Sitting of 21 January 1993

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 28 January 1993.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the levels of investment from abroad in 1991–92.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): In 1991–92, 430 new jobs were promoted from new green field investment, with negotiations under way on a number of additional projects. I am delighted that announcements about some of these additional projects have since been made and that others can be expected shortly.
    Mr. Arnold: Given the unfortunate perception abroad of the situation in Northern Ireland, is not it important that approaches to foreign investors be made on a co-operative and in many ways a joint basis? In view of that, will my hon. Friend comment on the recent initiatives in that regard by the hon. Members of Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron)?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. The hon. Gentlemen to whom he refers will know the success of their trip. It highlights the fact that the communities can work together and the importance of investment from
    482
    other parts of the world and shows that aims that are important to the whole Province can be achieved by parliamentary colleagues as well as those in industry.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister enlarge on his answer? We welcome the 400 new jobs. Were they created by new firms or are the expansion of existing firms? How many foreign investment firms folded in Northern Ireland in 1992?
    Mr. Atkins: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer to his second question withour prior notice, but I shall, of course, write to him with the details. As everyone is aware, during the recession Northern Ireland, like everywhere else, has had a hard time. Not as many jobs were created in 1991–92 as one would have wished, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that in the latter part of last year and already in the early part of this year good news has been announced. I have hopes of more in the future.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister appreciate the extent of the deprivation and unemployment in my constituency? Does he accept that it will take tremendous Government help and initiative to encourage people from abroad to come to the Province and especially to the west of the Province? Will he assure the House that, to that end, he will give every encouragement and assistance to hon. Members?
    Mr. Atkins: Of course, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not let up in our attempt to get investment to all parts of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency recently and I have fond memories of that visit there. I shall continue to do my best not only for the hon. Gentleman's constituency but for all the Northern Ireland constituencies.
    Mr. McGrady: The Minister will be aware that inward investment should be available to all areas of Northern Ireland. I draw his attention to the novelty by which, in the past three years, of 875 first visits only 10 were to South Down. That is less than 1 per cent. If we are to have equal opportunity and fair employment, new inward investment must, as far as possible, be directed to the rural areas. Does he agree that the excuse that inward investment inquiries require urbanised areas does not hold water because South Down is only 10 miles from the centre of Belfast and the docks, and the southern half has a new modern dock facility of its own?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman never lets up in fighting his corner for his patch and quite right, too. That is true of all Northern Ireland Members. I am aware of his concern and I have taken it up with the Industrial Development Board. The hon. Gentleman is an understanding chap who appreciates these matters and knows that it is sometimes difficult to attract companies to rural areas, even those as beautiful as his constituency. We take his caution to heart. I know that the hon. Gentleman does an enormous amount of work trying to establish a link with Chicago and I have hopes that we may be able to attract companies from that great city to his constituency. I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman in achieving his objectives.

    Political Initiatives
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on new political initiatives in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The Northern Ireland parties that participated in last year's talks agreed with the two Governments that further dialogue was desirable and necessary. I am continuing informal consultations with party leaders about the way ahead. I expect to meet Mr. Dick Spring, Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs in the new Irish Government, tomorrow. There is important unfinished business to be addressed.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State ever get in touch with the United Nations about sorting out the problems in Northern Ireland? Every time that I am in the Chamber for Foreign Office questions, I hear that Britain is poking its nose into or is supporting peacekeeping forces in several countries throughout the world, including Croatia, Bosnia, Somalia and Iraq. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever consider that one fine day someone might suggest, now that Clinton has been elected, that the United Nations should sort out the problems in Northern Ireland? What would be the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is an occasional supporter of United Nations intervention and now he suggests that it should intervene in Northern Ireland. I am a strong supporter of the human rights that the United Nations was founded to preserve. It is because I am determined to uphold the human rights denied to so many people by the terrorists that I support the British Government's policy in the way that I do. I believe that with the support of the people of Northern Ireland, there will be no need to trouble the United Nations or anybody else.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: In his controversial speech in Coleraine, the Secretary of State described Government policy as being that of a facilitator—they would facilitate Northern Ireland remaining in the United Kingdom if that were its wish, but with equal joy and alacrity they would support a united Ireland if that were the wish of the people of Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State come down off the fence long enough to say whether his is still a Unionist party?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have sometimes thought that the controversy associated with my speech in Coleraine is a manufactured one. Nothing of substance in that speech had not been said by my distinquished predecessor at least two years ago. There was nothing in my remarks concerning the Union to occasion surprise to anyone. I said that as long as the greater number of people living in Northern Ireland wanted to continue being a part of the United Kingdom, that would be warmly, solemnly and sincerely respected and upheld. If, on the other hand, the day should come when the majority wanted some other citizenship, the British Government would not stand in the way. I find it difficult to see any point of principle that would be supported in the House which would lead to a contrary conclusion.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State agree that during the previous round of talks on the political future
    484
    of Northern Ireland, we pretty well exhausted the process whereby all parties sit round one table and that the next stage must inevitably be a bilateral approach? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman further agree that at the very end of the previous talks, the Ulster Unionist party put a fair and generous proposal on the table which has yet to be addressed and to receive a response from the Irish Government? Is not it the Secretary of State's wish that the Irish Government should respond positively to the matters that were placed before them? Until they do, it will be extremely difficult to move any process forward.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: There were times when I thought that the process was exhausting ourselves, but I do not believe that we exhausted the opportunities for meeting all together round a table. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that much useful work was done in a more informal format towards the end. It is certainly true that the hon. Gentleman's party put forward a paper on 9 November and the hon. Gentleman heard me say a moment ago that we have unfinished business to address.
    Sir James Kilfedder: The Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring—who has a distinguished record as a rugby player —has now become a powerhouse in Dublin politics. When the Secretary of State meets Mr. Spring tomorrow, will he welcome Mr. Spring's promise of a new dawn in relations with Northern Ireland, while urging him not to make it a false dawn that would give further encouragement to the IRA and any other terrorists in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not believe that any member of the new Irish Government wishes to give any encouragement to the IRA. In that regard, the Irish Government are absolutely in line with Her Majesty's Government. I am greatly looking forward to tomorrow's meeting; I think that I had better leave it to take place, rather than going with extracts from what Mr. Spring or anyone else may have said particularly in mind.
    Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State will agree that much solid and analytical work was done during the recent talks. We all welcome that. Does the Secretary of State also agree, however, that, if we are to achieve a far-reaching, comprehensive agreement that will bring permanent peace to Northern Ireland, we must face the real, positive, intractable problems?
    May I suggest that, in any future talks, those problems are put at the top of the agenda and faced head on? We should not put them lower down on the agenda and hope that they will go away. If we take such action, we shall be starting from a positive viewpoint, rather than simply postponing the day when a further end will come to further talks, thus inflicting more damage on the whole political psyche in Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The good sense of the hon. Gentleman's remarks augurs well for future talks and for the contribution that he himself will make.
    Mr. Hunter: May we be more specific? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that more flexibility on the part of the Government of the Republic regarding articles 2 and 3 would greatly help the prospect of a resumption of meaningful constitutional talks? If so, will he make specific reference to that in his dialogue with the Government of the Republic?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in the Province. Having just endorsed the principle enunciated by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I think that I would be unwise to allow myself to be led into discussion of particular applications of that principle; but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. McNamara: I am sure that the House appreciates the wisdom of that last comment. We do not want to start discussing the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
    Does the Secretary of State expect, following tomorrow's meeting with Mr. Spring, to be able to announce the date of the next intergovernmental conference? Will he be able to discuss with Mr. Spring not only the unfinished business to which he referred, but a firm programme of work in regard to the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government stand by the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which provides for intergovernmental conferences at frequent and regular intervals. I do not doubt that we shall arrange for such a conference to take place at an early stage.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: One of the most welcome political initiatives is the letter that the Prime Minister sent to the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party about the events that took place in Derry just over 20 years ago. Would not it be a welcome move towards justice—even in retrospect—for my right hon. and learned Friend to announce at some stage that those people should not have been shot and that, following the shooting, the tribunal should not have allowed any slur or cloud to remain over them?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: We are approaching the anniversary of a very sad occasion. I am afraid that the history of Ireland is littered with occasions of great sadness which—because they involve deaths—cause regret to all sensible people. I think it unwise, however, to reopen discussion of matters that were subject to a judicial inquiry many years ago and I do not propose to do so.

    Travel Links
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve travel links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Atkins: Over the period 1989–93 almost £180 million will have been spent on improvements to Northern Ireland's ports, airports, railway and roads systems, with the primary objective of improving Northern Ireland's transport links with the rest of the United Kingdom and the continent. The Northern Ireland transportation operational programme, which is administered by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, is contributing £120 million towards these works by way of grant from the European regional development fund.
    Ms. Hoey: The Minister will agree that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people in Northern Ireland to travel to the rest of the United Kingdom because of the expense involved and the lack of sea crossings. Most people have to travel by air. Does the Minister agree that
    486
    it is nonsense that I should pay £198 return to go to Belfast with British Airways while, on the same day, someone else pays £196 return to travel to Boston with Virgin Atlantic Airways and Richard Branson? Might not it be a good idea to call in Richard Branson to sit round a table with British Airways and British Midland to work out a cheaper fare to Belfast, so that people can travel more easily to and from the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Atkins: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady's remarks in the context of air fares both regional and international—a matter with which I had something to do when I was a Minister with responsibility for transport in Great Britain. It is a difficult problem because to reduce fares one needs the agreement of other countries as well as the country from which one wishes to fly. I do not entirely agree with the hon. Lady that transportation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland has deteriorated—indeed, the SeaCat service from Belfast to Stranraer is now so popular that the company has announced that it will be introducing another such service in the spring to meet the demand. That is a sign that not all links are quite as difficult as the hon. Lady suggests.

    Cross-border Co-operation
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will arrange to meet representatives of the new Government of the Republic of Ireland to discuss cross-border co-operation.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I look forward to meeting the Tanaiste and Foreign Minister, Mr. Spring, tomorrow.
    Mr. Canavan: Is not it self-evident that the best form of cross-border co-operation would be to work for the creation of conditions that led to the disappearance of the border? Will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear that he will restart a meaningful dialogue in that respect, involving all parties interested in a non-violent solution? Will he also make it absolutely clear that if any party or parties should threaten to boycott the talks, meaningful dialogue will nevertheless proceed? I say that because any party unwilling to participate in democratic debate should not have a veto on democratic constitutional change.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows that I wish talks to take place. I take comfort from the fact that, at the conclusion of the previous talks on 10 November, all parties agreed with the statement of the independent chairman that the objectives were valid and achievable and that it was desirable and necessary that further talks should take place. I am very glad about that.
    As to working for the removal of the border, I am afraid that that is a proposition whose simplicity—not to say its quality of being simplistic—has in the past characterised rather too many English ideas for the solution of Irish problems.
    Mr. Molyneaux: As British subjects have been under fire from the territory of the Republic, will the Secretary of State place at the top of his agenda for his meeting with Mr. Spring the need for greatly increased security co-operation along the frontier—especially at a time when there is much misunderstanding about the removal of certain controls and frontiers elsewhere in Europe?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the disgraceful incident at Mullan bridge in County Fermanagh a fortnight or so ago. It is right to recall that, on that occasion, there was close co-operation between the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary and that, shortly after the incident, a man was arrested by the Garda Siochana in connection with it.
    There is close co-operation although, of course, it can always be improved. That is one of the matters that I am looking forward to discussing—as we generally do—at the intergovernmental conferences. I agree that there is much misunderstanding about the effect of the Single European Act and the arrival of the single market. That has no bearing on the need for really close security control over crossing points at the border.
    Dr. Hendron: When the Secretary of State meets Mr. Dick Spring and other members of the Irish Government, will he use those meetings to try to encourage some of the top 500 companies in the Republic to set up in Northern Ireland and, in particular, in deprived areas such as west and north Belfast?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly support all ideas for investment in Northern Ireland. I was very surprised at how little trade to and fro, between north and south, there had been until quite recent years. That situation is improving and I want to encourage it.
    Mr. Stott: To follow the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), the Secretary of State will be aware that the whole of the island of Ireland has category 1 status and that the Republic of Ireland has access to the cohesion fund. Given that the internal market in Europe is now fully operational, what proposals will the Secretary of State be making to the Government of the Republic so that the whole of the island of Ireland can benefit from the new arrangements and not suffer as a consequence of its peripherality to mainland Europe?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Objective 1 status is extremely important and I am very pleased that our representations resulted in that status being retained for Northern Ireland. Although Northern Ireland is peripheral to the mainland of Europe, it none the less represents just as effective a gateway to the common market as any location, for example, in the centre of France or Germany. There is much to be said for co-operation between the Republic and the United Kingdom to ensure that we get the best advantage from our common membership of the European Community. That lies behind a very important part of our policy.

    Statutory Development Plans
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in having up-to-date statutory development plans for all areas.
    Mr. Atkins: With the exception of the Craigavon district council area and the rural areas of Newtownabbey and Castlereagh, all parts of Northern Ireland are covered by statutory development plans. A plan for the Newtownabbey area is being prepared at present and it is intended to start work on plans for the Craigavon and Castlereagh areas later this year.
    Mr. Trimble: We have had a statutory framework for town and country planning in Northern Ireland for 20 years. However, as the Minister said, there is still no statutory development plan in Craigavon. Does the Minister agree that informal, non-statutory plans of dubious standing are no substitute and that we need a formal plan as soon as possible with a clear Government commitment to the development of Craigavon and especially the regeneration of Lurgan town centre?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in representing the cause of his constituents, particularly following the damage to Lurgan after that dreadful bomb. He has been to see me and, as he knows, I have met representatives of the council. I am very conscious of the deficiency to which I referred in my main answer and I will do what I can to ensure that the problems of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and of Lurgan in particular, are addressed as soon as possible.

    Home Ownership
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the level of home ownership in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: By the end of May 1992, the total number of owner-occupied properties was 358,500 or 66 per cent. of the total housing stock. More than 52,000 of those owner-occupiers have bought their houses from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive under its voluntary sales scheme while a further 11,800 have entered home-ownership through the co-ownership scheme operated by the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association.
    Mr. Marshall: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on that answer which demonstrates that Government policies have enabled many people to enjoy home ownership for whom 15 years ago it was only a dream? Does he agree with me, however, that, important as home ownership is, it is also important to help those in the lowest income groups? Will he therefore welcome the additional finance made available to the Northern Ireland Office for that purpose?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to point to the increase in home ownership. In 1986, not very long ago, the figure was 59 per cent., so a rise of seven per cent. to 66 per cent. is quite noticeable. My hon. Friend's point about the Northern Ireland tranche of the £750 million made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very important. It is in the process of providing homes for those in desperate need and will, to an extent, help the Housing Executive in its treatment of this particularly intractable problem.

    Political Talks
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest talks he has had with Ministers in the Irish Republic concerning progress in the political talks relating to Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am meeting Mr. Spring tomorrow.
    Mr. Winnick: The whole House will welcome the fact that these talks are to take place, and one hopes that further discussions will take place with the new Irish Government. When they do, will both Governments make it clear how they deplore the continued killings such as, for example, that of the woman last weekend in Northern Ireland who was murdered for no other reason than that she happened to be a Catholic and those of the many who are murdered for no other reason than that they happen to be Protestant? Is not such ethnic cleansing as unacceptable and as much a crime against humanity as what is happening, albeit on a far larger scale, in what was Yugoslavia?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman, who is invariably humane and balanced in his interest in Northern Ireland, is absolutely right: the killings that take place, whether caused by terrorists from one quarter of the community or another, are inexcusable, indefensible and fundamentally inhumane, and I do not doubt that my colleagues in the Government of the Republic take precisely the same view and will express it. What we must do is bear down, through the Royal Ulster Constabulary and with the Army in support, upon all organisations that are committed to the use of violence to gain political ends and always call upon people in the community to have the courage to come forward and, when they have the information, to tell the RUC what they know. These people will be defeated in the end, not simply by the security forces but by the people of Northern Ireland—and defeated they will be.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be raising with the new Irish Foreign Minister the point about articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution? Will he agree with me that until these two articles are reviewed, the chance of political talks succeeding is very slim?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not wish to be drawn into speculation about the chances of success or failure. I think that the whole House wants these talks to succeed and recognises that, in the matters to be discussed, articles 2 and 3 will play an important part.
    Mr. William Ross: Surely the Secretary of State will now realise that the expression that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed is no more than a bit of flotsam left behind the talks that ended last year, so that there is now no reason why progress should not be made where progress is easily possible.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has always taken a rather uncharacteristically morose view about the talks process, or so it seems to me; it is not a view which was shared by those taking part—and I am sorry that he was not of their number. I think that all the participants will want to consult together as to how best to take the talks forward, what formation and so forth, but I do not think that we will share the hon. Gentleman's rather gloomy view.

    Water and Sewerage
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what capital investment was spent on water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland during each year since 1988–89.
    Mr. Atkins: The capital investment for new construction and improvement on water services during the years in question was £13.9 million, £16.2 million, £20.6 million and £21 million respectively. The corresponding figures for sewerage services were £12.6 million, £12.4 million, £12.4 million and £16.2 million.
    Mr. Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his information, but, in view of the well-known and total outrage at the idea of privatisting water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland, may I assure him that while, during all the talks, cross-community support could not be found for many things, in this case there will be total cross-community opposition to any proposals to privatise water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: I am not unaware of the hon. Gentleman's view on this matter, or indeed of the views of other hon. Members from Northern Ireland. As he knows, the Government commitment is that we will privatise as soon as practicable—by 1995 or 1996—but, of course, no firm decisions have been taken on the detail and I am open to consider any views that hon. Gentlemen may wish to put about the methods by which we privatise the water service.
    Mr. McNamara: Nevertheless, can the Minister confirm that the proposed sale will be a trade sale—that is, that the people of Northern Ireland will not have the opportunity to buy individual shares if they should so wish? Will he, after he has given figures to the House of the amount of public investment that has already gone into the water and sewage industry, indicate to the House that, in terms of moneys being charged, this valuable Northern Ireland asset will not be sold for less than £500 million?
    Mr. Atkins: I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman implies, that any decision at all has been made on the method of sale. We are still awaiting the feasibility study and when we get the results of that we shall be in a better position to judge. We have already said that we will consult. So far as capital investment is concerned, we have a rolling programme of investment, as required not only by the European Economic Community but by the need to modernise and bring up to date. We are committed to spending, over the next three years, £49 million, £79 million and £83 million in total on these most important services.

    Electricity Supply
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the regulator for electricity in Northern Ireland will prepare a report on how he envisages supply competition to being available to large users within Northern Ireland after the transitional introductory period of the new bulk supply tariff; and if he will make a statement on the report provided to him by the regulator.
    Mr. Atkins: The Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland has complete responsibility for the development of competition in the supply of electricity. I have therefore arranged for him to write to the hon. Gentleman directly on this matter.
    Mr. Beggs: I shall await with interest the reply that is on the horizon. Is the Minister aware of just how serious the situation is, in that the higher electricity costs facing large

    491
    users threaten the viability of some companies, which may be forced to relocate to Great Britain? With the resultant job losses, that would be disastrous. Will he take note of the fact that the failure by the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland to extend the Non-fossil Fuel Obligation Renewables Order 1991 to Northern Ireland and Scotland is preventing expansion and job creation in my own constituency, where a company has an outstanding record in manufacturing hydro-generating plant?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me on numerous occasions and he knows what the Government's view is. I hope that he realises just how sympathetic the Government are to the concern that he expresses. I have also been in constant contact with a number of the large users in the Province, who have represented their concerns to me in terms not only of their own businesses, but of potential inward investment or development of the particular processes to which he refers. I can assure him that I shall continue to take this matter most seriously and to consider it as a matter of importance to ensure that the concerns that he represents are addressed in any way possible.
    Lady Olga Maitland: What assurances will my hon. Friend give to the major users of electricity in Northern Ireland that the new price regime will not undermine the profitability of their businesses?
    Mr. Atkins: It is fair to say that the large users in Northern Ireland have benefited from the arrangements over many years, but they have been paid for by domestic and smaller commercial users, to their detriment. Clearly, therefore, the resolution of this difficult imbalance has caused some heartburn among the very large users, but is pleasing those further down the scale. As I have indicated, I am very concerned about this matter and I have represented those views, as put to me by hon. Members and industrialists, to my colleagues within the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that in due course we may be able to see some alleviation of the position, but in the short term it is still a difficult problem.
    Mr. Foulkes: If the Minister is genuinely worried about the high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland, why is he promoting the interconnector with Scotland, which will provide high-cost electricity, instead of the Ballymoney lignite proposal or Kilroot phase II which will provide much cheaper electricity as well as jobs in Northern Ireland? Is it not the Minister's job to provide cheap electricity as well as jobs in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who has waged war on this issue with a great lack of success so far, largely because he flies in the face of the facts, that Kilroot phase II was tendered for against the lignite and lignite lost because of its not being the right price. The lignite to which the hon. Gentleman referred would take much longer to develop than is his contention and would not be available to meet the shortfall of power to which he referred.
    The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the environmental consequences of building a substantial opencast mine in the middle of Ballymoney with the effects on the water table, the roads and the environment. It is convenient for the hon. Gentleman to sit there
    492
    representing a seat in Scotland and tell Northern Ireland that it should scour its countryside for the benefit of his constituents.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to counter terrorist activities; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): Since my right hon. and learned Friend answered a similar question on 26 November 1992, there have been nine deaths as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, including eight civilians and one soldier from the Royal Irish Regiment.
    The determination of the Government and the security forces is unequivocal: terrorism will be defeated through the vigorous, impartial and effective actions—within the law—of the police, supported by the army and the general public. The security forces continue to deter and prevent many attacks and bring the perpetrators to justice.
    Mr. Thurnham: Can my hon. Friend confirm that security co-operation with the Republic has improved since—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. One of his colleagues is on his feet.
    Mr. Thurnham: Can my hon. Friend confirm that security co-operation with the Republic has improved since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will he ensure that the terrorists never win, despite the attitude of the Labour party?
    Mr. Mates: I do not speak for the Labour party. Many Labour Members are as determined as the Government to resist all forms of terrorism within the United Kingdom and anywhere else.
    To answer the first question, I can confirm that there has been a major improvement in security co-operation between the forces of law and order, north and south, on the island of Ireland since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The agreement has resulted in several major successes against the terrorists, their finances and some of the rackets that they run as well as against those who plot to bomb and kill.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that terrorism is defeated by security policies and political leadership from the Government? Does he recognise that there has been a rapid increase in loyalist terrorist violence every year since the imposition of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985? Last year, loyalist terrorists killed more people than the republican terrorists. Does the Minister accept that the controversial speech made by the Secretary of State in Coleraine in December has done nothing to reduce support for loyalist terrorism, which we condemn?
    Mr. Mates: No, I do not accept that my right hon. and learned Friend's speech could in any way have been interpreted as giving any comfort to terrorists from either side of the divide. I confirm that there is simply no military solution to the problem. There must be a political progress, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend

    493
    has made such superhuman efforts to achieve some form of progress between the political parties. Those efforts are due to continue throughout this year.
    I agree strongly with the right hon. Gentleman that the upsurge in loyalist violence—the fact that the loyalists are becoming more ruthless when they pick their targets at random and murder people simply because of the religion they hold, without having anything whatever to do with any form of paramilitary organisations—is worrying. The Chief Constable is concerned about it and is taking steps to arrest those people and bring them to justice. We will continue to support him in all that he does.

    Local Authorities
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the responsibilities of local authorities in Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have no plans to address this in isolation. I believe, however, that there is considerable scope to transfer greater responsibility to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland. Any proposals regarding regional or local government would need to be widely acceptable and accordingly are best considered in the context of further political talks.
    Mrs. Gorman: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that all planning applications in Northern Ireland have to be referred to the Secretary of State or to the Northern Ireland Office, whether it is for a chicken shed, a conservatory or whatever? Does he agree that local councillors in Northern Ireland—increasing numbers of whom are Conservative, incidentally—would like to be able to settle such matters locally because they relate to local domestic disputes?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely absurd that planning matters of relatively slight importance in the overall scheme of things should be dealt with by Ministers at Stormont. I should like to be the last Secretary of State charged with that responsibility. However, one cannot deal with that aspect of political advance in isolation. If it is to work, it has to be founded on a basis that is widely acceptable. That is why I believe that it should be considered in the context of the political talks.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    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 further meetings later today.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware that the murderous attacks on Iraq, which he supported, have killed at least 45 Iraqis—who were themselves innocent of any violation of international law—have made international lepers of Britain and the United States and have, in the eyes of the democratic opposition in Iraq, served only to strengthen the position of the tyrant Saddam? Does he
    494
    understand that the crimes that he has committed against innocent Iraqi people may have been undertaken in his name, but were not in my name or in the name, I believe, of the vast majority of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. From the expressions on the faces of most of his right hon. and hon. Friends, neither do they.
    Mr. Faber: Given that yesterday was the inauguration of President Clinton, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United States remain our strongest ally, as indeed we do theirs? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that the special relationship is greatly valued by Britain, as President Clinton has already done?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend. There has been a very close relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States for many years. It is a practical relationship, quite apart from the political and military relationship. For example, the United Kingdom is the world's largest overseas investor in the United States and our exports to the United States last year were some £12 billion. I know that President Clinton will have the good wishes of the entire House and I know that he knows that he can look to this country and this Government as firm friends of the United States.
    Mr. John Smith: In view of the horrendous rise in unemployment announced today—almost 61,000 in one month—when will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his economic policies have failed the nation and are now blighting the lives of millions of British families?
    The Prime Minister: Today's figures on unemployment are clearly deeply disappointing. They reflect the job losses in the pipeline that were announced last autumn and have now come through. I do not doubt the concern about unemployment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman voices, for I share that concern; so does everyone on this side of the House. We wish to see unemployment falling and people getting back into secure and lasting jobs. That is my objective, just as much as it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's. But there must be a dual strategy for long-lasting solutions to unemployment. First, there must be solid foundations for economic recovery—low inflation predominantly among them—and secondly, wide-ranging help for the unemployed. That is in place.
    Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister expresses concern for the unemployed, but is he not the same right hon. Gentleman who told us that if it is not hurting it is not working? Is he not the Prime Minister whose first reaction to the announcement of the pit closures was that they had to be closed "cleanly and quickly", and whose Chancellor believes that unemployment is a "price well worth paying"? How can we believe that his expressions of concern are genuine when we take all those factors into account?
    The Prime Minister: One of the principal causes of unemployment in countries around the world as well as here is the difficulty faced with inflation. It is this Government who have had the courage to stick with policies to get inflation down, and the reality is, despite all his rhetoric neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor his hon. Friends have set out a coherent policy for dealing with unemployment. When they produced their phoney budget, they knew that it was a budget that would

    495
    increase taxes and put up jobs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman still has not responded to the question that he could not answer on Tuesday. How much money would his new tax on windfall profits raise? If he cannot tell us, how can he make the claims for it that he does? Can he guarantee that it will last only a year? No, he cannot. The fact of the matter is that he has no policies other than to complain about the Government, and no idea how to deal with the economy or unemployment.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the nation is tired of feeble and lame excuses? It is also tired of the right hon. Gentleman blaming everyone in the world but himself. When, at long last, will he give the attack on unemployment the priority that the nation demands?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has to accept economic reality. He should recognise that economic reality requires that you get inflation down and competitiveness up and those are the policies that we are pursuing. He should recognise also the effect of his policies: crushing profits does not create jobs; tax structures that drive away inward investment do not create jobs; piling burdens on business does not create jobs; the social chapter will not create jobs. Those are the policies of the Labour party; they are policies which would deliberately drive up unemployment and not create the conditions for lasting employment.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Further to what my right hon. Friend said, does he agree that one of the best ways of helping British industry would be to cut the red tape bureaucracy and regulation with which it has been overburdened for far too long? Does he agree that a new deregulation drive would help industry to create new jobs?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the consistent need persistently to bring down the level of regulation and red tape. The more we can rid business of red tape and regulation, the more British business can get on with creating wealth and generating new jobs. As my hon. Friend will have heard last week in the House, I propose to hold a seminar at the beginning of February—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The Prime Minister must be heard. We cannot—[Interruption.] We cannot make progress—[Interruption.] I like good humour, but there are times when we have to keep quiet and listen. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: —at which every Department in Whitehall would come along with regulations that Opposition Members would support and which we propose to remove from business to increase competitiveness.
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gapes: In the light of today's report by the Employment Select Committee, will the Prime Minister apologise to the House, to the British people and to the miners for saying on 16 October that it was better to sack 30,000 mine workers "quickly and cleanly" than to institute a full review of the pit closure programme?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrases his question tells us a great deal about him. What we are seeking to do is to create a viable coal industry with a fitter future. The hon. Gentleman might recall how many mining jobs were lost under Labour Governments, for there were more lost than there ever have been under Conservative Governments—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Having asked his question, the hon. Gentleman should not bawl and shout from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 642 schools have already applied and balloted for grant-maintained status? Does he agree that that is a formidable expression of public and parental opinion? What advice does he give to Opposition Members who persist in their ill-conceived hostility to grant-maintained schools?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, as at the end of last afternoon there were 648—another six have decided to become grant maintained. That is because parents are increasingly seeing the benefit of independence from local authority control. They are voting for grant-maintained schools in increasing numbers and the reason for that is entirely clear. Since opting out they have discovered that they can employ more staff, take on more pupils, enhance special needs provision and provide more books, because they have the freedom to put the money in the classroom where it belongs, and are not subjected to unnecessary control from county hall.
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Does not the Prime Minister realise the catastrophic consequences for unemployment if either Devonport or Rosyth dockyards closes? As well as the folly to the nation of concentrating defence work on one site, does he accept that 18,000 jobs are at risk in Rosyth, and that there is a solution that will keep both dockyards open? Does he agree that that solution is to give Devonport the surface ship work that it does best and to give Rosyth the submarine work that it does best? Will he support that solution? If not, why not?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party, many of whom would abolish nuclear weapons, and nearly all of whom would dramatically reduce defence expenditure. I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind before he criticises this Government for their defence policies.
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Chancellor of the Exchequer has no intention in his Budget of introducing a windfall tax on the privatised utilities, as that would deal a body blow to the 10 million people in this country who have invested in those utilities and would discourage the wider share ownership that we all want in the future?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. As he rightly says, there are 10 million shareholders, many with very limited shareholdings, with a stake in the utility industries in this country. We understand that it is investment which ultimately creates jobs and that taxation on investment destroys jobs.
    Dr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Berry: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to early-day motion 330, which calls for the early introduction of a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Is the Prime Minister aware that this early-day motion has substantial cross-party support—in fact, the greatest volume of support of any early-day motion submitted this Session? Does he accept that disabled people want action —very speedy action—and can he confirm that he will respond positively to the early-day motion?
    The Prime Minister: For a year I was, of course, the Minister of State responsible for disability, and I am well aware of the Government's excellent record in increasing the benefits for disabled people and providing a much wider range of facilities for them. That is a record unmatched by any other party in the House.
    Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. French: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country's privatisation programme has been widely applauded and copied in many parts of the world? Can he confirm that, notwithstanding the current criticisms of the British Rail proposals, he will forge ahead with the privatisation programme and will bring forward other candidates, including the Post Office, at an early date?
    The Prime Minister: We propose to proceed not only with the programme of privatisation but with programmes of more contracting out and more market testing. In the current year Government work worth about £1.5 billion will be market tested and, where appropriate, put out to the private sector if that sector can deal with it more efficiently.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 JANUARY—Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill.
Money resolution (No. 2) relating to the Education Bill.
Money resolution (No. 2) and Ways and Means resolution (No. 2) relating to the Housing and Urban Development Bill.
TUESDAY 26 JANUARY—Opposition Day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate described as "The Crisis in the National Health Service" on an Opposition motion.
Motion relating to financial assistance to SCA Aylesford Ltd.
Motion on the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish) Order.
WEDNESDAY 27 JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, eighth day.
Mr. George Foulkes: Described as progress.
Mr. Newton: I shall give the hon. Gentleman that one, and continue with the business statement:
THURSDAY 28 JANUARY—Further progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, ninth day.
FRIDAY 29 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I FEBRUARY—Yet more progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, tenth day.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 27 January at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
Standing Committee A—Document No. 8066/92 relating to the creation of a combined transport network.
Standing Committee B—Document No. 8403/92 relating to the utilisation of immovable property on a timeshare basis.

[Wednesday 27 January:

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Document

8066/92 Combined Transport

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee

HC 79-x (1992–93)

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document

8403/92 Timeshare

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee

HC 79-vi (1992–93).]

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
It is becoming apparent that, with the concentration of parliamentary time on the Maastricht Bill, there is a growing danger that other matters of considerable importance will be neglected. I remind the right hon. Gentleman, for example, that both sides of the House have an interest in an early debate on the revenue support grant, and Opposition Members at least had anticipated that that
500
debate might take place before the end of January, particularly in view of the predicted job losses in local authorities of all political shades.
I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that there will be a debate, in Government time, on the full public expenditure programme—a debate that we should normally expect to be scheduled for the near future.
Will the Leader of the House please ensure that there will be an early statement on the reorganisation of health authorities? This seems to be taking place almost by the back door. I understand that recent remarks by, I think, an Under-Secretary of State for Health indicated that the Government expect that the original figure of about 190 will ultimately be reduced to 85. A structural change of that magnitude should surely be reported properly in a statement to this House, but it has not been so reported.
Now that we have the report of the Select Committee on Employment and hope shortly to have the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the House expects the right hon. Gentleman to find time soon for a debate on the future of the coal industry.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is perhaps overstating her case in raising the first point in a week in which we shall be dealing with two important matters as well as the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and a week in which the Opposition have been provided with a further Supply day.
The hon. Lady specifically asked about the revenue support grant orders. While, as she observed, they are not in the business for next week, I do not think she will have an infinite time to wait before she has the opportunity for which she evidently craves.
The answer to her public expenditure programme question is that there was a two-day debate on that matter in Government time before Christmas. In the coming few weeks, the departmental reports flowing from that will be published. It is perhaps in the wake of those publications that further consideration might be given to the point that she raised, but I cannot give a definite undertaking.
I was surprised at the hon. Lady raising the point about health authorities, not because it is not an important issue but because, as it happens, next week an Opposition day debate is to be devoted to health service matters, and on that same day the Secretary of State for Health will be answering questions, which should provide some opportunity for those points to be raised.
I note what the hon. Lady said, perhaps predictably, about the Select Committee reports on coal. I would prefer not to add to what my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State said in answer to questions on that subject yesterday.
Mr.William Powell: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1129 relating to war crimes in Yugoslavia and the need to establish an international court so that those who have committed crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia can be brought to trial.
[That this House notes the evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia provided by the Reports of Sir John Thomson, Ambassador Correll and his colleagues, Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the former Prime Minister of Poland and Dame Anne Warburton; welcomes the Statement of 51 Foreign Ministers of the

501
CSCE on 15th December 1992 calling for 'proposals … including the possibility of the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal', as well as the Statement of 16th December 1992 by Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger calling for a 'second Nuremberg' which was followed in December 1992 by the United Nations General Assembly resolution urging 'the Security Council to consider recommending the establishment of an ad hoc International War Crimes Tribunal to try and punish those who have committed war crimes in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina when sufficient information has been provided by the Commission of Experts'; and urges Her Majesty's Government to promote in the Security Council such a tribunal and to instruct the existing Commissioner of Experts to prepare the statute for such a tribunal.]
In view of today's report by Amnesty International confirming some of the most distressing evidence about rape being committed on a wide scale, and apparently with official sanction, in Yugoslavia, will my right hon. Friend make time available to enable the House to discuss how we can make further progress to establish an international tribunal, which is now accepted by Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend an immediate undertaking about a debate, but he will be well aware of the concern, to put it very mildly indeed, that the British Government have expressed about those matters, and we very much understand the views that my hon. Friend expresses. The United Nations commission of experts is due to report its findings and recommendations for further action to the United Nations Secretary-General at the end of this month. The British Government will take a close interest in what follows from that.
Mr. A. J. Beith: May we have an early debate about hill livestock farming in view of the dismay in many parts of the country where hill sheep farming is the predominant agricultural activity at the cuts announced by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in hill livestock compensatory allowances? Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 1208 and other motions which draw attention to the seriousness of the situation?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 ( S.I., 1993, No. 70) dated 18th January 1993 pending the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture and further consultation with the industry on their level and effect, in the light of the clear evidence of depressed incomes in this sector and widespread impact on the fragile local economies of the hill areas concerned.]
Mr. Newton: I seek to keep abreast of early-day motions and others, but I cannot add to what I said on the subject this time last week. I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but he may agree that it is reasonable to expect him to acknowledge that, in view of the background to the matter, hill sheep farmers can expect to be considerably better off this year.
Mr. John Butcher: May we have a debate on the engineering industry and the role of the engineering profession in safeguarding our economic future and spearheading the recovery? Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of that debate, it is important to
502
examine the announcement made by the Jaguar Car Company today about the investment of £700 million in three new models, which will safeguard great tranches of the industrial engineering sectors not only in the midlands but nationally? Does he further agree that the proposals should be welcomed and examined for their significance?
Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend, and his sentiments extend over a longer period than the announcement today to which he referred. Decisions about motor car investment, and not least decisions about investment involving overseas firms coming here to make cars, have been an encouraging feature of the fundamental strengthening of Britain's manufacturing base.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House undertake the Herculean task of finding the Secretary of State for Education, who these days seems to be skulking like Achilles in his tent? Will he bring him to the House to explain why, at a time when he is attempting to put through major education proposals, he so underestimates teachers that he offers them a rise of between nought and 1.5 per cent. and promises that they will never catch up on their pay. Is that not a disgrace?
Mr. Newton: It seems to me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is very much in evidence, with a series of announcements much welcomed by the public and very foolishly, in my view, opposed by Her Majesty's Opposition.
Mr. David Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on local government expenditure? We hear so often, particularly from councils run by the Labour party, that they are short of funds and they have not enough money to run the necessary social services and so forth, but we read in the newspapers that in Sheffield, for example, they are funding political offices for their Members of Parliament.
Madam Speaker: Order. May I tell the entire House that we are questioning a statement about business for next week. I shall not tolerate further questioning that does not relate strictly to the business statement; but perhaps the Leader of the House would like to make some comment.
Mr. Newton: As the question has been asked, Madam Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to make the point that of course local authorities must act within the law and they are answerable to various bodies, including the Audit Commission, which will no doubt take a keen and critical interest in the point to which my hon. Friend has adverted. I assume that, if this sort of help is being made available to some Members of Parliament in the city, it will be made available to all, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who is sitting not far from me.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May we have a statement next week on Government intentions about pornography and obscenity, particularly in the light of developments in telecommunications and the possibility of our having videophones with a line into the home and sex lines that have been perturbing parents? It would be better to shut the stable door before the horse bolts.
Mr. Newton: I think that I would be right in saying that important aspects of that matter would be the

503
responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who will be answering questions on Monday next week.
Sir Anthony Grant: On Monday's business, does my right hon. Friend agree that a national lottery will bring great benefits to the arts, sport—
Madam Speaker: Order, Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for a change in Monday's business because we are not debating the benefits, the merits or the demerits of anything but are dealing with the business for next week?
Sir Anthony Grant: Madam Speaker, I entirely accept that. My purpose is to obtain a little bit of clarity because, while recognising that there are strong views held the other way would my right hon. Friend not agree with me that what is entirely feeble and wet is to be undecided. Does he know whether the Opposition are still giving—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is a disallowed question. We must make some progress on these matters.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion no. 1010 standing in my name and those of more than 60 of my hon. Friends referring to the report on the transfer of petroleum engineering division from London to Aberdeen?
[That this House notes that the Government's commitment to open government is proving to be paper thin as evidenced by Ministers' refusals to reply to legitimate letters from honourable Members as witnessed by the letter of 9th October from the honourable Member for Aberdeen North to the Minister of Energy asking for the publication of the Ernst and Young Report into the transfer of the PED from London to Aberdeen, which elicited the reply that a decision on the transfer would be made soon, but did not even mention the request for publication of this Report and the honourable Member for Aberdeen North's letter to the Prime Minister on 16th November drawing his attention to this error by the Minister for Energy and calling for the publication of the Report, which attracted the reply that the letter had been referred back to the original source of the dissatisfaction, namely the Department of Trade and Industry, for reply, which in turn elicited the reply from the President of the Board of Trade dated 30th November that a decision would be made soon on the transfer, but again ignoring the question as to publication; therefore believes that this sorry saga of continued failure to answer a straight forward question makes the Prime Minister's and the Government's commitment to open government farcical; and calls upon her Majesty's Government to publish the Ernst and Young Report immediately and in full.]
That independent report has been in the hands of the Minister for Energy since 5 October, more than three and a half months ago, and he will not say whether he will publish it or not. He keeps promising that a decision will be made soon. In view of the importance of this matter to the economy of Aberdeen—which needs more employment prospects, lest people think otherwise—will he ask the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister for Energy to make a statement next week so that we can resolve this matter and, in the interests of open government, get this report published as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: I do not know whether the hon. Member was frustrated in asking that question yesterday, which is when he would have had an opportunity to address it to my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am not in a position to add to what has been said previously, but, as he knows and has been told, decisions will be announced as soon as possible.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever line one takes, there is unanimity in the House that the situation in Bosnia should be debated? I asked my right hon. Friend to try to arrange a debate before Christmas. He was exceptionally courteous and on one occasion said that he hoped to be able to arrange a debate before too long. How long is too long?
Mr. Newton: I am not able to give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he requests, and certainly not today. He will know that time has been provided this afternoon for a substantial debate on the deployment of British forces in relation to the middle east and on the Royal Air Force generally. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that my hon. Friend will be able to work in a reference in that debate; but, of course, that would be subject to your view, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would the Leader of the House like to save the Select Committee some time and help to alleviate unemployment by getting the Secretary of State for Transport to announce next week that common sense is prevailing and he is abandoning rail privatisation?
Mr. Newton: That sounds like a triumph of hope over experience. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is presenting his Bill today and expects to publish it tomorrow. I expect it to be debated not long after the period covered by today's business statement.
Mr. Graham Riddick: During which debate next week will I be able to say that Sheffield city council is sacking thousands of its employees and at the same time paying £55,000 to some hon. Members for office costs? Is that not another example of Labour waste and profligacy in local government?
Mr. Newton: I would be pushed to suggest to my hon. Friend a debate next week in which that would readily be in order. However, I draw his attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be answering questions on Wednesday. My hon. Friend may find that a useful steer.
Mr. David Alton: Will a Minister from the Department of Employment be present for Monday's debate to answer the many questions that hon. Members will wish to put about the employment implications for Liverpool, Glasgow and Cardiff of the proposed national lottery legislation?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an instant promise, but I shall make sure that his point is drawn to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Employment.
Mr. Rod Richards: During the substantial amount of time that has been allocated to the

505
European Communities (Amendment) Bill, will there be time to discuss the fact that the MEP for Sheffield is not paying rent or rates for his office in that city?
Mr. Newton: I cannot find time for a debate on that matter, but I have already suggested the possibility of its being raised during Department of the Environment questions on Wednesday.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Home Office statement to be made next week on the law on wheel clamping? Early-day motion 1110 makes it clear that the law in Scotland is applied quite clearly and properly.
[That this House expresses concern at the growing practice of private and public organisations employing firms, often with a dubious background and whose employees have no adequate identification, which place wheel clamps on parked cars and then extort large sums of money for releasing the vehicle; acknowledges that this can be a frightening experience especially on dark nights for single women; and urges the Government to make clear that wheel clamping is illegal, extortion a criminal offence, and threats to remove vehicles a serious breach of the peace on which the police should take appropriate action.]
However, in this country spivs are going around clamping cars on land that is often used for car parking and the land owners are co-operating with them to extort sums of £50. There are threats to tow cars away, with the cost of returning a car being another £200. That is often happening to single women, and in a recent case a woman with a blind—
Madam Speaker: Order. All that the hon. Gentleman needs to do is to ask for a debate; he does not need to go into details. We are all fully aware of the situation, I think.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for endorsing what I am saying—that a debate is necessary and urgent, because the Home Office is delaying action.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, would wish me on your behalf to say that your words did not warrant quite the interpretation placed on them by the hon. Gentleman—at least, I hope that they did not.
On the basic issue, my right hon. Friend will shortly issue a consultation paper setting out the legal position as we understand it and seeking views on possible options for dealing with bad practice, which undoubtedly exists, in this area. Perhaps a statement could be considered at that time, although obviously I cannot give a commitment now.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend mentioned that on Tuesday there will be an Opposition debate entitled, I believe, "Reporting progress on the success of the NHS reforms". Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that, in addition to other points in her speech, she will refer to the excellent work and contribution of the hospice movement? In particular, will my right hon. Friend note that in my constituency tomorrow the Princess Alice hospice will have its inaugural conference, "Palliative care through education", and is successfully opening its new education wing?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would wish me to validate my
506
hon. Friend's rewrite of her description of the Opposition's debate, although of course it is one more acceptable to me.
As to the purport of my hon. Friend's question, the hospice movement is an important and often underestimated area in which we have greatly advanced public policy in recent years. Something that gave me great satisfaction when I had related responsibilities was the amount of additional support and help that we were able to give the hospice movement, with great success.
Mr. Tony Benn: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to a report in the first edition of The Daily Telegraph today that the President of Germany has been unable to ratify the Maastrict treaty because Herr Brunner, the former chief of staff of Herr Bangemann, has brought an action in the constitutional court claiming that the treaty is in breach of the German constitution? That report disappeared from later editions of The Daily Telegraph—[HON. MEMBERS: "What has this to do with next week's business?"] Well, the President of Germany cannot sign the Maastricht treaty until that matter is resolved. Can the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs be invited to make a statement before we resume the debate on the Maastricht treaty Bill next Wednesday and Thursday?
Mr. Newton: I gather that there have been some reports of that kind over a long time. I cannot undertake that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement. I do not need to rehearse my earlier remarks about next week's business for the House to know that there will be full opportunities for airing European issues.
Mr. James Paice: Notwithstanding tomorrow's business, may I impress on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the need for the Government to publish soon their own Sunday trading Bill? Whatever the widespread range of views on how to resolve that issue, there is a clear consensus that something must be done. Although we recognise that the Maastricht Bill is taking up a vast amount of the time of the House, we all look forward to the opportunity of having a free vote, as outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Newton: We all recognise the importance and difficulty of that issue, apart from the fact that the consensus that something must be done is not matched by a consensus on what needs to be done—and that presents some difficulties. My right hon. and learned Friend outlined his intentions in a very full statement a month or so before Christmas. Work is now proceeding on turning the three kinds of proposals to which my hon. Friend referred, with their varying effects, into legislative form. However, that is a time-consuming business. It involves a lot of consultation and discussion, and I cannot promise that I expect that Bill to be published in the near future.
Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the unanimous and critical report of the Select Committee on Employment on the proposed pit closures that was published today, cannot the House immediately debate that subject? The Government would then have the opportunity to say that they made grievous mistakes, will follow the Committee's recommendations, will abandon

507
the closure programme, at least in its present form, and will put an end to the agony of some 100,000 families who have been waiting for a decision for a very long time.
Mr. Newton: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's reasons for making that point, but the sensible course will be to discuss the report to which he has referred and others at a time when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has himself been able to study them and to produce his suggested conclusions.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement in the House next week on priorities in local government spending? Will he urge my right hon. and learned Friend to make it clear that the Government's priority is social care and not the provision of plush offices for Labour Members?
Mr. Newton: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be the next to have an extremely lively time in the House when he answers questions next Wednesday.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House truly aware of the anger felt in agriculture over the abolition of the Potato Marketing Board and the effect of hill livestock compensatory allowance reductions on hill and upland farmers? Given the continuing confusion over the detail of common agricultural policy reform and of the GATT negotiations, will the right hon. Gentleman urgently institute a full debate on agriculture?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's request, but I am obviously not in a position to make an immediate and positive response. I cannot add to what I said earlier about HLCAs. As for the Potato Marketing Board, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's objectives remain to ensure competition on equal terms for potato production and to ensure that the United Kingdom industry can both meet the needs of the domestic market and contribute to the export drive in agricultural produce.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate or statement early next week about the sickening and apparently growing practice of mutilating horses? It is causing widespread concern and distress. A statement is needed so that the House and the country can get to grips with a very sick and wicked practice.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's concern for animal welfare—which, indeed, is well known and long running, and is shared by most if not all hon. Members. I cannot promise either a statement or a debate, but my hon. Friend may wish to try to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Members' interests.
Mr. Newton: Let me add a little to what I told the hon. Gentleman last week, in case I inadvertently misled him. I have had some discussions with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), and have
508
asked him to consider one or two points that would help us to decide precisely how to proceed. I have no doubt that he will get back to me before long.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: In view of the momentous political changes now being initiated by President Clinton in the United States, should we not, as a matter of urgency, debate the significance of those changes in relation to United Kingdom politics? In particular, should we not give the Leader of the Opposition a chance to come to the House, following his attendance at a lavish bash at the Dorchester—
Madam Speaker: Order. As I said earlier, hon. Members must restrict their questions to next week's business, and their questions must relate to the business statement. The hon. Gentleman's question is wide of the mark.
Mr. Oppenheim: Can we give an opportunity to hon. Members who support the policies to which I have referred to specify the policies that they consider relevant to the United Kingdom? Do they, for example, support President Clinton's—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. He has had a second bite at the cherry. I now ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate about the Royal Mail? For the past 300 years, my constituents in Carlisle and the rest of Cumbria have lived peacefully alongside their Scottish neighbours; their only differences have been cultural, and related to the existence of a border. On Monday, the Royal Mail is to introduce a new postmark for Cumbria, Galloway and Dumfries. Surely that is nonsense, and the House should have an opportunity to debate it.
Mr. Newton: I hear it suggested that that matter might be raised in an Adjournment debate. The hon. Gentleman may wish to seek such an opportunity. Beyond that, I think that this is a matter for the board of the Royal Mail rather than for my right hon. and learned Friend; but I shall ensure that he is aware of the hon. Gentleman's complaint, as we must assume it to be.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend consider again the request by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for a debate about revenue support grant? Would not such a debate enable us to discover why local taxpayers in Sheffield now find that their school crossing patrols have been slashed so that £55,000 of their money can be dished out to Labour Members of Parliament?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has added an interesting point to what I said earlier about revenue support grant. It is clear from what I said—that the details of RSG will be presented to the House before much longer—that hon. Members will have at least two opportunities to raise the matter, as well as the opportunity presented by next week's questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House prepared to reconsider his decision about a debate on coal, given that we have recently been informed that, at some collieries, the pumps used to pump water from workings closed in years gone by cost £250,000 each to operate, which means that, if British Coal and the

509
Government have their way, pits that are economically on the borderline will be closed on the ground that they are baling out water five, 10 or 15 miles away. If we cannot have a debate, will the right hon. Gentleman at least have that put on the agenda for the seminar?
Mr. Newton: I shall not attempt to add what I said earlier about the possibility of a debate. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday; in any event, I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend knows that it is on the hon. Gentleman's agenda.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I congratulate President Clinton on his inauguration. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that there is great concern among hon. Members about recent remarks made by the new special trade representative of the United States, Mickey Kantor, regarding the EC-American farm subsidies agreement, upon which GATT depends? Given the importance of GATT for the world economy, may we have a statement next week so that we can emphasise the importance of achieving a GATT agreement on the fast-track approach by 2 March?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to arrange for a debate, but I certainly re-emphasise the importance that the British Government attach—as has been very clear in the activities of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others—to the achievement of a GATT settlement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining that point.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Leader of the House will be aware of the hardship and health hazards that result from the disconnection of a household's water supply. In view of the urgency of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to arrange to make a statement at an early date—possibly next week—so that we can address ourselves to it?
Mr. Newton: The list of questions for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is already long. I reiterate that my right hon. and learned Friend will be here to answer questions of that kind and others on Wednesday.
Mr. Gary Streeter: May I encourage my right hon. Friend to change the business for next Wednesday so that, instead of discussing the Maastricht treaty again, we can have an emergency debate on unemployment in the far south-west? My right hon. Friend will probably have seen the early-day motion that I tabled recently pointing out that Plymouth has unemployment of 14.5 per cent., which continues to rise alarmingly. An emergency debate would allow west country Members to draw attention to the importance to Devonport dockyard of winning the all-important contract to refit the Trident boat.
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to arrange a debate along precisely those lines, although I appreciate the reasons why my hon. Friend has felt it right to ask for a debate. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the important comments made about the Government's general approach to both those questions at Prime Minister's Question Time not long ago.
Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not unsatisfactory that there is to be neither a debate nor a statement on the alarming increase in unemployment? Is he aware that Wales is afflicted by the loss of manufacturing jobs in coal, steel and aerospace? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there should be a debate or a statement, bearing in mind the fact that Wales is top of the league for low wages?
Mr. Newton: In the light of the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members, those on the Opposition Front Bench may wish to reconsider the subject that they have chosen for their time on Tuesday. Clearly that is a matter for them.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a special debate on the problems facing this capital city of London so that emphasis can be placed on the problems of homelessness, buses and trains, the health service and education spending and on the serious social crisis resulting from high unemployment and the lack of a unified local authority for London that can tackle these serious problems?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is overplaying his hand somewhat. I remind him that, if he wishes to refer to the health service in London, he can use the opportunity that will be provided to him on Tuesday by his right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Stephen Milligan: Now that more than two months have passed since the Chancellor's autumn statement, may I ask the Leader of the House whether there will be an opportunity next week to discuss the impact of the measures that the Chancellor announced to help the homeless? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency of Eastleigh, which had a severe homelessness problem, those measures have enabled more than 200 families—accounting for nearly everyone living in temporary accommodation—to find new homes?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us that encouraging information. I suspect that it is only one item on a growing list of good pieces of information flowing from the important proposals that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made in his autumn statement.
Mr. Roy Hughes: The Chairman of the Welsh Grant Committee and a number of hon. Members have expressed to me their concern about the fact that that body has not met recently. It would appear that the usual channels have become gummed up. Will the Leader of the House take whatever steps are necessary to unravel things?
Mr. Newton: That point was raised with me last week. I will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. In addition, a number of people have expressed the wish that the Welsh Grand Committee should meet in Wales. That would require a change to Standing Orders, which raises rather different issues.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Petrol companies are ripping off service stations which are contracted to them. That is especially the case with Esso. May we have a debate on that serious matter so that we can discuss the situation at the Heath service station in my

511
constituency where the problem will arise tomorrow and where it is likely to continue? We should have an early debate on that topic.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to attempt an off-the-cuff comment on his general point or on the specific case to which he referred. However, I will draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Prime Minister in order to widen the subject of the debate on Monday so that the Prime Minister can explain how high unemployment must rise before it becomes a price that is not worth paying and perhaps offer the country practical solutions to the unemployment problem which would be more effective than his two present solutions, which are to hold a seminar and a raffle?
Mr. Newton: I understand why the hon. Gentleman felt it appropriate to ask that question. However, I am bound to say that I find it impossible to see how I can widen a debate on the National Lottery etc. Bill to embrace that point.

Points of Order
4.7 pm
Mr. Richard Caborn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order with regard to the conduct of hon. Members. I note that in today's Hansard at column 378, a question was raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) about my activities.
I hope that my point of order will be helpful to me and to the rest of the House. I received a note from the hon. Member for Colne Valley at 1.10 pm yesterday after the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had finished its morning deliberations. As you will know, Madam Speaker, a resolution of this House requested the Select Committee to deal with the pit strikes.
Madam Speaker: Order. May I offer the hon. Gentleman a little guidance? If he raises a direct point of order with me, I must deal with it. If he reads column 378 of yesterday's Hansard, he will see that I dealt very adequately with the points of order that were raised at that time.
Mr. Caborn: I am sure that you dealt with that point of order very adequately indeed, Madam Speaker, but I would like to refer to a further point surrounding that particular issue. I wrote to the hon. Member for Colne Valley, as I think I informed your Office, Madam Speaker, that I would be chairing the Trade and Industry Select Committee at 2.30 pm. That letter was placed on the Letter Board at the same time that I deposited the letter in your Office at 1.45 pm. I would have expected the hon. Member for Colne Valley not to have raised the matter. Indeed, I would have expected him to comply with the request in my letter that he should raise it when I was able to be in the House.
I suggest that it was more important for me to Chair the Select Committee than to be in the House at 3.30 pm, which would have been impossible. May I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, for guidance about the conduct of hon. Members when they raise points of order of that nature about other hon. Members?
Madam Speaker: It is my understanding that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) in fact did his utmost to inform all the hon. Members to whom he wished to refer. As far as I am concerned, I dealt with the matter yesterday. There is just one small matter outstanding. May I take it that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has informed the hon. Member for Colne Valley that he was about to raise the matter today?
Mr. Caborn: It was not about the hon. Member for Colne Valley. Madam Speaker, I am asking for your guidance about any hon. Member who intends to raise the integrity of another hon. Member, when the House has instructed such hon. Members to be in Committee. Is it right that hon. Members should proceed when other hon. Members are not available to be in the House to answer such an allegation?
Madam Speaker: Several hon. Members were involved and, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley did inform them, in my view he was perfectly entitled to go ahead with

513
attempting to raise a point of order, which was not, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central will see, a point of order that was acceptable either to me or to the House.
Mr. Caborn: On a further point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you saying that in future we adjourn any Committee of the House to make sure that we can be present on the Floor of the House to answer personal allegations? Is that the guidance that you are giving to hon. Members?
Madam Speaker: These are occasions when hon. Members must determine their own priorities. It is not for the Chair to do so. Once one hon. Member has informed another hon. Member that he is going to raise an issue, it is for that hon. Member to determine what his priorities are.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. I pay tribute to the way in which you have chaired the House, particularly during Northern Ireland questions, but my point of order arises out of today's and previous Northern Ireland questions. In the first 10 questions today, three Northern Ireland Members had questions and were ready to be called. I happen to believe that this is the House for the whole of the kingdom; on the other hand, we in Northern Ireland have this rare opportunity to bring specific issues to the House.
Today, when the first question had been answered, the hon. Member asking it left the Chamber, and another hon. Member withdrew his question. Bearing in mind that there are only 16 hon. Members who can come once a month for Northern Ireland questions, and also that, on the law of averages, we find it quite difficult to come up when we table other questions, is there any way that a greater proportion of Northern Ireland Members may have an opportunity of asking their supplementary questions rather than allowing certain hon. Members, as happened today, to farm out questions, thereby ensuring that we are down the list?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the luck of the draw where questions fall on the order paper. I understand his frustration and that of all hon. Members from Northern Ireland who would like to come out very high on the paper as a result of the ballot; but I see from my notes that I called the hon. Gentleman on question No. 1.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is making another point, which I understand and which I have mentioned before. There are occasions when hon. Members put their question, listen to the answer and then leave the Chamber. They are perfectly entitled to do so; I simply happen to believe that it is a matter of courtesy to the House to stay for five or 10 minutes at least, until the House has moved
514
on to other questions, but that is a purely personal opinion, because I would like to bring a little more courtesy into our dealings in the House.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to detain the House, but further to the point of order raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), and agreeing entirely with the point that you have just made about courtesy in the House, will you confirm that it would make your task easier, bearing in mind the difficulties that arise, if hon. Members on both sides could have heed to exchanges such as those which are made more difficult when hon. Members are chairing Select Committees or other major Committees? After all, there are plenty of opportunities to raise matters in the House when the hon. Members referred to are present.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that it would be helpful all round if, as the hon. Lady said, when matters like that are raised by hon. Members, they take into account the other responsibilities of hon. Members.

BILL PRESENTED
  RAILWAYS
  Mr. Secretary MacGregor, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mrs. Secretary Shephard and Mr. Roger Freeman, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment and functions of a Rail Regulator and a Director of Passenger Rail Franchising and of users' consultative committees for the railway industry and for certain ferry services; to make new provision with respect to the provision of railway services and the persons by whom they are to be provided or who are to secure their provision; to make provision for and in connection with the grant and acquisition of rights over, and the disposal or other transfer and vesting of, any property, rights or liabilities by means of which railway services are, or are to be, provided; to amend the functions of the British Railways Board; to make provision with respect to the safety of railways and the protection of railway employees and members of the public from personal injury and other risks arising from the construction or operation of railways; to make further provision with respect to transport police; to make provision with respect to certain railway pension schemes; to make provision for and in connection with the payment of grants and subsidies in connection with railways and in connection with the provision of facilities for freight haulage by inland waterway; to make provision in relation to tramways and other guided transport systems; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

The Gulf and RAF
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Defence Committee on Procurement of Advanced Air-to-Air Missiles, HC 115 of Session 1991–92, the Second Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 350 of Session 1991–92, the Sixth Report on the European Fighter Aircraft, HC 299 of Session 1991–92, and the Fourth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 262 of Session 1992–93.]
Madam Speaker: May I say at the start of the debate that I have had to impose a time limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.
4.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The House last debated the Royal Air Force in May 1991, soon after the Gulf conflict. Operations mounted by coalition air forces over the past week have shown once again the exceptional standards of quality and professionalism which the service maintains and explain why we are combining this year's RAF debate with a debate on recent events in the Gulf.
My main themes this afternoon will be challenge and change. The RAF faces the challenge of mounting operations in Europe and the middle east when it is in the midst of an unprecedented period of restructuring as a result of changes in the strategic environment. I intend to deal with the changes being experienced by the RAF before turning to the wider issues of the Gulf.
Since our last debate, we have made considerable progress with the implementation of the plans announced for Britain's defences for the 1990s. In Germany, RAF Wildenrath closed at the end of last year and RAF Gutersloh will be handed over to the Army at the end of 1993. Three Tornado GR squadrons have been disbanded and one Tornado reconnaissance squadron has moved to the United Kingdom. The remaining four RAF Germany Tornado squadrons will be based at RAF Bruggen. The two Germany-based Harrier squadrons have moved from Gutersloh to Laarbruch, with the composite squadron of Chinook and Puma support helicopters due to follow in March.
In the United Kingdom itself, RAF Marham and Lossiemouth will be the main operating bases for our Tornado reconnaissance and anti-shipping forces.
The main thrust of United Kingdom air defence will continue to be provided by Tornado F3 squadrons based at RAF Leuchars, Coningsby and Leeming—as well as by ground-based systems. The Phantom and Shackleton fleets have been withdrawn, the latter being replaced by a Sentry E-3D AWACS squadron at RAF Waddington. The Nimrod maritime reconnaissance force, comprising three squadrons, is now collocated at RAF Kinloss.
We announced our plans for the future development of the search and rescue force in October, in the light of the reduction in military flying. The RAF in the future will have an all-Sea King SAR fleet.
There will also be major changes for the RAF Regiment, reflecting the adjustments to aircraft basing.
These major changes in our front line capability will be matched by a streamlining of the support area. Since the middle of 1991, we have announced the closure of 13 RAF
516
stations in the United Kingdom, most of which house support units. In addition, last November, we proposed that the RAF ground training organisation should be rationalised from six stations to three, with major savings in running costs. We also need to streamline our headquarters structures. Next year, two new RAF headquarters will form: logistics command at Brampton/Wyton, and personnel and training command at Innsworth, near Gloucester. This will lead to reductions in RAF HQ manpower of at least 20 per cent.
We have also embarked on an ambitious programme to market-test RAF support activities with a total annual running cost of over £200 million. This is a very significant commitment to the Government's plans to extend competition for the supply of public services.
These changes will have a profound impact on our service personnel, their families and the civilian staff who support them. It will be of paramount importance to ensure that the morale and commitment of our people are maintained as the restructuring is carried through. The RAF has risen to this challenge, as we would expect, with its customary eelan and esprit de corps.
We are making every effort to ensure that manpower reductions are achieved as far as possible by natural wastage and voluntary redundancy. Some compulsory redundancies are inevitable, but all the 960 or so RAF redundancies necessary up to 1 April 1994 will be filled by volunteers. A second phase will be necessary during 1994 and 1995, details of which will be announced in due course.
The restructuring process is happening when fewer people are leaving the RAF. Our manpower intakes are at historically low levels. But it is vital for the future that we ensure that the RAF continues to be seen as a top-grade employer. As the economy improves and our manpower requirements stabilise, we shall need to improve and increase our recruiting. Hon. Members will be aware of steps being taken by the services in the equal opportunities field. In the RAF, women are now employed in almost all branches and trades, without significant restrictions. Since the last RAF debate, all aircrew roles have been opened to women, including those on fast jets. Two female pilots and nine female navigators have entered squadron service. A further 29 female pilots and 13 female navigators are undergoing training.
Our policy is that the new force structure should be well equipped, highly trained and properly manned and supported. The keystone of the RAF's future capability is the European fighter project. The project enjoys support from all the main political parties, industry and the trade unions. I am grateful to hon. Members on all sides of the House who have given their support in a very effective and successful fashion in recent months during the period of uncertainty with regard to the future of the European fighter aircraft.
This broad basis of consensus has been of immense help in the recent difficult negotiations. Throughout the uncertainties of the past year, the Government have held to the view that there is a clear and continuing need for an aircraft broadly of EFA's capabilities, both for the defence of the United Kingdom homeland and for operations in other theatres. The programme is the only advanced fixed-wing military aircraft under development in the United Kingdom. It is important and, indeed, vital in terms of United Kingdom employment and technology, but its essential rationale is to meet a military requirement.

517
The aircraft will be in service throughout the first quarter of the next century. As present events in the Gulf and elsewhere remind us, there is considerable and growing instability in areas adjacent to NATO, both inside and outside Europe. There are uncertainties about how the world will develop. We face the reality of risk and conflict. The aircraft that we procure must be able to defeat the aircraft of any potential adversary that our pilots might be called upon to face during its operational service.
Our current air defence aircraft—the Tornado F3—was designed to intercept bombers at long range. Even if it were updated with more modern missiles and sensors, the F3 would not be a satisfactory counter to agile fighters such as the MiG 29 and the SU27—let alone any future upgrades of those types, or more modern aircraft. We also need an offensive support and tactical reconnaissance capability.
As many hon. Members will know, in the 1950s, the RAF had 12 different types of combat aircraft. We now have five. When the Eurofighter 2000 comes into service that will reduce to three: the Eurofighter 2000, an upgraded Tornado GR1 and the Harrier GR7. The multi-role capability of the Eurofighter will provide operational flexibility and should yield savings in support costs. I am glad that the Select Committee on Defence —which I commend for its excellent report in March last year—shared our view that there remained a requirement for a technically advanced multi-role fighter.
Despite the importance of the Eurofighter, it must be affordable. The production costs which were quoted by industry in April 1992 were higher than expected. As a result, industrial studies for a range of design options were commissioned by the four Defence Ministers from Spain, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom at our Madrid meeting. The studies concluded that a family of aircraft, based on the existing airframe and engine, was the most cost-effective solution to the budgetary and military requirements of all the four partner nations.
At our meeting on 10 December 1992, the four Defence Ministers agreed with the four chiefs of staff that some relaxations in the operational requirement were possible in the light of the changed international security environment. While some differences remained in national requirements, we reached agreement that these could be accommodated in a single collaborative programme, based on the existing airframe and engine. We also agreed that significant cost reductions were achievable with no change to capability, that further savings were possible with some reduction in performance and that the resulting aircraft should be renamed Eurofighter 2000. Deliveries to the United Kingdom and Italy will commence in the year 2000, and to Germany, and probably Spain, in 2002.
Considerable work remains to be done. We need to agree a revised programme and the differing standards of national variants. Detailed technical and financial negotiations with industry will be required, but our agreement means that the Royal Air Force can look forward with confidence to getting the aircraft that it needs to meet its operational commitments well into the next century.
Flexibility and mobility are the hallmarks of the new NATO strategic concept. Air power is well able to meet these challenges and the Royal Air Force will be making a significant contribution to the air element of NATO's new reaction forces.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: The House is delighted to hear what the Minister is saying. Could he give an assurance that the Government will never flinch from increasing manpower if necessary?
Mr. Rifkind: Of course that is the case. We remain committed to ensuring that the forces have the manpower. Such manpower must be capable of dealing with any of the obligations that may be imposed on it without unreasonable stress and strain. That is an important obligation, and we must keep it carefully under review.
Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sure that the House welcomes the commitment to ensuring that Britain possesses an adequate air defence capacity. Clearly, the Air Force must have high-quality combat aircraft. If the Air Force is to fulfil its continuing international obligations, it is essential that it has adequate transport and communications aircraft. Does the Minister accept that, although the Hercules may be superbly well maintained, it is an aging aircraft and it is in heavy use serving throughout the world? It cannot be many years before the Secretary of State or his successor will have to order a new aircraft to replace it.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the Hercules. It has, indeed, served Britain and continues to serve Britain in a superb fashion. But it is also right that we should give thought to the long-term replacement for Hercules. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that thought is being given to precisely that question.
The forces that I have described will enable NATO to respond rapidly and effectively to any crisis within Allied Command Europe. A total of up to 80 RAF aircraft will be available to the air reaction force. They will provide a broad range of capabilities for both the immediate and rapid reaction components of the force. Contributions will be drawn from the Tornado, Harrier and Jaguar forces. Rapier surface-to-air missiles will also be assigned.
The relevance, and immediacy, of this shift of emphasis to more mobile forces is amply demonstrated by the range of operations in which the RAF is currently involved. I should mention here the RAF's continuing contribution to the anti-terrorism campaign in Northern Ireland. As the House knows, the RAF Regiment provides vital ground defence for RAF Aldergrove. Wessex, Puma and Chinook helicopters provide support for the security forces and the Northern Ireland Office.
The RAF is making a key contribution to our support for the United Nations Security Council resolutions on the former Yugoslavia. Hercules aircraft contribute to the UN airlift of relief supplies into Sarajevo. These operations have had to be suspended whenever there is a risk that the aircraft will come under attack from the warring factions which surround Sarajevo. The most serious such incident, as the House will know, was the tragic loss of an Italian transport aircraft due to a missile attack on 3 September. But despite the dangers, the operation has continued whenever possible. So far, 310 flights by RAF Hercules aircraft have been successfully completed, bringing 4,152 tons of much needed aid to the people of Sarajevo. This is an important humanitarian role, which has been conducted with bravery and skill. Other Hercules undertake resupply sorties in support of the United Kingdom contribution to the UN protection force in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

519
Following NATO's agreement to the United Nation's request to assist in first monitoring and then enforcement of sanctions and the arms embargo, RAF Nimrod aircraft have been involved in a 24-hour surveillance operation to identify embargo-breaking vessels to the naval task force. The aircraft are currently deployed to Sicily as part of these operations. E3-D aircraft have joined a multinational force monitoring the air space of the former Yugoslavia in support of the United Nations resolution banning military flights over the area.
We have also deployed two Hercules aircraft, together with about 90 RAF personnel, to assist in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia. The aircraft are currently based with United States forces in Mobasa in Kenya. Since 12 December they have been engaged in the transport of humanitarian relief stores to affected areas inside Somalia. They have so far delivered over 3 million pounds of stores.
I turn now to recent events in the Gulf. Given the RAF's contribution in that region throughout the momentous events of the past few years, it is particularly appropriate that we should do so in conjunction with the annual debate on the RAF. Since the Gulf conflict ended in February 1991, RAF aircraft have been deployed again to the Gulf on two seperate operations. In both cases the aim was the same: to help protect the civilian population of Iraq from the brutality of the regime in Baghdad—first, the Kurdish people in the north of Iraq from April 1991 and then the peoples of the marsh area in the south from August last year. The United Kingdom joined our United States and French allies in a coalition which established no-fly zones over the north and south of the country in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688, which called on Iraq to cease repression of its civilian population. I should like to make it clear that the coalition is committed to the territorial integrity of Iraq, which is not threatened in any way by the existence of the no-fly zones.
Eight Jaguar aircraft and two VC10 tankers, based at Incirlik in Turkey, mount reconnaissance patrols over the northern no-fly zone. A similar function is performed by six Tornado GRI and two Victor tankers in the south. Hon. Members will be aware that the Turkish Government recently agreed to extend the basing arrangements at Incirlik for a further six months. We are seeking the agreement of the Turkish authorities to base Harrier GR7 aircraft there from April in place of the Jaguars.
We should not let current preoccupations obscure the valuable contribution which the RAF has made to the no-fly zones in quieter times, when the attention of the world was elsewhere. The civilian populations of northern and southern Iraq have gained great comfort from the presence of coalition aircraft overhead. They appreciate more than anyone what Saddam Hussein might have thrown at them but for the existence of the no-fly zones. We expect RAF patrols to continue over the no-fly zones for the foreseeable future.
Mr. David Trimble: I agree with the Secretary of State entirely about the work that the RAF has done in policing the no-fly zone. He will recall that recently there was speculation that it might be necessary for the United Kingdom to deploy ground forces in Kuwait. That danger may have receded over the past few
520
days, but it may recur. In the event of that happening, and while we are so heavily involved in Bosnia, can the Secretary of State be sure that it will not be necessary to withdraw from Northern Ireland either of the additional battalions that have been deployed there recently?
Mr. Rifkind: I am aware of the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but we have not yet received any requests from the Government of Kuwait for the deployment of any forces to Kuwait. Obviously, only if such a request were received would it be necessary to consider it. In any event, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we would not allow a request from any other part of the world to determine our obligations to the need for security forces to operate within the United Kingdom. Our commitments within the United Kingdom must always take precedence over any other international obligation, however important.
Mr. Tony Benn: Does the Secretary of State intend to comment on the substantial change in the attitude adopted worldwide towards the decision to resume bombing last week? Is he aware that the Russian Government have expressed anxiety, that the Arab League has come out against it, that representatives of the Iraqi opposition, the Shi'ites and the Kurds, have come out against it, that the French Government have expressed anxiety and that carefully filtered statements have been released from No. 10 about six prime ministerial telephone calls to President Bush. What I and my right hon. Friends said on the night of the statement has turned out to be absolutely correct. The bombing has strengthened Saddam Hussein and has undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the policy that the right hon. and learned Gentleman announced so proudly only eight days ago is in shreds.
For that reason, many hon. Members will vote against the Adjournment tonight because we have been denied the opportunity to express our views against a properly framed Government motion.
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is profoundly mistaken. No one is enthusiastic about military action, but the right hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that in the immediate aftermath of the three operations conducted by the coalition countries Saddam Hussein has now allowed United Nations inspection teams back into Baghdad—the first team was allowed in this morning—the attempts by the Iraqis to interfere with the frontier with Kuwait have been suspended and the allied countries are now able to operate in the no-fly zones without attack. The right hon. Gentleman might not like the fact that that has been the direct consequence of the recent action.
Mr. Max Madden: Can the Secretary of State tell the House who was responsible for the attack on the Al-Rashid hotel? Was it planned or was it an accident? In either event, will it now be the subject of an inquiry? As he will know, a large number of delegates were attending an Islamic conference in the hotel and they included my constituent, Liaqat Hussain, the president of the Bradford Council for Mosques, who had gone to Iraq to press for the release of two Britons imprisoned there. Will the Secretary of State tell the House who was responsible for that reckless, irresponsible and ill-advised attack?
Mr. Rifkind: The fact that the hon. Gentleman is even prepared to contemplate that the missile which struck that hotel might have been aimed at it deliberately shows the nature of his prejudices. It must be obvious to him that, whatever the source of the incident, it would not have been the deliberate desire of any country to inflict damage on a civilian hotel—[Interruption.] So far as the consequences are concerned, I have not the slightest doubt that if the United States Government conclude that a cruise missile was responsible for the incident, they will wish to take all the necessary steps to try to identify the reasons why that might have happened, but the ultimate responsibility for an incident—
Mr. George Galloway: They have accepted that it was.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would contain himself.
Mr. Rifkind: Responsibility for any incident that has taken place in recent times must lie with Saddam Hussein, whose behaviour caused the necessity for coalition operations in support of United Nations resolutions.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: If I may be allowed to continue a little longer, I shall happily give way to other hon. Members.
I have already reported to the House the details of the coalition action against Iraqi air defences on 13 and 18 January and paid tribute to the service personnel involved. The House will be aware that the operations in which the RAF participated were undertaken in self-defence, to protect coalition aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone. The right of self-defence is enshrined in international law.
The United Nations Secretary General said on 14 January that air raids against Iraqi air defences on the previous day had a sufficient mandate from the Security Council. The legal position is quite clear. The Government are in no doubt that the actions in which the RAF has participated have been necessary and proportionate to the threat.
Dr. Lynne Jones: On the issue of self-defence, is the Secretary of State aware of the comments by the United States Defence Secretary on 5 January to the effect that Iraqi surface-to-air missile systems are to obsolete and clapped out that they pose a greater threat to the Iraqi troops handling them than to the western allies' aircraft, and that that fact is backed up by the 19th edition of "Jane's Weapons Systems"? Does the Secretary of State still justify the action taken on 17 January? Was it not an over-reaction on the part of the western allies to Saddam Hussein's sabre rattling, which was an attempt to boost his position in Iraq?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady must realise that the coalition action was taken for two reasons: first, in the days following 5 January Saddam Hussein moved new air missile defences into the southern no-fly zone; and, secondly, he permitted, indeed required, Iraqi fighter aircraft to penetrate into the air space over the southern no-fly zone. That dual threat to the coalition aircraft policing the no-fly zone made the action necessary in not only our view but that of the UN Secretary-General.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Defence Secretary accept that there is concern among the allies? The French Government are concerned about the extent to which missile strikes—as opposed to air strikes —to enforce the no-fly zone can be termed to come within the United Nations mandate? Does he accept that concern and will the United Kingdom Government take any action to clarify the extent of the UN mandate under which we are acting?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must be careful before referring to the views of the French Government. On Tuesday this week the French ambassador to the United Nations indicated the full support of that Government for the operations that have taken place, and they were fully involved in the decisions that led to the events in question.
I should like to take this opportunity to update the House on our assessment of the success of the coalition actions against Iraqi air defences. Information that is now available confirms our initial assessment that the actions were highly successful. Severe damage has been inflicted on key targets. Despite the limited nature of the operations, they have significantly degraded the air defence network in southern Iraq. That means that coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, in support of UN Security Council resolution 688, can do so in greater safety, to the benefit of the civilian population below.
Mr. David Winnick: Either force—very limited and measured, bearing in mind the danger of civilian casualties—is used when appropriate, or the allies simply decide that Saddam Hussein may break all the provisions of the ceasefire agreement and may be encouraged by the absence of any response from the allies to go further. Is not that the basic dilemma? Does the Secretary of State agree that it is almost certain—perhaps the word "almost" is not necessary—that, if force had not been used in the first instance, Kuwait would still be under enemy occupation?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct—and not just in regard to what would have happened to Kuwait. If the coalition countries had not responded over the past two weeks, Saddam Hussein's aspirations would not have been satisfied. If he had found that the dispatch of fighter aircraft into the southern and northern no-fly zones and the introduction of new missile defences did not invite a firm and determined reaction from the international community, he would soon have taken further action to reduce the international community's impact. The northern and southern no-fly zones would gradually, but inevitably, have become inoperative. Saddam Hussein would then have started his aggression against Kuwait proper and at some stage the international community would have been required to take action of the sort that we have taken to preserve the independence and integrity of Kuwait.
Opposition Members who have attacked these operations must ask themselves what Saddam Hussein would have had to do to make them recognise the need for firm and decisive action to curb his aggressive instincts. In the past week, it has become clear that, following the firm action that was taken, the international position has been restored. That is something that should be welcomed by all hon. Members.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in all this, there is another "if'? If Switzerland, Germany, France, Russia and this country had not, since 1975, absolutely poured the most sophisticated arms and arms-making equipment into Iraq, the situation might not have turned out as it has. What will now be done about the pouring of arms to people who may well do the same as has been done by Saddam Hussein? Cannot we learn the lesson that something must be done about the exporting of nuclear weaponry in particular? We do not know how attacks on nuclear installations—if there are nuclear installations—would be monitored.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to emphasise that enormous care must be taken with regard to the sale of arms to any country. On the question of the approvals that are required before arms sales are permitted, the United Kingdom has tougher controls than virtually any other country.
Mr. Bernie Grant rose—
Mr. Rifkind: Many hon. Members want to take part in this debate. The more interventions I accept, the less will be the chances of other hon. Members to contribute.
With regard to the three operations that have been mentioned, I have heard a figure of 50 per cent. success being loosely quoted in the media. Such figures are meaningless. A mission that achieves its objectives and brings home all its- aircraft and aircrew safely is a success. I should emphasise that military operations are not some sort of video game. Anyone familiar with high-technology equipment knows that it is not simply a matter of pressing a button and destroying the target. Modern bombing missions are carried out at high speed, involving split-second decisions and, of course, real people. In fact, the recent coalition action against Iraqi air defences has been highly successful, and I believe that the Iraqis know it.
In this context, the nation can be rightly proud of the contribution made by the RAF. The RAF Tornado GR1 more than lived up to its reputation as a potent and effective attack weapon system. Using the new TIALD pods, and dropping 1,000 lb laser-guided bombs, four Tornado GR1 were successful in severely damaging the precise air defence and control facilities they attacked, first at Al Amarah and later at An Najaf. This is a remarkable performance by any standards.
I wish to dwell for a moment on the matter of collateral damage, which I know is of concern to the House. The coalition went to great lengths to avoid accidental damage to unintended targets. As I told the House on Monday, when the crew of an RAF Tornado aircraft could not clearly identify its target at An Najaf, weapons were not released, in order to avoid collateral damage. I can think of no clearer illustration of the fact that we do not just say these things for public consumption but do something about it, even if it risks failing to attack the target.
It was therefore with genuine regret that we learnt of the explosion at the al-Rashid hotel on Sunday night, during the United States cruise missile attack on a nuclear-related facility. This was a tragic accident involving the loss of civilian life. However, we should not lose sight of Saddam Hussein's persistent defiance of United Nation's Security Council resolution 687—the mandatory resolution establishing the ceasefire following
524
the Gulf conflict—which led to this attack. He alone must bear the responsibility for not conforming to the will of the international community before force became necessary.
The operations against Iraqi air defences have been a success. They have significantly enhanced the safety of coalition aircraft and ensured the continuation of effective no-fly zones, which provide protection for the civilian population of northern and southern Iraq. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Iraqis have steadily been abandoning their defiance of resolutions over the past week. Their border incursions have ceased and they have removed their police posts from the demilitarised zone on the border with Kuwait. They have also conformed to the requirements of the United Nations for unrestricted flights for United Nations special commission inspectors into Iraq. These are welcome developments, but clearly not the end of the road. It is a matter of great regret that Saddam Hussein could not simply do what the United Nations requires of him without being forced to it.
Once again the international community has thwarted the designs of Saddam Hussein. In the last few years he has seen the collapse of his efforts to annex Kuwait, to acquire weapons of mass destruction and to crush minorities within his own people. Now his open defiance of the United Nations has been confronted and rebuffed again. The Government remain resolute in their determination to ensure that Iraq will comply with all relevent United Nations resolutions and that Saddam Hussein will not again threaten peace and security in the Gulf region. The Royal Air Force will continue to play a key role in putting this policy into practice.
Mr. Paul Flynn: The Secretary of State has mentioned the question of Saddam Hussein's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Does he recall that in April 1990, when I pressed the Government to increase the number of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, I was told that they would not press for more inspections as Saddam Hussein had signed the international non-proliferation treaty and they had full confidence that he would abide by his international obligations and would not develop nuclear weapons? That was five months before Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait.
Would not it be appropriate today for the Secretary of State to engage in a little act of contrition following the Government's sins of commission and omission? We did not have proper intelligence—I use the word literally—about what was going on, although the rest of the world seemed to know, and we were supplying Saddam Hussein with a vast number of products that enabled him not only to build his nuclear arsenals but to make chemical and biological weapons.
Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was successful in predicting Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The entire international community, including the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members, should take account of the experience of the past few years, which has demonstrated that Saddam Hussein's word is of very little value and that we must judge his regime by its deeds rather than by its words. That is precisely why the action that has been taken was necessary.
Mr. Bob Cryer: With regard to the supply to Saddam Hussein of arms and the means of manufacturing them, the Secretary of State will recall that the inspection teams operating in Iraq discovered a great

525
deal of material relating to suppliers. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman prevail on the United Nations to publish that material so that we may know the identity of the arms exporters in this country who were the friends and allies of Saddam Hussein and the extent of the support that they received from within the ranks of the Government?
Mr. Rifkind: It will be for the United Nations to decide whether to publish any information that it has. In that regard, we are quite happy to abide by its view.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: Several hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, and I have had the indulgence of the House long enough.
This year marks the 75th anniversary of the formation of the Royal Air Force. The House will wish to join me in congratulating the force on reaching that landmark and for the great achievements of the past 75 years.
The House will wish to know that the occasion will be marked by a royal review at RAF Marham on 1 April, at which Her Majesty the Queen will present a new Queen's colour to the Royal Air Force. The review will include a full wing parade, a fly-past of some 150 aircraft, exhibitions and a static aircraft display reflecting the past achievements, present activities, and future aspirations of the RAF.
Mr. Bernie Grant rose—
Mr. Rifkind: The massive shifts in the world order which we have witnessed over the past few years have thrown up a new strategic situation which requies much greater flexibility and mobility from our forces than ever before. The United Kingdom will continue to require the services to respond—as we have seen in Iraq—to a whole spectrum of unpredictable possible threats and contingencies. It is fitting that, in the 75th anniversary year, we should pay particular tribute to the manner in which the RAF has been able to meet the new challenges it has faced.
RAF aircraft are flying daily sorties over northern and southern Iraq; they are committed to the NATO and United Nations military efforts in the former Yugoslavia; and they are playing a valuable role in the humanitarian role in the distribution of aid to the suffering communities in the former Yugoslavia and in Somalia. Nor should the longer-standing commitments in Belize and the Falkland Islands be forgotten.
The RAF is in transition. The restructuring in which we are currently engaged will ensure that the service continues to be able to meet the requirements placed on it. The men and women of the Royal Air Force have shown how admirably they can cope with the most difficult circumstances. I pay tribute to them for their bravery, commitment and professionalism. With well-trained and well-motivated personnel and with modern equipment—particularly now that the future of Eurofighter 2000 has been assured—I believe that the RAF can look forward with hope and confidence to its next 75 years.
4.51 pm
Dr. David Clark: We are pleased to be having this debate because it gives us an opportunity yet again to register our full support for the Royal Air Force in its efforts over Iraq and elsewhere in the world. As the Secretary of State reminded us, the RAF is deployed
526
throughout the world. It also gives us an opportunity to discuss the way forward in the Gulf, as we believe that we should be discussing not only the recent activities but the ways forward.

Having said that, I must stress to the Secretary of State that today's debate is no substitute for a full-scale debate on the RAF. Hon. Members in all parts of the House wish to raise constituency matters relating to the RAF and operational and logistics aspects of the service. I remind the Government that we have not had an RAF debate since 2 May 1991. I trust that, when he replies to the debate, the Foreign Secretary will confirm that, in the 75th year of the RAF, the Government do not want to be discourteous to the RAF by not providing a full-scale debate in the House of Commons. It would be an insult to the RAF and the House if we did not have such a debate.
In essence, this debate is concerned with the recent raids involving the RAF over Iraq. That is where the public interest lies and the subject on which we must question the Government. Those raids were about the enforcement of no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq. When those zones were established, they met with almost universal approval. We called for them, we supported them then and we support them now. I pay tribute to the RAF personnel and our allies who have daily patrolled the dangerous skies and whose courage and skill has, for the last 18 months, protected thousands of Shi'ites and Kurds from death and injury.
This is an opportune time to recall why it was necessary to impose those no-fly zones. Saddam Hussein has an atrocious record on human rights. Like most dictators, he has shown the utmost brutality towards minorities and especially against those who disagree with him. He began to use his aircraft to carry out much of that programme of genocide. In the north against the Kurds, he waged chemical warfare in which thousands of innocent men, women and children perished. It is estimated that, in the town of Halabja, 5,000 people lost their lives. In other areas, refugees were gunned down as they tried to flee.
A United Nations official report on the situation in the south speaks of the use of phosphorus and napalm bombs. Reports of chemical warfare were rife. I must add that chemical warfare—indeed, much of the rest of the warfare —was made possible in many instances by equipment supplied by western companies. As the House knows, the British Government have clearly been shown to have treated the United Nations arms embargo against Iraq with a Nelsonian approach, turning a blind eye to breaches.
Lady Olga Maitland: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks of support for the action in Iraq. Does he agree that the comments of CND—the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—of which he was a member for five years, are regrettable, particularly the remark that the course of action was regrettable? Will he confirm that he resigned from CND in the light of those remarks?
Dr. Clark: I wish that I had not given way to the hon. Lady [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] She wastes the time of the House and squeezes out other hon. Members who wish to make a contribution to the debate. I do not think my position in the debate over the issues in Iraq is to be doubted.

527
Because Saddam Hussein waged wanton genocide, the United Nations was forced to pass resolution 688 demanding that he stop persecuting minorities in Iraq. Later, to ensure that that resolution was implemented, no-fly zones were imposed, a move which at the time met with universal support. I have heard it suggested that they were illegal. No less a person than the United Nations Secretary-General gave approval for their establishment in August 1992 and said that the Security Council had given the allies the necessary mandate.
That was the position then and I take the view that, if it was, and is, good enough for the United Nations Secretary-General, it is good enough for me. It goes without saying that unless those no-fly zones were enforced, they were unlikely to be of any use. Thus, allied aircraft have been deployed to ensure that no Iraqi aircraft can fly in those zones and perpetrate their dreadful crimes on the Kurds and the Shi'ites.
When Saddam Hussein began to install ground-to-air missiles and their associated radars in the no-fly zones—occasionally they locked on to patrolling allied aircraft—he had only one object in mind. That was to deter the patrolling aircraft and make nonsense of the no-fly zones. That could not be tolerated. In effect, he was threatening not only the lives of the pilots but the lives of thousands of innocent people in the north and south of Iraq.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a United States Air Force Wild Weasel aircraft today fired a missile at an Iraqi battery which had directed its laser beam against a French Mirage aircraft? Such a provocative act is further evidence that we cannot place any validity on statements made by Iraq.
Dr. Clark: I was aware of that, having heard about it on the 4 o'clock BBC world news. I gather that further details of the incident are awaited. It seems that the Iraqis locked on to an allied aircraft.
Mr. Winnick: Would my hon. Friend agree that we should be deeply concerned, whatever side we take, about civilian casualties? We should not otherwise be in this House, and certainly not on the Labour Benches. The last person to give lectures about casualties is the criminal dictator in Iraq who is not only responsible for what my hon. Friend has been describing but it should also be remembered that he initiated that eight years war with his neighbouring country, a war which cost the lives of tens of thousands of people on both sides and no gain was made. That is apart from the gassing of his own people and all the other crimes and atrocities that this evil tyrant has committed.
Dr. Clark: I accept and acknowledge the sincerity of my hon. Friend who feels very strongly about this and I thought he made his point very well. He reinforced the argument I was trying to deploy, that this man has murdered thousands upon thousands of his own citizens and we must never forget that. Even now there are British citizens languishing in the gaols of Iraq. I think of Michael Wainwright, from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), and I think of Paul Ride from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). They are languishing in those gaols for no other reason than that they
528
inadvertently crossed the border. They committed no crimes, yet we do not know in what conditions they are being held. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary winds up he will be able to give us some more information about that.
Sir Jim Spicer: May I return to the point which the hon. Member made about the safety of our own aircrews? He will no doubt have read that in the north, a definite ambush was set up and MiG fighters were deployed to try and draw our fighters into an ambush so that those ground-to-air missiles could hit them. Does that not emphasise the fact, which if I may say so has not been emphasised from his own Benches, that we have to do something, if only for the safety of our own people, apart from all the points that he has been making.
Dr. Clark: I hoped that I had made the point that that is basically what it is all about and it was because of that that it was right to target purely military targets, not civilian targets and the bombing raids were necessary and justified, if we were going to enforce the no-fly zones. There have been questions as to whether the actions—the western reaction of the past week—were in accord with United Nations resolutions.
Mr. Bernie Grant: As the Secretary of State would not answer my question and my hon. Friend appears to be a friend of the Secretary of State, perhaps he will answer my question. I specifically asked the Secretary of State last Wednesday about targeting and he gave the impression then that all the targets would be in the no-fly zones. We now learn that the British Government supported the Americans when they launched the cruise missiles at Baghdad, which is outside the no-fly zone. Could my hon. Friend explain why there has been this change of mind by the Secretary of State and has the Secretary of State misled Parliament in what he said last Wednesday?
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend was less worthy than he normally is in his initial comment, but I honestly cannot say what the Secretary of State thinks. His mind is beyond himself, let alone me. I cannot interpret that.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I accept that my hon. Friend cannot speak for the Secretary of State, but can he give his own opinion and will he take this opportunity to condemn the American cruise missile attack on Baghdad, which clearly had nothing to do with the defence of the no-fly zones?
Dr. Clark: Yes. We have made clear our position with regard to the justification for those raids. We have said that, if they are in accord with United Nations resolutions, if they are within international law and within the level of proportionality, they are justified. In the case of the American raid we say clearly, and said immediately after the raid, that enough was enough of that sort of raid and that the whole issue should be referred back to the United Nations. That was our position on Monday. It is our position now and I hope that that is clear.
If I might continue about the legality of these raids. The custodian of those United Nations resolutions is the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros Ghali. He has made the position clear about the legality of the no-fly zones. He repeated the position about the latest raid last week and said:
"The raid was carried out in accordance with a mandate from the Security Council under resolution 678, and the

529
motive for the raid was Iraq's violation of resolution 687, which concerns the cease-fire. As the Secretary General of the United Nations, I can tell you that the action taken was in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council and the Charter of the United Nations."
That is pretty clear to me. It is not like the Secretary of State's mind. We understand it clearly. We are therefore completely satisfied that the raids in which we were involved were covered by the United Nations mandate and were in accord with international law. As such, they have our full support, but we also feel that it is now appropriate to pose the question as to which is the best way forward. Where do we go to? One thing is clear: no matter how important this affair is—and it is important—we must not allow Saddam Hussein to dominate the world political stage. He is not the most important person in the world, and there are considerable problems elsewhere. I think of Cambodia, Bosnia, Somalia, and of Mozambique, and I could go on. There are other problems. We must not get this out of proportion.
We all know that Saddam Hussein is a chancer as well as a bully. Of course he resented the ceasefire terms imposed on him by the United Nations and he thought he had a chance. He saw a window of opportunity in which he could rid himself of some of those obligations. He thought that Europe was preoccupied with the Bosnian situation. He knew that the Americans had 30,000 troops trying to provide relief aid in Somalia. They had their hands full. He looked at the presidential changeover period in the United States and thought that that would blur decision-making so he took a chance. He thought it was an opportunity to ease some of the burdens of the United Nations resolutions and he has been shown in no uncertain terms that he cannot do so.
His actions and the United Nations' response have sparked a debate which raises many pertinent questions, not least of which is how the United Nations enforces resolutions in the new world order, following the end of the super-power confrontation.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the incursions that took place before these raids and were used as justification for them, took place in land that was clearly in Iraq before the commencement of the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent Gulf war? Will he also say how the Iraqi regime was to negotiate about the borders when those in the west were not interested in negotiating with them about that?
Dr. Clark: I can confirm that what my hon. Friend has said is a fact. That land used to be Iraqi. It was declared a demilitarised zone until last Friday when it became part of Kuwait. That is my understanding of the situation. He is right. I am not justifying our attacks within the no-fly zone on the incursions into Kuwait, serious as they were, but justifying trying to save the lives of thousands of Shias and Kurds who would suffer if those no-fly zones were lost.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the radio of the Voice of the Kurds which broadcasts from the organisation, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is the socialist party within Kurdistan which has 49 per cent. of support within the democratically elected Kurdish Parliament, elected last year, has called on the Iraqi people and Iraqi army to rise up and overthrow Saddam and his brutal dictatorship? Is he also aware that despite some calls from some quarters in the Arab world against this action, there are large
530
numbers of people including the Iraqi democratic opposition who believe that it is time that the United Nations and the international community started to give its aid and assistance to that democratic opposition? The humanitarian aid should no longer go through Saddam's regime: it should go directly to those who need it so that Saddam and his forces are not reinforced by it.
Dr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it accords with the information that I have been receiving over the past 24 hours. I have been on the telephone to people connected with the Iraqi National Congress—the official opposition forum for Iraq, and other groups who have been involved with the Kurds and the Shias and Iraqi opposition in general. They told me, "The response was appropriate." That was their reaction to the bombings.
On Monday, I said in the House that after three raids, it was perhaps time to take stock of the situation. I felt it appropriate for the matter to be referred back to the Security Council, not with a view to weakening our resolve or stance against Saddam Hussein but to reassess what had been achieved and to develop a more long-term and coherent strategy of how he could be forced to comply with UN resolutions. We were delighted when that course was followed but disappointed that the Government did not take more of a lead.
Of necessity, the Security Council discussion on Tuesday was somewhat restricted in its terms, and we still feel that a further discussion would be useful. A discussion in the Security Council would have the advantage not only of taking stock, but would allow us to maximise support in the coalition ranged against Saddam Hussein. We felt that any misunderstanding could lead to disagreements with our Arab friends and allies. That must be avoided if our longer-term objectives are to be achieved in the middle east.
The Gulf affair raises the whole prickly issue of how United Nations resolutions are to be enforced. As we enter a new era without the two super powers and their client states there is clearly a new enhanced role for the UN, but the UN must be more than a mere debating chamber. Its resolutions need to be enforced. Our experience of the League of Nations shows that the will of the international community needs to be enforced and not merely expressed. What may be appropriate in one situation may not be appropriate in another. Different situations demand different solutions. We need flexibility and, of course, the cardinal rule must be that force must always be the weapon of last resort.
In the past individual nations or groups of nations have taken on the responsibility to ensure that United Nations resolutions were enforced. Last week the United States, Britain and France, with the backing of Russia, did that. They had little option if Saddam Hussein was not to continue to flout vital resolutions. We should remember that he had installed missiles in a no-fly zone, and invaded the Kuwait border/demilitarised zone and taken missiles. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that that was not in accord with the United Nations resolution.
He also refused permission for United Nations weapons inspectors to fly in and perform their task. That task is vital to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not continue to build up his chemical and nuclear warfare capacity. That task had to be enforced. However, we accept that the sensitivities of some of our middle east

531
allies were affected. That can be overcome in the longer term by the United Nations being given the means to work through other regional groups as was envisaged in chapter 8 of the United Nations charter.
In the new world order, the United Nations must be modernised to accommodate its burgeoning peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. I am always surprised by the number of places in which the United Nations is trying to keep the peace, to keep warring groups apart and, sometimes, to make peace. It is appropriate to consider rejuvenating the military staff committee. We should debate the establishment of a joint military planning group within the United Nations.
There is an urgent and immediate need for a high technology communications unit in the United Nations to help co-ordinate military operations. Military units operating under the United Nations should be able to communicate as effectively with the the United Nations as with their national Governments. Without such facilities, it will be difficult for forces to continue to operate effectively under the aegis of the United Nations. The Secretary-General has produced a report on that and other issues, and I hope that the Government will press for some reform along those lines.
The United Nations must pursue non-military means with even more vigour, especially in relation to their use in Iraq. Should not we consider a resolution spelling out that if Iraq had a Government who would abide by the ceasefire conditions, did not persecute their minorities and accepted all the pertinent United Nations resolutions the economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations would be lifted, making life much more tolerable for the ordinary people of Iraq with whom we have no quarrel?
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Clark: No. I should like to continue.
Over the past few weeks, many young men in the RAF and their colleagues in allied air forces risked their lives in raids against Saddam Hussein. Let us not forget that. They took no pleasure in that, but they did it in an attempt to force him to comply with UN resolutions. They were spelling out that he could not flout the wish of the rest of the world. Thankfully, they all came back and we have edged away from the immediate prospect of out-and-out hostilities into which we seemed to be drifting on Monday. The position is now much more hopeful.
Saddam Hussein—if I dare say it—has declared a ceasefire; President Bush has been replaced by President Clinton; and the United Nations inspectors are being allowed back into Iraq on UN terms. That is a much more hopeful scenario than the one that prevailed seven days ago.
Mr. Brazier rose—
Mr. Cormack rose—
Dr. Clark: No, I will not give way.
We must build on those positive aspects. We must work within the UN to make it more effective in carrying out its resolutions. While we are doing that we must tell Saddam Hussein that we will not tolerate his persecution of his minorities or his threats to his neighbours. It must be made
532
absolutely clear that he cannot renege on the ceasefire terms and that United Nations resolutions will not be broken with impunity.
5.17 pm
Sir Edward Heath: I fully associate myself with what the Secretary of State for Defence said about Her Majesty's Royal Air Force. As one who benefited greatly from the support of the Royal Air Force during the tramp across Europe in the second world war, I appreciate it as much as anybody.
I should like to raise two issues in relation to the far east. I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) about seeking a way forward, because as far as I can see no one is doing that. People are still dwelling in the past. In the past few days the situation appeared to deteriorate into a personal vendetta between the American president and Saddam Hussein. One must try to find a solution.
I also agree with the hon. Member for South Shields about the Secretary-General's views on the necessity for a proper communications system. The previous Secretary-General told me that his greatest regret was that he saw no signs beforehand of the Iraqi attack on Kuwait—that it was impossile for him to do so because no satellites or intelligence services were at his disposal and the powers did not give him any information about their expectations in international affairs, in respect of conflicts between nations. Obviously that should be remedied as quickly as possible.
One understands the attacks on President Saddam Hussein perfectly well. He was attacked because he started the war against Iran, but one must remember that in that respect he was supported by the whole Arab world, which regarded Iran as its greatest threat, and by a large part of the western world—which took the same view and proceeded to supply President Saddam Hussein with all the weaponry of war necessary for his purpose. In condemning President Saddam Hussein for the damage that he has brought upon his people, one must remember also what happened in Iran under the last regime and the destruction that it brought to the people of that country. Both are equally worthy of condemnation.
As to the future, with the change in the American presidency we have reached the stage where the United nations Secretary-General can himself be called in to deal with the hopeful signs mentioned by the Opposition spokesman, and identify whether there is a genuine policy behind them or whether they were made purely for propaganda purposes. The matter can no longer be dealt with by the four powers, who are already beginning to break up. The United Nations is really in the hands of the four powers mentioned today. That cannot continue if we are to find a way forward, because they are all so committed to their past. That applies to our own Government as well.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is now prepared to step back and to take an entirely fresh look at how the situation can be dealt with in the future. I note that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has a grin on his face, as he so often has at any suggestion of that kind. His views would carry a little more weight if he told Israel to implement the United Nations recommendations and suggested that force be used against Israel to get it out

533
of the occupied territories and that Israel take back the 400 helpless people who, in the cold of winter, it threw into territory that it does not occupy. If the hon. Gentleman did that, I might pay some attention to his views.
Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman is right to attack Israel's action and the people whom he mentioned should never have been deported. That was not in accordance with international law and I cannot disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on that. However, does he recall his earlier speeches, and in particular an article of his that was published in The Independent just before Christmas 1990, in which he defended and justified Saddam Hussein's position towards Kuwait, and to which I replied at the time?
Before I take any lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about Israel or the middle east, I remind him that when he was Government Chief Whip at the time of the Suez crisis, I and many other Members of Parliament demonstrated against British aggression in Egypt, which—as we knew at the time—was done in collusion with France and Israel. Instead of resigning, as Edward Boyle and Anthony Nutting did, the right hon. Gentleman kept himself in government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is outside the scope of the debate.
Sir Edward Heath: The hon. Gentleman did not deal with my point that he is not prepared to say that force should be used against Israel to make it carry out United Nations recommendations. He never—not for a moment—deals with that point.
There is also a lesson to be learnt from Suez. Today, Governments still expect to get rid of President Saddam Hussein. I never justified his conduct, but I explained how he had made such a complete misjudgment because of the support he previously received from the Arab and the western world—and, as we are now learning, right up to the last minute from President Bush and the American ambassador. However, that did not justify his actions in any way.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned 1956. Afterwards, everyone said that the thing to do was to get rid of Abdel Nasser. We never did; he was there for another 14 years and died of a heart attack. For the powers to say, "We must get rid of President Saddam Hussein," does no more than give him additional publicity and strengthen his country. I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had acknowledged that in his speech.
Furthermore, recent action has alienated us from the rest of the Arab world.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd)indicated dissent.
Sir Edward Heath: There is no use my right hon. Friend shaking his head. He is just not in with the Arab world. I did my best to get him there when he was one of my Private Secretaries. I took him around the Gulf with me, but it will take more than that to get him to understand that recent action has alienated a large part of the Arab world. That alienation lessens our influence and damages our economic and trade position with the Arab world. Meanwhile, the rest of the European countries are getting on with it and
534
gaining a lot of benefit while we lose. That is why we must abandon the idea that we must get rid of President Saddam Hussein before anything else can be done.
Mr. Hurd: I gladly acknowledge that I owe a large part of my education to my right hon. Friend. It has moved on a little in some respects since those days, but I certainly acknowledge the debt. I hope that we are reasonably in touch with the Arab world. I believe that it would have dismayed the Arab world much more—even those who utter some discontent now—if we had allowed Saddam Hussein to exploit what he saw as a moment of weakness and uncertainty in the western world. If, as a result, we were today in a position in which the integrity of Kuwait, with its new boundaries, had clearly been violated; in which the United Nations had conditions imposed on it before any inspection teams were allowed into Iraq to examine and destroy chemical and nuclear weapons; and in which allied planes that are helping to protect the Shias and the Kurds had in effect been bullied out of the sky, the tremors of nervousness, dismay and accusation directed from the Arab world reaching their friends in the West would have been overwhelming and very dangerous.
Sir Edward Heath: My right hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to his view, and I would not challenge part of it. The damage has been caused by the attack on the alleged arms factories outside Baghdad which alienated public opinion. There is no use my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence saying, "In any case, it is all Saddam Hussein's fault," because that is not accepted. If we decide to bomb targets where there are questions of legal justification and that action does undesirable harm, of course we lose out. That is where the whole question arises of how the situation should be handled and it is a question of utmost importance. There is far too much of, "Whatever happens, it is all President Saddam Hussein's fault." That is not how the rest of the Arab world sees it.
Another factor left out of the account in looking to the future is the action of Iran, which has not been mentioned by either my right hon. and learned Friend or Labour's Front-Bench spokesman. There is undoubtedly a desire on the part of Iran, and the opportunity, to penetrate the southern area of Iraq, as it has tried to do for decades and centuries and against which we must guard. No action has been taken and I would like assurances on that aspect.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that Kuwait has made no request for British forces to be sent there. I am reassured by that, but I want a reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that if any such request is made, it will be turned down at once. We cannot become involved in having ground forces in Kuwait against any possible threat from Iraq. We cannot accept that for one moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?] I will explain why.
Such action will again deepen the hostility of the rest of the Gulf towards this country. We got out of it in 1961; now, we will be regarded as the colonial powers returning again. I was responsible for handling the events of 1961. Kuwait asked for complete independence: it wanted control over foreign and defence policy. The Government accepted that, negotiated it and agreed it at the beginning of July. We also said privately, "If there is any threat to you, you can come to us." According to our own

535
information, such a threat was posed towards the end of that July. We said, "This is a threat to you. Do you want us to come to your assistance?" The Kuwaitis said yes, so we sent in forces. As a result, the Iraqis—who were on the Basra road—halted and then withdrew.
We then said—this is the important point—"You are now independent in every respect. If you are to have forces here permanently, they should come from the Arab League. They can be placed there as a guard against any attempts from Iraq to the north." The Arab League accepted that: it moved in its forces and we—having gone in at the end of July—withdrew in the middle of October. That was the end of it.
Now, we should get the Arab League to take action and provide what is necessary for the defence of Kuwait. Its members can agree that among themselves. There may be difficulties; the Al-Sabah regime in Kuwait is not the most admired in the Arab world, for good reasons. Nothing that has happened since the war gives us any reason for admiration either. The rest of the Arab world knows that perfectly well. Of course, no one over here ever mentions the fact that many Palestinians and Jordanians who were working in Kuwait have spent all their lives there and have never been allowed back; nor does anyone mention the action taken against individuals who have been allowed no proper trial. However, I do not want to go into all that.
If it is necessary for action to be taken, it should be taken through the Arab League. That will mean active work on the part of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and by the Foreign Ministers of the countries that were involved in the Gulf war. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will accept that.
I have expressed the strongest possible opposition to the sending of British forces to Kuwait. Earlier, a voice behind me asked, "Why?" I have explained one of my reasons; another reason is that, once the forces were there, it would be impossible to get them out. We should find ourselves landed with yet another commitment abroad, in a country where there are no direct British interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is oil"] We have all the oil we need. What other British interest is there? We must face facts. The only direct interest that we could have in Kuwait is oil, and we have oil.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am very interested in my right hon. Friend's idea that we should leave the security and defence of Kuwait to the Arab League. The Arab League has never called itself an effective military instrument, capable of coherent defensive action. That being so, surely it is incumbent on the western allies jointly to secure the interests of their friends in the region—the emirate of Kuwait and the other continguous powers.
Sir Edward Heath: The Arab League has the necessary resources. It has money, equipment and men. My hon. Friend may treat it with contempt, but it worked for many years in the 1960s. What is more, if the Arab League defends Kuwait, it will be much more difficult for Saddam Hussein to use the Iraqis to attack it.
My opposition to sending British forces into Kuwait is equalled only by my opposition to the involving of further British forces in any Yugoslavian action. A ghastly civil war is going on: people are trying to wipe out the legacy
536
of generations and centuries. We cannot do that for them; what we can do is, where necessary, put a fence between Yugoslavia and other countries that might be affected. That is an understandable aim, but we are simply not capable of working out the answer for Yugoslavia.
Perhaps the plan worked out by Lord Owen and his colleague will eventually be accepted; we cannot tell. If it is accepted, however, we shall not know whether it will be kept. Many would want to accept it, get rid of any intervention and then start adjusting again—but this is not a war in which we must become involved. If we send in more forces, we shall become more and more tied down.
We must accept that, if we try to protect humanitarian forces, we are bound to suffer casualties. That cannot be avoided, although it is tragic. Already, tributes have been paid to one soldier whose life was lost in Yugoslavia. What will happen when such events occur constantly? What will the public say if we put forces in, those in the mountains start carrying on as they did during the second world war and all the casualties start coming home? We know that the public are affected by television coverage of those who are suffering now; what will they say when the forces that we put in are in the same condition? I know that, technically, the debate is not about Yugoslavia, but I want to make it absolutely plain how strongly I oppose our being dragged in to Yugoslavia step by step, as is now happening.
Nor should we give way to American pressure. We do not know yet what the new president will want, or how he will conduct himself. If I were the American president, I would be furious about what his predecessor has done during the past 10 days to try to force him into a corner and to deprive him of any freedom of decision in policy matters. To take all public interest from the arrival of a new president so that it will stay with the old one is appalling behaviour on the part of anyone in public life. That is the Americans' affair, however; we do not have to give way to American pressure.
In the 1960s, Harold Macmillan and his Government stood firmly against all American pressure to get us into Vietnam. That pressure was added to by Australia and New Zealand. We continued to stand against it, and how right we were. At the time of the war between India and Pakistan, there was tremendous pressure on us to become involved. Macmillan and his Cabinet stood against it: I well remember the emergency meetings that we had. When there was trouble in Jordan and Israel, there was pressure on us to become involved in that, too; we resisted that pressure. When there was war again between India and Pakistan, President Nixon and Henry Kissinger put great pressure on us to go in. We withstood that pressure and said no and we were absolutely right to do so.
There was great pressure for us to go into the Yom Kippur war; we withstood it absolutely. In all those cases, we took the right attitude. I hope that our present Government will stand up to any American pressure to become involved in Yugoslavia, Kuwait or the Gulf. We must concentrate on working out a way of taking publicity away from Saddam Hussein and securing a workable agreement. I think that the UN Secretary-General is probably the person to do that. It must be done personally; it cannot be achieved through long-distance communications—another communiqué here, another decree there. That will not produce the answer. It is time that we got down to the real job of working out a solution for the future.
5.38 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) for introducing an element of reality to a debate that was becoming absorbed in the hype of the last days of President Bush.
I joined the Royal Air Force 50 years ago this year, and qualified as a pilot in 1945—too late to fight. As a former service man, however, let me say that nothing upsets service men more than Ministers' sending them into action, then hiding behind them and saying that those who criticised the action are traitors to their country. The Royal Air Force was formed 75 years ago and some other things that successive Governments have asked it to do are on the record. Squadron Leader Harris—later "Bomber Harris"—used chemical weapons in the twenties against the Iraqis to control the tribesmen. It was the first time that air power had been used for colonial control. That was not the fault of the RAF: it was the post-war Government who decided to use air power to keep Iraq under our control. We may not want such things to be remembered, but in the Arab world they are remembered.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup spoke about Kuwait. He will recall that Selwyn Lloyd sent a message to Foster Dulles in 1958 suggesting that Britain take over Kuwait as a crown colony. Foster Dulles said, "What a marvellous idea." That may not be remembered in the House, but it is remembered in the Arab world.
I hope that many of my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby against the motion for the Adjournment. It is a disreputable motion. Whenever a decision of policy arises, the Government table a motion that the House goes home. That is what an Adjournment is. We never had a single vote of substance during the Gulf war. We always had to vote on the Adjournment. Let us be clear that, by voting against the Adjournment, those who take my view—I do not know how many there are—are voting against the wickedness of the bombing that occurred in the past 10 days, and I will tell the House why.
During the Gulf war, we were told that Saddam Hussein was comparable to Hitler. Incidentally, that was a description used in connection with Nasser as well. Subsequently, however, we have learnt a lot about the Government's attitude to Saddam Hussein. They armed Saddam Hussein. The present Prime Minister, as Chancellor, provided a credit of £1 million to Saddam Hussein three months before the war. Iraqi pilots were trained by the Royal Air Force until a few days before the war.
There is some evidence to suggest that the American ambassador indicated to Saddam Hussein just before he occupied Kuwait that such a move would be seen in Washington as an Arab matter. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and I both spent many hours with Saddam Hussein arguing that he should withdraw from Kuwait. I do not know what he said to the right hon. Gentleman, but I know what he said to me: "Even if I withdraw from Kuwait, America is determined to destroy me." Everything that has happened since has confirmed Saddam Hussein's analysis of American policy.
It was not a question of human rights; otherwise, why would Saudi Arabia have received different treatment? There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia. The al-Sabah
538
family run Kuwait. Why have not we heard the great spokespeople on the Conservative Benches on the subject of civil rights in Kuwait.
What about the Palestinian question? Have the Government ever really seriously contemplated exerting the sort of pressure—I am not talking about military pressure—on Israel that might have forced her to respect the resolutions concerning Palestine or even the recent evictions of 400 people? I am a lifelong member of Labour Friends of Israel because I believe in Israel's right to survive. But the Government have never been serious about implementing United Nations resolutions involving Israel.
British Governments did nothing when Turkey invaded Cyprus. Why? Because Turkey was the bulwark of the west against the Soviet Union. We ought at least to understand that the rest of the world understands that what is going on here is odious hypocrisy.
The language used is so false. If a woman is shot in Belfast, as happened the other day, that is terrorism. If a women is killed in the al-Rashid hotel in Baghdad, that is the international community introducing a proportional response. If anyone tries to kill someone else in Bosnia, we send in Lord Owen to tell both sides to stop.
The Minister cannot get away with the fraudulent arguments that he put to the House last week and this. Although he did not like to admit it, he has even produced a slight change of opinion among those on the Opposition Front Bench, who now say that we should go back to the United Nations. That was not said at the beginning: I do not recall my right hon. and hon. Friends saying then that the action should have been freshly endorsed by the Security Council.
I cannot go into the Lobby to vote for a Government who killed 300,000 Iraqis the year before last.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I shall not give way for the moment.
Do not think that that was all marvellous high technology precision bombing. We know from the recent bombing of the al-Rashid hotel that high technology precision bombing is an illusion pumped out as propaganda.
Mr. Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I shall not give way for the moment.
The Harvard medical team went to Iraq just after the bombing. It said that 150,000 Iraqi babies under five would die because we had bombed the water supply and that cholera and typhoid would spread as a result—and so they did. The other day, a United Nations Children's Fund spokesperson, speaking on the 7 o'clock news, said that cholera and typhoid were still rampant. Why? Because we—the so-called allied forces—bombed the water supply. What military targets were at stake there?
We express horror at ethnic cleansing, but, my God, the Kuwaitis threw out every Palestinian after the war because, for their own reasons, the Palestinians had been sympathetic to Saddam. Saddam was an enemy of Israel. Was not that ethnic cleansing? The Saudi Government threw 750,000 Yemenis out of Saudi Arabia into the Yemen. When did the British Government protest about that? It is odious hypocrisy, and people around the world know it.
Mr. Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I will not give way for the moment, because I am developing an argument which does not carry a lot of support but at least I can make it clear.
Most of hon. Friends will probably abstain in the vote tonight because that is one way of dealing with the matter; Conservative Members will be whipped to vote for the Adjournment; and some Labour Members will go into the no Lobby. We want the House and the country to know why.
Even during the Secretary of State's speech, I noticed little indications that something that is being said has been noted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said very clearly that the no-fly zones are not an attempt to partition Iraq. That came from the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office insisted in a memorandum to the Secretary of State that that should be included. That had to be said because many people in the Arab world think that the no-fly zones are an attempt to partition Iraq. The Turks are terrified that, if the Kurds were really free, there would be trouble in Turkey, where the Kurds are also repressed. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the former Prime Minister, said, if the Shi'ites or some of the marsh Arabs could join Iran, Iran would become a threat. The arguments are fraudulent. The cover is thin.
The truth is that the Government did everything that Bush wanted. I can only say, thank God that Bush has gone. That man did more damage to the true international community than any recent President. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Roosevelt and Truman were very different.
I do not believe for a moment that the Government have majority support for what they have done. People understand very well that what happened was that the British Government, yet again—in contrast to the courage of Macmillan over the Vietnam war and the Indian war as revealed to us by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—simply went along with everything that Bush wanted. Then, when they realised that it was not popular, they got the press office at No. 10 to pump out a story that the Prime Minister had had five or six telephone calls to Bush, just to drop a little hint that there was more caution in London than they were prepared to admit at the time.
It is a disreputable policy. It is a policy that will lose support worldwide. The Government should not be surprised if it does enormous damage to the United Nations. The other day, I read that students in Ethiopia had demonstrated against the United Nations, which they regard as being no more than a flag surrounding American imperialism. I am very clear about it: I want to see a democratic United Nations. I want the member states to elect the Security Council—
Mr. Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; he will just have to make his own speech.
The United Nations was intended to be an instrument of the world community to rid humanity of the scourge of war, not a cover for the one remaining super-power to take on board what Queen Victoria tried to do when she sought to run the world herself and through her three grandsons—the King of England, the Kaiser of Germany and the Czar of Russia. Those days of imperialism are over. It may not be recognised by those on the Government Front Bench, but the Government burnt their fingers at the time of Suez. I believe that they will have burnt their fingers
540
again this time for embarking on an operation that could not be justified by any of the arguments. If the world is to deal with violations of human rights and protect the planet, those questions must be dealt with through genuine international action free from the economic interest of one or another super-power.
5.49 pm
Mr. Tom King: None of us who sat in the Chamber or served in government during the invasion of Kuwait and its subsequent liberation will have been surprised by the speech that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). If he had had his way, and if the policy of the House and the Government had followed his votes on those occasions, Saddam Hussein would still be in Kuwait. He would still be committing the atrocities and cruelties that it was proved that he committed in Kuwait. Indeed, there cannot be much doubt in the House that his ambitions would have spread far wider still.
I give full marks for courage to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his speech, in which he most bravely said that the actions of the United Nations would have the Opposition's full support. That was a brave attempt before the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was let loose. One realises that full support in terms of Labour party attitudes must be severely qualified.
Thank God that, unlike the Parliament in Iraq, we have a Parliament here in which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield can make a speech like the one that he has just made, which was critical of and hostile towards Government policy, and still live to tell the tale. I take some pleasure in that.
The hon. Member for South Shields referred to the length of time that our armed forces, and particulary the Royal Air Force, have been engaged in work within Iraq, and in the skies over Iraq, to save human lives. It is sobering for me to think that it is nearly two years since I stood on the snow-covered hillsides of northern Iraq and met the streams of Kurdish people who were in a pathetic condition, having been driven to the extremities of those mountains through their sheer terror of the threatened genocide of Saddam Hussein and his forces. The House should take pride in the fact that those people live; they are fed, watered and housed. They have come down from the mountain tops and are now back in their villages. To an extent, they are protected by the Peshmerga, their own foot soldiers. That is of course made possible as a result of the air cover provided for all these months by the RAF and the American and French air forces.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield referred to Operation Haven. In that respect, it is right to pay tribute to the attitude of the Turkish Government. It was not an easy decision for them to take. The decision in the Turkish Parliament was by no means unanimous. It raised major domestic problems in relation to the support for the Kurds in northern Iraq. However, the Turkish Government have continued with that policy in the interests of humanity and to save lives.
Operation Haven is now known as "operation provide comfort"—the Americans have a great habit of changing brand names after the original name is established. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) will be aware, while the situation in

541
respect of the southern no-fly zone is tragic, at least that policy has provided some comfort and help in desperate circumstances.
I want first to deal with Iraq as I want to refer directly to the comments of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. However, I am mindful that this debate is also about the RAF. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said, the two subjects are, quite rightly, linked in the debate. I want to address recent events and to draw on my experiences in an earlier incarnation.
We recognise that what we have seen in recent weeks and months is what we saw in the period before the Gulf war broke out. Perhaps tributes should be paid today to former President Bush and former Secretary Baker in respect of the United Nations action in that it was possible to hold together a coalition of such diverse and different countries. At the start of the events, no one would have dreamt that the coalition could have held together in such testing circumstances. It is vital that that coalition should hold together now.
With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the Father of the House, I subscribe to the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and not to that of my right hon. Friend. My evidence is that, while there will always be Arab concern about the risk of civilian casualties and that any response should be proportional and not excessive, there would have been far greater concern if it appeared that the United Nations no longer cared about the insistence on the ceasefire terms, about the determination to impose UN resolutions or about the need to ensure the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction which could have posed a major threat to neighbouring countries had they not been successfully dealt with.
Saddam Hussein is, as we know, an attentive viewer of CNN. He, like everyone else, knew about the transition period and the change of President. He knew what problems that could pose in the American political scene. We clearly passed through an initial period of challenge and trial by Saddam Hussein, and I believe that we have passed that test in an appropriate and responsible way. If Opposition Members disagree with me, they must recognise that the United Nations' objectives, certainly in the short term, appear to have been achieved. The United Nations' inspectors have returned to Iraq and can continue their work.
We must recognise the determination to maintain UN resolutions and we should not underestimate the work of the UN inspectors. I wonder how many hon. Members have obtained from the Library copies of the 16 reports by the UN Secretary-General on the progress of the work of the UN inspectors which is taking place now in Iraq and which we hope will continue.
How many people understand the scale of the work that has been undertaken? We have now established the new plant to incinerate the bulk mustard agent. How many people are aware that we have now commissioned the plant to destroy the two types of nerve agents that have been identified? Incidentally, both those plants were built by Iraq to UN standards.
How many people are aware that those operations will be centralised with supplies brought to Muthanna? It has been estimated that there is 18 months' work in the
542
destruction of mustard and nerve agents. That information provides some idea of the scale of the resources that have been identified.
How many people are aware of what has already been destroyed? Five thousand sarin-filled 122 mm rockets, 350 R400 aerial bombs, and 44,500 litres of nerve agents have been destroyed. Can the House begin to comprehend the scale of that arsenal and the huge importance of the work of the United Nations inspectors?
Mr. Dalyell: This is not meant in an offensive or hostile way. I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he occupied the position of Defence Secretary, he had any idea, before hostilities started, of the scale of the exports and their nature.
Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the export of arms, as he knows very well, we imposed the tightest prohibition of any country in the United Nations: no export of arms to Iraq. What we know—and there is no secret about it—is that people were not aware of the extraordinary deviousness and equally extraordinary skill in concealment. It is no secret that some of the chemical manufacturing capability, identical to what is required for agricultural purposes and pesticide manufacture, was disguised as requirements for alternative products; and we also know the sad saga of the supergun. We know to what lengths Saddam Hussein and his procurement operation went to disguise the true purpose of his activities.
Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend has given an interesting list of chemical weapons that Iraq possesses. Could he, from the benefit of his previous position, tell the House, particularly Opposition Members, how many chemical weapons the British forces had in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq when we were there two years ago?
Mr. King: We had none, and we would not have had any. This has been our position, as my hon. Friend knows, for very many years.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has said that we must look to the future. We will not find an answer to these unhappy problems if there is a lack of resolve by the United Nations to stand on ground that is sound and just. We must ensure that we take with us in that stance our friends in the Arab world and maintain the coalition. We must ensure that our response to any challenge or provocation is at all times only proportional to such challenge. There must at no time be any doubt in Saddam Hussein's mind of our resolution in that respect.
Reference has been made—it may or may not be true; we cannot be certain about it—to the conversation between the American ambassador at that time and Saddam Hussein, but if there was any evidence in that respect it would merely serve to underline the crucial importance of there being no misunderstanding or room for doubt in Saddam's mind of our determination.
If we need to give proof of that resolution, does it include the necessity to ensure the security of Kuwait and, leading straight on from that, what does it mean for the location of British forces were we to receive such a request? Contrary to what my right hon. Friend said, if it was perceived that there was an urgent, major and early threat to Kuwait, it would be essential for the United Nations to ensure that forces were available so that there was no open invitation to attack. It was the weakness of Kuwait that

543
encouraged the attack on it. There is no way in which Kuwait on its own could possibly defend itself were there to be a major Iraqi attack.
However—this is perhaps where I take my right hon. Friend with me more—it could only be a very short-term operation. He is right when he says that it is not desirable, either from the point of view of our own forces and the climate and conditions in which they would serve or from the point of view of our Arab friends for Western forces to be present in a different culture, which could and would be exploited by Islamic elements seeking to cause and develop grievances. In that respect, therefore, it is not desirable that our forces should be there on any long-term basis.
My right hon. and learned Friend talked about the Arab League. He will know that there is the Gulf Co-operation Council comprising the six Gulf states. The original proposal, at the end of the Gulf war, was that the council, together with Egypt and Syria, would act jointly to provide forces on the ground. Sadly, that proposal seems to be making no progress at all; the latest newspaper report that I read said that it was dead. If it is dead in respect of the location of Egyptian and Syrian forces, I certainly hope that we can look to our friends in the Gulf in the knowledge that in the final analysis we will be anxious to ensure their independence and liberty. We will want to play our part and do anything we can to help if they suffer outside aggression, but the first burden of responsibility should be carried by them.
Whatever the differences between the individual territories concerned, there is a need for real effort. I say this as someone who very much values his friendships with those in positions of responsibility in all the Gulf states. We should be able to expect in future a greater effort to establish a positive and effective co-operative force against the background of the proof that we have given of our willingness to help in their time of need.
More widely, in respect of the Royal Air Force, my right hon. and learned Friend talked about Britain's defences for the 1990s. We know that there are areas, not least in the number of our infantry regiments, where there is concern about numbers and what would happen if commitments were to build, and that this imposes extra stress; but when we are discussing the issue we must not overlook the fact that our Navy, our Air Force and other branches of our Army are also getting on with the changes which are very painful for them all and which involve major upheaval for many of them. I pay tribute to the progress being made by the RAF in the changes that my right hon. and learned Friend announced, which I think are going forward with general agreement and to the benefit of our country in cost-effective defence and the people involved.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to pay tribute to the RAF, not just for its work in the no-fly zones but for the work that it is doing on what I suppose is probably the most dangerous flight in the world, going into Sarajevo and out again in a Hercules. I do not know whether any hon. Members have invited themselves for that trip, but I am told that one needs to take certain facilities if one undertakes that extremely dangerous flight. It is showing great courage in their support of the people there, in the
544
work done in Somalia and, above all, in the work that is done, as I know so well, in Northern Ireland. We pay tribute to the courage that it shows day and night.
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the RAF anniversary which will be upon us shortly. It has had some brave anniversaries. Only recently we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. Now we are approaching the 75th anniversary of the Royal Air Force itself. It has served our nation well. I am very proud to pay my tribute to it tonight, a night when we know that the service continues, as it does, in the finest traditions of the past.
6.7 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: As some of us thought was inevitable when the change of business was announced, the debate so far has displayed a concentration on the urgent issues raised by Iraq at the expense of some important, long-term questions which are of particular significance to the Royal Air Force. I hope that Government Front-Bench Members will have appreciated that there is a considerable desire on both sides of the House, if some of the issues of importance to the Royal Air Force cannot be debated this evening, for an early opportunity to be found for such a debate to take place.
I would like to deal with three particular issues which are of direct relevance to the Royal Air Force. The first is the European fighter aircraft, which I understand we must now call the Eurofighter 2000, in order perhaps to meet the sensitivities of Mr. Volker Ruhe. In that regard, I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State, who unhappily has left us for a moment or two. He deserves great recognition for the skill with which he ensured that the European figher aircraft programme will be maintained.
The military case for the European fighter aircraft as the Secretary of State pointed out, is overwhelming. The employment and technological consequences for the United Kingdom industry are extremely significant. I would add to that the political damage which would have occurred had we had yet another failed European procurement programme. After the failure of the NATO "frigate for the 90s" programme, the whole notion of common procurement would have been dealt a severe blow if the project for the European fighter aircraft had had to be shelved. It was generous of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to acknowledge that, in the difficult negotiations with which he was concerned, his hand was substantially strengthened by the fact that he enjoyed the support of virtually the whole House of Commons.
The second issue to which I shall refer—I suspect that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will not be surprised—is that of search and rescue facilities. He will know that this is an issue to which I have given some attention over the past three or four years. He will know also that, because of the proposal for the implementation of the new arrangements for search and rescue on 1 April 1993, this may be the last chance that we have to debate the proposals. Finally, he will know that I have a particular constituency interest in this matter because of the location of RAF Leuchars in my constituency and the provision of search and rescue facilities from that station.
I do not wish to rehearse once again all the arguments in favour of the retention of search and rescue facilities at RAF Leuchars, but I think that it is worth reminding the

545
Minister and the House in summary of one or two matters which seem to me, at least, to provide an overwhelming case for the Government to think again.
RAF Leuchars is in the front line of our air defence, as the Secretary of State acknowledged in his speech. It is situated by the sea and there are additional rescue operations because of that. B flight of 22 squadron has an outstanding record of achievements in search and rescue and it is inevitable that, as a result of the arrangements to be implemented from 1 April, the level of cover provided by search and rescue in the area around the station will be substantially reduced.
From an answer that I received yesterday, I ascertained that over the past five years search and rescue operations from RAF Leuchars have rescued 352 civilians and 25 military personnel. Some of those people would have been at risk if the arrangements which are to be put into operation after 1 April had been in operation over the past five years.
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that during the past few weeks my constituency has taken up what can only be described as an enormous amount of search and rescue helicopters' time. I would like, as I am sure he would, to give credit for the fact that the crews there do far more than their duty requires. In particular, we have been most impressed by what they have done in seeking out and finding all the people stranded as a result of floods and ensuring that no lives were lost.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman anticipated two points that I was about to make. First, although he did not say so expressly, by implication he pointed to the enormous public relations value of these operations. He also pointed, perhaps more directly, to the experience of the past fortnight in his part of Scotland and in mine, where the extreme weather, first snow, and then flooding, has meant that the facilities at RAF Leuchars have been constantly employed, and in a way that does considerable credit to those responsible for these operations. This has served to underline just how significant and important is the service at present provided. There really is an opportunity on this occasion for the Government to think again.
I have to say, perhaps in a slightly partisan way, that throughout the 1992 general election Conservative supporters in north-east Fife accused me of scaremongering when I suggested that search and rescue at RAF Leuchars was at risk. The Government have proved me right and their own supporters wrong. It would be in the interest of the community if the Government were to prove me wrong. That is a burden that I would happily assume for the benefit of the community. There is a chance to think again and I hope that the Government will take it.
The third matter which I wish to raise, dealing most directly with the Royal Air Force, is that of the EH101 support helicopter. The Secretary of State referred to the increasingly important notion of our armed forces operating with flexibility. I want to put a series of questions. I suspect that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs may not be the best person to answer them, but no doubt the Minister of State will write to me in due course in response to what I have to say.
Can the Minister of State tell us why the Government have delayed issuing the invitation to tender for the utility
546
version of the EH101? He knows that on 9 April 1987 the then Secretary of State committed the Government to 25 EH101s. Why has no contract been placed? Is it understood how important such a contract would be for Westland? It must be understood how important the helicopter is for the Royal Air Force. Will the in-service date of 1997 still be met? If not, has there been a change of date and what is the new date?
Having taken the time of the House to deal with some precise matters concerning the Royal Air Force, I turn to the broader question of Iraq.
The Liberal Democratic party has been content to endorse the action that has been taken so far, based on three criteria: first, that the action generally had the agreement of the coalition allies; secondly, that it could be demonstrated to be in accordance with international law; and, thirdly, that minimum force was used. I believe that those criteria were met.
I am unconvinced by some public protestations of doubts by countries which supported in private the action taken, but which now, for domestic purposes, feel it necessary to add their reservations to others.
The test of the action is that it was effective: Iraq backed down. It described its action as a ceasefire—a characteristically misleading definition of an acceptance of obligations under duress, which I suppose might be more accurately described as a surrender to the inevitable. But we would be wrong to think that this was the end of Iraqi provocation. We would be wrong to think that the self-imposed moratorium, no doubt designed to offer some kind of attraction to President Clinton, would necessarily be continued without limit of time.
It is my belief that in due course there wil be further provocation. Therefore, looking forward, as some have already urged in the debate, the question that we must now ask ourselves is how we should deal with such provocation when it arises. The answer to that question depends upon two related considerations: first, what is our long-term policy concerning the region; secondly, what is the nature of the provocation?
It is in the interests of the region, and certainly in the interests of the United Kingdom, that there should be stability in the middle east. If, by some extravagant response to provocation, we were to cause irreparable damage to the middle east peace process, that might be too great a price to pay. The peace talks, however imperfect, are the best way to achieve stability. I shall be critical of Israel in due course, but one has to recognise that the anouncement today of its intention to remove the legal bar against discussions with the Palestine Liberation Organisation must be seen as an encouraging step that may have far-reaching consequences. It should have happened long ago, but it has happened now and it should be applauded and recognised as having the potential to make a substantial contribution.
We also want Saddam Hussein to be replaced by an opposition in Iraq. If, by over-zealous responses to provocation, we make him stronger, that will hardly serve our interests or that objective. Not every provocation requires a response and not every response needs to be a military one. If force is the only way, we must be prepared to use it, but only when we are satisfied that there is no other way.
Nor should we believe that legal justification is always adequate in itself. Legally justifiable action is all the more acceptable when it carries with it moral authority. Public

547
opinion in the streets of Arab capital cities is unlikely to be impressed by the niceties of that least empirical of disciplines, international law.
There has been much discussion of double standards. When we talk about double standards we should impose on ourselves some clear thinking. Not all United Nations resolutions are the same either in their terms or in the action which they authorise. It is facile to say that every solution should be enforced in the same way. Inevitably, there will be resolutions which, by their language, are variable in their strength.
The strength of our political commitment to all resolutions should never be variable. Once passed, all resolutions deserve, even demand, the same political will for their enforcement. Some say that, because we are not displaying the same political will over resolutions relating to Bosnia or the Palestinians, we should not enforce resolutions relating to Iraq. That argument is fundamentally flawed. The proper position to adopt is to say that all resolutions will be enforced with the same political will. That is the only way in which to eliminate double standards.
A moment ago, I said that I would be critical of Israel, and this is the moment when I propose to be so. It is monstrous that, some weeks after the illegal expulsion of about 400 Palestinians, those people are still languishing in no man's land between Lebanon and Israel. That is a clear breach of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention and of international law, and we should use every means in our power to persuade Israel, which is responsible for expelling those men to that place, to take them back.
Mr. Galloway: Even by bombing?
Mr. Campbell: It is unlikely that the United Nations has the will to enforce the resolution by bombing. If the hon. Member thinks that bombing is a way of persuading Israel to be reasonable, he has a curious appreciation of the mentality of the Government of Israel, although they are a changed Government.
Mr. Galloway: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have the greatest respect for him. He is right: Israel would not see sense if it were bombed. Why then would he expect Iraq to see sense if it were bombed?
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman falls into the trap of assuming that each situation is parallel to any other. With regard to Iraq, we have a series of United Nations resolutions which Saddam Hussein has deliberately avoided. We have used the force which the resolutions authorised. No force is authorised in the resolutions with regard to Israel.
When the United States said that it might not provide the £10 billion guarantee for settlement on the west bank, the Government of Israel found themselves driven to a more amenable posture than they had previously taken. We should use every means available. I do not believe that bombing Israel would make the slightest difference. Other means are available, including making strenuous efforts to persuade the United States that the extent to which it remains a patron and Israel a client has substantial disadvantages for the momentum of the peace process in the middle east.
Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: I should like to make progress, if the hon. Member will allow me to do so.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to the Gulf Co-operation Council and the Damascus agreement. It must be a matter of considerable regret that that agreement has not produced the sort of security arrangements for the Gulf which it was hoped it would produce.
It is a matter of disappointment for those of us who have talked to officials of the Gulf Co-operation Council that there remains, I suppose one might say, old mistrust among the members to the extent that they are unable to put together a proper system of security for their protection. For that reason, if we were asked by the United Nations to send troops to Kuwait on a specific mandate and for a specific purpose, I would certainly be willing to consider that. Frankly, to suggest that it should not be considered in all circumstances is to close down far in advance a policy option which it might be extremely valuable to take up. As long as such a request is consistent with United Nations resolutions and as long as a limited purpose will be achieved, it certainly should not be rejected out of hand.
To those who say that we should not have taken the action which we did in expelling Iraq from Kuwait, or indeed the action of the past few days, some questions must be addressed. Who among us now believes, if anyone seriously did, that sanctions would have forced Iraq out of Kuwait? Who believes that the so-called ceasefire would have been called without the experience of military action and the threat of more?
I am wholly convinced that, without the military effort of the allies during the Gulf war, Iraq would still be squatting illegally in Kuwait. I am equally convinced that, without the air exclusion zones, the Kurdish people in the north and the Shia Muslims in the south would be under air attack at the whim of Saddam Hussein.
When one is asked to assess Saddam Hussein's character, one need not embark on the sort of exchanges in which Privy Councillors who have previously spoken have had the privilege to take part. The House should remember that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his countrymen and women. If one wants a measure of the man's character, one will find it in that single incident. It is often said that Saddam Hussein is consistently guilty of miscalculations. That is almost certainly true. However, the difference between him and us is that he can afford miscalculations and we cannot. His authority is undamaged by miscalculation whereas that of the United Nations may well be.
As a new President of the United States takes over, we must face the truth—uncomfortable to some—that the authority of the United Nations depends on the commitment of the United States. The military resources of the United States are so significant that only when it agrees to act is the United Nations likely to be able to act on a large scale. The conundrum which must be solved is how to prevent the dominant member, without whom action is unlikely, from being the party which alone determines that action should be taken. The United Kingdom would do much for the future of the United Nations if it helped to resolve that conundrum by its insistence that every member, however powerful, must be subordinate to the collective will of that organisation.
It was reported yesterday that, in a speech at the Royal United Services Institute, the Secretary of State said that

549
we should not commit military forces in circumstances where there is no military solution. I agree with that proposition, which is self-evidently valid. However, we should never commit military forces unless there is a clear political objective. That principle applies not only to operations conducted by the United Kingdom on its own, but with equal validity to any operations that we may undertake in the future on behalf of the United Nations.
6.28 pm
Mr. David Howell: I pay tribute to the robust and sensible speeches which we heard from the Opposition and Government Front Benches at the beginning of the debate and the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the former Secretary of State for Defence. My right hon. Friend spoke with great experience and authority.
Many of the comments made by hon. Members reinforced my absolutely unambiguous conviction and view, which I have held on and off over the past two or three years, that the response to Saddam Hussein and Iraq's activities has been absolutely right. The response was proportionate and, indeed, was the only conceivable language that the gang in Baghdad or, indeed, the entire Arab world would have begun to understand. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, a weaker response would have been the most terrible come-on signal for more violence and atrocities, so the response was absolutely right.
I do not accept the view of some hon. Members that the response has strengthened Saddam Hussein. For a start, he is living in a world in which he orders his own strength or weakness through propaganda or terror. He does not need the benefit of manipulating popular opinion; he can manage without that. Any opinion which is not popular in his book is instantly exterminated.
I accept the view, reported in The Times, of senior Kurdish leaders. They argue
"that any respite in their attacks against him would provide 'a lifeline to a sinking man'."
I greatly respect the Kurds; they are noble people. The Kurds said that the bombing had not strengthened Saddam Hussein and that we should not desist from such attacks. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that we should desist from bombing and that the Kurds were against it. I do not always believe that I read in The Times, but in this case I prefer The Times to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. I believe that The Times correctly reported the view of the Kurdish forces.
I do not believe that the action taken in the Gulf was a Bush vendetta. The media had a lovely time depicting it as such. The American part of the action was American policy; but, of course, it was more than that: it was coalition allied policy. It was the policy of the United Nations backed by Boutros Boutros Ghali. It was a policy to ensure that a string of United Nations Security Council resolutions, from 660 to 688, were enforced. Resolution 678 referred to stability in the region. That is an important commitment behind which the United Nations rightly puts its weight. We should support the United Nations in that commitment.
All the resolutions are the policies of the member nations of the United Nations, including the United States. I do not believe that those policies will change much except that perhaps greater reinforcement and a clearer long-term context will be provided under President
550
Clinton that we have seen in recent days. Therefore, I do not accept the myth of a Bush-Saddam vendetta: it is the manufacture of the press. It may be good reading and good entertainment, but it has no basis in reality.
The idea that constructive dialogue was the alternative to the raids and our firm response to Saddam's provocation takes my breath away. Luckily, that idea has not been mentioned much this afternoon. The idea that one could have a constructive dialogue with that genocidal maniac and his gang is absurd. People talk about them as a Government, but they govern only a small part of the country which they terrorise. The idea that it is possible to have a constructive dialogue with the sort of person who lies and lies again is even more absurd than the idea that it is possible to have a constructive dialogue with A1 Capone.
I am deeply convinced that the actions taken by the United Nations and the western allies were correct and in balance. But, of course, more is needed, as other hon. Members have said. We cannot live in the short-term context of tit for tat, however right our response has been. We cannot continue leaving the initiative to this dangerous man, with his vicious habits and dangerous Government, and his Tikriti gang in Baghdad because, first, as others have rightly said, he would do it again next week. Why should he not? He will agree to something this week and be at it again as soon as he sees the chance. Secondly, the fundamental threats remain to, first, the authority of the United Nations, which is serious, and, secondly, in even more precise terms, Kuwait and through Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.
There is the oil issue. I have never thought that we should be ashamed of admitting that a threat to the world's oil reserves is serious. If applied, it could freeze the lives and bring untold suffering to millions of vulnerable people. Why should we not stand up and say that the threat should be minimised?
The threat to Kuwait remains. I am sure that Saddam Hussein is longing to have another go at Kuwait. It probably passed through his mind the other night that as George Bush went he might be able to have another go. I suspect that the only thing that stopped him was the superior air power in the region: 1,000 American marines have been put into the area and there is a great deal of equipment there.
Saddam Hussein remains a threat to the area and to middle eastern stability. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the Arab-Israeli dispute was a poison which infected the entire middle east. Saddam Hussein's Government and policy, the hideous aggression of this man who happens to be in control of Iraq, are a poison which infects the whole middle east. It will remain a poison until we find sensible strategic ways of taking and retaining the initiative and applying it so that the poison is squeezed out.
One is always tempted into arguments about standards and about what we should do in the Arab-Israeli case. Of course, there are things to be done and there is blame on both sides. I only note en passant that at least the wretched people who were deported by the Israelis were allowed to go through some judicial process of appeal. I cannot remember reading about an appeal against any decision or law that Saddam Hussein has made. When one talks about double standards, one should be a little careful.
Saddam Hussein is one of the chief poisons infecting the area and we must turn our minds to considering how to

551
squeeze it out. My view is not a new view; it is not hindsight. It is a view that I have expressed ever since the Schwarzkopf ceasefire at the end of the Gulf war. If we did not intend to go on to Baghdad, as some people advocated—I thought that it was impractical—and if we sought a full-blooded military solution to the Iraqi problem at the end of the Gulf war, we should have switched the emphasis to not simply giving up and going home but developing a sustained diplomatic, economic and political strategy worldwide embracing and supporting the many Arab interests who are desperate to see Saddam Hussein out of the way. Such a strategy should have been swung into position and pushed on so that all the time the pressure was on Saddam and Baghdad, rather than him applying pressure on us.
That is why I always wanted stronger help to be given to the Kurds. We have given some, but we should give more. We could have learnt the lessons about the degree of help and its operation from Afghanistan, where successful help was given at one stage to the Mujaheddin. I always wanted us to give more words—or perhaps even more than words—of support to the Kurds. I wanted us to give practical help such as that urged on the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) following her visits to the area. She brought to our attention the cause of the Shi'ite Arabs in the marshes. I always wanted that cause to be supported much more strongly by the Government. I continue to want much more sympathetic support to be given to the Iraqi opposition forces, in London, Washington and other capitals, and, if possible, inside Iraq. Of course, such people live dangerously in Iraq. The regime is nothing other than complete tyranny.
I always wanted us to have a much more vigorous approach to the Iraqi funds which are sloshing around and helping to finance the continuation of Saddam's regime. We could play a much stronger part there. We could raise a far more criticial voice in the United Nations about Saddam's gang. People may remember that in South Africa the minority apartheid Government were given the boot because they persecuted, through terror and other means, the vast majority of the South African people.
In Iraq the colour element may not exist but the rest fits uncannily. A minority is persecuting the majority of the peoples of modern Iraq by the most monstrous methods, which have been described graphically by hon. Members this evening.
The measures to which I have referred are the necessary minimum to seize the initiative. Additional measures may well have to be considered. We shall have to consider reinforcements in Kuwait, whether of our own troops or others. Certainly the mood is that more reinforcements are needed for the 1,000 American marines in Kuwait. Reinforcements could be either with United Nations blessing or directly provided by United Nations troops. There is no doubt that Saddam will try again.
Some CIA experts and some people here put forward the thesis that the conflict is all about the balance of power in the middle east. They suggest that removal of Saddam would tip the balance hopelessly in favour of Iran. Iran has by no means a pleasant attitude to stability in the middle
552
east. It may well cause a great deal of trouble. Therefore, people say that we should keep a weak Saddam. That is a complete misreading of the position.
Saddam's rule of Iraq means that it is not an adequate balance to whatever the ayatollahs are planning for the future or any malign Islamic fundamentalist moves which may be orchestrated from Tehran. So long as Saddam is there, the balance is unequal. We need a democratic, strong Iraq which would be a counter-balance for Iran. That would create the balance in the middle east which is probably the best that we can hope for.
People talk too idealistically about a new order in the middle east. There will never be order, but there could be balance. There could be an equilibrium, as the French call it, just as there could be a new world balance. I do not accept the phrase "new world order" that President Clinton still uses. We could work to achieve a balance by having a democratic, strong Iraq.
The Shi'ite Arabs in the marshes are not pro the Tehran ayatollahs. They are not secret agents of Iran, as some analysts seem to think. They are perfectly ready to work in a federal, democratic Iraq. So are the Kurds. There is not at present, and I do not believe that there will be, a great movement for a separate Kurdistan which would undermine Turkish and Iranian stability. Instead, there is a readiness to recognise that a democratic Iraq would provide a balance for any ambitions of Iran and much better hope for balance in the Gulf as a whole.
As for the Arab opinion which is always drummed up on these occasions as being against doing anything too harsh to Saddam Hussein, I know where such views come from, but I question their strength and solidity. There are always people in Amman, Jordan who are ready to dance in front of televison cameras waving placards and prompting the BBC man to put through a report about pro-Saddam feeling in the Arab world. There are street demonstrations in Cairo, but there are also wise, moderate Arabs of great experience who know that the prime hope for stability in their region is to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his gang and that hideous method of rule—if it can be called rule—in modern Iraq.
As long as the Saddam Hussein gang and its terror methods rule in Iraq, and as long as Iraq's policy is one of open, opportunist aggression, there will be no lasting peace for Iraq in the middle east. We have to start by recognising that and mobilising our own efforts and those of all Security Council allies—not just the permanent ones—to ensure that we seize and hold the initiative against a man and a system which will otherwise bring even more suffering, killing and bloodshed to a benighted land which deserves better.
6.40 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made it quite clear that we expect a great deal more from the Foreign Secretary when he replies to the debate than what we have heard so far. As my hon. Friend said, this week we have been calling for more than simply a reaffirmation of United Nations Security Council resolutions that are now about two years old. We are asking whether the Government have a strategy in line with the widespread belief that Saddam Hussein intends to continue testing the potential for creating disharmony among the original allies that threw him out of Kuwait.

553
To that end we hope that the Foreign Secretary can explain not simply how the Government intend to react to individual incidents, but what medium and long-term strategy exists for ensuring that the resolutions can produce a successful conclusion so that the people of Iraq can decide what will happen to their country and its present leadership.
If we are looking for ways in which we can build the new order to which everyone has referred, we could do no better than refer to a document prepared by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 17 June 1992, entitled "Agenda for Peace". Paragraph 82 of that document refers to the role, the understanding and perception of the United Nations within the new world order in the absence of the super-power conflict that previously decided whether a group of people in any particular part of the world were goodies or baddies and whether or not they were on our side. Paragraph 82 states:
"All organs of the United Nations must be accorded, and play, their full and proper role so that the trust of all nations and peoples will be retained and deserved. The principles of the Charter must be applied consistently, not selectively, for if the perception should be of the latter, trust will wane and with it the moral authority which is the greatest and most unique quality of that instrument."
Tonight's debate should take place around that paragraph.
When we talk about the use of force in the name of the international community, it is not enough to be able to justify it; it needs an explicit mandate from that international community. We cannot assume it, and, if we do not think that we will get it, we cannot engage in the use of force in the name of anyone other than ourselves—and then we have to take full responsibility for our actions.
The use of force must always be the last resort and everyone must be convinced that it is absolutely and unequivocally necessary, rather than there being a question of whether it can be justified. It is worth considering why people have started to question whether we had that right within the resolutions that have been traded back and forth across the Chamber tonight.
In an article, Sir Anthony Parsons referred to the fact that, until the decision to implement the no-fly zone in the north of Iraq, the United Nations had never breached article 2(7) of its own charter which
"defines the rights and obligations of member states, and sub-paragraph 7 categorically excludes UN intervention in domestic affairs of state."
We can all recall incident of dictators treating their people in an unacceptable way when we felt that something should have been done. However, because of its charter, the United Nations had never sought to interfere until the adoption of resolution 688. Sir Anthony Parsons wrote:
"The adoption of Security Council Resolution 688 in April 1991 was a watershed".
He referred to the language that was used:
"SCR 688 condemned the repression, demanded its cessation and insisted that Iraq allow access to international humanitarian organisations … strong language for a resolution, even on an international crisis.
The American-led coalition used force in the spirit of the resolution to establish and maintain Saddam-free safe havens in northern Iraq and, a few weeks ago, a `no-fly zone' was established in the South to prevent the Iraqi air force from attacking the populace."
Someone as knowledgeable as Sir Anthony Parsons was acknowledging that it was a unique situation. When
554
people begin to question just how far we should go, they must examine the way in which we seek to implement international law and United Nations resolutions.
As a result of recent events, Britain is faced with real concern that in one part of the middle east it is justifying actions which stray beyond the boundaries of what is mandated by law and Security Council resolutions and which may therefore be unlawful, while elsewhere it has obviously strayed in the opposite direction, away from implementing what is clearly required by law and mandated by the Security Council. It is a matter of principle. In political terms, those concensuses translate into a serious break-up of international credibility on the states undertaking enforcement action against Iraq. Selective implementation of the law undermines respect for the law and ultimately risks denying us the ability to rely on law in the future.
When Britain insists on the need to enforce international law and establish the authority of Security Council resolutions taken in pursuit of the Council's duties according to the United Nations charter, it is important to remember the universality of those principles. Damaging comparisons are bound to be made when the peoples of the middle east compare Britain's insistence that Iraq comply immediately and unconditionally with its international legal obligations and the Security Council resolutions with the limits that it sets on what it is prepared to do in the face of the refusal of successive Israeli Governments for more than two decades to comply with their international legal obligations and with Security Council resolutions on their conduct in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Under successive Israeli Governments, Lebanese territorial integrity has been violated time and again, including by a full-scale invasion that still exists in the form of the Israeli occupation of part of south Lebanon. Explicitly expansionist policies have been declared and implemented in the occupied Palestinian territories and the victims of those unlawful practices have been left to fend for themselves. Apart from clear declarations of opposition and condemnation, Britain has not lifted one finger in their defence.
In the two years since the Gulf war ceasefire there has been no change in the Israeli authorities' refusal to accept and to comply with their legal obligations, nor has Israel witnessed any consequences for its continued misconduct which have been sufficiently meaningful or resolute to make it comply.
The British Government, along with their European Community partners, have concentrated on supporting efforts in the middle east peace process, efforts that have enjoyed cross-party support in the House. Everyone knows that the Palestinian people's realisation of full civil and political rights can come only through an end to the occupation and the full exercise of their right to self-determination.
However, is that peace process sustainable in the face of the lack of protection for the existing rights of Palestinians, under the law governing belligerent occupation? Can the Secretary of State honestly expect the leader of the Palestinian delegation, who lives in Gaza, to go to the next round of the middle east peace talks while his neighbours are sleeping in tents somewhere between Israel and Lebanon and we are doing nothing about it? How long does the Secretary of State think that he would last if he went to those talks and then tried to return to his home in Gaza? It is absolute nonsense.

555
All those members of the world community who are concerned about ensuring that there is a new world order must question the way in which the coalition has decided that it is worth insisting on immediate and unequivocal compliance with UN resolutions in one area, while allowing them to be ignored in the other parts of the world that my colleagues have mentioned tonight and in the debate on the United Nations a few weeks ago. For example, it seems that it is okay for Cambodia to ignore them. If we continue to ignore grave breaches of such resolutions, as and when they occur, it will not help those of us who want to strengthen the United Nations.
Does not the Secretary of State think that the fact that nine children have been killed in the occupied territories by live ammunition and 194 seriously injured since 1 December 1992, is a grave breach of United Nations regulations? Does he regard that as a grave breach of international law? How quickly will he hurry along to ensure that that ends? Will he be as determined to ensure that that ends as quickly as possible?
Britain is confronting a serious problem. If we do not do something about the grave breaches of United Nations resolutions in other parts of the world, international law is likely to be brought into disrepute, and when we are forced to return to the United Nations it will be difficult to get the sort of consensus that we might require.
Sir Anthony Parsons also wrote in that article that Russia and China abstained on resolution 688 because they were worried that it was being used in a way that broke article 2, clause 7 of the United Nations charter. If we are to build a new framework and to construct a new world order we need the support of China and Russia.
If we cannot demonstrate that we are going to be even-handed, in the longer term the comparison between Britain's standing and resolve in different cases in the same region will damage perceptions of British intentions and credibility. It will also damage the credibility of the Security Council and the belief that it will carry out its functions, as set down in the United Nations charter. International law will be brought into disrepute. Such damage risks setting the scene for future consequences and additional costs and burdens, which the politicians of the future—including ourselves—will have to deal with.
The principles of the United Nations charter must be implemented consistently. In all instances they demand that the strong must protect the weak and that action must be taken to save life and to uphold the rights of human beings, under international law, to basic human rights and to an existence free of persecution and threat to life. If we can achieve that, the United Nations will convince many people that it is a force to be reckoned with—an expanding force that can mould and create a new world order—and that it can benefit the world through the removal of many dark and evil influences. More importantly, perhaps, all the peoples of the world can start to believe in the United Nations.
6.55 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), as I did the last time that I spoke in a debate, which was on the United Nations. Once more, I find myself in accord with much of what he has said. In foreign
556
affairs, it is nice to think in terms of a long-term strategy and many other hon. Members have referred to that need. The problem is that events often force one into short-term tactics—tactics that can appear to be totally inconsistent with the long-term strategy, which must be to preserve peace. Short-term tactics so often mean fighting.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). He and I are the only two members of the Defence Select Committee in the Chamber for this debate. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it might be worth sending a small complaint to the business managers because they must have known that the Defence Committee would be in Brussels today and yesterday, visiting Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe and NATO headquarters. Had they known that, perhaps the debate could have been timed for another day. I hope that Committee members may be coming through the door at any moment, if their aeroplane is not late, and that if they are back in time they may succeed in catching your eye as I know that that is their wish.
When we last debated the Royal Air Force, in May 1991, we had successfully concluded the Gulf war—or Operation Granby as it was known—and that became the main theme of our debate. However, we are back in the Gulf again. The reason is simple—on that occasion we did not finish the job and Saddam Hussein is still flouting United Nations Security Council reolutions.
Under those resolutions, the coalition forces were fully justified in taking the military action that they took and, as we have seen, that action has worked and the United Nation inspectors are once more being allowed back into the country to carry out their flights and inspections.
I am sure that international lawyers will have a field day on the legal grounds for the attacks of recent days, but I believe that the five United Nations Security Council resolutions gave more than adequate authority for them and that has been confirmed by the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali. If he says that the action was justified and legal that is good enough for me and, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) pointed out, he not only said that last August but has said so again since the military action took place.
We all want Saddam Hussein to be toppled politically and not militarily. It is significant that he tried it on once more recently and two factors brought that about. First, sanctions are beginning to bite and again he is facing considerable domestic unrest. Obviously, mounting such an excursion was one way to divert the attention of his people from domestic problems. Secondly, he obviously saw a hiatus in United States' foreign policy with the torch of presidential leadership being passed from President Bush to President Clinton. I think that the House will welcome President Clinton's robust confirmation of President Bush's line on Iraq and the excellent statements that he has made on the subject.
We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to ignore world opinion and, first, continue to break the terms of the ceasefire following the Kuwait war; secondly, to continue his incursions into Kuwait; thirdly, to continue his acts of genocide against his own people—the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ite population in the south; and, lastly, to persist with his plans for chemical warfare and a nuclear capability.
What would happen if Saddam Hussein were toppled? Many hon. Members have speculated that his successor

557
might be worse. I do not think that a successor could be worse than Saddam Hussein. Some hon. Members have drawn a comparison between Saddam Hussein and the late President Nasser of Egypt. There is no comparison. As history has shown, Nasser was a completely different character. Even at the time of the Suez canal crisis, most of those who were involved—and I was involved militarily—recognised in Colonel Nasser a formidable and reasonably just opponent.
Saddam Hussein is in a different class altogether. He has no friends—or very few—in his own country. His army is divided. Even the Republican Guard, which was always regarded as his praetorian guard, is about 100 miles from Baghdad and is not allowed to go anywhere near the city. Saddam Hussein has some cohorts—about 70,000 men in all—who guard him. I am told that he never sleeps two nights in the same bed. He is a hunted man, and sooner or later he will be toppled.
It does not matter who succeeds him. It might be a colonel, or it might be a civilian. In any case, the situation in Baghdad could not be worse than it is at present. Some people have speculated that the successor might be a Baathist politician. If so, I do not think that that would matter. What the Iraqi people require is peace and stability and the opportunity to rebuild their totally shattered economy.
Since our last debate on the Royal Air Force, we have had two years of tension and conflict, which have tested the new basis of our armed forces to be more flexible, more mobile and "smaller, but better". Now that the United Nations is able, because of the absence of the former Soviet Bloc veto, to fulfil the role for which it was created in 1945, there is more for the organisation to do militarily in support of the implementation of United Nations resolutions by way of the peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace-building that are set out in the Secretary-General's "Agenda for Peace", which is essential reading for every politician.
From being primarily guard forces in Europe, our Army, Navy and Air Force must change to multi-purpose, rapid reaction forces able to go anywhere and do anything at short notice. That is our principal role in NATO. The new operational roles of our armed forces call for both new formations and new equipment. The Royal Air Force is getting some of the new equipment it needs.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence fought very hard, long and successfully to safeguard the future of EFA—now renamed the Eurofighter 2000. The House is relieved that the key performance parameters of EFA will be retained in the new project and will still result in a saving of about 14 per cent. of the overall cost. This has been achieved by a change in the arrangements for work sharing and production, as recommended by the Select Committee on Defence during the last session of Parliament. If a saving of 14 per cent. in unit costs is possible in this case, can the Secretary of State for Defence—I do not expect the Foreign Secretary to answer this question—say what scope there is for achieving a similar saving in other collaborative projects?
I should like an assurance that the RAF will get the complete aircraft, including equipment, that it needs, and not just the airframe. This is particularly important for the defensive aid sub-system—`DASS' for short—which is the electronic hardware, as well as the software, without which aircraft would be defenceless. I should like confirmation
558
that there will he no downgrading of this aircraft, and no risk of delay in delivery, which has already slipped to the year 2000. That delay provides more time for the development of the offensive systems with which the aircraft will be equipped.
I refer, of course, to the air-to air missiles. Any aircraft is only as good as the missiles that it carries. Since 1980 we have been trying to develop an advanced short-range air-to-air missile—`ASRAAM' for short. This was originally part of the family of weapons for which there was a memorandum of understanding between the United States on the one hand and the United Kingdom, France and Germany—later joined by Norway and Canada—on the other. The United States was going to build the medium-range missile, and the European consortium the short-range missile, but I am afraid that that family has fallen apart.
Mr. Menzies-Campbell: Divorced.
Mr. Colvin: Exactly—divorced.
Canada and Norway pulled out, and the whole thing has fallen to pieces. On ASRAAM, the United Kingdom now has to go it alone. I am glad to say that last March British Aerospace signed a contract for its development. There is some advantage in having missiles—or any system, for that matter—made by the manufacturer that makes the airframe, as that ensures good integration.
There are a number of questions to which I and, I am sure, other members of the Select Committee on Defence would like to receive written answers from the Secretary of State for Defence. What is the current time scale of ASRAAM? We are worried about slippage. Will it be ready for the Eurofighter 2000 when it enters service in the year 2000? Will the unit costs be the same as those we have been give so far? What is the current thinking on the question of fitting ASRAAM to the Tornado air defence variant? Will the United States buy it, as was originally decided, or will the Sidewinder missile, at present used to equip American and British aircraft, be upgraded? What is the latest on AMRAAM, the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile that the Americans are developing?
I should like to turn for a moment to the question of support helicopters. It is almost six years since the then Secretary of State for Defence announced:
"After a comprehensive review of the requirement for support helicopters in all roles, … the right choice is to introduce the utility EH101 to meet that role requirement."
That decision was based primarily on suitability for the role but also on commonality with Merlin, the naval version of the EH101, 44 of which are already ordered for the Royal Navy. Since Lord Younger's announcement the case for the EH101 utility support helicopter has become even stronger. It has a long range, and the support costs are low, making it the undisputed choice.
But the Ministry of Defence stil revisits some of the old options, using up vast staff resources and wasting a great deal of time and money. The Ministry is currently looking at four options, all of which were available in 1987, when Lord Younger made his decision. The EH101 can lift all the loads that the Army has to handle; it has a range of about 600 miles; and it can be in service by, I think, 1996. An alternative is to buy the French Cougar, which is an updated Puma, or the American Black Hawk, both of which are smaller, have inadequate lift, do not have a ramp for loading vehicles, carry only about 12 to 14 men, and

559
have a short range of 280 to 350 miles, which is half the range of the EH101. They would not be available any sooner than the EH101, in 1996.
Or the RAF could buy more Chinooks, with which it is equipped at present. It is a 1960s design and an expensive helicopter to run. The Ministry of Defence keeps saying that life costs are more important than purchase prices.
The last option is buying second-hand Pumas. That, too, is a 30-year old design, also expensive to run with a low lift capability, short range and unsuitable for today's operational requirements. It might be tempting to buy 16 or 20 second-hand civil Pumas, especially—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member is the first to be caught in the 10-minute trap.
7.10 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) was caught in the time trap, but I am pleased to speak following him because his speech brought us back to the subject of the Royal Air Force.
I was pleased when last week a debate on the RAF was announced, but disappointed when we had the proposal of this mongrel debate, which is already proving grossly unsatisfactory. It may be interesting, but the House cannot subject the RAF to the careful scrutiny that it deserves and at the same time range widely over the whole of the middle east and a large part of the history of the 20th century.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said when referring to the role of the RAF in Persia just after the first world war, if it had not been for Lord Trenchard, it is highly unlikely that the RAF would have had an independent existence. Lord Trenchard played the card of being able to police that part of the world cheaply—with a couple of squadrons of biplanes—but had he not been able to offer that economic card, the RAF might have ceased to exist at least until the second world war.
There is that historical link, but it does not justify the House having to spend so much of the debate looking at historical matters when this is the first debate on the RAF that we have had since 1991, apart from a grossly unsatisfactory debate last year when, in discussing RAF discipline, I tried to extend the discussion by arguing that morale should extend beyond immediate questions of discipline. But for that, the only consideration that the House would have given to the RAF in two years would have been to discuss whether homosexuals should be allowed to participate in the service. At this time of enormous change and challenge, the House should consider more frequently and fully than is possible in today's debate the problems faced by the RAF.
I welcomed the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I strongly support the United Nations and believe that there must be international authority. The mockery to which the United Nations has been subjected night after night on Iraqi television, the derision of United Nations officers that has been displayed on our television screens and the action of Saddam Hussein in response to his minorities has been such that the no-fly zones are justified, and trespass into them justifies military action.
560
Even so, I have anxieties about the situation. We had to support the United Nations action because we could not allow the United Nations to go the way of the League of Nations by failing to respond positively to aggression and brutality of the kind that we witnessed from Saddam Hussein. Those who do not want the United Nations to act toughly are likely to surrender to the international gangster, and there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is such a man.
But the United Nations cannot and must not be seen as a puppet of the United States. We cannot see foreign policy dictated, as it has been in recent days, by the last hurrahs of a departing president. We were right, and I would not wish the Tornado pilots who flew missions in the Gulf to feel that they were not acting in this country's interest. They were. They were acting in the interests of responsibility and peace and in the hope of an international order which, we trust, eventually a mature world will seek to develop. But if the United Nations is to be a logical and intelligent force which secures international peace and stability, it cannot rely purely on America with contributions from France and ourselves.
After the Gulf war—I have spoken of this before, but it remains relevant—there was a debate in the Western European Union, where I lead my party's delegation, being vice-chairman of the socialist group, in which the two British members who spoke, a Conservative and myself, were the last to speak.
Throughout the debate, one speaker after another from other member states made triumphalist speeches expressing great pride over the wonderful victory that had been achieved in the Gulf. I became extremely unpopular in that parliamentary assembly because, when it came my turn to speak, I pointed out that I condemned Saddam Hussein and strongly supported the war that we had waged against him but thought it sad that most of western Europe had sent more parliamentarians to speak in that debate than they had sent troops or personnel to serve in the UN force. If the UN is to mean anything in the years to come, it must have a broader base, and it must not be seen as a puppet of America. I leave the matter there because I am anxious to speak about the RAF.
I have some serious concerns about the RAF. I am aware of their serious nature because I have had the good fortune, with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), to spend much of the last 12 months with the RAF. It has been interesting, demanding, fascinating and, by and large because of the courtesy and consideration that we have received, enjoyable. It has been demanding because the hon. Gentleman and I have been engaged in a high learning curve. One of my proud achievements was that I was not air sick throughout the 12 months.
We learned a great deal. For example, we learnt how great is the dedication in the service. There are superb skills, on the ground and in the air. But there are also a great many anxieties in the service, and I regret to say that the Minister did not allay those anxieties today. Hon. Members may recall that I intervened in the Minister's speech when he was speaking about the need for the European fighter aircraft. It is an essential aircraft. But the RAF also has other, immediate, needs, as the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside pointed out.
The Hercules is a fine aircraft, flown by superb crews, but it is old and every year more requirements and duties are placed on the people at Lyneham who service and fly it. It is now in Yugoslavia, Ethiopia and the Gulf, and

561
perhaps it flies to Turkey to help service the Jaguar detachment there. Enormous demands are being made on that old aircraft. It cannot go on accepting more burdens at the behest of Ministers without at some point serious consideration being given to its replacement.
I flew with the RAF around south Armagh in a Puma. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside said, the Pumas are old, and they, too, have been subjected to enormous use. The helicopters there represent a highly prestigious weapon from the point of view of the terrorists of Ulster, and the crews flying them are courageous and capable. But must they always have to expect to fly ancient aircraft? It is true, as the Minister will no doubt say, that they are well maintained. That is because the RAF provides—rather, it has up to now provided—extremely skilled training. It has people on the ground who are extremely skilful.
The hon. Member for Harlow and I met NCOs—not officers—who had specialised in areas of avionics and engineering far beyond my capacity to begin to comprehend. The Member for Harlow and I have met NCOs, not officers, who have patents out in areas of avionics and engineering that are far beyond my capacity even to begin to comprehend. We met two chief technicians, with two separate patents, in one hangar in one RAF station in Germany, Bruggen, the home of the surviving Tornado squadrons. As the Minister said, the reward of the Tornado GR1 squadrons after the Gulf war in half the cases was disbandment.
The question of training is important. Is quality to be retained or will the RAF have increasingly to rely on private contractors who work from nine to five, who may not be investing at all in training because they are relying on recruiting people who are retiring from the services with a pension. In some cases they are not spending anything on training at all. What does that mean for the future? Perhaps I may make this one final point and then hope that I can speak in another debate on the RAF.
My final point is about career prospects. Young, highly skilled people do not know what their future is. If we are to contribute to the exercise of international authority in any part of the world, training is important—
7.21 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: There is a very old military adage: know your enemy. Most people will accept that Saddam Hussein is our enemy—not only our enemy, but the enemy of the west, of the Arab world and, above all, of his own people. I have not had an opportunity recently of meeting Saddam Hussein, as have some right hon. Members, but I remember meeting him in 1988 at the time of the last major offensive which the Iranians were launching against Iraq. I looked forward to that visit and I went into Baghdad as the Iranian rockets were raining down. I went to see him. I looked at his troops and I looked at him and I was, at that point, totally on his side because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has said, at that time, most people in this country considered Saddam Hussein to be someone we needed to support in any way that we could. I was saddened when I went in to see him. I went in with only one friend, Count Jean de Lipkoski. He greeted this marvellous Frenchman with open arms and said,
562
"How splendid you French have been. The supply of weapons you have given us is superb. We could not do without the French and the Russians."
Then he turned to me and launched a most vitrolic attack on the United Kingdom and said how useless we were and that we never supplied Iraq with any weapons. Indeed, he said that we were supplying the Iranians with weapons. I tried to carry the argument to him and said that perhaps we would have liked to given some weapons at that point, but we had our arms embargo and we were sticking by that.
I am afraid that there are some people in the House who are determined to spread the myth that we have been supplying arms to Iraq for many years. That is not true and most people know that it is not true. However, time moves on and one did see in the period after that war the true face of Saddam Hussein. It was after that war that we witnessed the worst of the excesses against his own people. I supported him, quite rightly at that time, as did most other people.
The recent air attacks were directed against missile sites and against control centres. These sites were designed to keep out our aircraft so that the Iraqis could operate against the Shi'ites in the south and the Kurds in the north. The other reason is that we needed to safeguard our own crews who were flying in those areas. The last thing I, or anyone in the House, would wish to see, would be one of our aircraft being shot down simply because we had neglected to take the action that was needed.
It seems to have worked, but I think it is impossible for us to consider that we have achieved all that we needed to achieve. In fact all that we have is a truce. It is a truce that will not last and when it is broken it will be broken by Saddam Hussein not least because it is impossible for him to survive in his country at present without a series of crises to keep him in power. He needs this to convince his own people that he is facing a world coalition and facing it down and defeating it. He needs more action on our side to provide him with the right home progapanda.
When that occurs, what reaction will there be from us? What contingency plans do we have? It is not much use continuing to bomb missile sites. It is right to do it at present, but there is not much point in doing that while life in Baghdad goes on normally and Saddam, through his propaganda machine, can claim a great victory. That is not the way forward.
There is one great instrument of repression that still lies in his hands: the Republican Guard and those people who form his own personal bodyguard. If we are to go forward and are forced to take action, we must be ruthless in in attacking that instrument, because to undermine their morale is the most positive thing that we can do. They are the people who are attacking the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south and they are the people who we must go for.
I am saddened that we have had this slight mix-up and cannot concentrate in this debate on the Royal Air Force, but I now turn to that. I sometimes think there is a dastardly plot to do down the Parachute Regiment. I am sad to think that that might be so and I hope that I am wrong. We desperately need more helicopters for the Parachute Regiment and for 24 Air Mobile Brigade. Several other hon. Members have made this point. It is remarkably good news that we have managed to retain the European fighter aircraft, but in June 1990 in a debate in

563
the House I advocated that an air mobile division should be formed using the Parachute Regiment and 24 Air Mobile Brigade as the basis for that expansion.
Two years have passed and although the United Kingdom heads the formation of the ACE rapid reaction corps, little has been done to increase the helicopter lifting capability of 24 Air Mobile Brigade or of similar formations in the United Kingdom. France, Russia and Germany all have scout attack and support helicopters allotted permanently to them, but 24 Brigade has no support helicopters allocated and depends instead on begging helicopters from the RAF as and when they can be made available. There are only 60 of those helicopters in the whole British Army.
All that I would say—this is obviously not a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—is that I hope that it is being addressed very seriously indeed and that orders will soon be placed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) made it clear that we decided as long ago as 1987 in favour of the EH101. I have to say to Ministers that there might be a theory that if we put the arguments again we can put off the day of decision which we know has to come. I beg the Minister to get on and announce now that the utility EH101 is to be ordered in quantity and then allocated to 24 Air Mobile Brigade so that the Parachute Regiment can travel round in those superb helicopters in the style to which it should be accustomed.
7.29 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 27 November, I was fortunate to draw the No. 1 slot in the ballot for private Members' motions and introduce a debate on the need to improve relations with the Arab world. On 4 December, I made a 50-minute speech on Iraq during the debate on the United Nations initiated by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). Although those speeches are highly relevant, I shall not go over that ground again except to draw the conclusion that, as I said then, the west should accept in good faith the Iraqi offer to negotiate and to promote a dialogue. I personally would wish to see the lifting of sanctions as a gesture of good will towards Iraq forthwith.
To hon. Members who resent such a view on the ground of the persecution of the Shias and the Kurds, I say gently that I was on Christopher Morgan's programme on Radio 4 last Sunday with the grandson of the Grand Ayatollah of Shi'ism, Al-Hoei, whose name is Jusef Al-Hoei. He said, on behalf of the Shi'ite people, that bombing was pointless. On the same programme, Mozin Desaig, on behalf of the Kurds, said that the bombing by the west simply provoked more of Saddam's wrath against the Kurds.
The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, thinks that I am naive. I think that he is unreal to believe that Saddam can be removed in foreseeable circumstances.
I borrow the phrase of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who spoke about being "not in" with the Arab
564
world. However, I welcome the clear statement by the Secretary of State for Defence that the Government are now endorsing the integrity of the Iraq border.
Wherever the fault lies, sanctions impose suffering on the people of Iraq, not least on the old and vulnerable. Unless something is done quickly I fear that the children of Iraq could become a generation hating the west. I heard my old friend from European Parliament days Claude Cheysson say on the World Service:
"What is the policy? To bomb Baghdad twice a week until heaven knows when?"
That is the reality and it would simply consolidate Saddam's hold on the reins of power in Iraq. The only alternative is to try to amass a land force which would occupy and hold downtown Baghdad. Such a move would lead to Vietnam plus.
For part of the debate I hope that hon. Members will focus their minds on one of the root causes of the trouble—the pouring of sophisticated arms and arms-making equipment into Iraq by Germany, France, the Soviet Union, Chile, Switzerland, the United States and Britain. Albeit deeply wrong, no wonder the Iraqis thought that they had carte blanche to march into Kuwait when they desperately needed cash to pay the western arms creditors. That was a major part of the problem at the end of the hostilities.
There is much wringing of the hands about Iraq and nuclear weapons. How did it all start? I shall tell the House precisely how it started. It started in the first week of September 1975. During the recess I was greatly influenced by reading the 500 pages of Kenneth Timmerman's book which I lent to the Secretary of State for Defence. I gather from the Ministry of Defence that it has studied a copy. Page 55 states:
"While touring Provence with Chirac and de 1'Etoile"—
he was the marketing director of Marcel Dassault—
"Saddam made a side trip that few people in France paid much attention to at the time. On their way to the bullfights at Le Baux, Saddam's French hosts took him through the Cadarache nuclear research centre, one of the most advanced in Europe. In this small Provincal town just north of Marseilles the Commissarriat á 1'Energie Atomique had set up its first experimental fast-breeder reactor. That called it Rapsodie. It certainly enchanted Saddam."
You bet it did!
"The basic principle of a fast-breeder reactor, also called a supergenerator, is to `breed' more nuclear fuel than it consumes. In the process, it transforms significant quantities of uranium into plutonium. While plutonium is a by-product of most nuclear fuel cycles, and can be extracted from spent fuel by chemical reprocessing, it has little utility escept for making bombs. Iraq's interest in fast-breeder reactors was motivated by one concern alone: obtaining a sure source of plutonium for use in a nuclear weapons program."
If the west goes out of its way for money and whets the appetite of those who might be described as ruthless Tikritis, what can we expect?
The relationship between France and Saddam is extraordinary. Timmerman says:
"When they returned to Paris, Saddam decided to prepare a surprise for his `personal friend', Jacques Chirac. It had been easier to win over the French than Saddam had dreamed. He wanted to seal their pact on a personal note. Much to the chagrin of the maître d'hôtel at the Marigny Palace, where he was staying, Saddam ordered his personal cook to return to Baghdad on the presidential plane to retrieve a load of victuals for Chirac. Top on the list was one and a half tons of an Iraqi river fish called masgouf, which Chirac had enjoyed in Baghdad the year before. With Iraqi security guards patrolling the kitchens of the Marigny Palace with their machine pistols, Saddam's cooks roasted the huge,

565
greasy carp over open fires. Raymond Thullier, who was later told the story by Chirac, said that 'the whole place smelled of charred flesh. It was amusing, but a mess."
With such a relationship can we be surprised that they think that they can do anything they like?
However, it was not only the French. If we acknowledge the depth of the deceit by the British Government and therefore our own share of responsibility for bringing about this situation, we will find it less unpalatable to start talking to Saddam Hussein. Before criticising the French, we should look at ourselves in the mirror.
I have a long question for the Foreign Secretary. The process of giving a licence or consent is a matter for one group of public servants, the Department of Trade and Industry. The enforcement of the law is entrusted to another group, Customs and Excise. If the acts of exporters are determined criminally or non-criminally by the dealings that they have had with the licensing agency, in this case the DTI, both the enforcement of the law and the fair administration of justice become impossible if the enforcement agency, Customs and Excise, is misinformed about or ignorant as to the nature of those dealings. Still more are good government and justice impossible if it were to be the case that documentary and oral evidence of those dealings were kept out of the criminal trial on grounds of public interest immunity.
I asked the Foreign Secretary, having given his officials the article in "Public Law" by Anthony Bradley, the former professor of public law in Edinburgh, what the Government intend to do to tighten up the whole issue of the relationship between Customs and Excise and the DTI.
Another remarkable book which challenges the integrity of the heart of the Government is to appear. It is by David Leigh with Richard Norton Taylor and its title is "Betrayed". I have been sent a review copy and the press conference launching it is on Monday. This is the author who, with Magnus Linklater, wrote "Not With Honour" about Westland—which events have subsequently shown to be wholly accurate.
In a letter to The Times published on 13 November the Attorney-General claimed that there had not been a cover up because the existence of all the secret documents had been voluntarily declared to defence counsel in the Matrix Churchill case. The evidence disclosed in the book shows that that was simply not so.
7.38 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson: Near the end of his speech the Secretary of State for Defence expressed the overriding reason for the events in the Gulf that have given rise to this debate. He said that we acted to ensure that Iraq complied with all United Nations resolutions and that the presence of the Royal Air Force was to ensure that compliance. There are two formidable reasons for the creation of the United Nations resolutions against Iraq, and both stem from the early reasons for the formation of the League of Nations and the United Nations. They were international peace—which has been achieved by the destruction, or a partial destruction, of the nuclear weaponry in Iraq—and internal peace, which is expressed in the United Nations declaration on human rights.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, wish to know whether a Government support human rights, you must ask the people. If you ask the marsh people of Iraq, you soon find
566
the answer. You find half a million trapped people, and drained marshes: that is a fact, not a rumour. When the Iraqi regime's senior water engineer was captured recently, he had the maps on him and marked those parts of the marshes that had been drained. The marshes provide the livelihood for the age-old Madan—the marsh people.
There is no food. There are men who have been starving for days on end. There are prolonged military assaults on homes and people. There are no doctors or medicines. In the camps that hold 50,000 refugees in the safe haven of Iran, you also find the answer, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You find parts of families, elderly men, perhaps young children, and women—and you hear tales of horror. You see tortured bodies—the wounds of war. On the long borders of Iran and Iraq, you will find 10,000 wandering, homeless people. You can find the answer on human rights there. They have been driven from their homes and are without fresh water, food or shelter.
If the dead could talk to us, I dare say that they could give us the answer—men who were tortured, assassinated or executed by their own Government. Recently, 120 men aged from 14 to 22 were arrested and driven to a prison near Baghdad. In walked the son and son-in-law of Saddam Hussein carrying machine guns, and all those men died, and they were buried in an unmarked grave that had been dug by a bulldozer half an hour earlier.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could hear the answer from the dead children whose lives were snuffed out by napalm or phosphorous bombs or by chemical weapons—one friend told me that the stench of garlic marks the one that destroys the kidneys—or just from physical attacks by brutal men, children who have been picked up by their legs and swung against a wall until their skulls collapsed, perhaps in front of their mothers.
What are the memories of the children who escape? One small boy told me of a memory that he cannot get out of his mind—of seeing a tank run over an old man just in front of him, of the old man screaming, and of the laughing of the soldiers in the tank. That was in Basra.
Think of the women who were forced to watch the killings of all the members of their families just yards away by crueller methods than we can ever visualise, women who were lined up in hundreds alongside captured men, and were witnesses then to lines of tanks driving over those men. One woman told me that she saw 700 men killed in front of her in just that way. She told me of the stench of human flesh in the heat, and of the pain and anguish as she saw her sons and husband crushed into the earth. Some women go mad as a result and never speak again. I have seen them in the camps.
Successive Kurdish tragedies triggered our western response and led to the framing and acceptance by the Security Council of the resolutions that the Royal Air Force and allied forces seek to impose or to keep in place in Iraq. Some resolutions, or parts of them, have been achieved, with deep frustration and now with the use of force.
We hope that we have removed the nuclear threat, but what about internal peace? How do the people of Iraq see their own future? Just before Christmas, on 18 December, I had the opportunity to address an informal meeting of the Security Council called by the non-aligned nations. I urged the Security Council to implement resolution 688, and gave many examples of victims' histories. For outside

567
the no-fly zones, internal peace is a wholly unachieved goal, and within those zones it can be only partially successful.
The tragedy of Iraq is at the heart of every Iraqi family now. It is much worse than during the Iran-Iraq war. Young men were sent away to fight in that conflict, but not all that many of them, and perhaps not every man in each family. If they went to the borders and fought, they were considered martyrs to a national cause. Today, at least one member of every Iraqi family is a victim
Even many members of the Iraqi army are victims of the system and dare not speak. Just a look interpreted as treasonable will damn one to a lingering death—perhaps to being burnt alive by petrol being poured into the gullet and ignited by vapour emitted from a knife wound slashed in the stomach. As the victim writhes to death, he is watched by brother officers. One of them may be his own brother, who dares not speak. One officer told me that—he fled.
Only the cruel and the ignorant join the Iraqi security forces who are Saddam Hussein's praetorian guard of hell. They are hand-picked fighters—members of his family, and village tribesmen from his local towns. Every other family in the land, including those who have sons in the army, has its victims—perhaps through martyrdom or imprisonment. Burial alive is common, as is being imprisoned underground, beaten by guards, with a little gruel for food and brackish water. That was the fate of a friend of mine who is now paralysed and is dying.
The people know that there is no peace ahead without Saddam Hussein's removal. He lives only by the creation of violence and hatred and has no second nature. That is the man. One cannot reason with him. To think otherwise is folly. The former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees with responsibility for Iraq, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, resigned his post because, he said, no one could negotiate with Saddam Hussein—and that was in December 1991.
Saddam Hussein has total sovereignty. Perhaps only parliamentarians can understand the full effect of that. Saddam Hussein is the state of Iraq—the constitution, which he made up, says so. Iraq is not even a one-party state. By its own laws, it is a one-man state. Saddam Hussein takes, owns, runs and finally destroys all. There are no checks and balances to help the Iraqi people.
I give a small example of their loss of freedom. A year or so ago, Saddam Hussein knocked down holy places of worship in the south. There is no licence or authority today to rebuild them. There is no freedom to worship. Nor do the Iraqi people have the freedom to listen—something that we consider as free as air. Anyone caught listening to the BBC World Service in Arabic will be executed on the spot. Freedom of movement is not on offer, and nor is access to education, medicine, or freedom to see a doctor or go to hospital. That is true of the north and south, and of the centre now.
The three basic human needs of food, shelter, and clothing without which survival itself is threatened are withheld from the north and south. They are withheld from the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias alike by Saddam
568
Hussein's forces, despite the memorandum of understanding designed to permit UN aid. Saddam Hussein's word is worthless. His ambassador's signature on last November's memorandum of understanding is of no value.
Were it not for the British Government, the European Community, the voluntary agencies and the Iranian Government and the thousands of individuals who have donated funds, no food, clothing, water or medicine would be supplied to the Iraqi refugees and oppressed people. Even that aid is very little when matched with need. Human rights and human values now have no sanctuary in Iraq.
Recent events in the Gulf served one of our two purposes—the effective pursuit of international peace through the maintenance of Kuwait's borders and the destruction of potential nuclear weaponry within Iraq. Just as vital is the aim of achieving human rights. In the heart of every Iraqi lies the plea that their sufferings and needs must be addressed. They cannot act alone.
7.48 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I welcome this debate, and want to see in the near future a full, wide-ranging debate on Iraq in the United Nations Security Council. Force was justified to end the criminal invasion of Kuwait. It must not be forgotten that the dictator was given five months to get his forces out of Kuwait. In fact, he was virtually begged to do so. Unless force had been used, Kuwait would almost certainly remain under enemy occupation today. Had that happened, many of the horrors to be found in Iraq, about which the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) spoke so movingly, would no doubt have occurred in Kuwait, and for a long time to come.
To save his own skin, Saddam Hussein agreed to all the provisions in the ceasefire agreement of two years ago. After he lost that war so decisively, he feared—understandably, although whether with any justification one does not know—that the allies would destroy his regime. In those circumstances, he would agree to anything, as long as he could remain in power. As we have seen, he has taken every possible opportunity since to tease and taunt the allies—no more so that in the past few weeks. He has shown his complete contempt for the ceasefire agreement, and has constantly tried to go as far as possible in breaking it without provoking the retaliation of the allies.
Time and again, when the no-fly zones are criticised, we must remind ourselves why they came into being. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out today, they were introduced to defend the Kurds and Shi'ites from butchery in the north and the south. Nor should we forget the international outcry that was also rightly heard on the Floor of the House when that danger was posed. If I remember rightly, there was no criticism then of safe havens and no-fly zones, even from the opponents of the war. In those circumstances, we were right to take the attitude that we took; and the Kurds, as well as the Shi'ites, remain undoubtedly in constant danger.
The international community is faced with an irrational dictator—although, let me add, he is not so irrational that he does not know how to survive in power. All his actions have been to a large extent irrational, despite what was said by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup

569
(Sir E. Heath). With no justification, he initiated a war against a neighbouring country, Iran, which lasted eight years. When we are told—as we are from time to time—that the international community is not concerned with Muslims, as it should be, we should not forget that tens of thousands of Muslim lives were lost in that futile war on both sides along with those of Saddam's other victims. Nor should we forget that the vast majority of people in Kuwait are Muslims, and that Saddam has been responsible for many other atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds—all Muslims again.
Can there be any doubt that, if force had not been used in the past few days by the international community—led by the United States—the United Nations weapons inspectors would not be in Iraq now? Can any hon. Member challenge that contention? If force had not been used, Saddam Hussein would not have climbed down. Not only would the weapons inspectors not have been allowed in; Saddam would obviously have taken the next step. If he had known that the allies would not act, he would have felt able to treat them with utter contempt and see what other provisions of the ceasefire agreement could be broken, and no doubt would have decided at some time to try to invade Kuwait again. Certainly, he would not have hesitated to do so if he had thought that he could get away with it.
Nevertheless, the international community must use force only as a last resort. Any use of force must be measured and limited; all possible action must be taken to avoid civilian casualties. I am not a hypocrite: I must accept that, if force is used, there will be a possibility of civilian casualties. I am therefore not a pacifist. If I believe that force is necessary from time to time, I must accept—with great sadness—that civilians may be killed or injured. None the less, every effort must be made to avoid bombing civilian targets.
I do not defend the bombing of the hotel in Baghdad, and I cannot emphasise too strongly that we are not at war with the people of Iraq; we have no quarrel with them. We should always remember that they were the first victims of this gangster and his terrorist regime. I know that a direct analogy cannot be drawn, but when, before the second world war, anti-fascists mobilised against Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, it was always pointed out that the first victims of such criminal terrorist dictatorships were people living in the countries involved. Limited action is essential, not simply for propaganda purposes but in support of a genuine wish not to inflict further harm and damage on the people who have suffered so long under the terrorist regime in Iraq.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned Israel. As I said at the time, I certainly believe that Israel has violated international law. The right hon. Gentleman was Chief Whip in the Government who were in power in 1956 when this country committed an act of criminal aggression, in collusion with France and Israel. As I told him, he did not wish to resign then—which is all the worse if he did not agree with the Government's policy. I know what I was doing then, along with many other democratic socialists: I was demonstrating our contempt for the action that was being taken, and our respect for international law and the United Nations. If I felt so strongly in 1956, why should I take a different attitude in the 1990s, when a criminal terrorist regime commits acts of aggression against Kuwait and continues to oppress and terrorise the Shi'ites and Kurds—as well as perpetuating the general terror that afflicts Iraq?
570
Some of the opposition in Iraq—both at home, to the extent that they can survive underground, and abroad—take the view that western Governments do not really wish to get rid of Saddam, but merely want to weaken him. I hope that that is not the case. It is not our job, as such, to get rid of him; I certainly do not believe that bombing will get rid of him, or should be used as a means of doing so.
My hon. Friends rightly criticise—as I do, and did at the time—the way in which western Governments, as well as the former Soviet Union, supported the regime in Iraq to the hilt. That lesson should not be forgotten. But if it was wrong to appease Saddam then by arming and supporting him, why continue that appeasement by saying, in effect, that no action should be taken when he invades Kuwait—or when, having been decisively defeated, he shows such contempt for the provisions of the ceasefire agreement? I see no logic in that. Given that I was opposed to the appeasement of the regime at one time, I want no appeasement now. I want western Governments, in particular, to learn the lessons that the past provides.
I cannot be a party to ignoring the situation in Iraq, and I have no intention of changing my position. It may not be popular in certain circumstances to take such a line, but I believe that it is necessary to deal with criminal aggression. Certainly, I feel that that is part and parcel of my duty as a democratic socialist.
Today's edition of The Guardian contains an article by David Hirst, who is an authority on Arab matters and well respected as such. It quotes the Iraqi opposition as describing Saddam Hussein as
"the most evil and destructive tyrant in modern Arab history."
I consider that a fair summing up of the person who has ruled in Iraq for so long, so unfortunately and at such cost to human life.
I believe that what was done was basically right, although it was not right in every respect. The allies demonstrated that it was necessary to show Saddam Hussein that the ceasefire agreement must be respected. If he has now got the message—I hope he has—it will be to the good of Iraq, and of the international community.
7.57 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I must declare a professional interest. My company gives consultancy advice to Thorn EMI Electronics, which provides the RAF and other armed forces of the Crown with equipment.
In his opening speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that the RAF faced challenge and change. The debate has produced a number of challenges of what might be regarded as accepted assumptions: the most notable came from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said that he and his hon. Friends would vote against the motion, because they would thus be voting against the wickedness of the western allies' recent bombing raids on Iraq. He also said that he took pride in the fact that, 50 years ago, he became a pilot in the RAF. I found it strange and I was somewhat saddened by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have no feeling of loyalty towards the aircrews of his old service, who have been risking their lives to try to ensure that United Nations resolutions are upheld by the tyrant in Baghdad.
I was saddened, too, by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E.

571
Heath), who said that he could see no circumstances in which the armed forces of the Crown could reasonably go to the aid of Kuwait. It was a strange observation—first, because, as I pointed out, the Arab League has never really been an effective instrument of peacekeeping in the Arab world and, secondly, because the Royal Air Force has shown time and again—most recently in 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait—that it can be on the spot literally within hours and that, by its rapid intervention in the theatre, it can deter aggression.
We saw this principle in operation on numerous occasions when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was a member of the Government. For example, in 1961, fighters went up to Kuwait and prevented Iraqi aggression. In 1962, they were sent to India to defend the north-east frontier area against potential Chinese aggression. They were also sent to northern Rhodesia, now Zambia. There were many other instances during the right hon. Gentleman's time in Government.
The early expedition of force—and particularly of air power—can deter conflict and prevent warfare from speading. That is why air power is a key element of peacekeeping and why Her Majesty's Government reasonably invest so much in it.
The other aspect that is particularly relevant to the recent raids is that we have seen from Iraqi aggression the potential dangers of nuclear and chemical weapon proliferation. Some Opposition Members have said that the allied bombing of Iraq in recent days was particularly heinous in as much as, sadly, there were civilian casualties at a hotel in Baghdad. Those casualties were incurred because Saddam Hussein was not keeping United Nations resolutions and because a Tomahawk cruise missile either malfunctioned or was shot down. One must remember that Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles were launched 89 times in the Gulf war against targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel. One Scud missile caused 127 casualties in Saudi Arabia. In the Iran-Iraq war, Scud missiles caused 2,000 deaths in Iran. This gives us an idea of the dangers of nuclear and chemical weapons proliferation. Those offensive weapons must be taken out, if necessary, at source.
I hope that the Western allies have learnt the lesson and will be putting in place effective anti-ballistic missile defences. The early dispatch of Patriot missiles, appropriately modified, enabled the allied forces to conduct their operations successfully. It would have been much more difficult had there been no defence against Scud missile attacks. Moreover, had there been no defence, the Israelis might have entered the war, with disastrous consequences.
We face challenges and changes. Partly because the debate has been hijacked by the need to discuss foreign affairs, there has been little time to examine the changing strategic circumstances within which the Royal Air Force has to operate. We have had no debate on the defence estimates—even though I suggest that such a debate is overdue, as the statement on the defence estimates was published way back in July last year.
We are faced with a multitude of operational tasks that the Royal Air Force has to accomplish—in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Somalia and Iraq—with a budget which is declining constantly in real terms and with manpower
572
which is diminishing steadily under "Options for Change". The Air Force has a difficult challenge to make ends meet and fulfil its re-equipment programmes.
As I see it, 12 vital re-equipment programmes need to be funded: the Eurofighter 2000 and its associated weapons systems and equipment; the C130 replacement or modernisation; the Nimrod replacement; the medium surface-to-air missile for air defence; the SWATHE system for anti-armour attack; the conventionally armed stand-off missile—we saw in the Gulf war how perilous it can be with effective air defences for weapons to have to be launched over the target.
Free-fall weapons should increasingly become a thing of the past. In this respect, too, we need a tactical air-to-surface missile to provide the United Kingdom with an air-launched nuclear capability. People who say that a modified Trident or free-fall weapon could do the job are not thinking the issue through. We do not have time to go into detail now, but I suggest that those last two suggestions are facile in view of the flexibility and rapidity of response of air power.
The need for medium-lift helicopters has been described before and is serious. In all recent conflicts, there has been a grave shortage of support helicopters. I would say that we need both the Blackhawk and the EH101 because there are different tasks for helicopters of different sizes. The Firefly primary trainer has to be bought. Furthermore there is the mid-life update of the Tornado, the GR4. There is also the purchase of the advanced short-range air-to-air missile and the six Sea King HAR3 search and rescue helicopters. Those are all important programmes if the Royal Air Force is to be a flexible service.
How are we to save the money to provide the finance needed for the re-equipment? First, I suggest, we should reduce our commitment in Germany. It already assumes one quarter of the cost of strike command. When the Russians come out of the eastern part of Germany, as they are pledged to do by the latter part of 1994, we should save money on Germany and concentrate on the United Kingdom and on greater flexibility from the home base.
Secondly, we should create a two-tier service. If warning times are to be greater—if the political situation is such that we can envisage with greater certainty how potential crises will evolve—we should rely more on reserves: we should have effective regular forces properly trained and ready for use, but should rely more heavily on reserves and auxiliaries and should have auxiliary squadrons flying again.
Thirdly, we should be more rational in our support of the front line. We should rely rather less on maintenance units and more on industry for the third line servicing of our equipment. This will give us the leeway that we need. As it is, only 37 per cent. of the defence budget goes on equipment and 42 per cent. on pay and pensions. It is a dangerous trend, which needs to be reversed, and I think that some of the measures that I have outlined can achieve it.
8.8 pm
Mr. George Galloway: It was said of the Bourbons that they learned nothing and forgot nothing. We should have learnt from the treaty of Versailles of the dangers of treating with the humiliation, partition, reparation and fear of dismemberment with which the allies are pursuing the defeated enemy Iraq—a

573
defeated enemy whose military potential has been crushed and whose ability seriously to make war is no longer a consideration.
On hearing of the assassination of one of his master's political enemies, one of Talleyrand's aides said, "It's a terrible crime," to which Tallyrand replied, "It's worse than a crime—it's a blunder." I contend that the west has not only been guilty of crimes of comission and omission but, from its own standpoint, has been committing blunders that will return to haunt it. Just as after the treaty of Versailles, the mutation of German national grievance came back to haunt us in an absolutely horrendous manner only decades later.
The fact that it was a crime to launch 40 cruise missiles at the push of a button many hundreds of miles from where they would land, at £1 million a piece, when they almost overflew people starving to death in Africa, has not really been disputed in many places over the past few days.
Notwithstanding the sneers in the House this evening, the French Government have made it clear that they regard that attack as outwith international law in the sense that it was outwith the terms of the Security Council resolution. The Russian, Jordanian, and Syrian Governments and the Arab League share that view. Demonstrations in the Islamic world, from Kuala Lumpur to Karachi, make clear the sheer scale of the opposition to the assault on Baghdad. It sometimes seems that there is a majority only in this House of Commons in favour of the assault that took place on Baghdad last Sunday.
Whatever may be said about the factories which the United Nations inspectors repeatedly testified had, by then, no military significance, the assault on the great historic Arab capital of Baghdad was no different in its intention from that of the Luftwaffe in the east end of London or of the terrorists who leave bombs in Victoria station or Oxford street and walk away before the damage is done.
The attack was designed to strike terror into the hearts of the civilian population of Baghdad and to turn the people against their Government. Just as the blitz by the Luftwaffe and Irish terrorism succeeded only in galvanising patriotic feeling, so the latest spasm of violence against Iraq by the west has actually strengthened Saddam Hussein's regime.
The attack was a blunder because it has contributed seriously to a wave that will continue for years of further instability, radicalisation and sweeping fundamentalism across the middle east and the broader Islamic arena. I do not know where some of the authorities obtain their information. On Arab streets, in the slums of Algiers, in Aden, in the slums of Cairo and in the mosques of Saudi Arabia, the attack has led to the beatification—if Muslims can be beatified—of that blood-soaked tyrant, Saddam Hussein. His stock has never been higher.
Believe me, that wave of radicalisation and fundamentalism has been under way in the Arab area for a considerable period. Anyone who is aware of the Palestinian question and who has watched the steady march of the fundamentalist movement, Hamas, gaining ground at the expense of the secular, moderate, nationalist leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, knows exactly the despair and humiliation felt by the Arabs that is leading to the festering problem of fundamentalism.
Hon. Members should mark my words. There is not much of a legal process in Saudi Arabia. However, Fahd
574
is in danger. The Moslem brotherhood, outraged by recent events and the influence of the Americans in the kingdom, is even now plotting the overthrow of the puppet King Fahd who is so beloved of the British Foreign Office and the British Government.
When considering these matters, it is important to walk a mile in the other fellow's shoes. On the streets of the Arab world, the west is seen as nothing more than a bloody hypocrite after Sunday's attack and in respect of its general policy. The British Government cannot escape the Palestinian question.
This very day the Foreign Secretary met the ambassadors of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to discuss the illegal deportation of 415 Palestinians. However, he refused to allow the acknowledged representative of the Palestinian people here in London to attend that meeting. He will not meet him on any other occasion. Even when PLO leaders are in London, the Foreign Secretary forbids his top officials to meet them. That undermining of the moderate, nationalist leadership of the PLO is the same kind of gift to the Muslim fanatics and extreme radicals as the attack on Saddam Hussein by the coalition air forces.
In the third world, western foreign policy is seen as based on the need to preserve not a new world order, but a new world odour. The third world believes that it smells just like the old world odour. It is a pattern of relationships based on the economic, and ultimately military, domination of third-world countries by the big powers from the terms of trade to control of technology and military hardware.
When the peoples of the Arab area and of the third world generally consider the pattern of policy of western Governments, they see hypocrisy. One of the raids was launched from Turkey. Turkey illegally occupies a British Commonwealth country and it has been doing that for 20 years. However, it has launched attacks on another country for that country's transgressions of international law.
The hypocrisy is evident to the peoples of the Arab world and of the third world generally when they witness the total failure of western Governments to do anything about the illegal occupation of East Timor and the west's total failure to do anything about even simple matters such as the deportation of the 415 Palestinians, irrespective of the decades-long illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and the deportations, imprisonments, torture and killings that occur every day in the occupied territories of Palestine. Not a penny's-worth of sanctions is broached against Israel, let alone the launching of an armada against that country to force it to obey international law.
In no theatre is there more of a sense of burning outrage than in the former Yugoslavia. The western powers have been completely unable to stop the genocide and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia at the hands of Christian Serbs. The hypocrisy of western policy is seen to be at its most naked in that theatre.
Saddam Hussein will mutate across the Arab area and across the Muslim world. There will be more Saddams. Saddam will be strong until some kind of decency and justice permeates the international approach of the so-called allies.
8.18 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) with great interest. In the few words that I will be able to say, measures—and only measures—of agreement between us may well appear.
I want to explore the overall problem. I welcome the debate, but I am afraid to say that I will make another foreign affairs intrusion. None the less, the debate is important and it contains an emergency element.
I do not hesitate to say that I support, and have supported, the Government's policy. However, the spirit of my speech will be about the overall policy considerations for the future because they are most important. I welcome this opportunity to make a submission about what I am sure the Government are considering and, if they are not considering these points, I would like the Government to consider them.
Starting with the immediate, it should be made clear that we are dealing with the aftermath of the Gulf war. I am surprised that this has not been mentioned so far, but we are dealing with a situation which is, if you like, our own fault or which we brought about, because we chose—I respected the decision at the time and I respect it now—not ultimately to defeat Saddam Hussein militarily. It was a partial defeat, a defeat in a limited and controlled war. Having gone along with that, yet recognising the facts of life and acknowledging that hindsight does us absolutely no good in this, we must live with the consequences.
The first consequence is that we are landed with a very necessary nuclear and general weapons inspection that must be carried out on Iraqi soil by foreigners to Iraqis, an irritant to them and a perpetual excuse for them to create crises. This inspection must be enforced by air power. The problem of enforcement by air power is that the whole process could be too prolonged to hold politically.
The second main consequence is that we have the no-fly zones. It should be made quite clear that while they represent an immediate humanitarian problem, the Kurds and their situation within Iraq have been a problem for hundreds of years, the Shias and their situation in Iraq for even longer.
It is worth mentioning with regard to the Shia population that while some of them are in the most appalling conditions in the marshes, it is said by some, with no proper census, that the population of Iraq is over 50 per cent. Shia and there has therefore been a great struggle on the part of elements of the Sunni minority, or certainly not a substantial majority. There has been permanent competition between them, with the Sunnis always dominant, mainly through repression.
When it comes to the Kurds and Shias, no-fly zones are primarily necessary not only because of history—this is another point not brought out, and it is an unfortunate one—but because certain statements were made at the immediate conclusion of the Gulf war which encouraged the two insurrections, despite the fact that it should have been clear to those responsible that we have not done sufficient military damage to Saddam's army, much as we would have liked to, to limit its permanent capacity for vicious internal repression. We may have limited Saddam's capability to make war, but he showed a remarkable capacity to put down those two insurrections and we must
576
live with the fact that, at least in part, we helped to create them. That gives us the responsibility for the humanitarian task involved.
Last but not least, we live under the United Nations umbrella, one which is wearing increasingly thin. The French position involves at least a warning. Arab pronouncements are becoming increasingly clear. It will not last much longer, this umbrella, this legality, without an overall and even-handed policy for the region. It is a region that I have had quite a lot to do with over the years and I have many personal connections with it.
That brings me to my policy concerns. The first is a general one and it goes far beyond even the region. It is the whole question of the Anglo-American relationship. It is very special and important to us, yet when we go into any sort of action with our American friends and allies we must face the fact that we ourselves have a limited national capability in the modern world. Neither we nor anyone else can really be effective without the Americans and the problem is the overwhelming imbalance of the coalition. It gives rise to the danger that whatever the coalition does is perceived to be a carrying through of United States policy.
That perception alone gives us the right to ask whether the United States has a regional policy. Perhaps we should exercise even more influence than we already do. But the answer to my question is no, the United States does not have a good regional policy for the whole middle east and Gulf theatre, and Iraq is but part of the whole. The danger is that we become completely besotted with Saddam Hussein while the whole of the rest of the theatre, with even more important considerations at stake, goes down the political and possibly the military drain.
When it comes to this regional policy, the containment of Iraq is part of it but there are two other major areas that must be addressed and dealt with. The first is the Palestinian question. The United States above all—because no one else has the capacity to deal with it—must come to terms with Israeli excesses which are exercised in the full knowledge of the support that it almost invariably gets from the United States. The United States must deal with its domestic political difficulties and the pressures constantly brought on presidential candidates, not least on President Clinton, by a very powerful lobby in the United States. The United States must come to terms with this because it is part of the whole.
The second major element is Iran. The Ayatollah kicked out not only the Shah but also the west, and particularly the United States. The United States has not come to terms with this. We have the same syndrome as we had only too visibly and recently with Vietnam. Iran is potentially a considerable danger, but, if it is dealt with, it could also be a considerable friend. It is the traditional and historical regional counter-balance to Iraq. Had Iran been stable and had the Iranian revolution not happened, none of this would ever have happened—no Iran-Iraq war and no invasion of Kuwait. Incidentally, there can be no regional security pact—a grand phrase mentioned by many—without the participation of Iran. Otherwise, I am afraid that it will be ineffectual.
We now come to the dangers of not having an overall regional policy. The first obvious danger is the destabilisation of the Arab and the whole middle eastern world. All our Arab friends have domestic difficulties. Many of them, particularly the Gulf states, are extremely

577
weak politically and extremely vulnerable, which is the very reason why we are there. Going wrong on this gives fuel to those extremes which they most fear.
Secondly, if we do not get it right we encourage Islamic fundamentalism. It is a very real danger from Algeria, Morocco, through Egypt, right down the Gulf countries and across the wider world. It should not be unnecessarily fuelled. It represents ammunition and food to those who want to destabilise and take over and who most certainly are not our potential friends.
Last but not least in the list of dangers is Iran itself. A considerable internal power struggle is going on and there is a serious risk of its going the wrong way—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.
8.28 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meironnydd Nant Conwy): We in the House are mindful of the threats to world peace posed by the regime of the evil Saddam Hussein. We also know of the unspeakable atrocities being perpetrated by his regime. Our concerns and those of the international community as a whole are reflected in the various United Nations resolutions of the past 18 months. I and my party were reluctantly in agreement with the original air strike, provided that it was carried out with safeguards for civilians and minimal loss of life generally. We also made it clear that our support was offered only as far as the action was within the sanction and authority of the United Nations.
One must consider the attacks on military installations as opposed to other sites. The Secretary of State said that Royal Air Force personnel did their best to make sure that they did not kill civilians. But can the accuracy of a cruise missile he guaranteed? The al-Rashid hotel is a case in point. Also, we have to consider whether the first strike was proportionate to the threat. Perhaps it was, but the question remains whether the other two strikes were legitimate. Further, if the strikes are designed ultimately to remove Saddam as president, as would probably be justified, they are certainly not succeeding. They are, in fact, having the reverse effect.
The public perception at the present time is that this country, with the other countries, has gone a step too far. The allies are on a slippery slope leading to full-scale conflict in this area. Martin Woollacott, The Guardian on 19 January, caught the mood when he said:
"A natural apprehension, accompanied by an element of guilt, has run through the west as allied planes and missiles struck at Iraq."
I am sure that this apprehension is in the minds of many hon. Members, since the legitimacy of the strikes is questionable.
The allies have not sought Security Council authorisation for the strikes, which ostensibly took place because of Saddam's failure to comply with resolutions 687 and 688. It is patently clear that the absence of such authorisation must open to question the legitimacy of the actions. Surely the allies cannot be acting on behalf of the international community when they do not seek specific sanction from the Security Council. Resolution 687 reads:
"relating, inter alia, to the restoration to Kuwait of its sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity and the return of its legitimate Government, to the status of sanctions, the setting of specific conditions for a formal cease-fire".
This resolution was not carried unanimously.
578
The Secretary of State for Defence said that United Nations resolutions, supported by the personal endorsement of the Secretary-General, provided the legal authority for the attacks. The sanction of the Secretary-General is not the sanction of the Security Council. Indeed, article 42 of the charter of the United Nations is quite clear. It says:
"Should the Security Council consider that the measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea or land forces by Members of the United Nations."
Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot see any reference to sanction by the Secretary-General alone.
In my view this is the crux of the question. Furthermore—this has already been quoted this evening—the Secretary-General's document, "An Agenda for Peace" deals with the use of military force in paragraph 42. It refers in detail to the concept of collective security and nowhere does it mention that the Secretary-General is in any way empowered by delegation or otherwise to speak on behalf of the Security Council.
Therefore, I believe that the legitimacy of the strikes must be in question. We are now in a serious position in which, as previously mentioned, Jordan, Syria and Libya, on behalf of the Arab world, are expressing strong misgivings about these actions. Similarly, the Russians and the French are now signalling their valid concerns at the actions. The international community is coming to the view that the most recent action was punitive only and that can never be legitimised or accepted in any decent international community.
Saddam has indicated that he is ready to observe a ceasefire. I believe that the time has come for resolutions 687 and 688 to be looked at anew. The precise details of non-compliance should be catalogued and the matter should be placed before the Security Council without delay. It is hoped that then the Security Council would give Iraq until a specific date to comply fully with the resolutions. Then, and only then, would the United Kingdom Government be observing the charter of the United Nations. Any further failure to follow the charter would, without doubt, pose a greater threat to world order than even Saddam's regime, since it could lead to the break-up of the United Nations. That is a valid point. At the present time, the United Nations appears to have been used by the so-called allies and that is certainly not the purpose for which it was formed; quite the reverse. At the moment, the United Nations can be considered a puppet of others.
I sincerely hope that the Government will resist any further applications by the United States—since we are talking of puppets—for a show of strength. I trust that the Government will proceed with caution. I trust that they will accept what this, albeit evil, man now says; at least listen and open a dialogue, and go back and examine resolutions 687 and 688, before placing the matter urgently before the Security Council. In international law, as everybody knows, legitimacy is everything. The United Kingdom must act strictly in accordance with the United Nations charter to regain that legitimacy and, with it, moral authority. Failure to do so would be merely to play into the Baghdad tyrant's hands.
8.35 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I have to declare an interest, of which the House will be aware. I have worn a light-blue uniform for more than four decades. I regret the length of time, but I have never regretted wearing the uniform; it has been a great privilege. I do regret, though, the loss of our full day's debate on RAF matters, because I feel that this once-a-year debate is important.
I compliment my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on the way that they have handled matters in the Gulf as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, and I wish to place on record, as others have done, my respect for and appreciation of the gallantry and skill of the crews involved. I believe that the Government and the RAF were right to impose a ban on disclosing to the media the names of aircrew taking part in the operations. Those in mass communications forget the family problems that are left behind, and it is right that we should never disclose the names of the aircrew.
My concern is that the RAF's position should now he recognised as the key element in deterrence against modern conventional warfare. I accept that Trident, as the nuclear deterrent, is the final deterrent, but more often than not we will be called upon to deploy RAF units in a deterrent capacity or a peacekeeping role. Therefore, I wish to draw attention to the changes that have taken place in the Royal Air Force under "Options for Change".
We have had a lot of publicity about the changes in the Army, but there has not been a lot of shouting about the changes in the RAF. It is interesting to note that, post-options, the RAF will have four types of combat aircraft: seven squadrons of Tornado F3s, three squadrons of Harriers, three sqauadrons of Jaguars in direct support of the battlefield, four squadrons of Tornado GR1s, two squadrons of Tornado GR1As and two squadrons of GR1Bs. That force consists of all-weather fighter assets and is a reduction by 33 per cent.—a massive reduction—in our all-weather fighter assets.
Long-range offensive assets have been reduced by 38 per cent. We all know the value of the GR1. I understand that, when an American air force general was asked what additional assets he would have liked in the Gulf, he said that he would have liked more squadrons of GR1 Royal Air Force aircraft. That tells us a lot about the GR1's standing. Maritime patrol aircraft have had a reduction of 25 per cent., and the Royal Air Force Regiment a reduction of 29 per cent., while there has been a 33 per cent. reduction in light armoured squadrons. Furthermore, 21 United Kingdom RAF stations will be closed, as will three in Germany, by 1995. That is a massive reduction in what I believe is the key element of the Royal Air Force.
I turn now, as my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench would expect me to do in this debate, to the volunteer reserves and the auxiliaries, where my interest, of course, lies. I agree with the moves and views that are taking place about the future. It is important that we recognise the key position which the auxiliaries and the volunteer reserve will occupy. It is right to examine those two organisations and ask whether we can make any changes and improvements, probably by a merger, to streamline them and make them more efficient. That does not mean that I want them to be reduced; I want them to
580
be strengthened and increased. I would like some flying units to be returned to the auxiliary air force, or whatever it will he called in the future.
The great value that we get from auxiliaries and reserves is not often appreciated. If I had my way, all those who are trained by the Royal Air Force to fly would be signed up for life, regardless of the length of their full-time commission. The massive investment which the state makes in training pilots, navigators and so on should be repaid by their commitment to an auxiliary or reserve job which requires them to put in so many hours a week, a year or whatever. It destroys, as the United States did so effectively in the Gulf, the myth that was spread many years ago that weekend pilots could not fly fast jets. That is absolute nonsense.
Another matter to which I should like to draw attention is the volunteer air cadets. I believe the air cadets give the nation and the Royal Air Force tremendous value for the money which is invested in them. The officers and instructors who look after the air cadets are volunteers and are not paid. They attend evening duties and weekend activities, as do the flight people in the Chipmunks. The volunteers also fly motor gliders or conventional gliders and are not paid for it. That must be about the best bargain that anyone ever got, because the volunteers do it simply because they love flying or they love to be involved in the cadet organisation.
We should expand that sort of activity because I believe that we cannot get better value. If there are any thoughts in the alternative options programme which is buzzing around in the Ministry and elsewhere at present that it is not good value, let me say from considerable experience that it is the best value that I have seen in my life. I have never been able to work out why the RAF has been able to get so many dedicated people at no cost. Surely that must be a good thing.
Another area in which the Royal Air Force plays an important role is peacekeeping and humanitarian activities. The replacement of the Hercules will be a vital and important decision. We must recognise that the Hercules is the workhorse which is used by the Air Force all over the world at short notice, often to drop humanitarian supplies in some of the most inaccessible regions on the planet. Therefore, when the Hercules is replaced, I hope that it will be replaced by an aircraft which is better but can do the job as effectively. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench understand what I mean by that, because one often gets an aircraft which is alleged to be able to do the job better but does not do it as effectively. We must be sure about that.
The next matter to which I should like to draw attention is the replacement of equipment. There must be a proper stand-off weapon system for the Royal Air Force. Surely we recognise that individuals in aircraft are at a much greater risk if they must get right over the target to deliver the weapon system. It would be much better if they could deliver a weapon system from the stand-off position. This is no criticism, but during the Gulf war the JP233 was required to fly straight and level over an enemy target to deliver the weapon system, which denied the Iraqis the use of the airfield. That had a cost element. I should like that matter to be dealt with.
I support what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said about the Leuchars helicopters. We will never be able to thank enough the units operating the helicopters for what they have done. I

581
regret that the local authorities did not accept my invitation to attend a meeting to be held with a view to seeing whether we could find local authority input in the cost of keeping the facility at Leuchars, and I am saddened by that. Local authorities have themselves to blame for not taking up the opportunity. [Interruption.] In life, it is a question of taking the opportunity. Local authorities did not even consider following up the invitation to a meeting, and I find that distressing and disturbing.
I hope that the Chipmunk's replacement aircraft will be as good to fly and as much of a pilot's aeroplane so that we continue to get volunteers to fly them.
8.47 pm
Mr. Bernie Grant: I do not know much about the Royal Air Force, so I will not engage in that part of the debate. Two years ago, hon. Members and I were taken to SHAPE headquarters by the Royal Air Force, and they treated us very well. During the war, there were a lot of black service men in the Royal Air Force, but I know that that is not the case today. Perhaps the Secretary of State could investigate why that is so. I am disappointed that we will not have a serious motion before the House which we can all debate and that this debate is not solely about the position in Iraq.
In December 1990, I went to Iraq where I met members of the Revolutionary Command Council. As a result of that visit I was opposed to the Gulf war, and I voted that way with a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends. At that time, we said that the Gulf war would solve nothing, and I think that the case has been made. More than 300,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, and 150,000 children suffer from cholera, typhoid and so on. Iraq has been devastated.
I note that the British Government made a profit on the war and that American firms received lucrative contracts at the end of the war. Perhaps the mistake of the Iraqis was not to invite the Americans to repair the bomb damage that occurred during the Gulf war. If that had been done, perhaps we would not have the present situation.
Since the war, the Iraqis have done well to rebuild Iraq. As the House will know, they have few or no materials because of the sanctions imposed on them. They have done remarkably well to repair bridges and so on.
When the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) spoke about the situation of the marsh Arabs, one could not help but feel a lot of sympathy for them. One wondered how the hon. Lady could speak about the Iraqis withdrawing water from the marshes and leaving people thirsty. Coalition forces bombed the waterworks in Baghdad and Iraq, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of people dying from contamination of the water and the diseases which resulted.
I am worried about the double talk and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) mentioned, about the fraud of this Government and of the Americans with the attacks by the western allies. I notice that they no longer speak of a coalition. The coalition has unravelled, and only a few countries are taking part in the further attacks against Iraq.
The French and the Russians do not impress me. They are speaking out now because George Bush has gone. It is like saying that the schoolmaster has gone so the children can begin to have a go. I suspect that that is why the French and the Russians are speaking out now. George
582
Bush and the Americans ruled the United Nations Security Council with an iron thumb, and the British Government trailed behind on the coat tails.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) made is important. If one takes a cold, calculated look at what is happening, one begins to see a pattern emerge. Muslims in Bosnia are not defended by western allies. The Iraqis are attacked by the western allies; they are also Muslims. The Palestinians have been attacked by Israel but there has not been much of a song and dance by the western allies because they are Muslims. The Libyans are also Muslims. They have also been ostracised and sanctions have been placed on them.
One begins to wonder what the western allies have against Muslims.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grant: I will not give way. In the language that has been used, the international racism of the western allies has to be seen to be believed. People talk about "spanking" the president of a nation of 18 million people, whether those people like him or not. I suspect that international racism has a lot to do with that. I believe that the recent attacks have been sparked by Bush's hatred of Muslims generally and Saddam Hussein in particular. It is a disgrace that the British Government have blindly followed what Bush did.
Let us consider the justifications which the allies gave for the bombings. They talk about incursions into the no-fly zone. They talk about incursions into Kuwait. The language is not accurate. It was not Kuwait but a demilitarised zone. They talk about Kuwait because they want to conjure up emotional images of what happened before, during and after the Gulf war.
The allies talk about United Nations inspectors and so on. Let us examine the no-fly zone. I specifically asked the Secretary of State for Defence two questions last Wednesday. I asked him about the targets. I asked whether the targets were inside or outside the zone. He said categorically that they were inside. A few days later, on Sunday, we found that the British Government supported the Americans when they sent cruise missiles outside the no-fly zone into Baghdad, killing innocent civilians.
I asked the Secretary of State where he had obtained authorisation for launching the raids. He said categorically that the no-fly zone was authorised in accordance with international law and that the forces were acting in self-defence. That was merely an opinion but it was not backed up by the facts. We were not told what specific aspects of international law supported the allies. We were not told which United Nations resolutions supported the allies. For example, we know that the allies banked on resolution 688, which was carried in April 1991. It referred specifically to northern Iraq and the Kurds.
I quote no less a source than Dilip Hiro, who is an expert in middle east affairs. He said in New Statesman and Society:
"Sixteen months later in August 1992, however, in the absence of any large-scale flow of Shia refugees into Iran or Kuwait, or any formal complaints to the UN by a neighbouring country, the western powers had no grounds for applying Resolution 688 to the situation in southern Iraq. They needed a specific resolution for the purpose. But their soundings at the Security Council showed that they would not get the minimum nine votes required to pass such a motion. Of the seven third-world members of the Council, Cuba, Yemen and Zimbabwe had even opposed Resolution 688; and

583
China and India … had abstained … Having found the road to a separate Security Council resolution blocked, the western leaders resorted to invoking 'unwritten, customary international law' which, they claimed, allowed military intervention in cases of grave humanitarian abuse. Bush went on to describe the western allied air patrols below the 32nd parallel as 'human rights surveillance'. Even the New York Times had difficulty in swallowing this line.
'Fighter jets bristling with missile are not obvious weapons for protecting a human rights monitoring mission'".
The reason why no Security Council resolution was adopted was that the allies could not get the resolution through the Security Council, so unilaterally they set up the no-fly zone. Having done so, they went ahead to say that if Saddam incurred breaches of the no-fly zone, they had the authority to take him out. Of course, not having obtained authorisation in the first place, they did not get it in the second instance.
The Secretary of State talks about self-defence. That is clearly bogus. The former defence secretary of the United States, Dick Cheney, said that Iraqi missiles were so clapped out that they posed a greater threat to the Iraqi troops than the coalition forces.
It is vital that international law is stuck to, especially for countries in the third world. I want my Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to accept that if they are to support the Government in these matters, it is surely the job of the Opposition to ensure that the Government stick to international law and do not take short cuts. There will come a time when the Opposition do not support the Government in the international arena and the Government will not have a leg to stand on.
8.55 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I know that several hon. Members still wish to speak so I propose to limit my remarks to five minutes. The reason why I speak in the debate is that the predecessor Defence Select Committee to that which I chair made two reports last year which are relevant to the Royal Air Force content of the debate. I wish to make some comments on them.
In the sixth report of that Committee, the European fighter aircraft was considered. The Committee made particular reference to three issues: first, the importance of Germany's continued involvement in the EFA programme; secondly, the scope for efficiency savings in the workshare arrangements; and thirdly, the dangers of making savings by reducing performance.
The fears expressed by that Committee were borne out by events. I am delighted that Germany—I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench on their achievement—was persuaded to continue as part of that programme. We learned a great deal during those difficult negotiations about the efficiency possibilities in workshare arrangements and, indeed, to a certain extent, about the inadequacies of the workshare arrangements that were originally agreed. Those lessons must be learnt for the future when we enter other collaborative agreements with our allies.
I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred in his opening speech to the dangers of making savings by reducing performance. I understand that he gave the assurances that I seek, that the British will buy an EFA which is capable of defeating any other aircraft in the sky at the
584
time of its production. That is vital. I apologise to my right hon. Friends that I was not able to be present for that opening speech. The Defence Committee had a long-standing commitment to visit NATO today. That is where I was and from where I returned about half an hour ago.
The second report of the previous Defence Select Committee dealt with short and medium-range air-to-air missiles. It is a development of the same theme as that of the sixth report. I gather that there were substantial difficulties in the collaborative projects which were initiated to replace our short and medium-range air-to-air missiles. Those difficulties have now been resolved. As with the EFA project, there is a great deal to be learnt about the way in which such arrangements are dealt with. Difficulties must be anticipated rather than merely solved with great difficulty during such negotiations.
Turning to the report of my own Committee, we were concerned that the RAF, like other elements of our armed forces, is likely to become severely overstretched. We are concerned that some Jaguar crews are already returning to Incirlik for their third tour. We are concerned about the helicopter and air transport resources available to support operations and the shortage of tankers, given the likely role of the RAF in international peacekeeping affairs.
I would be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence if at some point he could tell the House what has happened to the decision to order 25 utility EH101s that was announced to the House six years ago by the noble Lord Younger, who was the then Secretary of State for Defence. Since then it appears that no advance has been made on putting that purchase into effect.
I congratulate the RAF on its achievements in the Gulf. We are all immensely impressed by the accuracy of the bombing which the RAF in particular carried out in the past week. The standard of expertise is exemplary. When I was fortunate enough to be at strike command headquarters the day after the Tornado strike, it was noteable just how accurate those strikes had been. The RAF can rightly be proud of its standard of workmanship and we should he proud of the RAF.
Finally, I wholly support, as does the Defence Committee, the Government's efforts to support the United Nations resolutions and to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not go beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour and contravene the standards that the United Nations has laid down. Clearly, he has been testing the resolutions as hard as he can for the past month or two, trying to take advantage of what he perceived as a potential weakness during the change of presidency in the United States. I have no doubt whatever that we were right to back the efforts to enforce the no-fly zone and to make sure that he did not try again to cross the border with Kuwait and start another incident.
My only worry is that there is a certain lack of clarity about the parameters within which the United Nations should exercise control or those around which we should limit the action that is being taken against Iraq. It must be right to enforce the no-fly zone and ensure that Saddam Hussein does not do any damage to his neighbours and to make sure, in so far as we can, that his behaviour towards the Shi'ite people in the south of Iraq and the Kurdish people in the north remains within the bounds of civilized

585
human behaviour. However, there are limits to the extent to which we are right to bomb Baghdad or take other retaliatory action which puts at great risk civilian life.
I hope that the Government will take note of the resolution of the House to back the United Nations in its efforts to curtail Saddam Hussein, but equally that we do not go too far in provoking unnecessary conflict.
9.2 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: Although I intend to vote against the Adjournment, I welcome certain aspects of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who said that we should now seek agreement from the United Nations on all future action. However, if we adopt such an attitude, there should be some feedback in our attitude towards Iraq.
We cannot ignore the position of the United Nations and argue that everything has taken place with the agreement of the United Nations and is entirely justified by past resolutions. There seems to be some inconsistency if we say that in future we shall always act in a certain way, but that the past is the past and does not relate to what we are now seeking to achieve.
In trade union discussions a distinction is drawn between procedural agreements and substantive agreements. That analysis should apply to the United Nations. The United Nations tends to adopt long resolutions suggesting that certain action should be taken, with no provision for follow-up measures. Nor do United Nations resolutions establish which agencies are supposed to act on their behalf. That needs to be contained in the original resolution, and if it is not, we need to return to the United Nations to pass fresh resolutions which agree to action in different areas. I might not necessarily agree with the substantive agreements reached if we did so. I do not agree with many of the measures passed in this Parliament and often seek to speak and mobilise hon. Members against them. If we return to the United Nations and pass fresh resolutions, it will make the actions taken under them legitimate.
What have we got at the moment? Resolution 687 concerns the ending of hostilities between Kuwait and Iraq. During recent events much has been unreasonably built on that resolution. Resolution 688 essentially concerns the Kurds in the north of Iraq and was used initially to justify action in the southern no-fly zone—a zone that does not enter into resolutions 687 or 688, but was decided afterwards. No-fly zones are justified in such circumstances. They are justified in Bosnia, where they have been determined by a United Nations resolution. However, that is not the case in Iraq.
No United Nations resolutions justify the action and no United Nations forces are involved. Forces are not going into action wearing light blue berets and helmets. The United Nations did not decide on the no-fly zone and there is no United Nations command structure for the action in the Gulf as there is in Bosnia, despite all the problems there.
The retrospective endorsement of the United Nations Secretary-General is the only justification for the action. Secretaries-General sometimes get things wrong. It does not follow that because a Secretary-General—even one as
586
prestigious as the United Nations Secretary-General—has said something, it is the correct interpretation of the resolutions that we are acting under.
There can be no justification for the action taken outside the no-fly zone. It is peculiar that the actions taken inside the zone were justified in international law as self-defence. The no-fly zone was established in violation of the sovereignty of Iraq. We told Iraq that as it intended to take action against us, we were engaged in self-defence. That would apply if the no-fly zone happened to be in another country, but not if it is in Iraq.
I was opposed to the liberation of Kuwait, but that action was taken to defend Kuwait's sovereignty against Iraq. On this occasion, we are invading the sovereignty of Iraq. Nothing contained in international law or the United Nation's resolutions can justify the action that has been taken, although there might be developments to justify it.
9.7 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words before the winding-up speeches. I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), but wish to identify myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about training and the Royal Air Force reserves.
It is fair to say that, since the 1950s, areas of operation for the Royal Air Force steadily shrank until about a year ago. It is ironic that, in the past 18 months, since the end of the cold war and the destruction of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, there has been an increase in the number of areas in which the RAF has operated.
We saw how effective the RAF was during the Gulf war, and in the recent raids over Iraq we have seen the effectiveness of modern weapons systems such as the Tornado and laser-guided bombs. That shows that air power is highly effective. It is both flexible and speedy, it results in minimum loss of life to the aircraft crews taking part, compared with the use of ground troops, and it provides a most effective deterrent in many cases and a key element in peace-keeping, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said.
I believe that in the future we shall see increased use of air power because of the features of flexibility and speed of response. In this respect, it is very important that the Royal Air Force has modern, capable aircraft. Obviously, I am delighted that the Eurofighter 2000 is going ahead, with all four nations taking part. This aircraft is a vital part of the RAF's future. It will provide a first-class air platform on which increasingly sophisticated and advanced systems can be mounted. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I am an favour of updating the Tornado GR1 with a stand-off weapon, thus enabling it to carry out raids of the sort that it carried out over Iraq, but with less likelihood of its being shot down.
We must look very closely at our transport needs if we are to have the flexibility of response to which I referred. We need a replacement for the Hercules and we need it soon. It will be necessary, more and more, to use helicopters. As has been said, the EH101 procurement is now very urgent and I hope that there will be action sooner rather than later.
I am convinced that, more than ever, this country needs a balanced, modern and flexible Air Force equipped with

587
all the main components of air power and able to respond effectively whenever the need arises, as, tragically, seems likely to occur ever more frequently in the future.
9.11 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: It is right that the House should be debating today the situation in Iraq. Although, from the point of view of the RAF, particularly on the 75th anniversary of its creation, this debate arrangement is less than satisfactory, it is proper and appropriate that the House should have the opportunity to consider the development international crisis and deteriorating military situation in Iraq. Had the change of business not been announced, I should certainly have sought, on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, an emergency debate on the subject of Iraq.
I express my personal congratulations to and support for the RAF on its 75th anniversary. I also support the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) at the beginning of the debate.
I want to begin by stating our position quite clearly. The position of Labour is support for United Nations resolutions, for decisions of the Security Council and for actions based firmly and clearly within the terms of those resolutions. If international order and decisions are to mean anything at all in an increasingly disordered world, I can see no course other than to act on that basis through decisions of the Security Council.
I expressed our position on these issues in a letter to the Foreign Secretary as long ago as 20 August 1992, when I said that we would support the creation of a no-fly zone in the south of Iraq, just as we had supported the establishment of the no-fly zone in the north. Both those decisions were based on requests from many countries and on many international demands that action be taken to prevent genocide against the Kurds and the Shia Muslims in Iraq. I said in that letter, and I repeat now, that we would not support air strikes against other targets in Iraq. For the sake of clarity, I shall quote from my letter:
"I also want to make clear our position in relation to any proposed military attack on ground targets in Iraq. I strongly believe that no such attack can be justified or should be made unless and until the United Nations Security Council has considered the matter."
When the attack took place last weekend, following consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and the Leader of the Opposition, we immediately demanded the recall of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the situation and to establish clearly what the position was.
It was right for us to have done that and we were pleased when other countries joined in that call. As has been said in the debate, we were sorry that Her Majesty's Government did not immediately adopt that approach. I was sorry for another reason: I did not believe it right that in the last 48 hours of his mandate, the then President of the United States should be initiating that sort of action.
I wish also to make it clear that we cannot accept, nor do we regard, the decisions of any President of the United States as synonymous with decisions of the UN Security Council. It is important for us to be clear that the authority of the UN, which I support and want to see upheld, including in Iraq, must have the widest possible coalition
588
of support. It is dangerous for the United States to jeopardise the coalition for action and the wide-ranging support that has been established.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose—
Dr. Cunningham: I will not give way yet.
I hope that the new President of the United States, whose election I warmly applaud and whose success has delighted my hon. Friends and me, will be extremely cautious about moves against Iraq—or, for that matter elsewhere, including Bosnia—to ensure that whatever is done has the legitimate suport and agreement of the UN Security Council. I cannot make my position and that of my party clearer than that.
Saddam heads a bloody, villainous and deceitful regime, but the position of Her Majesty's Government has not been altogether coherent or consistent in regard to that regime. It was all right for the west and the allies to help create the monster war machine in Iraq. It was all right for that to be built up year on year so long as that war machine was aimed at Iran. It was a different matter when that same war machine turned against western interests, as ultimately it did in Kuwait, and there was horror and dismay at those events.
Again, my party supported the decisions of the UN—it was right for us to do so; I support them strongly, then and now—to take action to dismiss that territorial aggression. But the record of Her Majesty's Government in all those matters should not be ignored or obscured in the present circumstances. I regret to say that, even now, the British Government are giving confused signals to Iraq.
During Foreign Affairs Question Time last week, I raised with the Secretary of State details of an article in the Sunday Mirror of the previous week-end. There was a degree of derisory laughter on the Conservative Benches because the Sunday Mirror had disclosed that our Foreign Secretary was issuing visas to authorise visits to this country by Iraqi business people—agents of the Saddam regime—to discuss new deals with GEC. Far from laughing now, Conservative Members look sombre. They should, because the Foreign Secretary confirmed to me in a letter this week that he had authorised such visits and that discussions had taken place.
It is deplorable—I am not suggesting that any deal has been done—even to be discussing with the Saddam regime deals on the one hand, while, on the other, we are sending our airplanes against them in support of UN Security Council resolutions. With the Conservative party, business is always business. That is the view they take. Business is always business, especially when the chairman of the company involved is none other than Lord Prior, a former Conservative Cabinet Minister.
I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of keeping the coalition together on this issue and of better understanding and clearer messages to the Saddam regime, not to issue any more such visas to Iraqi business men to come to this country unless and until we have the situation in Iraq under control; until Saddam has accepted the decisions of the United Nations; until military efforts have ceased and that dialogue has begun. In those circumstances it may be acceptable, but certainly not until then.
Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend contrast the ease with which Iraqis have been able to obtain visas to come

589
here to buy arms and sophisticated telecommunications equipment with the extraordinary difficulty I have had in persuading the British Foreign Office and Home Office to give visas to a 63-year-old Iraqi woman who urgently needs medical treatment in this country?
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend makes his point effectively, except that I am not suggesting that these latest visits were to discuss arms contracts, but the previous visits were. That is the case.
I reiterate that we support United Nations Security Council resolutions on Kuwait and we supported the establishment of the air exclusion zones because it was quite apparent that Saddam was practising genocide against his own people, using poison gas against the Kurds in the north. If anyone doubts what is going on, they should read the excellent report of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who has just returned from Iraqi Kurdistan to report to us that thousands of Kurdish villages have been obliterated by the Saddam regime—reduced to rubble—and people slaughtered, including women and children.
While I give second place to no one in deploring what happened at the al-Rashid hotel, the reality is that Saddam himself has killed many thousands more of his own citizens in trying to suppress the development of democracy in his own country. So we fully and wholeheartedly support the actions in support of the air exclusion zones. We cannot accept a situation in which our own pilots and air crews, in pursuit of those air exclusion zones, can be threatened by Saddam's forces on the ground.
I want to see an end to all these military actions and to see stability return to the region. I guess that those aims and objectives are shared by everyone in the House, but until Saddam Hussein is willing to accept the terms of the ceasefire and to accept the right of the United Nations and the force of the Security Council resolutions, it seems to me unlikely that those actions can be put in abeyance.
I want to make one other important point about stability in that region which has been the most threatening region to world peace for at least the past four decades. We need to keep together in the coalition the Islamic nations that have supported the action against Saddam Hussein from the outset. Therefore, we need to demonstrate to them our even-handedness and the even-handedness of the United Nations in pursuit of Security Council resolutions.
We warmly welcomed and rejoiced in the election of a Labour Government in Israel but we deplore their treatment of the Palestinians, which is clearly in breach of international law, specifically the fourth Geneva convention. We have told them in no uncertain terms that they should rescind their decision immediately. I make that clear again. In that connection I urge the Foreign Secretary to respond to the PLO's request to meet him in Israel together with representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to discuss this and other matters and the peace initiative generally which, as everyone agrees, is important. The Government of Israel have persuaded their Parliament to agree to talks with representatives of the Palestinians and there is no reason why our Government should not take the same approach. I urge the Foreign Secretary to do so.
I have spelt out our position on these matters. I shall now deal with the escalating situation and the deteriorating international scene. I supported much of
590
what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said. The hon. and learned Member for File, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, made one of the best speeches in the debate. We simply cannot continue tit-for-tat indefinitely. The Foreign Secretary has my sympathy and, in most respects, he also has my support because I realise how difficult it must be to deal with a regime that is entrenched in suppression, torture and extermination.
We should be working through the United Nations in the best interests of all the people of Iraq for greater stability in the region so that acts of war, military actions, can cease and some kind of dialogue can begin. I do not rule out more action, but we must try to persuade Saddam Hussein to accept the decisions of the international community authorised by the Security Council. He must promise to stop actions against his own people in the north and south or elsewhere in Iraq. If he can be brought to those terms, some dialogue must be initiated.
To bring additional pressure on him, I urge the Government and the coalition allies greatly to improve and strengthen their communications, links and dialogue with the democratic organisations which represent various groups of Iraqi people in capitals around the world. That should be used far more effectively than it has hitherto to bring pressure to bear on Saddam's regime.
Our support can be based only on that kind of approach; on legitimate decisions, actions and objectives agreed internationally in the United Nations. The sad fact is that the United Nations is currently overloaded with demands. It is weak, underfunded, under-resourced and overstretched. Support for the Secretary-General is nowhere near sufficient to enable him to respond to the demands that are continually heaped upon him and his staff.
I hope that we will see a change in the Government's attitude towards support for the United Nations. Perhaps I had better reiterate that I am a strong supporter of the United States of America, and certainly of that country's newly elected President. However, we cannot allow the United Nations to be denied subscriptions from the USA on the one hand and to be persuaded to take military action in lieu of those subscriptions on the other. We should not accept that kind of pressure on the United Nations.
I hope that problem can be tackled—as we intend to tackle it in our developing dialogue with the new Administration in Washington. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not surprised by the looks of amazement on the faces of Conservative Members, but it is clear that they do not have many friends in the new Administration. Any hope that they had of a flying start was rather derailed by the kind of person and the nature of the campaigning ideas that they sent to support President Bush in the American elections.
Mr. Mans: So that we may get the record straight, will the hon. Gentleman say how many other nations that are members of the United Nations are not up to date with their subscriptions?
Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I regret to say that the number is large. I am not suggesting that the problem is only with the United States of America. I am merely urging the Foreign Secretary to start taking action to resolve the general

591
underfunding of the United Nations. I do not for one moment suggest that the fault is wholly that of the United States of America.
Before I conclude, I want to mention the circumstances of Paul Ride and Michael Wainwright, who were arrested and are being arbitrarily detained, having committed no crime other than to wander innocently over the border into Iraq. Again, that is an illustration of the nature of the regime that we must face and with which we must try to deal.
I have discussed their case with the Foreign Secretary on more than one occasion, and I know that he is acting consistently on behalf of those two men. I urge him again tonight to redouble his efforts to seek the safe release of those two British subjects—as my hon. Friends the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) have consistently done.
We have never pretended from this Dispatch Box that the problems are easy to resolve. We do not suggest now that the solutions are simple. However, there is, or appears to be, a lack of any coherent strategy towards resolving the problems of Iraq and of securing greater stability in the whole region.
We urge the right hon. Gentleman and the Cabinet to adopt a change of course in that regard if, and only if, the commitments that I have spelt out can be secured from Saddam Hussein. If they cannot, and if Saddam Hussein persists with threatening the coalition forces and with acts of genocide against his own people, we shall be as authoritative as anyone in calling for continued action against his regime.
I hope that Saddam Hussein will listen to reason. That would be the best outcome for everyone—including, I regret to say, Saddam Hussein himself, to whom I offer no sympathy or support at all. Neither does anyone sitting on the Opposition Benches. If Saddam Hussein will not listen to reason, he should be left in no doubt that the will and authority of the international community must be made to prevail. That will and authority, based on Security Council decisions, will have our implacable support.
9.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for his concluding words.
The debate has two perfectly respectable parents—the Royal Air Force and the Gulf—but it has emerged as a mongrel. I apologise to hon. Members who have raised points related specifically to the RAF. I shall ensure that they are answered by Defence Ministers, as has been requested.
I wish to respond to the part of the debate that, as it were, intruded on the original debate. I have been present for most of it, but I missed two speeches that were clearly outstanding—those of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). I did hear some exceptional speeches, however, including the shrewd contributions of my right hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and for Bridgwater (Mr. King), and the eloquent tirade of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
592
I do not think that there is any serious doubt or confusion about our objectives in dealing with Iraq. We have three: to maintain the integrity of Kuwait; to eliminate the threat of Iraqi nuclear and chemical weapons; and, as far as we can, to deter Saddam Hussein from attacking the Kurds and Shias who live within the frontiers of Iraq. Those aims have two things in common: they are all underwritten by the United Nations, and an attempt has been made to undermine all three in the past fortnight.
The underwriting by the United Nations is clear. The first objective—the maintaining of Kuwait's sovereignty—is contained in UN resolutions 678 and 687. The second, relating to nuclear, biological and chemical missile capabilities, is dealt with in resolutions 687 and 707, which authorise the inspection teams. The third is contained in resolution 688, which demands a stop to repression of the Iraqi civilian population. Resolutions 706 and 712 are sometimes forgotten, but they could become important again. They allow the sale of oil to finance humanitarian relief, including relief for the Kurds.
As I have said, each of those objectives has been threatened in the past few weeks. Let us take the first, the integrity of Kuwait. On the Kuwait border, Saddam Hussein sent organised armed teams into what is now legally Kuwait to retrieve Silkworm missiles. He refused to return the missiles, and failed to evacuate police posts in the demilitarised zone by the deadline set by the Security Council. As for the second objective, relating to nuclear and chemical weapons facilities, Saddam did what he has done before. He presented several obstacles, and sought to impose several conditions, to prevent the UN Special Commission from carrying out its appointed task. He refused to allow UN Special Commission flights to enter Iraqi territory, and placed restrictions on the use of aircraft and helicopters inside Iraq.
As for the third objective, Saddam deployed missiles threatening coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone. In the north, Iraqi forces repeatedly harassed and attacked humanitarian convoys taking much-needed food and medical supplies, forcing them to be temporarily suspended.
Why was the effort made, quite suddenly, to undermine all three of the objectives of our policy, which were underwritten by the United Nations? I do not believe that Saddam Hussein is a madman, but he is certainly a gambler. He thought that he could gamble on what he perceived as a moment of uncertainty and weakness in the west because of the end of the current United States Administration. He was wrong, and it was desperately important to prove him wrong. That sums up the point of the action that has been taken in the past few weeks.

If Saddam's challenge had gone unanswered, he would have gained a substantial advantage in the world. Our aims would have been put at risk, and our friends—including some who, perhaps a little belatedly now that President Bush is out of the way, have expressed criticisms—would have been the first to evince nervousness and apprehension, and to suggest that we had begun to lose our nerve and desert our objectives.
I am sure that it was right to respond legally and proportionately, and the result has been that, for the moment, the wrongdoing and undermining have stopped. The news today is not all about peace—I readily acknowledge that—but the UNSCOM flight has now arrived in Baghdad with United Nations personnel

593
aboard. We shall have to see how those United Nations representatives are treated and how they are able to operate when they get going.
As the House has heard, there has been an incident in the northern zone today, in which Iraqi radar may have locked on to a coalition aircraft resulting in that aircraft firing a missile. That incident is very recent and the facts have not yet been fully established. I mention it to the House to show how careful one has to be if one is to ensure that the pause for which we hope is sustained.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and others have referred to the legal position. I believe that, unlike Saddam Hussein, we have paid scrupulous attention to international law. In response to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I would say that we believe, and we are advised, that we have acted throughout in accordance with the charter—which is not always the same thing as specifically acting under a specific resolution. Hon. Members will know of that important distinction, which has always been sustained. We have to operate within international law; we intend to do so, and have done so.
Mr. Benn: Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether, in all the recent cases, Boutros Boutros Ghali was brought in to the consultation before the military action was taken, as he made no statement after the first bombing? We were told today that he had retrospectively endorsed it, but was he consulted by President Bush and the British and French Governments before the decision to take that action was made?
Mr. Hurd: I cannot, without notice, give the right hon. Gentleman the dates of the contacts between the western Governments and the Secretary-General, but those contacts have been consistent and continuous. The right hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. He knows perfectly well that, when the Secretary-General has been given the opportunity, he has made his views known very specifically in support of the action. The right hon. Gentleman is on to an entirely false point.
The coalition and its permanent representatives in New York made clear to Iraq the basis for the no-fly zone: indeed, that has been clear to Iraq for a long time. The zone was created as a result of Iraq's failure to comply with resolution 688. The House has discussed this before and hon. Members will be aware that we believe that the no-fly zones are fully justified in international law by the need to protect people whom they own Government will not protect or who, as in this case, are repressed by their own Government. The right of self-defence flows from that assumption and that action.
We also believe that the action against Iraq's nuclear facilities was fully in accordance with international law. In its statements of 8 and 11 January the Security Council—whose statements have to be approved unanimously—determined that Iraq's actions, such as the obstruction of UNSCOM flights, were material breaches of resolution 687, the resolution that established the formal ceasefire. In those circumstances, other parties to the conflict in the Gulf have the right in international law to take necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that Iraq complies with the terms of the ceasefire. I believe that we acted in accordance with internaional law, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Was the bombing of Baghdad really justified because there were logistical problems involving United Nations observers having to travel through Jordan to get to Baghdad instead of flying through the no-fly zone? That is what it amounted to at that stage.
Mr. Hurd: There was a great deal of discussion with the Iraqis on that point in New York. What became perfectly clear—not the first time but the second time, because we gave the Iraqis a pause on this matter—was that the Iraqis' aim was to impose conditions and to put the United nations teams in a position in which they flew by grace and favour of Saddam Hussein. That is contrary to the United Nations resolution and to the statements of the Security Council to which I have just referred. That was the aim. What the actual condition suggested was of secondary importance. The aim was to remove the unconditional right of the United Nations teams to operate to show the world that the threat of nuclear and chemical weapons had been removed.
The hon. Member for Tottenham made a sincere speech. However, I ask him to consider his line of thought that the world and the west are manipulating the United Nations against Muslims. I ask him to think about Afghans, Somalis and Kuwaitis who have been helped in recent years, at some sacrifice to others, by the international community. They are Muslims, and injustices do not simply affect Muslims. The world is full of injustices against all people. I hope that the hon. Member for Tottenham will pause before he pursues that line of argument.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a specific point about the relationship between Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I must say that that issue will fall to the Scott inquiry. However, the hon. Member for Linlithgow should bear in mind the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) that our reputation among the Iraqis, who were in a position to know, was not of looseness but of tightness in comparison to others in respect of administering controls.
Mr. Dalyell: The problem arises when one part of the Government, the Customs and Excise, does the enforcing while another part of the Government lays down the policy. If the enforcers—the Customs and Excise—do not know, as is claimed, what happened in DTI negotiations, that makes justice impossible.
Mr. Hurd: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's coherent point. However, the question clearly falls within the remit of the Scott inquiry and I will not deal with it tonight.
We have heard much from some Opposition Members about the imminent collapse of the coalition. I would take that point more tragically if I had not heard exactly the same prophecies over and again in our debates during the Gulf war. We did not have a debate in which I was not solemnly informed by newspapers or by Opposition Members that the whole thing was coming apart, that everyone was deserting, and that it was only the majority on the Conservative Benches who were sustaining the policy. That is nonsense.
Of course, misgivings have been expressed and I do not complain about that. That is natural enough when the situation is fast moving and decisions have to be taken.

595
However, as I have said, those misgivings would have been much greater if we had sat back and done nothing and allowed events to unfold without any reaction. People would then have been disturbed. The coalition would then really have begun to come unstuck.
I want now to consider double standards, but only briefly because I will not be able to do it justice. The issue of double standards loomed in the debate, as it looms in criticisms, particularly from the Muslim world. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who are close to the Muslim world quite rightly reflected the issue in their speeches.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations told me last week that there are about 25 points of conflict in the world. Are we to do nothing because we cannot do everything? We cannot be content with many of those points of conflict. We must exert ourselves, but we must exert ourselves in different ways according to the different natures of the conflicts.
In that regard, I will mention only one conflict because reference has been made to it and because it is the other big conflict in the middle east. That problem is the plight of the Palestinians. We need to demand action from Israel on that matter. The deportations are illegal and a menace to the peace process.
I have already explained my view about the matter in person to the Foreign Minister of Israel. When he meets the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on 1 February, we will have an opportunity to ram that point home, unless, as I hope, a solution to the problem has been found by then. We believe that the deportations are not simply wrong, but, as has been said, are a serious mistake, even allowing for the provocation of the killing of Sergeant Major Toledano.
Even today, we are trying to help. In response to a request that we have received, we will tell the parties concerned that, if they can agree on a further humanitarian visit by the Red Cross to those who have been deported, RAF helicopters from Cyprus will be available to help as necessary, provided that we can be satisfied about the security aspects of the operation. This is a small but important example of the way in which, because we are there, because we are skilled, because we are willing, we can quite quickly help to unravel and defuse a situation.
I should like to mention the plight of Mr. Ride and Mr. Wainwright—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hurd: I will give way to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).
Mr. Ernie Ross: I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary has many areas to cover and many points to make, but it really does the House no good—we discussed this on Tuesday—and it does those who are trying to keep the middle east peace process on track no good simply to say that the 415 Palestinians who are stuck somewhere between Israel and Lebanon are the major block to people accepting that we are being even-handed in the middle east. Every single day, Israel breaks international law, and one simply cannot get away with saying that some helicopters will be sent and that this will answer the
596
problem. Something specific must be done. Why go ahead with the meeting on 1 February when they are still there? Why not make some gesture?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member has made his speech; he must not make it again. It is unfair to pick out the point about the helicopters. I simply used it, as it is a piece of news, to illustrate in a particular way the kind of thing we could do to help. Of course it is not a total response. The Israelis must find a way of dealing with this particular problem which they created, under provocation. A lot of work is going on to bring this about. The hon. Member knows that because I told him the details, but he probably knew it already. I hope and believe that the work will be successful. If it is not successful by 1 February, our meeting with the Foreign Minister of Israel will not be a sort of reward for Israel but an occasion on which to make this point very clear. It is partly why I am saying it now.
We are not leaving this aside or saying that it is negligible, because it is going to be an obstacle in the way of removing the injustice that the hon. Member has devoted a large part of his life to removing. We want to remove it. It will be removed by the peace process. It will be removed not by sanctions but by the peace process. We must liberate the path to the peace process, and that is what we are trying to do.
Dr. Cunningham: I appreciate the Foreign Secretary allowing me to intervene when time is short. If he wants to do something concrete and specific, why does he not, as the Israeli Government have now agreed to do, meet and discuss these matters with representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Israeli Government have agreed to no such thing. They have agreed to remove a law which makes it illegal for Israeli citizens to do so—quite a different proposition. We have constant contracts with the PLO which are valuable to us and, I think, to the PLO. We last saw Mr. Qaddoumi in Tunis a few days ago. Ministerial meetings have been suspended since the Gulf war, for good reasons. I regard this as a matter of usefulness. If I could be persuaded, which I have not yet been, that it would be useful to us or to the peace process, we could change the level, but that is the position at the moment.
I was about to refer to Mr. Ride and Mr. Wainwright, who are suffering what we regard as grotesque sentences of imprisonment, sentences which are disproportionate to the offence. The hon. Member for Copeland, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) and the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) continue to press me; we continue to make sure that the men are visited and we will do all we can to secure their release. Russian diplomats in Baghadad visited both men on 15 January and again yesterday, 20 January. They reported that the men are physically well and have suffered no adverse treatment in recent days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West stressed the suffering in Iraq, and other hon. Members have rightly referred to it. I entirely agree with her. We must do our best, despite all the political turmoil, to get help through. That is why, although it is imperfect, I support the Secretary-General's memorandum of understanding to enable the humanitarian activities to continue in Iraq. Obviously I support what we are doing

597
steadily to build up the help that we give through the Overseas Development Administration both in northern Iraq and in the south.
I will spend the last few minutes on the plea which has come from many parts of the House for forward thinking and for a strategy. It is more easily asked for than provided, but nevertheless it is a perfectly legitimate demand, and this is the moment at which we ought to meet it.
As regards Iraq, I do not dissent from the closing part of the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland. The first step is for Iraq to show in practice that it is complying with the resolutions. Until that happens, we have to keep all our options open, as the hon. Gentleman said. Of course, Gulf security is the framework of this.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) referred to Iran, as did other hon. Members, and quite rightly. It is a factor, and there is understandable anxiety about the policies of Iran.
Obviously, in an ideal world, Gulf defence is best carried out by Gulf countries. This is something that I urged on all the Gulf states after the Gulf war. I must admit that I have been disappointed by the extent to which they have come together, and come together with Egypt and Syria, despite the Damascus declaration, in order to provide worthwhile machinery for their own defence. Iraq is not a helpful factor in that; it is a threatening factor at the present stage.
I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was a little churlish about Kuwait. I first went to Kuwait, as he reminded the House, in his company, under his tuition. He went to Kuwait in 1968 so that he could explain to the Kuwaitis how he would defend them for a long time, and how Mr. Denis Healey, as Secretary of State for Defence, was wrong in proposing that we should cease to defend them. I believe that that instinct of my right hon. Friend was perhaps rather more soundly based than the instinct on which he spoke today.
Of course, we cannot be rash or seek to do things beyond our strength, but we have an obligation to work closely with the Kuwaitis in meeting their defence needs, and an interest in doing so. We have had no request to send a battalion of troops, so I am not talking about that. I am talking about our memorandum of understanding, the kind of joint air exercise that we had last December, visits by the Royal Navy and the advice that we give on defence. I believe that that kind of co-operation between Kuwait and Britain, in the situation in the Gulf, is reasonable and should continue.
As regards Iraq, we will continue to enforce sanctions. We will insist on inspections. We respect the integrity of Iraq and we know that it will remain an important middle eastern country. But, before it can fit into a general framework, it needs to comply with its international obligations. They are onerous because we are dealing with a country which was a recent aggressor. We are vigilant because of the past record of deceit, and, with our allies, we have to insist on compliance with these obligations and maintain our vigilance.
I turn finally to the general point to which the House ought to return—the question raised by several hon. Members of peacekeeping in these 25 trouble spots. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a notable speech on this yesterday to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. This will be one of the big questions and problems for all of us:
598
the role of the United Nations, which, as has been shrewdly pointed out, is moving from dealing with acts between one state and another to dealing with acts within a state—South Africa first, resolution 688, and Somalia since then. This is a big move, but the United Nations is not equipped to deal with it, partly for financial reasons and partly because of the lack of staff and equipment available to the Secretary-General.
Then there is the role of the United States, the only super-power, but not wishing to dominate. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are simply misguided about that. They will find great continuity between President Clinton and former President Bush. They will find a desire to make sense of what they call the new world order and they will want a good deal of help from their allies in doing that—not in a relationship of master and servant, giving orders and carrying them out. When the records of the conversations over this last weekend are revealed, as when earlier records are revealed, they will see that that was not the relationship. The position of the United Kingdom and the role which we should play, not always but when we can, to make a British contribution by those means will lead to a slightly safer and more decent world.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 156.

Division No. 119]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Loyden, Eddie

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McAllion, John

Bennett, Andrew F.

Madden, Max

Canavan, Dennis

Mahon, Alice

Chisholm, Malcolm

Pickthall, Colin

Cohen, Harry

Simpson, Alan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Skinner, Dennis

Dalyell, Tam

Wise, Audrey

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

Galloway, George

Tellers for the Ayes

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Hood, Jimmy

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Livingstone, Ken

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Elletson, Harold

Alexander, Richard

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Amess, David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Arbuthnot, James

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evennett, David

Ashby, David

Fabricant, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Fishburn, Dudley

Beggs, Roy

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Forth, Eric

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Foster, Don (Bath)

Booth, Hartley

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Boswell, Tim

Freeman, Roger

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gale, Roger

Bowis, John

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Brazier, Julian

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bright, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burns, Simon

Hague, William

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Harvey, Nick

Cash, William

Heald, Oliver

Clappison, James

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Congdon, David

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cormack, Patrick

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Devlin, Tim

Jack, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Eggar, Tim

Jessel, Toby

599

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Patnick, Irvine

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Patten, Rt Hon John

Key, Robert

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Kilfedder, Sir James

Pickles, Eric

King, Rt Hon Tom

Porter, David (Waveney)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Knapman, Roger

Riddick, Graham

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Knox, David

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sackville, Tom

Leigh, Edward

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lidington, David

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lightbown, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Luff, Peter

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sproat, Iain

Maclean, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Madel, David

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Maitland, Lady Olga

Steen, Anthony

Malone, Gerald

Stephen, Michael

Mans, Keith

Streeter, Gary

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sumberg, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sweeney, Walter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Merchant, Piers

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Milligan, Stephen

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Needham, Richard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nelson, Anthony

Thurnham, Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

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

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Trimble, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Norris, Steve

Tyler, Paul

Ottaway, Richard

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Paice, James

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wallace, James

600

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Wood, Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Tellers for the Noes:

Wilkinson, John

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Mr. Andrew MacKay.

Question accordingly negatived.

OSTEOPATHS BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session resulting from the Osteopaths Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Privy Council under the provisions of the Act relating to the default powers of the Privy Council.—[Mr. Sackville.]

PETITION

  Pit Closures
  10.10 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg leave of the House to present a petition organised by the Welsh region of the Coalfield Communities Campaign. The petition is against the colliery closure programme announced by British Coal and the Government last October. It has been signed by more than 28,000 people from all parts of Wales and states:
  Whereas your petitioners pray that your Honourable House decide to halt the proposed pit closures and to re-examine the total economic case and instruct the Government to withdraw the proposals by British Coal to close the collieries previously identified.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Manufacturing Industry (Dunstable)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10.12 pm
  Mr. David Madel: I am grateful for the opportunity to have a short debate about the future of manufacturing in the Dunstable area, which has made a massive and sustained contribution for many years to the prosperity of Bedfordshire and the country.
  The debate has been caused by two press announcements in December. The first was from Renault Trucks and stated:
  "The production of the 50 series vehicles and Midliners at Dunstable will cease in the Spring of 1993 and the headcount will be progressively reduced from 520 to 240 employees."
  One week later, our local newspaper, the Dunstable Gazette, covering the employment situation, stated:
  "The announcement adds further to the depression already felt locally following the receivership of Renault's truck neighbour, AWD and the selling off of the business in October."
  Continuing sustained efforts are being made by the work force at Renault to try to get the decision to end production reversed. Help is being sought—if it can be—from the European Community, and negotiations are under way. One sentence stands out from the submission that the work force have made to Renault management:
  "The work force is proud of its capabilities and its commitment to flexibility, economics and quality."
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will understand how, even at this late stage, everyone in Dunstable hopes that a solution can be found to keep Renault manufacturing trucks in Dunstable, as it has done successfully in the past. Trucks are to Dunstable what steel was to Corby—a town not far from Dunstable near the Bedforshire border. Dunstable can recover, but we need help—as Corby had help.
  Dunstable has a great bank of industrial skills and benefits from an innovative and imaginative education service, provided by Bedfordshire local education authority, as well as two grant-maintained schools in the town, plus a highly successful college of further education.
  I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister for some action and help along the following lines. First, there is a strong case for a derelict land grant for our area. I want the Department to talk urgently to South Bedfordshire district council, which is greatly concerned—as am I, and the people in the town—about our industrial base. The need to find out what can be done about the former AWD Bedford site is especially urgent, as it will need considerable adaption to attract new industry. Discussions should not be confined to the AWD site, as the entire Dunstable and Houghton Regis area needs an urgent and in-depth study so that it can try to obtain a derelict land grant.
  The figures for spending on derelict land grants show that, in 1991–92, £18.25 million was spent in the north-west and a mere £0.65 million in the south-east. That is an imbalance, which should be corrected given the recession that we are suffering in the south-east.
  Secondly, the Urban Regeneration Agency will soon be created, once the Housing and Urban Development Bill gets through the House of Commons and another place. I urge on my hon. Friend the importance of the fact that the
  602
  activities of that agency are not directed away from the south-east, as we have a problem that I believe that the agency can attend to and help us with.
  Given the situation in Dunstable and the problems in the truck industry, discussions continue on whether we could qualify for enterprise zone status. I and every hon. Member will welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about one-stop shops and his invitation for bids to set them up. I think that I am right in saying that the bids must be with the Department by 29 January.
  On page 10 of the document that sets out what the Department of Trade and Industry want are these words:
  "Bids should take the form of a detailed strategy document for the creation of a 'One Stop Shop' in a defined area and should demonstrate, where appropriate, how this development fits within the context of the broader economic development strategy for the area."
  That is what we are looking for in the Dunstable area—an economic strategy for us, given the difficulties that we face.
  I hope that one final matter can be attended to. Training and enterprise councils are a thoroughly welcome back-up for areas that suffer sudden and severe increases in unemployment. To work properly they must respond quickly and flexibly to unemployment, which means moving funds swiftly to areas that they cover which are suddenly confronted with great employment difficulties. The Bedfordshire training and enterprise council is effective, but, given the difficulties of the Dunstable area, it needs an extra boost. What is needed is Government help to attract new industry into the area.
  I should like to end with a word of warning and a word of encouragement. The word of warning is about housing. Before the employment base in the Dunstable area has been sorted out and re-established, we must take another look at the numbers and types of houses that we are required to build under Bedfordshire's structure plan and at the time scale for that building programme. A big imbalance between housing development and employment opportunities is arising in the south of the county. Now is the time for a fresh and urgent look at that balance.
  Then there is my word of encouragement. We need to emphasise constantly what the Dunstable area has to offer to prospective new industry. I have mentioned the education that we provide. There is also our long history of industrial harmony on the factory floors, our bank of industrial skills, our modernised railway lines on both the east and west sides of Bedfordshire, the forthcoming widening of the M1 and, of course, our excellent regional airport at Luton, which could handle far more air traffic, passengers and freight than it does at present.
  Dunstable has suffered a great industrial reverse—one of the greatest yet seen in the south of England. In view of all the help that has been given to the various regions of this country since the end of the second world war, I hope that the Government will be able to respond favourably and positively to the specific requests that I have made for help for our area. The town can recover, but we need help.
  10.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) on his success in securing a debate on this

  603
  important issue. I know that he is assiduous in the interest he takes in all matters affecting his constituency. The House will be grateful for his comments.
  I share my hon. Friend's concern over the rise in unemployment, although I note that the rate of unemployment in the Watford and Luton travel-to-work area remains below the national average at 9.5 per cent. Naturally, I very much regret the redundancies that have taken place at Renault Trucks and AWD. However, while Renault's manufacturing operations at Dunstable are to cease at the end of March, the French parent company has assured the United Kingdom management that the Dunstable site remains a key part of its European strategy. Dunstable will still employ 240 people involved in customising imported vehicles, engineering design and sales and training.
  Of course, my hon. Friend has been actively involved in helping Renault to formulate its future plans for Dunstable. Furthermore, although AWD has ceased manufacturing operations at Dunstable, the acquisition by Marshalls of Cambridge of its four-wheel-drive production has safeguarded 30 jobs in Cambridge and may create another 30 new jobs in the future.
  Despite the job losses which my hon. Friend has described, there are a number of promising signs that local industry will be well placed to take advantage of the rise in demand as the recovery gets under way. The United Kingdom car industry has continued to perform well despite a difficult economic climate both at home and overseas. Indeed, there are encouraging signs of renewed growth in the United Kingdom market. There was not only a marked increase in car sales in December, but a slight but encouraging increase for 1992 as a whole over the previous year. Production in December was up by 19.8 per cent. compared with the same month in 1991. Prospects are also improving overseas. Exports in the three months to the end of October—the latest figures available—were up 7.5 per cent. over the previous quarter. This is a most impressive performance in view of the economic slow down abroad.
  I am also encouraged to see that the commercial vehicle market—this will particularly interest my hon. Friend—is emerging strongly from the recession. Makers of heavy trucks, which were probably worst affected, will, I am sure, be encouraged by the strongest monthly rise in sales in five consecutive months of recovery. Sales of vans, trucks and buses overall were 7.7 per cent. higher in December than in the same month last year.
  Indeed, the local motor industry has been part of the promising national signs of recovery. Vauxhall has remained competitive in a difficult trading period. The company has exported surplus production to the German market through its General Motors sister company. I note with satisfaction that it has had considerable success in improving productivity per employee and that last year's figure for the Luton plant was 9.4 per cent. up on 1990. Production increased from 40 to 47 cars per hour, and 70,725 cars were exported in the same period.
  A similar picture of increasing productivity and strong order books is seen in the exciting joint venture between General Motors and Isuzu—IBC Vehicles—where the Frontera range is doing extremely well. At nearby Leighton Buzzard, Boss Trucks, one of the world's leading
  604
  fork truck manufacturers, is planning a 400,000 sq ft extension to its existing factory. That not only safeguards the position of the present work force, but offers the potential for an additional 500 new jobs.
  The strength of those vehicle manufacturers creates opportunities for other related companies in the Luton-Dunstable area. Local component manufacturers, including General Motors components manufacturer AC Delco, benefit from supplying Vauxhall, which last year spent £117.7 million on components and £71.3 million on other services from companies in Bedfordshire.
  My hon. Friend cited the example of the closure of the steel industry in Corby as a parallel to the position in Dunstable, but there is an important difference. Dunstable is set in a much larger urbanised area which, until recently, was one of the most buoyant parts of the country. In contrast, Corby was much more isolated. Dunstable is within easy commuting distance of the expanding city of Milton Keynes, where my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) recently reported that over 6,500 jobs had been created in the past few years.
  However, I am much aware that Dunstable has not been able to isolate itself from the broad effects of the downturn in the national and world economies. By the same token, as the United Kingdom pulls out of recession, so we can expect to see the tide turn for the economy of the Dunstable area.
  Government economic policy is aimed at hastening that recovery. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out clearly the Government's new framework for economic policy. I believe that the measures announced will promote recovery, to the benefit of all enterprises—large, medium and small.
  I have no doubt, for example, that the housing market will benefit from the £750 million available this financial year to buy up some of the empty properties in the owner-occupied sector. The construction sector will be given a further boost by the temporary relaxation of rules governing the use of capital receipts. Housing and construction have faced particular difficulties in the past two years and those measures will help to provide a much needed boost to confidence.
  The temporary rise in capital allowances from 25 to 40 per cent. for the first year of investment in plant and machinery should also help to bring forward private sector investment. The abolition of special car tax will provide a direct boost to the motor industry, an industry which lies at the heart of British manufacturing and is particularly significant to my hon. Friend's constituency.
  I note my hon. Friend's comments on the Urban Regeneration Agency. Its primary aim will be to bring vacant and derelict land in urban areas back into use. It will be expected to concentrate on urban priority areas and assisted areas, but—this will be of interest to my hon. Friend, as he made a point of mentioning it—it will also take over responsibility for derelict land grant and will be able to assist local authorities and the private sector with the reclamation of derelict land wherever the need arises. However, it will need to consider any such requests against its priorities for urban regeneration and wider land reclamation.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment operates the derelict land programme to deal with problems of dereliction. The derelict land survey showed that, in 1988, south Bedfordshire had 76 hectares of derelict land justifying reclamation.

  605
  Historically, there has been little demand for derelict land grant in Bedfordshire, because market forces have generally been strong enough to secure the reclamation of derelict sites. Resources have therefore, for obvious reasons, been directed to sites that needed extra assistance. From 1989 to 1991, two schemes received aid totalling £106,000. In 1992–93, three will receive grant totalling £60,000, and 93 per cent. of this money will be paid to local, authorities and the remaining 7 per cent. to private bodies. The amount of grant available in Bedfordshire in 1993–94 is not yet determined, but a number of applications have been made to my right hon. and learned Friend's Department, and grants will be made as resources permit.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the specialised nature of the AWD and Renault premises. Their suitability for re-use or redevelopment is best assessed by prospective buyers. If they consider that the premises pose significant problems, they are at liberty to apply for a grant from my right hon. and learned Friend's Department, or, when established, the urban regeneration agency. Grant could then be awarded for any eligible works, subject to the availability of resources at the time.
  I have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend has said today, and I will make sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment are made aware of his concern. I hope that he will be reassured by what I have said about derelict land grant.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is aware of the general stagnation in the housing market across much of the country including south Bedfordshire. He is also aware that housing need exists in many places which could be helped by bringing into use some of the empty houses at present standing unsold. The Government therefore announced in the autumn statement a £750 million housing market package which will be channelled through the Housing Corporation to a selected number of housing associations which will buy houses in the market.
  The aim of the scheme is to stimulate the depressed private housing market by buying up around 17,000 homes from a variety of sources. This will need to be done before the end of March.
  In south Bedfordshire, this will be undertaken by the Bedfordshire Pilgrims housing association, which will be handling the package allocated to the whole of Bedfordshire, except for Luton. A total of £6.5 million has been allocated to the Bedfordshire Pilgrims housing association, which, in conjunction with some half as much again from the housing association's own resources, borrowed by it from the finance market, should allow the purchase of approximately 190 housing units. Possibly one third of these would be in south Bedfordshire. Some will be purchased from builders who have empty houses that they have completed but have not been able to sell. Some will be from estate agents who have empty houses on their books awaiting sale. Some will be from building societies which have empty houses which they have repossessed through mortgage default and which are at present unoccupied.
  Among the range of options available to the South Bedfordshire district planning authority in promoting urban regeneration and economic activity is the establishment of simplified planning zones. As a result of this debate, I will make sure that there is proper liaison
  606
  between the local district council and my right hon. Friends in the Department of Environment. I hope that that is of help to my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Simplified planning zones supplement the enterprise zones which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has designated in various parts of the country. They establish an alternative approach to the control of development which allows the planning system to work more effectively and efficiently in designated areas. Under the procedure for establishing simplified planning zones set out in the Department of the Environment's planning policy guidance note No. 5, it is for the local planning authority to consult widely on the desirability of such zones and before the preparation of such a scheme. The provision of enterprise zones is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and local planning authorities must apply to him for the designation of zones where they consider that there is a special case which cannot be addressed through the use of simplified zones.
  My hon. Friend asked about the responsiveness of training and enterprise councils to major redundancy announcements such as the one in his region. TECs are, of course, designed to be responsive to local needs. Their boards are made up of business men and others drawn from local communities. The DTI regional office in Cambridge expects to receive the Bedfordshire TEC business plan for the next financial year at the end of this month. It is anticipated that the TEC will be seeking to deliver business counselling, a business information service and business skills training. The business plan will apply to the whole of Bedfordshire, but will certainly take into account the particular needs of the Dunstable area.
  Once a business plan is agreed, it is not set in stone. The plan can always be revised in the course of a year to respond to unanticipated events affecting the labour market. As a result of the debate, I shall ensure that our DTI regional office is made fully aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend has alluded, and we shall have to see how the TECs can be best encouraged to help my hon. Friend's constituency.
  My hon. Friend will be aware of the wide range of help that is available to businesses in his area to enable them to become more competitive and expand their markets overseas. More than 1,000 companies in the county of Bedfordshire have benefited from the expert advice of the DTI's enterprise advisers, and 390 of these have gone on to receive subsidised consultancy help intended to improve and strengthen those companies' performances.
  Many companies in my hon. Friend's area also take advantage of the wide range of services that are available to help the exporter develop sales in new markets and identify new market opportunities through the overseas trade services. Together with the Bedfordshire chamber of commerce, the DTI has an extensive programme of seminars and clinics on helping companies to penetrate new markets.
  My hon. Friend has a first-rate record on helping companies in the export field. He will be aware of the efforts being made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to promote exports. Again as a result of the debate, I shall ensure that our new export promoters in the DTI are made fully aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about export promotion.
  Support for technology-based businesses is available through grant aid for individual companies under the

  607
  SMART competition and the SPUR scheme. The former is for companies employing up to 50 persons and the latter for those employing up to 500 people. Both are for innovative product and process development. Almost £500,000 has so far been awarded to Bedfordshire firms under these schemes.
  In addition, the Department, with EC support, is providing substantial support for collaborative research. It is also funding the establishment of an industrial unit at Luton college to ensure the commercial exploitation of technological developments in the area. My hon. Friend's area is particularly noted for its technological prowess, and I hope that we can ensure that any available money is channelled to companies with worthwhile schemes there.
  My Department's very popular "Managing into the 90s" programme, aimed at exposing senior management to the very best management practice, was hosted by Texas Instruments in Bedford in one of the first management action briefings. My first ministerial visit was to Texas Instruments, and I have taken a close interest in the company ever since. Since that time, Cranfield school of management has co-ordinated the "competitive edge" manufacturing workshop programme, and following the DTI east launch of the regional "Managing into the 90s" programme on 9 December, we will be offering firms from the county the opportunity to explore management best practice in some of the medium and small companies in the region as well as staging a further series of specialist management, seminars.
  My Department, through its regional office in Cambridge, is working closely with local agencies, particularly the Bedfordshire and district chamber of commerce and the Bedfordshire training and enterprise council to improve and widen the range of services available to business. The DTI gives financial support to the chamber's export development adviser, whose role is to give advice and help to new and passive exporters. We have supported the chamber's recent very successful mission to Malaysia and Singapore, which included a number of Bedfordshire companies, and we will be supporting missions in 1993 to the USA, Malaysia and Singapore.
  We are working closely with the TEC, the chamber, local authorities and other bodies to improve collaboration and co-ordination of services to medium and small enterprises by delivery through a single site in Luton,
  608
  which could form the basis for a bid under the DTI's new one-stop shop competition, which my hon. Friend particularly mentioned. His area could be successful in that competition. No doubt my hon. Friend will wish to encourage these developments and will ensure that the submissions by the organisations in his area are of the highest calibre. I hope that there will be successful bids from Bedfordshire.
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that this substantial and wide range of advice, help and financial support will be of longer-term significance in establishing a strong base for the future growth of business in the Dunstable area.
  I fully understand the importance of manufacturing to the Dunstable area and to the economy of Bedfordshire as a whole, and my hon. Friend put his case forcefully tonight. The latest employment census shows that 30 per cent. of the Bedfordshire work force are engaged in manufacturing. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to the maintenance of a strong manufacturing sector and recognise the crucial role that it plays in the national economy.
  Manufacturing accounts for more than one fifth of our total output, one fifth of total employment, and four fifths of visible exports. The Government believe that the recession should not be allowed to obscure the manufacturing achievements of the 1980s, which saw high growth rates and sustained improvements in manufacturing performance.
  United Kingdom manufacturing output is up by more than one fifth on 1981—the trough of the last recession. Productivity is up by nearly two thirds, investment by one third, and export volume by four fifths. Export volume since 1981 has grown faster than in France, Germany, the United States of America, Japan and Italy.
  Despite the recession, exports and productivity are both at record levels. The gains of the 1980s will not be wiped out by the recession, and manufacturing is well placed to benefit from the resumption of growth.
  Businesses in Bedfordshire are particularly well placed to take advantage of the anticipated upturn and to repeat the benefits that will come from the completion of the single market. I assure my hon. Friend that my Department will play its part in ensuring that businesses in his constituency are in a good position to derive their full share of the benefit from the recovery.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Uncorroborated Confessions
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions intends to continue proceedings on the basis of evidence consisting wholly or mainly of uncorroborated confessions in police custody.

  The Attorney-General
  In Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales, there is no general requirement in law that a confession requires to be corroborated before reliance can be placed upon it. In cases where the evidence consists wholly or mainly of an uncorroborated admission or confession made in police custody, the director has regard to all the available facts and circumstances surrounding the making of such an admission or confession. Where the Director is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the admission or confession being admitted in evidence and reliance being placed upon it, and that that evidence is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction, prosecution is directed or continued if the public interest so requires.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Attorney-General how many public interest immunity certificates have been issued in criminal trials(a) since 1987 and (b) since 1990.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not collected centrally either by Government or individual prosecuting authorities. My answer is therefore confined to the three prosecuting authorities for which I have ministerial responsibility and is based on inquiries made of those officials likely to have the requisite knowledge. The number of cases so identified is as follows:

  CPS

  SFO

  DPP(NI)

  1987

  1

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  3

  1

  —

  1990

  1

  1

  —

  1991

  —

  1

  —

  1992

  2

  —

  1

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Romania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for improving relations between the United Kingdom and Romania.
  326
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We look forward to developing our relations with the new Government of Romania. My brief visit in December was a valuable first step.

  We shall continue to assist Romania's programme of economic and political reform, primarily through the know-how fund. We are currently considering with the Romanian authorities significant new know-how fund-supported projects in the areas of agriculture and privatisation. The reinstatement of a measure of ECGD medium-term cover demonstrates our determination encourage British companies to compete strongly in the market.

  The forthcoming signing of the EC association agreement with Romania will contribute to the strengthening of Romania's relationship with the Community and its member states.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  IRA Terrorists
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of controls on the movement of IRA activists to the British mainland.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The port checks conducted under schedule 5 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 continue to represent a valuable means of controlling the movement of terrorists.

  Gloucestershire Police
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow the chief constable of Gloucestershire constabulary to bring police staffing in the urban areas of Cheltenham and Gloucester city into line with neighbouring counties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Deployment of police officers is a matter for the chief constable.

  Tyre Dumps
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the tyre dumps notified to his office by fire authorities which provide cover to standards required by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Tyre dumps are notified to the Home Office. Fire authorities are required to be able to deal with all normal requirements, and brigades know the measures which are required to deal with the operational and environmental problems associated with tyre dump and other rubber-based fires.

  Police Budgets
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority, the standard spending assessment, the actual spending, the police establishment based on SSA and the actual establishment for the last year for which figures are available.
  327
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for 1991–92 on standard spending assessments, expenditure and force establishments is given in the table. Police establishments are not based on SSAs.

  The table excludes Welsh forces, because no separate police component is identified in SSAs for Welsh county councils.

  Police Authority

  Police SSA 1991–92 (£ million)

  Outturn Expend (£ million)

  Authorised Establishment 31 March 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  55·443

  111·509

  3,085

  Bedfordshire

  20·238

  39·148

  1,117

  Cambridgeshire

  21·691

  47·116

  1,231

  Cheshire

  33·986

  66·960

  1,900

  City of London

  20·639

  40·820

  798

  Cleveland

  27·037

  54·802

  1,502

  Cumbria

  21·151

  45·080

  1,183

  Derbyshire

  32·276

  66·048

  1,825

  Devon and Cornwall

  51·536

  117·436

  2,880

  Dorset

  22·879

  52·006

  1,287

  Durham

  24·751

  48·589

  1,389

  Essex

  54·851

  115·540

  2,892

  Gloucestershire

  20·953

  44·611

  1,183

  Greater Manchester

  115·636

  248·807

  7,057

  Hampshire

  59·904

  124·970

  3,202

  Hertfordshire

  32·973

  62·868

  1,680

  Humberside

  36·128

  77·396

  2,025

  Kent

  57·435

  128·734

  3,054

  Lancashire

  57·873

  122·019

  3,225

  Leicestershire

  32·636

  67·196

  1,827

  Lincolnshire

  21·547

  47·235

  1,206

  Merseyside

  84·622

  178·884

  4,706

  Metropolitan

  547·984

  1,339·605

  28,391

  Norfolk

  25·345

  54·100

  1,421

  Northamptonshire

  20·539

  45·499

  1,167

  Northumbria

  63·939

  132·826

  3,586

  North Yorkshire

  25·345

  51·679

  1,414

  Nottinghamshire

  42·194

  82·629

  2,344

  South Yorkshire

  53·967

  103·166

  3,016

  Staffordshire

  39·638

  82·163

  2,211

  Suffolk

  21·673

  48·069

  1,216

  Surrey

  33·255

  63·421

  1,670

  Sussex

  56·093

  106·178

  2,982

  Thames Valley

  70·893

  149·414

  3,725

  Warwickshire

  18·451

  39·842

  1,016

  West Mercia

  36·415

  77·230

  2,024

  West Midlands

  124·080

  250·816

  6,958

  West Yorkshire

  95·027

  197·226

  5,295

  Wiltshire

  21·115

  46·215

  1,114

  Correspondence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to respond to the letter of 2 December 1992 from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford regarding prison education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 20 January.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 16 November (HO ref. No. 23833/98) concerning an application for United Kingdom citizenship.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 11 January 1993]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 14 December.

  HMP Blakenhurst
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects HMP Blakenhurst to open; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The contractor's proposals envisaged a six-month start-up period from contract signature on 3 December, but he is striving to open the prison earlier.

  HMP Manchester
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations to the proposed market-testing of HMP Manchester.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Legal advice is that TUPE would apply if a private sector company won the contract for operating HMP Manchester. We are currently considering the implications for both staff and the tendering exercise.

  Fines
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the crimes for which the maximum fine is determined by statute; and what is the level of the maximum in each case;

  (2) if he will list the crimes for which the maximum penalty is £50,000 or over.

  Mr. Jack
  There is no upper limit on the fine that the Crown court can impose for any offence triable on indictment for which the option of a fine is provided by statute.

  The maximum fine which a magistrates court can impose is limited according to the offence committed. Where an offence is triable either in the magistrates court or on indictment the maximum fine is usually £5,000—the maximum fine normally available to magistrates. For summary offences, the maximum fine is specified in statute. In recent legislation, maximum fines are expressed as a level on the standard scale. The current values of these levels are: level 1, £200; level 2, £500; level 3, £1,000; level 4, £2,500; and level 5, £5,000.

  Exceptionally, for a small number of offences, magistrates have the power to impose fines in excess of £5,000: the usual maximum for such offences is either £20,000 or £50,000 depending on the offence.

  A comprehensive list of offences that fall into the above categories is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Wolds Centre
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the incidents and disturbances which have occurred at the Wolds centre since 1 December 1992; and if he will order an inquiry.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Twenty incidents at Wolds remand prison were reported to the incident management support unit at Prison Service headquarters between 1 December 1992 and 18 January 1993. Details are given in the table. The Home Office controller based at Wolds monitors the contractor's performance and provides full and regular reports. None of the reported incidents would merit a separate inquiry.
  329
  2 December 1992:
  Two prisoners who had been hand-cuffed together attempted to run away as they left the cellular vehicle to enter Doncaster Magistrates Court. They were unsuccessful.

  8 December 1992:
  Cannabis was found in a prisoner's cell during a cell search.

  11 December 1992:
  After being located in the Segregation Unit a prisoner smashed the sink in his cell. The prisoner threw a piece of piping from the sink at a Custody Officer which hit his knee causing bruising and a cut which was treated in the Health Care Centre.

  16 December 1992:
  A prisoner was strip-searched after a visit and found to be in possession of cannabis.

  17 December 1992:
  A prisoner assaulted another prisoner by striking him with his fists causing bleeding to the nose and bruising.

  18 December 1992:
  A prisoner claims that he was assaulted while seated watching TV. He cannot identify his assailant. The prisoner had recently been taken off Rule 43 at his own request.

  20 December 1992:
  A prisoner assaulted the Segregation Unit Supervisor while cleaning out his cell. The weapon used was a mop handle. The supervisor had bruises to his forearm.

  21 December 1992:

  (1) A prisoner punched another prisoner following a disagreement in the gymnasium.

  (2) While searching visitors prior to allowing them into the prison a PCO observed a piece of cannabis apparently fallen from a visitor's pocket when removing items from his trousers.

  23 December 1992:
  A prisoner began kicking his door for attention. When it was opened up he assaulted a supervisor by punching him in the face and ribs.

  25 December 1992:
  A prisoner was found in possession of a quantity of tablets not prescribed for him. Search took place after social visits. He became violent on discovery and control and restraint techniques were used to remove him to the segregation unit. Tablets were identified as Temazepam (sleeping tablets).

  28 December 1992:
  Following information received a search took place between the area from the main exercise yard and the segregation unit where a quantity of cannabis and four valium tablets were found in a sock which had been weighted with an orange. It is believed that this had been thrown from the exercise yard in an attempt to land it in the segregation unit exercise yard.

  31 December 1992:
  When in visits a prisoner three chairs and smashed a fish tank, then produced a wood stick with a nail in the end and assaulted the Duty Security Manager. The DSM was taken to outside hospital for his hand to be X-rayed, but apparently sustained no lasting injury.

  1 January 1993:
  Prisoners had been given an extension to 0015 hours on 1 January to see in the New Year. 16 Prisoners in F Unit refused to return to their cells and barricaded themselves in the TV room. Prisoners eventually returned to their cells at 0715 hours.

  2 January 1993:

  (1) A prisoner assaulted another prisoner by striking him with his fist.

  330

  (2) A prisoner was assaulted by other prisoners, assailants unknown. Prisoner sustained head injuries. Police were contacted but do not wish to proceed.

  4 January 1993:
  On arrival at Sheffield Crown Court a prisoner had to be removed from the cellular vehicle. During his removal he assaulted one officer and bit the hand of another officer. No lasting injuries to officers.

  7 January 1993:
  A prisoner who was the subject of a strip search after visits was found to be in possession of two syringes in his footwear.

  13 January 1993.

  (1) A prisoner assaulted an officer by grabbing his throat and attempting to kick him. No lasting injury to officer sustained.

  (2) A prisoner had been unlocked to use the bathroom. He refused to return to his cell. He spat at, head-butted and scratched an officer. No lasting injuries to the officer sustained.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had about introducing new legislation to deal with juvenile offenders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have had a number of discussions with a wide range of individuals and organisations which have concerned, among other things, the scale of juvenile offending and what might be done about it. For the second part of his question, I refer the hon. Member to the anwer which I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 14 January, at column 794.

  Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what advice has been given to local authorities and health authorities regarding co-ordination of services for arriving Bosnian refugees; and what additional finance has been allocated to help them cope with the added burden;

  (2) how many Bosnian refugees, either in this country already or expected to arrive in the next six months, have long-term accommodation provided for them;

  (3) what agency is taking responsibility for the allocation of Bosnian refugees to communities in the United Kingdom; and how this process is to be financed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Refugee Council is taking the lead in arranging accommodation in the community for the Bosnian ex-detainees and their families which the Government have agreed to accept at the request of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is receiving funds from the Home Office for this purpose. The accommodation will be financed through housing benefit payments.

  Discussions have been held with the local authority associations, the Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations with a view to identifying possible suitable clusters of accommodation in various areas of the country where there is a voluntary organisation support network. No accommodation has as yet been provided under these arrangements, although we understand that some of the Bosnians have left the reception centres to join relatives or friends already living here.
  331
  The Government have no plans to provide additional resources to local authorities, but will be funding the Refugee Council to give advice and support to the Bosnians when they move into the community from the reception centres.

  The Refugee Council and the British Red Cross are in touch with local health services in the areas where the reception centres are located about possible needs. The Department of Health is considering whether any further advice to health authorities is necessary.

  Prisons (HIV)
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change in instructions has been given to governors of prisons concerning advising their staff as to which inmates are infected with the HIV/AIDS virus.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The last general instruction to governors was contained in circular instruction 30/1991 which was issued in November 1991. The recommended practice is that information about HIV status obtained in a clinical context should be available only to staff with responsibility for the prisoner's health care unless the prisoner consents to wider disclosure in his or her own interest or, exceptionally, such disclosure is deemed necessary to prevent the spread of infection.

  New Age Travellers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will now make a statement of the Government's detailed intentions to implement the measures to tackle problems caused by new age travellers announced by him in October;

  (2) what conclusions he has reached from his consultations with chief officers of police and others on the desirability of amending section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is currently considering proposals, including changes to the law, for tackling the problems presented by new age travellers and "ravers" and will make an announcement shortly.

  Immigration
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clearance visas were granted to(a) women and (b) men for the purposes of joining a fiancé(e) or spouse in 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Data on entry clearance applications and decisions by category of applicant are only available centrally for the Indian sub-continent. The data that are available for 1992 are given in the table.

  Applications granted1 for entry clearance to the United Kingdom by whether Spouse or Fiancé(e) in the Indian sub-continent 1992

  Number of applicants

  Applications granted

  Period

  Wives

  Fiancées

  Husbands

  Fiancés

  1992

  Ql

  1,553

  108

  513

  69

  Q2

  1,195

  76

  668

  56

  Q3

  1,287

  83

  1,376

  57

  Q4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  332
  n/a not yet available.

  1 Granted initially or on appeal.

  Car Insurance
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals for legislation to provide higher penalties for those car owners who do not have valid car insurance.

  Mr. Jack
  The existing maximum penalty for using a motor vehicle while uninsured against third party risks is a fine of £5,000 together with an obligatory endorsement of the driving licence with six to eight penalty points and a period of disqualification from driving with no upper limit, at the court's discretion. We have no plans to change these provisions which allows courts to impose sentences which reflect the culpability of those who commit this offence.

  Disclosure of Convictions
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from magistrates on the effect of the changes on the non-disclosure of previous convictions introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  There is nothing in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 that prevents the disclosure of previous convictions to a court which has convicted an individual of a particular offence; and the Court of Appeal has recently made it clear that it is appropriate for courts to continue to receive antecedent information in the same way as they did before the principal provisions of the Act came into force on 1 October 1992. A number of representations have been received, including some from individual magistrates, about section 29 of the Act which deals with the relevance of previous convictions to the current offence. These matters have recently been clarified in a series of guideline judgments from the Court of Appeal.

  Firearms
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licensed firearms are in private ownership within the Peterlee sub-division; and what were the numbers for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information received from the Durham constabulary indicates that a total of 1,315 firearms were covered by certificates in force on 15 January 1993 in the Peterlee sub-division—200 firearms, which includes rifles, pistols, large magazine smooth bore guns and specially dangerous air weapons, and 1,115 shotguns.

  Information for earlier years is not available.

  Public Houses (Licensing)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made into the review of the licensing system of public houses, announced by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 10 July 1989 in his statement on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We hope shortly to publish a consultation document inviting comments on a number of
  333
  proposals for changes to the liquor licensing law of England and Wales, including possible reform of those aspects of the licensing system referred to in the statement made in July 1989.

  Channel Islands (Wartime Occupation)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take to bring to justice those British citizens who collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of the Channel Islands during the second world war in rounding up Jewish and other people for deportation to concentration camps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: The Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, but internally self-governing dependencies of the Crown with their own judicial systems. It is for the islands authorites to consider whether offences under their laws have been committed and to act accordingly.

  If evidence is forthcoming of conduct in the Channel Islands during the period of German occupation constituting an offence justiciable in the United Kingdom but not in the Channel Islands themselves, that will be referred to the prosecuting authorities here.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Saudi Arabia (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he had during his recent visit to Saudia Arabia on the opportunities for the sale of United Kingdom manufactured military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I had no such discussions.

  Coal Stocks
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers he has to set a strategic stock of coal; and what factors he takes into account in setting this level.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has exercised the powers under section 34 of the Electricity Act 1989 to direct National Power and PowerGen to hold stocks of coal at power stations against interruptions in coal supplies. In determining the appropriate level of stocks, my right hon. Friend takes into account such matters as the diversity of fuels available for generation and the possible threat to supplies which may arise from one or a combination of factors.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the total level and value of coal stocks held at power stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  Coal stocks at power stations at 3 January 1993 totalled 31.5 million tonnes. Valuation of coal stocks at power stations is a matter for the generating company concerned.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the percentage contribution of(a) the chemical industry and (b) the
  334
  engineering industry to the GDP of (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) France, (iii) Germany and (iv) Italy in each of the last 20 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is published in National Accounts ESA, detailed tables by branch; EUROSTAT relevant copies are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Offshore Drilling
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 37, regarding environmental impact assessments prior to drilling in the Celtic sea, what special conditions he has plans to attach to any licences issued for blocks 103/2, 103/3, 103/6, 103/7, 106/25, 106/29, 107/21, 104/16, 104/17, 104/18, 104/19 and 104/21;

  (2) what advice he received from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Countryside Council for Wales prior to including each of blocks 103/2, 103/3, 103/6, 103/7, 106/25, 106/29, 107/21, 104/16, 104/17, 104/18, 104/19 and 104/21 in the 14th round of offshore drilling licensing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In considering whether to offer blocks 103/2, 103/3, 103/6, 103/7, 106/25, 106/29, 107/21, 104/16, 104/17, 104/18, 104/19 and 104/21 in the 14th round, officials took account of the concerns of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—JNCC—and the Countryside Council for Wales—CCW—regarding the ecological status of the area. On balance, the evidence did not justify the exclusion of these blocks from hydrocarbons exploration, but it was agreed that special conditions should be attached to each licence.

  These special conditions have been agreed with the Department of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the JNCC, which has consulted the CCW. As part of the special conditions, licensees will be obliged to consult these organisations before undertaking any activity in these blocks. The conditions will reflect the concerns related to each block and to those elements of the environment potentially at risk.

  Coal Industry
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the access allowed to Alan Oakes and Associates, consultants hired by Clwyd county council, to visit the Point of Ayr colliery for the purpose of assessing the pit's viability.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Consultancy Reports
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place copies of the consultancy reports from Caminus Energy, PIMS Associates Ltd. and Ernst and Young in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  The consultants' reports will be placed in the Library as soon as they are published.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what external financing limit has been set for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for 1993–94.
  335
  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's external financing limit for 1993–94 will be minus £2.1 million.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on current employment in the coal mining industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The total number of people employed by British Coal at the end of December 1992 was 48,700. The total work force at deep mines licensed by British Coal at 30 September 1992—the latest available figure—was 1,683. No figures are held centrally for employees of contractors working at British Coal's own pits and opencast sites or of employment at opencast sites licensed by British Coal.

  Electricity
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the criteria agreed in 1990 which triggers compensation payments to the regional electricity companies if they have to take dearer electricity.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The operation of contracts for differences between regional electricity companies—RECs—and the generators, which hedge the RECs against increases in pool prices, is a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 738, if he will publish the information his Department holds on the purchasers of public houses under the Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2390); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: As I explained in my answer of 13 January, the statutory undertakings given by the national brewers to provide the Director General of Fair Trading with information to enable him to monitor compliance with the order do not require them to provide details of the purchasers of public houses that are sold. However, my Department is aware of trade press estimates—Publican, 11 January 1993—which suggest that since 1989 the number of pubs owned by independent retailers had increased by 8,000 while regional brewers have purchased a further 3,000 outlets.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  High Court Judges
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current establishment of High Court judges; and how many are currently in post.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Following a number of very recent promotions and retirements there are currently 83 High Court judges holding appointment out of a complement of 85, which is also the current statutory limit on their numbers. Steps are being taken to bring that number back to 85 as soon as is practicable.
  336
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many sittings in the High Court there were in the last available week; how many were taken by(a) High Court judges, (b) deputy High Court judges and (c) circuit judges, excluding appellate and divisional court sittings.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the royal courts of justice in London in the week commencing 11 January 1993 there were 253 sittings in the three divisions of the High Court. Of these sittings 147 were taken by High Court judges, 59 were taken by circuit judges sitting as judges of the High Court and 47 were taken by deputies. These figures do not, of course, take account of the substantial number of sittings on High Court business and serious crime undertaken by High Court judges on circuits, for which figures for the week commencing 11 January 1993 are not yet available.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress is being made by the Lord Chancellor's committee on the work deployment and number of High Court judges; when it is expected to report; and whether the report will be published.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The group of senior judges and officials which has been asked to advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice on the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges met first on 5 October 1992 and has met several times since then. It is hoped that their advice will be received soon. It is unclear yet whether the advice will be in a form which could be published, but as parliamentary and Privy Council approval is required to increase the statutory limit on the number of High Court judges any changes proposed to be made as a result of it would come into the public domain.

  Possession Notices
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) possession notices and (b) suspended possession notices have been served in the latest period of 12 months for which figures are available in the Nottinghamshire area; and what were the corresponding figures for the previous period of 12 months.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Mortgage possession figures are collected by the number of actions entered, suspended orders and orders made. The table shows the information for each county court in Nottinghamshire during 1991 and 1992. The figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts as not all the orders will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession. At this stage, the 1992 figures are provisional and therefore liable to revision to take account of any late amendments. Figures on mortgage possession actions taken in each county court in England and Wales are published quarterly in an information bulletin which is placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. The figures covering the whole of 1991 and 1992 will be published on 27 January 1993.
  337

  Mortgage possession actions entered and orders made in Nottinghamshire county courts during 1991 and 1992

  Actions entered

  Suspended orders

  Orders made

  Court

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1992

  Mansfield

  922

  601

  327

  261

  297

  298

  Newark

  161

  124

  37

  44

  75

  60

  Nottingham

  2,235

  1,497

  693

  657

  790

  613

  Worksop

  445

  340

  142

  138

  203

  133

  Nottinghamshire County Total

  3,763

  2,562

  1,199

  1,100

  1,365

  1,104

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress each of the 12 EC member states has made in reaching the convergence criteria of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Nelson
  Article 109j of the Maastricht treaty gives to the Council the responsibility for determining whether or not a member state has met the necessary conditions for entry to stage 3 of economic and monetary union. The Council is required to make this judgment, taking into account reports from the Commission and European Monetary Institute on the extent to which a member state complies with criteria concerning the relative rate of inflation; the Government's fiscal position; observance of the normal fluctuation margins within the exchange rate mechanism—ERM; and long-term interest rates. In addition, the reports must take account of a number of other factors, including the development of the ecu, the integration of markets, current account positions, and unit labour costs and other price indices.

  A protocol attached to the treaty lays down figures for the convergence criteria regarding inflation and long-term interest rates. Another protocol sets out reference values for fiscal criteria which, if breached, might prompt a Commission report to the Council on the fiscal position of a member state—such a report being the basis on which the Council would judge whether or not an excessive deficit existed. However, definitions of the indicators of convergence have not yet been fully standardised and figures are therefore only indicative at this stage.

  The current position of each member state, in respect of the convergence criteria, is given in the table. The criterion on participation in the ERM is that a member state has respected the normal fluctuation margins without severe tensions for at least the last two years. In particular, the member state shall not have devalued its currency's bilateral central rate against any other member state's currency on its own initiative for the same period. The following member states have been in the narrow band for at least two years: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

  Latest inflation1

  Budget balance2

  General government debt3

  Longer bond yield4

  Belgium

  2·2

  –6·4

  132·2

  7·5

  Denmark

  1·4

  –2·0

  60·6

  8·5

  France

  2·1

  –2·2

  48·6

  7·8

  Germany5

  3·7

  –3·2

  41·8

  7·1

  Greece

  15·0

  –16·1

  82·9

  n/a

  Ireland

  2·3

  –1·9

  101 ·2

  49·4

  Italy

  4·9

  –10·2

  102·7

  13·4

  338

  Latest inflation1

  Budget balance2

  General government debt3

  Longer bond yield4

  Luxembourg

  2·9

  22·6

  36·3

  7·5

  Netherlands

  2·9

  –2·6

  77·0

  7·1

  Portugal

  8·6

  –6·1

  368·6

  49·9

  Spain

  5·1

  –4·9

  46·3

  12·1

  United Kingdom

  3·0

  –2·8

  36·5

  8·6

  1 November 1992; percentage change of consumer prices over previous 12 months.

  2 1991 general government financial balance (as a percentage of GDP).

  OECD Outlook (December 1992), except for Luxembourg (EC May 1992).

  3 1991 gross debt of general government (as a percentage of GDP). OECD Outlook (December 1992), except for Luxembourg and Portugal (EC May 1992).

  4 Yield on fixed interest government securities on 18 January 1993, except Ireland and Portugal (October 1992).

  5 Inflation and government debt figures are for western Germany.

  Source: OECD and Eurostat.

  Mortgage Repayments
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households in(a) Great Britain, (b) the Yorkshire-Humberside region and (c) the York area have been helped under the scheme announced by him on 19 December 1991 to provide funding on concessional terms to help borrowers who are not on income support, but who face serious problems in paying their mortgages; and what means have been used to assess the effectiveness of the scheme.

  Mr. Nelson
  I do not believe that it is possible to single out the specific effect of particular elements in the range of industry and Government measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced' following my meeting with the mortgage lenders—Official Report, 19 December 1991, column 453.

  As for the number of households helped by the package as a whole, one indicator is the latest published figures for possession actions in the county courts in England and Wales which indicate a fall of 16,563–32 per cent.—in the: number of actions entered in the third quarter of 1992 compared with the third quarter of 1991. Over the same period possession actions entered in the Yorkshire and Humberside region fell by 1,428–38 per cent.; and in the York and Malton area by 33–22 per cent.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to encourage British banks to cancel a proportion of debts owed to them by third-world countries.
  339
  Mr. Nelson
  The Government welcome the significant progress made by banks in reaching voluntary arrangements on debt relief with developing countries. The United Kingdom is financing its share of the International Monetary Fund and World bank resources used in support of these arrangements.

  Drinks Duty
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has had on the harmonisation of drinks duties in the European Community; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) his European Community counterparts and (b) the Scotch whisky industry and others on the harmonisation of drinks duties in the European Community; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what discussions he has had with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry to discuss excise taxation; what representations he has received on the taxation of Scotch whisky; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  EC Finance Ministers have not discussed drinks duties since the adoption of the rates and structures directives last October. Treasury Ministers have since received many representations from the drinks trade on the subject of United Kingdom duties. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer met a delegation from the Scotch Whisky Association on 14 January to

  (i) Whisky1

  Volume of whisky (thousand hectoliters of pure alcohol)2

  Year-on-year percentage increase

  Total expenditure (current market prices) £ million

  Year-on-year percentage increase

  Total expenditure (constant 1985 prices) £ million

  Year-on-year percentage increase

  1984

  440.8

  1,561

  1,635

  1985

  461.6

  4.7

  1,711

  9.6

  1,711

  4.6

  1986

  456.2

  -1.2

  1,749

  2.3

  1,691

  -1.1

  1987

  446.0

  -2.2

  1,765

  0.9

  1,650

  -2.4

  1988

  451.8

  1.3

  1,858

  5.3

  1,669

  1.1

  1989

  430.2

  -4.8

  1,862

  0.2

  1,590

  -4.7

  1990

  413.5

  -3.9

  1,967

  5.6

  1,528

  -3.9

  1991

  382.6

  -7.5

  2,065

  5.0

  1,419

  -7.1

  1 Home produced mature whisky and whiskey.

  2 Released from bond for domestic market.

  (ii) Wine3

  Volume of imported wine (thousand hectoliters of pure alcohol)4

  Year-on-year percentage increase

  Total expenditure (current market prices) £ million

  Year-on-year percentage increase

  Total expenditure (constant 1985 prices) £ million

  Year-on-year percentage increase

  1984

  5,389.0

  2.473

  2,596

  1985

  5,642.7

  4.7

  2,701

  9.2

  2,701

  4.0

  1986

  5,901.7

  4.6

  2,834

  4.9

  2,788

  3.2

  1987

  6,278.3

  6.4

  3,131

  10.5

  2,962

  6.2

  1988

  6,482.5

  3.3

  3,343

  6.8

  3,067

  3.5

  1989

  6,669.5

  2.9

  3,613

  8.1

  3,166

  3.2

  1990

  6,636.3

  -0.5

  3,898

  7.9

  3,132

  -1.1

  1991

  6,653.3

  0.3

  4,207

  7.9

  3,105

  -0.8

  3 Heavy, light and sparkling wine.

  4 Released from bond for domestic market.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide details of the amount of taxation levied on Scotch whisky compared with that levied against wine for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.
  340
  discuss its request for no increase in or revalorisation of the duty on spirits, and a narrowing of the duty differential between spirits and beer and wine. All these representations will be considered in the review of indirect taxation in the run-up to the Budget.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the value of sales of Scotch whisky which would be lost in the event of the abolition of duty free; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Intra-EC duty-free sales of Scotch whisky are estimated to be worth around £50 million a year. We have no details on the value of non-EC duty-free sales of Scotch whisky. No estimates are available for the value of sales that would be lost in the event of abolition of duty-free sales.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide details of(a) the amount and (b) the value of sales of (i) Scotch whisky and (ii) imported wine in cash and real terms in the United Kingdom for each year since 1979; and if he will list the percentage increase/decrease compared with the previous year.

  Sir John Cope
  Such information as is available is given in the table. The figures for whisky relate to home-produced mature whisky and whiskey. For wine, the figures relate to heavy, light and sparkling wine, the bulk of which is imported.

  Sir John Cope
  Firm data on duty receipts are only available for total spirits. Estimates can be made for all home-produced whisky and these are given in the table.
  341

  £ millions

  Estimated duty and consequential VAT on whisky/whiskey

  Duty and consequential VAT on wines

  1979–80

  647

  417

  1980–81

  664

  449

  1981–82

  717

  581

  1982–83

  549

  582

  1983–84

  941

  716

  1984–85

  679

  745

  1985–86

  822

  789

  1986–87

  767

  801

  1987–88

  803

  843

  1988–89

  784

  902

  1989–90

  748

  910

  1990–91

  835

  984

  1991–92

  856

  1,084

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show how the rate at which Scotch whisky is taxed has varied compared with the rate at which wine is taxed from 1979 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The information is as follows:—

  Percentage change in duty rate

  Year

  Whisky

  Wine of fresh grape 5.5 per cent. to not ex-ceeding 15 per cent. Strength

  1979

  0.0

  0.0

  1980

  13.7

  0.0

  1981

  14.6

  16.9

  1982

  6.4

  12.2

  1983

  5.0

  5.8

  1984

  1.9

  1—19.9

  1985

  1.9

  8.3

  1986

  0.0

  0.0

  1987

  0.0

  0.0

  1988

  0.0

  4.5

  1989

  0.0

  0.0

  1990

  10.0

  7.7

  1991

  9.3

  9.3

  1992

  4.5

  4.5

  1 Due to duty restructuring

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of duty on a bottle of Scotch whisky in each of the EC member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Our latest information is for November 1992 and is as follows:

  Excise duty on a 70c1 bottle of Scotch whisky

  Member state

  National currency Cost per 70cl

  Sterling Duty per 70cl

  Belgium

  178·00

  3·50

  Denmark

  102·77

  10·77

  France

  21·85

  2·62

  Germany

  7·13

  2·89

  Greece

  388·22

  1·22

  Ireland

  5·63

  5·98

  Italy

  2,603·32

  1·20

  Luxembourg

  106·29

  2·09

  Netherlands

  8·90

  3·20

  Portugal

  335·82

  1·53

  Spain

  203·00

  1·17

  United Kingdom

  5·55

  5·55

  342
  Notes:

  1. Calculated using exchange rates as at 1 October 1992.

  2. In most cases VAT is also charged at the standard rate applicable in each member state.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the annual amount of revenue accruing to the Exchequer in(a) cash and (b) real terms from the levying of excise duty on Scotch whisky for each year since 1979.

  Sir John Cope
  Firm data on duty receipts are available only for total spirits. Estimates can be made for all home-produced whisky and these are given in the table:

  £ million

  Estimated duty and consequential VAT on whisky/whiskey

  In real terms at 1991–92 prices

  1979–80

  647

  1,475

  1980–81

  664

  1,301

  1981–82

  717

  1,259

  1982–83

  549

  901

  1983–84

  941

  1,476

  1984–85

  679

  1,014

  1985–86

  822

  1,158

  1986–87

  767

  1,047

  1987–88

  803

  1,055

  1988–89

  784

  971

  1989–90

  748

  859

  1990–91

  835

  875

  1991–92

  856

  856

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a reply will be sent to the letter written on 1 December 1992 by the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding a constituent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I wrote to the hon. Member yesterday; I apologise for not being able to reply earlier.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive a report from the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Lamont
  I have today received a report from the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee. It makes recommendations on the treatment in the RPI of council tax and holidays. The full report is being published this afternoon as Cm 2142 and copies are available in the Vote Office.

  In due course I will announce my response on the recommendations. The committee has not yet concluded its consideration of the treatment of owner-occupiers' housing costs and new cars.

  Non-residents (Tax)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchquer if he will make a statement on the application of the tax deduction at source arrangements to the payment of gross interest to non-residents by deposit-takers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The tax deduction at source legislation provides, generally, that individuals who are not
  343
  ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and who make a declaration to that effect, can receive their interest without deduction of tax. However under existing rules a deposit-taker which is not a bank or a building society is required to deduct tax even when a declaration has been made.

  We have decided to remove this inconsistency by including legislation in the next Finance Bill to allow these deposit-takers to pay gross interest on the same footing as banks and building societies.

  In the meantime, in anticipation of this legislation, and with my agreement, the Inland Revenue will not seek to recover tax from a deposit-taker which has paid gross interest to someone who is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and has provided the necessary declaration.

  Germany (Coach Importation)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make representations through the European Commission regarding the tax on the temporary importation of coach vehicles to Germany via any border being imposed on vehicles of another EC member state.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: There is some uncertainty surrounding the approach being adopted by Germany to coaches since the abolition of fiscal frontiers on 1 January 1993. HM Customs and Excise are seeking clarification of the situation with the Commission and other member states.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the increase in incomes since 1979 has gone to the top 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the population; and what are the comparable figures for the USA, Japan, Germany and France.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 11 January 1993]: The data requested in the question are not readily available. However, information for the United Kingdom on changes in income shares and real incomes was contained in replies my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 2 December 1992 at column 100 and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 7 December at column 506.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's discussions with the Government of Jordan on the efficacy of military intervention in Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  Since the invasion of Kuwait we have had frequent discussions with the Jordanians on the situation in Iraq. We have discussed the allies' latest military action in Iraq with Jordanian officials.

EDUCATION

  Education Spending
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each education authority, the amount per pupil spent on(a) under-fives, (b) primary, (c) 11 to 16 and (d) post-16 education for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  Available expenditure data cover nursery and primary schools, or secondary schools, as a whole, and cannot be disaggregated between particular age ranges. The latest year for which information on actual expenditure by local education authorities is available is 1990–91. The tables indicate, for each local education authority in England, the average school-based expenditure per pupil in nursery and primary schools and in secondary schools in each year from 1988–89 to 1990–91.

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil in nursery and primary schools

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  ILEA

  1,605

  1,835

  —

  City

  —

  —

  1,950

  Camden

  —

  —

  1,710

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  1,720

  Hackney

  —

  —

  1,900

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  1,970

  Islington

  —

  —

  1,770

  Kensington

  —

  —

  2,060

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  1,840

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  1,710

  Southwark

  —

  —

  1,850

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  1,940

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  1,820

  Westminster

  —

  —

  2,110

  Barking

  1,255

  1,360

  1,460

  Barnet

  1,250

  1,370

  1,550

  Bexley

  1,100

  1,215

  1,260

  Brent

  1,375

  1,425

  1,670

  Bromley

  1,165

  1,290

  1,410

  Croydon

  1,180

  1,200

  1,440

  Ealing

  1,385

  1,485

  1,690

  Enfield

  1,110

  1,220

  1,430

  Haringey

  n/a

  n/a

  1,840

  Harrow

  1,115

  1,230

  1,480

  Havering

  1,095

  1,155

  1,290

  Hillingdon

  1,195

  1,305

  1,540

  Hounslow

  1,270

  n/a

  1,510

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,175

  1,265

  1,430

  Merton

  1,210

  1,345

  1,750

  Newham

  1,360

  1,445

  1,490

  Redbridge

  1,070

  1,150

  1,350

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,180

  1,375

  1,530

  Sutton

  1,090

  1,215

  1,360

  Waltham Forest

  1,250

  1,430

  1,570

  Birmingham

  1,040

  1,130

  1,260

  Coventry

  1,065

  1,195

  1,300

  Dudley

  1,020

  1,085

  1,230

  Sandwell

  1,175

  1,275

  1,450

  Solihull

  1,040

  1,160

  1,240

  Walsall

  1,200

  1,255

  1,510

  Wolverhampton

  1,190

  1,320

  1,390

  Knowsley

  1,165

  1,235

  1,390

  Liverpool

  1,150

  1,225

  1,290

  St. Helens

  1,050

  1,170

  1,210

  Sefton

  1,015

  1,110

  1,260

  Wirral

  1,070

  1,225

  1,280

  Bolton

  1,015

  1,130

  1,220

  Bury

  1,080

  1,190

  1,190

  Manchester

  n/a

  n/a

  1,320

  Oldham

  1,125

  1,295

  1,370

  Rochdale

  990

  1,170

  1,200

  Salford

  1,085

  1,200

  1,270

  345

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Stockport

  1,035

  1,095

  1,260

  Tameside

  1,115

  1,235

  1,320

  Trafford

  1,050

  1,130

  1,170

  Wigan

  1,025

  1,090

  1,140

  Barnsley

  1,065

  1,145

  1,260

  Doncaster

  1,175

  1,255

  1,250

  Rotherham

  1,125

  1,245

  1,340

  Sheffield

  1,230

  1,315

  1,390

  Bradford

  1,160

  1,275

  1,500

  Calderdale

  1,145

  1,140

  1,440

  Kirklees

  1,110

  1,205

  1,300

  Leeds

  1,155

  1,255

  1,430

  Wakefield

  n/a

  n/a

  1,340

  Gateshead

  1,180

  1,245

  1,390

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,225

  1,320

  1,520

  North Tyneside

  1,145

  n/a

  1,310

  South Tyneside

  1,150

  1,255

  1,290

  Sunderland

  1,005

  1,155

  1,280

  Avon

  1,050

  1,195

  1,320

  Bedfordshire

  1,115

  1,240

  1,380

  Berkshire

  1,030

  1,105

  1,340

  Buckinghamshire

  1,065

  1,170

  1,320

  Cambridgeshire

  1,005

  1,115

  1,260

  Cheshire

  960

  1,050

  1,260

  Cleveland

  1,075

  1,150

  1,230

  Cornwall

  1,010

  1,095

  1,190

  Cumbria

  1,140

  1,265

  1,340

  Derbyshire

  1,080

  1,235

  1,370

  Devon

  975

  1,095

  1,310

  Dorset

  1,020

  1,120

  1,290

  Durham

  1,130

  1,225

  1,370

  East Sussex

  1,025

  1,125

  1,240

  Essex

  1,050

  1,150

  1,240

  Gloucestershire

  1,010

  1,140

  1,200

  Hampshire

  1,040

  1,125

  1,260

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,000

  1,145

  1,360

  Hertfordshire

  1,130

  1,245

  1,340

  Humberside

  1,155

  1,265

  1,280

  Isle of Wight

  1,055

  1,120

  1,250

  Kent

  935

  1,030

  1,120

  Lancashire

  985

  1,090

  1,310

  Leicestershire

  1,085

  1,180

  1,290

  Lincolnshire

  1,005

  1,110

  1,210

  Norfolk

  1,070

  1,160

  1,280

  North Yorkshire

  1,030

  1,100

  1,230

  Northamptonshire

  1,005

  1,095

  1,230

  Northumberland

  1,090

  1,175

  1,320

  Nottinghamshire

  1,115

  1,255

  1,390

  Oxfordshire

  1,125

  1,205

  1,570

  Shropshire

  1,075

  1,160

  1,350

  Somerset

  1,025

  1,145

  1,230

  Staffordshire

  1,050

  1,155

  1,270

  Suffolk

  1,020

  1,120

  1,310

  Surrey

  1,050

  1,140

  1,340

  Warwickshire

  1,025

  1,140

  1,220

  West Sussex

  1,005

  1,145

  1,240

  Wiltshire

  1,045

  1,125

  1,260

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil in secondary schools

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  ILEA

  2,505

  2,725

  —

  Camden

  —

  —

  2,290

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  2,390

  Hackney

  —

  —

  2,710

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  2,670

  Islington

  —

  —

  2,440

  Kensington

  —

  —

  2,900

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  2,580

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  2,430

  Southwark

  —

  —

  2,350

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  2,490

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  2,520

  Westminster

  —

  —

  2,580

  346

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Barking

  1,970

  2,200

  2,300

  Barnet

  1,820

  1,925

  2,110

  Bexley

  1,685

  1,820

  1,970

  Brent

  2,305

  2,225

  2,360

  Bromley

  1,770

  1,955

  2,220

  Croydon

  2,040

  1,935

  2,080

  Ealing

  2,145

  2,345

  2,580

  Enfield

  1,715

  1,815

  2,080

  Haringey

  n/a

  n/a

  2,590

  Harrow

  1,740

  1,975

  2,320

  Havering

  1,860

  1,990

  2,140

  Hillingdon

  1,870

  2,005

  2,340

  Hounslow

  1,895

  n/a

  2,080

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,905

  2,120

  2,240

  Merton

  1,660

  1,925

  1,990

  Newham

  2,140

  2,310

  2,410

  Redbridge

  1,735

  1,855

  2,120

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,645

  1,790

  1,990

  Sutton

  1,630

  1,750

  2,080

  Waltham Forest

  2,435

  2,490

  2,650

  Birmingham

  1,640

  1,800

  2,050

  Coventry

  1,940

  2,180

  2,340

  Dudley

  1,840

  1,915

  2,100

  Sandwell

  1,885

  2,120

  2,300

  Solihull

  1,650

  1,835

  2,080

  Walsall

  1,885

  1,995

  2,260

  Wolverhampton

  1,745

  1,970

  2,120

  Knowsley

  1,990

  2,105

  2,230

  Liverpool

  1,905

  2,060

  2,250

  St. Helens

  1,710

  1,965

  1,960

  Sefton

  1,600

  1,715

  2,030

  Wirral

  1,750

  1,970

  2,110

  Bolton

  1,635

  1,795

  1,990

  Bury

  1,730

  1,860

  1,810

  Manchester

  n/a

  n/a

  2,150

  Oldham

  1,590

  1,760

  1,940

  Rochdale

  1,695

  2,050

  2,140

  Salford

  1,860

  2,140

  2,190

  Stockport

  1,730

  1,860

  2,030

  Tameside

  1,660

  1,770

  1,950

  Trafford

  1,710

  1,920

  2,080

  Wigan

  1,850

  2,000

  2,100

  Barnsley

  1,645

  1,795

  1,820

  Doncaster

  1,655

  1,805

  1,860

  Rotherham

  1,635

  1,810

  1,960

  Sheffield

  1,810

  1,920

  2,150

  Bradford

  1,605

  1,635

  1,780

  Calderdale

  1,665

  1,665

  2,090

  Kirklees

  1,620

  1,765

  1,920

  Leeds

  1,545

  1,715

  1,920

  Wakefield

  n/a

  n/a

  1,940

  Gateshead

  1,770

  1,865

  2,080

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,870

  1,980

  1,990

  North Tyneside

  1,785

  n/a

  1,940

  South Tyneside

  1,825

  2,010

  2,140

  Sunderland

  1,670

  1,845

  1,930

  Avon

  1,630

  1,795

  1,940

  Bedfordshire

  1,635

  1,815

  1,880

  Berkshire

  1,570

  1,735

  1,950

  Buckinghamshire

  1,715

  1,850

  2,050

  Cambridgeshire

  1,480

  1,640

  1,880

  Cheshire

  1,545

  1,715

  1,950

  Cleveland

  1,770

  1,915

  2,090

  Cornwall

  1,525

  1,690

  1,890

  Cumbria

  1,685

  1,845

  2,030

  Derbyshire

  1,755

  1,975

  2,110

  Devon

  1,535

  1,705

  1,950

  Dorset

  1,490

  1,630

  1,810

  Durham

  1,575

  1,735

  1,990

  East Sussex

  1,565

  1,765

  1,980

  Essex

  1,635

  1,800

  1,950

  Gloucestershire

  1,545

  1,735

  1,910

  Hampshire

  1,580

  1,790

  1,970

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  1,440

  1,635

  1,840

  Hertfordshire

  1,740

  1,900

  2,070

  Humberside

  1,690

  1,765

  1,910

  Isle of Wight

  1,495

  1,575

  1,760

  347

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Kent

  1,475

  1,565

  1,800

  Lancashire

  1,620

  1,810

  1,950

  Leicestershire

  1,770

  1,900

  2,090

  Lincolnshire

  1,505

  1,630

  1,910

  Norfolk

  1,585

  1,810

  1,990

  North Yorkshire

  1,595

  1,760

  2,020

  Northamptonshire

  1,545

  1,685

  1,800

  Northumberland

  1,630

  1,645

  1,810

  Nottinghamshire

  1,745

  1,960

  2,220

  Oxfordshire

  1,660

  1,810

  2,160

  Shropshire

  1,690

  1,855

  2,100

  Somerset

  1,570

  1,745

  1,850

  Staffordshire

  1,610

  1,790

  1,930

  Suffolk

  1,485

  1,820

  2,020

  Surrey

  1,635

  1,675

  2,100

  Warwickshire

  1,635

  1,765

  1,890

  West Sussex

  1,530

  1,745

  1,910

  Wiltshire

  1,555

  1,700

  1,890

  Notes to tables:

  1. Figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department for Education. They include school-based spending on salaries and wages, recurrent premises costs, books, equipment and other supplies and services. For 1990–91 they also include unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management schemes. Figures exclude spending on home to school transport,

  Local education authority

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil £

  Net recurrent expenditure special education £'000s

  Net recurrent expenditure, special education as a percentage of all education Per cent.

  Camden

  13,230

  5,857

  8.9

  Greenwich

  15,190

  13,049

  12.7

  Hackney

  7,920

  6,369

  6.0

  Hammersmith

  13,590

  4,114

  7.2

  Islington

  11,290

  5,065

  6.1

  Kensington

  15,300

  2,088

  5.1

  Lambeth

  9,120

  12,518

  10.3

  Lewisham

  11,370

  8,342

  7.6

  Southwark

  12,900

  8,181

  7.9

  Tower Hamlets

  11,090

  7,575

  7.1

  Wandsworth

  14,950

  9,102

  8.8

  Westminster

  8,390

  4,956

  6.2

  Barking

  16,800

  3,828

  6.7

  Barnet

  8,590

  5,982

  6.2

  Bexley

  7,330

  4,796

  6.5

  Brent

  11,170

  7,165

  6.0

  Bromley

  8,680

  5,754

  6.6

  Croydon

  6,820

  4,058

  3.3

  Ealing

  8,820

  10,244

  7.9

  Enfield

  10,510

  7,822

  7.7

  Haringey

  9,140

  5,070

  4.9

  Harrow

  14,120

  5,582

  7.3

  Havering

  6,500

  3,519

  4.4

  Hillingdon

  9,340

  5,965

  7.0

  Hounslow

  8,460

  6,876

  8.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  7,520

  3,196

  6.7

  Merton

  9,450

  4,183

  7.0

  Newham

  11,350

  7,001

  6.7

  Redbridge

  7,760

  5,624

  7.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  8,440

  2,613

  5.4

  Sutton

  6,020

  3,811

  6.7

  Waltham Forest

  10,680

  6,219

  6.7

  Birmingham

  8,010

  25,526

  6.6

  Coventry

  9,040

  8,503

  6.4

  Dudley

  7,310

  6,456

  6.0

  Sandwell

  5,600

  6,699

  5.4

  Solihull

  12,080

  4,453

  6.3

  Walsall

  7,630

  4,941

  4.2

  Wolverhampton

  7,030

  4,588

  4.3

  Knowsley

  6,790

  5,091

  7.0

  Liverpool

  5,880

  12,648

  6.4

  St. Helens

  6,340

  5,124

  7.1

  348
  school meals, LEAs' central administration and financing costs of capital expenditure.

  2. "n/a" indicates that a return was not received from the LEA. Figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are rounded to the nearest £5, and for 1990–91 to the nearest £10.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each education authority, the amount per pupil spent on special needs education, the total spent on special needs education and the percentage this represents of the total education budget, for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest year for which information on actual expenditure is available is 1990–91. The table indicates, for each local education authority in England, net institutional expenditure per pupil in maintained special schools or receiving education otherwise than at school provided by each local education authority; total net recurrent expenditure on special education; and the percentage this represents of the LEA's total net recurrent expenditure on education. The figures for special education exclude expenditure on pupils with special needs attending primary and secondary schools and on services such as child guidance and educational psychology, as the relevant data are not collected separately.
  349

  Local education authority

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil £

  Net recurrent expenditure special education £'000s

  Net recurrent expenditure special education as a percentage of all education Per cent.

  Sefton

  5,370

  4,892

  4.7

  Wirrall

  6,750

  8,316

  6.3

  Bolton

  6,550

  4,909

  5.0

  Bury

  6,130

  3,649

  5.5

  Manchester

  8,670

  14,738

  7.7

  Oldham

  5,990

  4,664

  5.5

  Rochdale

  6,990

  5,197

  6.0

  Salford

  7,800

  5,379

  6.1

  Stockport

  7,140

  6,404

  6.3

  Tameside

  8,250

  5,023

  6.4

  Trafford

  6,550

  3,709

  5.0

  Wigan

  7,070

  7,850

  6.6

  Barnsley

  9,750

  2,959

  4.0

  Doncaster

  4,240

  4,578

  4.2

  Rotherham

  7,260

  7,232

  7.6

  Sheffield

  11,470

  10,281

  5.5

  Bradford

  9,950

  10,716

  5.3

  Calderdale

  6,480

  2,491

  3.3

  Kirklees

  8,200

  7,270

  4.9

  Leeds

  6,380

  8,665

  3.4

  Wakefield

  5,630

  5,828

  5.2

  Gateshead

  8,110

  4,549

  6.2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9,430

  6,597

  6.2

  North Tyneside

  8,520

  5,363

  7.3

  South Tyneside

  6,560

  2,797

  4.4

  Sunderland

  5,740

  5,125

  4.8

  Avon

  7,590

  20,867

  6.5

  Bedfordshire

  6,700

  11,258

  5.6

  Berkshire

  6,880

  16,974

  6.7

  Buckinghamshire

  6,450

  15,866

  6.8

  Cambridgeshire

  8,890

  12,396

  5.4

  Cheshire

  9,570

  22,415

  6.5

  Cleveland

  6,390

  11,040

  4.7

  Cornwall

  7,040

  5,265

  3.4

  Cumbria

  9,050

  5,819

  3.3

  Derbyshire

  8,860

  19,722

  5.6

  Devon

  5,590

  17,405

  5.5

  Dorset

  4,960

  10,179

  5.3

  Durham

  8,470

  12,427

  5.8

  East Sussex

  7,650

  16,137

  8.2

  Essex

  7,010

  30,704

  6.1

  Gloucestershire

  7,590

  14,675

  8.0

  Hampshire

  6,250

  35,309

  7.1

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  5,040

  10,869

  4.9

  Hertfordshire

  8,760

  23,326

  6.5

  Humberside

  12,310

  18,764

  5.8

  Isle of Wight

  4,270

  2,062

  4.9

  Kent

  5,360

  31,992

  6.8

  Lancashire

  7,760

  40,346

  7.7

  Leicestershire

  7,940

  13,595

  4.1

  Lincolnshire

  9,250

  14,985

  8.0

  Norfolk

  9,480

  13,304

  5.7

  North Yorkshire

  8,950

  13,987

  5.9

  Northamptonshire

  8,620

  13,123

  6.4

  Northumberland

  7,820

  5,549

  5.0

  Nottinghamshire

  6,310

  17,382

  4.7

  Oxfordshire

  8,420

  9,362

  4.8

  Shropshire

  7,880

  7,776

  5.2

  Somerset

  13,890

  11,962

  7.3

  Staffordshire

  6,720

  17,723

  5.0

  Suffolk

  6,170

  8,817

  4.4

  Surrey

  6,690

  21,942

  7.2

  Warwickshire

  8,120

  13,263

  7.7

  West Sussex

  5,740

  13,193

  6.5

  Wiltshire

  6,610

  11,751

  5.9

  Note to table

  1. Figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department for Education.

  2. Net institutional expenditure covers the costs of salaries and wages, recurrent premises costs, books, equipment and other supplies and services. It excludes the costs of home to school transport, school meals, LEAs' central administration, and financing costs of capital expenditure.

  3. Net recurrent expenditure includes all expenditure other than on financing of capital expenditure, less income other than from specific
  350

  351
  grants.

  4. The variations in the figures between LEAs partly reflect the geographical distribution of different kinds of special schools and partly differences in policies of integration of pupils with special needs into ordinary schools.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list in rank order the latest available figures for the percentage of three and four-year-olds in nursery education for each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Forth
  Estimates of the percentage of three and four-year-olds in maintained nursery schools or nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1991 were published in column (xvii) of table 1 of statistical bulletin 5/92. A copy of this bulletin is available in the Library.

  However, data which have since become available from the 1991 census of population suggest that the estimates of the three and four-year-old population in each local education authority used in bulletin 5/92 are in need of revision in some cases, and therefore that the percentages in column (xvii) of table I also need to be revised. The percentages as they stand do not therefore provide a reliable basis for a listing of local education authorities in rank order.

  It is however not yet possible to re-calculate the percentages in bulletin 5/92 more accurately, or to update them to 1992, because not all of the population estimates required for this purpose are available on a post-census basis.

  Teacher Salaries
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list, for each education authority not in receipt of area cost adjustment, the average teacher's salary for the last year that figures are available;

  (2) if he will list, for each education authority in receipt of area cost adjustment, the average teacher's salary for the last year that figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The most recent date for which figures are available is 31 March 1990.

  The area cost adjustment is designed to compensate local authorities in London and south-east England for additional employment costs incurred in that region. It is based on evidence of general market earnings levels drawn from the annual new earnings survey.

  Some care must be taken in drawing parallels between differentials in average teacher salaries and the area cost adjustment. First, in the field of education, the adjustment compensates for the additional labour costs which apply to all types of staff employed in educational work. While approximately three quarters of total local authority education expenditure is on labour costs, in the current year only half this total expenditure relates to teachers' pay.

  Secondly, the average salary figures given below do not necessarily fully reflect the higher costs of employing teachers in the south-east, since in order to attract teaching staff, authorities in that region have generally found it necessary to offer additional incentives, particularly to help with the costs of housing.

  With these qualifications, the average teacher's salary was, for education authorities which receive area cost adjustment:
  352

  £

  ILEA

  16,662

  Barking

  16,635

  Barnet

  16,075

  Bexley

  16,322

  Brent

  17,059

  Bromley

  16,581

  Croydon

  16,522

  Ealing

  16,781

  Enfield

  16,116

  Haringey

  16,692

  Harrow

  15,982

  Havering

  16,065

  Hillmgdon

  16,411

  Hounslow

  16,118

  Kingston

  16,236

  Merton

  17,137

  Newham

  17,233

  Redbridge

  16,163

  Richmond

  15,939

  Sutton

  16,312

  Waltham Forest

  16,182

  Bedfordshire

  15,501

  Berkshire

  15,581

  Buckinghamshire

  15,283

  East Sussex

  15,315

  Essex

  15,513

  Hampshire

  15,236

  Hertfordshire

  15,531

  Isle of Wight

  15,193

  Kent

  15,492

  Oxfordshire

  15,453

  Surrey

  15,639

  West Sussex

  15,252

  Isles of Scilly

  15,023

  The average teacher's salary was, for local education authorities which do not receive area cost adjustment:

  £

  Birmingham

  15,489

  Coventry

  15,520

  Dudley

  15,079

  Sandwell

  15,309

  Solihull

  15,380

  Walsall

  15,310

  Wolverhampton

  15,314

  Knowsley

  15,447

  Liverpool

  15,531

  St. Helens

  15,289

  Sefton

  15,577

  Wirral

  15,202

  Bolton

  15,034

  Bury

  15,373

  Manchester

  15,672

  Oldham

  14,898

  Rochdale

  15,272

  Salford

  15,348

  Stockport

  15,350

  Tameside

  15,256

  Trafford

  15,379

  Wigan

  15,526

  Barnsley

  15,201

  Doncaster

  15,369

  Rotherham

  15,198

  Sheffield

  15,706

  Bradford

  14,960

  Calderdale

  15,381

  Kirklees

  15,182

  Leeds

  15,421

  Wakefield

  15,390

  Gateshead

  15,592

  Newcastle

  15,428

  353

  £

  North Tyneside

  15,298

  South Tyneside

  15,236

  Sunderland

  15,175

  Avon

  15,477

  Cambridgeshire

  15,196

  Cheshire

  15,477

  Cleveland

  15,349

  Cornwall

  15,499

  Cumbria

  15,409

  Derbyshire

  15,349

  Devon

  15,245

  Dorset

  15,363

  Durham

  15,399

  Gloucestershire

  15,264

  Hereford

  15,496

  Humberside

  15,531

  Lancashire

  15,318

  Leicestershire

  15,434

  Lincolnshire

  15,484

  Norfolk

  15,432

  North Yorkshire

  15,352

  Northampton

  15,273

  Northumberland

  15,496

  Nottinghamshire

  15,472

  Shropshire

  15,441

  Somerset

  15,341

  Staffordshire

  15,530

  Suffolk

  15,220

  Warwickshire

  15,542

  Wiltshire

  15,198

  All these figures are average salaries of full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools, including grant-maintained schools.

  Dronfield School, Derbyshire
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of the services of the Electoral Reform Society in conducting the ballot on grant-maintained status at the Dronfield school in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of the services of the Electoral Reform Society in conducting the ballot on grant-maintained status at the Dronfield school was £350.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the cost for the printing and distribution of the pack of information relating to grant maintained conferences for heads and governors, midlands.

  Mr. Forth
  The conference material for the events to be held in Leicester in February and in Nottingham and Birmingham in March comprised a letter of invitation and a copy of the standard grant maintained information pack. Production costs for the information packs were approximately £5,500. The mailing of invitations and packs fell within the terms of the contract with the departmental dispatch centre and distribution costs cannot be identified separately.

  Teachers' Authority
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he has given to the need for further legislation to clarify the legal basis of teachers' authority referred to in the Elton report on discipline in schools.
  354
  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend does not consider that further legislation would be appropriate.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the terms of reference given to the GAH group of consultants for the report on the national lottery commissioned by his Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  All the firms invited to tender for the consultancy were sent the following terms of reference.

  The Commission ANNEX A

  1. The Secretary of State for National Heritage intends to introduce a National Lottery to raise funds for arts, sport, the heritage and charities, and for the Millennium Fund, which will finance projects which celebrate and commemorate the turn of the millennium. The Department of National Heritage will require advice on the key determinants of a successful National Lottery in the United Kingdom. To this end, the contractor is asked to provide a report which covers structure, administration and marketing issues, and includes consideration of the following:

  2. The determinants of a successful Game.

  Lotto/instant lotteries;

  On-line/off-line operations;

  Frequency of games;

  Size and range of prizes, and roll-over provision;

  Retailing strategy.

  3. The Secretary of State is concerned that there should be competition between providers of Lottery goods and services to ensure efficient practice. It is envisaged that one contract will be let to co-ordinate and run the National Lottery, but that a competitive environment will be created in the provision of games. The contractor is asked to provide a suitable model to promote competition and efficiency.

  4. Creating a competitive environment.

  Length of contract awarded to primary operator.

  Separation of services/games offered by sub-contractors.

  Administrative costs of complex/simple arrangements.

  5. Regulatory issues. The contractor is asked to bear in mind the balance to be struck between regulation, innovation, and yield.

  Identify where either on-line or off-line systems might present opportunities for fraud, and ways of avoiding or minimising those opportunities.

  Ways of minimising vulnerability to very large, big-spending syndicates.

  6. Assessing other economic effects. Some respondents to the consultation have claimed that the introduction of a Lottery will seriously damage the turnover of other industries. Some substitution to the Lottery will undoubtedly take place, but it would be helpful to have an estimate of:

  The extent to which the Lottery will tap into new markets. Insofar as existing markets are affected (particularly gambling and charitable giving), advice will be needed on possible changes to the current regimes for those activities, with quantified effects as far as possible. The contractor should for the purposes of this exercise assume no changes in the tax regimes for any of these markets.

  The Method

  7. Given the time constraints, it is not envisaged that the contractor will undertake specific market research for this project but will proceed by modelling, using information already available in the United Kingdom and abroad. Your presentation will need to make clear how you would intend to carry out the commission.

  Royal Armouries Museum
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the projected number of visitors to the royal armouries museum being built in Leeds; what is the projected break-even attendance figure; and what
  355
  commitment the Government have given to secure the future of the royal armouries in the event of the move not breaking even financially.

  Mr. Key
  A nationally recognised firm of market researchers has advised that the proposed museum in Leeds will attract well in excess of 1 million visitors per year, and has confirmed this advice recently.

  The projected break-even attendance figure is well below half the expected number of visitors.

  There is no question of the royal armouries not having a secure future.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Natioal Heritage how much of the £2.50 that members of the public are being charged to view the fire-damaged rooms at Windsor castle will go to its restoration fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Visitors to the state apartments at Windsor castle are currently being charged a reduced admission fee of £2.50 instead of the normal adult charge of £4 because some rooms are temporarily removed from the public route as a result of the fire. Visitors view only in passing the areas damaged by fire. Admission fees continue to be used for the conservation, presentation and administration of the royal collection.

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage, which came into being in April 1993, has not awarded any contracts to KPMG Management Consultants during the past 12 months. However, on 5 March 1992 the Department of Trade and Industry awarded a contract to KPMG Management Consultants to carry out a review of British Screen Finance Ltd. The Department of National Heritage inherited this contract when responsibility for film industry policy, including British Screen Finance, passed to this Department on 1 May 1992. The final report was delivered in May 1992.

  Welsh Television
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the reception of Welsh television services in north east Clwyd; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since responsibility for broadcasting policy was transferred to the Department of National Heritage in April 1992, we have received representations about Welsh television services in north-east Clwyd only from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). We have offered advice on how to improve reception of Welsh programmes in some parts of the area.

TRANSPORT

  Public Transport Fares, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will update the table of real fares and passenger mileage on London Transport underground and buses given in his answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), 22 July 1991,Official Report, column 336.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is given in the table. Figures for bus passenger miles, given in the answer referred to, were on a financial year basis from 1984. London Transport has revised its estimates of passenger miles for the years from 1987–88 to 1990–91, so these data are also shown.

  Real fares indices (1971=100)

  Year

  Million passenger miles London bus services

  Year

  London bus services

  London bus and under-ground

  1987–88

  2,646

  1991

  140

  142

  1988–89

  2,629

  1992

  146

  148

  1989–90

  2,588

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  2,573

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  2,483

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a real fares index for child fares on(a) British Rail, (b) Network SouthEast, (c) London Underground, (d) London Buses and (e) London Transport bus and underground services combined for each year since 1971 expressed at 1971 prices.

  Mr. Steven Norris
  The information available for London Buses, London Underground, and London Transport bus and underground services combined is shown in the table. Comparable figures for British Rail and Network SouthEast are not readily available.

  The figures shown in the table are for child ordinary tickets only. They do not include the effect of changes in the price of child season tickets, travelcards and passes, as this information is not available. The figures shown for bus and all London Transport services start in 1976 because the age band covered by child tickets on buses changed during 1975, and consistent data for earlier years are not available.

  Real fares indices for child ordinary tickets (1976 = 100)

  Bus

  Underground

  London Transport Bus and Underground

  1971

  —

  101

  —

  1972

  —

  111

  —

  1973

  —

  106

  —

  1974

  —

  91

  —

  1975

  —

  96

  —

  1976

  100

  100

  100

  1977

  96

  85

  95

  1978

  90

  92

  90

  1979

  87

  96

  89

  1980

  109

  106

  111

  1981

  105

  98

  106

  1982

  102

  128

  111

  1983

  112

  131

  120

  358

  Bus

  Underground

  London Transport Bus and Underground

  1984

  107

  120

  113

  1985

  134

  123

  134

  1986

  129

  119

  129

  1987

  124

  138

  129

  1988

  141

  146

  145

  1989

  165

  158

  168

  1990

  152

  172

  161

  1991

  171

  193

  180

  1992

  189

  188

  194

  Ferries
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the incident threatening the safety of the Stena Sealink ferry Hibernia on the night of 16–17 January.

  Mr. Norris
  The incident is the subject of an investigation by the Department's marine accident investigation branch. The inspector appointed to carry out the investigation will in due course submit a report to the the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which ferries currently in service and operating from British ports are comparable in design or class to the Jan Heweliusz.

  Mr. Norris
  There is one ferry operating to British ports that can carry rail freight in a similar manner to the Jan Heweliusz. This is the French-registered ferry Nord Pas cle Calais.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances and under what powers the Irish or British authorities can intervene to prevent the sailing of ferries between Ireland and the United Kingdorn because of hazardous conditions.

  Mr. Norris
  Unless a vessel has weather restrictions placed on its operation, my Department has no powers to prevent the sailing of ferries because of hazardous weather conditions. The decision to sail is ultimately that of the ship's master.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which ferries currently in service and operating from British ports are comparable in design or class to the Stena Hibernia.

  Mr. Norris
  The Stena Hibernia is typical of the type of ro-ro passenger ferry in service between United Kingdom ports, continental Europe and Ireland, although the design will differ in detail.

  London Underground
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of investment in the London underground system made in 1992–93 and planned for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Norris
  Total investment expenditure by London Underground in 1992–93 is currently forecast to be about £680 million. London Transport is still finalising its budget
  359
  plans for future years, in light of the autumn statement, but I expect London Underground investment, including provision for the Jubilee line extension and crossrail, to be in the region of £ 1 billion per annum over the next three years.

  Shipping Statistics
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his best estimate of the number of vessels passing through the Bristol channel daily;

  (2) what is his estimate of the average number of vessels passing through St. George's channel each day.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department does not hold information on the number of vessels passing through the St. George's channel or the Bristol channel daily.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of the investment made in Network SouthEast in 1992–93 and planned for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Freeman
  Around £600 million is being invested in Network SouthEast in 1992–93. Rolling stock, including networkers for Kent link and turbos for Thames and Chiltern, accounts for over half this sum. Other major projects include resignalling schemes on the Great Eastern, London, Tilbury and Southend, Thames, Kent link and Kent coast lines, and Cambridge to King's Lynn electrification. Some of these projects will continue in 1993–94 including the delivery of more rolling stock for Kent link and Thames. However, British Rail has yet to be make final decisions on its detailed investment plans for 1993–94 to 1995–96.

  Oil Spills
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is, in both cash and constant prices, the amount of financial support his Department has given to fund research into oil spill clean-ups in each year since financial year 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The expenditure on research into oil spill clean-ups in the years specified was:

  Year

  Expenditure £

  Deflated to 1987–88 prices £

  1987–88

  988,938

  1988–89

  741,975

  691,621

  1989–90

  737,089

  644,687

  1990–91

  874,603

  708,410

  1991–92

  610,464

  462,506

  1992–93

  1830,000

  603,197

  1 Estimate.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration has been given to the use of napalm to tackle the oil slick resulting from the Braer disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department considers all available techniques when dealing with oil pollution at sea in oil spill 360
  incidents. Burning the slick would not have been appropriate in the Braer incident due to the location of the vessel and the weather conditions. My Department has also commissioned a research project to review burning as a response option.

  Transport Links
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been made by his Department to the European Commission's request that a full evaluation should be undertaken of all transport links between the United Kingdom and Ireland.

  Mr. Norris
  I am not aware of any such request from the Commission.

  Planning Appeal, Ealing
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy not to oppose the application or the continuation of the appeal proceedings in the matter of the planning appeal being heard at the Ealing town hall and relating to the access to Norbreck parade, London NW10, from the north circular road, on the grounds that the appellant may not in fact at present own the land in question.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's grounds for opposing this application are set out in its proofs of evidence submitted to the public inquiry. These and all other evidence submitted are matters for the inspector to consider before making his recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

WALES

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the level of(a) housing and (b) other capital receipts held by each Welsh district council at the end of the year 1991–92 which they are unable to spend.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  For the year in question under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the capital finance regulations made under the provisions of that Act, a proportion of capital receipts is available for the redemption of debt with the balance being available either for voluntary debt redemption or for new capital spending. Debt redemption, or the holding of receipts set aside for this purpose, reduces or offsets the interest charges that have to be borne by a local authority or its housing revenue account and there are no capital receipts that cannot be used either in that way or for new capital spending.

  Accident Trauma Specialists
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many accident trauma specialists have been employed within each health authority area of Wales during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information, which relates to consultants in the specialty of traumatic and orthopaedic surgery, is given in the table. It is not known centrally how many of these consultants are accident trauma specialists.
  361

  Traumatic and orthopaedic surgery consultants in post as at 30 September (whole-time equivalents)1

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Clwyd

  4.0

  4.0

  4.1

  4.5

  3.9

  East Dyfed

  3.9

  3.9

  4.9

  4.9

  5.9

  Gwent

  5.8

  6.0

  5.9

  6.9

  6.9

  Gwynedd

  2.4

  2.5

  2.0

  3.0

  3.0

  Mid Glamorgan

  6.0

  6.8

  6.8

  6.8

  6.8

  Pembrokeshire

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Powys

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  South Glamorgan

  4.8

  5.8

  4.9

  4.8

  4.8

  West Glamorgan

  7.0

  7.0

  6.9

  6.9

  7.6

  1 Excluding locums.

  Further Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to launch a review of further education provision for students with learning difficulties and physical disabilities in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Further education is currently a matter for the local education authorities. On 1 April, the Further Education Funding Council for Wales assumes responsibility for planning and funding the sector. In the Secretary of State's guidance letter of 27 May 1992 to the chairman of the funding council he asked that the council ensures that adequate arrangements are in place for assessing the needs of students with learning difficulties and disabilities and for identifying appropriate provision within further education.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated total number of people he has currently appointed to public bodies in Wales; and what is the estimated total annual amount paid to those members appointed by him to public bodies in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The total number of people I have currently appointed to public bodies in Wales is 1,195. Information on the total amount paid to those members appointed is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on the level of remuneration for each appointment was given in the reply I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 30 October 1992, at columns 866–908.

  Transport Links
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has been taken to date by his Department in response to the European Commission's invitation to the United Kingdom to undertake a feasibility study as background to the pilot project on transport links between Holyhead and Dublin.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My officials have been discussing with colleagues in the Department of Transport possible terms of reference for a feasibility study into combined transport links between Great Britain and Ireland.

  Ramp Metering
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce ramp metering on motorway and dual carriageway approach roads in Wales.
  362
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None at this time.

  Alcohol Projects
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps will be taken to ring-fence money for residential alcohol projects in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Resources being transferred far residential facilities under the care in the community arrangements will be ring-fenced. The Department will continue to support individual projects aimed at combating alcohol misuse.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what charge is made for replacement hearing aids for adults and children by(a) South Glamorgan health authority and (b) other health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The National Health Service Act 1977 enables the making of regulations to provide for health authorities to recover the cost of lost or damaged equipment. The National Health Service (Charges for Appliances) Regulations 1974 make such provision. It is for individual health authorities to assess how much to charge for replacing appliances and information on charges made is not held centrally.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employees aged 55 years or over have retired early on grounds of ill-health in Wales in each year since 1985.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available centrally.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Llywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to issue a code of practice on the reduction of traffic delays around roadworks in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Advice on reducing delays around roadworks is available to highway authorities in Wales.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much extra money will be allocated for the assessment of support services and placements for students with learning difficulties and physical disabilities in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The allocation of funds to the further education sector will become the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales from 1 April. The Secretary of State announced on 15 December 1992 the planned funding for further education in Wales from 1993–94 to 1995–96. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that additional costs are involved in making provision for students with special needs and has asked that the funding council take this into account in distributing funds to the FE colleges.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to set a target time in which valuation tribunals in Wales will complete a council tax valuation appeal.
  363
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  When the number of appeals coming forward in 1993 is known, we will agree with the tribunal service and the Valuation Office agency a broad timetable for their disposal. The Government will keep under review the progress of tribunals in disposing of appeals. The time taken to clear individual appeals will vary with the particular circumstances of the appeal. It would not be practicable to set a time within which an individual appeal should be settled.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Official Information
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the statutory provisions restricting disclosure of official information, other than the Official Secrets Acts, which came into force after the publication of the list of provisions in appendix V of the Franks report, Cmnd 5104;

  (2) if he will publish a list of the clauses containing provisions bearing upon the disclosure of official information which appear in Government Bills published since 2 April 1990.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 2 November 1992, at column 55.

ENVIRONMENT

  Tenants Cash Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amount used by each local authority in the United Kingdom, as a percentage of its housing budget, to fund the tenants cash incentive scheme in the last financial year.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available information for authorities in England operating approved cash incentive schemes in 1991–92 is given in the table. Corresponding data for authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for the territorial Departments.

  Local authority expenditure on cash incentive schemes in England in 1991–92 as a proportion of total housing capital expenditure by local authority

  Local authority

  Percentage

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Hambleton

  2

  East Midlands

  Daventry

  1

  East Northamptonshire

  4

  South Kesteven

  1

  Eastern

  Aylesbury Vale

  5

  Basildon

  5

  Castle Point

  19

  Colchester

  11

  Dacorum

  8

  East Hertfordshire

  8

  Huntingdonshire

  1

  Luton

  6

  North Hertfordshire

  1

  Peterborough

  2

  Rochford

  35

  364

  Local authority

  Percentage

  Southend-on-Sea

  6

  St. Albans

  6

  Stevenage

  5

  Three Rivers

  2

  Watford

  4

  Greater London

  Barnet

  4

  Brent

  11

  Bromley

  6

  Camden

  2

  Croydon

  13

  Ealing

  13

  Enfield

  13

  Hackney

  3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4

  Haringey

  5

  Harrow

  14

  Havering

  4

  Hillingdon

  13

  Hounslow

  12

  Islington

  8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10

  Kingston upon Thames

  15

  Lambeth

  4

  Lewisham

  2

  Merton

  6

  Redbridge

  2

  Richmond upon Thames

  9

  Southwark

  2

  Sutton

  19

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Waltham Forest

  5

  Wandsworth

  9

  Westminster

  9

  South East

  Adur

  8

  Arun

  2

  Bracknell Forest

  4

  Brighton

  4

  Canterbury

  3

  Cherwell

  3

  Chichester

  3

  Dartford

  7

  Dover

  8

  Eastbourne

  10

  East Hampshire

  2

  Eastleigh

  3

  Elmbridge

  6

  Fareham

  7

  Gillingham

  4

  Gosport

  6

  Gravesham

  —

  Guildford

  1

  Hart

  9

  Hastings

  5

  Havant

  6

  Horsham

  11

  Hove

  5

  Lewes

  1

  Maidstone

  7

  Mole Valley

  10

  New Forest

  3

  Oxford

  2

  Portsmouth

  8

  Reading

  6

  Reigate and Banstead

  5

  Rother

  5

  Rushmoor

  7

  Runnymede

  4

  Shepway

  2

  Slough

  8

  Southampton

  2

  Spelthorne

  5

  Tandridge

  9

  Test Valley

  4

  365

  Local authority

  Percentage

  Thanet

  4

  Tunbridge Wells

  4

  Vale of White Horse

  3

  Wealden

  2

  Woking

  7

  Wokingham

  13

  Worthing

  5

  South West

  Bournemouth

  2

  Carrick

  4

  Exeter

  1

  Kennet

  —

  Mendip

  2

  Poole

  1

  Restmorel

  —

  Stroud

  2

  Teignbridge

  1

  Woodspring

  1

  West Midlands

  Malvern Hills

  —

  Solihull

  —

  Stafford

  1

  Wyre Forest

  1

  Source: 1992 HIP2 returns submitted by local authorities

  '—' = less than ½ per cent.

  Disclosure of Information
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been carried out under section 206 of the Water Industry Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Neither my Department nor the Office of Water Services collect information about prosecutions under the provisions of section 206 of the Water Industry Act 1991. No such prosecutions have been otherwise brought to my attention.

  Construction Industry Inquiry
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure representation of client interests in the construction industry inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are having discussions with several bodies about the representation of public and private client interests in the proposed review. We hope to finalise the arrangements shortly.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the terms of reference of the inquiry into the construction industry will include retention money reform.

  Mr. Baldry
  The purpose of the proposed review is to consider and make recommendations to the Government, the construction industry and its clients on those matters that cause conflict in the shape of procurement and contracts. The question of retention money is one of many matters that we would expect to be included.

  Multi-occupied Houses
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what records local authorities are required to keep on the environmental standard of multi-occupied houses and, specifically, on whether such accommodation has adequate cooking facilities.

  Sir George Young
  There is no general requirement for local authorities to keep such records. However, a local authority must maintain a register of all notices served under section 352 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. An authority may serve a notice under this section where it considers that the facilities in a house in multiple occupation—HMO—render the house unfit for occupation. The requirement includes adequate facilities for the storage, preparation and cooking of food.

  Local authorities have the power under section 346 of the Act to set up a registration scheme for the HMOs in their area. The Department's model scheme suggests that the register should contain details about each house, including the number of rooms in the house used exclusively as kitchens or sculleries and bathrooms, and the number of sanitary and washing facilities.

  Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Bosnian refugees have been housed in local authority accommodation; and how much money has been allocated to replacing that accommodation(a) nationally and (b) in the city of Nottingham.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not hold details of the national origins of people allocated accommodation under the homelessness legislation. As the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), announced on 16 November 1992, at column 54, the Government are making available a special grant for local authorities faced with exceptional costs arising from the influx of refugees from the former Yugoslav republic; the distribution of that grant has not yet been decided.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to review the implementation and enforcement of the integrated pollution control system established through the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Integrated pollution control is being phased in between 1991 and 1996. We are satisfied that it is being properly implemented and enforced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and that its introduction is proceeding according to timetable. It is our policy to keep this, and all other systems for which the Department is responsible, under review.

  Composting Units
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to provide financial assistance to(a) local authorities, (b) farmers and (c) private companies in the setting up of commercial composting units.
  367
  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities, in partnership with the private sector where appropriate, are able to apply for supplementary credit approvals for recycling projects. Private companies which are developing new recycling technologies or processes may seek grants under the ETIS and DEMOS schemes. While my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the responsibility for providing grants to farmers for works to prevent pollution from agricultural waste, he has no plans to extend these grants to businesses of this type.

  Packaging
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his targets for reducing the overall amount of packaging materials used to package goods under the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commission's proposal for a directive is still in its early stages. It is not yet clear what the final shape of any directive that is adopted may be. I consider therefore that it is premature for the United Kingdom to set targets now given that the current proposals may be changed substantially during negotiations between member states. We already have a target of recycling 25 per cent. of household waste, a substantial amount of the recyclable proportion of which is packaging materials.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often bed-and-breakfast accommodation, occupied by homeless families, is required to be inspected by an environmental health officer; and what are the provisions under which such an inspection takes place.

  Sir George Young
  Section 605 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended, requires a local authority to consider the housing conditions in their district in this regard at least once a year. It is for each authority to decide on an inspection programme in the light of circumstances.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been undertaken to establish how many homeless households living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation have refused offers of permanent accommodation since 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has conducted no research on this matter in relation to the period in question.

  Local Authority Tendering
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he gives to local authorities involved in placing work out to tender with the private sector concerning the notification of changes by local authorities to the original specification once the original invitation to tender is issued and the tendering process is under way; and if he will list the relevant statutes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not issued any guidance to local authorities on this specific aspect of tendering procedure.

  The statutes relevant to public purchasing are:

  —for compulsory competitive tendering:
  368

  The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  The Local Government Act 1988

  The Local Government Act 1982

  and regulations made under those Acts.

  —for more general purchasing, regulations made to implement in the United Kingdom:

  (European Economic Community) Directive 71/305/EEC, as amended by 89/440/EEC. (Public Sector Works Directive)

  Directive 77/62/EEC, as amended by 88/295/EEC. (Supplies Directive)

  Directive 92/50/EEC. (Services Directive)

  Architects Registration Council
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to abolish the Architects Registration Council.

  Sir George Young
  The Department has received the report by Mr. John Warne CB of his review of the Architects (Registration) Acts 1931 to 1969. We are at present considering its recommendations and will make an announcement shortly.

  Tyre Dumps
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tyre dumps it is estimated will be subject to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 when these are introduced on 1 April 1993; and what additional financial provision is to be made to the local waste regulation authorities by his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under legislation in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, sites used for the deposit of waste tyres must be licensed for that purpose. This will continue to be the case after the introduction of the new waste management licensing system in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, scheduled for 1 April 1993; unless exempt, all waste tyre dumps will be subject to the requirements of this system. However, it is proposed that where the waste tyres are being kept in limited quantities prior to recycling, such storage should be exempted from the requirements.

  At the same time as the new licensing system is introduced, a scheme of fees and charges will be made, which will enable waste regulation authorities to recover their reasonable administrative costs incurred in considering licence applications and supervising licensed activities. Thus authorities will be provided with an income in respect of activities which for the most part they already carry out.

  Furthermore, resources of £12 million have been set aside for supplementary credit approvals to local authorities for landfill gas and contaminated land remedial works in the financial year 1993–94.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to set a target time in which valuation tribunals in England will complete a council tax band appeal.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  When the number of council tax appeals arising in 1993 is known, we will agree with the valuation tribunal service and the Valuation Office agency a broad timetable for disposing of them. We will then keep progress under review. Since the time taken to clear
  369
  individual appeals will vary with the particular circumstances of the case, it would not be practicable to set a specific deadline for each one.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) against the decision, announced on 13 November 1992, to reduce the urban programme for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 97 letters received up to and including 4 January 1993, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member of 11 January, at column 655, either sought clarification or expressed concern about the new arrangements for the urban programme. In reply, we have made clear that there will be a substantial urban programme in 1993–94 amounting to £176 million and that we have demonstrated our continuing commitment to urban regeneration by increasing planned resources for my Department's urban group of programmes for 1993–94 by over £90 million; total spending will be over £1 billion.

  RTB2 and S.125 delays monitoring exercise September 1992

  Monthly monitored boroughs

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  RTB2 delays

  S.125 delays

  RTB2 and S.125 delays

  September 1992

  September 1992

  September 1991

  September 1992

  Difference between column 3 and 4

  Total sales figures 1991–92

  Hackney

  1

  43

  293

  44

  249

  615

  Lambeth

  11

  12

  869

  23

  864

  913

  Sub Total

  12

  55

  1,162

  67

  —

  1,528

  Average

  6

  28

  581

  34

  —

  764

  Non-monitored boroughs

  City

  2

  1

  1

  3

  (2)

  53

  Barking

  1

  3

  2

  4

  (2)

  431

  Barnet

  1

  1

  4

  2

  2

  1220

  Bexley

  0

  2

  5

  2

  3

  118

  Brent

  2

  7

  16

  9

  7

  1349

  Bromley

  0

  0

  4

  0

  4

  348

  Camden

  2

  6

  17

  8

  9

  1334

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  372

  Ealing

  2

  17

  23

  19

  4

  1481

  Enfield

  2

  15

  12

  17

  (5)

  314

  Greenwich

  15

  69

  106

  84

  22

  369

  Hammersmith

  0

  77

  88

  77

  11

  242

  Haringey

  9

  7

  26

  16

  10

  1363

  Harrow

  0

  2

  58

  2

  56

  138

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2249

  Hillingdon

  5

  39

  31

  44

  (13)

  2609

  Hounslow

  2

  45

  58

  47

  11

  353

  Islington

  64

  42

  149

  106

  43

  1403

  Kensington

  2

  46

  39

  48

  (9)

  1120

  Kingston

  0

  7

  20

  7

  13

  120

  Lewisham

  1

  18

  74

  19

  55

  546

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  214

  Newham

  33

  85

  79

  118

  (39)

  1340

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  205

  Richmond

  0

  13

  13

  13

  0

  205

  Southwark

  55

  74

  128

  129

  (1)

  1582

  Sutton

  0

  13

  16

  13

  3

  148

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  5

  0

  5

  1363

  Waltham Forest

  2

  26

  37

  28

  9

  189

  Wandsworth

  0

  1

  3

  1

  2

  1840

  Westminster

  0

  1

  16

  1

  15

  445

  Sub Total

  200

  617

  1,030

  817

  —

  10,063

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is available on the recent right-to-buy performance of London authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The right-to-buy performance of London authorities has been monitored by my Department for a number of years. Annual monitoring is carried out of each authority's performance at the end of September, with poor performers submitting additional reports on a monthly basis. Data from the latest survey is given in the table.

  I am pleased to report that data for September 1992 show that the number of tenants whose applications are being unduly delayed continues to decline. Across London as a whole delays beyond statutory deadlines have fallen by 60 per cent. from 2,192 to 884. This compares with more than 15,000 delayed cases in March 1989 when the Government's "tenants sanctions" procedures came into effect.

  Only two authorities—Hackney and Lambeth—were monitored on a monthly basis in 1992. I am glad to say that the performance of both authorities is now very much better and it has been possible for me to agree that monthly monitoring of Lambeth should cease. Monthly monitoring of Hackney continues, but will also cease if Hackney's improved performance is maintained.
  371

  Monthly monitored boroughs

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  RTB2 delays

  S.125 delays

  RTB2 and S.125 delays

  September 1992

  September 1992

  September 1991

  September 1992

  Difference between column 3 and 4

  Total sales figures 1991–92

  Average

  6

  20

  33

  26

  —

  325

  Totals

  212

  672

  2,192

  884

  —

  11,591

  London Average

  6

  20

  66

  27

  —

  351

  Note:

  Brent, Camden, Haringey, Hounslow, Islington, Lewisham, Newham, Richmond, Southwark and Tower Hamlets were monitored up to September 1991.

  1Incomplete Data. Annual estimates based on available quarterly figures.

  2Data from 1990–91 returns as figures for 1991–92 not available.

  Source: LRH7 monitoring exercise and Cartwright Tables produced by HDS.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the sparsity indicator for standard spending assessments has increased in value against the grant-related expenditure allocation position.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The allowance for sparsity within standard spending assessments follows extensive statistical analysis and the consideration of other evidence provided by local authority representatives. It reflects the Government's current view of the additional costs of providing local services associated with population sparsity.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the standard level of service is defined for the purpose of standard spending assessments; and how this standard is arrived at.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The standard level of service is that which is consistent with the Government's view of the appropriate total amount of revenue expenditure for all local authorities —that is, "total standard spending". This figure takes into account the various pressures on local authority services, any changes in local authority functions or new burdens, and the potential for improved efficiency in service delivery. It also reflects the Government's view of what taxpayers, both locally and nationally, can afford.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what economies of scale are identified within the standard spending assessment formulae.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: Standard spending assessments take account of a wide range of indicators of the physical, demographic, and social characteristics of local authorities. We have no evidence that expenditure needs are affected by the size of an authority in itself, over and above the extent to which size is already reflected in the existing indicators such as population.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken of the distribution of low-paid groups, other than recipients of income support, in calculating standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: There is no explicit reference within the calculation of standard spending assessments to the distribution of
  372
  low-paid groups, other than through indicators based on income support claimants. However, the use of the children's and all ages social indices within the calculation of the personal social services and all other services elements of the standard spending assessment reflects the fact that the costs of providing some services are higher in areas with poorer social conditions relative to those with above average social conditions.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each county, London and metropolitan borough the standard spending assessment per person for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A table containing the information requested has been placed in the Library. This also includes a column showing standard spending assessments per head for 1992–93 adjusted for changes in function which are consistent with those figures shown in the table placed in the Library in response to a question from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw),fficial Report,1 December 1992, column 155.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) those authorities which have made representations about his local government finance proposals for 1993–94 (i) in writing and (ii) by way of a delegation to Ministers, (b) a summary of the points made by each authority, (c) the duration of each meeting and (d) any ministerial responses to the representations, including any promised changes in relevant notional amounts.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: The tables list authorities which have made representations to myself and other Ministers in my Department on my proposals for the local government finance settlement generally and specifically on my proposals for relevant notional amounts.

  I intend to present the settlement reports embodying my decisions to the House shortly. A summary of points made by each authority can only be prepared at disproportionate cost. Records are not made of the duration of meetings. As regards notional amounts, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on 12 November 1992, at columns 962–63.
  Table A—local authorities in England from which representations were received on the proposed local government finance settlement for 1993–94 by the Secretary of

  373
  State for the Environment in writing between 26 November 1992 and 18 January 1993 other than those specifically on the subject of notional amounts.

  All purpose
  Isles of Scilly

  Single purpose authorities

  Merseyside Fire

  West MidlandsFire

  South Yorkshire Fire

  West Yorkshire Fire

  West Yorkshire Police

  West Mercia Police

  London

  Barnet

  Brent

  Bromley

  Camden

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Islington

  Kingston upon Thames

  Lambeth

  Merton

  Newham

  Redbridge

  Richamond upon Thames

  Southwark

  Tower Hamlets

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Metropolitan Districts

  Barnsley

  Birmingham City

  Bradford City

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Coventry City

  Dudley

  Gateshead

  Kirklees

  Leeds City

  Liverpool City

  Manchester City

  North Tyneside

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  St. Helens

  Sandwell

  Sefton

  Sheffield City

  Solihull

  South Tyneside

  Stockport

  Sunderland

  Wakefield City

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Shire Counties

  Avon

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Derbyshire

  374

  Devon

  Dorset

  Durham

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Hereford

  Hertfordshire

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  Northumberland

  North Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Shropshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Shire districts

  Adur

  Alnwick

  Ashfield

  Basildon

  Bath City

  Beverley

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Blyth Valley

  Bolsover

  Bournemouth

  Braintree

  Brighton

  Bristol City

  Broadland

  Burnley

  Cambridge City

  Caradon

  Castle Morpeth

  Castle Point

  Chelmsford

  Cheltenham

  Chester City

  Chesterfield

  Chiltern

  Chorley

  Christchurch

  Colchester

  Congleton

  Copeland

  Crawley

  Dacorum

  Darlington

  Daventry

  Derby City

  Eastbourne

  East Devon

  East Dorset

  East Hertfordshire

  Eastleigh

  East Lindsey

  East Yorkshire

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Epsom and Ewell

  Fylde

  Gedling

  Glanford

  Great Grimsby

  Great Yarmouth

  Halton

  Hambleton

  Harborough

  Harlow

  375

  Harrogate

  Hartlepool

  Havant

  Hertsmere

  Hinckley & Bosworth

  Holderness

  Hove

  Hyndburn

  Ipswich

  Kettering

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  Kingswood

  Lancaster

  Leicester City

  Lewes

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  Malvern Hills

  Mansfield

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Mid Suffolk

  Mid Sussex

  Milton Keynes

  Newark & Sherwood

  Northampton

  Northavon

  North Cornwall

  North Hertfordshire

  North Kesteven

  North Shropshire

  North Warwickshire

  Norwich City

  Nottingham City

  Nuneaton & Bedworth

  Oswestry

  Oxford City

  Pendle

  Penwith

  Plymouth City

  Poole

  Portsmouth City

  Purbeck

  Reading

  Ribble Valley

  Rochester-upon-Medway City

  Rochford

  Rossendale

  Rother

  Rugby

  Rushcliffe

  Ryedale

  Salisbury

  Selby

  Shepway

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Slough

  Southampton

  South Derbyshire

  Southend-upon Sea

  South Lakeland

  South Norfolk

  South Northamptonshire

  South Ribble

  South Staffordshire

  South Wight

  Stafford

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Suffolk Coastal

  Surrey Heath

  Teignbridge

  Tendring

  Thamesdown

  Thanet

  Three Rivers

  Tonbridge & Mailing

  Uttlesford

  Wansdyke

  Warrington

  Watford

  376

  Wear Valley

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Lancashire

  West Lindsey

  West Wiltshire

  Weymouth & Portland

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  Wokingham

  Woodspring

  Worcester City

  Wrekin

  Wyre

  Wyre Forest

  York City

  Table B—local authorities in England from which representations were received by the Secretary of State for the Environment specifically on relevant notional amounts for the local government finance settlement for 1993–94 in writing between 26 November 1992 and 18 January 1993

  Inner London

  City of London

  Camden

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Southwark (late)

  Tower Hamlets

  Wandsworth

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Brent

  Bromley

  Enfield

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Merton

  Newham

  Richmond

  Metropolitan districts

  Bury

  Manchester

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Stockport

  Tameside

  Wigan

  Sefton

  St. Helens

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  Sheffield

  Gateshead

  Sunderland

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  Sandwell

  Walsall

  Calderdale

  Leeds

  Wakefield

  Police authorities
  Northumbria

  Shire districts

  Allerdale

  Ashfield

  Ashford

  Blackpool

  Blyth Valley

  Bolsover

  Boothferry

  Braintree

  377

  Bridgnorth

  Broxtowe

  Canterbury

  Carlisle

  Castle Point

  Castle Morpeth

  Cherwell

  Chester-le-Street

  Chesterfield

  Chiltern

  Christchurch

  Colchester

  Crawley

  Dacorum

  Dartford

  Daventry

  East Hampshire

  East Lindsey

  East Devon

  East Hertfordshire

  Eastleigh

  Ellesmere Port

  Fenland

  Forest Heath

  Fylde

  Gosport

  Harborough

  Harlow

  Harrogate

  Hastings

  Kettering

  Kingston-upon-Hill

  Lancaster

  Leicester

  Leominster

  Maidstone

  Malvern Hills

  Mansfield

  Middlesbrough

  North East Derbyshire

  North Shropshire

  North Warwickshire

  New Forest

  Northampton

  Norwich

  Penwith

  Rochester-upon-Medway

  Rother

  Rushcliffe

  Ryedale

  Salisbury

  Scarborough

  Sevenoaks

  South Somerset

  St. Albans

  Stafford

  Tendring

  Thurrock

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Uttlesford

  West Lindsey

  Warwick

  Watford

  Waveney

  Wealden

  Weymouth

  Worthing

  Wychavon

  Wyre

  Wyre Forest

  Counties

  Avon

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  378

  Devon

  DorsetDurham

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Lincolnshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  North Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Shropshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Table C—Local authorities in England from which representations were made on the proposed local government finance settlement for 1993–94 in person to the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Ministers.

  London Boroughs

  Barnet

  Brent

  Camden

  Enfield

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Merton

  Newham

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Sutton

  Metropolitan Districts

  Barnsley

  Birmingham

  Bury

  Coventry

  Manchester

  North

  Tyneside

  Salford

  St. Helens

  Sandwell

  Sheffield

  Solihull

  Wigan

  Liverpool city council

  Single Purpose Authorities

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence

  South Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence

  West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence

  West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence

  West Yorkshire Police

  Shire counties

  Avon

  Berkshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Devon

  Dorset

  Derbyshire

  Gloucestershire

  Hertfordshire

  Isle of Wight

  Lancashire

  379

  Lincolnshire

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  Shropshire

  Staffordshire

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  Shire Districts

  Adur

  Blyth Valley

  Bournemouth

  Braintree

  Copeland

  Darlington

  Derby

  Eastbourne

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Dorset

  Harborough

  Harlow

  Havant

  Lancaster

  Lewes

  Luton

  Malvern Hills

  Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  Northampton

  North Cornwall

  North Kesteven

  Nottingham

  Oswestry

  Pendle

  Portsmouth

  Ryedale

  South Wight

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Tendring

  Wansbeck

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Wrekin

  Glanford

  All Purpose Authority
  Scilly Isles

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the requirement of section 67(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for an authority to hold a full council meeting in order to calculate its tax base used in the section 33 calculation of the basic amount of council tax; how many authorities have been obliged to hold special council meetings for this purpose; and what plans he has to seek a change in the requirement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: We have received several representations on this matter. We do not have information on each authority's arrangements for council meetings, which are matters for the authorities concerned. We have no plans to change the requirements for calculating tax bases.

  Tower Blocks, Enfield
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (I) what representations he has received from the London borough of Enfield following publication of the Building Research Establishment's report into unsafe tower blocks in Enfield;

  (2) what conclusions he has drawn from the report from the Building Research Establishment into the safety standards of tower blocks in Enfield; and if he will make a statement.
  380
  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The London borough of Enfield has discussed the Building Research Establishment's initial assessment of consultants' reports with my Department. BRE's current work for the borough follows our long-standing recommendations on the appraisal of high-rise blocks. Any eventual findings will be taken into account when considering the borough's housing investment programme.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statistics he has for the number of disconnections of water supplied to inhabited domestic premises for the year 1990–91 and subsequently; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on 4 November 1992, at columns 234–35.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the handling method for the proposed dumping of radioactive materials from RAF Sealand accords with the practice embodied in the licence for the tip at Arpley Meadows landfill site in Warrington; what precautions are being taken to prevent the radioactivity leaching into the River Mersey and the surrounding water table; and what measures will be taken to protect those people working at or near the site from possible contamination from radioactive materials.

  Mr. Maclean
  The draft approval document referred to the use of drums to contain this waste. However, at the request of Cheshire county council and the waste disposal contractor, the approval conditions will be amended to allow this waste to be deposited as a loose damp material. The Arpley Meadows site conditions will then be met.

  This site has previously been authorised to receive radioactive waste from other organisations. The very low level of radioactivity present in this waste and the low water solubility of the radioactivity of this waste means that this method of disposal should not present any additional environmental problems. The loose material will be damped down before being deposited to minimise dust emissions from the tipping operation.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what surveys and hazard assessments have been carried out prior to the dumping at the Arpley Meadows landfill site in Warrington and what were their results; and on what grounds authorisation was granted for the dumping of radioactive waste at the site.

  Mr. Maclean
  The radioactivity and radiological effects of this waste have been assessed as part of the approval procedure. The results of these assessments are that the total radioactivity contained in this waste is less than 100 MBq which is less than the radioactivity contained in the average garden or given off by granite rocks in Cornwall.

  Since the RAF, and therefore the Crown, is sending this material for disposal, approval and not authorisation is given for this disposal of waste. This approval has not yet been granted. The proposed grounds for approval are that the material will be deposited as a loose damp material,

  381
  that the material will be buried at least 1.5 metres below the surface of the site, that the waste is landfilled at an area within the site specified by the site operator and that the waste is accompanied by a competent person during the transit from the premises to the waste disposal site and during the tipping operation.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total level of radioactivity in the material from RAF Sealand proposed to be dumped at the Arpley Meadows landfill site in Warrington; if he will require the radioactive material to be dumped in sealed containers; how regularly the area will be checked for radioactive leakage and for excessive levels of radioactivity; and what will be considered the maximum safe level of radioactivity at the dump.

  Mr. David Maclean
  The waste from RAF Sealand contains less than 100 MBq of radioactivity which is expected to be present in building rubble and overalls and will be contained in at most two covered skips. In the draft approval document, reference was made to the use of sealed metal containers. The disposal of such containers can cause problems due to delayed compaction within the waste disposal site and is therefore not now standard practice for the Arpley Meadows site. The waste disposal contractor and the county council have requested that drums should not be used. Considering the level of radioactivy present in this waste, approval for dumping damp loose material from skips was proposed.

  It has been recommended that the monitoring of the leachate from this site be incorporated into the HMIP monitoring program for radioactive waste disposal sites. From the assessments which have been carried out, the site operator, the waste disposal contractor and HMIP consider that the proposed disposal of this material to this site is an acceptable and suitable disposal route and location.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the results of the tests on

  Numbers of claimants, partners and dependants receiving Income Support, by client group, 1989–91 and percentage of the total

  1989 000s

  Per cent.

  1990 000s

  Per cent.

  1991 000s

  Per cent.

  Unemployed

  2,176

  31

  1,864

  27

  2,393

  31

  of which:

  Claimants

  1,216

  1,063

  1,335

  Partners

  353

  298

  390

  Dependants

  607

  503

  668

  Pensioners

  1,868

  27

  1,953

  28

  1,820

  23

  of which:

  Claimants

  1,607

  1,675

  1,575

  Partners

  236

  250

  213

  Dependants

  25

  28

  32

  Disabled

  458

  7

  519

  7

  596

  8

  of which:

  Claimants

  290

  330

  375

  Partners

  73

  76

  90

  Dependants

  95

  113

  131

  Lone parents

  2,056

  29

  2,177

  31

  2,399

  31

  of which:

  Claimants

  756

  793

  871

  Partners

  —

  —

  —

  Dependants

  1,300

  1,384

  1,528

  Others

  465

  7

  509

  7

  539

  7

  of which:

  382
  radioactivity at the Arpley Meadows landfill site after the dumping of radioactive material from RAF Sealand; and if he will allow the testing of radioactivity levels by independent bodies at the site after the dumping of radioactive materials.

  Mr. David Maclean
  The results of tests on radioactivity at the site will be given to the Environmental Planning Department of Cheshire county council. The results from the site monitoring will be made public if the site is incorporated into the HMIP monitoring program— radioactive substances. The decision about testing by other bodies rests with the site operator who controls access to the site.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information his Department has on the duration of the different client groups drawing of supplementary benefit/income support beyond that published in "Social Security Statistics 1992".

  Mr. Burt
  "Social Security Statistics 1992"—SSS 1992 —is based upon data from the May 1991 income support annual statistical enquiry—ASE—which is the most recent information available. Series 12 of the tables within the 1991 ASE give a more detailed analysis of durations of claims than that contained in SSS 1992. Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants and dependants dependent on supplementary benefit/income support there were in each year since 1989; and if he will break down this total of each of the main client groups and express these figures as a percentage of the total.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table.
  383

  1989 000s

  Per cent.

  1990 000s

  Per cent.

  1991 000s

  Per cent.

  Claimants

  293

  319

  331

  Partners

  61

  67

  70

  Dependants

  111

  123

  138

  Totals

  7,023

  100

  7,022

  100

  7,747

  100

  of which:

  Claimants

  4,161

  4,180

  4,487

  Partners

  724

  691

  763

  Dependants

  2,138

  2,151

  2,497

  Notes:

  Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries May 1989–91.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Figures, including percentages, may not sum due to rounding.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1992,Official Report, column 70, what plans he has to extend the system of direct payments to water companies by DSS offices for claimants;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1992, Official Report, column 70, if he will list those DSS offices which currently do not make direct payments for benefit claimants to water companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1992,
  Official Report, column 70, if he will list those DSS offices which currently make direct payments for benefit claimants to water companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1992, Official Report, column 70, if he will list for each DSS regional office the number of people who meet the criteria in paragraph 7 of schedule 9 of the Claims and Payments Regulations 1987 and have direct payments made to the water companies by the DSS.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 14 December 1992 at column 72.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total value of war pensions paid to war pensioners living within the boundary of the Barnsley metropolitan borough council, together with a breakdown of the number of pensioners receiving pensions at the various rates.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefits Agency (Correspondence)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Benefits Agency replied to the letter of the hon. Member for Caernarfon, of 18 August 1992, addressed to him; what assessment he makes of the speed with which such letters are answered; and if he now makes it his practice to answer letters from hon. Members directly rather than referring them to the Benefits Agency.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The hon. Member wrote two letters on 18 August 1992 about the claims to disability living allowance—DLA—of his constituents. The chief executive 384
  of the Benefits Agency, Mr. Bichard, replied to one on 9 December 1992 and the other on 18 December 1992. The claims in both cases had been resolved in September 1992. While apologising for the delays in replying, Mr. Bichard explained that this was because of the high level of correspondence on DLA in recent months.

  Ministers have agreed with Mr. Bichard an average response rate of 20 working days from receipt of Members' letters and the agency has taken steps to achieve this target as soon as possible. Ministers will continue to refer Members' letters on social security benefits relating to operational matters to the relevant chief executive to reply under the arrangements which apply to all executive agencies.

  Benefit Reductions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter the reduction in social security benefits resulting from failure to pay contributions or receive credits for periods of four weeks or less.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: We have no plans to change the contribution conditions relating to the contributory social security benefits.

  Civil Servants (Bicycles)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the current conditions on which civil servants in his Department are granted salary advances to enable the purchase of bicycles for home-to-office travel; if he will make a statement on the current conditions in each agency of his Department; what plans he has to change the conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Staff in junior grades in the Department, including its executive agencies, may apply for an advance of salary up to a limit of £100, repayable over 12 months, for the purchase of a bicycle for home to office travel. Advances are available to officers with at least two months service, other than casual employees, up to and including the executive officer grade or its equivalent.

  The Department is currently considering how to take up the freedom, announced by my hon. Friend the Financial Security to the Treasury on 16 December 1992, at columns 285–86, to decide its own rules on the size of advance, eligibility and repayment.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims to date for the disability living allowance have been completed(a) with the assistance of telephone calls and (b) with the assistance of visits made by the forms completion service staff in the disability benefits centres.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 October 1992, c. 751–52]: The chief executive has written further to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Richard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated
  20 January 1993:
  I wrote to you on 27 October in reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social security concerning the number of people claiming Disability Living Allowance (DLA) who had help completing their claim forms either with a telephone call or a visit from the Forms Completion Service staff of the Disability Benefit Centres.
  I should explain that the figures provided include numbers for assistance given for DLA and Attendance Allowance. We are unable to provide the figure for DLA only as you requested.
  Please accept my apologies for any confusion that this may have caused. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report. A copy is also being placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on how many NHS beds within all regional health authorities are funded by commercial sponsors, charitable and philanthropic organisations.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Successive Governments have encouraged voluntary financial support for the national health service at local levels. This can include bed sponsorship arrangements, but is often provided in ways which cannot be directly related to beds. The sums involved are welcomed as an additional source of revenue for the NHS but nationally are small in comparison with central funding.

  Drug Prescribing
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 412, what has been the annual increase, in percentage terms, of the cost of the indicative prescribing scheme for NHS doctors in 1991–92 compared with the previous year; and if she will give the figure in real terms, deflating by the price index for NHS medicines.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available because the indicative prescribing scheme for general practitioners only came into effect in April 1991.

  Overseas Adoption Helpline
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many inquiries have been received by the overseas adoption helpline since the statement of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), on Bosnian orphans in early January; and if she will make a statement;
  386
  (2) what is the current response time on the overseas adoptions helpline; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) how many inquiries have been answered by the overseas adoption helpline since it was set up; and if she will make a statement;

  (4) what representations she has received about the level of service from the overseas adoption helpline.

  Mr. Yeo
  The overseas adoption helpline began operating on 11 May 1992. It had received 1,500 telephone calls by 13 January 1993, 450 of which were received between 4 and 13 January. Callers are currently being advised that a response may take two weeks. I have received no written representations about the level of service except for the letter from my hon. Friend of the 13 January which has recently been received in my office.

  Provider Units (Contracts)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken by her Department to monitor the cessation of contracts with provider units from health authorities in England in the current financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The management of national health service contracts at local level is for district health authorities and provider units, with regional health authorities taking an overview.

  Laparoscopic Surgery
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what records are centrally held on laparoscopic surgery which has not been properly executed.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data are not collected centrally. We have, however, allocated £42 million to the hospital and community health services this year for medical audit and this is being used to improve and assure high standards of patient care. Some of this money is being used to support the Royal College of Surgeon's confidential comparative audit services which includes a study of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to announce her conclusions on the Bloomfield review on the future system for the remuneration of dentists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Nigel Evans) on 18 January at column 98.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate her Department has made of the total fixed capital in the hands of the dentists in Cornwall and of the return on that capital over the last five years;

  (2) if she will publish the assumptions used by her Department when seeking to estimate the fixed costs of a dental practice in different parts of England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have made no such estimates. Average national health service dental practice expenses in Great Britain are estimated each year by the Dental Rates. Study Group and full reimbursement of these costs to dentists on an average basis is included in dental fees.
  387
  The return on capital is one of the factors that the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration takes into account when recommending target average net income for dentists.

  Cystitis
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women in England and Wales were recorded as having suffered from cystitis in 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The incidence of this condition is not routinely recorded centrally. In 1981–82 the third national morbidity survey showed that in England and Wales 8.5 men per thousand and 43.8 women per thousand received treatment for cystitis.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many mental illness hospitals in England and Wales are planned to be closed by 1997; and what will be the resulting loss of beds;

  (2) how many mental illness hospitals in England and Wales are planned to be closed in 1993; and how many bed spaces will thereby be lost.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information is not held centrally. The provision of services for the mentally ill in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places were provided in the community for schizophrenic patients in 1991 and 1992; and how many will be provided in 1993.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available centrally.

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the contracts awarded by her Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Sackville
  Five contracts have been awarded to KPMG Management Consultants by the Department in the past 12 months they are

  1. Personal Social Services Information Strategy Unit Costs;

  2. Market Testing Programme for Department of Health;

  3. Decision Support System for Departmental London Office Accommodation Strategy;

  4. Implementation of Community Care Act—independent sector involvement in community care planning;

  5. Third Wave Hospital Trusts—financial assessment.

  Romanian Adoption Committee
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Romanian adoption committee is to close; and for what reason it is closing;

  (2) what effect the closure of the Romanian adoption committee will have on the processes of the adoption of Romanian orphans by British couples.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Romanian Committee for Adoptions has informed officials that there are no moves to close the operations of the committee.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the names of those general practices which have indicated interest in becoming a third or fourth wave fund-holding practice in the Bexley and Greenwich health authority area and the Dartford and Gravesham health authority area; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The South East Thames regional health authority is responsible for the management of the general practitioner fund-holding scheme in these areas. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. P. W. Barker, the RHA chairman, for details.

  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the general practices which are fund holding in the Hemsworth constituency.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The management of the general practitioner fund-holding scheme in Hemsworth is the responsibility of the Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Sir Bryan Askew, for details.

  Community Social Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those local authorities which bid successfully for funding to develop independent community social care initiatives, together with the initiatives proposed by each authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The social services authorities invited to take part in this initiative, together with an outline of their proposals, are:

  Barnsley
  The build up of a new range of independent care provision with the aim of securing at least a 20 per cent. share of the home care market within three years.

  Cambridgeshire
  The appointment of two Home Care Development Managers to help new providers assess the market and to test out new ideas.

  Camden
  Setting up an Independent Sector Development Team to develop a mixed economy of domiciliary care.

  Devon
  The establishment of Rural Outreach Projects to provide new services for younger people with physical or sensory disabilities who live in rural areas.

  Essex
  The build up of new services for older people from a range of existing bases in a rural area (the "Dengie project").

  Gloucestershire
  The appointment of a Development Officer to work with independent providers to establish new services for older people and for those with learning disabilities.

  Hatnmersmith and Fulham
  The development of a commercially sound community care agency to create, and deliver, a portfolio of services for black elders and their carers.
  389
  Lewisham
  A joint project with Lewisham College to introduce a course in domiciliary care and enterprise skills for those who want to establish themselves as small local community care businesses.

  Liverpool
  The development of secure links with the independent sector, and to oversee a range of new ideas for older people and those with learning disabilities.

  Newham
  The development of new community care services for ethnic minority communities.

  North Yorkshire
  The development of local non-residential care to complement the expected reduction in demand for residential and nursing home care.

  Richmond upon Thames
  The appointment of an independent Organisations Coordinator to develop opportunities for, and a range of, home and respite care.

  Rochdale
  The appointment of a Development Officer, to be based with local Age Concern, to establish a new 24 hour help service, based on a network of existing private care homes, for older persons who are mentally ill.

  Sandwell
  The development of practical support services in inner city areas for those with dementia and for black elders without live-in carers.

  Shropshire
  The establishment of a Social Care Enterprise Agency to help the independent sector develop to the point where it can provide the range and quality of services which statutory authorities need to purchase.

  The response to this initiative was encouraging—more than 100 bids which shows the importance authorities rightly attach to developing the range of day and domiciliary services available locally.

  Nicotine Patches
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the procedures for licensing tobacco substitute patches and other products to prevent them from being sold prior to the licence being granted; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am satisfied with the licensingn arrangements in place for the licensing of medicinal products. Any unlicensed product on sale, which is brought to the attention of the Medicines Control Agency as making medicinal claims, will be investigated by its enforcement unit.

  Juveniles (Secure Units)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average weekly cost of a juvenile stay(a) in care and (b) in a secure unit in 1992; and how the figure is calculated.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many secure places in children's homes are provided by each local authority.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information about the cost per week for children in care in England is set out in the table for the two main categories of placement.
  390
  The average cost is derived from the revenue expenditure 1990–91 divided by the average of the numbers of children in care at 31 March 1990 and 1991 under each accommodation heading.

  Information about the costs for children accommodated in secure units in the form requested is not collected centrally.

  Expenditure by local authorities in England on care 1990–91

  Accommodation

  Average cost per child per week £

  Foster placements

  102

  Community homes

  536

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy for providing secure accommodation for persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are currently looking urgently at the adequacy of arrangements for dealing with a small minority of juvenile offenders who appear to be responsible for a disproportionate amount of recorded crime attributed to their age group. This review includes consideration of the need both for new powers for the courts and for new secure facilities.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bananas
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether it will be permissible under the proposed banana regime for retailers to import bananas directly;

  (2) to what extent the position of the independent distributor has been safeguarded in the proposed banana regime.

  Mr. Curry
  The Agriculture Council has agreed the main provisions of a common regime to govern banana imports. Further provisions, including the precise basis for the distribution of licences where these will be required, have yet to be determined.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when claim forms for hill livestock compensatory allowance payments will be made available to farmers in north Yorkshire.

  Mr. Curry
  Claim forms and explanatory notes for the 1993 hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme are currently being sent to farmers in north Yorkshire who applied under the 1992 scheme.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the ( a) actual and(b) real values of hill livestock compensatory amounts in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is contained in tables 16 and 17 of the statistical data prepared for the 1992 "Autumn Review of the Economic Conditions in the Hills and Uplands" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Wool
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of guaranteed price per kilo of wool in each of the last five years and the assessed level of guaranteed price per kilo of wool in each of the last five years and the assessed level of guaranteed price in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  The wool guarantee price for the 1992 and five previous clip years was:

  Year

  Price p/kg

  1992

  117

  1991

  120

  1990

  125

  1989

  129

  1988

  129

  1987

  129

  Agricultural Training Board
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Agricultural Training Board.

  Mr. Curry
  The recent industry consultation on the future status and operation of the Agricultural Training Board produced no firm consensus in favour of either the new proposals or for retaining the status quo. Agriculture Ministers are considering, in consultation with the board, the best way to proceed taking into account the needs of the industry and the funding available. My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement during February.

  Set-aside Land
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration has been given by his Department to the possibility of using set-aside land for the purposes of producing vegetable-based biodiesel.

  Mr. Curry
  Oilseeds may be grown for biodiesel production both on arable land, with the benefit of the oilseed area payment and, where growers can contract to supply a processor, on set-aside land with the benefit of the lower set-aside payment.

  Agricultural Returns
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 23 November 1992,Official Report, column 531, if he will allow farmers to submit information to his Department in acres rather than hectares.

  Mr. Curry
  Most forms and returns submitted to this Department require the use of hectares. However, on certain returns, such as the agricultural and horticultural census return, information can be submitted in acres rather than hectares. This option is shown on the form or return concerned or in the explanatory note associated with it. Hectares are, however, gradually replacing acres as the only acceptable measurement on most such returns and there are no plans to reintroduce the use of acres for these purposes.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his best estimate of the number of fishing vessels daily fishing in the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas areas VIIa, VIIg and Vllf.

  Mr. Curry
  Surveillance aircraft record all fishing vessels seen in the area patrolled. Those records relate to all fishing vessels, of whatever nationality, spotted by the aircraft within British sea fisheries limits at the time of the patrol. The records do not necessarily include very small fishing boats working close inshore.

  The following shows the number of fishing vessels recorded in the areas listed on one day in each month during 1992:

  Month

  VIIa

  VIIf and g

  January

  206

  30

  February

  61

  37

  March

  101

  44

  April

  88

  76

  May

  95

  47

  June

  103

  61

  July

  128

  54

  August

  93

  66

  September

  104

  43

  October

  125

  48

  November

  52

  41

  December

  91

  49

  There are many factors which will affect the numbers of vessels fishing on any particular day. Such factors include availability of fish, weather and the seasonality of fisheries.

  Public Access
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many public access agreements have been concluded in England in each of the last three years in respect of Forestry Commission holdings sold to the private sector; and what percentage of total sales these figures represent.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The arrangements for securing continued public access to woodlands sold by the Forestry Commission were introduced in October 1991. Seven of the woodland areas considered under these arrangements have been sold so far, of which one was subject to an access agreement. This represents 14 per cent. of the sales concerned.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  United States Government (Discussions)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had about Northern Ireland with members of the incoming Clinton Administration.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has planned with representatives of President Clinton regarding the United States policy on Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  There have been no such meetings yet, but I hope to meet members of the new Administration in the coming months.

  Housing (Grant Application Form)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what examination has been given to the grant application form of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Mr. Atkins
  The design of the forms required for the renovation grants scheme is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive which is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the scheme.

  However, I understand from the chief executive that the initial grant application form, known as a preliminary inquiry form, has recently been redesigned as a feature of the new grants scheme introduced to Northern Ireland on 1 October 1992 under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.

  Civil liberties
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations on civil liberties he has received from international human rights organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have received a number of representations from organisations with an interest in human rights, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I am, of course, wholly committed to the protection of civil liberties throughout the community in Northern Ireland, where they have been inexcusably denied to so many people by the action of terrorists.

  Security
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mates
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).

  Unemployment
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current level of unemployment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  At 17 December 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 105,420 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland, representing 14.4 per cent. of the work force.

  Investment (Londonderry)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are being taken to attract investment in Londonderry.

  Mr. Atkins
  The attraction of inward investment to high unemployment areas, including Londonderry, is a priority task for the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, which, through its offices at home and overseas, ensures that the many advantages which such areas offer are brought to the attention of potential investors. The IDB is grateful for the valuable support it receives from local business men and other community 394
  leaders. The success of this partnership was evident in the announcement last month by Seagate Technology that it intends to establish a high-tech project which will create 500 new jobs in Londonderry. This very welcome news follows recent announcements of investment by other major international companies which will create in excess of 450 more jobs.

  Londonderry
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are being taken to regenerate the Londonderry economy.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Londonderry area benefits from the many measures currently being undertaken by Government to promote economic development throughout Northern Ireland. The Department of the Environment's Londonderry development officer provides a clear focus for all forms of regeneration in the area, including the Londonderry initiative. Furthermore, both the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit have Londonderry regional offices. The IDB has been successful in attracting 955 new jobs and £48 million in new investment to the area in 1992.

  Bangor Hospital
  Sir James Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to give the people of Bangor and surrounding areas the right to decide the future of Bangor hospital.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the management of services at Bangor hospital rests with the Eastern health and social services board. In June 1992 the Eastern board issued for consultation a paper entitled "Framework for General (Acute) Hospital Services within the Eastern Board Area". Comments and representations were invited from a broad range of interested groups and individuals including local MPs, district councils and health and social services councils. Since the consultation period ended on 30 September the board has been considering all the responses it has received, including those representative of the views of the people of Bangor. The board will issue a "Statement of Purchasing Intent", taking account of all the views and comments expressed, in the very near future.

  Irish Republic (Discussions)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Government of the Irish Republic in the near future in order to discuss matters relating to the current economic, social and political circumstances of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet the Irish Prime Minister to discuss co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (M r. Canavan) earlier today.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had regarding the electricity interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  Apart from my discussions with the hon. Member on 13 October, I have had discussions with Commissioner Millan and the chairman and board of NIE plc. In my discussions I stressed the strategic importance of securing European Community grant assistance.

  School Meals
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the administrative costs for the school meals programme.

  Mr. Hanley
  The administrative costs of the school meals service are included in the headquarters costs of education and library boards and are subject to annual assessment and review by the boards.

  Northern Ireland Electricity plc
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the flotation of Northern Ireland Electricity plc.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are committed to the floatation of NIE plc at the earliest suitable opportunity.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what efforts are being made to promote investment from abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) earlier today.

  Disabled People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given to the provision of financial support for disabled people below pensionable age in Northern Ireland so that they may benefit from the alarm call system provided for elderly disabled people.

  Mr. Hanley
  Where help with an alarm call system is not available from any other source, a non-repayable community care grant from the social fund may be made available to disabled and other vulnerable people receiving income support. Each case is decided on its merits by a social fund officer.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many 24-hour alarm call systems have been provided by health boards to disabled people below pensionable age in Northern Ireland; how many are planned for provision in the future; and what assessment has been made of how many such people might benefit from such a system.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total number of emergency alarm systems currently provided by health and social services boards to disabled people under pensionable age is 77. The 396
  number of people who might benefit from such a system and the number of alarms to be provided in the future will depend on assessments of the needs of individual disabled persons by health and social services boards.

  Travellers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the extension of the Race Relations Act to Northern Ireland will cover Ireland's travelling people.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 16 December 1992 my right hon. and learned Friend published a consultative document which seeks views on the scope for legislation on racial discrimination and on any additional action which the Government might take to further promote equity of treatment for ethnic groups. The document also seeks views on whether the traditional Irish travelling community should be recognised as an ethnic group and specifically covered by any proposed race legislation for Northern Ireland.

  School Examinations
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to take to ensure that pupils in Northern Ireland are able to enjoy the same choice of public examination syllabuses as is available to pupils in England and Wales.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on 15 December 1992, at column 165.

  Further Education
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he intends to take to ensure that the Southern Education and Library Board complies with the recommendations of the Fair Employment Commission regarding recruitment practices for lecturers in institutions of further education.

  Mr. Hanley
  The board has reaffirmed its support for the principles and practices of fair employment and intends to review its procedures in relation to the recruitment of temporary and part-time staff in its further education colleges. It is expected that the board will soon reach agreement with the Fair Employment Commission on the terms of a voluntary written undertaking to this effect.

  Railways
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the condition of Northern Ireland's rail system; and what proposals he has for privatisation.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the maintenance of railways in Northern Ireland rests with Northern Ireland Railways. I am advised by the managing director that, arising from several recent studies, the company has undertaken a complete review of the railway system including the permanent way, signalling and level crossings; bridge works; rolling stock and maintenance facilities; and stations and passenger amenities. Substantial improvements will flow from the two major
  397
  capital projects which are currently under way, namely the upgrading of the Belfast/Dublin rail link and the construction of the cross-harbour rail bridge in Belfast. The latter includes provision for new depot maintenance facilities. A programme to upgrade 22 level crossings on the Londonderry line is already well advanced and the company has comprehensive plans to upgrade the remainder of the rail system by the late 1990s. This will include replacement of rolling stock for use on short-haul services within Northern Ireland. Facilities for passengers at stations will also be improved to meet the company's obligations under its passengers charter launched in November 1992.

  In accordance with the commitment in the citizens charter for Northern Ireland, the Government commissioned a study into the scope for introducing a private

  (A) Local authorities

  Local authority

  Nature of allegation

  Tribunal decision

  Fermanagh District Council (DC)

  Dismissal

  Dismissed

  Banbridge District Council

  Non-appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Dungannon District Council

  Non-appointment

  Dismissed

  North Down Borough Council (BC)

  Non-promotion

  Allowed

  Moyle District Council

  Non-appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Castlereagh Borough Council

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Castlereach Borough Council

  Non-promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast City Council (CC)

  Non-promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Belfast City Council

  Non-promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Belfast City Council

  Non-promotion

  Allowed

  Belfast City Council

  Non-promotion

  Allowed

  Belfast City Council

  Non-promotion

  Allowed

  Belfast City Council

  Non-promotion

  Belfast City Council

  Non-promotion

  Allowed

  Belfast City Council

  Non-promotion

  Allowed

  Belfast City Council

  Non-promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast City Council

  Non-promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast City Council

  Non-promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Limavady Borough Council

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Larne Borough Council

  Non-appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Limavady Borough Council

  Non-promotion

  Allowed

  Limavady Borough Council

  Non-appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast City Council

  Non-appointment

  Dismissed

  Armagh

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Dungannon DC

  Non-Appointment

  Settled

  Castlereagh BC

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Belfast CC

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast CC

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Ballymena BC

  Non-Promotion

  Allowed

  Newtownabbey BC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast CC

  Harassment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Coleraine BC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Lisburn BC

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Lisburn BC

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Belfast CC

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Cookstown DC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Magherafelt DC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast CC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Limavady BC

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast CC

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast CC

  Victimisation

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast CC

  Victimisation

  Awaiting hearing

  Strabane DC

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing

  Ballymena BC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Newtownabbey BC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Ards BC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Newry and Mourne DC

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing

  Derry CC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Derry CC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Omagh DC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Ballymena BC

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Strabane DC

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast CC

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing.

  398
  element into the management and operation of Northern Ireland Railways. The report has been received and is under consideration.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases have been brought against(a) local authorities and (b) other public bodies, alleging religious and political discrimination, since the establishment of the Fair Employment Tribunal, indicating the local authority and public body concerned, the nature of the allegation and the tribunal's decision.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: Since the establishment of the Fair Employment Tribunal until 31 December 1992, 52 cases have been brought against local authorities and 237 cases against other specified public authorities. The details, in chronological order of registration, are as follows:
  399

  (B) Other public authorities

  Public authority

  Nature of allegation

  Tribunal decision

  North Eastern Education and Library Board (NEELB)

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed

  Department of Agricultue for Northern Ireland (DANI)

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission (NICSC)

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Post Office

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  British Broadcasting Commission (BBC)

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Ulsterbus Ltd.

  Non-Appointment

  At hearing

  Northern Health and Social Services Board (NHSSB)

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Southern Health and Social Services Board (SHSSB)

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE)

  Non-Promotion

  At hearing

  Department of the Environment (GB)

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE)

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board (EHSSB)

  Non-Appointment

  Allowed

  Commissioners of Customs and Excise

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Post Office

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Harassment

  Dismissed

  NHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Settled

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NIHE

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  NHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NIHE

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Western Health and Social Services Board (WHSSB)

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  BBC

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NEELB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland (PANI)

  Harassment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Victimisation

  Awaiting hearing

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NEELB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Settled

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Post Office

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (DOE NI)

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Dismissal

  Dismissed

  Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed

  NEELB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Settled

  DHSS

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Airports Ltd

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Post Office

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Settled

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Settled

  Department of Economic Development (DED)

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  SHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DOE NI

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DOE NI

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DOE NI

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DOE NI

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NIE

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Belfast Education and Library Board (BELB)

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB)

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Commissioners of Customs and Excise

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DANI

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DED

  Harassment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  BELB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  BELB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  400 401

  Public authority

  Nature of allegation

  Tribunal decision

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Dismissal

  Dismissed followed withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NEELB

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Post Office

  Dismissal

  Dismissed

  DED

  Refusal to provide funds

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DED

  Refusal to provide funds

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DED

  Refusal to provide funds

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DED

  Refusal to provide funds

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DED

  Refusal to provide funds

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DED

  Refusal to provide funds

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DED

  Refusal to provide funds

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DED

  Refusal to provide funds

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DED

  Refusal to provide funds

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  WHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NIHE

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  NIHE

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  NEELB

  Victimisation

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  NEELB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NEELB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Board of Inland Revenue

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DOE NI

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Post Office

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed

  NIHE

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Southern Education and Library Board (SELB)

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NIHE

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  BBC

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Western Education and Library Board (WELB)

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  BELB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  PANI

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DOE NI

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  WHSBB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  SHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  DOE NI

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  SELB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  South Eastern Education and Library Board (SEELB)

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed

  WHSSB

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  PANI

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  SELB

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DHSS

  Dismissal

  Settled

  DOE NI

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  NICSC and DHSS

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing

  NIHE

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DOE NI

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  DANI

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DOE NI

  Discrimination in conferring a qualification

  Preliminary decision—allowed (case at Court of Appeal)

  DOE NI

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed

  402 403

  Public authority

  Nature of allegation

  Tribunal decision

  NIHE

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Fair Employment Commission

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DOE NI

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Commissioners of Customs and Excise

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  NHSSB

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NEELB

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NIHE

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  WELB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  SEELB

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  NHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  WELB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  WELB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Post Office

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  DOE NI

  Harassment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Post Office

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  NIHE

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  WELB

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  NIE

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing

  NIE

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  SELB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  WELB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Ministry of Defence (MOD)

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  SELB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  Ulsterbus Ltd.

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  Post Office

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  SEELB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  SEELB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DHSS

  Dismissal

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  NHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NIE

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DOE NI

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Dismissed following withdrawal

  DOE NI

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  BBC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  NIE

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DED

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  NIE

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  MOD

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  PANI

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing

  NIE

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DOE NI

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  DOE NI

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  DOE NI

  Non-Promotion

  Dismissed

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  PANI

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  WHSSB

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

  SHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  EHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  404 405

  Public authority

  Nature of allegation

  Tribunal decision

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  Harassment

  Awaiting hearing

  WHSSB

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  SEELB

  Dismissal

  Awaiting hearing

  NICSC

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  MOD

  Non-Appointment

  Awaiting hearing

  Enterprise Ulster

  Non-Promotion

  Awaiting hearing

SCOTLAND

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish guidelines on how hon. Members should deal with constituency inquiries and complaints relating to a hospital trust; what changes he envisages from the arrangements prior to such hospitals becoming trusts; what rights of appeal are open to hon. Members who are dissatisfied with the initial responses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It remains the responsibility of health boards to determine the health needs of those in their area, to secure services to meet those needs and to monitor the services provided. Inquiries on these issues should be raised with the health board concerned. Issues about specific services being provided by a trust should be raised with the chairman of the trust. While my right hon. Friend will continue to exercise close scrutiny of the NHS in Scotland through the management executive, we are confident that chairmen of both health boards and trusts will endeavour to be as helpful as possible to hon. Members with whom, I am sure, they will want to foster good relations. I hope this will be reciprocated.

  Legal Aid and Advice
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average legal aid cost of a Court of Session proof day.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 1991–92 the average legal aid cost of a case in the Court of Session was £2,834.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 16 November 1992,Official Report, column 780, what proportion of the population of Scotland he estimates will be eligible for legal aid from April;

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 16 November 1992, Official Report, column 780, what proportion of the population of Scotland he estimates will be eligible for legal advice and assistance from April;

  (3) what proportion of the population of Scotland is currently eligible for legal advice and assistance;

  (4) what proportion of the population of Scotland is currently eligible for legal aid.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Given the variations over time in individual's circumstances it is not possible to estimate with any precision the proportion of the adult population eligible for legal aid.
  406
  Analysis of data from the family expenditure survey suggests that in Scotland the percentage of households which would be eligible for civil legal aid under the proposed changes to eligibility criteria would be in the range of 45 to 55 per cent. with between 20 to 30 per cent. free of contribution. Similar figures would apply to advice and assistance. This represents a reduction of between 5 and 10 per cent. of the households currently eligible in financial terms.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount he expects to be saved from the current legal advice and assistance budget, as a result of the proposed changes to the legal advice and assistance system in each of the next five financial years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The purpose of the proposed changes announced on 16 November is to ensure the continuation of reasonable access to legal aid for the most needy, while at the same time taking action to control the rate of growth in legal aid expenditure. The proposed changes are expected to reduce forecast expenditure on the legal advice and assistance system by around £3 million and £4 million in 1993–94 rising to around £5 million in 1997–98. Total expenditure on legal aid will, however, continue to increase and in financial year 1995–96 it is expected to be 40 per cent. higher than the planned expenditure for the current year.

  Health Service
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members and chairpersons of each health board in Scotland and the annual scale of remuneration payable to each at 1 January.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested in respect of the health board chairpersons and members who receive remuneration for their membership is as follows:

  Annual remuneration £

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board Chairman

  Mr. R. R. Reid

  17,700

  Members

  Mr. N. M. Faccenda

  5,000

  Mrs. M. A. Foggie

  5,000

  Dr. J. Moffat

  5,000

  Mrs. E. S. Lander

  5,000

  Mrs. J. C. Le Roux

  5,000

  Mr. C. H. Parker

  5,000

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board Chairman

  Mr. W. S. Fyfe

  14,835

  Members

  Mr. J. Cahill

  5,000

  407

  Annual remuneration £

  Mr. I. B. Valentine

  5,000

  Mr. J. W. G. Donaldson

  5,000

  Mrs. A. Dunbar

  5,000

  Dr. K. G. Fegan

  5,000

  Mr. J. H. Greene

  5,000

  Borders Health Board Chairman

  Dr. D. H. Pringle

  11,960

  Members

  Dr. D. W. Cameron

  5,000

  Lady Sanderson

  5,000

  Mr. R. A. Stewart

  5,000

  Mr. D. A. G. Kilshaw

  5,000

  Miss M. Marshall

  5,000

  Mr. J. P. Metcalfe

  5,000

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board Chairman

  Mr. J. A. McIntyre

  11,960

  Members

  Mrs. V. M. I. Jardine-Paterson

  5,000

  Mr. W. Seright

  5,000

  Mr. W. I. Wilson

  5,000

  Mr. H. S. McFadzean

  5,000

  Mrs. J. D. Tulloch

  5,000

  Dr. A. P. D. Wilkinson

  5,000

  Fife Health Board Chairman

  Mrs. A. H. Ferguson

  14,835

  Members

  Mrs. S. L. Aitken

  5,000

  Dr. C. J. Ingram

  5,000

  Mrs. M. Steedman

  5,000

  Dr. A. C. A. Alexander

  5,000

  Mr. F. J. R. Craig

  5,000

  Mr. G. M. Thomson

  5,000

  Forth Valley Health Board Chairman

  Mrs. J. I. D. Isbister

  14,835

  Members

  Mr. K. Harding

  5,000

  Mr. P. A. Joynson

  5,000

  Mr. C. S. R. Stroyan

  5,000

  Mr. E. T. M. Bell-Scott

  5,000

  Dr. G. B. Hasting

  5,000

  Mrs. K. A. Smith

  5,000

  Grampian Health Board Chairman

  Dr. C. A. Macleod

  20,180

  Members

  Professor D. Ogston

  5,000

  Mr. N. Thornton-Kemsley

  5,000

  Mrs. J. G. A. Wisely

  5,000

  Mrs. C. A. Ferguson

  5,000

  Greater Glasgow Health Board Chairman

  Sir Thomas J. Thomson

  25,140

  Members

  Rev. R. D. M. Campbell

  5,000

  Mrs. A. Gilchrist

  5,000

  Professor R. M. Mackie

  5,000

  Mr. P. W. Holst

  5,000

  Mr. W. C. McCreath

  5,000

  Mr. A. Scobbie

  5,000

  408

  Annual remuneration £

  Highland Health Board Chairman

  Mr. J. D. M. Robertson

  14,835

  Members

  Mr. D. J. Mackay

  5,000

  Mr. C. Neilson

  5,000

  Mrs. S. G. H. Stone

  5,000

  Mr. J. G. Ligertwood

  5,000

  Mrs. A. MacPherson

  5,000

  Mrs. C. Thomson

  5,000

  Lanarkshire Health Board Chairman

  Mrs. B. M. Gunn

  17,700

  Members

  Mrs. A. S. Hinshalwood

  5,000

  Mr. R. J. Logan

  5,000

  Mr. J. Thomson

  5,000

  Dr. W. Criggie

  5,000

  Mr. I. L. Livingstone

  5,000

  Mr. J. P. Robison

  5,000

  Lothian Health Board Chairman

  Dr. J. W. Baynham

  22,660

  Members

  Professor R. C. B. Aitken

  5,000

  Mrs. G. Barton

  5,000

  Mr. G. S. Millar

  5,000

  Mr. J. A. Campbell

  5,000

  Mr. R. Findlay

  5,000

  Mrs. M. B. M. Knox

  5,000

  Orkney Health Board Chairman

  Mr. J. Leslie

  7,200

  Members

  Captain M. Gunn

  2,000

  Mrs. E. B. Kerr

  2,000

  Dr. J. S. Walker

  2,000

  Mr. J. Flett

  2,000

  Mr. E. M. Gibson

  2,000

  Mr. J. Rendall

  2,000

  Shetland Health Board Chairman

  Mrs. F. B. Grains

  7,200

  Members

  Mrs. T. A. Leslie

  2,000

  Dr. M. D. Hunter

  2,000

  Mr. J. Telford

  2,000

  Mrs. M. U. Colligan

  2,000

  Squadron Leader B. P. Gregson

  2,000

  Mr. R. L. Johnson

  2,000

  Tayside Health Board Chairman

  Mr. J. C. MacFarlane

  20,180

  Members

  Mrs. S. H. Fallon

  5,000

  Rev. L. E. Luscombe

  5,000

  Professor R. E. Olver

  5,000

  Rev. K. Campbell

  5,000

  Mr. D. W. M. Davidson

  5,000

  Mr. R. J. Jarvis

  5,000

  Western Isles Health Board Chairman

  Mrs. M. A. MacMillan

  7,200

  409

  Annual remuneration £

  Members

  Mr. J. H. Downie

  2,000

  Mr. A. W. Hay

  2,000

  Mr. A. Matheson

  2,000

  Dr. S. M. Brydon

  2,000

  Mrs. C. R. MacAskill

  2,000

  Mr. J. A. Harrison

  2,000

  MV Braer
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has finalised the arrangements for the bridging fund to assist local businesses in Shetland affected by the recent incident involving the MV Braer.

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to announce that agreement has been reached on the operation of the bridging fund which I announced in my statement to the House on 11 January.

  The bridging fund is designed to help in particular the farming, fishing and fish-farming industries in Shetland, and prevent economic hardship to primary producers facing temporary cash-flow difficulties pending the settlement of compensation claims. It is of course without prejudice to the Government's view that the polluter must pay.

  After consultation with Shetland Islands council, the shipowner's insurers the P and I Club—and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund—IOPC fund—it has been agreed that requests for advances from the bridging fund should be made through the "single door" of the Braer claims office in Lerwick. Claims from businesses which qualify under this scheme and which are, in the view of the club and the IOPC fund, likely to receive compensation in due course will be passed to the islands council, which will make the payment from the bridging fund. The Scottish Office will now pay an initial grant of £1 million to the council to enable it to start meeting claims. Further payments to the council will be made as claims arise. In due course, when each compensation claim is settled, the amount of the advance will be paid back to the bridging fund.

  I currently intend that payments will be available until 31 March 1994, but this date may be varied, in particular if there is a continuing need for the scheme, or if it becomes clear that the flow of compensation settlements is sufficient to meet continuing needs.

  I am glad that the Government have been able to take steps to prevent the people of Shetland from suffering economic hardship at this very difficult time for them, and I am grateful for the co-operation of the council, the shipowner's insurers and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund in putting together these arrangements so quickly.

  Royal Scottish Academy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to review the 1910 agreements whereby the Royal Scottish Academy uses the Royal Scottish Heritage Building for its diploma show;

  (2) what representations he has had about better value for money in relation to funds disbursed by the Scottish Office to the Royal Scottish Academy, in relation to the building on the Mound;
  410
  (3) whether he will make arrangements for experts from the Scottish Office to examine and assess the state of the roof of the Royal Scottish Academy and the state of the fabric of the building;

  (4) whether he permits the use of Government indemnity for exhibits within the Royal Scottish Academy; and what assessment he has made of the security and environmental controls for pictures for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible, displayed in the Royal Scottish Academy;

  (5) how much public money from his vote went to the Royal Scottish Academy in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 January 1993]: No Scottish Office funds are paid direct to the Royal Scottish Academy. Responsibility for the management of the building rests, under the provisions of the National Galleries of Scotland Act 1906, with the trustees of the national galleries of Scotland who receive grant-in-aid from the Scottish Office to carry out their functions. Details of expenditure on individual buildings have been recorded only since the financial year 1990–91 since when the following sums have been spent by the national galleries of Scotland specifically on the Royal Scottish Academy building:

  £

  1990–91

  66,091

  1991–92

  153,194

  11992–93

  45,131

  1to date

  This expenditure has covered the costs of minor maintenance works; rates, heating and lighting and other running costs; and works related to exhibitions.

  My right hon. Friend has acknowledged for some time that the fabric of the building is in need of repair. Once the future shared use of the building has been clarified in the light of arrangements laid down in the National Galleries of Scotland (Appropriation of Buildings) Order 1910 and he has received firm proposals from the national galleries of Scotland on the exact nature of the works required, he will consider what resources can be provided and on what timescale. We would expect the national galleries of Scotland to base proposals for building works on a thorough examination of the building by appropriate professional advisers.

  The Government indemnity scheme enables the Government to underwrite the risk of loss of, or damage to, art objects loaned for the public benefit. Under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980, an indemnity is given only where appropriate arrangements are made for the safety of the object while it is on loan. These considerations would apply in the case of any painting to be exhibited in the Royal Scottish Academy for which an indemnity was sought.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list houses and house types situated in the Burnfoot housing scheme in Hawick supplied to his Department by Roxburgh district council in March 1984 which had been identified by the local authority as being eligible for assistance under the Housing Defects Act 1984.
  411
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: In 1983 district and islands councils were asked by the Scottish Office to give details of the number of houses in their ownership belonging to types later designated as defective. They were not asked for the location of such houses within their districts. Roxburgh district council said that it owned 21 houses of the single-storey Orlit type, 50 Whitson-Fairhursts and 119 Crudens.

  The owners of such houses would be eligible for assistance under the housing defects legislation only if they were bought before 26 April 1984 or, in certain circumstances, in the 12 months thereafter.

  Angus Hospitals
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what consultations he, his colleagues or Scottish Office officials have had with Tayside health board on the future of(a) Stracathro hospital, (h) Arbroath infirmary and (c) other hospital services in Angus.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]: Representatives of Tayside health board have met Scottish Office officials in order to discuss the board's local health strategy. As a matter of course during these discussions, the future of acute services in Tayside were talked about. However, it will only be when the board has the results of its review and public consultation that detailed discussion on individual hospitals will take place.

EMPLOYMENT

  Euroform Programme
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list details of(a) how many bids her Department has received for funding from the Euroform programme, (b) how many of these bids have been accepted, (c) how many have been refused, (d) the total value of the bids that have been refused and (e) the total value of funding allocated to the United Kingdom from the Euroform programme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Department has received 328 bids under the first two rounds of applications for the Euroform programme. Of these, 156 projects have been approved, while 172 projects were refused. The approximate cost of unsuccessful applications was £4.6 million.

  A further 211 bids have been received as a result of a third call for applications following the allocation funds by the European Commission.

  The Department has responsibility for Great Britain only, for which the total value of funding allocated under Euroform is £25.5 million. Northern Ireland has a separate allocation of funds.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria her Department uses when assessing bids for funding from the Euroform programme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under Euroform, projects are selected by a partnership committee comprising representatives from the sectors which apply for funding, the European Commission and the Employment Department.
  412
  Taking account of the priorities identified in the operational programme, the committee agreed a list of 10 key areas against which to score individual projects. These were:

  (i) the depth and quality of the transnational partnership(s);

  (ii) the contribution to be made by the project to less-developed regions;

  (iii) the innovatory nature of the project;

  (iv) whether the project would provide value for money;

  (v) the qualifications which would be developed and acquired;

  (vi) the relevance of the project to the needs of the labour market and whether the project would facilitate geographical and occupational mobility;

  (vii) whether systems were in place for the administration and management of the project;

  (viii) that the project could not have taken place without assistance from Euroform and that the outcomes could be developed for subsequent use in other contexts;

  (ix) whether the project built on links with other European Community programmes;

  (x) whether the project was clearly targeted had clearly stated and quantifiable objectives.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list for each month since January 1990 the provisional and revised figures for United Kingdom seasonally adjusted unemployment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following table gives the information requested.

  United Kingdom seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment

  (Thousands)

  Provisional

  Latest revised

  1990

  January

  1,611.4

  1,619.6

  February

  1,610.1

  1,616.5

  March

  1,603.6

  1,597.0

  April

  1,605.6

  1,596.0

  May

  1,611.0

  1,600.4

  June

  1,617.1

  1,611.0

  July

  1,629.1

  1,623.9

  August

  1,653.9

  1,651.8

  September

  1,666.7

  1,6817

  October

  1,702.7

  1,723.6

  November

  1,762.4

  1,777.2

  December

  1,843.5

  1,853.1

  1991

  January

  1,888.5

  1,893.6

  February

  1,977.2

  1,985.7

  March

  2,092.7

  2,089.2

  April

  2,175.1

  2,166.6

  May

  2,244.2

  2,232.2

  June

  2,301.0

  2,292.9

  July

  2,368.1

  2,362.5

  August

  2,428.2

  2,422.5

  September

  2,460.6

  2,458.1

  October

  2,472.9

  2,477.1

  November

  2,513.0

  2,517.7

  December

  2,546.0

  2,551.2

  1992

  January

  2,604.1

  2,607.1

  February

  2,647.3

  2,644.9

  March

  2,652.3

  2,652.7

  April

  2,695.3

  2,695.3

  May

  2,716.6

  2,715.7

  June

  2,722.7

  2,724.3

  July

  2,753.4

  2,760.1

  August

  2,807.5

  2,811.1

  September

  2,843.3

  2,843.4

  October

  2,867.6

  2,867.8

  November

  2,908.9

  2,912.7

  December

  2,973.5

  n/a

  Defence Employment, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the defence industries in Hampshire in each year since 1987.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: Defence industries are not identifiable from the standard industrial classification used to compile employment statistics.

  Training Schemes, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were taking part in Government-sponsored training schemes in Hampshire in each year since 1987; and if she will express these figures as a proportion of the total number of people registered as unemployed in Hampshire in each of those years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: The information requested is not available. Detailed historical information about numbers on Government-sponsored training schemes is not held centrally. People on Government training schemes are not included in the monthly unemployment figures.

DEFENCE

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are currently stationed in Northern Ireland; and how many of these are currently serving in other countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently some 19,000 service men deployed in Northern Ireland. None of them is serving in other countries.

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Total

  Brawdy

  17

  13

  5

  9

  7

  6

  57

  Chivenor

  16

  14

  8

  7

  8

  6

  59

  Culdrose

  7

  1

  2

  3

  7

  5

  25

  Portland

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Valley

  2

  2

  7

  2

  4

  2

  19

  Other Royal Navy

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  43

  30

  24

  21

  26

  21

  165

  Other Royal Navy = Royal Navy helicoptor from HM Vessel.

  Other = Shannon Coastguard helicopter.

  Information on the location of each of the incidents could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Proof and Experimental Establishments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's employees and permanent contractors currently work at Eskmeals, Shoeburyness and Pendine proof and experimental establishments.

  Mr. Aitken
  The figures for Ministry of Defence employees at the beginning of the year were as follows:

  Service

  Civilian

  Eskmeals

  12

  66

  Shoeburyness

  24

  92

  Pendine

  12

  56

  Fuel Cores
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the used fuel core currently stored at the naval reactor test establishment Dounreay was removed from the reactor; when it is planned to transport the used core to Sellafield; and by what means.

  Mr. Aitken
  The used fuel core at the naval reactor test establishment, Dounreay, comprises elements removed from three different naval reactors between 1984 and 1987. The material has been analysed as part of the continuing programme of used naval fuel post-irradiation examination. The core will be removed to Sellafield when a suitably licensed mode of transport is available.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where and how a used fuel core is currently stored within the naval reactor test establishment Dounreay.

  Mr. Aitken
  The used fuel core is held safely in a dedicated core pond within the establishment.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and location of military incidents requiring search-and-rescue helicopter response in the area defined by longitudes 7° W and 3° W and latitudes 50° 25°V N and 53° N, together with the name of the military establishments which responded to each incident, since 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The table gives the number of military incidents requiring search and rescue helicopter response, together with the name of the military establishment which responded, in the area defined for the period in question:

  The numbers employed by the contractors at these establishments are a matter for them.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the expenditure by his Department at each of the proof and experimental establishments at Eskmeals, Shoeburyness and Pendine in 1990–91, 1991–92 and projected for 1992–93.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not possible to produce figures on a directly comparable basis for the three years in question because of changes in the Department's accounting practice.

  Subject to this proviso, the details are as follows:
  415

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Eskmeals

  3.2

  5.5

  6.6

  Shoeburyness

  8.1

  11.7

  14.0

  Pendine

  3.6

  4.8

  7.3

  Sea Survival
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average sea surface temperature in each of the 12 months of the year in sea areas Lundy, Fastnet and Irish sea; and what is the estimated survival time of a normally clothed person immersed in water at each of those temperatures.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The readily available information is set out in the table:

  Month

  Temperature (C)

  Survival time (hours)

  Winter (February)

  8–9

  2.5

  Spring (May)

  9–11

  3.5

  In excess of

  Summer (August)

  14–16

  5

  Autumn (November)

  9–12

  3

  County

  Establishment

  Decision/Proposal

  Losses/Gains

  Financial years

  Avon

  Central Services Bath1

  Rundown

  121

  1994–95

  Naval Support Command

  Increase

  (500)

  1994–95

  Procurement Executive2

  Increase

  (4,100)

  1995–96

  Berkshire

  RAF Greenham Common/Welford

  Closure

  120

  1992–93

  Buckinghamshire

  USAFE Air Station

  Closure

  56

  1993–94

  Cambridgeshire

  RAF Hospital Ely

  Closure

  68

  1992–93

  RAF West Raynham

  Closure

  57

  1994–95

  RAF Wyton — Support Command

  Increase

  (1,000)

  1993–97

  Cheshire

  RPO/MRO Chester1

  Closure

  182

  1995–96

  Cumbria

  NATO Depot Broughton Moor

  Closure

  89

  1992–93

  Devon

  MRO/RPO Exeter1

  Closure

  260

  1995–96

  RNAD Ernesettle

  Rundown

  318

  1995–96

  Dorset

  Portland Naval Base1

  Closure

  475

  1995–96

  Durham

  RNSD Eaglescliffe

  Transfer out

  182

  1994–95

  Gloucestershire

  RAF Innsworth

  Increase

  (100)

  1994–95

  Greater Manchester

  APO Ashton Officers ACCS1

  Closure

  116

  1995–96

  Hampshire

  RNDRD Blackbrook Farm

  Closure

  96

  1991–92

  HMS Mercury — RN Signals

  Closure

  56

  1993–94

  FMRO Portsmouth1

  Reduction in capacity

  414

  1993–94

  Portsmouth — 2nd Sea Lord

  Increase

  (125)

  1994–95

  Hereford and Worcester

  RAF Hereford1

  Closure

  140

  1994–95

  Hertfordshire

  RAF Stanbridge

  Closure

  110

  1994–95

  Humberside

  RAF Church Fenton

  Closure

  52

  1992–93

  Kent

  Junior Leaders Regiment

  Closure

  106

  1991–92

  OASC Biggin Hill

  Closure

  58

  1992–93

  Junior Infantry Battalion

  Closure

  60

  1992–93

  33 EOD Regiment1

  Transfer Out

  60

  1993–94

  Leicestershire

  RPO/MRO Leicester1

  Closure

  179

  1995–96

  Job Losses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of his Department's jobs lost as the result of closure or cut at his Department's bases and establishments in each of the counties of England and Wales and regional authorities in Scotland in 1990–91, 1991–92 and projected for 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 based on announcements made to date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of Ministry of Defence United Kingdom-based civilians has reduced from 141,372 in April 1990 to 137,793 as at 1 December 1992; a reduction of 3,579 posts. Since the introduction of the new management strategy we no longer hold manpower details by establishments centrally. To produce a full listing to show every post would involve disproportionate cost and effort. Major changes—involving over 50 posts—announced to date, excluding the Defence Research Agency, include those listed. Numbers given for civilian post losses/gains do not mean that all those concerned will be made redundant as alternative defence uses may be found in the case of partial or full closure of units.
  417

  County

  Establishment

  Decision/Proposal

  Losses/Gains

  Financial years

  London

  Various units and locations

  Transfer out and closures

  6,000

  1992–96

  MS, PB, AODO Stanmore1

  Closure

  123

  1995–96

  Merseyside

  42 District Workshop

  Closure

  148

  1992–93

  Norfolk

  RAF Swanton Morley

  Closure

  210

  1994–95

  North Yorkshire

  41 District Workshop

  Closure

  182

  1992–93

  RAF Caterrick — Regiment Depot

  Transfer Out

  85

  1993–94

  11 Signal Regiment

  Closure

  51

  1993–94

  AA College Harrogate

  Closure

  122

  1993–94

  RAF Harrogate

  Closure

  1,000

  1994–96

  MRO/RPO York1

  Closure

  270

  1995–96

  Nottinghamshire

  RAF Newton1

  Partial closure

  139

  1994–95

  Oxfordshire

  RAF Abingdon Station HQ1

  Closure

  134

  1992–93

  Shropshire

  RAF Cosford — No.2 School1

  Increase

  (110)

  1994–95

  Somerset

  Yeovilton

  Increase

  (100)

  1993–94

  Suffolk

  RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge

  Closure

  307

  1993–94

  RAF Wattisham

  Partial closure

  141

  1993–94

  Warwickshire

  Junior Leaders RA Bramcote

  Closure

  90

  1993–94

  Wiltshire

  RAF Kemble

  Closure

  314

  1992–93

  RAF Hullavington

  Closure

  60

  1993–94

  RNSD Copenacre

  Rundown

  753

  1993–94

  HQDT Upavon1

  Transfer in

  (111)

  1993–94

  RAF Upavon — HQ 1 GP1

  Transfer out

  86

  1993–94

  RAF Chilmark — 11 MU

  Closure

  229

  1995–96

  A & AEE Boscombe Down

  Rundown

  177

  1995–96

  Scotland

  Naval Base Rosyth

  Rundown

  746

  1995–96

  APO/RPO Glasgow1

  Increase

  (700)

  1995–96

  Wales

  RAF Brawdy

  Closure

  82

  1992–93

  39 District Workshop

  Closure

  39

  1992–93

  AA College Chepstow

  Closure

  172

  1993–94

  RNAD Trecwn

  Closure

  436

  1995–96

  1 Still under consultation with the MOD trades unions.

  2 Staff relocating to North Bristol from various units and locations in London, Bath and along the South Coast.

  Trident
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The current estimate of the total project cost of the Trident programme is £10,676 million, if all expenditure, including payments already made, is brought up to current prices and a common exchange rate of £1 = $1.74, as assumed in the long-term costing of the defence programme. If payments already made are expressed at the prices and exchange rates actually incurred, the equivalent estimate is now £9,596 million. Expenditure on the Trident programme to 31 August 1992 represented some 60 per cent. of the overall estimate.

  The revised estimate of £10,676 million represents a small real cost reduction of £18 million compared to that announced last year, after allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations. The increase in cash
  418
  terms is £158 million. The reduction in real terms since the original 1982 Trident II estimate, including the savings resulting from the decision to have United Kingdom missiles processed in the United States facility at Kings bay, Georgia, now stands at some £2–8 billion.

  The proportion of the programme to be undertaken in the United Kingdom has increased from 72 per cent. to 74 per cent.

  The Select Committee on Defence previously asked that when announcing the annual revised estimate, I should report on the state of the project as a whole. I am pleased to say that the Trident programme remains on schedule to enter service in the mid-1990s. There has been no slippage in the in-service date since the decision to purchase Trident II was announced in March 1982. I am, as in previous years, sending to the Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Select Committee on Defence a more detailed report covering the points on which the Select Committee on Defence sought advice. I am also placing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.)

Vehicle Emission Reduction
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What encouragement they are giving to experimental exhaust systems which could reduce pollution in the air of urban areas through which cars are driven, rather than increasing it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the Government support industry-led research projects aimed at vehicle emission reduction. We have been introducing ever tighter emission limits in line with improvements in technology. These measures, together with the emissions check recently introduced into the annual MOT and HGV roadworthiness tests, should encourage new technologies to achieve this.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her helpful reply. Knowing of her specialist interest in car engines as a former champion racing driver, is she aware of a press report last month of a car engine which improves the air in urban areas? That seems to be too good to be possible. Nevertheless does my noble friend agree that that is a project to be supported if there is a prospect of putting it to wider practical use?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is indeed a project to be supported. Those tests were conducted by the Warren Spring Laboratory, a DTI agency recognised as a world leader in on-the-road emissions tests. They showed that a catalysed Saab-900 could reduce the levels of nitrogen oxides and hydro-carbons which were present in the ambient air. It is true that where pollution levels of air are high on busy roads, other vehicles with catalysts can emit cleaner air than they take in.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will note that on this side of the House we fully support the actions which have been taken. We have a very high regard for the Warren Spring Laboratory and the actions that it has taken over many years. Will the Minister indicate when the experiments are likely to be concluded and what sort of timescale for action there is in that regard?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his remarks about Warren Spring where many dedicated people are looking at that problem. The last project finished at the end of July 1992 which was on the work of the UK Engine Emissions Consortium research.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the reduction of pollutants from road traffic can be achieved not only by improving car engines but also by reducing road congestion? What progress is being made in that connection?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. We are very conscious that building better roads and having better traffic management can help to contain emission problems. I am extremely conscious that one of the best ways of helping in that regard is by being somewhat lighter with the right foot.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are the Government also looking at the development and re-introduction of the trolley bus? Are they also taking steps to improve cars by fitting them with electrical engines rather than internal combustion engines?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government and industry are looking at all possible ways of solving the problems caused by pollutants from cars. When looking at electric vehicles, the generation of electricity to fire the vehicle is in itself an issue for consideration.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the congestion, and therefore the pollution, is being caused as much as anything else by the increasing multiple ownership of motor cars which is leading to inefficient single-passenger, single-driver units? The time has come to increase vehicle excise duty so that it reflects its previous level. That would fit in with the principle that the polluter should pay.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend would not expect me at this stage to comment on possible Treasury actions. We are aware that company cars tend to be larger and therefore have a significant influence in that regard. The Government are currently assessing industry's response to the Treasury's consultation document on company car tax.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister agree—I do not believe that she will but it would be nice if she would—that the most significant contribution does not lie in that direction, worthy though it is? In fact, the Government should ensure that more transport is directed towards the railways rather than the road.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased that I have a sense of agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, because the determination by this Government to privatise British Rail will lead the railways to being a more effective means of transport.

Royal Holloway College: Sale of Bequests
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke Baroness Brigstocke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider the intention of Royal Holloway and Bedford New College to sell

959
paintings bequeathed by the founder of the Royal Holloway College poses a threat to the Government's policy of encouraging private charitable bequests.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that brief reply. I must confess to being somewhat puzzled that the Department of National Heritage is not answering for itself. Does the Minister agree that, by appearing to condone the sale of Royal Holloway and Bedford New Colleges' magnificent Constable, Gainsborough and Turner paintings, probably overseas, the Government are setting a dangerous precedent which could have a most damaging effect not only on university collections—I understand Edinburgh is next in line—but also on other museums enjoyed by the general public which do not happen to be nationally funded? Will Her Majesty's Government please, as a matter of urgency, set out and adopt a national policy on museums?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry to have disappointed my noble friend by both the brevity and content of the reply and the fact that it was not a colleague from the Department of National Heritage who answered the Question. Of course, the Question deals with charities and charity law.
The building, which is called The Founder's Building, was built in 1886. Thomas Holloway made an endowment and made three deeds: one was a deed on the land and buildings; one was a deed on the paintings, furniture and other chattels for decoration; and the other deed was a substantial endowment. The college has run out of money and it applied to the Charity Commission to set up a scheme so that it could sell the pictures, the proceeds of which would enable it to continue the work of the original benefactor; namely, the education of children. This scheme was considered by the Charity Commission, which approved it. Now the trustees have the right to sell the paintings should they wish to do so.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I must declare a non-financial interest as I was chairman of the council at the college until quite recently and I am now the visitor. Does the Minister agree that these pictures were not strictly speaking a bequest, as the Question implies, but were, as he explained, purchased by Thomas Holloway by auction to decorate the walls of the ladies' college which he was then building? Does the Minister also agree that the college cannot look for public funds to maintain this extremely elaborate Grade 1 building, which was Thomas Holloway's prime concern? Millions of pounds have to be found from somewhere and no one has suggested any way of finding the money other than by the decision of the council to sell three of the 77 pictures and set up a trust fund with limited purposes which are strictly defined and approved by the Charity Commission.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful for the exposition which the noble Lord has given. He
960
is quite correct. The paintings were given for decoration. It is true there are no public funds available and certainly the maintenance of the Founders Building does not qualify for a grant from the Universities Funding Council. As the college had run out of money, not only was the original endowment in danger but the pictures were also in danger not only as regards a place to hang them but also as regards the wherewithal to insure them. That is why this scheme was proposed.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware that in addition to these sales other universities have sold items from bequests because they suffer from underfunding, notably Manchester University and Edinburgh University? Are the Government prepared to consider further finance before these sales become a flood?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to table a Question about Manchester and Edinburgh Universities I shall ensure that it is answered, but the Question we are discussing refers to the peculiar circumstances of this particular college.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my question to the Government is: why am I here? In other words why, as a spokesman on the Home Department, am I here rather than my noble friends who deal with national heritage or education? Is it not the case that this Question has been shifted around from one department to another? Is it not the case that the Department of Education was not willing to reply to it because it is ashamed of the underfunding of the college and the Department of National Heritage was unwilling to reply to it because it is ashamed of its policy as regards the disposal of our heritage?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a curious question in asking why he is here. I cannot tell him why he is here. I can only tell him why I am here. The Question refers to something which comes within the realm of charities. This is not a matter of education: it is a straightforward question of charities. The items we are discussing, valuable, delightful and good though they are, were established under a certain deed and the Charity Commission has to establish a scheme to alter the deed so that the principal purpose of the original foundation is continued.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I also declare a personal interest, albeit not a financial one, as chairman of the Court of London University. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the clear way in which he has expressed the position. Is he aware that this matter has been widely discussed for some time within the university? This college is not a museum or a library and the Charity Commissioners are perfectly well satisfied that the way in which the proceeds of the sale will be utilised is entirely in accordance with the wishes of the benefactor, who primarily had in mind the establishment and maintenance of what is a fine educational college.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. I know perfectly well that this matter concerns a great many people and that

961
much anxiety has been expressed within the university and within the art world. However, sometimes we have to face up to horrible realities.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, apart from the special circumstances of this bequest, is there not a general principle at stake here which is that universities and other such establishments should not in future accept gifts when they intend simply to get rid of them and apply the proceeds for other purposes? There is also the case of the Torrey Bequest in Edinburgh. Edinburgh University intends to get rid of two of the finest of the Torrey pictures, one of which has been in the National Gallery of Scotland for over 100 years. The university does not intend to use the money for any purpose dreamt of by Sir James Erskine, who gave the pictures, nor for any purpose in accordance with his wishes. The university also intends to remove two of the trustees from the Erskine Fund. Is there not a public interest in this matter? Can we be told what remedy the public have if such institutions and universities sell off valuable pictures and other items and apply the money for other purposes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has also referred to Edinburgh University. I should tell him with the greatest of respect that that is a different matter. He asked whether universities should accept gifts. The college we are discussing was established with three deeds: one deed for the land and the buildings, another for hanging pictures and another for money. However, the money has run out. If nothing is done with the pictures, not only will they not be housed properly but also the whole of the original foundation will come to an end. That is a different matter to the position of Edinburgh University.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not possible, recognising the particular circumstances of this case, for the noble Earl to express the view that this should he an isolated case and should not be taken as an example for other organisations and institutions to follow?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is quite inappropriate for a Minister to pontificate on what the Charity Commission should do. The commission will consider each case on its merits.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, must declare an interest as a former member of Bedford College, to which Royal Holloway and Bedford New College is a successor state, and as one to whose intercollegiate classes members of the merged college make an indispensable contribution. Is the noble Earl aware that it is recognised by the Department of Education that mergers of colleges carry considerable capital costs? Is he further aware that the merger of Royal Holloway and Bedford New College took place before those capital costs were recognised and therefore without the kind of financial assistance now available? Does he accept, and if not will he take steps to verify, that the standard of education in a really excellent college is under severe financial threat unless it can lift from its back the burden of looking after its listed
962
buildings and transfer it to another account? Does he also accept that education was the primary purpose of Thomas Holloway's bequest?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite correct. That was the original purpose of Thomas Holloway's bequest. It is also to be desired that the college should escape from its financial difficulties, and that is precisely what it is doing. We must remember that it is still left with about 74 paintings and that is not bad going.

Job Losses in Manufacturing
3.19 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector during the last 12 months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the number of employees in manufacturing in Great Britain fell by 253,000 in the year to November 1992.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact contained within the figures the Minister has just given that the November figure was the highest of any month of the year? I understand that the December figure is similar. I believe that the figure for November was 31,000. Does not that contradict the rather dubious reports which have been made about an industrial recovery?
I hope that in his answer the Minister will not refer to the change in designation of jobs, because when a shipyard closes, when an aircraft factory is under threat of closure and when an engineering company closes that has nothing to do with differences in classification. It is the result of the industrial mutilation indulged in by this Government. Does the Minister not accept that even a former Conservative Prime Minister—Mr. Heath—stated in another place that this Government had gone far too far in weakening our industrial base? For God's sake, when is it going to stop?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct: 31,000 jobs were lost in November. Obviously manufacturing industry has suffered during the recession. However, manufacturing industry can be expected to gain from the package of measures announced in the Autumn Statement which were aimed at boosting investment, exports in the car industry and also the housing industry and construction. Those measures, together with the significant reduction in interest rates to 7 per cent. and the appreciation in sterling against our major competitors, will take time to work through but they will all have a positive impact on manufacturing.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, while it is of the greatest importance to increase job opportunities in every possible way, does my noble friend agree that the reduction in the number of jobs in manufacturing industry is due mainly to increased industrial

963
productivity? Does he agree that the principal task of manufacturing industry is to increase its orders and its output through greater competitiveness and that that will lead to more jobs in the supporting service industries but not necessarily in manufacturing industry itself?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, it is indeed a factor. We have been increasing the productivity of manufacturing industry even in a recession, which is unusual. The only real basis for economic growth and lasting employment is low inflation and a competitive and efficient economy. Inflation is now at its lowest level for six and a half years, unit wage cost figures published today show that the competitive position of the UK economy continues to strengthen and a strong economy will lead to a growth in jobs.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the unemployment figures announced today show yet another huge increase —60,800—most of which is in manufacturing? Further, did he hear the director of the CBI say this morning that there is no sign of the famous green shoots which we keep hearing about from the Government? Will he say for how many consecutive months there has now been an increase in unemployment and what is to be done about the manufacturing base?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course the Government are deeply concerned about the personal hardship suffered by unemployed people and their families. The December increase in unemployment is very disappointing. However, it reflects world economic circumstances and the fact that the UK economy has gone through a difficult period.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1979 manufacturing jobs in Great Britain totalled 7 million whereas today the figure is down to 4.3 million, a loss of 2.7 million manufacturing jobs? Does he really believe that that is the result of increased productivity?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the reduction in manufacturing jobs which the noble Lord quotes tells only half the story, the other half of which is the increase of nearly 2 million jobs in the service sector in the last 10 years alone. That more than offsets the job losses of 1.3 million in manufacturing in the past 10 years; and that is to say nothing about the increase in the number of the self-employed of 800,000 in that period.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, can the Minister say how many jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector in Greater London? Is he aware that in the past successive governments have paid manufacturing industry to leave London, causing the gradual downturn which has resulted in it now being the worst economic sector in the country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot for the moment put my finger on the number of jobs lost in manufacturing industry in Greater London. I shall endeavour to do so and write to my noble friend. I
964
understand his concern. It is true that unemployment in the Greater London area has increased at a higher rate than in the rest of the country.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the job losses in the manufacturing sector to which he has referred have manifested themselves in today's horrendous increase in unemployment? Does he accept that the unemployment figures are a national scandal? Is there any comprehension within Her Majesty's Government of the social consequences of such high unemployment throughout this country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord should cast his eyes a little further and not merely consider the issue from the point of view of an island nation, which indeed this is. What is happening in the rest of Europe presents no prettier a picture than what is happening here. The whole of the European Community, for which the unemployment figure is about 17 million, is turning its attention very carefully to ways of increasing jobs rather than decreasing them, which the Social Chapter has set out to do.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that to compare the unemployment rate for 1979 with the level of unemployment today is misleading? Is it not well recognised that in 1979 the overmanning in manufacturing industry in particular—in the steel industry, for example—had to be removed in order to make industry more competitive and that as a consequence unemployment had to rise? As my noble friend said, many of those jobs have been taken over by the service sector. I believe that that comparison between 1979 and today is quite wrong. It also overlooks the question of automation.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that overmanning was rampant in the late 1970s. I would also point out that the workforce in employment has increased by 1.4 million since March 1983, which was the last trough in the unemployment figures.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords—
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have now passed into the 25th minute, which means that we are in the 26th minute, and we have one more Question to go. That means that we must move on to the next Question.

Smoking on Trains: BR Policy
3.27 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the undertaking of Viscount Astor to bring the concerns expressed in the House about smoking on trains to the attention of the Chairman of the British Railways Board (H.L. Debs., 19th May 1992, cols. 541–44), they have discussed with the board its decision to discontinue smoking compartments in all trains in Kent, regardless of the length of, or period of time involved in, the journey.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, yes.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which is satisfactory so far. Will he allow me to declare a small interest; namely, in that I have smoked a pipe in smoking compartments of railway trains for over 60 years? Do the Government not have a role to play in this matter: first, in relation to the human rights aspect which was raised earlier; secondly, in that it is in their interest and in the interests of the country that British Rail does not discourage smoking passengers at a time when it is complaining that it is short of passengers and has to increase fares; thirdly, so that smoking passengers are not discouraged and switch to the roads; and, fourthly, so that visitors from the Continent are treated properly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, having talked to the chairman of British Rail on this matter, I am able to say that it is precisely because British Rail wishes to increase the number of passengers that it has taken this action. Market research shows that it is in British Rail's commercial interests so to do.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not clear from my noble friend's supplementary question that he is in need of a catalytic converter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will pay heed to my noble and learned friend's remark.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, should not British Rail be concentrating on providing first class, reliable and cheap railway services rather than indulging in the so-called middle-class national sport of abusing smokers, particularly since smoking is a legal activity which has taken place in this country for 400 years and has been catered for by the railways since the 1830s?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, British Rail is trying to increase the number of passengers and to provide a cleaner and better environment. The market research that it has done shows that the majority of smokers applaud its action.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the image of British Rail is bad enough without it denying 20 per cent. of its travelling customers the right to smoke? Secondly, are not those bully boys of British Rail curbing the freedom and liberty of individuals? That should be of concern to Her Majesty's Government. What will they do about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is entirely a matter for the board of British Rail which quite rightly has conducted market research and has found that it is beneficial for it to provide a cleaner and better environment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, British Rail must do everything to attract people back onto the trains. By its high-handed attitude, cutting off possibly 20 per
966
cent. of its customers from their smoking habits, it has at one shot persuaded people to go back to cars and not to use British Rail. That cannot be in the long-term interests of that organisation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have to say to my noble friend that the evidence points to the contrary. The evidence points to the fact that people are coming back because it is a cleaner and better environment. The market research carried out by British Rail indicates that even the smokers prefer it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Earl note that on this occasion, rare though it may be, I agree with the Minister 100 per cent? Perhaps there is a case for Warren Spring Laboratory to he brought in to experiment on some of our local Lordships.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is a rare occasion but nonetheless enjoyable.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, does not my noble friend's reply indicate that throughout British Rail there are to be no smoking compartments? Is that what he is saying?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no.

Penalty for Murder Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the penalty for murder. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Environmental Legislation: ECC Report
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Legislation [9th Report, 1991–92, HL Paper 53.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will, I believe, be for the convenience of the House if, on moving the Motion, I also speak to the second Motion. I much look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Earl, Lord Portland, who will bring fresh light to the dark places we have explored.
Both reports are about making environmental policy and law work. Community and environmental law now consists of over 200 pieces of legislation. It is a field in which effective implementation and enforcement is particularly relevant. However, when this study started it was realised that the subject was of far wider relevance and that the problems, and many of the solutions, were likely to relate to most fields of legislation. Therefore, the implications of this debate and of the responses of Government to many of the questions that will be raised go further than just the environment.
Indeed, there have just come into my hands explanatory memoranda from the Department of Trade and Industry dated 14th January this year on the Sutherland Report and the Commission's response. Peter Sutherland is a former commissioner whose report is on the operation of the internal market. It echoes some of the recommendations in our report made some nine months ago, in particular as to formation of policy, the form of legislation and the process of enforcement. It has nothing to do with the environment; I believe that that is highly relevant.
Nevertheless, there are special features relating to the environment. For instance, in the field of competition, the undertakings regulated tend to scrutinise competitors' activities; and to that extent there is a measure of self regulation which may itself stimulate public authorities to discharge their duties. In the environmental field economic incentives are absent or more remote. It is in that context that "green watchdogs", to which I shall refer as NGOs, have an important part to play. I shall refer to that later.
There are three main stages of implementation. There is the manner in which European policy is formulated and embodied in EC law and its transposition into the national law of each member state. There is then the establishment of national policies, administration and sanctions to make it effective. Lastly there is enforcement.
Hitherto low priority has been accorded to implementation and, within the EC, great enthusiasm (perhaps too great) for legislation. Dr. Caroline Jackson, a Member of the European Parliament, vividly put it to us when she stated:
"Too often adoption of law is seen as the end of the procedure, and then we all go down on our knees and hope and pray that something happens".
Legislation which is ineffective not only represents a waste of the time of those engaged in it but brings the system and the Community into disrepute.
The purpose of the legislation and its scientific basis, where relevant, must be explicit and open to scrutiny. That leads to the need for increased consultation prior to legislation and more Green Papers. The requirement of effectiveness, by implementation and enforcement, needs to be considered at the prelegislative stage as well as when legislation is being made. It is encouraging that in their response to the report the Government indicate their support for that view. It would be helpful if in his reply the Minister could indicate lines of action that he proposes to pursue to achieve those ends.
At the December 1992 Environment Council under the UK presidency it appears that the Commission agreed to bring implementation and enforcement regularly before the Council. I applaud the Government's initiative and the achievement of that result. However, while general discussion would represent an advance, examination of specific directives or groups of directives is also required. It is essential that the Council should know the effect of its legislation in the member states. But it is also important that the Government should be informed of any failure of the Commission itself to fulfil its obligations to report. I refer, for instance, to the
968
five-year report on the operation of the environmental impact assessment directive which was due long ago. The European Environment Agency would have an important role to play in all that.
The Committee expressed its dismay—which is widely shared —that the Council's decision to establish the European Environment Agency has been frustrated by failure to agree a permanent seat. It could facilitate assessment of the effectiveness of Community environmental policies and improve the basis of policy making. It has a crucial role to play. Will the Government give an indication as to what action they propose to take to get the agency on foot and working?
The proposal of the former Secretary of State for the Environment for the establishment of a Community audit inspectorate appears to have fallen on stony ground. The idea of such an inspectorate has a respectable ancestry in that something along the lines envisaged now was put forward, so far as I know for the first time, by Lord Ashby in a debate in your Lordships' House on 30th April 1981. That is referred to in the Official Report at col. 1321.
Its function would be to examine the policies and performance of regulatory authorities in member states and to report to the member states, the Commission and the European Parliament. It would act as a watchdog for environmental policy, as does the Court of Auditors in relation to systems of financial control.
The Government appear to have in mind that they would confine their interests to pollution control. That seems to me to be too narrow a remit. Environmental legislation now stretches far beyond pollution to environmental assessment, habitat protection and eco-labelling to mention but a few. The collection of information, verification of data, methods of monitoring, sampling and analysis seems to me to be far more akin to the functions of the European Environment Agency than to the Commission, whose duties include enforcement of environmental laws on the failure of a member state to do so. Its separation from the Commission would also enable it to examine the Commission's role, for example, in providing financial assistance to member states through structural and other funds. I therefore urge the Government to accept the proposition that the inspectorate which they put forward should come within the European Environment Agency rather than the Commission. I note from their response that their minds are not closed to that idea. I hope that the Minister may feel able to indicate whether he would accept that view or at least confirm that his mind is still open.
I understand that difficulties have been encountered, for example, in Germany where there are constitutional problems arising from the federal structure which preclude the Federal Government from agreeing. It would be helpful if the Minister would confirm or correct what I have said about why progress has not been made and what steps the Government intend to take to overcome these difficulties.
During the Dutch presidency, the idea of creating a networking arrangement of environmental enforcement agencies was accepted and during the UK presidency this resulted in the foundation of a permanent, Community-wide network representing all member states. That approach should assist in developing a measure of uniformity of approach and action throughout the Community and is thus much to be welcomed. It is in concept and practice quite distinct from the proposed audit inspectorate.
However, it is confined to national agencies relating to industrial plant and does not concern itself with river quality or bathing waters, the environmental assessment directive, birds or habitat and other environmental matters. Is the Minister aware of any further similar initiatives in the pipeline to extend networking into other areas?
I referred earlier to the special problems relating to enforcement of environmental law. We are particularly fortunate in the UK in the number and quality of the NGOs acting as pressure groups for enforcement. Enforcement of Community obligations is primarily a matter for member states which should be answerable not only to the Community but also to the local community. It is therefore necessary that their decisions be open to review. In the UK there are difficulties in seeking such a review—including the restrictive application which the courts in England have given to judicial review proceedings.
In our report, we recommend—as we did in an earlier report—that individuals and NGOs, subject to appropriate safeguards, should be given ready access to the courts to seek review of decisions of public bodies concerning implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation. That would entail modification of the very tight rules relating to locus standi and perhaps some change in the current judicial review procedure. The Government say that they remain to be convinced that there is any need to extend the current right of access to the courts in respect of environmental questions.
I much hope that the Minister may be convinced by this debate of the need for change and that he may in his reply agree, or at any rate undertake to give further consideration to it. That might indeed be a cheaper and more convenient procedure than complaints to the Community.
The two member states against which the most complaints were made in 1990 were Spain and the United Kingdom. As regards the United Kingdom, it reflects environmental awareness and the activism of the NGOs rather than more numerous breaches than in other member states. The number of complaints relating to the environment is at present about 500 a year. That number overloads the capacity of the Commission to deal with them with speed and effectiveness.
By far the most common basis for the mounting of direct enforcement action by the Commission under Article 169 of the treaty is receipt of a complaint. The investigatory procedure should be open to scrutiny, which at present it is not. Where a complaint is not proceeded with, the complainant or private interests
970
affected have no right to know the basis of the decision, nor have they had any opportunity as of right to make representations.
Article 169 letters and reasoned opinions sent by the Commission to the member state and the responses should be made public. At present they are not. Those documents should be regarded as having a formal, legal character and should be made public like other such documents. Negotiation and clarification between the Commission and the member state can and should be separate—and normally earlier—than the issue of the Article 169 letter. I much hope that the Minister may be able to say that these very important matters will be considered further.
If environmental policies are to be effective, they need to be considered as policy is formulated in other contexts. For example, when schemes for road construction are under consideration, the environmental factors as well as the transport factors need to be embodied in those schemes. Quite recently, development of a road and tunnel through the Pyrenees, financed by the regional fund, was stopped by order of a French court. The approach road was to pass through the last habitat available in France for the brown bear. We are not alone in having these problems!
In many fields, including industrial development, embodying environmental factors at the planning stage rather than adding them as a bolt-on requirement later is not only environmentally desirable but economically essential. For nothing is so expensive as modification or retrofitting after construction to meet environmental requirements.
Of course, conflicts may arise between environmental and other policy requirements which have to be resolved, as political issues, by the commissioners. The defect at present is that environmental factors are too frequently ignored. Cost/benefit analysis may have an important part to play in this context, particularly where there are likely to be short-term economic benefits but long-term disbenefits.
The emphasis of the Fifth Environmental Action Programme on integration of Community policies as a key factor secured the support of the informal Environment Council meeting held at Gleneagles last September, during the UK presidency. The Select Committee has been pressing for action to further integration since 1980. There have been spasmodic initiatives by the Commission, such as the environmentally sensitive area scheme in the agricultural context, the Green Papers on Energy and the Environment and Sustainable Mobility. But these were ad hoc responses to political issues rather than the result of systematic administrative processes. It is to the development of these that we paid most attention.
The Community would, in our view, achieve much by following the example set in this country, following the White Paper: This Common Inheritance. While we received conflicting evidence as to how effective the arrangements then put in place have been, structural arrangements of that character could be usefully introduced into the Commission.
We were advised by Mr. Brinkhorst, Director-General of Directorate-General XI (Environment),

971
that a new post of co-ordinator for environmental policy issues had been created in the office of the Commission's secretary-general. We welcomed that. Would the Minister please clarify the duties of that person and ensure that the post is made effective?
I understand that new regulations governing regional, social and agricultural structures funds are shortly to be published in draft. The use of these funds can have a marked adverse effect on the environment and it is essential that the regulations contain appropriate provisions for environmental priorities to be considered. They will provide a test as to whether the council's decisions at Gleneagles are to be taken seriously. The same factors arise in relation to the White Paper on transport shortly to be issued. Will the Minister give an assurance that these matters will be pressed by the United Kingdom?
There is a close relationship between the subjects of these two reports, and it seems to me—and I hope to your Lordships—that there is merit in speaking to both together. I have in mind, therefore, to move the second Motion on integration formally after this debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Legislation [9th Report, 1991–92, HL Paper 53].—(Lord Nathan.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I speak from the Back Benches because I wish to represent my own point of view rather than that of the Opposition but primarily because I made a submission in writing to the noble Lord's committee, one which I say straightaway it rejected. Be that as it may, in due course of time I want to revert to what I had to say on that occasion.
I should like to commend the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for what he had to say today and also for the deliberations undertaken by him and his colleagues which will unquestionably be of very great value to everybody interested in the development of environmental law and policy.
A notable tribute was paid by Dr. Ludwig Krämer, the law enforcement officer of Directorate General XI in the Commission, who said:
"It is a pleasure and almost a duty for each official in Brussels to be aware of the reports which come from this committee".
As a former commissioner for the environment, I can echo that.
So far as the fifth action programme is concerned, enormous progress has been made, particularly in recent years, in the formulation and influence of European Community environment policy which is not confined in any way to the Community. It has had an international influence, and indeed a global influence. That I think is all to the good. That has been the case leading up to and including the adoption of the fifth action programme.
A great deal remains to be done. Certainly nobody can rest complacent on what has been achieved thus
972
far. It is right that the Select Committee should have chosen the route of enabling inquiry into the area of improvement to be undertaken.
The need to integrate environment protection requirements into all other policies was recognised in the fourth environment action programme, for which I had responsibility, and in Article 130R of the Single European Act. Initially within the Commission I always sensed that there was a degree of reluctance —or even resistance—on the part of some to the practical application of that concept, vital though it is. For example, in the field of agriculture, in the field of regional policy, and particularly in the application of the Regional Fund there was frequently scant regard given, I fear, to the need for environmental protection policies. One could cite other examples.
Nonetheless, things gradually fell into place. For example — this was cited in evidence put before the Select Committee—in the negotiations in relation to the fourth Lomé agreement. The late and much loved commissioner, Lorenzo Natali, was keen to pick up the idea that environmental protection should be part and parcel of those critically important agreements. Latterly, both in my time and later on, documents relating to the importance of the environmental requirements in agriculture, in energy and last of all in transport—matters raised by the noble Lord — have been picked up by the Commission, the latter in the document on sustainable mobility.
The Commission is very much restricted in DGXI by the number of officials available. If they are to be asked to undertake a more vigilant examination of complaints, I do not believe that they can do that very well, particularly if they are asked to undertake invigilation of the practicality of matters that are applied in the member states. I believe that reinforcement is required in that area and I am glad that this matter has the support of the noble Lord's Select Committee.
I particularly welcome the support by the Select Committee for the idea that national policies and programmes, as well as individual projects, should be subject to environmental assessment, though they have added some perfectly reasonable qualifications in paragraph 24 which I need not emphasise now. The real question is whether member states would be fully prepared not only to accept that idea in principle but to adopt it in practice.
I also agree with the proposition that environmental policies should be properly costed. That is mentioned in Article 130R of the Single European Act. The article refers specifically to the need for the Community to take account of,
"the potential benefits and costs of action".
But it goes on,
"or of lack of action".
That point, I believe, is equally important. It is given further emphasis in the Maastricht Treaty.
So far as the fifth programme is concerned, it is a logical and necessary development from other action programmes. Emphasis in this case is not just on legislation but on other instruments: market based instruments; improved data; and new institutions to help to expose the strategy.

973
But the committee also recognised the importance of parliamentary oversight. That is missing in so many instances, not only in this country but in other member states, in a practical way. Transparency is another critical element which has been given emphasis by the Select Committee. I do not believe that the European Environmental Agency, when eventually it gets going, will be able to operate without those two elements. It cannot do everything itself.
But the key to the fifth action programme is involvement: involvement especially of those engaged in industry, transport, energy and tourism in motivating action towards progressively orienting human activity and development towards the concept of sustainability.
In the United Kingdom for a little time now the right words have been uttered and that is a change from the situation up to 1988, when not even the right words were uttered. Cynicism was the order of the day about environmental development. There has unquestionably been some considerable change; the White Paper is an important development. But the words have to be matched by deeds, most especially in the field of transport policy, where the lacuna is most evident.
With regard to subsidiarity, there has been an almost knee-jerk reaction on the part of some members of the Government in this country—but it is not confined to this country—to any adverse view that may be taken by the Commission toward alleged breaches of law by the Government. So we have the "nooks and crannies" argument rather unhappily introduced by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It has almost invariably been the case that whenever that kind of situation has arisen the Commission is abused or, more particularly, the commissioner is abused. I know, I myself have suffered from it. But in fact the Commission is doing its duty. It ought not to be for the Government to engage in that kind of baseless and unnecessary argument.
I have stressed the importance of the report in relation to the fifth action programme. I should like now to turn to the question of enforcement. I welcome many of the specific proposals as well as the observations that are set out in the report. It is most important to stress that no community can exist without an acceptance of and compliance with the rule of law. Legal rules must be respected. If some people feel that they are too rigorous and that the passage of time has caused them to become outdated the fact remains that, as long as the law, is there it should be respected. Avenues should be explored in order to determine how amending laws can be introduced more rapidly, if that is the will of the Community and its institutions.
It is deeply regrettable that on 11th December 1991 in a Statement on the Maastricht Agreement the Prime Minister stated:
"The Commission has often brought forward proposals using a dubious legal base, and the Council has found it difficult to halt that practice in the European Court".
974
That is a very strange observation because he appears to be stating that he found the decisions of the European Court of Justice inconvenient and unacceptable.
I stand to be corrected, no doubt by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, but I think that in nearly every case—if not in all—the court has ruled against those who have proclaimed that the Commission's choice of legal base, particularly in relation to environmental matters, was incorrect. It was a choice between qualified majority voting under Article 100A or unanimity under Article 130S. The member states always preferred the Commission to go down the route of unanimity, regardless of the facts.
Dr. Krämer was correct to cite from the Fourth Action Programme:
"Nothing discredits a legislator more than to set rules which then are set aside or ignored."
That statement goes to the heart of the democratic deficit. In 1988 the Commission determined that there were approximately 400 different breaches of environmental law, many of those laws having been agreed on the basis of unanimity.
The Commission has the task of enforcing the proper transposition of directives and international law and to ensure as best it can that that law is applied in practice. However, it is often the case that the question is not one of how the laws can be applied but how they can be evaded.
The means of enforcement, as the Select Committee has reported, are very limited. The only effective sanction is the obloquy of being brought before the European Court of Justice. That is not a useless sanction because nations get upset about that matter. However, reinforcement is clearly necessary; and even if enforcement powers are strengthened, the task of the Commission will be to continue to seek to persuade member states to comply with the law. That task requires infinite patience and a great deal of time.
I should like to give special support to a number of points that are made in the report. The desirability of publishing Green Papers before embarking on legislation is a matter that has not been given sufficient attention by the Commission and it is not dealt with in a coherent way. However, in the environmental field where a special hazard is revealed swifter action may be required and a discussion via a Green Paper may be altogether inappropriate. More transparency is required, which entails the co-operation of industry and the member states. Access to the courts, particularly for individuals and groups, is a very significant factor, and I am delighted that support has been given to that idea.
Priorities must be established in order to aid enforcement, but the Commission did not take on board the fact that those priorities are already established within the Commission, which is a situation that has existed for a long time.
I support the systematic publication of Article 169 letters etc. The question of interim measures is more difficult because there is a risk of clogging up the agenda of the court, and the court has been chary about granting them. Nevertheless, it is right to give emphasis to that matter.

975
I should like to turn finally to the question of a European environmental inspectorate. One advance that has been made is the proposal that there should be a group of inspectors to inspect the national inspectors. That proposal makes a lot of sense. The Government were in the forefront of that argument. I do not often congratulate them but I do so in relation to that matter. I do not believe that all the approaches that have been mentioned are sufficiently radical to ensure that there will be a proper enforcement of the law. I have argued for a much more radical approach, which could not take effect until the renegotiation of Maastricht in 1996.
I do not wholly agree with the proposition that fines should be imposed on member states as suggested in the Maastricht Treaty, for a number of reasons. It would not normally secure rapid redress or prevent the mischief that is being complained of from continuing. The penalty would be imposed upon the taxpayer and not upon the polluter. The deterrent effect would be dubious. Above all, I fear that the court could be brought into the political arena, which would damage its independence, because governments may not hesitate to attack it for the fine or penalty that it would seek to impose.
There is an enormous contrast between enforcing environmental law and competition law, yet breaches of environmental law can lead to irretrievable damage. Therefore, I argue that action should be taken not only against member states, as is the current situation, but against the undertakings that break the law.
There should be available to the Commission or to the agency — perhaps it is more appropriate that it should be the agency—an inspectorate which is small in number and which could take the necessary investigative actions in relation to serious transfrontier threats. The Commission should be empowered to impose monetary sanctions against such undertakings, with a right of appeal to the European Court of Justice. That kind of decisive action would have the advantage of being able to stop the mischief in its tracks; it would avoid delays of several years of negotiation and ultimate litigation, after which it is usually far too late to arrest the environmental damage; and it would be the polluter and not the citizen who would pay.
I again congratulate the noble Lord and his committee. I await with very great interest the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the speech of his noble and learned friend Lord Slynn on the legal implications of enforcement that have been very well exposed by the committee.
4.10 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for giving us the opportunity to debate the two reports. I should also like to thank him very much for guiding our deliberations not only over the course of the two inquiries, but also over the two and a half years that I have been privileged to be a member of the Sub-Committee. His chairmanship gave me a first-class introduction to committee work and I wish
976
to record my thanks. I should also like to state that I regret the passing of Sub-Committee F as an independent entity. I cannot be bitter about that situation, however, because I was unavoidably away from the building at the time of the crucial tied vote, and had I been present, my vote would have preserved the status quo at least for the time being.
In that regard it is worth noting that the quality and substance of each of the two reports we are discussing today may give an indication of what future environment reports may be like. In fact, the hurried preparation of the report of integration was not due to the impending demise of Sub-Committee F; it was due to pressure of time for other reasons. However, in tandem with social affairs, we can expect hurried and perhaps less probing reports, which will no doubt dismay our many admirers in Europe who have such a high regard for the work of the Environment Sub-Committee. However, that is what the Jellicoe Committee wanted, and I suppose that that is what it will get.
Having said that, it is clear that the two reports we are debating are closely interwoven. As integration of environmental awareness and policies into other fields becomes a reality, it will become easier to ensure their implementation. In his evidence on implementation, Dr. Krämer commented that environmental directives suffered a double handicap. First, the relative newness and smallness of DGXI compared to other directorates-general means that DGXI resources are spread rather thin; indeed, a high proportion of its staff are seconded from the national civil services of member states, although I am sure that that is no handicap in quality.
Secondly, the directives in relation to other policy areas such as transport, agriculture or competition, directly concern various vested interest groups generally with plenty of money to spend on fighting their own corners. Those groups do their best to ensure that national and EC legislation suits their interests. On the other hand, specific damage to the environment which concerns the public interest is unlikely to engender great public disquiet until such damage has reached an advanced stage, possibly when it is irreversible and certainly more expensive in time and money to repair than it need have been. In fact, there are often powerful forces operating in the direction of putting immense pressure on habitats, biodiversity, the atmosphere, groundwater or just the aesthetic or enjoyment value of a rural environment. One example of that is the difference in land values between agricultural and development land.
In that regard the NGOs do sterling work with both campaigning and research activities. However, the resources and the international lobbying activities of large companies can bring to bear enormous pressure to create an appropriate climate of opinion for their aims. Their resources are many orders of magnitude greater than those of the NGOs. It is essential we move rapidly towards uniform implementation of environment directives as there is likely to be a gravitational flow of economic activity to the countries which present a softer option in terms of environmental controls. In that regard, I commend to

977
your Lordships the 10 points known as the Valdez principles, drawn up as an environmental operating basis after the "Exxon Valdez" episode. They are intended to be adopted by all companies as a programme to ensure the creation and implementation of sound environmental policies. Monitoring and review of the operation of such policies are also built into the 10 points.
I should like to see the Valdez principles incorporated in some way into company law, certainly in all areas of government policy and also by the Commission. That will go a long way to undercut the resistance that companies and countries offer to the implementation of directives and to the integration of environmental awareness in thinking and planning. Should any noble Lord like a copy of the Valdez principles, I shall be happy to oblige.
The ideal situation is for each national ministry or directorate-general to have its own strategic environmental conscience in the form of a small secretariat that would be involved and powerful at all stages of the development of plans for proposals, directives and, finally, in the implementation of that directive. The Government deserve credit for giving a lead by creating a "green" Minister system. That could well be followed up by the Commission.
In most sectors the environmental action programme lacks specific targets or timetables. I offer some suggestions for improvements. We need new legislation to implement the habitats and species directive which must protect and prevent deterioration of key wildlife sites. We need an integrated approach to the common fisheries policy to take into account marine wildlife. I further suggest that any reform of the common agriculture policy should make all payments to farmers dependent on environmental conditions being met.
Regional development policy via the structural funds, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is soon to be renegotiated. I hope that the Government will stand firm on their commitments to make all payments from the funds dependent on the best practice in environmental policies being integrated into every project starting with a prior, thorough impact assessment. Obviously no country complains that the principle of subsidiarity is being breached when the action involves the transfer of funds from the EC to that country. Surely this is an excellent opportunity to encourage the evolution of awareness in those countries where progress in that direction is slow. The sums are enormous. In the past five years to the end of 1992 the EC spent 60 billion ecus (£43 billion) on structural fund projects. In the next five years even larger sums are planned.
Perhaps the Minister will tell me how the Government will ensure that Community regional policy does not have the effect of damaging the environment. Also, I urge the Government to support the committee's recommendation backing EC legislation on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and also on integration procedures within the Commission. The strong public support for the EC environmental policy must be recognised and subsidiarity must not be allowed to weaken
978
appropriate EC level action. There is a great need to give individuals and NGOs more ready access to courts of law to enable them to seek judicial reviews of decisions made by public bodies on environmental matters. I should like to see the Government giving greater emphasis to employing experts from the national nature conservation agencies in council working groups on environmental policy and legislation.
Finally, I congratulate the Government on taking steps to implement the EC directive on access to environmental information by means of the environmental information regulations of 1992. I have obtained a draft copy of the regulations. As the statutory instrument was due to come into force on 31st December 1992, I wonder whether the final version is yet available. The NGOs will be informing their members of the regulations through newsletters, and so forth; but perhaps the Minister could tell the House what steps the Government are taking to publicise that to the public at large.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, when I first arrived at your Lordships' House I was conscious of the warm welcome I received, a welcome which was echoed in the generous comments made by my noble friend Lord Nathan and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. As part of that warm welcome I received also a generous quantity of advice. At the forefront of the advice was the recommendation that I should seek to get my maiden speech behind me as soon as possible. That was advice I resolved to follow. However, after scanning the forthcoming business of your Lordships' House, I became increasingly conscious of how unqualified I am to make any contribution. I am therefore singularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, on more than one count; first, for his sub-committee's admirable report which is being debated today; and secondly, for being responsible for my not being totally ignorant of the subject dealt with in that report.
Wearing another hat, the noble Lord was the first president of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association. I was privileged in 1987 to be present when in that capacity he gave the first Garner law lecture on environmental law. That brought to my attention really for the first time the importance of environmental law, the fact that it had developed into a separate corpus of law and the need for that corpus of law to receive separate treatment. In his capacity as president of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, then persuaded me—it would be wrong for me to say that he bullied me—to give a subsequent Garner lecture, and in consequence I became more familiar with the subject. I can assure your Lordships that nothing focuses the mind more—perhaps with the exception of a maiden speech on a subject—than having to give a lecture.
Having given that lecture, I was conscious that although there had been remarkable developments in the law relating to the environment since 1987, the question of enforcement of the law had not perhaps

979
received the attention which it should. The legal profession has become conscious of the need for environmental law to receive special treatment, and the more forward thinking firms now have special sections of the firm concentrating on environmental law. Within those sections there are persons who have skills quite different from those which one would normally expect to find in a firm of lawyers. The situation is rather similar in the academic world. For example, when the Imperial College of Science and Technology came to establish its first chair in law, it chose as the subject environmental law, recognising that the special skills of that college could make a real contribution to the study of environmental law. However, in relation to the question of enforcement, the position is not so happy.
The report itself points out that insufficient attention has been paid by the Community to the enforcement of environmental law. The same can be said of our domestic law, a large proportion of which is derived from Community legislation. The report makes a passing reference to the fact that I have in the past suggested that a solution could be found by creating a new environmental tribunal for the United Kingdom. If your Lordships will bear with me, that is a subject which I seek now to develop.
The situation at present is that virtually every court in the land has some jurisdiction in relation to what is now appropriately described as the environmental law field. For imposing criminal penalties, there is the magistrates' court and, with the assistance of juries, the Crown Court. In civil proceedings, which can involve the grant of injunctions, there is the involvement of the county court and the High Court. The High Court is also involved in determining environmental statutory appeals and, under a separate jurisdiction, in dealing with environmental issues on application for judicial review. None of these bodies is able to bring to bear a continuing experience of dealing with environmental law issues which would assist in their disposal.
I do not suggest that in the individual cases the courts are not able to do justice, but I do suggest that the courts are being subject to unnecessary burdens, and litigants, including public bodies, are being subject to unnecessary expense and undesirable delay as a result of environmental law issues being forced within the existing legal system. Furthermore, the situation is going to get worse rather than better. The volume of environmental law litigation will inevitably increase, and increase at a rapid rate.
The alternative which I suggest requires consideration is a specialist court, tied into the ordinary courts by a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal; a court which is staffed by specialists and which combines all the jurisdictions to which I have already referred; a court which has a special procedure which means that concerned individuals and bodies can become involved in the important issues which are at stake and which always can have great significance in cases concerning the environment. This is not a novel proposal. In 1989 Mr. Robert Carnworth QC delivered his report commissioned by the Department
980
of the Environment entitled Enforcing Planning Control. Although, as he acknowledges, this was outside his terms of reference, he thought it necessary to state:
"ideally there should be one Court or Tribunal, able to interpret and apply the law, to make orders, and to impose penalties for their disobedience".
A number of distinguished academics have echoed this call.
It is not an untried theoretical concept. In New South Wales since 1980 there has been a Land and Environmental Court with very much the jurisdiction that I have in mind. It is a superior court of record. It is composed of four judges and nine technical assessors. It has no requirement of standing and therefore would meet the problems with regard to judicial review referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It has not been swamped with cases and can usually dispose of cases within three months. Not surprisingly, it is regarded as a success and has been and is going to be followed by other states.
I suggest that it could provide a model for this country and perhaps, in due course, for the Community. The European Court, like our own existing courts, is suffering from congestion even without the increasing volume of environmental cases which could arise for its consideration. We are all conscious that our environmental pollution is no respecter of international borders and it is therefore very much in this country's interest to ensure that there is a mechanism in place for ensuring that there is not only effective enforcement on a national basis, but on a Community basis as well.
I have not sought to indicate a blue-print, but merely a need—a need which I hope will be generally recognised as existing. I am most grateful to the House for the tolerance and the courtesy which it has again shown.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, as we all know, the convention of congratulating a Peer on making his maiden speech in this House falls to the next speaker. It gives me great pleasure to do so on two counts: first, because I have never had the privilege of doing it before and, secondly, because the noble and Learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is clearly an environmentalist at heart. He is not only an acknowledged authority on judicial review—the procedure by which decision by Government can be challenged —but, in spite of his obvious modesty, he is also a renowned lecturer on the subject of environmental law. This is a rare combination of expertise and it was no surprise that his excellent maiden speech was so well founded and informative. There can be few Peers more qualified than him to draw attention to some of the special problems of environmental litigation. I know that the whole House will join with me in saying how much we look forward to sharing his wisdom and professionalism during future debates.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Norrie: My Lords, before speaking on these reports, I should like to add that I have enjoyed my four years on Sub-Committee F and, now that I have

981
been voluntarily recycled, I should like to pay a warm tribute on behalf of the entire sub-committee to our retiring chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and to thank him for his patience, guidance and good humour. We must also pay tribute to his stamina. He chaired F Committee from 1983–1987. Clearly, he was dissatisfied with that burden of duty, as he took it on again in 1990. Without fear of contradiction I can say that his authority, enthusiasm and unrivalled experience of Community and environmental issues have been of enormous value to the sub-committee, and that is particularly true of the reports that we are debating today.
The reports address issues of great importance to the environment. Both were published in 1992, a year which I am sure will remain in people's memories, first, as the year of the Rio Summit in which everyone wanted to jump onto the environmental band-wagon and, secondly, for the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Council. What a year it was! At times it felt as though the environment had become no more than a political football.
The reports have important things to say on both those issues. I want to touch very briefly on what I see as significant in their conclusions.
First, perhaps I may deal with implementation and enforcement. This of course lies at the heart of an effective Community, whether or not we are talking about the environment. What is the point of legislating if we do not carry out the law, and what is the point of carrying it out if we are not ready to take enforcement action against those who do not? Our committee found much evidence of very poor implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation. That must change. Everyone, without exception, said how important it was to improve implementation and enforcement. Yet at every turn plans to do so, whether through the proposed environment agency or through plans for an inspectorate of inspectorates, have been blocked or delayed. That is frustrating. It implies that, although EC legislators say that they want a better application of the existing law, when it comes to the point they are quite relaxed about the different standards that exist across Europe. Even our own Prime Minister seems to demonstrate increasing frustration. Speaking to the Service for the Citizen conference in December last year and referring to those countries that are less punctilious than ours, he said:
"Here in Britain we are sometimes over-punctilious in enforcing directives when lighter controls are tolerated elsewhere".
So I urge the Prime Minister to protect our high standards of implementation and not allow the UK to become a second-class environmental citizen. The report could not make a better case for taking implementation and enforcement seriously. We must establish new procedures to enforce the highest standards of environmental protection.
I shall now turn to the Fifth Environmental Action Programme. It is extremely ambitious and important. It seeks to influence every sector of our lives. The programme was agreed in the closing stages of the UK's presidency by the Environment Council. I congratulate it on doing so.
982
Our committee took the theme of policy integration for its inquiry because it seemed to lie at the heart of the fifth action programme. It poses the most important yet most difficult challenge of all—how to prioritise environmental issues in any decision made by anyone, at any time, anywhere. It was clear, both in evidence to our committee and during the UK's presidency itself, that the UK Government felt that they had something important to contribute to the debate in the light of their experience in preparing the 1990 environment White Paper and the subsequent annual reports. That of course is true. The procedures and policies established under the White Paper and its successors have all helped, inch by inch, to push the environmental agenda forward, but I think we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that our Government had pushed it very far. Interdepartmental committees, "green" Ministers and an annual check-list of commitments are all useful, but progress is still far too slow. However, at least we have been moving in the right direction and the resolution adopted by the Environment Council on the fifth action programme includes many of the UK's favoured mechanisms for environmental integration.
There is one strategy not referred to in the resolution that I think would do more than any other to advance the cause of policy integration. That is the extension of environmental assessment to policies, plans and programmes of Government. I understand —indeed it was said in evidence to our committee—that the UK Government have some difficulties with the proposal. Perhaps I may press my noble friend the Minister to explain exactly when replying what those difficulties are. Perhaps he could elucidate a little. Speaking personally, although I know this view is shared by many in the environmental community, I cannot understate the importance of this strategy.
Finally, I should like to say a word about subsidiarity. For the past six months it has been on everyone's lips and I think that the vast majority of the British public must wonder what on earth it is all about. I must confess to sharing some of their bemusement. However, there is a serious point here —the question of deciding which is the appropriate level for either legislation or action. That is more relevant to the environment than to any other area of policy.
The environment will not be protected or saved by legislation at just one level, whether international, regional, national or local. The environment must be cared for at every level of policy. That is why the UK is part of such a complex legislative framework covering everything from international conventions to local litter-picking laws.
The conclusions reached about subsidiarity at the Edinburgh Summit were more reassuring than had been expected. Talk of throwing out existing laws seems to have died away and there are some sensible suggestions about making sure that new legislation is justified at EC level in the future. However, I feel sure that there will need to be more legislation, especially as our understanding of some of the more complex problems, like global warming, increases. I should like to be satisfied that we do not just legislate for

983
legislation's sake and that, when we do introduce new legislation, we shall be confident enough both to implement and enforce it.
We have a long way to go on both those counts, but they are the central questions. If these two reports help to deliver that simple but highly desirable outcome, then we shall have made a significant contribution to the future health of our planet.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I too listened with great interest to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and to his interesting idea of having an environmental court or tribunal. Like other speakers today, I was a member of Sub-committee F, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. Under his chairmanship we teased out the complex inter-relationship between implementation, enforcement and integration of environmental concerns into other policies.
As we say in our conclusion to the ninth report, 1991–92, the formulation of Community legislation is often too complex and is drafted without sufficient attention being paid to the problems of practical enforcement. However, I do not believe that I was alone in the sub-committee in assuming, with typical Anglo-Saxon smugness, that we in this country would be better at enacting and enforcing complex Community legislation than other, particularly southern European, countries. Reality, of course, is always more complex than one's stereotypes.
Our visit to Spain was intended to explore the problems that might arise in a more devolved, federal political constitution. In fact, because Spain has had very little previous environmental legislation, it can enact Community directives quickly and directly into both national and regional laws. Spain is therefore well placed in having legislation in place aimed at protecting the Spanish environment.
In northern Europe in contrast our visits showed that enactment is often dilatory. In Belgium the recently constituted federal system is only now at last beginning to enact Community directives which are at least seven or eight years old. It was also astonishing that Brussels has no effective sewage treatment system so that the river Maas is heavily contaminated to the extent that Holland now takes its drinking water from the Rhine.
Holland has environmental legislation dating back to the 16th century—for obvious reasons in that country—in relation to water. Its problem is fitting Community legislation into the existing framework of laws and the prolonged consultative and highly democratic processes in that country which can take as long as seven years.
In this country we pride ourselves on adhering at least to the letter of the law and on implementing Community directives or regulations with reasonable dispatch. However, our civil servants tend to seize on the legislative opportunity and often add further provisions and additions to already complex Community directives which further muffle the message. The message is also delayed partly by that
984
process as can be seen, for example, in relation to the habitats' directive which was passed by the European Community over six months ago and which is still to be enacted to protect our wildlife sites. I would therefore ask the Minister in his reply to tell us when that is likely to be brought forward.
The enforcement of legislation is of course much trickier than enactment. Laws, as we know, are often passed which seem like a good idea at the time and then quickly lie fallow and are not enforced. Environmental legislation can easily fall into that category when the opposing forces for jobs and industrial development are strong and the environment lobby, as in Spain, is weak. Even in this country where we have well supported NGOs, powerful forces in the Department of Transport can still disregard environmental concerns and drive motorway extensions through environmental sites and possibly, in future, cause the destruction of places such as Oxleas Wood.
The integration of environmental concerns with all policies is essential and, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, at the earliest possible stage. In Spain, the need for development has driven a major road, for example, through the habitat of a protected species of eagle. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, did not refer to that. It is one of his favourite stories about our visit to Spain. The great protected wetlands, moreover, of the national park at Donana (an important staging post for many of Europe's birds) is clearly rapidly being dessicated by the extensive irrigation of the surrounding horticultural areas, producing tomatoes and cucumbers, no doubt, for the British market.
Most strikingly for me, however, about our trip to Spain was that it was clear how enthusiastic the Spanish are about Europe. They are eager to be seen as good Europeans. Considerable investments have been made on the environmental front, for example, in Andalucia, in modern technology for monitoring pollution (they have splendid computer systems and a great modern building full of energetic staff) and also in recycling waste materials such as the acres of polythene used for protecting salad crops.
Our own grudging and half-hearted acceptance of Europe is exemplified by the enthusiasm with which the Government have seized on the notion of subsidiarity as a way of mollifying their Euro-sceptics. That is particularly alarming when it has been supported at the highest level of government and the suggestion made that the environment might be a suitable subject for such subsidiarity and delegation to the national level.
Clearly, if the environment were relegated to a purely domestic level it could save this country some embarrassing encounters with the European Court and therefore might be welcomed by a weak government. But surely protection of the environment is essentially by its very nature a supra-national issue. It is our acid rain which kills trees and poisons lakes in Scandinavia and our effluent and that of other countries which have contaminated rivers and so polluted the North Sea.

985
These are not matters which can be dealt with in cosy domesticity within a single member state. Finally, therefore, I ask the Minister for an assurance that the environment is essentially not one of the topics that is being considered by the Government as a suitable case for subsidiarity.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Portland: My Lords, this is not only my maiden speech, it is effectively the first of my life. I do not want it merely to add to the 5 billion words generated in connection with Rio which resulted in nothing very much happening. So at the end of the next 1,000 words I shall ask your Lordships if we can manage to make something happen here in this House. I hope that the House will forgive a beginner's temerity.
Paragraph 136 of the report calls for "substantial changes in attitude" and it is exactly that to which I shall be returning in an attempt to suggest to the House the unique opportunity which its Members have in that respect. Our attitude to anything depends on how we perceive it. It is precisely our perception of our environmental predicament that is so confused that it inhibits response. Therefore, with great modesty, I should like to suggest a clearer perspective, and welcome the charming invitation to do so offered by my noble friend Lord Nathan in his opening remarks.
We know that if civilisation and population are allowed to continue unmodified on their present expansionist courses, they will cause an ecological catastrophe which will destroy that civilisation and most of our descendants. As yet we do nothing. Why is that? It is a very extraordinary situation. We know what to do, but we cannot really figure out any proper way of doing it. Our entire way of life makes it impossible to get to grips with that. So how should we perceive our unprecedented predicament?
Humanity, in common with all life, as we know, obeys a survival instinct. Everything we do is motivated by that instinct. We invented the stone axe and then civilisation in order to pursue the best interests of ourselves and our progeny, and it worked. It worked so well that it is upsetting the balance of nature on which everything depends for survival. Thus, civilisation does not any longer serve our best interests; it threatens them. And yet we are conditioned to perceive that civilisation as normality. To have to perceive normality as wrong because it threatens our survival is what makes it so difficult for us to think how to respond to the present situation. So all we do for the most part is to try to titivate our deadly civilisation, hoping to keep it going more or less as it is.
As we know, this is not, strictly speaking, a political issue. Since it threatens us and the civilisation we have evolved, it is in fact an evolutionary—an unprecedented issue—the crux criticorum of our civilisation.
So how do we face up to it? We know that if we continue to put our best interests in front of those of our environment, we will wreck that environment and kill most of our descendants. If, however, we choose to put the needs of that environment just a bit in front of
986
our own, not only will it survive, and therefore us too, but we will also have established a new basis for evaluating our way of life—a new basis for thinking out how to do the things that we know have to be done. We will have started to develop new aims, new values and a new normality because, for the first time, we will have started to use our minds to choose to evolve on purpose; whereas hitherto we have only used our brains to follow the instincts that we share with the rest of life to survive as comfortably as possible.
Now the decision to act like this cannot be imposed. For one thing, pollution—and I mean "pollution" in the widest possible sense, which is very wide indeed —is caused by all of us, individually and collectively, and it is only the unique, problem-solving propensity of the human mind, working individually and collectively, that is going to figure out how to evolve on purpose by putting the needs of the environment just that little bit in front of our own so that it survives and, therefore, so do we.
But this propensity needs a catalyst, an inspiration. People are anxious and afraid, particularly the young. They want to see that someone is taking the matter seriously and doing something about it. They want a lead; they want hope. It is a unique situation. And this House is a unique institution. I do not need to labour its experience, expertise nor, most importantly, its probity and its influence.
At the moment, it wears many hats. We put on our Green hats and address ourselves to environmental problems. Then we take them off and go back to organising our old, unsustainable civilisation. For example, on 4th November, for five hours, this House discussed a sustainable economy without once considering whether any of the ideas that had been advanced could be sustained by the environment. On 11th November, the Chancellor spoke about growth as being the goal. He ignored all the work done on limits to growth as being the only route to salvation.
The plea to which I have been leading, therefore, is this: could this House keep its green hat always on? Could your Lordships individually look at every piece of business that comes before you to see if there could possibly be a practical and workable way of doing it that puts the interests of our habitat just a little bit more nearly in front of our own and to acknowledge that that was what they were doing? That is the important thing: to acknowledge it. The change of attitude mentioned in paragraph 136 of the report would then have begun here. The House, being self-regulating, could even remind its Members to keep their green hats always on by saying "Attitude, attitude", so that the gravest responsibility ever faced by any parliament on behalf of humanity could be kept continually in the forefront of the mind.
But, finally, the most important thing is that, with this change of attitude, a lead would have been given and would have been seen to have been given. It would be seen that our predicament was being taken seriously—that something unprecedented was being done and, extraordinarily enough, being done here. It would help people to accept that civilisation no longer serves the best interests of our evolution but threatens

987
it. It would influence other decision-making assemblies. It would provide a catalyst to precipitate, out of public anxiety, our unique problem-solving capacity to evolve a way of doing what we know must be done—to evolve the acceptance of the fact that unless we choose to evolve on purpose, catastrophe awaits.
There is only one thing that we cannot do either here or anywhere else in the world. We cannot look our grandchildren in the eye and say, "I'm all right, Jack, I'll be dead".
4.54 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it is truly a great honour to follow the noble Earl, Lord Portland, whose maiden speech we have just been privileged to hear. I must say I found it a little difficult to believe that it was also the first speech that he has ever made. If so, it was all the more remarkable for that. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I congratulate him on the quality of his speech and on the depth of his knowledge and, if he will forgive me, on the depth of his spirituality, which he so clearly displayed. I am sure that all noble Lords join me in hoping that so much time will not elapse again before he speaks to us.
Most of your Lordships who have spoken in this debate so far, and I suspect most who are to follow, seem to be taking the general position that European environmental legislation is a good thing. I am afraid I am not yet convinced of this. Of course, I agree that we must do all we can to protect our environment and no doubt internationally enforceable legislation is necessary. It is just that I am not yet convinced that the European Economic Community is going to be the right vehicle for achieving this—or, at least, not in a timespan which will bring the urgent protection which is needed. The EEC has too many inherent difficulties, it seems to me, and I shall not trouble your Lordships with a detailed analysis now. But I should perhaps mention the difficulty that EEC legislation is made and agreed at national level, whereas in countries like Germany, Spain, Holland and Belgium, responsibility for the environment is vested in the local level of government. There is also the problem, which other noble Lords have mentioned, of the fundamentally different national characteristics of the EEC member nations. Members' adherence to EEC legislation and, indeed, to much national legislation seems to diminish as the quantity of Latin blood in the veins of the people concerned increases—and I think that that is a very long term problem indeed.
Be all that as it may, I propose to concentrate on one example, a Scottish example, where enforcement of EEC legislation would be positively destructive. Some of your Lordships may remember the somewhat eventful passage through your Lordships' House in the summer of 1991 of the Scottish Natural Heritage Bill, which merged the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy for Scotland. It is a source of much comfort to me today that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will be winding up this debate for the Government, because it was he who so wisely piloted the SNH Bill through your Lordships' House.
988
I think it is generally accepted now that your Lordships made a number of improvements to the SNH Bill. Perhaps the most controversial at the time was the proposal that there should be some form of appeal, or second-guessing mechanism, against the designation of sites of special scientific interest on scientific grounds. After a certain amount of toing and froing between your Lordships' House and the other place, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde brought forward a courageous and far-sighted compromise, which was accepted in your Lordships' House by a massive majority. This set up a small scientific Advisory Committee within SNH, to which owners and occupiers of land could appeal if they believed that their land had been wrongly designated on scientific grounds. The more aggressive voluntary conservation bodies, and those of a centralising European bent, were not happy, of course, and furiously predicted that there would be so many appeals to the new committee that SNH's work would be gummed up for many years and that it would be crippled financially by the additional workload. I am sorry to say that some of them even went further and claimed that that was precisely the aim of the wicked landlords in your Lordships' House who had moved the original amendments.
Well, the chairman of SNH, Sir Magnus Magnusson, came to Parliament recently to report to the all-party Heritage Committee on the first year of SNH's existence. He revealed that the new Advisory Committee had not yet received a single complaint because the contentious cases were all being resolved at local level. He said that the existence in the background of the committee was a powerful incentive to encourage the problems to be resolved at local level. This is, of course, exactly why noble Lords in this House wanted the committee—or something very like it—in the first place. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that Sir Magnus said that the committee was a tribute to the vision and wisdom of its creators, and I feel sure that that compliment should be passed on publicly to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the author of the amendment in question.
So at the moment all is harmonious in Scotland. Owners and occupiers of land, local communities and even deer forest owners are beginning to work together with SNH, on a voluntary basis, to preserve and enhance the natural heritage of Scotland in a sustainable manner. I must also pay tribute of course to Sir Magnus Magnusson for this happy state of affairs, and to the very high calibre of the new regional boards and their chairmen. The growing harmony is doubtless due in large part to their deep knowledge of the countryside, to their understanding of what should go on in it, and how this can prosper side by side with the scientific interest.
Alas, I wish I could leave your Lordships with this idyllic picture, but I cannot. Sir Magnus also said one worrying thing. He said he feared that the habitat directive from Brussels would require SNH to return to a more authoritarian role in future. He feared that the voluntary system which was so wisely set up by the

989
Scottish Natural Heritage Act might be compromised by fresh legislation which would be forced upon us by Europe.
Well, taking that hint from Sir Magnus—it was no more than a hint—I have put my ear to the ground in Brussels and elsewhere, and have to tell your Lordships that it looks as though Europe may be raising its ugly, interfering head again, to destroy what the British Parliament has so carefully crafted.
It seems that the Government have signed up to the EEC's habitat directive, and that SNH must be its agent in Scotland. I understand that the directive will force SNH to identify a large number of new SSSIs, and that new legislation will be required to give SNH mandatory powers to force owners and occupiers of land to manage designated sites in ways which conform to the Brussels directive. That would completely undermine the largely voluntary principle which has been so painstakingly established in Scotland. It would render the advisory committee irrelevant for the new Euro-SSSIs. That is especially irritating because by the time it came into being, SNH reckoned that the Nature Conservancy for Scotland had already designated 95 per cent. of the SSSIs which needed to be designated in Scotland, covering some 10 per cent. of the land mass in Scotland.
The Scottish Natural Heritage Act also introduces the concept of natural heritage areas. These are to encompass much larger areas than SSSIs which tend to be smaller and "site-specific".
The new sites demanded by Brussels are therefore not only certain to be superfluous (because our bureaucratic friends in Brussels are hardly likely to know what is of real scientific interest better than our own SNH), but they are also to be of the wrong size. And they are to be backed up by legal coercion which is certain to lead to the sort of conflict which all of us involved with the Scottish Natural Heritage Bill worked so hard to avoid. Not only that, the number of new sites anticipated will be enough to gum up the works of SNH until the end of the century. The cost will of course be very high, and not budgeted for at present. I do not suppose that the Italians, Greeks, Portuguese or Spanish will be exactly falling over themselves to fund our resultant deficit from the absurd cohesion funds which we send their way. Indeed, the Spanish will also be hit very hard by the habitat directive themselves, at least in theory. One rather doubts of course whether they will be quite as assiduous as us in carrying it out.
So I fear that it is a little ironic that what our narrow-minded conservation bodies wrongly accused the wicked landlords in your Lordships' House of attempting to achieve may be actually achieved by the enforcement of ignorant directives from Brussels.
Of course I hope that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell us that my fears are groundless; that after the glorious triumphs of the British presidency of the EEC at the Edinburgh Summit, this sort of interference from Brussels is a thing of the past. But if he takes that line, I hope that he will not base it on any interpretation of our old friend, subsidiarity, other than the one which is actually to be found in Article 3b of the Treaty on
990
European Union, signed at Maastricht. I say that because I am afraid that the Foreign Office has just issued, no doubt at taxpayers' expense, a sly little piece of propaganda in the shape of a booklet entitled UK Presidency of the European Communities; July-December 1992.
That booklet tells us that the Edinburgh Summit agreed new "procedures" and new "guidelines" which reduce our subsidiarity or subservience to Brussels. It is a hard fact of life that "procedures" and "guidelines" do not overrule the printed text of a legally binding treaty. So can my noble friend assure me that my fears are groundless? Can he assure me that SNH will be able to continue on its present laudable course without becoming subservient in any way to the habitat directive? If he can do that, he will put a lot of minds at rest.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in a debate in which we have heard two such distinguished maiden speeches from the Cross-Benches. I should like to congratulate both noble Lords who have spoken for the first time. My noble friend Lord Portland was right to remind us of the broad human and spiritual elements which enter into the framework of environmental policy, something which we are perhaps apt to overlook when we devote our lives to its details. The speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf was most interesting. He reminded us of his proposal for the environmental court, which I hope will be pursued. At the local level it has often seemed to me that there was a definite need to bring greater coherence to the decisions taken by planning tribunals, which I trust will be included in the supervision of a court of the kind he mentioned.
As a member of the sub-committee which prepared these reports I should like to support the Motions presented by my noble friend. The debate provides a convenient opportunity to look at the next stage of the Community's policy on environmental matters and to examine the way in which it is being implemented at present.
There is a widespread belief in this country that the British have faithfully applied regulations and directives emanating from Brussels and that our record is much superior to that of other member states. There are also frequent suggestions, as in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that bureaucrats in Brussels meddle too much in our domestic affairs and that sometimes the gentlemen in Whitehall make matters worse by adding their own pernickety requirements on top of those emerging from the Commission. It does not appear to me from the inquiries made by the sub-committee that those complaints are well-founded in the field of environmental policy. I shall attempt to offer a rather different and, I hope, more balanced perspective.
The broad picture over the past decade is that we have seen an active period of work by the Commission. The Commission has reacted positively to the pressures of public opinion throughout the Community to improve environmental standards in all member states. That concern has been expressed in

991
national parliaments, in the European Parliament and by voluntary organisations, which are especially strong in this country. Governments have responded to such public anxiety when drawing up the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. Those important texts state the objectives of environmental policy and introduce decisions in the Council of Ministers by qualified majority vote on environmental matters.
The broad result has been to produce a large volume of new legislation setting higher standards to be observed by all member states on subjects such as the purity of drinking water, the cleanliness of beaches and the control of emissions generally. There have also been significant changes of procedure—for example, in the environmental assessment directive —intended to ensure that large projects are properly and professionally assessed and brought to public notice before they are proceeded with.
I do not believe that those objectives and the sum of that activity can be regarded as controversial in principle. The question is how well and how uniformly they have been carried into effect. My impression is that we need to shift the emphasis from legislation to enforcement. On that I believe that I detect a broad current of agreement in the debate. I suggest that there are two significant current problems and one future anxiety.
The first current problem concerns the performance of member states with strong regional systems of government. It is understandable that countries in that category should put the legal responsibility for meeting EC environmental rules on those regional authorities. However, as we found, those authorities often lack the human and financial resources to put them into effect. That seems to be the case in Italy, surprisingly also in Belgium and, for rather different reasons, in Greece. The problem occurs in Spain too. Great efforts have been made to safeguard the beautiful region of Spain which we visited—Andalusia. It was interesting to observe the way in which the widespread commitment in Spain to the broad European idea is being translated into serious efforts to apply the Community's environmental rules. I agree with what the noble Baroness said on the subject. I should add that that is not an attitude I have encountered very often in this country, which I regret.
The largest problem we saw in Andalusia was the threat of commercial development on the coastline and the damage to groundwater levels in the Doñana National Park, which is the largest designated national park in the Community. As to that regional question in the Community as a whole, I believe that there is a current problem of real magnitude in a number of important member states which may transpose the Community's rules into national law but fail to supply the regional authorities with the resources which they need to apply them properly. That subject requires political attention at Community level by the Council of Ministers.
The second current difficulty concerns the inadequacy of the statistical base. Each member state compiles its own statistics and it is often difficult to
992
compare them. I believe that as a matter of some urgency we need to create a proper Community statistical base on environmental matters to ensure that the facts and data are promptly collected in the same way and are collated and published in a common series. We shall not be able to assess the environmental situation thoroughly until that has been done. Nor shall we be able to plan properly future environmental legislation.
Clearly, that is a prime task for the future Community environmental agency. I share the great regret expressed by other noble Lords that the establishment of the agency, while agreed formally several years ago, has been blocked by France, which has linked that practical matter with the quite separate and long-standing vexed question of the seat of the Community institutions—in which France has a vested interest. I note that in Annex 6 to the presidency conclusions of the Edinburgh Summit there was a suggestion that the French may now have got what they wanted as regards the seat of the institutions. If that is the case, it may lead to the establishment of the agency. Perhaps when the Minister replies he will enlighten the House on that subject. We need the agency and I beg the Government to do all that they can to promote its early establishment.
Those are the two current problems which I identify. My anxiety about the future concerns the way in which the Government may intend to apply the subsidiarity principle to environmental legislation. There have been suggestions, as others have noted, that the Government may wish to repatriate responsibility for environmental legislation and its enforcement. Some people believe that the standards set by the Community are unnecessarily high and would wish them to be modified, while others apparently see the Community's purposes in passing the environmental impact assessment directive as both intrusive and burdensome. In general I believe such suggestions to be misleading and mostly dangerous.
The fact is that many of the Community's rules show how much we must do to reach the high standards which our citizens expect. That applies particularly to water quality, an area in which the Government agreed to the standards but did not provide the resources necessary and then transferred responsibility to the water plcs, which are now raising funds from the consumers and markets to do so. That seems to me to be the main reason why we have lagged behind in meeting the water directives.
I do not suggest that all the Community's rules and regulations are perfect. Indeed, I have served on committees in this House which have criticised the draft directives on water and nitrates. However, I believe it would be a mistake to embark on a wholesale repatriation of responsibility for those matters. I submit that it is right that the standards should be high, that they are properly of Community concern, that the volume of Community legislation in the past decade has been fully justified and that it is in our interest that the policies should be made to work with our full encouragement and support. I hope that the

993
Government will be prepared to follow that approach and to back it up in practical ways. It is in that spirit that I commend the report to the House.
Finally, perhaps I may say how much I have benefited from serving on the sub-committee. Like the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, I am no longer a member of it—indeed, the sub-committee no longer exists as such—but it has been a particular pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Nathan, who has contributed a great deal to the work of the House.
5.16 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his colleagues on the environment sub-committee on the two excellent reports. I congratulate also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Earl, Lord Portland, on the maiden speeches and the issues which they raised.
As a practising landscape architect, I welcome in particular the 9th Report. Environmental regulations and their objectives can become meaningless if their implementation and enforcement are ineffective. They can become controversial and derisory if their enforcement is noticeably erratic or widely abused. Therefore, a critical issue is that, even where directives and legislation are properly considered, and are well drafted, their potential remains compromised by the inadequacy of the attention given to their implementation and more especially to their enforcement. The latter is the final stage of the process but it is the most crucial factor in achieving compliance and progress.
It is disturbing that the experience of myself and others parallels the views which the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association put to the committee; namely, that the weakest link in environmental regulation tends to be the enforcement stage. One must wonder why that is so and how it can be improved.
As in planning law, much environmental legislation gives those responsible for its enforcement a significant measure of discretion. However, that is something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is vital and desirable that within each national border and within the EC's wider boundaries a single principle may have to be applied to extraordinarily diverse sets of circumstances. An element of discretion enables the interpretation of that principle to be sensitive to those circumstances. Therefore, its application should be more effective, more equitable and more locally accountable. The more locally accountable is the implementation and enforcement, the more successful is the compliance. Among many others, I can vouch for the progress that environmental initiatives can achieve where there is local motivation and participation.
Local interpretation and enforcement is both a source of strength and the cause of considerable anxiety. The exercise of discretion is only as good as the competence, experience and professionalism of those in whom that discretion is vested. The local human factor in the discretionary interpretation of environmental legislation very often illustrates
994
extraordinary and colourful variability. Therefore, it is inevitable that within and between each EC nation, enforcement will be subject to every kind of inconsistency.
A further problem in the UK of which I am aware is the management priorities of many local authorities. They are very often driven by economic, development and traffic needs, for instance, and the monitoring and enforcement of environmental legislation are low priorities with comparatively low staffing and resources. It is therefore difficult for compliance to be pursued with sufficient consistency or dedication, and where it happens it is sometimes a result of political considerations. As an aside, I should mention that the recession has enabled some local authorities to transfer resources to enforcement and away from development control. However, I imagine that when the economy picks up that trend will probably be reversed.
Given the desirability of enforcement at a local level, efforts must be made to improve consistency of performance. Central governments should insist that local authority conservation officers and statutory agency field officers are both well qualified and reasonably experienced. That is not the case here in the UK but I believe it should be. Perhaps a formal qualification should be established for such officers and a formal body through which they must be registered should also be established. Central governments should also insist that through their employers, or through a professional body, conservation officers are subject to continuous professional development. This would include instruction on new environmental legislation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, pointed out, the volume of environmental legislation is set to rise rapidly.
It is not that uncommon at present for those in private practice to know more about recent developments than those charged with their enforcement at ground level. Conservation and environmental officers should in addition have a stronger voice in decision making. Many at the moment are in relatively junior positions and exert insufficient influence given the importance of their brief. Their sometimes insufficient status can be frustrating for those who are anxious for progress. On a number of occasions I have experienced reluctance on the part of conservation or field officers to express a professional conviction fully and formally where it is contrary to the thinking of a local planning officer.
Central governments can do more than insist on minimum qualifications, experience and status for such enforcement officers. They can also do more than giving their due consideration to legislation before implementation and ensuring that there is proper enforcement legislation in parallel. They could, for instance, provide "best practice" notes for local authorities and statutory conservation agencies. Against such notes the actions of individual authorities and agencies could be measured. Given that significant inconsistencies are occurring both in the UK and in other EC countries, I believe that the track records of authorities and agencies should be monitored. That job should be primarily a national

995
duty with secondary monitoring, where appropriate, to EC standards being carried out by an EC body such as the EEA.
Both national and international monitoring can then be the basis for public comment. Where practices are suspect or poor, the publicity may act as an agent for change. Where practices are good, the methods involved in their success will act as a pointer to others. The latter I believe to be of great significance in striving towards consistent standards of enforcement and compliance. In my experience comparable authorities, agencies and their officers with access to similar resources, similar salary structures and similar training facilities can produce extraordinarily different professional standards when it comes to interpretation and enforcement.
There is, furthermore, a consistency to the variation in performance between comparable bodies. The more one explores this problem, the more convinced one becomes that its causes lie in the quality and priorities demonstrated by the management systems. It is therefore not a difficult proposition for improvements to be wrought through greater government insistence on minimum standards for enforcement officers and through the greater exchange of information on policy and practice between those who can get things right and those who cannot. The fruits of such labours would be the better enforcement of environmental legislation and a better achievement of those objectives at which such legislation was aimed in the first place.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Earl, Lord Portland, chose an important topic for their maiden speeches. I hope it is not impertinent for one who has so recently gone through the same hoops to say how valuable I found their contributions and to add that it is a great personal pleasure to have heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord. For some 11 years we together defended government action and legislation and now that we are free of those responsibilities noble Lords will not be surprised if from time to time we find defects in both.
I said that this was an important topic because it is quite plain now that environmental protection is needed not just on a domestic basis but on an international or an intranational basis. We still need, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has indicated, some form of domestic redress. But actions in tort and actions in nuisance in the British courts and in the other national courts are, if necessary, no longer sufficient. They are not sufficient in the Community because it is quite obvious that pollution of air, land and sea causes environmental damage across boundaries. They are no longer sufficient because of the interaction of environmental issues and commercial needs or demands.
We have already seen in the Community that the disposal of hazardous waste has to be dealt with not just to protect the environment but also to ensure fairness of competition between traders in different
996
states involved in that industry. We have already seen in the Community that the commercial interest in the free movement of bottles of beer across boundaries of member states may have to give way to the protection of the environment in the shape of small boys hunting on a Sunday evening through the hills and valleys of Denmark to collect the beer bottles which have been rejected to recover the deposits on them. That kind of balance between commercial interests and environmental protection may be important.
The Community, which until recently had only general powers relating to the Common Market to deal with environmental issues, now has wide powers. They may be precisely defined but they are certainly wide in their scope. In the exercise of those powers the Community has, with the member states, a special responsibility and, perhaps no less important, a special opportunity to deal with these matters. The objectives and principles which are spelt out in the Single European Act and which are closely linked to improving the condition of life in the Community will be extremely important.
However, the Commission can only carry out those responsibilities and seize those opportunities if there is proper discussion on what is needed to protect the environment and how it is to be achieved. For that reason the reports of the Select Committee on, for example, environmental impact agreements and on the freedom of access to environmental information have played a prominent part in provoking discussions throughout Europe. From my experience I can echo what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The Community as a whole at all stages and at all levels has found these reports of immense value. The two new reports which your Lordships are considering today add to that process in a significant way.
As noble Lords have said, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for introducing the debate and also for all his work as chairman of the sub-committee and as president of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association. It is highly significant that under his presidency in a short time the number of members of that association rose from 50 to over 1,000. That shows the persuasive force of his activities in relation to the environment. Not only did he induce the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to give the Garner Lecture, but with less desirable effect he induced me to take over his presidency of that association.
Of the two reports with which the House is concerned the action programme report is important in showing that environmental priorities should be observed in other areas of activity such as industry and energy. However, it is to the report on the implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation that I should like briefly to refer.
It is plain that with the new powers in the Single European Act to which I have referred we can expect much more activity from the European Community. It will clearly have to be worked out what should be dealt with by the Community and what should be dealt with by member states, largely at the government

997
and political level, and perhaps at the administrative level. There may be a residual function for the European Court of Justice.
Having seen the performance of Article 130 of the Single European Act since it came into force, noble Lords may think that there is less need for anxiety in the application of the principle of subsidiarity in relation to environmental issues than is often expressed in regard to other matters. It is difficult to see how some measures, if they are to be effective, can be taken otherwise than under the leadership of the Commission and the Community. That is not just because they cross boundaries and because the activities involve a number of member states. It is quite plain that some member states—and we must remember that we are not the only member state— may be reluctant to adopt environmentally protective measures which penalise their economies for the benefit of the Community.
Although the European Parliament itself, through its questions, resolutions, petitions and inquiries, has had an important effect, at the end of the day it is for the Commission to take the necessary lead. It is for that reason that I suggest that the emphasis in the Select Committee's report on the collation of information and on collaboration between member states and the institutions of the Community is crucial. I was very glad to see that the Government had largely accepted the recommendations of the committee in that respect. It is quite plain that without the necessary exchange of information and without appropriate collaboration these environmental rules will not be effective.
I recall being impressed by the small staff of the Commission and their realisation that they could not monitor everything in the Community which from the environmental point of view needed attention. I remember when the Germans began to build dykes which interfered substantially with land that had been set aside for migratory birds. Their action may not have been a violation of the relevant directives, although it was argued that it was. In that case it was striking that the Commission received the information necessary to enable it to take steps only at a late stage. It was only at an even later stage that it took action. I have no doubt that if there had been full collaboration between the national and Community institutions it would have been possible for effective action to have been taken earlier. I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and that injunctive relief may sometimes have to be considered and must be available in an effective form.
If there is to be collation of information and co-operation, I suggest that the report of the Select Committee, with its emphasis on the need for publicity, is of considerable importance. The committee is right to stress the need for publicity in the relevant documents, not only to assist the Commission to do its job but also to enable those who are interested in what is being done to ensure that steps are not taken by the Commission, and by the member states in collaboration, without their point of view being put forward.
998
Quite often when the Commission is minded to go against a member state one finds that some form of negotiation or settlement is reached. If that is done without the necessary publicity then those who are interested in what is being considered do not have any right to make representations on the subject. That is particularly important in view of the very limited opportunity for the citizen, the trading company, the pressure group and the lobbyist interested in environmental matters to go to the European Court of Justice. For a long time I have considered, and I am not alone in this, that the restriction of the right of the citizen, the trading company or the group to approach the European Court of Justice is too limited. The need to establish an individual and direct concern has become too technical.
Some of us hoped that Maastricht would address that point and introduce a relaxation. I very much hope that over the next few years and before the 1996 discussions the Government will keep an eye on what is happening in the environmental area and consider whether there should not be a wider right, under both Articles 173 and 175, for the citizen to complain that nothing is being done or to attack what the Commission is doing.
In so far as concerns the court, a question arises in relation to Article 169 of the treaty. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said about the importance of the Article 169 letter setting out very precisely the Commission's complaint. It is not enough for that to come at a later stage in the reasoned opinion of the Commission. I hope that the Government will follow up that suggestion and remind the Commission of the importance of the allegations being made at the beginning, otherwise they would not be allowed to be raised before the court.
It is no less important, in view of the amount of work which appears before the European Court of Justice, that some way should he established by which a breach of the treaty by a member state in the environmental area should be dealt with expeditiously. At the moment when there is no defence by a member state to a claim that it is in breach of the treaty the whole litigation procedure has to be gone through. I hope that the Government will consider with the other member states introducing in 1996 some more expeditious procedure.
Finally, I have two further brief points. It is said that enforcement and implementation are now more important than questions of legislation. That may be so, but in view of the fact that one citizen cannot rely upon a directive to complain about violation of some rule of environmental protection unless that directive has been implemented, it is extremely important that legislation should adopt the directives fully and properly. Until now we have had every reason to be proud of the way in which the governments have adopted this legislation.
The question of fines has been raised. I do not believe that anybody is enthusiastic about the idea of introducing the imposing of fines as a punishment for a member state's failure to carry out its treaty obligations. It was felt necessary to do so. Whether

999
that will in future be an effective remedy may become an academic question. The European Court has now held that if a member state is in breach of treaty obligations, and the citizen can prove damages flowing from it, he may be able to recover compensation against the member state. I suspect that an award of damages against the member state may be a more effective remedy than a fine. It may not be necessary to impose fines.
I endorse the compliments that have been paid to the reports. They make an important contribution to an important subject.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the committee for the report produced. Unlike some speakers, I have not had the advantage of being a member of the committee, although I was a member several years ago. I had intimated to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, recently that I should like to sit in on its proceedings. However, I then learnt that it was hastily being abolished—possibly as a result of that intimation! I hope that its work will continue with the new joint committee. I sincerely hope that the forecast of my noble friend Lord McNair—he foresees that such work may deteriorate in a joint committee —will not be borne out.
It is a tremendously important subject. We have only to consider the course of this debate to understand how important it is. Even in your Lordships' House we seldom have a debate with such an immense amount of expert opinion. I refer in particular to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. We seldom have such a meaty maiden speech. I include also the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley. I particularly welcome the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Portland. Although he is probably unaware of it, he is a distant kinsman of mine. He will recognise the allusion if I say that we are tied together by Eyres and Graces. I can tell him that I wear a green hat on almost all occasions and very seldom take it off.
I wish to touch first on implementation and enforcement. I believe that there is a slight difference of emphasis between the two sides of the House on those matters. I have always found it difficult to reconcile the Conservatives' devotion to the voluntary principle and their slightly misplaced faith in the likelihood of people acting voluntarily against their short-term economic interests with their most admirable belief in the doctrine of original sin as part of their basic philosophy. It seems to me that the latter is slightly more credible.
Ecological protection is too serious to be left to voluntary effort. The Government do not make the control of physical violence a matter for voluntary effort. They should not make control of violence against the world in which we live a matter for voluntary effort. There is a need for laws and regulations, and for them to be implemented and enforced. The destruction of 1,200 SSSIs in the past
1000
five years points to the lacunae in present procedures. The Government have a new opportunity with the EC habitats directive to insert some teeth into that area.
The destruction of habitats is the most important and striking current feature. But also what do the Government intend to do about the neglect and deterioration of sites? Reference has already been made to that issue. I have given notice to the Minister who will reply to the debate that I should ask those two questions. In the present economic state of agriculture there is no reason why farmers should not be given money to protect the wildlife and the environment since they no longer have the temptation to produce a massive oversupply of food.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to a question on which I have not given notice. I refer to progress on the location of the European Environment Agency. That is an important matter. It ought to be able to be pursued now that other matters are out of the way. What is being done to pursue the idea of an inspectorate of inspectorates? It was an extremely good idea for this Government to seek to introduce when they were president of the EC. It appears to have become massively diluted in the course of events.
Because of the party that this Government represent, their stance is, "Of course the country must be protected. Since most of it is owned by noble Lords who are Members of that party, and who are all good chaps, it will be protected. However, laws and so on are disagreeable; they get in the way. They get good chaps' backs up. They interfere with the financial well-being of good chaps. On top of all that, intervention by foreigners is quite unnecessary". I penned that paragraph before I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. If he can tell me that none of the losses of the SSSIs to which I have referred occurred in Scotland, I shall withdraw it. But I do not believe that he can do so.
That approach to the preservation of the environment, to the ecology of our country, will not do. Rigour is needed. We now have an opportunity with the new European environmental legislation. We now have an opportunity with the very worthwhile last report of the committee. I hope that that opportunity will be taken.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, not only for chairing the committee which produced the two excellent reports but for introducing them in his usual eloquent fashion. I am sure that the House equally enjoyed the maiden contributions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Earl, Lord Portland. I shall come back to some of the points that they made. It is a welcome opportunity for us to have an environment debate; it is some time since we had one. It is good that the House should from time to time, in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Portland, wear its green hat and look at the environment in the round. The two reports offer us an opportunity for doing that.

1001
There is a feeling abroad that the environment has slipped down the public agenda. Perhaps that is natural in a recession. Whereas in times of prosperity one can allow oneself the luxury of thinking about how to preserve natural resources, in a time of recession its seems that we must try to work those natural resources for all they are worth because the economy has been brought to such a sorry state by the Government.
Nevertheless, even in a recession—and the recession still continues—we have to think about what happens afterwards. We must continue our commitment to the environment for the simple reason—and this cannot be too often emphasised, as it was in the Government's own White Paper: This Common Inheritance—that we have this planet Earth in trust for future generations. What we leave to future generations should always be in the forefront of our minds.
Further, as my noble friend Lady Hilton and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Slynn of Hadley, said, pollution is no respecter of boundaries. As the noble Earl, Lord Portland, said, we are all causers of pollution. So this debate takes place around an important series of topics and I treat them with the seriousness that other noble Lords have done during this afternoon.
Perhaps I may first talk about implementation and enforcement. I do so with a certain amount of diffidence, partly because I note on my left—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said—two Treasury juniors who were responsible for defending government legislation for rather a long time and who became extremely expert in the law. Therefore, not being a lawyer myself, I find it embarrassing to speak in front of the noble and learned Lords. Secondly, it is rather a long time since the Select Committee's report was published and we have not had an opportunity to debate it. Various things have or have not happened. Various things which have not happened should, in the context and the spirit of the report, have happened.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, what has not happened is that the European Environment Agency has not been set up. After all, it was decided and agreed on in 1990 and because of apparent bickering about the location of the European Parliament or the European Central Bank or whatever it was, for some reason no one has got round to setting up the European Environment Agency which we were promised.
Equally, what has not happened—as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said—is the setting up of the inspectorate of inspectorates. It seemed to me that that was an excellent idea. We fully supported it and it was said to be one of the major objectives of the United Kingdom presidency of the Community. It has not appeared and we can only regret that all that has appeared is a general agreement between members of the Community that the various inspectorates in each country will in some way speak to one another rather more cordially than they have done in the past. It is not a happy substitute.
1002
However, worse than those two—the EEA and the inspectorate of inspectorates—is that in some respects we have gone backwards. Here I am afraid I shall say things with which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will profoundly disagree. I believe that we have gone backwards in repatriating some of the policy areas of the environmental regulations in the name of something which is described as "subsidiarity", whatever that may mean. I am afraid that I do not accept the definition in Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty as being a full definition of subsidiarity. Indeed, it was the Secretary of State for the Environment himself who said that a number of areas could legitimately be taken out of Community control and repatriated back to individual member states.
I believe that, given my major premise which all sides in the debate have recognised, environmental regulation must be no respecter of national boundaries. I believe that form of repatriation is a retrograde step. I say that straightaway.
I very much hope to hear from the Minister when he comes to reply what are the forward moves that we can envisage in the future. Have the Government reached any conclusions about the European Environment Agency? Will they press ahead with it? Are our colleagues in the Community also prepared to press ahead with it? What is the status of the inspectorate of inspectorates? Is it just yet another good idea that has fallen by the wayside as a result of bickering within the Community?
I should like to hear from the Minister a positive commitment to those two items. If I receive that, I promise him that he and the Government will have the support of the Opposition, provided, of course, that the rules that are set out and the arrangements that are decided for those two bodies are satisfactory.
Any remarks about implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation must take account of paragraph 134 of the report of your Lordships' Committee. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I read it out because it is such an important paragraph that it is worth paying attention to it. The paragraph says:
"Implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation go to the heart of Community policy. But Community environmental legislation is being widely disregarded, and the Community has paid insufficient attention to how its policies can be given effect, enforced or evaluated. The time has come to redress the balance".
That is where your Lordships' Committee starts. I do not wish to set out in detail how we think we should go from here, but there are a number of principles which we wish to enunciate and which I hope the Government will support.
The first is that in general all that can be done by member states in the first instance should be done by them in the first instance. Clearly, if member states fail in their programmes of enforcement and implementation, there will be further demands for direct centralised Community action. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, reminded us that the implementation of the Single European Act and the role of the European Court—despite some of the cumbrous procedures to which I shall come in a minute—allowed or imposed a considerable burden

1003
on member states to implement the various regulations which derived from the Act. That must be the first port of call. If those fail, there must be a proper procedure for it to be dealt with by the Commission at a Community level.
How not to react to paragraph 134 of the report is quite simple. It is to say, "Well, if other countries do not enforce European environmental standards, then we are not going to do so either. We will adopt the lowest common denominator approach. We will relax our own standards in the level of enforcement to that which prevails in the rest of the Community". That seems to me to be dangerously close to what the Prime Minister was saying when he said that he wanted a bonfire of controls.
The second thing we must not do—how not to react, paragraph 2—is not to try very hard. It is to say, "Well, we are not really bothered". Here, because I happen to be president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, I instance a letter from the Secretary of State for Wales about the agri-environmental scheme of which Regulation 2078/92 is binding on member states. In the letter of 11th January 1993, he writes:
"My officials are, with others, exploring these matters but there is no possibility of these deliberations being concluded in time to meet the EC's deadline of July 1993 for member states to submit their agri-environment proposals under [this regulation]. This does not, however, mean that the opportunity of introducing such a scheme is lost forever".
That is one way not to react to a regulation which imposes on member states a strict obligation under Community rules. So how should we react?
Clearly there has to be a proper complaints procedure. Several noble Lords mentioned better access to the courts and better possibilities of access to judicial review. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, suggested in his speech that there was now a corpus of environmental law which required some kind of environmental tribunal which was able to oversee or intervene at the right stage. It is a very interesting idea on which I should like to hear the Government's views. Perhaps there should be greater access to the courts for aggrieved individuals or non-governmental organisations so that implementation and enforcement could be done that way.
Perhaps also, in the course of time, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, said, the European Court will devise less cumbrous procedures for environmental cases than it has at the moment. But we must accept that the ultimate responsibility for implementing Community legislation rests with the Commission. The Commission must be properly staffed, accordingly.
I turn to the fifth environment action programme, which, generally speaking, we welcome. I believe it was welcomed on all sides of this House this afternoon, and indeed by all political parties. We welcome particularly the concept of sustainability and the view that the key to sustainability is in the integration of the environment into decision-making and policies at all levels and in all spheres. That is the fundamental concept of the fifth action programme and one which we support. It is generally welcome.
1004
However, I have two important general points which I should like to put. First, it is only a declaration of intent. It does not set out any precise proposals. It has to be translated into something that we can put into a real action programme as opposed to a series of principles.
Secondly—this is a welcome point but with a caveat —the shared responsibilities to which he refers in the fifth programme between all levels of public authority, NGOs, the private sector and everybody involved require resources. And it is unfortunate that, when local authorities in this country are being starved of resources by the Government, they are required to undertake extra responsibilities in the environmental field.
I have some specific points on which I should like the Minister's view. Some of them, I accept, may not be very attractive to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. First, I suggest that the Government should move to a position whereby each directorate inside the Commission—each and every directorate, not just that dealing with environmental affairs—should have an environmental unit to monitor and influence the policies of that directorate.
Secondly, I believe that the key to a lot of what we are talking about is in increased efficiency in the use of energy. There is no sign at the moment of a national programme. We have argued endlessly in this House for a national programme for energy efficiency. We find that expenditure by government departments on energy efficiency is now falling.
Thirdly, we should like to see the legislation which would implement the habitats directive introduced as soon as possible. We believe that that will be a strong measure which will improve our environmental situation.
Fourthly, I ask the Minister whether the Government have done any work—if so, what is the result?—on new economic indicators to measure environmental "diseconomies" as suggested by the fifth environment action programme: resource depletion; pollution, etc. What progress has the Government made?
Lastly, can the Government explain how they see the economic inducements which we are told by the Minister in another place are to be the important way of implementing the fifth environment action programme? I would certainly argue that if one of the economic inducements is the use of the non-fossil fuel levy for energy conservation, that would be a useful economic inducement. But to rely simply on market forces—which appears to be the implication, unless the noble Lord can tell me otherwise—seems to be somewhat less than adequate.
The two reports are excellent. They have taken the debate on the environment somewhat further forward. In the end, these two reports come together. Progress will be made only as a result of the proper enforcement of practical measures. Economic forces may help, but they are no substitute for a properly organised system of regulation and control. That is the principle that we on these Benches believe in. That is the principle we expect to hear spelt out by the Minister.
6.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for introducing the debate. I congratulate him and his sub-committee on producing two typically comprehensive and thoughtful reports. I should also like to congratulate our two maiden speakers; first, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who made some very interesting points and offered some good ideas about environmental litigation and the need for an environmental tribunal. I shall draw these ideas to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Similarly, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Portland, on a first-class maiden speech on the environment, on coming out and talking about wearing our green hats. I hope that the noble Earl agrees that in this debate many noble Lords have displayed their green hats.
I am also grateful to other noble Lords for their contributions and for the letters I have received over the course of the past few days, giving me notice of some of their questions. I have been asked many questions during the course of today and I do not pretend to be able to answer them all. I would also like to agree at the outset with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that it is about time that this House had an environment debate. It has been a good one. I also agree with him that the reports are excellent.
As the Government's response to the report on implementation and enforcement made clear, we very much welcome the committee's views. I can also say that our response to the report on integration and the fifth action programme will be equally welcoming. Both reports address themes to which we attached particular importance—as we did during the UK's presidency of the Environment Council—and aided us as we tackled those themes. In both areas, we made significant progress.
Let me turn first to the report on implementation and enforcement. It offers conclusions and recommendations with which the Government largely agree. But these are not only directed towards the Government. Many of its finding apply as much to the European Commission and to other member states. The Government have therefore taken every opportunity to bring the committee's report to the attention of other interested parties. I can tell the House that it has been well received.
The Government share the committee's view that the effectiveness with which Community environmental law is implemented and enforced is an issue of great importance, and one which does not currently enjoy the priority that it deserves. Action must be taken to ensure that the law is applied more effectively. But to do so we must also remain aware of why member states sometimes have difficulty in putting Community law into practice. The committee's report identifies a number of important reasons, such as the quality of the legislation and particular national administrative systems as well as simply inadequate enforcement.
The Government's experience in implementing legislation bears out the committee's conclusion that
1006
sometimes problems arise from the legislation, in part as a result of the inevitable political bargaining which forms part of the EC's negotiating process. The Government therefore support the committee's call for improved clarity and greater involvement of legal draftsmen in the early stages of preparing legislation. We should also like to see difficulties of interpretation that are thrown up by existing legislation systematically taken into account in future legislation.
At Edinburgh the European Council took steps to improve the situation by adopting a declaration on openness and transparency. Among other matters, that aims to simplify and improve access to Community legislation, for example, by drawing up criteria against which the quality of drafting of legislation should be checked, by involving the Council legal services on a more regular basis in reviewing draft legislative acts, and by improving the consolidation and codification of Community legislation. Those are welcome developments. Other elements of the Edinburgh declaration on openness will contribute to improved public access to the Community, an area on which your Lordships' committee commented in its second report.
The Government entirely agree that there should be wider consultation on Commission proposals and that the consultation should preferably take place before the Commission's original proposal is published. I am pleased that the Commission has accepted that point and has pledged to increase its use of green papers.
We share the committee's concern that the quality of environmental legislation is frequently affected because the proposal is developed on the basis of inaccurate and inconsistent data. We hope that the early establishment of the European Environment Agency and the implementation of the Standardised Reporting Directive will help to remedy that situation. I will return to that subject in a moment.
While poor quality legislation may be difficult to enforce, it does not excuse non-compliance. A number of member states do not devote enough resources to enforcing the law. That widespread problem is not at present given the amount of attention that it merits, either at national or Community level.
The United Kingdom has regularly called for more effective enforcement of Community environment law. Our presidency allowed us to seize a prime opportunity to move forward. In doing so we took careful account of the views and recommendations in the Committee's report. There were four principal elements to our package: more political attention; improved enforcement; validation of enforcement performance; and more accurate data on which to base legislation and analysis of enforcement performance.
First, my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for the Environment persuaded the Commissioner to produce a report on implementation and enforcement for Council. That was discussed in December and the Council agreed that the Commission should henceforward produce an annual report on implementation for Council discussion. That is an important step forward. For too long the Council of Ministers has been viewed primarily as a

1007
forum for discussing new legislation; it must also take time to step back and evaluate the effectiveness of existing measures.
Secondly, we followed up a recommendation of the Amsterdam Informal Council in 1991 for the establishment of a mechanism for contact between national enforcement agencies. We agreed to host the first meeting of such a network in Chester in November. Representatives from the Commission and from enforcement agencies from all member states attended that extremely successful event. It was agreed that the network should be set up on a permanent basis, and Denmark offered to host the next meeting during its presidency. A future work programme was also agreed and is now well in hand.
Thirdly, we have continued to press for the establishment of a mechanism at Community level to validate the enforcement performance of the authorities in the member states. I was grateful for the committee's endorsement of our proposal for a so-called "audit inspectorate". We believe that such an organisation could play a valuable role. It would lead to an increase in the amount of consistent data that was available on the application of EC environment law and should increase confidence in the performance of the national authorities. The response from other member states and the commission has so far been mixed, but we will continue to promote the idea at every possible opportunity.
Fourthly, we have sought to take forward mechanisms to improve the quality of available data on which new legislative proposals can be based. The United Kingdom has always been fully supportive of the standardised reporting directive, and expects this to prove a useful tool in future. However, more urgently, the Community needs the proposed European Environment Agency to be set up. The committee's second report also made clear the importance which your Lordships attach to that point.
I well understand the widespread dissatisfaction with the Community's failure to agree on a site. The noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Nathan, asked specifically about progress. The Government made strenuous efforts during the presidency to secure agreement. Although it proved impossible, there is every indication that the main obstacles have now been removed following the agreement on the sites of certain other Community institutions at Edinburgh, and agreement should be possible under the Danish presidency. In the meantime, we worked closely with the Commission to identify tasks which could usefully be set in hand to anticipate the future work and needs of the agency. The Commission has now called a meeting of high level national representatives on 9th February to take that matter forward.
There has been a significant debate throughout the Community over the last year in regard to the interaction between the principle of subsidiarity and the means of delivering effective enforcement of Community legislation. The Government fully endorse the Committee's view that subsidiarity must not be used as an excuse to reduce vigilance on
1008
enforcement. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made that view clear throughout his term as President.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, argued that the Commission or the European Environment Agency should have the right, as in the competition sector, to take direct enforcement action against individual undertakings which breach environment law. The Community as a whole and the Commission, as guardian of the law, have a clear interest in the outcome of the national enforcement process. However, we believe that the application of the law should rightly be left to the member states so that it can adequately reflect national legal and administrative structures and decisions.
Our proposal for an audit inspectorate would complement the subsidiarity principle. By increasing the information that is readily available about the enforcement record of member states, it should in time increase confidence in the ability of national authorities to do the job effectively. It should also reduce the pressure for any centralised form of inspectorate, which, especially in an enlarged community, will prove impractical.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan that we retain an open mind as to the future relationship between an audit inspectorate, if it is established, and the European Environment Agency.
In sum, the Government have been encouraged by the progress that has been made. But however effective the measures I have described, implementation and enforcement will only really be improved when there is real political will in each member state to do so.
Let me now turn to the committee's second report, on the 5th action programme, and more specifically the question of the integration of environmental concerns into other policies. The Government warmly welcome the report. As the report notes, the 5th action programme covers an enormous range as it sets out the broad strategy for the Community's environmental policy until the end of the century.
Among the many issues that are addressed by the programme, the committee rightly highlighted the question of integration as an area that is crucial to the implementation of the programme and to the achievement of the Community's environmental protection objectives. The Government fully endorse the committee's assessment of the importance of integration and agree that, while there has been some progress in that area in recent years, more needs to be done.
For that reason, we chose to make integration the second key theme of our presidency. We also made particular efforts to ensure that environmental issues were addressed in other areas. In the event, no less than eight different councils during the UK presidency discussed environmental issues, and the presidency organised or supported a number of special conferences which related to integration.
The action programme addresses only broad objectives and gives little detail of how the objective of enhanced integration is to be achieved. There have been some positive developments over recent years, but more needs to be done to facilitate greater

1009
horizontal co-ordination. The creation of the new post of environmental co-ordinator in the Secretariat-General of the Commission is a welcome initiative and the Government look forward to seeing the practical benefits of that appointment. However, as the committee has reported, the Commission has pursued an essentially ad hoc approach. We agree that a more structured approach to administrative reform is needed.
That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when he asked me if I agreed that we should introduce a greater environmental network in all directorates of the Commission. I am pleased to tell him that we do.
As the committee acknowledges, in the UK we have introduced new systems and procedures in the wake of the 1990 White Paper This Common Inheritance. The Government are grateful for the committee's view that those could provide a model for enhancing integration in the Community. We therefore welcome the committee's suggestions for possible structural proposals within the Commission, based on the UK experience. Many of them featured in the conclusions of the Informal Environment Council held at Gleneagles in September, which are reproduced at Appendix 3 of the report.
Greater integration is a desirable objective in itself, but the Maastricht Treaty will also require greater efforts. The language of the Single European Act has been strengthened to impose a new obligation that,
"environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies".
The Government entirely share the committee's view that the concept of integration does not detract from the principle of subsidiarity, or indeed vice versa. Subsidiarity determines the level at which action is most appropriate. Integration should be an essential element of policy-making at whatever level it takes place.
Perhaps I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, that the Government are not singling out the environment in the debate on subsidiarity. The principle applies to all Community policies. The environment is not exempt. We are determined that the application of subsidiarity will not lead to an overall lowering of standards.
The Government have noted the committee's view that environmental factors have frequently been ignored in Community action. We share that concern. The recent report of the Court of Auditors is germane in that context. It is quite critical of many aspects of the Community's environmental policy, including the frequent failure to take environmental considerations properly into account in projects receiving Community support through the structural funds, as was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord McNair. The present structural funds regulations do not go far enough. When changes to the structural funds regulations are discussed during the course of 1993, the Government will be seeking closer integration between Community environmental policy and the structural funds, as we shall for the new cohesion fund.
1010
A further success for the presidency was the adoption by the Environment Council in December of a resolution on the fifth action programme. Building on some of the ideas canvassed by the committee, we wrote into the text a request to the Commission to consider and report in due course on initiatives to improve the integration of environmental concerns into other policy areas. We look forward to the outcome of the Commission's studies.
The committee's report raises a number of other issues besides integration. I have already mentioned both the environment agency and openness. My noble friend Lord Norrie asked about a directive on environmental assessment for policies, plans and programmes. As yet, the Commission has made no formal proposal. It clearly recognises the potential difficulties, including issues of subsidiarity. We shall of course consider whatever proposals may eventually be tabled. The Government are fully committed to integration. But we do not accept that it is practicable for the Community to establish detailed prescriptive procedures to be applied on a uniform basis across all member states. They have widely differing administrative practices and constitutional traditions. The formulation of policy is an iterative process which does not readily lend itself to a single procedure for environmental assessment as does planning for a specific project.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked how the Government intended to publicise the environmental information regulation to the general public. We consulted widely in regard to how best to give effect to the regulations. Implementation, of course, will have implications for both central and local government. It is important that the regulations are made available and acted upon in the UK as in the rest of the Community.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch discussed the problems of the habitat directive and the advisory committee in the Scottish Natural Heritage Act. I thank my noble friend for his kindness in singling me out for praise. Of course it was a team effort and a measure that was supported by the whole House. With regard to his substantive point, we do not envisage that the legislative and other measures needed to implement the habitat's directive in the UK will have any impact on the advisory committee on SSSIs established in Scotland. We intend that any sites notified as being of Community importance will already have been notified as SSSIs before being given the additional designation of special area of conservation under the directive. Thus the arrangement set out in Section 12 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 will continue as at present.
I feel also that my noble friend Lord Pearson was given a bit of a hard time by some noble Lords. My noble friend's record on environmental matters is excellent. He has been a great propagator of environmental standards in his personal life and that is to be greatly encouraged.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, perhaps I can say that we are considering with the nature conservation agencies how that directive should be implemented in the United

1011
Kingdom. We hope to come up with some views shortly. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked what measures the Government should introduce to prevent sites from falling into neglect or deterioration due to lack of management. The planning policy guidance note on nature conservation will be issued shortly. It will give guidance on how the Government's policies for the conservation of the natural environment are to be reflected in land use planning. I hope that that will go some way to answering the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked how we were coming along with our study of the use of economic instruments. I agree that economic instruments will complement regulation. Such instruments will not amount simply to market forces. For example, the Community is discussing a carbon energy tax and the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment recommended that we should have a waste landfill levy. I recognise that there is still a great deal of work to do on the use of economic instruments. However, I hope that what I have said will please the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
In conclusion, we can be proud of the progress made under the UK presidency on both issues we have debated today. But we recognise that we have only made a start. We need to keep up the pressure for action in Brussels. That we shall certainly do, and we shall look to future presidencies to carry on in the same vein. The committee's thoughtful reports will be most valuable to us as we seek to make progress. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I am grateful for the full review the Minister gave to all the points made in the debate. I, and I am sure others, look forward to reading what he said. It was difficult to take it all in as he was speaking.
My function at this stage, and I do it with the greatest pleasure, is to express my thanks to those speakers—I believe all of them—who made extremely kind remarks regarding the reports which were the subject of the debate. I express also my great appreciation for the remarks made in regard to myself and the chairmanship which I have so much enjoyed over the years.
Much has been said in regard to the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf. I agree with everything that was said in his praise. I would only add that I feel how right I was to invite him to give that Garner lecture, which was the reason why he applied his great mind to the question of an environmental tribunal which has now matured and has featured so much in the debate. I echo the remarks from all quarters of the House about the excellence of his maiden speech.
I was very impressed too by the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Portland, because in the committee and in the studies we were very much concerned with legalities and administrative procedures. Those are clearly of great importance. Neither can do more than provide a framework within
1012
which an environmental policy can evolve and work. But behind that there must be inspiration and motivation to pursue an environmental policy which laws by themselves cannot provide. The noble Earl's speech addressed that point which is of the greatest underlying importance. We are grateful to him for that.
It is curious that when I first began the sub-committee was lower in the alphabet. We have been climbing up the alphabet ever since. We started as G, the reports produced were under F and it is now C, so Heaven knows where we shall end up. It is naturally a matter of regret to me that the committee as it was constituted is no longer to be, at any rate for the time being, but I am sure that under its new chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, it will do admirable work.
The two reports before your Lordships today are, as will have been noticed, of an entirely different character. That on implementation and enforcement was prepared over a period of some four months or so. It went into matters in some detail. It is quite long and quite a substantial amount of evidence was published with it. It is, if one likes, a more relaxed report than the other. On the other hand, it went into matters in far greater detail. The report on integration was prepared in considerable haste in order to meet the requirements of the UK Presidency and to be of assistance in that context. It was therefore a short report, with only a little evidence taken in the context of the very large subject which was addressed. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to express the hope that the recommendation which was made to your Lordships on another occasion that our reports should all be short and sharp is an excellent notion but it should not deprive the House in the future of carefully considered and full reports which have featured hitherto. That would be a pity.
This is an unusual debate on a Select Committee report given that the speakers were not drawn largely from members of the sub-committee carrying out the study. We certainly had ample representation, but I think it is a very good idea that other Members of your Lordships' House should play a full part on these occasions. I am grateful to all those who participated in the debate.
Finally, perhaps I may refer to the chairmanship which I have had the pleasure and honour of holding for quite a number of years. The membership of the committee has been perhaps the most powerful I have encountered. We had a very agreeable relationship among ourselves. It is one of the matters to which perhaps your Lordships' House might wish to give some consideration to ensure that committees of this kind secure the quality of membership which certainly we enjoyed and which lay behind the reports which have received such kind comments.
My duty now is to return to the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which I commend to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environmental Action Programme: ECC Report
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg formally to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Fifth Environmental Action Programme: Integration of Community Policies [8th Report, H.L. Paper 27].—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Video Recordings Bill [H.L.]
6.35 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In doing so I utter the hope that your Lordships will find, as I do, that this measure is simple, effective and quite uncontroversial. Perhaps I should begin by declaring my position in the matter. I am a vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification. The British Board of Film Classification is the body responsible for classifying videos, as indeed it is in a non-statutory way in classifying films. The noble Earl, Lord Harewood, is the president of the board. Monica Sims and myself are the two vice-presidents. We three are those nominated under the Act to govern the operations of the British Board of Film Classification and therefore in some measure are responsible for the good working of the Video Recordings Act itself.
That Act was introduced, it is often supposed, mainly to cope with the problem of the video nasties which were prevalent at the time; and indeed I think it has been effective, since those video nasties are no longer to be found in the market-place. But it was not entirely for that purpose that the Act was introduced. It introduced a system of classification which was intended to be a help both to the trade and to the public. Your Lordships will be well aware of the classifications that are involved. There is "U" for universal, which means that the video can be available to anybody. There is "PG", which means parental guidance. It can still be available to everybody but it is a warning to parents, particularly in relation to very young children, that there may be things in it which might worry them and they should have a look first. Then there is "15", which clearly means that it must not be supplied either for hire or for sale to people under the age of 15, and "18", which means the same thing in relation to the age of 18. Nowadays, in fairly rare cases, there is "18R", which means restricted and that it is to be supplied only in licensed sex shops.
The Video Recordings Act set up quite a formidable series of regulations to run this system. It is fair to say that the three most important to the Bill we are considering today are, first, that every video which is supplied to the trade or, most importantly of course, to the public must have a certificate from the British Board of Film Classification. It must carry that certificate and it is illegal to supply for sale or for hire
1014
any video which does not have a certificate on it. It is also illegal to supply ones that have "15" or "18" upon them to people below those ages. Thirdly, there is a complicated series of regulations stipulating that the video itself and the case it comes in must carry the standard label which proclaims what classification has been awarded.
The video industry, by and large, has been both conscientious and assiduous in following those guidelines and regulations and in manipulating its trade in accordance with them. Indeed the industry has done a great deal to educate its members and the public in that respect. The setting up of the Video Standards Council has been particularly helpful in that regard. But it makes it all the more galling when one finds a few individuals who deliberately flout the law, most obviously those who trade in videos that have no certificate at all.
In some cases that is because the videos are of a nature so pornographic or so full of intolerable violence that those people recognise perfectly well that they would not be given a certificate by the British Board of Film Classification and they have therefore not even been submitted. In some cases it is merely meanness or the thought that they will get away with it that enables them to do that. In some cases videos are altered. Cuts are made and the videos are given a certificate, either a "15" or an "18", with recommendations as to what level of violence would be acceptable. Then one discovers that they are on the market with the cuts restored and in quite a different version from that which was certificated.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that absence of prosecution or difficulties in prosecution encourage people to behave in that way and to flout the law. The Bill before your Lordships' House this evening does two quite simple things to remove the inhibitions on prosecutions in those cases. The first involves Sections 1 and 3 and Section 4 which bring the Scottish law into line with other law in respect of Sections 1 and 3. Perhaps I may therefore take Sections 1, 3 and 4 together. They deal with the certificates of evidence that are required for a prosecution to be undertaken. Those certificates of evidence are invariably asked of the BBFC, that being the only board with the expertise to provide them. However, for the certificate to be valid, present legislation states that not only must every video seized in a prosecution and therefore in the dock as it were be examined against all the BBFC's records, but every single one must be viewed. In a case in which 300 unmarked, unclassified videos are seized, each of which is two hours long, the requirement that every one shall be viewed is impossible to implement. It means 600 hours of viewing, which is plainly impossible for the BBFC to undertake. Often two or three videos are seen, certificates of evidence are provided and the other 297 or 298 are effectively sent back when the prosecution ends. That is plainly a totally ineffective way of proceeding in terms of prosecutions.
The Bill proposes that each video has assigned to it by the BBFC a unique title and number. Indeed, that is already the case, but the Bill provides that a register must be retained of those titles and numbers. A

1015
certificate of evidence will be sufficient if the video concerned has been checked against that register and the title appears on the list.
If the matter in question is whether a video has been altered, it will have to be examined in order to discover the differences between what is in our file and what is on sale to the public. However, that involves the minority of cases and in most cases an enormous amount of time will be saved by this simple and, as far as I can see, foolproof procedure. It will be open to a trader who is prosecuted under the legislation to maintain that the record is wrong or that the title has been altered. If that proves to be the case, all well and good. I suspect that such a defence will be offered only rarely because the cases with which we are dealing are not of the kind in which such a defence is tenable. This will have a great effect on the number and effectiveness of prosecutions against the kind of people to whom I have referred.
The second matter with which the Bill deals falls under Clause 2 relating to the time limit available for prosecutions. Under the Video Recordings Act prosecutions are only triable in magistrates' courts. Under Section 127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 the relevant information must be laid within six months of an offence being committed. The investigations into these cases are often very complicated, sometimes involving many visits to the traders concerned. As I have explained, the works have to be submitted to the BBFC for certificates of evidence. Sometimes local authorities have to be consulted before prosecutions can be authorised. All those things add up to a considerable delay. Some prosecutions have been well justified and would probably have been successful had the time limit not expired.
The Bill proposes that the time limit be changed to three years from the commission of an offence or one year from its discovery by the prosecuting authority, whichever is the earlier. That effectively means that no trader will have to wait more than one year before knowing whether he will be prosecuted. It also helps to dispose of prosecutions that would otherwise be so ancient as to put the memory of witnesses beyond credence. I am well aware that one should be careful about legislation involving too long a time limit in these matters. People should not be asked to wait too long before knowing their fate. I believe that the proposals are a decent compromise between those cares to which I have referred and the need for a reasonable time available for prosecution.
These two measures will be extremely helpful in bringing to justice those people who deliberately abuse a system which I think it is fair to say is, by and large, universally respected and recognised. I hope the Bill will bring what is already a pretty effective system one step nearer to being universally effective. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Birkett.)
6.47 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, but before I deal with the Bill I should like to say in passing that I understand that the noble Lord's learned father started his law practice in Birmingham where I come from. I should like him to know how much his father was admired and respected for his judicial service on the Midlands Circuit.
Although I support the Bill, I believe that it omits a vital yet straightforward clause which now stands in many statutes relating to consumer protection. Although trading standards authorities can avail themselves of general powers under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to assist in controls on video recordings, this piece of legislation contains no bypass procedure enabling authorities to prosecute companies outside their own administrative boundary, but which cause offence within their administrative boundary. As the noble Lord said, the omission of a bypass procedure creates difficulties and delays which we must avoid if possible.
The bypass procedure is commonplace in consumer protection legislation. Under the procedure the original wrongdoer can be brought to book where he has caused another to commit an offence. I feel sure that that proposal will enjoy the support of the House. If one is to put a Bill of this description into order, one must go to the root of the evil.
The omission of this provision from the Act has unfortunate repercussions in the hands of the local authorities. Perhaps I may give an example: should a trading standards officer, say in Birmingham, find that a local business has been selling unclassified videos, under the law he can take the trader to court. However, if the trading standards officer is of the opinion, after investigation, that the local businessman was misled by the supplier in London and did not know that he was doing anything wrong, then the picture is somewhat different. Without the bypass the trading standards department in Birmingham would be unable to prosecute the supplier in London because, as I have said, the offence would have been committed outside the jurisdiction of the local authority boundary.
Therefore, under the Bill as it has been brought forward today, there will only be the option of taking action against the local trader even though that individual may have obtained the videos in good faith. Alternatively, London has to be asked about the matter. Obviously, two authorities investigating the same offence is an ineffective use of scarce enforcement resources. I am sure that the Government would not want to think that any local authority was wasting any of its resources.
How much more sensible it would be to have a bypass clause enabling just one authority to investigate the offence and, where necessary, to pursue it along the distributive chain to the original wrongdoer. That arrangement is both effective and economical. It has been shown to work in connection with a whole range of consumer protection measures. In view of the difficulties, there would seem to be considerable merit in introducing a bypass procedure

1017
into the video recordings legislation thereby enabling all authorities to carry investigations through to their logical end. As I said, that means a more efficient use of enforcement resources and it will assist those retailers who have obtained non-complying works in good faith.
The inclusion of a bypass provision imposes no further burdens on businesses and nor does it introduce any new controls; it simply facilitates effective enforcement by local authorities. Indeed, such inclusion would perhaps in the long run reduce burdens on legitimate retail and distributive companies and at the same time streamline the legal proceedings. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, will be sympathetic to the intentions behind a possible amendment of the kind I have spoken about.
If the Bill is to be made as effective as possible in improving enforcement, I am convinced that a bypass provision should be incorporated. An amendment introducing the bypass procedure would sit well with the intended aim of the noble Lord's Bill, which is to improve the effectiveness of the Video Recordings Act. The bypass would both promote the efficient use of enforcement resources, assist those retailers who have obtained non-complying videos in good faith, and increase the likelihood of bringing the real culprits before the courts.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I welcome the arrival of this Bill in your Lordships' House and the work done for it by its promoter in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. I do so with a particular nostalgic relish because it carries forward a little further the work of the Act which it amends which was so firmly and effectively piloted through this House by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and for which, as a Minister at the Home Office, I had overall responsibility. It is a great pity that the noble Lord cannot be here. I hope that your Lordships who will remember the courtesy, effectiveness and lucidity of his contribution on this and many other subjects over many years, will use the columns of Hansard to join me in wishing him well.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Act of that day was designed to protect the public, and particularly the young members of it, from the violence and filth which sections of the trade were at that time promoting. Some of your Lordships will remember the revulsion which many of us felt when we were shown, under arrangements made by my noble friend, some examples of this material, images from which still, I regret, haunt my memory.
My noble friend's Act was successful and I am sorry that he is not here. That success depended of course not only on the drafting but on the implementation. The industry should be complimented on its response to that. That has been formulated for the most part by three organisations within it: the Video Trade Association, which through its family code has done much to encourage shops to cater for families and children; the Video Standards Council,
1018
which has drawn up a code of practice and endorsed reputable dealers; and the Video Consultative Council, formed in response to a Home Office initiative, which monitors the operation of the Act.
Presiding over that generally welcome response, and exercising a very considerable influence over it from outside, there has been the Board of British Film Classification over which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, in turn at least partially presides. And above even that, in a quasi-judicial, but absolutely crucial position for the maintenance of standards, is the Video Appeals Committee.
While we should all welcome the way in which, under this Act, the industry and the board put a lid on the sort of "video nasties" that gave rise to it, we do need to consider the trends that have developed since in the areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, referred; namely, the protection and guidance of the public. About that I believe that we cannot afford to be entirely complacent. They broadly suggest that the proposals in the Bill to facilitate prosecutions are needed. I should point out that the role of the board in this is no longer, as its title suggests, a minority function of a body primarily concerned with the big screen. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the fact to be that over 70 per cent. of its income is derived from video classification. The function we are addressing is therefore the central function of the board.
The development of the trend started in 1991 when the board began to classify with an 18 certificate works with explicit sexual scenes for educational purposes. I believe that at the time the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, felt that they should fall outside the provisions of legislation, but they are within it. I understand that it would have been difficult to withhold a certificate from such products altogether.
Since then over 100 videos have been certified in this new sex education genre and the board itself reports that items of this sort captured the best-seller slot in the autumn of 1991. I also understand that the explicit scenes in the first batch included masturbation and oral sex. One has to ask whether certificates that permitted the sale of such material by W.H. Smith were entirely appropriate given the fact that in any such genre the tendency is never to stay still but to seek to move the boundaries, which its proponents always call "frontiers", in a direction which they always call "forward", but which many of us believe to be "down".
The board is the guardian of those lines of demarcation which have a decisive effect not just on the entertainment of literally millions of people, but on their perceptions of, attitudes to, behaviour towards, and treatment of, individuals of the opposite sex. Common sense and the volume of sales and hirings suggests that these videos are used not only —probably not even primarily—for their declared educational purpose. That might not be a matter for your Lordships' concern. Times change and your Lordships may ask who are we to trouble ourselves with a little private titillation. Surely prudery has no place in legislation.

1019
But the material of which I am speaking is reported to be material similar to that which the Obscene Publications Squad at Scotland Yard has prosecuted in the past. On page 14 of its annual report for 1991, the board itself draws attention to the pressure being put on it by the producers of admittedly pornographic material to give an 18 certificate to material fit only for an R18 classification, which means that it is restricted to sale only through a licensed sex shop. The producers' motivation, it says, is the decline in the number of such licensed outlets. Your Lordships should note with care, and possibly surprise, that the support afforded by three decisions of the video appeal committee, overturning awards by the board of R18 certificates on the grounds that they amounted to a restriction of trade because of the reduced number of outlets. That is how I read page 14 of the board's annual report.
There is an irony in this. I can think of only two interpretations of the phenomenon. Either the market is rejecting the offerings of the licensed sex shops, including R18 videos, or the local authorities are rejecting them. If the market is rejecting them, it is not part of the remit of the board to adjust the market in their favour, and still less of the committee to force it to do so. If, on the other hand—and this is more likely—society is rejecting them and is expressing that rejection through the decisions of the local licensing authority, we would expect —would we not?—that the regulatory authority would be on the side of the public, not of the producer. It can be no part of the business of the board—still less of the committee—to manipulate the system so as to reduce the protection of the public and to make it more rewardingly exploitable by the producers of this material.
Our intention when we passed the Act was not to secure profit to the producers of sexually explicit or violent videos. It was to protect the public from exploitation (and in some cases corruption by the exploitation) by those who produce such material. Our concern was especially for the young. We really must consider, therefore, whether the board and the committee are effectively implementing the wishes of this House and another place. I reminded your Lordships when the Act was passed, and I remind your Lordships and the board again, that it is not necessary that this guardianship should always be entrusted to the same bodies. That function can be discharged by others, and if the board falls short in its trusteeship your Lordships may decide that a change should be made. I am perhaps taking an extreme case, but we must always consider what the statute was framed for. In making that consideration, we will do well to remember not only the board's sensible conclusion that every image should be considered in its context, but also its much more startling conclusion on page 9 that,
"no image is taboo per se".
General reaction to recent advertisements by United Colours of Benetton suggests to me that even if this is the view of lawyers, it is not the view of the British public.
1020
I suggest to the Minister that his department should undertake a review of the maintenance of standards of classification by the board and of the influence upon it by the appeals committee. In the light of that review, he should give guidance and, after a period, consider whether it is discharging its functions satisfactorily. If it is not, the remedy lies in Section 4(4) and both the board and the committee should be aware of it.
In the context of that anxiety, I strongly hope that such guidance will be adhered to by the board and the committee. I should add that, in most respects, I admire their work. I hope that I do not sound intemperate in so speaking, but I believe that this is a very important matter. In the context of that anxiety, I feel that we need to address separately the protection given to children under the Act so that something can be done before such a review takes place. That protection seems incomplete in three respects. First, there is nothing in law to prevent unsuitable promotional excerpts from 15 or 18 classification videos being run unsupervised in shops where children can see them.
Secondly, there is nothing in law to prevent 15 and 18 videos being shown in public places to younger children whom the classification was expressly designed to protect. Irresponsible adults do, in fact, permit showings of very violent films in the upper end of this category to audiences which include children of seven and eight.
Thirdly, the law does not prevent people under 18 working as assistants in video shops where they come under peer-group pressure to release 18 classification videos to 15 year-olds and younger. There is a direct analogy here with the licensing for sale of alcoholic drinks, where the law prohibits the employment of people under 18 from selling what they may not legally buy. The same rule should, in my view, apply here too.
The Long Title does seem to admit of amendments to address those ills and remedy them. I shall be looking for draft amendments to do so from the Christian Action Research and Education Trust and, if they prove appropriate, I shall seek to bring them to your Lordships for your consideration and, perhaps, your approval.
The Bill also appears to admit amendments on the lines proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, as bypass provisions. As an honorary life vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration—I believe that the noble Baroness holds a similar position, but I may be wrong—I have seen its argument in their defence. At first glance, what the noble Baroness has said appears persuasive and I shall listen carefully to the Minister to see whether that is acceptable. I shall listen also to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, in a similar frame of mind.
On the wider issue of the maintenance of suitable standards by the board, I await with great interest the response of my noble friend the Minister. I also await, with apologies for not giving him notice, his reply to these questions. I shall understand if he replies later in writing. Can my noble friend say how the enforcement of the Act is going? And is it the case that the police can prosecute only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions? That was a proposal by the noble

1021
Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I do not know whether to say that I am heartened or rendered anxious by the sight of him sitting in his usual place because I remember the considerable cogency and, if I may say so, the considerable length of his interventions in our proceedings on the substantive Bill. It is always a pleasure to hear the noble Lord. I felt that even at the end of that debate. Although I do not encourage him to add his name to a list of speakers which is already complete, nonetheless he is very welcome. I hope that that does not sound patronising. It was meant to sound friendly!
I have referred to a proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, which I resisted in 1984 on Home Office advice. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the police are content that all videos being classified are within the obscenity test of the 1959 Act, vague though it is? I am grateful to your Lordships for your patience, and to the noble Lord for his Bill.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, which seeks to amend the Video Recordings Act 1984. I rise also to give notice of my intention to table an amendment at a later stage. Similar notice was also given earlier by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, a moment ago.
When the legislation was first put before the other place and this House, it was a matter for the Home Office. It never crossed my path in my days either as a junior Minister or as Home Secretary. Nevertheless, this Bill enables me to ask a question that I have thought about often during the three years since becoming president of the Video Standards Council. We are interested in what the Home Office says about the Bill and, as I shall reveal in a moment, from time to time we make a purely voluntary report to the Home Office. I understand that the Department of the Environment has a role, but I am not quite sure how, and the Department of Trade and Industry certainly has a role in this. Therefore, I wonder which department is in charge. I shall refer in a moment to the work of the trading standards officers, which seems rather different from the work of the police who report to the Home Office, or to the work of the fire service which also reports to the Home Office. If someone reports to two or three different places, who reads that report? Who says, "Is this Act working? Should we make changes? Are we doing enough for the trading standards officers?" I shall be interested to know how the co-ordination takes place.
As I have said, I am president of the Video Standards Council and must therefore declare an interest. Since becoming president, with every month I have learnt more about what goes on with the sale of videograms. It has excited my interest. One important point to bring to your Lordships' notice is that the Video Standards Council is funded by the producers of videograms, the distributors and the retailers. About 90 per cent. of all those involved are members of the VSC. There is interest outside of government to
1022
ensure that the Act is properly enforced and that standards are maintained. People are concerned to improve standards. Age-restricted titles have been dealt with. There is piracy, although that is not directly its concern. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned a code of practice, and perhaps I may return to that point in a moment.
Members of the VSC are members of the Video Advertising Review Committee. It is important to take into account the advertising on the sleeves of the videograms. They are members of the Packaging Committee and the Video Consultative Council which works with the BBFC.
As I said, the council produces a report, and we are in the process of writing one now which will be brought to the notice of the Home Secretary. There should be communication between the various government departments. Trading standards officers are worried about a number of matters. The council publishes its own training video. It has its own version—I cannot use a stronger word—of the Act. Those involved in the video industry can read it. It helps them to carry out their job properly.
Referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, we have also set up a Video Consultative Committee. It has representatives from the Mothers' Union, the Salvation Army, the Womens' Institute, boys' clubs, the Evangelical Alliance, and a headmaster of a comprehensive school in Kent. I am a member of the committee. Once every quarter we listen to people from outside the industry talking about the issues and problems, some of which we put to them and some of which they bring to our notice. All are interested to see that video is presented responsibly. That it why I and the VSC support the Bill. The Bill deals with an extension of time limits and changes some evidential matters.
I understand that trading standards officers support the Bill, as my noble friend said. The two occasions that I have been out with trading standards officers made me realise what a difficult job we ask them to undertake. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland going out at night on patrol with the Army made me aware of matters about security policy which, sitting in my room at Stormont, never crossed my mind. Going out with trading standards officers in north Kensington made me realise some of the problems that they face. It is a difficult job. They are understaffed. They have a variety of other jobs to do. I wonder whether enough is done to help them do their job. It is not enough to have an Act of Parliament, a Bill to amend it and suggestions for other amendments, if they are not properly enforced.
I wish to give notice that I shall bring forward an amendment. There will be plenty of time to develop the issue in Committee. It is on a theme similar to that which will be proposed by my noble friend Lady Fisher although in a different context. We believe that there is a need for "due diligence" defence in the field of video as there is in relation to the sale of other consumer goods. The due diligence defence should apply to the sale of age-restricted video titles to those

1023
below a specified age. I shall put down an amendment to that effect. It is supported by the British Retail Consortium and trading standards officers.
I wonder whether people realise the difficulties involved. Section 11 of the Video Recordings Act is different from the provision in the Trade Descriptions Act, the Consumer Credit Act, the Weights and Measures Act, the Consumer Protection Act, and the Food Safety Act. Why should it be different when one sells videograms? In general, those Acts provide that it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence by himself or by a person under his control. That is not so with the sale of videos. It is especially a problem for a limited company. Such a company can be prosecuted despite having no knowledge of the transaction and having made all efforts to ensure that staff are trained properly and fully conversant with the law. That is why VSC provides a training guide as well as a video film. I have a document which is used by Woolworth, W. H. Smith, HMV and Our Price, which are all large dealers. I shall quote some of the guidance contained:
"All staff to be made aware of the law relating to video with particular reference to age-restricted video titles … It should be made clear that the supply of an age-restricted title to an under-age person is a criminal offence and that breach of the law can result in the member of staff and/or the company being prosecuted".
It develops the guidance and states:
"All staff to be regularly reminded of the law relating to video … The system for reminding staff can vary from verbal reminders to the inclusion of reminders in staff news letters, magazines etc."
It deals with younger members of staff. This is a point that will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It states:
"If members of staff under the age of 18 are permitted to supply a video then even greater care will need to be taken with the instruction and reminder procedure".
The guidance deals with displays, what happens behind the counter, and responsibility.
VSC multiple retail members have agreed to comply with those guidelines and the ITSA and LACOTS have agreed that if that guidance is complied with nothing further could reasonably be expected of them. If the distinction implied in the due diligence provision is not recognised, why bother to implement the law? If the distinction is made, it will encourage the rental members of the VSC in particular, and small traders to do their job properly.
In practice court decisions have shown that it is difficult to rely upon statutorily based offences. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked for a resume—that may not have been the word he used—of how the legislation has been implemented over the years. Before the Committee stage is reached perhaps we could be told the nature of offences committed and what has happened about them in the magistrates' courts. The Act was designed to bring these matters before the magistrates' courts. Have many cases been brought? If not, why not? We need some statistics.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the cases which are not brought are equally important because of the arrangements which prevent the police from prosecuting?
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I respond gladly to that point. We need details of cases which were not brought before the courts. I agree with the noble Lord on that point. Members of the video industry bother. I have been astonished at the degree to which they bother. The due diligence defence which I shall propose will be a great help. I have mentioned the trading standards officers and I shall not do so again. I welcome the Bill. I welcome the amendment on the bypass arrangement suggested by my noble friend. That will greatly help trading standards officers. It is important that that amendment and the amendment which will be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, are supported by the Government, and I hope that they will support the amendment that I shall put forward.
7.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I preface my remarks with the usual caveat that, as regards Private Members' Bills, we in the Labour Party do not take an official view. Therefore, anything that I say is a personal view and should not be taken to represent the views of my party.
I recognise from the outset that the Bill so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has been welcomed by all subsequent speakers. But it would be wrong for me to attempt to conceal the fact that when the original legislation was put forward—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has reminded us of this—my noble friends Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Jenkins of Putney and I gave a great deal of grief to the then Minister on the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to my noble friend Lord Mishcon on the Labour Front Bench and above all to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who introduced the measure with his customary courtesy and consideration. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, well and wishing that he could be with us today.
However, I have not changed my position about the original Act. I still believe that we should no more censor videos going into private homes than we should censor books going into private homes. I believe that that is the stage at which censorship should stop. The protection of children, just like the protection of the wives and servants of those who read Lady Chatterley's Lover, can be dealt with by other means. Certainly there should be a prohibition on illegal acts being shown in videos, but I still believe that censorship of the type which is exercised by the British Board of Film Classification is wrong.
It is an Orwellian thought that we started with the British Board of Film Censors, which in fact was a classificatory body because it had no power of censorship. It could not say that something should not be shown at all, and there was a quite separate system of local authority classification. When it ceased to become a classification body, it ceased to be called the

1025
British Board of Film Censors. It became a censorship body and was then called the British Board of Film Classification.
I recognise that the British Board of Film Classification in fact classifies 99 per cent. of all the films shown to it. That is because everybody knows that it is a censorship body and if they have any sense they do not submit videos to it which would he banned. However, I have said all I have to say about the original Act. The Act is there. It achieved the support of Parliament. We have been told by noble Lords —and I have no reason to disbelieve them—that there has been no libertarian outcry against it since it was passed.
As regards the Bill, we must judge the Bill and each amendment case by case. In introducing the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, made a clear and well-informed case for his amendments. It is right that once legislation has been approved by Parliament it should be effective. If the effect of the noble Lord's amendments is agreed by all to be an improvement without changing the original intention of the Bill, no doubt those amendments to the original Act should be carried. The same applies to the amendments to be moved by my noble friends Lady Fisher of Rednal and Lord Merlyn-Rees. They are clearly tidying-up amendments to improve the operation of the Act.
I am rather more nervous about the amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, if he carries out his promise or threat, whichever it may be. He admitted that he was taking advantage of the fact that the Long Title of the Bill simply states that the Bill is to amend the Video Recordings Act. Therefore, any amendment which amends the Act is in order. It sounded to me—I shall suspend final judgment until I see the amendments and hear his arguments for them—as though he was arguing for a considerable extension of the scope of the Act. If so, I hope that the House will feel that a Private Member's Bill of this kind, which is put forward with some justification as being an uncontroversial tidying up of legislation, should not result in a considerable extension to the scope of original legislation. We must wait to see the force and thrust of the amendments to be moved by the noble Lord.
Legislation which has been passed and which has achieved the support of Parliament clearly must be effective. To that extent, we cannot oppose the Bill as it stands. Our personal views about the original Act may be as strong, and, indeed, in my case are as strong, as they ever were but that should not cloud our judgment about the individual amendments.
7.25 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am happy to welcome the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, on behalf of the Government. I am sure your Lordships will agree that we owe a debt to him, not only for his work in introducing this Bill but also for his explanation as one closely involved in the way in which the present system of control over video recordings operates.
The Video Recordings Act, which itself started life as a Private Member's Bill in another place, was needed in order to stamp out the trade in so-called
1026
"video nasties" which accompanied the spread of video recorders in this country. It has largely succeeded in doing this, but there are of course always some who will persist in flouting the law, whether by supplying unclassified videos or by supplying classified videos to those who are too young to rent or purchase them.
It was in order to deal with this minority of disreputable video dealers that the Government made the enforcement of the Video Recordings Act one of the functions of local authority trading standards departments in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. But we agree that the enforcement of the law would be made still more effective by the changes proposed in this Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has explained, the Bill does not alter the system of video classification nor the offences established by the 1984 Act. It simply extends the time limit for commencing proceedings in order to bring it into line with other trading standards and consumer protection legislation. It also simplifies the arrangements by which the British Board of Film Classification is able to give evidence by certificate, and to assist it in that it introduces a system of unique titles for video works.
As my noble friend Lord Elton said, we all miss the presence of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I know that all your Lordships will join me in wishing him well.
My noble friend Lord Elton asked me about a review of the maintenance of standards and guidelines. The Government have no reason to believe that the present arrangements are not working adequately. The Government monitor the workings of the Act continuously. However, we shall consider with the relevant bodies whether there are areas for improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked me about who is in charge and about co-ordination. Of course, the Home Office has a clear responsibility for the Act which is enforced by the police and trading standards officers, both of whom we regularly consult. We are not aware of any problem as regards interdepartmental responsibilities.
My noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked me a number of questions about enforcement, classification and police statistics. I shall write to my noble friend on that and send a copy to other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate so that they too may have that information.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, held a contrary view, but I do not wish to go into that. However, I agree with him that we are not in favour of any amendments which would considerably extend the scope of the Act. We shall look closely at other matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked me about a by-pass provision and due diligence. I am not unsympathetic in principle to such provisions although I am not sure whether they would be helpful or necessary in this Bill. However, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has only recently received representations on this subject from the local authorities' co-ordinating body on food and trading standards and he will give these matters

1027
further consideration before we reach the Committee stage. Once again I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing his Bill and I hope your Lordships will join me in supporting him.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken such an interest in this little Bill and indeed for the support I have been given. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for the Government support he has given. I am extremely interested to hear of the amendments that are to be tabled; the bypass amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, mentioned and the due diligence clause that the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, proposes to introduce.
At this stage before your Lordships meet in Committee on the Bill all I can say is that I suspect all of us would not wish to see an innocent retailer prosecuted when the villain of the piece is much further down the line and is perhaps in a different place. Equally one would not want to see an innocent retailer bereft of the proper lines of defence. The due diligence clause may be the answer to that. It will be for your Lordships to decide when they meet in Committee whether the two amendments I have mentioned effectively produce that result.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Elton, leave me in a difficult position. I am frightfully tempted to declare myself umpire and let them go 10 rounds forthwith. However, at this time of night I think your Lordships would not welcome that proposition. If I do not address myself to the matters they discussed it is not because they do not interest me and because I would not willingly discuss them at great length, but partly because they do not seem totally relevant to what is basically a nuts and bolts amendment Bill dealing with enforcement. Further, I shall not discuss them at great length because I suspect that would weary your Lordships at this hour of the night.
I shall therefore confine myself to two points to try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, somewhat. First, I must mention the decline of registered sex shops which are the only places which are allowed to have 18-hour videos. There is no doubt they have declined dramatically. As our annual report said, there is no doubt that there is pressure upon us to declare, "If there are no outlets for that, why not give the things an 18 certificate". Because there is pressure, there is absolutely no reason for us to give into it. An 18 certificate is an 18 certificate and an 18-hour classification is an 18-hour classification. The amount of supply and trading place available to those items is not our concern and should not be our concern. The pressure may exist but I hope the noble Lord will believe there is absolutely no reason why we should give into it.
That brings me to my second point which is simply that the drawing of lines which the noble Lord, Lord
1028
Elton, referred to is an immensely complicated business. I cannot pretend that every decision that the BBFC has made has met with universal approval. There will always be people who disagree with us. Indeed that is why there is a video appeals committee. However, I am absolutely certain that all the examiners at the board treat the matter with the greatest consideration and with an enormous depth of both knowledge and sensitivity. We argue and we even agonise greatly about the lines mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Whether we get that matter right or wrong is an issue that I leave to the world and to your Lordships to judge. However, that we try very hard is, I think, beyond question.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting but I want to get this matter clear. He has argued strongly that the board with great care and diligence seeks to hold the line and in the annual report there are three instances where the committee has prevented it from doing so. I believe I am right in saying that the committee is appointed by the board. I am not saying there is anything improper about that but it leads one to look at the board and the committee together and that is why I asked whether the two together should not be reviewed. Does he not agree that this is the right way to see them?
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I must be careful not to go into this in too much depth or I shall betray the promise I made to get on with this. However, the fact is that the appeals committee, whatever its composition, is entirely independent from the board. Indeed whenever it meets the board has to make a case for the certificate it has issued or not issued and the appellant, who will be the film maker or film distributor, has to make another case. The fact that in three cases so far the committee has disagreed with our classification and said we were too strict leads me to hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will not think we are automatically forever pushing the line downwards, as he would say, or forwards as others would say. This is a matter of constant debate. I must not speak any longer. I am not reassuring the noble Lord about the rightness of our decisions but merely about the integrity with which the board makes them. Having said that all I can properly do now is to hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Underground (King's Cross) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.

River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.

  BR STAFF: PROTECTION OF CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL FACILITIES
  BR STAFF: PROTECTION OF CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL FACILITIES
  RAILWAYS PENSIONS
  RAILWAYS PENSIONS
  R v MOON: DEFENDANT'S ALLEGATIONS
  R v MOON: DEFENDANT'S ALLEGATIONS
  SUNDAY TRADING: RESEARCH PAPERS AND PROPOSALS
  SUNDAY TRADING: RESEARCH PAPERS AND PROPOSALS
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL: UK PRESIDENCY
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL: UK PRESIDENCY
  WEST MIDLANDS DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITIES: CONSULTATION REQUEST
  WEST MIDLANDS DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITIES: CONSULTATION REQUEST
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 18th and 19th JANUARY
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 18th and 19th JANUARY