects. At a time when we are all feeling a growing anxiety about the moral climate of our society, surely that life-enhancing adult education movement, with its fine traditions, is one which the Government should encourage. However, the movement is not receiving such encouragement.
People engaged in adult education never tire of reminding us that more people attend adult classes every week than attend League football matches on Saturdays. They are quite right to remind us of that fact. Those who attend adult education courses pay their subscriptions a term in advance. The old and the unemployed may qualify for concessions. There are also cheap courses for people on income support, but those are insufficient to cope with the present demand, which is swollen by unemployment.
Yet adult education is still not visibly treated by the Government as an entity in its own right. The historic term "adult education" was not used once in the Act which we passed last year. That may be the reason

189
why the funding seems to be in some confusion. Those institutions which provide a variety of part-time courses must seek funding for those needing certification from the Further Education Funding Council, yet they must not go directly to the council. They have to ask a college of further education to intercede for them, though such colleges have no experience of part-time classes of all ages taking a subject probably at a slower speed than the colleges themselves and catering for students who are interested only in knowledge and will not be examined, All the other courses are classed as recreational and are to be funded by the local authority out of its general grant. Everybody fears that in the age of capping adult education will not be maintained at its traditional level.
Finally, like my noble friend, I should like to say a word about the WEA, which during the past 60 years I have served as an occasional lecturer but more often from time to time as a student. That continues. Only last week my wife and I were warding off the bleak midwinter with Christina Rosetti and in two days' time we shall be comparing Wells' brave new woman of 1909, Ann Veronica, with the feminists of today and finding that many of her battles have still to be won.
The WEA has been in existence for exactly 90 years, stimulating the demand of adults for a liberal education and providing for the needs of those who in educational terms are the economically and educationally underprivileged, which really means those people who have little money and little education. The WEA is a great British institution. For about 70 years it has received a government grant. That is now to be paid by the funding council, which will recognise that its role is quite different from that which would normally qualify for a grant from the council. A third of its grant, however, has also to come from local authorities as an earmarked part of their grant from the Government. The money will be paid to local authorities as part of their general grant, but next year the earmarking will stop. What will happen then is anybody's guess. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, who is a professional in this field of adult education and university extension work and who knows his way confidently through the labyrinth in which I have been groping, will tell us more about these problems.
I have the gravest fears about the future of adult education. Are the Government being just a little careless? Or are they perhaps contemptuous of much adult education? Or are they being merely cunning, seeing a way of silently slipping in the knife for another grievous cut in well-justified expenditure?
9.48 p.m.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for raising this important Question. I should like to begin by declaring an interest. I am fully employed in university adult education with the Extra-mural Centre of Birkbeck College of London University.
190
Since the Further and Higher Education Bill went through your Lordships' House about a year ago there has been considerable concern about the future of adult education in the country as a whole. That is partly, perhaps, because it is difficult in some cases to find out exactly what is going on. As I understand the situation, the Government are saying that a great deal of money is going to local authorities for non-Schedule 2 courses but it is not ring-fenced for adult education. Hence, the money is being used for schools and social services, but not for adult education.
To date a large number of separate adult education centres have been merged with FE colleges. It is clear that some of those centres have had no choice and have been taken over. It remains to be seen whether or not rooms that were previously available for adults will be allocated only to 16 to 19 year-olds. It is of great concern that buildings taken over from adults will be used for other purposes. Behind that anxiety for adult education is the worry that the Government are trying to tip the scales heavily against so-called non-vocational education and in favour of vocational educàtion; and that the former is still considered to include leisure classes and hence is not worthy of support.
That mistaken view was highlighted when an education Bill went through your Lordships' House last year. So-called non-vocational courses are often an adult student's first contact with the process that will lead by progressive stages through access courses to university.
Large numbers of adult students are going through the universities. For example, on a typical university humanities course one-half or two-thirds will be adult students. One needs to ask how those students arrived at university. I suspect that a significant number will have started in those courses which are not specifically vocational. It is vital that the Government understand that a lack of support for one aspect of adult education inevitably affects other aspects which they wish to underpin. Unless that fact is recognised, adult education will die. At present there is no protection for non-vocational adult education. Local authorities do not ring-fence it. Do the Government really wish to get rid of that aspect of adult education?
There is grave anxiety about funding in all areas of adult education. For example, in Essex, two adult residential colleges have gone. Other colleges could be in jeopardy because the FEFCs do not fund non-examination courses. The Government will say of course that it is up to the local authority to provide funds. But local authority funds are not ring-fenced and if they try to provide funds for the usual adult non-vocational courses they are in danger of being rate-capped. There is a further fear that the Inland Revenue would like to slap VAT on adult courses. That would finally finish them off, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. I hope that the Government will unequivocally affirm that there is no intention for VAT to be added to non-vocational and non-examination courses.
Despite assurances, local authority budgets for 1993 do not leave LEAs with enough to provide

191
adequate adult education services. What is needed is a strengthening of the law to make adult education services mandatory. Perhaps I may illustrate what I mean. In Barnet, funds provided for non-vocational adult education have been cut from £750,000 to £75,000 per annum, spread over three colleges, a reduction in provision of 90 per cent. The effect will be, first, that there will be no concessionary fees for the elderly or for the unemployed. Secondly, fees will increase sharply. Thirdly, half the programme will collapse and the service will be provided only for those who can afford it. The Government clearly wish to encourage the unemployed to seek qualifications, yet one of the routes, through non-vocational courses, is being made unavailable. Yet those very courses often provide a student's first contact with the process that could eventually lead to university.
I turn to another area of adult education, one to which noble Lords have already referred. The WEA was founded in 1903. It is the only national voluntary organisation solely concerned with adult education in the UK. I have personal experience of its work. I have taught university-sponsored WEA courses over a period of about 25 years. The WEA is concerned over what will happen to approximately one-third of its total grant which is derived from LEAs when this proportion of the grant ceases to be earmarked in April 1994. Other areas of concern include the availability of teaching accommodation. The WEA is totally dependent on other organisations for its teaching accommodation, while charges for such accommodation are becoming increasingly prohibitive. The WEA above all needs funding and the opportunity to acquire reasonable teaching accommodation at reasonable costs.
In conclusion, overall, across the broad spectrum of adult education, there is widespread concern over funding for non-Schedule 2 courses in particular. This has already led to large increases in student fees, which in turn has led to significant drops in enrolments. But behind this there lies the concern that non-vocational courses are regarded as leisure courses and that they are not worthy of support. I have had personal experience in this area for many years as, in addition to teaching award-bearing courses, I have also taught very regularly non-vocational, non-Schedule 2 courses. These happen to be in the area of the history of religions, but surely no-one would suggest that a knowledge of the history and of the deeply held beliefs of Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and Bahias in our country is of no consequence. Religious wars and violence in general have too often been generated between religions, and some of this has been based on pure ignorance.
Equally, of course, one could make cases for other non-award-bearing subject areas. Examination courses and courses generally listed as Schedule 2 courses are not all that there is to be said about a rich, wide and well-balanced education. I fully endorse the noble Baroness, Lady David, when she quotes the then Under-Secretary of State for Education reported in this context in February 1992. In addition, quite apart from anything else many adults have found that their first step back into learning comes through just one of
192
these non-vocational courses. To split off these areas threatens progression routes from one type of course to a more demanding one.
I should like to summarise what in my view is needed. First, there should be mandatory provision for adult education, and this should not be limited to Schedule 2 courses. Secondly, there must be adequate funding, and this funding should be ring fenced. Thirdly, there should be an end to uncertainty over adequate funding, and fourthly, the Government should unequivocally declare that no adult education courses should be subject to VAT. Unless these points are accepted non-Schedule 2 adult education will just run down.
It will run down because of inadequate funding, which will be reflected in a diminution of courses available and in vastly increased fees for courses that are still offered, with no concessionary fees for the unemployed or old age pensioners. This will mean that it will become unavailable for the elderly, the unemployed and those generally less well off. With unemployment now over 3 million, the Government should think carefully about the need not only for Schedule 2 and vocational courses but for non-vocational courses as well.
9.59 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I wish to address one particular aspect of adult education, and that is adult education in prisons and the consequences of putting this out to compulsory competitive tendering. Until this year education in prisons had been provided by local education authorities and paid for by the Home Office. Every prison establishment in the country has an education officer together with full-time and part-time staff. But even this system is constantly under pressure from the need for security in prisons and overcrowding, and prison education is often the first thing to go to the wall when other considerations come into it. We are already dealing with a fragile plant which is further threatened by the compulsory competitive tendering system.
If prisons are to provide constructive and positive regimes which will divert people from a life of crime, education is an essential component of their experience in prison. If prisoners are to survive when they leave prison, they need, first, vocational and craft skills to enhance their otherwise very slim chances of obtaining a job, particularly in the current recession. Secondly, they need formal educational skills. Many prisoners have been failed by our educational system and they need skills of literacy and numeracy. Many of them have had disrupted or inadequate schooling through their own fault and it is only within the prison system that for the first time perhaps they have the opportunity for regular schooling. Ultimately, many of them go on to obtain formal qualifications and in some cases Open University degrees.
Education, moreover, in the broadest sense stimulates imagination and may provide new purpose and hope to those with a limited, materialistic view of life. By enlarging intellectual horizons, education can therefore provide alternative strategies for those

193
whose lives have been restricted by narrow opportunities and short-term ambitions. Some prisoners, moreover, have found that they have artistic or writing skills which are saleable on their release from prison.
The move to compulsory competitive tendering jeopardises all those objectives of education in prison and the disadvantages, for example, will inevitably tend to favour the cheapest option. Since competitive tendering is presumably intended as a cost-cutting exercise in the 68 prisons where the change is to be brought about this year, inevitably young, inexperienced teachers will be hired on short-term contracts. The experience, maturity and continuity that are needed for work in prisons will therefore be jeopardised. There is great concern among those who have any experience of prison education that this is what is already happening, partly through loss of morale as well as through loss of experienced staff. It will also become much harder—and this is an experience that I have heard of in the cadet school where there is a restrictive contract with a particular outside organisation—to dismiss staff who are not suitable for work in a particular establishment.
Under the umbrella of the local education authority there has been the flexibility to relocate educational staff elsewhere than within a prison. I suspect that that will become much harder. When we have placed out a contract in some local educational establishment, it will be reluctant to relocate staff who, perhaps through youth or inexperience, or through no fault of their own, are not suitable for working with prisoners.
The consequences of the proposed changes are that prison teaching staff have already been issued with redundancy notices in many establishments. Many are therefore seeking jobs elsewhere and their morale has been severely affected. The fact that the start of the scheme has not been without teething problems is already shown because it has been deferred from 1st April to 1st September this year, leading to further disarray and disorganisation and a lack of clarity about what is actually happening in the prison educational system. Indeed, I understand that the Kent local education authority and the teachers' association concerned are seeking a judicial review on 11th March. That will ensure even further disruption to the prison education service and consequent loss of potential rehabilitation for many prisoners.
I therefore seek an assurance from the Minister that this area of adult education will be closely monitored to ensure that educational standards in prisons are enhanced rather than diminished.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, Hymn No. 524 in the Anglican Hymn Book begins with these words:
"In heavenly love abiding,
No change my heart shall fear;
And safe is such confiding,
For nothing changes here".
The place where nothing changes is the hymnist's idea of paradise and I have to tell your Lordships that right now it is pretty close to mine as well. In every
194
university in this land there is a longing for the day when the Government and their bureaucrats will get off our backs and let us get on with teaching and research. In no place in any university is this more true than in departments of continuing education.
The old extramural vision is long dead and gone and continuing education has taken its place, but that is now an outmoded concept. The HEFCE's current consultation document comments:
"In some respects, as far as funding is concerned, the concept of continuing adult education is an unhelpful one. A better concept is that of funded and unfunded part-time courses".
We all know what that means—that for unfunded part-time courses the writing is on the wall. This is pointless, painful and wasteful.
The Director of Continuing Education at Oxford University wrote in his last annual report:
"Last year the new UFC system for funding continuing education was reported on, a system which suggested a reasonably stable basis for planning for the next four years. During this year the removal of the binary divide in higher education has indicated that stability is not likely to be a feature of the immediate future. Harmonisation, including that between the UFC and the PCFC, and between the CYCP and CPD will bring change and it is clear that in continuing education the changes will be as great as anywhere …"
That was said before the UFC begat the HEFCE and the HEFCW. They then spawned the consultation exercise, with its options 1, 2 and 3. Is it any wonder that a lecturer recently told me, "They hired me to teach history. All I have done so far this week is fill in questionnaires"? Yet it is simplistic to blame the HEFCE. In its turn, it was set up by the Government in ideological enthusiasm. It was under-resourced and understaffed from the start. It has to make some semblance of sense of the amorphous continuing education sector that has suddenly been placed before it. It follows the bureaucrat's primrose path; it attempts to standardise everything and reduce the bewildering variety and complexity of courses to units and modules, because that is all the bureaucrat has time to recognise and deal with.
I prophesy that the consultation exercise will turn out to be the enemy of freedom, intellectual exploration and the development of vision in continuing education. It will have a constipating effect. It will cause departments to play safe out of fear and develop only those full-length, award-bearing, vocationally-directed courses that are sure to be funded. They dare do nothing else.
It is no secret that the new universities—i.e., the old polytechnics—and the old universities approach the provision of continuing education from radically different standpoints and they will clash. That is no bad thing. But the higher education funding councils have the responsibility of ensuring that out of that clash of opinion and viewpoint comes something new and exciting and intellectually responsible and rigorous. I have to say that the rather dismal consultation document, with its blinkered choice of Options 1, 2 and 3, shows no sign of vision at all. In the words of Shelley, it has "as much imagination as a pint pot".
I believe that the funding councils would do best to pay serious and careful attention to the response of the Universities' Council for Adult and Continuing

195
Education, whose reply to their consultation document patiently deals with the questions they ask but makes a powerful, persuasive and rational case for placing the whole inquiry on a higher level of discourse than that of unit funding alone. In particular, it undermines the unproven, unargued assumption that continuing education is a simple market economy, susceptible to the basic laws of supply and demand that must be consumer-ruled, demand-led and subject to the inalienable law of diminishing marginal utility—that is, that, if one has no education, one has great need of some and, if one has some, one has less need of more—a law which (by the way) is disproved in pints of beer at every rugby club each Saturday night.
The UCACE make a very full and careful case for the proper provision of what used to be called liberal studies but will in future be categorised as non-award-bearing continuing education courses. It is a large constituency of some 350,000 people or the equivalent of five large traditional universities. At the core of that provision is liberal adult education—LAE. As we have heard, that is not sub-degree level work; it is at undergraduate degree level and occasionally at higher level, though sometimes it is more specialised. The fact that it is non-award bearing is irrelevant to its quality. There are large constituencies of adult students who do not want accredited courses. For them accreditation is utterly inappropriate.
LAE courses involve serious commitment to study in terms of out-of-class preparatory work and seminar presentation, written work assignments and so forth. Until relatively recently all that work was subject to HMI inspection and quality assurance and control. Moreover, the fact that some LAE has been accredited at degree level under universities' new modular structures, is further indication of its quality. LAE is provided both on-campus and off-campus, across universities' regional areas. It gives large numbers of adults access to the university system and to its values. For their part universities need constituencies of people from the adult community who appreciate and support their aim. It is a key part of the universities' contribution to an informed, civilised democracy.
I cannot stress too strongly that it is not a case of "musical appreciation for middle-class mummies in Middlesex". We are talking about courses which are
196
intellectually challenging and, by any assessment, useful. Ten years ago at Saint David's University College, Lampeter, we started a course for young women who wanted to learn about computers in order to prepare the accounts for shops, farms or businesses in West Wales. We called it first the "Business Information Technology Course for Housewives", until the acronym made us change it to "Women into New Technology". It was a splendid success. It succeeded in a liberal arts college because it was a brilliant new idea, necessary in West Wales and achievable within the financial constraints which obtained at that time. One would think many times before risking such an initiative today.
But if adult education is difficult within the University of Wales—and it is—and within universities generally, it is doubly difficult in those institutions which specialise in it. I think of Ruskin College, Oxford, or Fircroft College, Birmingham, or Hillcroft or the Northern or the Co-operative College at Loughborough. Or that unique creation in North Wales, Coleg Harlech, founded by the father of my noble friend Lady White of Rhymney—who I am delighted to see in her place—and who herself has done so much for it over the years.
Since 1927 Coleg Harlech has provided opportunities for men and women who left school early without any formal qualifications to go on to higher education. Now over 90 per cent. of that college's intake go on to higher education and, despite the growth in access, despite the Open University, there is a continuous demand for places and available places are always filled. Yet in the stampede to standardise everything that unique institution has been swept into the further education sector and forced to compete for resources against all other FE colleges in Wales. It has to compete in that jungle against animals much larger than and very different from itself. The number of students that it can accept is limited by the number of available grants because its students are classified as full-time. And because the number of grants is cash limited, the FE colleges take the lion's share. I hope that the Government will spare a thought for those special institutions, like Coleg Harlech, which do such splendid work.
All over the country adult education is beleaguered and under siege: it is high time the cavalry came over the hill.
10.14 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to take up an issue connected with organisations less exalted and less famous than those about which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has just been talking. I refer to the large number of adult education courses going on in colleges and institutions up and down the country, and going on under difficult circumstances for a very long time, whose position today as they see it, and as a great many of us see it, is seriously threatened.
Adult education has always been the Cinderella of the education services and it remains so today. There has not been, and there still is not, a statutory obligation to fund adult education. If I were part of an education authority short of money for school books, for libraries and for all the other educational demands upon it, I expect that I too should be looking at ways in which the resources for adult education which are not compulsory and not statutory could be cut back.
We are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, even at this hour, for making us think yet again about this issue. It is surely the theme of today's debate that all the colleges are deeply concerned about money and resources. Education is a very important, high-minded and exalted activity. But, like many other exalted activities, it cannot run on faith alone. It needs cash. The cash has always been difficult to come by in adult education and we are increasingly worried about it today. A number of speakers have asked about VAT. If VAT is charged on adult education classes, that will be the end of it for many of those classes.
There is another issue concerning resources which, so far as I am aware—it may have been raised when I slipped out of the Chamber—has not been mentioned. What will happen to the facilities that have been available to a large number of adult education courses, affecting around 1.5 million students in the country, in local education authority schools? It is surely in everyone's interests that all education establishments, including the schools, should be used as fully as is possible and practicable. A great many classes have been arranged in local education authority schools and there are clear obligations on schools to make those resources available. But a number of schools are already grant-maintained and many people believe that an increasing number will become grant-maintained. Will the grant-maintained schools be required to continue—and indeed to expand—the use of their premises by adult education classes and by organisations running adult education classes? If an increasing number of schools opt out, the consequences for adult education and for those 1.5 million students will be very serious indeed. That would represent yet another cutback in available resources.
It is surely an extraordinarily short-sighted view of economy. In so many areas of government policy one is impressed by the short-term view taken about the way in which we use our resources. Adult education is an investment and not just a matter of consumer benefit. That is probably true of all education but it is especially true of adult education. It is an investment that will pay off over the years if the Government are
198
prepared to put the money into it and not to rely on people being able to a large extent to finance it themselves on a market basis.
Let us look at the way in which that investment is shown in adult education and how it can be a first-class way of investing money in the community to the ultimate benefit not only of individuals but of the economy as a whole. Perhaps I may underline here what has been said by so many other speakers tonight. Surely the distinction between vocational and non-vocational which bedevils our thinking about adult education is foolish in the extreme. I have never had an answer to the question which I have raised again and again. I do not expect the noble Baroness to give me an answer to it, not that she is incapable of doing so. She will see why I say it. Is mathematics vocational or non-vocational? If I study it, it is non-vocational because I rarely use it in your Lordships' House or anywhere else. But if I were about to be a civil engineer, it would be highly vocational. What does that make mathematics—vocational or non-vocational?
We should be haunted by the fact that we have a hideously under-educated and under-trained population. One of the troubles is that because of past educational failures a very large number of people who lack training and education do not believe that they are capable of getting it when in fact they must be capable of doing so. It cannot be true that the populations of other European countries are so much more able to reach educational and training standards than the people of this country. It is simply that the facilities and encouragement have not been here. Whatever the reasons, there is no doubt about the difference in the various countries. It amounts to a serious economic disadvantage as well as a great disadvantage for individuals.
The so-called non-vocational subjects are very often a way in which people who have never succeeded in anything academic suddenly discover that they can do things and achieve. To give people the realisation that they can achieve is probably the most important first step in getting untrained people into training. My own connection with adult education has been as chairman of Morley College. Perhaps I may give an example. It is that of a young woman who had never done anything at all. She had been unemployed ever since she left school. She then went to Morley College and took an art class, which was totally non-vocational, of course. She discovered that she was good at art. The fact that she was good at doing something encouraged her to go out to get a job which she had had no intention or hope of doing before she took that totally non-vocational course.
So, if we want to deal with the backlog of under-trained people and to ensure that the growing numbers of unemployed people do not lose their capacity for learning, if they ever had it, or that they acquire it if they never had it, surely adult education is one of the best investments that this country can make. But it will not be used in that way unless the money and the resources are there.
It is not only the unemployed who can benefit by taking adult education classes, but the country at

199
large. We have an increasingly ageing population, as we all know. Adult education can keep those older people occupied, interested and alert. It is sometimes said that activity is the reason why life expectancy in your Lordships' House is so long. I was told the other day, though I cannot vouch for the truth of it, that, contrary to all statistics elsewhere, the males in your Lordships' House outlive their wives. That is contrary to the normal experience anywhere else. It may well be because Members have an occupational activity which keeps them going, though whether that is a good thing or not is a matter of opinion.
Activity is a way of dealing with the many problems of old age. If, by providing opportunities for learning and for gaining new interests, one can keep an ageing population going and not making excessive demands on the social services, that is surely a very good investment indeed.
I want to talk particularly from the experience of Morley College. At present, very nearly 50 per cent. of the students of Morley College pay concessionary fees. That means that they are either unemployed, pensioners or people requiring basic education. Although I grant that not all pensioners are very hard up and that some of them could contribute a bit more than they do, that is another matter. Your Lordships have discussed immigrants in the past week and will be doing so again and again in one form or another in the coming weeks and months and, I suspect, years. Morley College has admitted people who cannot speak English —people from, among other countries, Somalia, Croatia and Bosnia, although perhaps not so many as some of us think should be admitted.
We have been cautious enough about the people we admit into this country, but, when we are admitting people who cannot speak the language, surely it is in everybody's interest that they should be enabled to learn it. Places like Morley College are providing that opportunity. As I have said, such students are among the 50 per cent. who pay concessionary fees, but if fees increase they will be unable to take courses.
Is it sensible that our old people, our unemployed people, our alien people (who have been accepted here and who will be a continuing burden on the community as a whole unless they can learn the language and gain some skills) might not be able to take such courses? Is it a sensible economy to cut back our provision for education of this kind?
10.26 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is always good to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, with all her experience and wisdom. However, I am sure that we are, above all, grateful to my noble friend Lady David for this opportunity to review educational opportunities for adults now that the Further and Higher Education Act has been in place for some nine months. My noble friend has a distinguished record in this sphere and her commitment is second to none. Long may she continue to act as a vigilant watchdog in this vital aspect of our national life.
During the passage of that Act noble Lords and Members of the other place were at pains to recognise the need for what, as the right reverend Prelate has
200
reminded us, has been described as the continuum of educational opportunity to encourage the development of a "lifetime learning culture".
The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, chair of a training and enterprise council, summed it up well at the time when he called for extended provision to—
"enable the citizens of the United Kingdom to pursue further and higher academic and vocational education and professional education and development in a flexible manner throughout their lives".
It is essential to measure the arrangements for education against the purposes of education. I am confident that most of us in this House would agree that the dual strategic social objectives are to provide the lifeblood of an open, creative and dynamic democracy and to ensure the success of our economy without which that democracy could be in jeopardy. The purposes of education for adults are not, surely, different from those of education for our children. We do not educate young people solely for work—although listening to the half-baked ideas of some Right-wing ideologues I sometimes fear for the future. Our aim must be that all people continue to learn and develop throughout their lives, generating a learning workforce and a learning society.
Relevant education is about work, community, family life, and ourselves as individuals. To take work first, education for work should not be confused with training. Some great companies, like Ford, are well aware of this. I just wish that the Front Bench opposite would demonstrate an equal understanding. Imaginative employers want creativity, flexibility, communication skills, the ability and willingness to learn, and people with confidence in themselves and in their capacity to develop new skills and ways of working. These desperately needed qualities will frequently remain undeveloped in people whose learning experience has been restricted to narrow job-related training.
Second is the community or—as it is often called these days—civil society. Self-confident, aware and well informed people are needed as local councillors, justices of the peace, school governors, hospital trust members, trade union officers, leaders of residents' and tenants' associations, trustees of charities, youth workers, lay preachers and playgroup leaders—the list is endless. The whole thrust of present government policy is to make even greater demands on such services. Education should be about developing awareness, together with a sense of responsibily, and preparing people to shoulder responsibility. Without that, the fabric of our society could be in danger.
Thirdly, we come to the family and home, the very foundation of society. In the complexities and stress of modern existence, the skills needed to manage home life successfully should never be underestimated or taken for granted. If we value family life, it is not good enough to moralise about it; we have to enable people to develop their competence as parents or carers. That includes practical home-making skills, sometimes extraordinarily dismissed as leisure pursuits. But it also includes skills in human relationships, bringing up children, supporting the physically and mentally sick, the handicapped and our elderly family members.

201
Lastly, there is the greatest challenge of all: the principal hallmark of an advanced democratic and civilised society is surely its determination to offer all its people the opportunites to develop self-knowledge and to pursue ideas and skills without asking what the immediate instrumental and financial benefits will be; a determination to enable all its people to become positive, active players, rather than merely the passive victims of circumstance.
As I have been arguing, general benefits do spring from an educated population, but unashamedly we must stand by the value of the individual's pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Here I detect a danger: that education for work is becoming seen as more important than other forms of education; that some self-styled experts still arrogantly believe that, despite the manifest failure of almost all the attempts at manpower planning, and despite continually rising unemployment, they know the relationship between learning and jobs, and they can prescribe courses of study which will lead to specific employment outcomes. In other words, I sense a danger that the opportunities for adults to learn could be circumscribed by those who would subordinate the individual's goals to their own theoretical and unproven priorities. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's reflections on that danger.
Meanwhile, there remains a rich diversity among those adults who are studying: the young, the middle-aged, the elderly, the employed and the unemployed, people with family or other caring responsibilities, hospital patients, and prisoners, about whom my noble friend Lady Hilton spoke, with her warning about tendering. That diversity is reflected in a diversity of motivation, ranging from vocational to self-fulfilment.
It is impossible to determine the purpose or motivation of students by the nature of their course. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, reminded us, languages are vital. A conversational French class may include a tourist guide adding to her work skills; a cordon bleu cookery course may include a redundant company chef diversifying skills before setting up in his or her own business; some CSCE classes include parents wanting to keep up with their children and to help with homework; and an A-level class may include an elderly pensioner who has no intention of using it for vocational purposes. As the House knows well, matching the diversity of adult students and their motivation is the diversity of provision: universities, the Open University, local education authorities, colleges of further education, the WEA, residential colleges, trade unions, professional bodies, women's institutes, churches and voluntary organisations such as the Pre-School Playgroups Association with its major training programme for playgroup workers.
In addition, people are learning from the media, studying under their own steam, and taking distance learning courses by correspondence. The United Kingdom has often been taken in the world as a model of what education for adults can be. For example, the Open University and the WEA, so warmly praised this evening by my noble friends Lord Longford and Lord
202
Ardwick, are seen worldwide as enviable initiatives to be copied. The number of adults throughout education and training has, until recently, been growing. As my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris so powerfully explained, there are now real anxieties. Some are more long-standing but some arise directly from the application of the new Act.
Early school-leavers, those living in inner cities and those in social classes D and E are least likely to participate in education and training. Proportionately fewer black people participate. Poverty is also a barrier to participation. Some courses are still not available in ways which encourage adult participation; for instance, they are in the wrong places, are at the wrong times and they can be too lengthy. Those with family ties, mainly women, and those unlikely to gain employers' support, mainly the less-skilled and low paid, are often excluded. It would be good to hear from the Minister what research her department is carrying out into the problem and what remedies are being sought.
The Minister will doubtless claim that the new legislation contains some good provisions for adult learners. Certainly it can be argued that it recognises their importance as part of the mainstream of further and higher education. My noble friend Lady Lockwood and other noble Lords have spoken of the role of universities. Undoubtedly, the legislation gives relative hope and stability of funding for those adult learning activities which fall within the scope of the much debated Schedule 2, essentially for award-bearing courses and basic skills work. The Further Education Funding Council has indeed gone out to consultation on a document concerned with funding learning which projects the possibility that adult learning in colleges of further education might at last be adequately funded, with the costs of part-time study properly acknowledged and learning support services such as guidance and counselling accepted as fully legitimate calls on teaching resources.
All that should be readily acknowledged. Yet conversely it must be stressed that the range of work to be supported by the new sector is limited. The Government's case is, as I understand it, that the sector provides for national priorities. But the national priority argument is uncomfortably close to the preoccupation with preparation for jobs in its lack of subtlety and understanding. Despite the Government's insistence that funds available to local authorities for education for adults remain the same, except for those transferred to the Further Education Funding Council for Schedule 2 work, the indisputable fact is that, as we have heard tonight, local authority services are significantly declining and the people who lose out are the tens of thousands of adult students.
Local authorities do not feel that they have the money to sustain local services. The evidence is everywhere. Some authorities evidently feel that the new legislation gives them a clear signal that the Government do not regard non-Schedule 2 education as important. But it most certainly is important. It serves the legitimate learning needs of 1 million people. We should be proud of it.

203
Not only are services being reduced but, as we have heard, fees are rising out of the reach of many people. Concessions for the elderly, the sick and the unemployed are disappearing. The news of decline, of rising fees and of the withdrawal of concessions comes from authorities all over the country—from Bury to Islington, from Bedfordshire to Salford, from Gloucestershire to South Glamorgan, from Surrey to Northumberland. Unless something is done rapidly it will soon be the case that in many parts of the country only those able to pay substantial fees will be able to participate in non-Schedule 2 activity. With all that is known both about the needs of some adults to re-enter learning at a point of their own choosing and about how even the most vocationally-oriented may be intimidated by the notion of assessment if it is introduced too early, this could be nothing short of a disaster.
Similarly, the review of continuing education being conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council is no doubt necessary in the light of the establishment of a new sector and of the council's responsibilities. The danger, as was stressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, is that just those general non-award-bearing courses—what used to be called "liberal education"—which have been the starting point of so much individual and collective development will be the victims. It would be a grievous loss.
Finally, as my noble friend Lady David and others have left us in no doubt, there is VAT. That is a threat looming over much of the educational provision for adults. Surely it is madness to pursue the idea of a learning society but to tax the participants. That unnecessary threat should be lifted once and for all. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity this evening to remove all the uncertainties and worry generated by communications such as those to which my noble friend Lady David referred; namely, from Mr. Cleaver of Customs and Excise last October to the Further Education Funding Council and Denman College or that from the Paymaster General in the same month to Robert Jackson, a Member of the other place.
It is alarming that, despite the assurances given during the passage of the new legislation, real opportunities for ordinary people and the much-envied richness and diversity of education for adults in the United Kingdom are under threat. Deterioration of that precious national asset will be bad for people as individuals. It will hinder attempts to improve the skills and employability of our people; it will undermine our economic future; it will be another blow, by doctrinaire philistines, to the quality and fabric of our civic and community life. I fervently hope that the Minister will reassure the House this evening.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for the opportunity which this very important debate gives to all of us. It gives me the opportunity to describe the action which the Government have taken to raise the profile of education for adults.
I believe that we have clearly demonstrated the importance that we attach to such education. The
204
noble Lord, Lord Judd, wished that this Front Bench —and I mean this Front Bench—would only show an understanding of the importance of adult education. I personally take great exception not only to that remark but I take exception to the tone that he has taken in the debate. I wonder whether I inhabit the same world as the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I believe that as a spokesman for education almost from the time at which I entered government I have shown an understanding of education in all its forms in this House. I have also had first-hand experience of governing at all levels of education—and this obviously amuses the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I am a governor of my local further education establishment. I am on the court of the university and I have the utmost passion for and interest in adult and continuing education. In April, with my local further education college, I hope to celebrate incorporation as it prepares for and looks forward to the great day.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said that we undervalue adult education. That is not true. Recruitment has never been more robust. In fact, enrolments in all forms of adult education over the past decade have increased by over 25 per cent. Further education has been given a substantial boost this year, which is a very difficult year financially right across Whitehall. Further education has been singled out specifically for favourable treatment.
It is to expand by over 25 per cent. in the next year of which account has been taken in the funding. Entry into higher education has risen from one-in-eight students in 1979, the year in which the party of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, left office, to one-in-four today and is heading to be one-in-three by the end of the decade. As has already been said by many noble Lords during the course of the debate, considerable help is given to many students and to others. The opening up of access courses is having a great deal of success and is enabling people to take advantage of further and higher education. Indeed, many of our teachers now enter via the access courses in many of our further and higher education institutions.
There has not been under-investment in FE for adults. We could all argue politically about how much more should be taken from ratepayers and taxpayers and whether the provision should be funded entirely by the state or whether the balance should be met by the state, local authorities or those who can afford to make a contribution. Between 1979–80 and 1990–91 —the latest date for which accurate out-turn data are available—spending by English local authorities on separate adult institutions has increased by 16 per cent. in real terms. As I said, enrolment data show that adult enrolments in all types of FE maintained by LEAs increased by a good quarter over the past decade. In further education colleges alone the increase was some 70 per cent. Those are facts. I am not speaking emotionally. Emotion has been dealt out in great measure in the course of this debate.
Our proposals for the further education of adults in England and Wales were given legislative form in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which was debated last year in your Lordships' House. We set out for the first time the types of education which we

205
believe should have priority, because, as has been mentioned by many speakers, they help adults improve their skills and acquire qualifications. They are absolutely vital to the health and wealth of this country. These types of education are listed in Schedule 2 to the Act and fall to the responsibilities of the further education funding councils in England and Wales which were not set up in a fit of ideological pique, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. They are wide-ranging and include courses leading to academic and vocational qualifications; access to higher education courses; "return to study" courses; courses to teach basic skills in literacy and numeracy; courses in English for speakers of other languages, and courses which teach independent living and communication skills for people with learning difficulties. In Wales, Schedule 2 also includes courses for proficiency and literacy in Welsh.
Your Lordships will be familiar with this list. I offer it again so that we can all be clear that these courses do not cover vocational courses only, as is sometimes claimed. They are designed to meet both the personal and career aspirations of individuals and so help them develop fully the roles they need to fulfil at work and as citizens. Access and progression for adults lie at the heart of the Schedule 2 courses. They offer genuine "second chance" opportunities within a framework of progression which will be available to all adults, whatever their previous educational background and wherever they live. The Schedule 2 framework also reflects our policy that learning difficulties should not be a bar to access to further education. We want to see students with learning difficulties benefit from the range of opportunities that will be available in the new FE sector.
It is critical that we increase the level of participation in further education by adults, as well as by young people. In doing so we shall build on developments over recent years. During the past 10 years there has been an increase by over a quarter in adult enrolments in England and Wales in all kinds of further education. Adults constitute a very significant part of the FE population: in FE colleges, adult enrolments have increased by some 70 per cent. in the past decade and now form two-thirds of all enrolments.
It is therefore right that Schedule 2 should be firmly placed within the mainstream of our FE reforms. But unlike most 16 to 19 year-olds, many adults will have to juggle with work and domestic commitments alongside their studies. It was therefore important for us to ask the Further Education Funding Council to consider how to encourage the further development of flexible and part-time modes of delivery, including distance learning. The council is now consulting colleges and others on the most effective ways of distributing resources in the future so that the needs of the different client groups in FE colleges may be met.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, asked me specifically about the future of long-term residential colleges. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, mentioned a Welsh college in this regard. I shall mention that college in a moment and I hope he
206
will forgive my pronunciation. The future of long-term residential colleges is secure. Funding is to transfer from the Department for Education to the FEFC, and the Welsh college, Coleg Harlech, will be funded by the Welsh FEFC—that is my understanding—and the student bursary scheme will also remain, though probably in a revised form. They are all now following a recommendation to concentrate on one-year access courses to maximise value for money and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked the FEFC to recognise the need for diversity in the new FE sector. The colleges I have mentioned are an important part of that diversity and we have no doubt that they will follow that route.
Our intention to increase levels of participation in FE was given a very substantial boost in the recent public expenditure round. The Government's plans provide for a large increase in funding over the next three years. They allow for growth of 25 per cent. by 1995–96 in the numbers of young people and adults in the FE sector. We believe that adults should benefit substantially from that planned growth and we want to see more and more adults avail themselves of opportunities in further education—in basic skills courses, access courses and courses leading to qualifications. We also want to see the national education and training targets for lifelong learning become a reality with increasing numbers of people in the workforce acquiring national vocational qualifications.
The fact that the Government have set their own priorities does not in itself diminish the importance of other types of further education for adults. Our legislative reforms took care to preserve the complete map of provision for adults. LEAs accordingly retain their duty to secure the provision of all kinds of further education for adults which do not come within the funding councils' duties.
In contrast with the duty placed on the funding councils, LEAs' duties might be characterised as being generally of a more local nature and responsive to specific local concerns. It is a very wide duty. It covers general education and recreational interests and also many other important matters. Courses can be provided which help adults fulfil particular roles such as parenthood, school governorship or other responsible functions within the wider community or which prepare people for particular events in their lives such as retirement. They can, moreover, serve as stepping stones into the courses for which the funding councils are responsible. In those various ways they can make a significant contribution to the health and well-being of local communities and they are rightly valued for that reason. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out very well how those rungs on the ladder operate. People enter at a very low level of education, are bitten by the bug and move on to greater and higher things.
Perhaps I may tell the noble Baroness that there is now a survey of the first 100 grant-maintained schools. Happily, all the evidence shows that the use of the facilities of those schools by the community has increased immeasurably. One hopes that that will continue.

207
We have recognised the importance of the LEA sector of further education for adults in other ways. The recent Act provided LEAs with powers to set up governing bodies at all their institutions so that they can share in the benefits of local management. In addition, LEAs have new duties to secure quality assurance at the institutions which they maintain or assist. There are also new powers for LEA-maintained and grant-maintained schools themselves to put on all types of FE courses for adults. I have already mentioned that the early evidence is very positive. We hope by those means to extend the number of locations serving adults and thereby to widen opportunities. Schools can also help both local education authorities and councils in the fulfilment of their duties for further education.
At this point I should also say a word about the voluntary sector, which we believe has a significant contribution to make to the further education of adults. For some years the Department for Education has paid grant to a number of national voluntary bodies in recognition of their role in promoting education for active citizenship and progression through further education. Those grants are continuing. Many local authorities already provide support to voluntary bodies, for example, to the local branches of national bodies such as the Women's Institute or through community-based projects in the inner cities and elsewhere.
Voluntary bodies have particular strengths. They are often closely involved with local communities and have the capacity to respond quickly and flexibly to local needs. There is scope for harnessing voluntary efforts still further in the interests of targeting and responding to local needs. I believe that local authorities should consider carefully now how voluntary organisations might contribute to the discharge of their duties for further education and should strengthen their partnership with the voluntary sector.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the Workers' Educational Association. It is a crucial part of the voluntary sector and has done sterling work. We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, that it is 90 years old and looking forward to celebrating its centenary.
The WEA has an assured future. Currently it receives public funding from two sources: from the Department for Education and the Welsh Office about £2 million; and LEAs via the GEST money about £1.3 million in 1992–93. In April the Department for Education and the Welsh Office funding is to transfer to the FEFCs and the GEST funding for LEAs in England is to continue into 1993–94 for a final year. The WEA will be funded for non-Schedule 2 as well as Schedule 2 courses. The GEST funding was brought in to cement the relationship between LEAs and the WEA districts. It has been notably successful in that, and indeed the WEA has asked not to be included in the 1994–95 GEST programme. However, the WEA is concerned that the end of the GEST incentive might lead to a loss of LEA funding and has recently asked for all public funding to go through the FEFC from 1994–95. We are considering that request.
208
I believe that we have given the local authority sector of further education for adults the recognition that it merits. The legislation provides a firm basis for LEAs' duty to secure provision for adults and we recognise that duty within public funds, as promised by Ministers last year. The 1993–94 settlement reflects the transfer of responsibilities from local authorities to the Further Education Funding Councils on 1st April this year. In calculating the sum to transfer from local authorities to the funding council, we ensured that sufficient funds were left with local authorities to allow them to meet their continuing responsibilities. Of course it is not for the Government to tell local authorities what they must spend on their remaining responsibilities for adults. That is for them to decide in the light of local circumstances. Central government's role is to set the overall level of spending by local authorities for which grant support is available, and the distribution of grant support between local authorities.
The records show that local authorities have increased—not decreased—their spending on the further education of adults over the years. For example, between 1979 and 1990 spending by the local authorities on adult institutions in England rose from £56 million to about £140 million, as I said earlier a real terms increase of nearly 16 per cent.
As for the 1993–94 local authority grant settlement, our proposals allow for local authorities in England to spend nearly £16.9 billion on education. That is an increase of 2.6 per cent. over the comparable figure for this year. In arriving at the total for 1993–94 we took account of the broad range of pressures facing the education service. We also took account of falling inflation, the scope for local authorities to make efficiency savings, our new policy on public sector pay and, of course, what the country can afford. The increase of 2.6 per cent. is reasonable in the current climate. Pay awards are now known and for teachers are contained within a 1.5 per cent. increase. Since pay accounts for some 75 per cent. of local authority education expenditure, the 2.6 per cent. increase should cover pay and price increases which we calculate will add about 2 per cent. to LEAs' costs next year, leaving some head room.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady David, whether LEA courses for adults would attract VAT. She was joined in that question by a number of noble Lords. The Customs and Excise is currently undertaking a review of VAT on education. That review is not yet complete. I cannot, as I have been implored to do today, give a definitive answer. Nor can I anticipate the outcome of the review. The Customs and Excise will no doubt consult on its findings. The Department for Education will of course discuss any proposals with Customs and Excise on the merits of any case that it puts.
The noble Baroness also asked about provision made outside the FE sector and about the split between bids and allocation of funds by the FEFC. It is true that the total value of applications was greater than expected. Some of the bids were for new provision, and inevitably some did not meet FEFC criteria for eligibility. The funding council has not yet

209
made any final decisions. Institutions will first be given a chance to comment on the provisional applications. The provisional allocations were issued recently. They are designed to deliver broad stability in the existing pattern of provision and indeed to include some growth for next year. This has been the first year of preparing and considering Section 6(5) sponsorship applications. All parties concerned, LEAs, FE colleges and the FEFC, have put great effort into making it work, and the funding councils drew on expert advice in considering the applications.
The funding council will be reviewing sponsorship procedures for 1994–95, having learnt a great deal from this year. Two important indicators have emerged though. There are clear signs of buoyancy in the demand for Schedule 2 courses, as I am sure your Lordships would expect, and the procedures have led to increased co-operation between institutions in the FE and LEA sectors. That is to be welcomed.
It is important to take account of the wider framework of provision which benefits adults and those on the threshold of adult life. Getting education and training provision right for 16 to 19 year-olds through establishing a more responsive further education sector and providing funding to allow for increased participation will have a real impact on their future as adults. Other government departments play their part of course. The Department of Employment, for example, provides funding for the youth training and credits which support training by employers at NVQ level 2 and above. It also provides substantial funding for the provision of work-related further education administered by the training and enterprise councils in England and Wales. A major new programme of training for work which replaces employment action and employment training will help unemployed adults acquire the skills and the experience to get back to work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, mentioned the important point of prison education. Competitive tendering for the provision of education to prisoners is directed to improve efficiency and effectiveness, and there is a good argument that that should be so. Every pound saved through efficiency and effectiveness is another pound available to spend somewhere else in the service. Education provision in prisons is generally of good quality. I happen to have seen some of it at first hand and been impressed. Some of my local schools are rather envious of some of the facilities at the prisons. But there are variations between prisons, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, and the new arrangements offer the opportunity to ensure that education programmes of prisoners are of consistently high quality.
On the specific point that the noble Baroness made, may I say how difficult it is to deal with employees who are not performing very well if they come in through the competitive tendering procedure. I have to tell the noble Baroness from first-hand experience that it is easier to deal with somebody when the employment is based on a proper specification of the job to be done and a proper contract is drawn up, with penalties built in. If that contract is not delivered to
210
quality then there is a basis for doing something about that employee. That includes dismissal. This is a greater flexibility than for LEA employed people, which is just about moving people around and relocating them rather than perhaps facing up to the painful business of having to dismiss somebody who is wholly unsuitable.
Let me now turn to higher education. Participation in higher education is at record levels. I gave the figures earlier. The total number of students enrolled in higher education in the United Kingdom was nearly 1.2 million in 1990–91. This represents a 42 per cent. increase since 1980–81 and an 89 per cent. increase since 1970–71. That is a remarkable achievement, for which much of the credit must go to the institutions themselves. I say on a personal note to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that much of that is due to the way the polytechnic sector operated and the way in which the polytechnic colleges made available expansion for young people. Again I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for bringing those great institutions into the university sector.
The Government's commitment to higher education is clear. Public funding for higher education stands at record levels and will total over £4 billion for England alone in 1993–94. The Autumn Statement provided for an increase in available public funding of 7.3 per cent. in 1993–94, when inflation is running at below 2 per cent. This follows increases of 10 per cent. for the past three years running. In Wales, over £248 million has been made available, an increase of more than 9 per cent. over 1992–93. The Government's spending plans provide for 8.5 per cent. growth in full-time equivalent student numbers in England and Wales and will enable the current record levels of participation to be maintained over the next three years before rising to one-in-three by the year 2000.
There can be little doubt that the increase in mature student numbers in higher education—77 per cent between 1980 and 1990 in Great Britain—is something of a success story for both further education and higher education. Among the developments which will have contributed to this growth the most striking is the dramatic increase in the numbers of access to higher education courses in recent years. There are well over 1,000 such courses compared with about 130 in 1984. The range of subjects has widened very appreciably over the years.
While our public expenditure plans for higher education assume a period of consolidation over the next three years, the impressive levels of mature student entry already achieved stand adults in good stead. Many universities have strong traditions in providing for mature students, including those who approach higher education via routes other than the traditional academic and vocational qualification routes. We believe that these institutions will want to preserve these missions and ensure that mature students maintain an appropriate share of the student intake.
The noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, mentioned the liberal university adult education and thought that it might disappear.

211
Funding for part-time continuing education is currently under review by the Higher Education Funding Councils for England and Wales. Institutions are being consulted on the options for the future. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. It has been hinted that the consultation is not worth the paper it is written on, but I have to say that there are serious options and I have every confidence in the way in which those consultations are being conducted.
Let us not forget the record of the Open University in providing for adults, which has been mentioned in the debate. Its undergraduate numbers alone have increased by more than a quarter since 1980 and its postgraduate and continuing education numbers by much more than that. Twenty-two years ago the university admitted its first students. Its coming of age will be marked by its joining the ranks of institutions funded by the Higher Education Funding Council as from this April.
Again, I have had first-hand experience in launching on a number of occasions interactive video programmes and distance learning packages for adults and teachers who are either refreshing their skills or acquiring new skills, particularly in the field of languages.
We are achieving a great deal. We are providing for larger numbers of adults to step on to the ladder of progression which can take them from basic skills courses right the way through to the threshold of higher education. Our educational reforms as a whole will of course have a long-term influence across successive generations. Through the national curriculum we aim to raise standards of achievement in all our schools and therefore prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Similarly, our further education reforms for 16 to 19 year-olds are designed to ensure that greater numbers of young people acquire the skills and qualifications that they will need as adults. The habits of learning they will acquire will encourage them to return to education all the way through their adult life, to update their skills and obtain new ones, as well as to pursue more general educational interests in themselves.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, mentioned the very important point of languages and the lamentable record of our country. It is in the nature of our people not to broaden their skills by speaking other tongues. However, it is now compulsory under the national curriculum for all students from the ages of 11 through to 16 to learn a modern foreign language. It is also a long-term aim that we should introduce the learning of languages lower down the age scale. But we need a cohort of competent young people who are linguists to come into our schools to improve and increase the numbers of competent linguists. They will then become those who provide the extra people to teach languages.
212
The point is very well taken, and I am impressed by the number of further and higher education colleges now offering a language as an ancillary course to other courses that are being studied. This is also available to our A-level students. They may not be taking a language but are invited to do an AS-level alongside their A-level studies and their vocational studies, to widen their horizons. There is also the industrial context in which some of the languages are being learnt.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. She will be aware that there are a number of people in the older age groups who come from other countries and have foreign languages as their native tongues. Can they not be recruited deliberately in order to help with language teaching? The noble Baroness has said that she is keen on language teaching. That older section of the population is a wasted resource.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. My understanding is that they are being used in further and higher education. I was talking about bringing it into the schools as a compulsory subject, and further down into the junior schools. A very large number of primary school children are doing it either if there happens to be expertise on the staff or in Saturday morning clubs and local further education colleges. It is an important point and one well taken by me.
I am aware of the late hour and that I have been speaking for too long. I will try to answer the straight question that the noble Baroness asked about maths. I am not sure that my answer is as unequivocal as I ought to give. A-level, GCSE, vocational and BTEC courses in maths are all Schedule 2 courses. I am told that beginners' maths courses can be regarded as non-Schedule 2 courses. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned Morley College for which she has great affection and has worked unstintingly. I understand that that college will be funded directly by the FEFC as a designated body for all its FE provision. Courses in English for speakers of other languages are very important and for that reason are also included in Schedule 2 to the Act.
This has been a useful and timely debate. I am sorry that people feel that my commitment is half-hearted and that the Front Bench is not committed to these matters. I am committed and will continue to give time, energy and as much as my department's energy as possible to furthering these aims. I have given some evidence to the effect that we are doing just that. I believe that the prominence that the Government have given to the education of adults through the legislative framework and its funding will be seen as a landmark in developing lifelong learning in this country. Long may it continue!
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eleven o'clock.

  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION: EFFECT OF SOCIAL POLICY PROTOCOL
  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION: EFFECT OF SOCIAL POLICY PROTOCOL
  SOCIAL CHARTER
  SOCIAL CHARTER
  WHEELCLAMPING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
  WHEELCLAMPING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
  DISPENSING DOCTORS: FEE INCREASE
  DISPENSING DOCTORS: FEE INCREASE
  REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
  REGIONAL GOVERNMENT