Sitting of 17 June 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

    WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 24 June.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time. Debate to be resumed on Thursday 24 June.
  CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [ Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 24 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Public Expenditure Review
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what areas of welfare spending he has excluded from his review of public expenditure.
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in his review of public expenditure of major spending Departments.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Government are conducting a long-term review of public expenditure starting with the Department of Social Security, Department of Health, Department for Education and the Home Office.The Government have a duty to examine all areas of public spending to ensure that they give value for money. We would be failing in our duty if any area were to be exempt from scrutiny. The reviews will produce interim results that will be helpful in this year's public expenditure survey.
    Mr. Bayley: Millions of people are concerned about the review and the Government should set out its terms of
    976
    reference and scope. Given the Chief Secretary's meeting with the Prime Minister to rewrite invalidity benefit, will he confirm that the Government intend to exclude
    "those who suffer from progressive diseases—for example, multiple sclerosis—and heart patients who are unable to walk on the flat for 200 yards"?
    Before I am accused of scaremongering, I may say that that is a direct quote from the Department of Social Security document prepared for that meeting. Will the Chief Secretary explain what other cuts he intends to make to meet the £5,000 million target set for the DSS that is mentioned in that same document?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are on all fours with the Opposition. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said:
    "I set up the Social Justice Commission to conduct a very wide-ranging view of the … complex system of tax, benefits and rights … We have not looked at any of this, almost since Beveridge."
    That is what the Government are doing. We are examining the way in which we provide value for money through the system. As to invalidity benefit, the hon. Gentleman knows that that must be looked at. There has been a massive increase in the number of claimants for invalidity benefit at a time when the health of the nation has been improving. That benefit now costs £6·2 billion a year. No decisions have been taken—in fact, no firm proposals have yet been put to Ministers. It is of course of great importance to us to ensure that the vulnerable are protected.
    Ms Lynne: Now that the Chancellor has ruled out prescription charges for pensioners and charging for hospital beds, will he improve his left-wing credentials further by ruling out additional cuts in invalidity benefit and prescription charges in respect of children who are just above income support level? Or does the Chief Secretary feel that the Chancellor will be a little too worried about his own political advancement if the right wing of the Conservative party disapproved?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady does not help the debate by trivialising it. We obviously have to address the question of social security spending rising faster than our national income, which presents us with a problem. We must examine the benefits that are growing fastest and ask ourselves why benefits are rising 3 per cent. a year in real terms, which is much faster than national income. We must take careful decisions. There will be no announcements before November, and it will be later than that, in respect of long-term questions, before we can reach decisions, because those serious matters need careful consideration.
    Mr. John Townend: When my right hon. and learned Friend reviews public expenditure, will he bear in mind that every firm in the country that has survived during the recession—small, medium or large—has had to cut its overheads and slim down its staff? Meanwhile, the public sector and local government are still bloated. In the last year, we have increased the strength of the civil service by 2·5 per cent.—nearly 14,000 people. When he looks for savings, will my right hon. Friend set all Departments a target of a 5 per cent. reduction in manpower to cut the Government's overheads?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has made an important point. In examining Government spending, all we are really doing is ensuring that the public sector does what the private sector has had to do throughout the recession—make sure that it lives within its means. The same applies to every family in the country. It would be intolerable if people made sacrifices, while the Government continued to live beyond their means on the back of borrowing and taxation which are available to them but not to families and businesses.
    We need to consider civil service numbers and running costs very carefully. The civil service had quite a tight settlement last year, and I imagine that next year's figures may show the lowest number since the war. I think that that is quite appropriate.
    Mr. Jessel: We all greatly admire the excellent work of the national health service, but will my right hon. Friend invite the Secretary of State for Health to consider whether she should continue to provide surgical operations on the NHS for the removal of tattoos? If a person has had printed on his skin signs, symbols, messages and coloured pictures—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have the impression that the hon. Gentleman's question might be better put to the Secretary of State for Health herself. The Chief Secretary has probably got the point by now.
    Mr. Portillo: I thought my hon. Friend's question very valuable. It is now etched indelibly on my mind.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Now that the Cabinet has met to discuss public spending, why does not the Chief Secretary use this opportunity to rule out cuts in invalidity benefit for those suffering from multiple sclerosis, and the heart patients who cannot walk 200 yards? Why does he not tell us that he will drop his proposal to privatise some national insurance benefits, and that anything other than full compensation for pensioners and others on low income who have been hit by VAT rises will not be enough? Why must the users of public services pay the price of the Government's economic mismanagement?
    Mr. Portillo: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman does not use his own opportunity to desist from scaremonger-ing. Is he not aware of the real anxiety and fear that he causes? Is he not aware of the disrepute in which he is now held because of the disgraceful tactics that he has used, day after day? Is he not aware that the British people are now pretty well fed up with him, and that he should stop?
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is important to review all aspects of public expenditure, many people are rightly concerned about the growth in the expenditure of the Department of Social Security? They expect the Government to review all the various benefits properly, and to ensure that they are targeted. At the same time, members of the public wish us to ensure that NHS expenditure is protected.
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend's comments are very valuable. They come as a breath of fresh air after the question from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown): I am very grateful.

    Investment and Unemployment
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Budget measures for investment and unemployment levels.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The Budget measures for business have been warmly welcomed by the business community. They provide an excellent environment for investment and job creation.
    Mrs. Campbell: Given that the CBI's industrial trends survey shows that manufacturing firms are still cutting investment, will the Minister tell us what specific steps he will take to promote investment—especially in areas affected by coal pit closures, defence cuts and local authority capping?
    Mr. Dorrell: In a week in which the Central Statistical Office has announced that manufacturing output is now rising at an annual rate of 5 per cent.—the House may be interested to learn that it fell by exactly the same amount when Labour was in power between 1974 and 1979—I do not feel disposed to take any lectures from Labour about how to create an environment in which businesses expand and jobs can be created.
    The hon. Lady asked what measures had been introduced to promote business investment. Let me list the measures introduced in the Budget and the autumn statement, which have been welcomed by the business community. In those statements, the previous Chancellor increased the amount of export credit available, provided a £2 billion cash flow benefit to British industry through the advance corporation tax changes, abolished car tax, introduced capital allowances and put extra money into the housing market through changes in the housing associations and in the capital receipts regulations for local authorities.
    Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary omitted from that list the £150 million leasing deal for new railway rolling stock, which was announced in the autumn statement and which is much needed to help preserve jobs in the train-making factory in York. Does he agree that the sooner we establish the leasing market for new trains, the sooner more of those who have been made redundant in York and other places can be put back to work? Would it not help that process if the Labour party dropped its objections to the Railways Bill?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The measure to which he refers reflects not only the Government's commitment to investment in railway rolling stock, which my hon. Friend is right to welcome, but, more importantly, the Government's commitment to improving the service available on British railways through the changes to be introduced in the Railways Bill.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Financial Secretary understand that the minuscule changes to the petroleum revenue tax announced in the Budget will do nothing to safeguard jobs in the oil industry? Is he aware that only yesterday the Association of Offshore Diving Contractors made it clear that there are likely to be about 21,000 job loses? How can he say that he is trying to deal with investment and improve business when he carries out that sort of action which produces high unemployment?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's dismissive attitude to the changes that we annnounced yesterday is not reflected by Brindex, which made proposals very similar to those that we announced. As the House knows, the fundamental reason why we are changing the PRT system is that we do not believe that among the many calls on public resources which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has to balance we should number subsidising the international oil industry.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Yorkshire companies have been investing in new jobs, new factories and new manufacturing processes over the past nine years and that many have continued throughout the recession to invest their own money, not borrowed money? Perhaps he might persuade his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, to come and look at some of that investment.
    Mr. DorrellI am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is capable of being responsible for his own travel arrangements. If he were to travel to Yorkshire, he would find, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, that British industry is benefiting from the more stable environment that has been created over the past two years as a result of lower inflation, lower interest rates, a more competitive exchange rate and the opportunity for British industry to expand, which the indicators show is now being taken.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of payments.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): The visible deficit was much the same in the first quarter of this year as in the fourth quarter of last year. Some deterioration after the movement of the exchange rate is to be expected, but our trade prospects are now very good.
    Mr. Burden: Is the Minister aware that the real story is that imports are growing at twice the rate of exports? Would he care to reflect on the report published this week by the Bank for International Settlements which concludes that the Government's failure to invest in manufacturing industry means that there is not enough manufacturing capacity to support even our domestic markets when demand is low. A total of 44 per cent. of manufacturing jobs in the west midlands have been lost since the Government took office. Does not that show how short-sighted the Government have been to ignore the importance of manufacturing industry?
    Sir John Cope: We have not ignored the importance of manufacturing industry or manufacturing companies. After all, if the hon. Gentleman had looked at the Financial Times' survey of the top 500 companies in Europe, he would have seen that 10 United Kingdom companies were in the top 20 for profitability. That reflects their investment, as does the fact that our export volumes are at record level.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: As my right hon. and learned Friend is the 13th Chancellor in whose Question Time I have ventured to pose a question, may I confidently express the hope that he will have a happier tenure of office than his 12 predecessors? Before his officials and special advisers
    980
    have time to bemuse him with contradictory economic theories and dogma, may I respectfully suggest that he should take a firm grasp of the basic proposition that if we had a large balance of payments surplus it would not matter if we had a large public sector borrowing requirement? In other words, the balance of payments is the critical statistic. So he was absolutely right in his Guildhall speech to stress the importance of helping British industry.
    Sir John Cope: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be very grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes, especially as they come from such a wealth of experience, and for the advice that he has given.
    Mr. Darling: On the question of growth in our manufacturing base, can we be told when the Chancellor will set out the detailed policy changes which will demonstrate a change in the substance rather than merely the style of his prececessor? Does he not accept that giving more television interviews than his predecessor, or the fact that he has spent most of his life in the midlands, do not in themselves add up to a new industrial policy?
    Sir John Cope: We shall set out the changes at the usual time, and particularly in the Budget.
    Mr. Evennett: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our exports to non-EC countries have grown in the past year? Should we not all be congratulating British business and business men for their export achievements?
    Sir John Cope: Yes, indeed. I echo my hon. Friend's congratulations. In value terms, exports, excluding oil and erratics, to the whole world were 12½ per cent. higher in the first quarter of this year.

    Independent Advisers
    Mr. Boyce: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet the panel of independent economic advisers to discuss the current state of the economy.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The panel of independent forecasters will be issuing its second report in early July. I look forward to receiving it.
    Mr. Boyce: What advice does the Chancellor think that he will receive which will boost the confidence of the country, given that in the current report the state—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, that is what I went to school for. The current account deficit was £l2 billion when the panel issued its last report. The Government's forecast for the coming year is that the current account deficit will be £15½ billion: what encouraging advice does he think the panel will give him?
    Mr. Clarke: I imagine that when I receive the advice of the panel I shall find that it contains the variety of advice to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) rightly referred. I accept that we have a balance of payments problem, which is why I am glad that our export performance is improving and that we are doing so well especially in non-EC markets where demand is not depressed as it is in the Community. Certainly, the Government must do everything possible—in my Department and that of my right hon. Friend the President

    981
    of the Board of Trade—to support our manufacturers in their efforts to export. Otherwise, I hope that the forecast will take some encouragement from the growth in GDP and manufacturing output and today's fall in the unemployment figures for the fourth successive month.
    Mr. Horam: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there was indeed a warm welcome for what he said in his Guildhall speech about growth and recovery and especially about listening to the views of business men? Is he also aware that business men have for some time been calling for a continuation of the process of lowering interest rates? In as far as my right hon. and learned Friend is able to achieve that and therefore able to enhance and maximise growth, he will ease his own problems with the fiscal balance.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He sent me a copy of his own interesting suggestions for a policy for industry some months ago, and I have been carrying it around with me ever since. I shall refer to it once more.
    One of the things that helps to show the modest signs of recovery is the nine point fall in interest rates which we have achieved recently. It has greatly helped British industry. Clearly, further changes in interest rates can be made only when we have the right circumstances. I set out at the Guildhall the type of circumstances and the type of advice that I would take before deciding on any movement of interest rates.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: As the Chancellor has agreed today that the trade deficit is a problem, will he outline the detailed changes in industrial policy that he will introduce? As he said at the Mansion House that achieving higher growth is his objective, what investment in employment measures will he seek to introduce? As the Prime Minister has changed the Chancellor, will the Chancellor now announce the detailed changes in policy so that the country can see action instead of just words?
    Mr. Clarke: It is not my intention to pre-empt the work of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. All three of us will work in the same direction. My next major contribution will, no doubt, be November's Budget, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is facing a business-friendly Government who will take specific measures to sustain British industry and commerce in the recovery that it is beginning to make.
    Mr. Willetts: Is not it likely that the panel of experts will be able to show in its next report that Britain is heading for an economic growth rate higher than its inflation rate? Would not that be a remarkable achievement?
    Mr. Clarke: It would be a quite remarkable achievement. My hon. Friend will agree that it is important to ensure, first, that that is achieved, in so far as it is within the Government's power to do so, and, secondly, that this time we sustain it, because in the past Britain has done quite well for several periods but has always succumbed to various British diseases that held us up once more.
    Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall being advised that interest rate changes should never be made to offset some unfavourable political event? Does he realise that that advice came from the eighth independent adviser, the right hon. Member for Kingston
    982
    upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)? Was the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames justified by anything in his term of office in giving that advice, and what is the Chancellor doing to change a system under which that could have happened?
    Mr. Clarke: I have set out quite clearly the grounds on which decisions on monetary policy will be taken. I propose to take decisions in the light of the various criteria that I have set out. It is quite right that they should be taken on the best objective advice and for good economic reasons. We will persevere with that, so I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will have cause for complaint on that ground in the coming months.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the very good advice of his adviser, Professor Patrick Minford, who said on the radio today that, as the Government's policy had brought inflation down to almost zero, it is time for us to consider lowering interest rates so that we can get the jobs going again, which would follow from the Government's admirable effort in killing off inflation?
    Mr. Clarke: I know Professor Minford from times gone by. I have met him from time to time and have always listened to his advice with care. I know several members of the panel of forecasters, which my predecessor assembled, and they hold a variety of views. I am waiting to receive all their forecasts. I suspect that there will be a fairly wide range of advice, and I shall take careful regard of all of it.

    Unemployed People (Cost)
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will prepare an estimate of the average cost to the Treasury of one unemployed person in terms of (a) benefits paid and (b) tax revenue lost.
    Mr. Dorrell: The net cost to the Exchequer of an individual unemployed person depends on a wide range of variables.
    Mr. O'Hara: I am as pleasantly surprised as, no doubt, the Minister about today's slight decrease in the unemployment statistics—which prudent observers, I am sure, will distinguish from a reduction in those who are unemployed and seeking work—but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cost of each unemployed person, which is authoritatively assessed at approximately £9,000 per year, is the single biggest cause of the ballooning public sector borrowing requirement? Does he agree that the best way to tackle the problem is not to punish unemployed people by reducing benefits but to take positive measures to put them back to work?
    Mr. Dorrell: The best way of helping unemployed people is not to speculate on things that are unpredictable and unmeasurable but to create an economy that creates jobs and puts working people back to work. To achieve that, the best thing that the Government can do is to follow the precedent of their record of the 1980s, when manufacturing investment increased by 67 per cent., when the number of jobs created within the economy was 3 million and when manufacturing output rose by 30 per cent. That is the record of this Government between 1982 and 1990, which we wish to recreate.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the one sure-fire way of adding to the cost of unemployment is to sign the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the interesting contrasts to be drawn is that between the record of this country in the late 1980s and that of France during the same period. Our growth rates were roughly the same, but the difference was that in this country we converted that growth into jobs and in France, whose socialist Government espoused the cause of the social chapter, they failed to do so. The House should draw conclusions from that contrast.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister confirm that the Conservative Government, whose members constantly go on about sound money, are heading for a deficit of £1 billion a week—£50 billion a year—largely created by the incompetence of the previous three Chancellors?
    Mr. Flynn: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend's views are just. Does the Minister accept that the way to cut the appalling deficit is not by slashing welfare payments or by charging the elderly VAT on energy, but by taking a knife to unemployment and getting this country back to work again?
    Mr. Dorrell: The split between the two sides of the House is not over the desirability of creating extra jobs and getting unemployed people back to work—that is a shared ambition. The split is over how to achieve it. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the budget deficit as one of the problems that have to be tackled if we are to deliver the objective that both sides of the House share. I look forward to hearing from him, and even more to hearing from his Front-Bench colleagues, how the Labour party proposes to deliver the reduction in the deficit that we all want.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only Governments since the first world war to reduce unemployment have been Conservative Governments? Does he agree that the way to reduce unemployment does not lie through a minimum wage, greater regulation of the labour market or the kind of socialism that has delivered 19 per cent. unemployment in socialist Spain?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the interesting historical fact that it is Tory Governments who cut unemployment and Labour Governments who increase it—just as, incidentally, it is Tory Governments who cut hospital waiting lists and Labour Governments who increase them.
    As I said earlier, the best way to get people back to work is to create a vigorous and competitive economy. One of the best bits of news in that regard is the fact that manufacturing productivity is now rising by 7·8 per cent. a year, which means that unit wage costs in manufacturing are falling, for the first time in living memory. Those costs are falling by 2·8 per cent. a year, and that holds out the prospect of improved competitiveness and, therefore, of improved job creation. One would like to think that the Labour party would welcome that.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Financial Secretary confirm that the former Secretary of State for Employment put the cost to the Government of unemployment at
    984
    £9,000 a year for each unemployed person? Is not the greatest cost of unemployment the cost to unemployed people and their families, and the waste to society of the wealth that their employment would otherwise generate? Are not those costs most corrosive in the case of the 1 million people who have been out of work for more than a year, who loom behind today's welcome fall in the headline unemployment figures? Will the Financial Secretary now tell us what new measures the Government will introduce to counter unemployment and, in particular, what they intend to do to bring work to the long-term unemployed? Will he also examine the case for rebates on national insurance contributions for employers who take on workers from among the long-term unemployed, to whom we must give help?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yet again, we have the spectacle of the Labour party recognising that the budget deficit is a problem, although the only ideas that are announced from the Opposition Dispatch Box are those that would have the effect of increasing that deficit. Of course, it is true that unemployment imposes both a social cost on the individuals concerned and an economic cost on the economy as a whole. We have to address the problem of how to make unemployment fall. We believe that the way to do that is by creating a competitive and vigorous economy. That is what we are about and that is what we are constantly being obstructed in doing by the Opposition.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that, while he is considering the cost of unemployment and other benefits during his public spending review, he will continue to do everything in his power to ensure that we continue to provide the most where the need is greatest?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right. That, of course, is precisely the purpose of the review of public expenditure on which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is engaged, in order to ensure that, within the public spending total, expenditure reflects today's priorities.

    Business Investment
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of business investment in the economy.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Business investment remains at an historically high level, despite the recession. In 1992, the share of business investment in gross domestic product was over 14 per cent., higher than in any year between 1970 and 1987.
    Mr. Betts: Has the Chancellor read the report by the Bank for International Settlements, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) referred, which shows a major structural weakness in the economy of this country caused by long-term low manufacturing investment? It shows that any recovery is likely to be short lived, since a balance of payments crisis will stop the recovery because of that low level of investment. Will the Chancellor explain to the House what changes in action and policy he will bring about—not words—to rectify the appalling situation

    985
    caused by 14 years in which his Government have put manufacturing industry at the bottom of the political agenda?
    Mr. Clarke: I regret to say that I do not think that that is historically correct. At the moment, business investment is low because we are just emerging from a recession and are in the early stages of recovery, but there was a substantial investment boom in the latter years of the 1980s. Business investment in this country was up more than 45 per cent. in the three years to 1989, which was the fastest three-year growth since the war. We have a much better record of manufacturing and business investment in this country than there has been historically. I will, of course, consider measures that might sustain that good record once the recovery gets under way.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one form of assistance that he could give to business investment is not to crowd out the borrowing market by the high level of Government borrowing and that, therefore, one of his key responsibilities must be to get down long-term Government borrowing, which would allow long-term interest rates also to fall?
    Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, which is why the Cabinet, in its decision this morning, places such a high priority on getting down as quickly as we can the level of Government borrowing. That message is simply not taken by the Opposition, who merely come forward with opposition to any revenue raising and proposals for more spending. Indeed, in the debate last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition would have added £12,000 million to the public sector borrowing requirement by that one speech alone. The interests of industry and manufacturing investment in this country lie in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hoon: Before Britain joined the exchange rate mechanism, it was well known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer encouraged membership on the basis that it would assist business investment. Will he argue the same case again?
    Mr. Clarke: Our membership of the exchange rate mechanism certainly helped us to achieve the low level of inflation which is one of the best bases for making industry competitive as we move into the recovery. The five-point reductions in interest rates before we left the ERM were as valuable as the four additional point reductions that we have made since we left the ERM. All were based on this Government's success in getting down inflation. We now have to demonstrate the same success in getting down the public sector borrowing requirement.

    Housing
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken to assist the housing market over the last year.
    Sir John Cope: We have introduced a number of measures to assist the housing market. The autumn statement announced additional housing measures of £750 million, plus time-limited measures to allow local authorities to spend nearly all their new capital receipts. The Budget doubled the stamp duty threshold to £60,000,
    986
    and, following the significant easing of monetary policy since last autumn, mortgage rates are now down to their lowest levels for 25 years.
    Mrs. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is interest rates that have the major influence on the housing market? Is it not correct that the low mortgage rates are giving very great encouragement to first-time buyers, the housing market as a whole and the construction industry, as new private housing starts have now increased by 20 per cent?
    Sir John Cope: I agree with all that. Private housing starts are up strongly, as are the completions and the particulars delivered. All that is the consequence of the measures that I have outlined, especially mortgage interest rates.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister recognise that, following the short-term increase in spending as a result of the relaxation of restrictions on capital receipts and the housing market package, the rented housing market is likely, once again, to decline this year? Does he now recognise that there is no justification for preventing local authorities from spending capital receipts in the long term? Will he extend the relaxation of the restrictions next year as well as this year?
    Sir John Cope: We will not announce anything of that sort at the moment. I notice that new public housing has risen in the first quarter of this year to the highest level for more than eight years. That will greatly help that part of the rented sector.
    Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. Friend resist the calls to release those capital receipts in one go? Is it not the case that, however attractive it may be, that would add £6 billion to the bottom line of our public sector borrowing requirement? Labour Members appear to care about that figure.
    Sir John Cope: That is indeed the case, and that is why we are cautious about it.

    Income Tax and National Insurance
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average total annual payment in income tax and national insurance per employed person in 1992–93.
    Mr. Dorrell: A married man on average earnings of £17,992 would pay £3,107 in income tax and £1,423 in employee's national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Milburn: Does the Minister recognise that the March Budget has meant a huge tax hike which will bear down hardest on those who are least able to afford to pay? Will he take this opportunity to tell the House and the public what further tax rises he has in store? Will he now admit that the whole country is being asked to foot the bill for the £ 10 billion-worth of tax handouts that have been given to the very rich since 1988? Why should the poor, pensioners and NHS patients be asked to pay the price for the Government's extravagance?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman refers to the record of the 1980s. One might have thought that he would take the opportunity to welcome the increase in the real take-home pay that was available to all people as a result of the

    987
    economic policies of the 1980s. Under the Labour Government, real take-home pay for the man on average earnings rose by £1·20 a week at today's values—between 1979 and 1993, it has risen by £81·50 a week. Real take-home pay is what matters, not the statistical analysis offered by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Barry Field: Is it not a fact that no post-war Government have done so much to simplify the personal taxation structure of the United Kingdom as this Government? When my hon. Friend puts the final cornerstone in place in the autumn Budget with regard to future expenditure and taxation plans, I invite him to go a stage further and introduce the reform that is so necessary in the European Community—bringing our pay-as-you-earn year into line with the calendar year. Only Ireland and this country continue with the peculiar date of 5 April.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is meddling with a long-standing piece of history when he wishes to put the tax system on the same calendar as that by which every one has lived since the 1750s, but I shall certainly look at it.
    On the more substantive point, my hon. Friend is right to stress that the simplification of the tax system is one of the major steps that the Government have put in place which has enocuraged the development of a more competitive and successful economy and delivered the improvement in real take-home pay to which I referred earlier, and which is the bell-wether of success.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Has the Financial Secretary seen the revised parliamentary answer given to me yesterday stating that the number of people who earn less than the basic rate tax threshold but will pay more in national insurance contributions in 1994–95 as a result of the Budget changes is not 500,000, as previously stated, but 2·5 million? Is not he ashamed that 2·5 million of his fellow citizens who are in work but are too poorly paid to have to pay basic rate income tax will still be required to pay extra national insurance contributions as well as extra value added tax on fuel? Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that that parliamentary answer has not anticipated Government policy—[interruption]—and called the 20 per cent. band the basic rate band, solely for the purpose of—[Interruption.]—restric-ting allowances?
    Mr. Dorrell: It must be a long time since the hon. Gentleman asked a question that secured two cheers while he asked it, particularly one so badly based on the facts. His question reflects the fact that we have increased the personal allowance in real terms by 25 per cent. since 1979. The hon. Gentleman might like to refer also to our change in the system of national insurance contributions for employees, which has reduced the burden on the low paid. It is now a more rational system and more friendly to incentives. The key to a tax system is that it is friendly to incentives and makes it worth while for people to make extra effort. That is the guiding light of our tax policy and will continue to be so.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.
    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. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he join me in welcoming today's unemployment figures which show the fourth consecutive fall? Does he agree that that is good news for the unemployed, the economy and Britain?
    The Prime Minister: Yes; above all, it is good news for those workers and their families who find themselves back in work. I am delighted at the fall of 26,000—the fourth fall in a row. I concede that unemployment remains far too high. It has fallen by nearly 80,000 since the beginning of the year. Equally encouraging, vacancies are at their highest level for two years. A few months ago, many people expected unemployment to rise throughout the year. Instead, it has fallen in Scotland, Wales and every English region.
    Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister explain—his Minister was asked this question—why only last week the Department of Social Security claimed that the number of people on low incomes who would be worse off as a result of the national insurance increases in the Budget was only 500,000, but yesterday was forced to admit that that was wrong and the real figure was 2·25 million? What sort of advertisement is that for the competence of his Government or their understanding of the effects that his policies have on so many people?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is operating under a misapprehension. Suggestions of a mistake are wrong. My hon. Friend was asked about the number of people below the basic rate tax threshold who will pay more national insurance in 1994–95. The answer he gave on 7 June related to people whose earnings fall below the 20 per cent. tax band. The answer he gave on 16 June related to people whose earnings fall below the 25 per cent. tax band. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Therefore, naturally the figures are different.
    Mr. Smith: The Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We must hear not only answers, but questions.
    Mr. Smith: The Prime Minister seeks to defend his Department on the basis that it cannot read the questions. The question was the same in both cases, but it received different answers. Leaving that matter aside—[Laughter.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We are using up valuable time.
    Mr. Smith: It relates to precisely the same issue. Does the Prime Minister recollect saying on that very issue during that election campaign:
    "taxpayers with the lowest incomes will benefit most"?

    989
    Why, then, has he imposed a higher national insurance burden on over 2 million low-paid people? Does he admit that, once again, he has broken his word, or was it just another of those throwaway lines delivered on a wet night somewhere in Dudley?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that it might be wise to put that aside is an answer which many people will recall for some time. If he looks at what has happened, he will see that we have raised the threshold for the 20 per cent. band by £500 in the Budget and by a further £500 from next year. Most taxpayers in the lower rate band will gain more from the 20 per cent. lower rate than they will lose from the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister still not understand, as millions of low-paid people do, that putting I per cent. on national insurance for people who do not pay income tax is putting up the tax on their income? Why did he say on page 7 of the Conservative party election manifesto:
    "We have reduced the burden of national insurance on low earners"?
    Was the whole manifesto written on a wet night somewhere in Dudley?
    The Prime Minister: I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it did not sound any better the second time, so perhaps he should put that aside as well. He should look at what has happened, with the introduction of a 20 per cent. tax band and the raising of a 20 per cent. tax band, and I reiterate—as he clearly did not hear it the first time—that most taxpayers in the lower rate band gain more from the 20 per cent. rate than they lose from the I per cent. increase in national insurance contributions. In short—so that the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly understands—they are better off under our plans than they ever would have been under his plans, which would have involved the largest increase in direct taxation ever seen this century.
    Mr. Sims: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the current issue of the journal of the Royal Society of Medicine? Is he aware that it includes a survey carried out by a distinguished doctor of general practice in 12 countries in Europe, north America and the far east in which he reaches the conclusion that British is best? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as we proceed with the implementation of the NHS reforms, that will continue to be the case?
    The Prime Minister: The immediate answer to my hon. Friend is no, I have not seen that survey, but, as he has drawn it to my attention, I shall take the opportunity of looking at it. There has been a dramatic improvement both in the resources available to the health services and in the quality of health treatment provided in recent years by the people who work in the service. It is our intention that that should continue—[Interruption.]—and I am sorry if the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) thinks that it is nonsense that the people in the health service are providing a better service. I believe that they are.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is it not the case that in the 17 or so years since the decision was taken to build THORP—the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—at Sellafield, the economics of THORP have collapsed, the risk of nuclear proliferation has increased, international opposition has
    990
    hardened and the threshold of safe nuclear emissions has been substantially reduced? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, before a decision is taken to put THORP into operation, the widest possible consultation and debate will be conducted on that dubious project?
    The Prime Minister: THORP is a substantial engineering and export success for this country. It supports some 3,000 jobs and has £9 billion-worth of contracts, which is a powerful vote of confidence in the plant from people around the world who will be its customers. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are considering the inspectors' reports on the proposed new discharge authorisations for the site. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge their considerations.
    Mr. Stephen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that visiting the House today is a very special group of 21 men who served this country in the Army, Navy and Royal Flying Corps during the great battles of the first world war? Does my right hon. Friend agree that all of us who live in freedom today owe everything we have to those gallant men and their comrades who died in that most terrible of all wars?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have sent a message to those very welcome guests to the House today. I am sure they will be welcomed by everyone in the House.
    Mr. Liwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Llwyd: Given the widespread alarm among millions of constituents about the proposed imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel, which will result in an increased incidence of hypothermia and even more poverty among middle-income groups, will the Prime Minister urge his colleagues to reconsider this pernicious and indiscriminate form of indirect taxation? In so doing, he might just assist his albeit fragile, political future.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern. We have set out a policy that we believe is correct and we have stated that we will take action to assist vulnerable groups. That assistance will be in place before the extra charges are introduced. The hon. Gentleman utterly fails to mention that the cost of fuel has been falling as a result of our policies, not rising astronomically as it did before we came to office.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is typically British for commentators and Opposition Members to talk British industry down, yet totally ignore the best manufacturing output figures for five years?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend understates her case a little. They do not just talk Britain down—given the chance, they do it down and do it in. Opposition policies would impose an extra tax on jobs and would be no good for British industry. Raising employers costs and introducing the social charter would be no good for employment prospects or employers. The minimum wage would further damage job prospects. Yet again, the

    991
    use of flying pickets would be legalised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] That is the Labour party's policy. Labour Members may regard my comments as boring, but people in work regard their policy as a job destruction programme.
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Mr. Pink on winning his case for unfair dismissal against the Stockport health authority? Does he agree that whistleblowers play a very important part in a democracy? Will he urge the Stockport health authority to reinstate Mr. Pink and ensure that resources are available to improve the staffing of the geriatric wards at the hospital in question?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the details of the case, but if justice has been done I am delighted.
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fabricant: Following his Cabinet meeting this morning, will my right hon. Friend unequivocally assure the House that—despite the rumours and smears from the Labour party, which preys on the fears of the most vulnerable in our society—the national health service and welfare state always were, are, and for ever will be safe in Conservative hands?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated a moment or so ago, the health service has improved dramatically during recent years, partly as a result of the increased resources made available to it and partly as a result of the activities of the many dedicated people who work in it. I have no doubt that will continue to be the case in the future. [Interruption.] It is thriving.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has the Prime Minister given the President of the Board of Trade a list of the companies that have donated to the Conservative party since 1979? Will the Prime Minister confirm that if the President finds that they have not declared those donations in their accounts, they will all be repaid?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must understand that British business supports the Conservative party because it believes that our policies are right for British business, the British future and British jobs. Perhaps it is because business understands and applies that test that precious little money from companies goes to the Labour party.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Would my right hon. Friend remember today that, over the past year, the wild and sometimes woolly Members of this House have said that the Government should intervene more directly in Yugoslavia? Will he accept the thanks of most sensible Members for all that he and the Government have done, on behalf not only of the United Kingdom but of the world, in not allowing such intervention to take place?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In my judgment, there is no doubt that it was right to assist with the humanitarian operation, and I believe that the activity of our troops has been widely admired, not just in this country but around the world. They have certainly done a magnificent job.
    There are only two ways of settling the dispute. One is to put in hundreds of thousands of troops for an indefinite period—no one wise wants to do that, and no other country would be prepared to do it. The only alternative is to seek a diplomatic solution allied to the humanitarian aid that we and others have been providing. We still seek that diplomatic solution.
    I understand that Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg had a useful meeting yesterday with the Presidents of Serbia and Croatia. They will continue their negotiations next week. Lord Owen will brief me on Saturday before I go to the European Council His determined efforts over recent months have done as much as those of any other individual to keep alive the prospect of a political settlement.

Business of the House
3.31 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 21 JUNE—Conclusion of a debate on a Government motion to approve the defence estimates 1992 (Cm. 1981).
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuance) Order.
TUESDAY 22 JUNE—Opposition Day ( 14th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "The Need for Openness on Funding of Political Parties and the Enforcement of Company Law on Declaration of Political Donations", on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Council Tax Limitation (Wales) (Maximum Amount) Order.
THURSDAY 24 JUNE—Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 25 JUNE—There will be a debate on the health and welfare of children on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 28 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, followed by a debate in the name of Plaid Cymru. The subjects have yet to be announced and, for all I know, to be chosen.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 23 June at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents Nos. 8487/90 and 5902/93 relating to plant variety rights.
[Wednesday 23 June:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 8487/90, 5909/93 plant breeders' rights; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 11-xxxiii (1989–90) and HC 79-xxx (1992–93 ).]
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the Leader of the House recalls that some considerable time ago an agreement was reached with the Procedure Committee that every effort would be made to have a debate in the House in Government time, preferably roughly every six months, before meetings of the European Council. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a meeting of the Council in Copenhagen this weekend, and although we recognise that the business of the House has been under some pressure, I hope that that agreement is not being breached and that we may have an undertaking that every effort will be made to arrange debates before these Council meetings so that the House can comment on developments in the European Community. I also hope that we will have a statement in the House following that meeting.
The Leader of the House will also know that hon. Members throughout the House are anxiously awaiting information and statements on assisted area status. I
994
understand that some information may have been transmitted to the European Community. We are anxious for a statement in the House as soon as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I have asked on a number of occasions when we are likely to have a proper debate on the public expenditure White Paper that we would normally expect at some stage during the year. It would be most unfortunate, to put it mildly, if that debate were not held before the next public expenditure White Paper is announced in outline in the autumn. I hope that the Leader of the House will bear in mind our many requests on the shape of the public expenditure programme before it is hacked to pieces.
That brings me to the other issue on which we would like a debate in Government time—the Government's plans for invalidity benefit.
The Leader of the House will know that there is pressure for a debate in the House in Government time on the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which has been around for a long time without being debated.
Mr. Newton: For once, I shall take the hon. Lady's requests in their original order. I regret that it did not prove possible to have the six-monthly debate on European matters in advance of the Council meeting, although the House will acknowledge that it has not exactly been starved of opportunities to debate European matters recently. I shall be looking for a suitable opportunity for the debate in the near future—no doubt, in due course, the Opposition will decide to abstain. I expect that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement at the earliest convenient opportunity after the European Council meeting next week.
The position on assisted area status will be indicated in an answer this afternoon. The Government's proposals were submitted to the European Commission on 15 June, and the proposed new map will be published as soon as Commission approval has been received. Obviously, we want to get on with that as soon as possible, but I cannot give the exact timing at the moment.
I note the right hon. Lady's request for a debate on the public expenditure White Paper, although I cannot add to what I have said on previous occasions. She is, of course, continuing to press me for a flow of Supply days, so I have to make some judgment of priorities as to which of her demands to meet.
The right hon. Lady will certainly have noted what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time on Tuesday about our plans for invalidity benefit. Against that background, she will be clear that there are no plans as such to be debated at the moment. The matter is being looked at in the way that my right hon. Friend explained. If and when it is appropriate to have a debate, of course I shall arrange one.
Lastly, on the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I am making reasonably good progress towards the debate that the right hon. Lady and some of her hon. Friends would wish to have.
Mr. David Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs is looking into the funding of political parties, that it is hearing evidence on the funding of political parties and that it will in due course be producing a report? The effect of the debate on Tuesday, which is

995
frivolous in the extreme, will be to try to prejudge that report and unduly influence the Committee, which will be considering an extremely serious subject indeed.
Will my right hon. Friend perhaps prevail upon the Opposition not to waste good Supply days on frivolous matters, but to leave this matter to the Home Affairs Select Committee, which will then be able to debate the report? The motion is total nonsense from the Labour party.
Mr. Newton: You will have noted—as I did, Madam Speaker—that, in effect, although that question was properly phrased to be directed at me, it was really directed to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and her right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). I know they have heard it; I hope they will reflect on it. But you will understand, Madam Speaker, as will my hon. Friend, that, although my views coincide with his, I am not in a position to direct the Opposition about the way in which they choose to use their time.
Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I thank the Leader of the House for his accommodating, if slightly mischievous, announcement of the second of our small entitlement of Opposition days in ten days' time. I can assure him that he will be given the subject in due course.
Following the question of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Democrats to the Prime Minister, I put it to the Leader of the House that the Government must find time in the near future to debate any potential go-ahead for the THORP project, a subject that has not been debated in the House since 1978. That has the most far-reaching domestic and international implications, and it relates not only to Britain's economy but to our energy and environmental policies and to global matters of proliferation. May we have an undertaking of a debate on THORP before any go-ahead is announced by the Government?
Mr. Newton: I reject out of hand any suggestion that I am ever mischievous. All I did was try, with some success I am glad to say, to raise a small smile on the hon. Gentleman's friendly face.
I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate in the terms that he requests, nor add to the point that my right hon. Friend quite properly made to his right hon. Friend in the course of questions about the current position in which an inspector's report is being considered. But the obvious thought strikes me that, if the hon. Gentleman feels that strongly about it, I have just given him half a. day in which he could choose that subject for debate if he so wishes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Before we proceed further, I remind the House that I now want brisk questions and brisk answers so that I might call as many Members as possible. Many Members are standing today.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Thank you for calling me, Madam Speaker.
As the Government abolished the Greater London Council, the Inner London education authority and the metropolitan county councils, will the Leader of the House undertake to provide time for a debate in the near future
996
in which Conservative Members might demonstrate and state our total opposition to regional government in any shape or form?
Mr. Tony Banks: Yes, we should like that.
Mr. Newton: I cannot make a promise in quite that form, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind. The only thing that really puts me off is that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) would clearly speak.
Mr. William Ross: We are happy to have a full day's debate on Northern Ireland next week, but will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that, although the report of the Examiner of Statutory Instruments has just been published, there has been a considerable gap in the examination of various statutory instruments in Northern Ireland because of the death of the previous holder of the post? Will the Leader of the House assure me that there will be a debate on that report, which might provide a peg on which to hang some requests for examination of those earlier instruments?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell the House what status is accorded by Her Majesty's Government to visits by the President of the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland? They seem to be billed as private visits, but whenever the President is—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's last question does not relate to business questions. It has nothing whatever to do with the Leader of the House.
Mr. Newton: I would simply say that I imagine that, to a significant degree, the status depends on the basis of the visit. Leaving that aside—hastily, in view of your clear steer, Madam Speaker —I undertake to look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Simon Burns: As a fellow Essex man, will my right hon. Friend consider giving the earliest consideration to a statement on regional unemployment figures so that it may become clear to people in the mid-Essex area that the fall in unemployment in Braintree and Chelmsford, which was announced today, was the largest fall in a single month in more than six years, with 362 individuals going back into work rather than being in the dole queues?
Mr. Newton: I shall bring that point and that welcome news, which I too noted, to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment if my hon. Friend promises not to call me an Essex man again: last time, for the first time in seven elections, I changed the wording of my election address from "is an Essex man" to "was born and brought up in Essex."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that during the past week it was announced that Rufford—one of the pits in the east midlands, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping)—will close by the end of this financial year, which is in direct contradiction to the statement and pledge that the President of the Board of Trade made to the House several times, because it was one of the 12 pits that were going to be left to be market-tested?
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement? Failing that,

997
the Leader of the House should arrange for him to make a personal statement, as the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer did, because he deserves to be sacked for misleading the House and misleading the country.
Mr. Newton: I had anticipated the hon. Gentleman, and I have already arranged for the President of the Board of Trade to be here to answer questions next Wednesday.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Can my right hon. Friend find some time next week for the House to discuss what pressure could be brought to bear on travel agents so that they disseminate information that they receive from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office properly, such as the warnings that holidaymakers should heed before they go to certain parts of the world? I am extremely concerned. My concern was highlighted by the programme "World in Action" on Monday and has certainly been borne out by the murder of many British holidaymakers throughout the world. The information exists, and holidaymakers need to get it; travel agents have it and they are not passing it on.
Mr. Newton: In the light of what he said, my hon. Friend's concern is understandable. The appropriate course is for me to bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friends for their consideration.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Apparently there is some monkey business under way as regards the Museums and Galleries Commission. When can we have a statement as to what plots are afoot as regards this matter?
Mr. Newton: I shall bring that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, and I am sure that he will communicate with the hon. Gentleman if he has intelligence to impart about any problem.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the encouraging statistics issued yesterday which show a record proportion of young people going on to further or higher education—an all-time record. May we have a debate so that we can discuss the impact of standards and compare the recent report by Ofsted, which showed that tests led to a significant improvement in teaching and learning environments in schools, with the comments made on last year's tests by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow spokesman on education, who regarded them as totally worthless? That shows how far from reality she is on the matter.
Mr. Newton: I agree with the latter point, and also with the first point about the satisfaction we all feel about the great increase in the number of young people going on to further and higher education. As to the middle matter, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Education Bill is under consideration in another place. I am sure that there will be further opportunity for discussion there.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to look at early-day motion 2138 about air pollution in London?
[That this House is deeply concerned at the appalling quality of air in London, particularly during hot and still weather; believes that the high incidence of bronchial illness and child asthma is related to this and that the major sources
998
of polluted air are private cars; and therefore calls, for urgent Government action to improve public transport and reduce wasteful commuter motoring.]
Can he give an undertaking that there will be an urgent and early debate on the need to restore democratically elected government to London so that the city's future can be properly planned, its transport infrastructure properly developed, the amount of commuter motoring reduced and air quality and the life of Londoners improved? Does he not think that it is a disgrace that this is the only capital city with no unified elected local authority?
Mr. Newton: The answer to that is no. I understand that there is an opportunity to discuss the matters raised in the first part of the question in an Adjournment debate this evening.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House reassure us that there will be no repetition of the shambles that overtook the ministerial statements on Monday? You will recall, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State for Wales made a comprehensive statement about flooding devastation in Wales and that, after a long discussion, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment attempted to make a statement, without warning, on the equal devastation and loss of life that has occurred in Cornwall and other parts of the west country. Can we be reassured that, in future weeks, there will not be such a difficulty and that we shall have a comprehensive statement of all the effects of flooding, what the Government intend to do and what the National Rivers Authority is doing about flood defence and flood warning systems?
Mr. Newton: On any occasion on which natural disasters or difficulties occur, some regard must necessarily be paid to the scale in determining whether or not it is appropriate to make a statement. The scale of the flooding in Wales exceeded that in most other parts of the country.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: In the wake of the Prime Minister's meeting with the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, does the Leader of the House agree that it is time that we had a full debate on the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which has been in place for eight years? In 1985, we were told that the agreements would produce peace, stability and reconciliation. Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that all we had from the most recent meeting with the Taoiseach was a repetition of a harsh, aggressive and irredentist territorial claim?
Mr. Newton: This matter is for you, Madam Speaker, but I would be surprised if the full day of debating Northern Ireland on Thursday, 24 June—on some fairly wide-ranging motions—did not permit subject matter of that kind to be introduced.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Leader of the House aware of the havoc that the internal market is wreaking on the national health service? Will he consider what is occurring at centres of excellence such as the Billericay burns unit, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows very well? Since the internal market was introduced, the superb team at the unit only undertake emergency and urgent cases and not elective surgery, because the funds for that are not available. May we

999
debate urgently centres of excellence and others, such as Killingbeck, which is having to close because there is insufficient money under that stupid, crazy system?
Mr. Newton: I do not accept the hon. Lady's description of what is occurring, but I will of course bring her observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Has the Leader of the House read early-day motion 2175?
[That this House expresses concern that Home Office statistics show that 100,000 young people under 21 years were either convicted or cautioned for drunkenness in 1990; is alarmed that Department of Transport figures for 1989 indicate that about 25,000 injury accidents are associated with driving over the legal limit for alcohol and that overall 20–25 per cent. of road deaths occur in accidents where at least one driver is beyond the legal limit; condemns the marketing executives and administrators who have sold the England and Australian Cricket teams to breweries; and finds the use of beer advertisements on players and on grounds morally offensive and the subjugation of a once fine sport to such unscrupulous profiteering especially nauseating.]
It highlights the potentially adverse effects of alcohol on young people, with 100,000 under-21s convicted or cautioned for drunkenness in 1990, and expresses opposition to the idea that the English and Australian cricket teams should be sold to the breweries for advertising purposes. Is it not time to stop that nauseating invasion of our screens by enforcing the BBC charter? It is not meant to broadcast advertisements and it is unfair, wrong and illegal for it to do so in that way —and offensive into the bargain.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the broadcasting authorities will take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is worth noting that, thanks to significant efforts, road deaths involving alcohol more than halved in the last decade. The Department of Transport is launching a major television campaign against drinking and driving on 29 June.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on opencast mining? Is he aware that my constituents are outraged by British Coal's proposals to opencast at Wintersett and North Featherstone—so ravaging what little countryside remains there—at the same time that British Coal is closing local productive pits?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman referred to "proposals". Presumably that means that there is scope for a considerable public inquiry before any decision is made. That would be the right approach for the hon. Gentleman to adopt.
Mr. David Winnick: Next Tuesday's debate could not be more relevant, given what has been happening with political funding. I was told by the Attorney-General, in reply to my questioning, that seven Tory Members made representations on behalf of Mr. Nadir. Could the four who remain unidentified be named in next Tuesday's debate, and reasons for their representations given on the Floor of the House? Those representations had no constituency purpose. How much more corruption are we to learn of from that case?
Mr. Newton: I understand why the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to stir the issue in that way, but I doubt whether right hon. and hon. Members on either side of the House really think that it would be appropriate to make public every occasion on which constituency Members, quite properly, ask for information about a case following an approach from their constituents.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: There is a widespread feeling of betrayal among people working in the mining industry in Nottinghamshire and, indeed, throughout the country. Does the Leader of the House understand that those people will not be reassured by the fact that the President of the Board of Trade will be here to answer questions on Wednesday? What they want to know is why, only last March, assurances were given about the future of pits. That was a political fix, which is now coming unstuck. The President of the Board of Trade should be here to apologise to us, and to those miners and their families.
Mr. Newton: As I have said, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be here next week, although I cannot undertake to ensure that he will address the hon. Gentleman in the terms that he invites.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House read the story in the current issue of "Private Eye" which states that, between 1984 and 1990, Mr. Asil Nadir was entertained at No. 10 Downing street on six occasions as an honoured guest of Margaret Thatcher? Now that the right hon. Lady is away from here and it is safe to come out and talk about such matters, may we please have a debate about the contacts and the relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Asil Nadir?
If we can prove that there is something nasty there, perhaps she will also do a runner to northern Cyprus— which will undoubtedly bring smiles to the faces of some Conservative Members, and great delight to the nation as a whole.
Mr. Newton: As it happens, I have not seen the piece in "Private Eye"; no doubt it will be studied carefully.
Let me point out that we are talking about a period during which, as far as I am aware, there was no particular reason to suspect the existence of the problems that have been indentified more recently. I have before me a note that probably relates to roughly the same period: it states that, at the time, both Polly Peck and Unipack Plastics Ltd. were giving money to such bodies as the Spastics Society, the Royal Opera House and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The atmosphere was quite different from that which now exists.
Mr. Harry Barnes: At the Edinburgh conference of European Community Heads of State, it was decided to lift the veil of secrecy from some operations within the Council of Ministers by publishing the votes that took place at its meetings. I was told in a letter from the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)—who was then a Minister— and in a parliamentary answer from the Prime Minister that all parliamentary answers relating to the Council's meetings and published in Hansard would include the details of votes, and give a nil record if no vote had taken place. However, that is not happening in the bulk of Departments. Will the Leader of the House ensure that it is done? It will undoubtedly assist us when European Community matters are debated in the House.
Mr. Newton: I am aware of the general move towards greater openness; indeed, that was one of the matters advanced by the British Government at the Birmingham council, and we are anxious for it to proceed further. I shall look into the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Government's proposals for changes in the affordability rules affecting housing associations? Only today, associations from the whole of the east midlands have been attempting to set out the clear consequences of the proposed change. They would raise the average rent to £85 a week, force low income earners out of housing association properties, terminate the flow of private finance into housing association building and bring about a huge increase in the housing benefit bill, which must be met by the country as a whole.
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the immediate future, but I can and will undertake to bring the hon. Gentleman's anxieties to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a recent report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland, which severely criticises the way in which the people of Northern Ireland have been deprived of their civil and human rights because of the way in which the House deals with Northern Ireland legislation? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as custodian of the House in this regard, respond positively to the report in the near future?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's request. There has not been deficient representation from Northern Ireland this afternoon, because three hon. Members have addressed me from the Bench on which the hon. Gentleman is sitting. The hon. Gentleman will have a further opportunity to raise those points during the debate next Thursday.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Leader of the House realise that the anxiety about the thermal oxide reprocessing plant is not confined to one group, but is spread to every corner of the House and throughout the country and the world? That is shown by early-day motion 2174 and several others.
[That this House welcomes the 12 to 1 majority vote of the Paris Commission Convention on The Control of Pollution of the Seas, at its meeting in Berlin on 16th June, to adopt further measures including the application of best available techniques for the reduction or elimination of inputs of radioactive substances to the maritime area and its further agreement that a new or revised discharge authorisation for radioactive discharges from nuclear reprocessing installations should only be issued by national authorities if special consideration is given to: (a) information on the need for spent fuel reprocessing and on other options, (b) a full environmental impact assessment, (c) the demonstration that the planned discharges are based upon the use of the best available techniques and observe the precautionary principle and (d) a consultation with the Paris Commission on the basis of (a), (b) and (c) above. Deplores the refusal of the United Kingdom Government alone to support this decision; believes this Paris
1002
Commission decision will rightly have serious implications for Sellafield; and demands that this decision be, fully taken into account in the present considerations on Thorp.]
Does he not realise that, if Thorp is commissioned, it will mean a ninefold increase in radioactive pollution in the Cumbrian area and will leave a legacy of nuclear waste that will be a nightmare and a burden to our grandchildren's grandchildren? During the debate in 1978, assurances were given by every party that this would not go on without a further debate. The rationale for Thorp was to use its production for the fast breeder reactor. That has been cancelled, and we must have a debate.
Madam Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to co-operate in putting only one question, not their arguments at this time. We can then make some progress.
Mr. NewtonIt will not surprise you, Madam Speaker, or the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) when I say that I have already commented on that this afternoon, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I cannot add to that now.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House accept that some Labour members of the Home Affairs Committee welcome the debate on Tuesday? Will he draw to the attention of the Minister leading for the Government our concern that there should be a reference to the responsibilities of Ministers when they go on foreign trips paid for by the taxpayer? The Committee has received evidence that the Prime Minister took time off from official functions in order to touch foreign business men for donations to the Tory party, and that other Ministers may have done the same.
Mr. Newton: I sometimes think that the propensity of Opposition Members to throw such allegations so easily about the Floor of the House is deplorable. I am conscious of the fact—there is practical evidence of it in jobs in various parts of the country—that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's efforts to ensure that foreign business men do business with British companies, buy British products and create British jobs have been among the great successes of his visits.
Mr. Jim Dowd: The Leader of the House will be aware that the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice is to be published in the near future. Can he give some indication of what preliminary arrangements have been made for its contents to come before the House? While making those arrangements, will he make representations to his appropriate right hon. Friends to ensure that the report includes consideration of the serious shortcomings revealed by the case against my constituents, Lisa and Michelle Taylor, who were freed by the Court of Appeal last Friday?
Mr. Newton: I cannot dictate to the royal Commission what matters it should choose to consider and comment upon. I am not in a position to say when the report will be published. In those circumstances, I can hardly make a statement about how it will be dealt with.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is the Leader of the House aware of early day-motion 1874, which refers to Croatian army atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

1003
[That this House recognises the horrific consequences of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and condemns the perpetration of massacres against civilians by all sides whether they be Serb, Croat or Muslim; is appalled by most recent reports of Croatian Army atrocities against Muslim civilians in Jablenica, Vitez, Jelinak, Armici, Zenica and many surrounding villages which have been witnessed by officers and men of the Cheshire Regiment and calls on Croat authorities to end,. forthwith, attacks against local civilians; calls for all regular Croatian Army troops to withdraw from Bosnia-Herzegovina; and simultaneously urges Her Majesty's Government to discuss, with other Members of the Security Council, an appropriate response by the international community.]
In the light of the fact that The Daily Telegraph journalist, Patrick Bishop, and a British soldier serving with the UN force in Bosnia were wounded this morning by a remote-controlled landmine in the region of Travnik where Croatian soldiers are active, could we have a statement from a Minister about relations between this country and Croatia?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to ensure an immediate statement of that sort. I note the unhappy news that the hon. Gentleman has communicated about that incident. He will know that we fully support the Security Council's statement of 21 April and other things that have been done subsequently to protest to the President of Croatia about the renewed violence and call upon him to use his influence to stop it.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Has the Leader of the House caught sight of early-day motion 2171, signed by 169 Members across the House, which calls for the cleaning up of the former United Kingdom atomic test site at Maralinga in South Australia?
[That this House welcomes the visit of Mr. Gareth Evans, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Ministerial colleague, Mr. Simon Crean and their meetings with the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence; expresses the hope that these meetings will lead to an early agreement being reached between the Federal Government of Australia and Her Majesty's government concerning the final cleaning up of the former United Kingdom atomic test site at Maralinga, South Australia; reminds both governments that they are jointly responsible for this matter and that the Aboriginal people of the Maralinga-Tjarutja have pursued the objective of the restoration of their traditional lands in an honourable, dignified and peaceable way; and therefore urges the two governments to respond in like manner, thereby bringing this issue to a conclusion which meets the legitimate needs and interests of the Maralinga people.]
1004
Is it not the case that Gareth Evans, the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Federal Australian Government, has a meeting this afternoon with the Foreign Secretary at which they will discuss this very matter? May I impress on the Leader of the House the need for an early statement from our Foreign Secretary about it, as he will surely agree that the honourable and decent people of the MaralingaTjarutja require nothing less than that our Government and the Federal Government of Australia clean up their traditional tribal lands?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Australian Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for Primary Industries and for Energy are in this country and are meeting my right hon. Friend to discuss the matter. Indeed, there must be nearly as many members of the Australian Government in Britain as there are members of the British Government, judging by the numbers I have met—and very genial they and the members of the Australian Opposition are.
As for the subject that the hon. Gentleman has rasied, both Governments are keen to reach a mutually satisfactory solution as soon as possible, and my right hon. Friend will be reporting the outcome of the meeting to the House.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Leader of the House realise that it is ages since the Secretary of State for Scotland produced his White Paper on the options for water and sewage in Scotland and that, during the consultation period, representations against privatisation have been flooding in, including many from Scottish Conservatives?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in today's Scottish Daily Express, there is what looks like a Scottish Office inspired story, which reveals the form in which the Secretary of State is going to announce the future of Scottish water? As I know that you, Madam Speaker, are always concerned that statements should be made to the House, not in the newspapers in the form of leaks or in any other way, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement to the House next week, or as soon as possible, on the outcome of the consultation on the future of Scottish water and sewage?
Mr. Newton: When there is an outcome to the consultation, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will wish to make an appropriate statement to the House. However, at the moment, there is not, and I therefore cannot promise a statement next week. Nor can I promise a statement on every piece of speculation that appears in the Scottish or United Kingdom press.

Statement on the Defence Estimates
[Relevant documents: First Report of the Defence Committee on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992 of Session 1992–93, HC 218; Fifth Report of the Defence Committee on Army Commitments and Resources: the Government's Response and Army Manpower Statement of 3rd February 1993, HC 731 of Session 1992–93.]
4.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992 contained in Cm. 1981.
I very much welcome the fact that some Opposition Members below the Gangway have tabled their own amendment to the motion. I congratulate them on their clarity and consistency and I can only regard it as unfortunate that the official Opposition appear to have departed from their previous views without having anything to replace them. This is an opportunity for the House to discuss not only last year's White Paper on the defence estimates but a range of other defence issues.
I begin by paying a personal tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) who, until very recently, was a most distinguished Minister for the Armed Forces and who, for a number of years, made a valuable and important contribution to the well-being of our armed forces, something which I believe will stand the test of time.
It is important that the House should have opportunities not only to debate these matters but to do so in a well-informed fashion. We shall soon be publishing the next defence estimates—the next White Paper—which are likely to be before the House in early July. I hope that it will be possible to debate that White Paper more quickly than it has been possible to debate this one, especially because, although I do not wish to anticipate the contents of that White Paper, I believe that the House, the armed forces and the country as a whole will find it a very informative document which will provide much information that has not before been made available to the House or the country and which will seek to present all the work of the Ministry of Defence in such a way as to make a substantial and important contribution to the proper discussion and understanding of the role of the armed forces, the tasks that they have to carry out, the way in which they meet their tasks, various elements of the forces' structure and how the very large resources available to the Ministry of Defence are used.
I begin by reporting to the House the situation in Bosnia and the role of our armed forces in the former Yugoslavia at the present time. May I offer what I am sure are the congratulations of the House as a whole to those members of our armed forces who appeared in Her Majesty's honours list recently and who received well-deserved recognition for the work that they have been doing in that country. Those who received awards for gallantry and for exceptional leadership deserve to be especially proud of what has been achieved.
The Bosnian Serb rejection of the peace plan, developed by Lord Owen and Mr. Vance and accepted by the Bosnian Croats and Muslims, has been a serious setback to the achievement of a negotiated political settlement, which offers the only prospect of an end to the conflict. Sooner or later, the Bosnian Serbs will have to come back
1006
to the negotiating table. Sanctions against Serbia will be applied vigorously until she brings an undoubted influence to bear to that end.
In the meantime, in the absence of a settlement, fighting has worsened between Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia where the British battalion group is deployed as part of the United Nations protection force in its humanitarian task. As the House knows, that task is the provision of protective support for humanitarian aid convoys, under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and for convoys of released detainees under the auspices of the Red Cross.
In the past week there have been serious incidents involving our forces. Last Thursday, 10 June, near Kiseljak, six British personnel were forced out of their Spartan vehicles at gun point and robbed of their weapons and their equipment. Last Friday morning, 11 June, near Novitravnik, British forces had to open fire in self-defence against Bosnian-Croat troops who engaged them while they were protecting a Muslim convoy. On 11 June a sentry at Vitez fired in self-defence at a sniper and there is reason to believe that the assailant was killed.
Those are serious and disturbing incidents. The United Nations and British commanders will make whatever changes they consider necessary in their procedures and dispositions in the light of developments on the ground and will have the Government's full support. For their part, the Government have kept and are keeping the safety of our forces under constant review.
Even before the incidents that I have described occurred, I announced on 10 June new measures that we were taking to ensure that we were ready to provide additional protection for our troops if that became necessary. For several months we have maintained contingency plans to provide additional protection for our forces should circumstances warrant it, through both maritime and land-based assets. To complement those existing arrangements, I announced that a number of Army units and individual officers and men were being placed at readiness to move to the former Yugoslavia at short notice to proyide a range of options should the need to protect our forces make that necessary.
We have placed at readiness a range of capabilities that can be drawn on selectively according to the needs of the situation. No troops are being sent to the theatre at this stage, apart from a small number of personnel who will be required for ground-to-air command and control functions in connection with the provision of air support. HMS Ark Royal remains in the Adriatic sea with her Sea Harriers and Sea King helicopters embarked. We hope that it will not be necessary to deploy those capabilities, but the Government will not hesitate to reinforce our battalion group if required, either to enable it to continue with its current task or to assist with the withdrawal of United Nations forces if it came to that.
As we have already made clear, the units that we have on standby would not be sent to undertake any new mandate. We are already a leading contributor to UNPROFOR's Bosnian command and there are more British soldiers in Bosnia than there are from other United Nations countries. It will be clear to the House that British troops are fully committed in fulfilling their current humanitarian task. The provision of additional forces to enable the safe areas concept in Security Council resolution 836 must be a matter for other nations. We very much hope that those resources will be forthcoming.

1007
The safe areas concept is part of the joint action programme agreed between the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Russia and Spain in Washington on 22 May. Implementing the concept is an important immediate step to help stabilise the situation on the ground, relieve suffering and create an improved climate for further work to achieve a negotiated settlement. Neither Britain nor the other co-sponsors of the resolution regards safe areas as a permanent solution or an end in themselves.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Even as we debate the matter, at least one of those safe areas, Gorazde, is being subjected to continued aggression by Serbia. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned Croatia and the Muslims. Will he emphasise the fact that great brutality is still being perpetrated by the Serbs in Bosnia?
Mr. Rifkind: I have to confirm that fact. There have been incidents of brutality involving all communities in this ghastly conflict. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's comment that Serbia has a particular responsibility and has been involved in a number of the most serious incidents.
Safe areas are a temporary measure to help to create a climate in which renewed efforts to help a lasting and equitable peace can make progress, building on the work of Lord Owen and Mr. Vance. The Security Council resolution has given UNPROFOR a mandate in six areas: to deter attacks; to monitor the ceasefire; to promote the withdrawal of military or paramilitary units other than Bosnian Government units; and to occupy some key points on the ground in addition to participating in the delivery of humanitarian relief.
The resolution authorises member states acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrange-ments to use air power in support of UNPROFOR carrying out its mandate in and around the six designated safe areas. NATO has agreed to take on the task in support of, and in close co-ordination with, the UN as an extension of its current operations to enforce the no-fly zone. I announced on 10 June that the Government have offered a squadron of Royal Air Force Jaguar aircraft to participate in such an operation. We are closely in touch with NATO about the detailed arrangements for the operation and I shall keep the House informed.
The House will want to join me in paying tribute to the courage and professionalism of all our forces involved in operations in and around the former Yugoslavia. We are well aware of the impressive scope of those operations. Royal Navy ships and Royal Air Force aircraft are taking part in operations to enforce sanctions against Serbia and the arms embargo against the whole former Yugoslavia and to enforce the no-fly zone in Bosnia.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: How effective is the increased effort to tighten sanctions proving to be? That is germane to the question whether there should be more or less military intervention.
Mr. Rifkind: Sanctions are having a very considerable effect on the Serbian economy. President Milosevic sees the effect of sanctions as very damaging to the economic prospects of the country. There is massive inflation, vast unemployment and a huge fall in manufacturing production. That is, in part, why Mr. Milosevic sought to
1008
persuade the Bosnian Serbs to support the Owen-Vance proposals. The sanctions will continue until we can be satisfied that sufficient progress has been made.
The battalion group that has been involved in our humanitarian operations has been very successful and can claim to have been responsible for the saving of many tens of thousands of lives. Those who advocate the lifting of the arms embargo in favour of the Muslims or intervention against one party or the other must realise that to do so would bring the humanitarian operation to an end. I repeat, however, that we shall not hesitate to take whatever steps may be necessary for the safety of our forces and the House can rest assured that this is, and will continue to be, our paramount consideration.
The possible participation of South Africa in the anniversary celebrations of the Royal Air Force has given rise to some interest in the House and in another place. I am pleased to announce that South Africa will be invited by the Royal Air Force benevolent fund to send a transport plane to attend the Fairford international air tattoo. South Africa's association with the Royal Air Force is long-standing. Indeed, the RAF's existence as a separate service owes much to Field Marshal Smuts. We have, therefore, concluded that this association should be marked with the participation of a non-combat plane in the air tattoo to mark the RAF's 75th anniversary year.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State think it entirely appropriate to have a South African military presence in this country when South African armed units are attacking Government positions in Angola in defiance of a United Nations resolution and of the clearly expressed wish of the Angolan people for peace?
Mr. Rifkind: The involvement of the South African navy in the recent services relating to the battle of the Atlantic was warmly welcomed by all shades of opinion in South Africa, including the people most representative of black opinion. We are now in a new situation and it is right and proper for us to respond in the way that I have described.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I do not wish to expand much further on the point, but just to establish the facts clearly for the record, during the second world war a vast number of South Africans volunteered, against the wishes of some of the more Boer elements in South Africa, to come here and many lost their lives on behalf of this country. The whole point of the commemoration is that it is about those people, not about what may be going on politically today.
Mr. Rifkind: That is absolutely correct. We can never forget the contribution made by those brave South Africans, many of whom sacrificed their lives. When we are commemorating the history of the Royal Air Force it is right and proper that that contribution should be taken into account. As my hon. Friend says, that does not represent a political comment on any contemporary difficulties that may be continuing in South Africa today.
We are all conscious of the fact that the armed forces are going through one of the most radical reorganisations since 1945 and I pay tribute to the people, both civilians and members of the armed forces, who are having to

1009
supervise a difficult period of transition and who are doing so with the customary spirit and dedication that we expect to see in the armed forces.
I note that some Opposition Members, although not Front-Bench Members, have tabled an amendment calling for a major reduction in our defence expenditure, echoing the calls of the Labour party conference for defence expenditure to be drastically pruned. When those hon. Members say that our defence expenditure should be reduced to the level of that in other European countries, perhaps they have not fully examined what the other countries with which one might most easily compare the United Kingdom spend on defence. For example, when one compares the defence expenditure of the United Kingdom with that of France and Germany one finds an almost uncanny similarity in the total sums made available. Expressed in pounds sterling, United Kingdom defence expenditure in 1992 was about £24·4 billion; that of France was £25·8 billion; and that of Germany almost exactly £24 billion. An almost identical amount was being spent by those three major countries. Furthermore, the United Kingdom has some special responsibilities, such as our commitment to Northern Ireland and our continuing obligations to defend our dependent territories. The responsibilities associated with our being a nuclear power —a factor that we share with France—also have to be taken fully into account.
We have also seen a dramatic improvement in the ability of the United Nations to meet various international challenges and it is well worth remembering the increased contribution that the United Nations is making to easing some of the problems of security and peacemaking in various parts of the world. Since January last year, when only 12,000 United Nations forces were involved in various operations around the world, the figure has increased so that today about 60,000 United Nations forces are engaged in United Nations operations. That increase has profound implications and it is now time for the United Nations to consider whether at the heart of its activity it has sufficient military advice and personnel to assist the Secretary-General to develop and co-ordinate the many military operations with which the organisation is associated. Increasing attention needs to be given to that question.
It is also important to ensure that countries invited to contribute to United Nations operations should not be expected to be committed to supporting the United Nations in any particular theatre for as long as support may be required. Sometimes that may involve a period of many years—for example, we have now been in Cyprus for more than 25 years—and it is not realistic to expect the small number of countries which provide the bulk of United Nations support to give such an open-ended commitment on an ongoing basis. Much more sensible is the principle of rotation, as that enables another country to be brought in for a period of time, thereby helping to spread the burden in a realistic and sensible way.
I want today to make some very important comments with regard to the use of our reserve forces, because I believe that they have a crucial contribution to make and I know that they are a matter of considerable interest to many hon. Members.
1010
I know that the House will join me in paying tribute to the contribution that has been made over the years by members of our reserve forces. The willingness of men and women to give up their spare time to serve the Crown has been warmly welcomed and on many occasions has proved to be vital.
In March 1992 we issued an open Government document on the future of Britain's reserve forces which set out proposals for the more flexible use of reserves, permitting their use in a wide range of types of operation. That document proposed legislation in the 1994–95 Session and we have that objective firmly in mind. Since that document was issued, the change in the international situation has provided us with the opportunity to introduce new roles for the reserves. At the same time it has become clear that standing reserve forces are no longer required for certain current roles.
Against that background we have been looking in detail at the structure of the reserves of all three forces. Today I shall be announcing the results of our detailed deliberations on the future of the Navy's reserves and our latest proposals for the RAF reserves. We are also re-examining the operational requirement for the Army's reserves and hence the size and shape of the Territorial Army. I shall be making a further announcement on that later in the year.
Before I come to the detail of our proposals on the Royal Navy and the RAF, there are a number of basic principles which I should set down and which underpin our thinking on all three services. First, I must place on record my personal commitment to the future of our reserve forces. Reserves in all three services will play a continuing crucial role in providing support to their regular colleagues.
Secondly, I believe that we should bring up to date the roles of the reserves where they are no longer relevant to our changing defence needs. It is in no one's interest, not least that of the reservists themselves, that they should be expected to carry out roles which, although vital in the past, no longer require standing forces. That would breed frustration and disillusion.
Thirdly, and most important of all, I believe that the time has come to make arrangements to deploy reserves much more widely in operational roles in peacetime. I regard this point as particularly important. In the past, with only a few exceptions, we have called out reservists only at times of heightened tension or in war. We are now moving to a world where the possibility of major confrontation is less than it has been for many years, but where the demands placed on our forces for peacekeeping and related tasks have never been greater. Furthermore, I know of the frustration felt by many reservists that their skills were not used during the Gulf war, when their American counterparts were deployed in such large numbers. Today, hundreds of Canadian volunteer reserves are serving in Cyprus, Cambodia and Somalia; and in the former Yugoslavia Canadians are joined by hundreds of Danish reserves.
I can see no reason why we, too, should not plan to deploy our reservists in peacetime. I am therefore looking in detail at the possibilities, particularly as we consider the proposed new reserve forces legislation. One specific idea is that we might use volunteers from the TA to form units or sub-units to contribute on a planned basis to operational commitments undertaken by the regular Army. The feasibility of attaching a composite TA

1011
infantry company composed of volunteers to regular units undergoing United Nations tours is being examined, with a view to running a pilot scheme in late 1994. I shall say more about this when I come to report on the future of the Territorial Army later in the year. I regard it as a very significant and welcome development. I want similar opportunities to be available to naval and air force reservists. I believe that in this way we shall ensure that the reserves are given more relevant, more important and more fulfilling jobs to do and that the link between reserves and regular forces will be strengthened thereby.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am sure that the announcement that we have just heard about the enhanced role and status of the Territorial Army service overseas will be warmly welcomed on both sides of the House. Can my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that, in the further consideration that he is giving to the role of the TA, he will give consideration to the concept of ever-readies, which has often been advanced in the House, so that we can see across the broad stream of activity the TA playing an even greater role in helping to sustain our armed forces?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Any use of the reserves for operational roles in peacetime must be based on the fact that they would be volunteers —they would have made it clear that they were keen to be used for such a role if it should become available. Over the next few months, we will be working on the detailed way in which the objectives will be translated into specific structures to bring that about.
I come to the detailed proposals for the future of the Royal Naval Reserve. The proposals to which I am about to refer are, of course, subject to consultation. No final decisions will be taken until the process is complete.
First, I should make it clear that we have no plans for changes to the Navy's ex-regular reserves, other than to match the greater opportunities for women within the Royal Navy to the same reserve liability as their male colleagues. Currently numbering some 24,000, those ex-regulars would, if necessary, provide the great bulk of reinforcement to the Royal Navy. Each year, some 2,000 highly trained personnel leave the Royal Navy and provide a readily usable pool of ex-regular reserves. Any degradation of their skills can be recovered through refresher training.
For the naval volunteer reserves, the proposals are the culmination of studies that were announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell on 24 July 1991. The main aim of those studies was to achieve closer integration of the Royal Naval Reserve with the operational activities of the Royal Navy. As hon. Members know, the Royal Navy's volunteer reserve forces comprise the Royal Marine Reserve, the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service. The principal role of the Royal Marine Reserve is to provide training reinforcements to bring the marine commandos to full war strength on mobilisation. That is an important and continuing role. We have no current plans for changes to the Royal Marine Reserve.
Two of the major roles of the naval volunteer reserves during the cold war have been the defence of ports and anchorages and the manning of the Naval Control of
1012
Shipping organisation. Those tasks have been undertaken jointly by the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service.
The Royal Navy has reviewed the continuing need for those tasks and concluded that the scale and immediacy of a perceived threat to the western alliance has reduced to such an extent that it is no longer sensible to earmark discrete forces for them. In the extreme circumstances of a rise in tension and a direct threat to this country, there will be sufficient time to provide such forces by an appropriate expansion, if necessary, of the Royal Naval Reserve or regeneration of the ex-regular reserves. The end of that requirement removes the need for 710 Royal Naval Reserve personnel and all but 135 of the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service ratings.
After careful study, we have concluded that there are no other roles that would he suitable for the RNXS and that such a service of 135 would be too small to he viable. Accordingly, and with considerable regret, we have concluded that the RNXS, which came into being only in 1962, should be disbanded and its training units closed. In making those proposals, I pay tribute to the loyalty and dedication of members of the RNXS over the years—this cannot be over-emphasised. However, I know that the RNXS would not wish to carry on with tasks that the tide of history has left behind. There will be an opportunity for up to 135 RNXS personnel with suitable skills in Naval Control of Shipping to join the Royal Naval Reserve to provide a capability for possible short-notice deployment overseas.
We have considered the impact on the reserves of developing technology. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the field of mine counter-measures. Our River class of minesweepers fleet, which provides the basis of the current Royal Naval Reserve seagoing role, was designed to counter deep-moored mines as well as a specific Soviet threat. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, that mine threat no longer exists. The minesweepers fleet has no other mine counter-measures capability and has been overtaken by advances in other aspects of mine counter-measure warfare and technology. Accordingly, we propose to withdraw those vessels from this role and the Royal Naval Reserve.
The task of deep-water mine counter-measures will be assumed by our modern mine counter-measure vessels such as the Sandown class. Such modern vessels are highly technical and require the crew to be at a high state of training readiness to be prepared to meet their operational commitments. It would not be possible fully to man the vessels with Royal Naval Reserves. However, under our new proposals, members of the Royal Naval Reserve will be able to serve on these vessels.
Mr. Peter Viggers: I follow the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend and accept the logic of what he says about the River class minesweepers. However, the next step in his chain of logic would be to confirm that there will be further orders for Sandown class minehunters. Does he accept that the need for mine counter-measure vessels has not diminished worldwide and, indeed, that the kind of threat facing us in the so-called new world order requires mine-hunting capacity? Will he confirm that the orders intended for later this year will be forthcoming?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his understanding approach to the reasons that have led to this decision. We expect to go out to tender shortly in respect of the Sandown class minehunters. We intend to ensure that they will be available as soon as they are operationally necessary. I hope that that reassures him.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Both sides of the House will welcome the timely decision that the Secretary of State has just announced in response to changing world circumstances. Will he now tell us what change he will make to our nuclear capability in response to the changing world situation? Does it make any sense to continue as we are doing and not only retain our present nuclear weapons, but increase their size, numbers, range and power?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure that that is relevant to the role of the naval reserves, but, as the hon. Gentleman intervened to ask the question, I remind him that we have already announced the ending of all nuclear artillery, the use of Lance missiles and the use of tactical weapons on naval vessels.
Mr. Flynn: What about Trident?
Mr. Rifkind: We are committed to Trident and rightly so because it is based on our perception of what is the minimum deterrent required to ensure the protection of the United Kingdom. We have no intention of departing from that policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: If I may, I shall return to dealing with the Royal Naval Reserve.
The Government fully accept that serving in Royal Navy ships lies at the heart of the Royal Naval Reserve, underpinning its ethos and recruiting. I am happy to announce that this role will be developed so that it encompasses all types of Royal Navy ship. We are proposing that a dedicated seagoing branch of some 500 personnel be set up, training in all types of Royal Navy ships, not just mine counter-measure vessels, and employed at sea wherever appropriate, as an integral part of the fleet. Additionally, smaller numbers of Royal Navy Reserves will assist in the logistics area, in submarine operations management and on aircraft maintenance. In future, Royal Naval Reserve training will be more closely sponsored by the appropriate Royal Navy organisation.
The net effect of these changing roles is that the Royal Naval Reserve will reduce from 4,700 to about 3,500. Eleven units will close, but a new unit based in HMS Bristol, the harbour training ship at Portsmouth, would be created which would offer the opportunity for RNR personnel from HMS Sussex, HMS Wessex and HMS Southwick to transfer. In future, 13 RNR units, to be retitled "Reserve Centres", will be sited throughout the United Kingdom. We will try to find alternative employment in the Ministry of Defence or other Government Departments for some 200 civilian em-ployees, some part-time, who will be affected, but this may not always be possible.
Mr. Robert Banks: I appreciate what my right hon. and learned Friend has said today. It is important for the Royal Naval Reserve to have an active role rather than one, of which I had experience, in the naval control of shipping. Can he say something about
1014
HMS President, which has been an important landmark in the City and a good recruiting and training centre? Will that unit be retained?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The opportunity for members of the Royal Naval Reserve to train with the Royal Navy on all types of warship at sea is an important step forward and will be widely welcomed. I cannot give my hon. Friend an immediate answer to his question, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who will reply, will certainly respond to that point in due course.
I turn to our proposals for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Again, the end of the cold war and the manifestly reduced threat to the United Kingdom has a significant impact, particularly in relation to the direct threat to our airfields. Accordingly, we have concluded that it is no longer necessary to retain No. 1339 Wing, equipped with Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns and Skyguard radars to protect RAF Waddington and RAF Coningsby.
As hon. Members will know, our proposals under "Options for Change" will lead to the cessation of flying at RAF Honington. The Royal Air Force Regiment depot will move to that station from RAF Catterick. There is, therefore, no longer a requirement for the wartime specialist ground defence currently provided by No. 2623 (East Anglian) Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment. Notwithstanding the fine service that those units have given over the years, they no longer meet a defence need.
We have also reviewed our previous plans to expand the Royal Auxiliary Air Force defence force flights. Again. circumstances have changed so radically that it would be unwise to proceed with that expansion before the results of the service's wide-ranging review of its long-term requirements are known.
While those changes represent reductions in the auxiliary air force, I am delighted also to announce our proposals for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force to take on a new role, with auxiliaries filling about half the posts in two regular squadrons of the Rapier air-defence Missile force. Recruiting is expected to begin next year in the areas around RAF Leuchars and RAF Leeming and the new units should be complete by 1997.
To simplify call-out procedures, which will require the introduction of the new legislation I mentioned earlier, we propose that that part of the Royal Air Force volunteer reserve which has a war role should be amalgamated with the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, producing a more streamlined organisation for war. That would not affect the Royal Air Force volunteer reserve training posts associated with the air cadet organisations and the university air squadrons.
Taken together, those proposals will lead to a net reduction of about 180 auxiliary air force posts. That is about 10 per cent. of the current strength of the RAF reserves.
The naval and air force proposals that I have announced will be of interest to a great number of hon. Members and to many people throughout the country. Accordingly, I have set out the proposals in some detail in consultative documents which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses and which are also being sent to organisations known to have an interest. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have written to

1015
those hon. Members whose constituencies are affected. Further copies of the documents are available in the Vote Office.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Bearing in mind the fact that this is the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the Royal Air Force, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to join me in congratulating Dowty Aerospace Propellers Ltd., for which many of my constituents work, on being selected to supply high technology and all composite propellers to the Lockheed Corporation? I understand that the Dowty propeller will equip the C130-J Hercules aircraft and that the order run may be about 500 aircraft sets, worth about £150 million. Does he agree that that is a great boost for British industry and shows that we are still a great engineering nation?
Mr. Rifkind: I am glad of this opportunity to congratulate Dowty on that success, which is a tribute to the excellence of our aerospace industry. As my hon. Friend will know, the Hercules C130-J is a candidate to replace our existing Hercules aircraft, which have given valuable service for over 25 years.
The proposals that I have announced today will be subject to consultation with the trade unions where civilian employment is affected. We shall continue to liaise closely with the territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations and the national employers liaison committee. The consultation period will run until 30 July. Thereafter, having considered any and all comments received, we will announce a decision on the proposals in due course.
We are living in a time of change, but I know that the Territorial Army as well as the naval and air force reserves will welcome our intent to use them more fully for operational roles in peacetime. This represents an historic change and is entirely appropriate to the new international situation.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am interested to hear my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the reserves. He seems to be announcing reductions in the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Air Force Auxiliary as a positive step which will enable the people concerned to take part in more regular activities. I put it to him that by manning Rapier squadrons half with reservists, those squadrons are likely to be undermanned because, needless to say, in many cases the reservists will have full-time civilian jobs.
Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that it will be done in such a way as to ensure that the operational requirements of the Royal Air Force are fully met. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise. It is inevitable that there will be some reduction in the size of the Naval and Royal Air Force auxiliary services and reserves if certain of their basic roles are no longer required.
We have approached the matter from the point of view of whether there is a continuing need for a particular function. I do not think anyone would argue that, for example, naval control of shipping or the defence of ports and anchorages requires a dedicated force in the circumstances that we now face. That is the approach that we have adopted. Wherever we have identified new roles that make sense and are relevant to the needs of the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy, we have been very willing to utilise those roles for such purposes.
Mr. Keith Mans: Dealing specifically with the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and bearing in mind the increased role that Rapier squadrons are likely to have overseas as a result of the end of the cold war and the sort of peacekeeping operations that may have to be backed up by air defence or strike attack aircraft, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to say how those reservists will be able to go overseas with their squadrons in future to fulfil that role?
Mr. Rifkind: Reservists who are used overseas—this relates to my earlier remarks—will be volunteers. It will be for those who are willing, when they join the reserves, to be considered for such operational roles overseas to indicate that willingness and to be attached, I would expect, to units that may be used for that purpose. Then, should the circumstances so arise, they would be available. In broad terms, that is the way in which it will operate.
We have much work to do on that concept because this is the first time that we have considered using reserves, although many other countries do so. We shall be using the time in the coming months to prepare the necessary legislation and the pilot scheme that I said would be introduced in 1994, and translate this firm proposal into its specific procedural and other details, which will then take effect. I believe that it will be warmly welcomed.
Mr. Julian Brazier: We have a clear lesson to learn from the Gulf war—clear at least to anybody who knows territorial soldiers, and I served with the TA for 13 years. Our former hon. Friend Neil Thorne, who represented Ilford, South, often raised the point in the House. It is that territorial soldiers should never be asked to volunteer twice. Calling for volunteers puts men, their employers and sometimes their families in an impossible position. Either a unit should be called out or it should not. Calling for volunteers places terrible stress on people. That is why the TA does not believe the document and is not happy with its content. It does not see it as a suitable way forward for using reservists in peacetime.
Mr. Rilkind: I would not dissent from some of the points that my hon. Friend makes, but he knows as well as I do that the TA has expressed a desire to be used in an operational role in peacetime. He knows it because he has urged that course on me on numerous occasions. What he and others who share that aspiration, which the Government endorse, can do is to help construct the precise structure which will enable that aspiration to be translated into practice. That is what we are seeking to do and I believe. that it can be done effectively.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that it is a complete travesty to say that all members of the TA are employed by large companies? That is not the position. They are often self-employed and sometimes they are unemployed. In those circumstances, they are grateful for the opportunity to serve. So it is nonsense to say that they will be withdrawn from their companies or that a disturbance will be created.
Mr. Rilkind: I accept that, and I am conscious of the fact that whenever I have visited TA units, the desire to be used in an operational role has been the single, most repeated request made to me. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides have often had that request put to them, for understandable reasons.
Mr. David Young: I fear that as more reserve forces are brought in as part of a wider scheme, people will feel that their jobs will be in jeopardy because of the view of their employers. Will the Government remove from the unemployment figures the unemployed who volunteer for the reserve forces?
Mr. Rifkind: That is among the sillier suggestions that I have heard for some time. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's underlying point is that we must have close liaison with the national employers liaison committee, which represents the interests of employers who have a commitment to assisting the reserves. We shall be working closely with that body.
Mr. James Couchman: I represent what was the Chatham Royal Naval base and there is considerable local interest in the future of HMS Wildfire, the Royal Naval Reserve establishment in Chatham. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the 500 years of naval history behind that unit? That is where naval affection is now focused and there will be sadness in the Medway towns if that link is broken.
Mr. Rifkind: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I hope that he will take the opportunity, however, to read the consultative document that we have published today. If he believes that particular points have not been properly considered, I hope that he will not hesitate to make them known to me.
I do not wish to detain the House for much longer—
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rifkind: Not at the moment, but no doubt there will be other opportunities to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
We are all conscious of the fact that the ending of the cold war and the collapse of communism in Europe was a triumph for NATO. I also believe that it was a triumph for the defence policies that had been pursued by the Government and previous Conservative Governments. I do not believe that the Opposition Front Bench Defence spokesmen can take any great sense of pride in what has been achieved with the collapse of communism and the end of the Warsaw pact.
On most of the major issues that we have had to address and concentrate our attention on in recent years, including the unilateral defence policy of the Labour party and the use of cruise missiles, the Labour party has opposed the fundamental tenor of Government defence policy.
Mr. Wareing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Rifkind: In a moment.
Opposition Members claim to be men and women of principle, but that is not supported by the charge sheet. Once upon a time one used to ask, "What did you do during the great war?" The answer was, "I survived." If Opposition Members were asked what they did during the cold war, they should reply, "I surrendered", given the way in which, in successive election campaigns and in the House, they have committed themselves to policies designed to reduce defence expenditure and abandon our nuclear deterrent. The way in which they have generally ignored our defence interests has been appalling.
The hon. Members who now make up the Opposition defence team claim that they are now reformed characters
1018
and that their past convictions should not be held against them. It is important to remember exactly what they said in recent years, because all of them, who now have defence responsibilities, have quite a lot of answering to do.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is responsible for defence matters in the shadow Cabinet, but even to this day none of us knows whether he is still a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He has never been prepared to confirm that he has left CND and his reluctance to do so makes us wonder whether he is still a member of it.
The record of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on defence matters has not been much better. In 1982, during the Falklands war, he called for an immediate truce while the Argentinian forces still controlled the island. No doubt they would still control it if his advice had been accepted. In 1987, he called on the Government to cancel Trident in the light of international changing circumstances. We have never heard him confess that he was wrong to do so.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) also supported the cancellation of Trident and yet now claims to support a Labour party policy that seeks to ensure Trident's continuation. We must ask ourselves what are the policies and principles on which those Front-Bench spokesmen seek to put forward their arguments.
The position of the shadow Cabinet is just as doubtful. The hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook), for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), three of its most prominent members, defied their leadership in 1990 by voting in favour of massive defence cuts to the level of the west European average.
Mr. George Foulkes: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell my hon. Friends that he intended to refer to them?
Mr. Rifkind: I am referring to the facts. [Interruption.] They are well aware——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have repeated sedentary interventions.
Mr. Foulkes: It is a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has mentioned my hon. Friends and I would like to know whether he wrote to them to tell them what he intended to do. The three Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on defence are here and are expected to be here, but has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the courtesy to inform my other hon. Friends that he intended to mention them?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House as well as I do. He knows that I am referring to factual matters that are on the record and established and that, therefore, there is no need to follow that convention.
The reality is that three members of the shadow Cabinet have voted constantly for massive cuts in defence expenditure and sought to justify that. What about the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? As recently as June last year she was asked in a Fabian pamphlet whether she supported the views of the Labour party conference, which called for a massive reduction of £6 billion in defence expenditure. She replied:
"I have always taken the view that conference determines Party policy."

1019
If that is the view of the deputy leader of the Labour party, it needs to be questioned and we require a proper answer.
Mr. Wareing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Rifkind: No, because I have a particular point to put to the hon. Member for South Shields, the Opposition's spokesman on defence.
During the 1992 general election campaign, the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), offered the most novel policy of the Labour party on defence. He said that the Opposition would not negotiate away Britain's nuclear weapons as long as other countries had such weapons. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will admit that the meaning of that statement was clear. The right hon. Member for Islwyn said:
"a Labour Britain will keep nuclear weapons as long as anyone else has them."
That appeared to be a clear, unambiguous statement. On 17 May this year, however, the hon. Member for South Shields, speaking on behalf of the Labour party, was asked to comment on matters involving Trident. He said:
"We would deploy and retain Trident, but if it got to the stage when we would consider it appropriate, we would enter Trident into the disarmament negotiations … we wouldn't give Trident away for nothing."
That is very reassuring, but not entirely satisfactory. Presumably we would give Trident away for something, if not for nothing—something short of the total removal of nuclear weapons by countries that represent a possible threat to us.
The hon. Member for South Shields owes it to the House and, perhaps, to his own party to tell us whether he has changed Labour party policy. We wish to know whether he stands by the views of the previous Leader of the Opposition, who said that we would keep our nuclear weapons
"as long as anyone else has them."
Is that or is it not still the policy of the Labour party?
Dr. David Clark: I am delighted to clarify the situation. The position is quite clear and it was laid down in words of one syllable, or almost, so that Conservative Members had a chance to understand, in our manifesto. It clearly stated that Labour would
"in government partner the United States in negotiating to reduce"—
[Interruption.] I am reading slowly so that Conservative Members can understand—
"the world's stocks of nuclear weapons. We shall seek to involve the four former Soviet nuclear republics, together with France and China. Until elimination of those stocks is achieved, Labour will retain Britain's nuclear capability, with the number of warheads no greater than the present total."
I hope that that is clear to Conservative Members. That was the policy of the Labour party at the election arid it is its policy today. That, too, is my policy, which I have reiterated time and time again. I hope that Conservative Members are able to understand words of one syllable.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that that is his policy, but it is not what he said in his major lecture at the International Institute for Strategic Studies on 17 May, when all that he was prepared to say was:
"we wouldn't give Trident away for nothing."
Dr. David Clark: That is the same thing.
Mr. Rifkind: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's clarification, which the House is also delighted to hear. We
1020
are delighted that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed today that the Labour party would keep nuclear weapons as long as other countries kept theirs. That is a small step for mankind, but a great step for the Labour party.
Mr. Wareing: It is clear from the Secretary of State's speech that he wishes to defend British interests, although he uses small party political points to do so.
The Secretary of State mentioned the Falkland Islands. I recall that the withdrawal of a British ship from those islands gave a signal for the Argentinians to invade. When will the Secretary of State talk about Belize, where the withdrawal of British troops was foreshadowed exactly four days before by a coup d'état in Guatemala? That was four days after some Opposition Members had warned the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) that Guatemala was not stable and that Belize's safety was not safeguarded. Will the Secretary of State address himself to the protection of both British and Belizean interests in the Caribbean?
Mr. Rifkind: I had a valuable discussion with the Prime Minister of Belize only last week and we are conscious of our obligations to that country. The hon. Gentleman should know—if he does not, I am happy to inform him —that the new Government in Guatemala have not stated that they take a different view of the independence of Belize—
Mr. Wareing: Yet.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says yet, as if there were an implicit threat. We have given the fullest protection to Belize and we are conscious of our responsibilities to that country. Belize is now recognised by and has diplomatic relations with Guatemala. Guatemala has withdrawn her claim to the territory and the idea that the United Kingdom should continue with a permanent military garrison in those circumstances is unrealistic. We have also said that, following the gradual withdrawal of the garrison, we shall continue to have a presence in Belize, as we intend to continue jungle training there.
The United Kingdom will continue to have the closest possible relations with Belize and with its Government. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that a permanent garrison is required, he must appreciate that that would be a most inappropriate policy to pursue.
Mr. Wareing: No agreement with former Guatemalan President Serrano Elias had been reached on territorial waters even before the coup. Who knows what could be in store in an unstable country where there was a great threat of a military takeover just a few weeks ago? Is the Secretary of State saying that he is certain that that threat has gone for ever?
Mr. Rifkind: The question is whether we choose to retain a military garrison in an independent state that has, at the moment, no claims upon its territory from other countries. We do not keep military garrisons around the world. We keep them in territories where we have an historic obligation or where there is a threat to a country's independence and integrity. The idea that, because of unresolved differences of view between two countries that do not involve the independence or integrity of either state,

1021
we should keep a military garrison on an open-ended basis is a grave distortion of priorities for any country, and particularly for this country at the present time.
I emphasise that we have no intention of abandoning Belize. The withdrawal of our garrison will be gradual and could be reversed if circumstances justified it. We have no reason to believe that the present Guatemalan Government have any intention of reopening some of the old animosities. If that intention were to change, we would have to take that carefully into account.
I shall conclude by saying—[Interruption.] I am conscious that I have been speaking for quite a long time. A number of hon. Members wish to speak and I hope I may be allowed to conclude.
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Mr. Rilkind: The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment and he will wish to speak to it. If he catches the Chair's eye, he may be able to put forward his views.
The Government are conscious that there are difficult challenges and problems for the armed forces of the United Kingdom to face. That is inevitable at a time when we are experiencing a reduction in the size of the armed forces. It is not a problem unique to the United Kingdom —clearly all NATO countries face similar circumstances. Dramatic changes are occurring in the former Warsaw pact countries which require considerable attention and cause severe strains.
There is no doubt that, at the end of that process, we will still be able to say without equivocation that the United Kingdom retains one of the most powerful, relevant and significant military forces both in Europe and in the international community. Our professional armed forces are held in the highest respect because of their professionalism, expertise and training. We remain committed to those standards and, while there will inevitably be difficulties over the next couple of years, I believe that we will come through that period and that our armed forces will continue to be a source of great pride and achievement to the British people.
5.6 pm
Dr. David Clark: I shall begin in a non-controversial manner by joining the Minister in wishing good will to our troops in Bosnia and in many other trouble spots of the world. I wish them well and hope that they come back to this country safely.
I wish to place the Labour party's gratitude to our service personnel on the record. They have demonstrated their dedication and professionalism on numerous occasions over the past year. We should recognise that, and also that we are extremely fortunate to have those high quality armed forces. The demand by such bodies as the UN for British forces testifies to their excellence and skill. We are fortunate to have them.
We are also fortunate to have the reserves, who give the country more time and effort than is reflected by the remuneration that they receive. We must remember also the thousands of Ministry of Defence civilian workers and the hundreds of thousands of defence workers who play a vital part in the defence of our country.
The Secretary of State announced far-reaching proposals for the reserves. We must study those proposals
1022
with care. I noticed that he did not get the resounding support that I think he had expected from his Back Benchers. We must study the small print of the proposals.
The Secretary of State announced the proposals in a positive way, but left many questions unanswered. Many of us feel that the decision is not strategic, nor is it based on defence requirements. It is based on a decision by the Treasury to screw money out of the Ministry of Defence. When he replies to the debate, I would like the Minister to state how much the proposal will save, or how much extra money it will cost. Will he also say whether there will be any further reductions in the size of the Territorial Army? Those questions must be examined carefully.
The Secretary of State's announcement, and the way in which it was announced, gave a new meaning to the "army of unemployed" in this country. The Secretary of State was dismissive of the problem of unemployed reservists. However, there are 3 million people out of work and a number of them are reservists. He pooh-poohed questions about whether those reservists will be available for work. I hope that he will address that question. The petty interpretation currently employed by the Government for people who are trying to do voluntary work does not bode well for the future.
The Labour party has called for this debate for the past nine months and, obviously, we now welcome it very much. We are conscious that we are discussing the defence White Paper for 1992 halfway through 1993. It is clear that none of the discussions or votes relating to the debate will have any impact on the defence estimates, which have already been passed by the House with our support. We are debating the Government's statements on the estimates—in other words, the Government's defence strategy. We understand why the Government have been so slow to hold a debate. It is ironic that we are debating these estimates now, when within two weeks we shall get the defence estimates for 1993. I hope that in future the Government will not treat the House in such a cavalier manner.
On examining the Government's statement on defence, I can say only that by their neglect and incompetence and through their sheer inefficiency the Government have mismanaged gravely the defence of our nation.
The reason why they have made such a mess is quite clear. They are simply unable to shake off their free-market dogma and come to terms with the demise of the Soviet Union. The Conservatives have never been adept at handling change. As one Tory wag once remarked, it is not that they are against change; they simply do not like doing anything for the first time. That is the Government's dilemma. The concept of planning is anathema to them, yet planning is absolutely central to defence. Thus, with the greatest changes in the security sphere since the end of world war two, they rejected a full-scale defence review in which the chiefs of staff were properly consulted. That has been the traditional method of reassessing our defence strategy and that is what should have been done on the breakdown of the cold war.
In a letter to the RUSI News Sheet of autumn 1991, Richard Mottram, a senior MOD civil servant, stated that the group that produced the first "Options for Change" proposals, while it did contain some military personnel, did not include the chiefs of staff. The most important reason for this was to
"help avoid … selective leaks to the media".

1023
That is why chiefs of staff were excluded from the discussions on "Options for Change".
I find it disturbing that Government Ministers had such little confidence in their chiefs of staff that they actually agreed with that. What confidence can the House have in a defence policy that has been written without proper consultation with the military?
Mr. Mans: While I can understand that there was a compelling reason to have a full-scale defence review at the end of the cold war, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, with hindsight, that would not have been the right way forward? Events have moved so rapidly and in such unpredictable ways that any review at that time would already be out of date. With hindsight, was not Government policy at the time—to look at the situation and make the changes they did—the right one?
Dr. Clark: I can answer the hon. Gentleman in one word—no. The real reason is that the Tory party is dogged with dogma. Any defence review was out of the question, so the then Secretary of State decided to have his hole-in-the-corner review of defence which he grandly called, "Options for Change".
The irony is that in the past couple of weeks we have had the best explanation and description of that process in the diaries produced by the then Minister of State. Alan Clark. It is quite remarkable that he spills the beans and tells us what it was all about. He was very quick off the mark and presented his own proposals on 14 January which, in his own words, were "the lead document" and had the advantage that they were "only five pages long" as opposed to the cumbersome policies and documents put forward by the other parties. He describes in great detail what happened.
"How shrewd and good I was to get it in first",
he writes, and talks about how he was beginning to win the battle in the Ministry of Defence. He says:
"I retoy with the idea of supplanting him,"
the then Secretary of State
"and promptly. Of course I should be in charge",
he writes,
"handling the whole thing at international level. also Washington, Brussels. My present solution would be to move TK to Health".
I shall not continue because he is rather rude about certain Conservative Members. He goes on to describe the critical ministerial meeting with the Prime Minister in the chair.
He says:
"I set out my stall, named and costed a number of programmes which could be eliminated without any risk. This induced show intakes of breath from the military men but I could see Lawson and Lamont beaming with approval. Martin Farndale tried to come back at me, but the PM cut him off and she started on a quite well-informed (Charles's hand clearly in evidence) summary of the approach to the equipment problems, and the need for 'inter-operability' across NATO. When the Prime Minister said that 'further work was needed' I jumped in. It was now or never."
Mr. Cormack: It is a book at bedtime.
Dr. Clark: That is exactly the point. It does read like a book at bedtime. However, it is how the Government did their defence review. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point for me.
The book continues:
"What a coup! … 'Well done Alan', said Lawson … We've made it! Single-handed, you and I are going to write the Review."
1024
Those were the words of a player in the "Options for Change" review. It was really like Noddy land. As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said, it was just like a book at bedtime. I suggest to the House that it was not a proper or sensible way to devise our country's defence.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the amusing interlude that he is giving us. Does he view Alan Clark as a reliable source of information? If he does, he has further proved that the Labour party is not fit to determine our defence. Surely Alan Clark can never be called a reliable source of information.
Dr. Clark: All I can say is that, to the best of my knowledge, Alan Clark is not a member of the Labour party; he is a card-carrying member of the Conservative party. He was a Minister of the Crown until he himself resigned; he was not actually sacked and, as he has produced the only account of "Options for Change", we must accept it as the true one until the Government describe precisely what happened.
Mr. David Young: Is it not a sad concern that the Government have not created a comprehensive review in order to meet the current situation which is resulting now in the loss of morale in the forces, the fact that forces are over-stressed and over-worked and the fact that Britain is not in a position to meet the day-to-day commitments that are forced on us by the United Nations and by the rise of nationalism? Are not the Tories avoiding their election commitment to provide the necessary resources for the effective defence of this country because they have never planned for such a defence?
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend put the point so well that I might consider employing him as my speech writer. He is quite right that there is no strategy and that is why we are in the current mess.
After the bedtime stories, the then Secretary of State, who quite clearly came from the same military school as Blackadder, decided to produce one of Baldrick's cunning plans and, like all Baldrick's cunning plans, it has fallen apart.
Then there was the indignity of Ministers sneaking out figures just before the Easter break, so that the House could not discuss them, announcing that 5,000 extra personnel in the Royal Navy were to be sacked. That sort of action comes from having no strategic plan. There is not even a document "Options for Change"; only a parliamentary statement supplemented by newspaper leaks and Government announcements, which, perhaps, makes the point that there has been no strategic thinking.
As has been said, the great asset of the plan was supposed to be flexibility. But, critically, that means that there was no strategic assessment of our defence needs in the mid-1990s and beyond. There has been no attempt to match the shape of our forces to the threats and risks facing our security and our obligations to the world community. What we needed then, as now, was a full-scale defence review.
We all accept that we live in a changed world and that there will be reductions in defence spending. On 19 May, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement told the House that Britain would be making cuts of about 10 per cent. in the next three years. That adds up to a reduction of about 30 per cent. by the end of the decade.

1025
No one quibbles with the need for reduced defence expenditure. However, when expenditure is cut it is all the more important to get it right. The correct balance must be struck between our services and those of our NATO allies. Because the Government failed to have a fundamental review, we have seen repeated examples of crisis management and the associated over-stretch. Our armed forces have too many roles to undertake.
The Government cannot take decisions themselves. In the autumn of 1992, the Government told the people of Plymouth, in the local press, that they would announce before Christmas 1992 whether Devonport or Rosyth would refit Trident. Yet, here we are in June, still awaiting that decision. When will they make up their minds? When will they end the uncertainty? When will they put the people out of their misery? Or do they enjoy torturing people? It appears that the well-known inability of the Prime Minister to take decisions has infected the Secretary of State with a vengeance.
It is not only the lack of decision or strategy towards change that concerns us; it is the mistaken policies based on pure dogma, especially those of privatisation and contractorisation. That approach has cost this country dear. For example, there was the recent fiasco at St. Athans with the Tornado fighters, so ably highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). The House will recall that, under the Government's competitive tendering scheme, a £7 million contract was awarded to Airwork Services to refit the fighters. It is understood that the company so botched up the work and cut so many corners that the planes are now unfit for service. The cost of rectifying that will be about £6 million per plane—on a £7 million contract. Meanwhile, 18 crucial fighter planes are grounded.
I put it to the Secretary of State that if he had achieved the downing of 18 fighters single-handed in the last war he would have been awarded the iron cross personally by Goering. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has achieved the almost impossible, all because of dogma. That is not an isolated case. Tragically, there have been as many cases as there have been escapees under Group 4 —another example of the Government's dogmatic approach.
On 9 June 1993, the National Audit Office confirmed that the Minstry of Defence police are investigating a massive fraud involving shipowners and agents during the Gulf war crisis; an issue that we raised in 1991, for which we were ridiculed. While our troops were risking their lives trying to liberate Kuwait, the fat cats were busy milking the inefficiencies of the MOD. Excessive Commissions were paid, nearly all the charters were placed with foreign shipowners because the Government had destroyed the Merchant Navy and vast profits were made. It is small wonder that the Tory party received £7 million in their coffers from foreign business men, who have been richly rewarded.
There is not only fraud but inefficiency. The same National Audit Office revealed that almost £50 million out of £260 million was spent unnecessarily because of Government incompetence. The country paid the price then for Tory dogma, but that was not an isolated case. Only yesterday the Public Accounts Committee was severely critical of the Government over ship refitting
1026
contracts. It revealed that £224 million—these are vast sums—was wasted on refitting two nuclear submarines which were then decommissioned in the middle of the refit. What a disaster, what a tragedy and what a costly mistake for which the British taxpayer is having to foot the bill.
The tragedy is that the Government do not seem to have learnt the lesson. The National Audit Office, in its report, says that the chartering arrangements to the former Yugoslavia are so poor that
"the absence of suitable movements systems and expertise … could then have serious consequences"
for the supplies going to our troops. I shall not spell out the implications of those findings, but the Secretary of State must drop that dogmatic approach to all things and sort out the system once and for all because lives are literally at stake.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Before my hon. Friend moves on from that shameful catalogue of inefficiency by the Secretary of State and his predecessor, will he add to it the case of HMS Victoria which has cost the taxpayer an additional £70 million, is three years behind in delivery and still does not have the defence systems that were intended for it? Will my hon. Friend press the Secretary of State to ensure that before the debate is concluded on Monday evening we have a full and frank disclosure of the circumstances behind the scandalous loss of public money in relation to HMS Victoria, know when the vessel will be completed and have a reassurance that it will have the defence systems for which it was originally designed?
Dr. Clark: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the assiduous way in which he has gone about researching and publicising that scandal. Representing a constituency on the River Tyne—perhaps I should say River Teign, which seems to be the Prime Minister's way of describing it—I well remember the problem. It is a sore point. When I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), have 800 constituents likely to be made redundant by Swan Hunter, it is particularly painful to realise that that order was deliberately turned away from the Tyne and given to Belfast. Therefore, I look forward to the reply to my hon. Friend's question and I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming.
Will the Secretary of State, or the Minister when he replies, confirm that last Friday, as questions were being asked in the House about the future of our troops in Bosnia and whether they should or could be evacuated, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argos, whose light artillery, the Secretary of State told us when the naval task force was sent to the Adriatic, was critical in aiding the evacuation of our troops, was, almost to the minute, sailing into a military port in the south of England loaded with the very light artillery that the Minister told us was vital if we were to get our troops safely out of Bosnia? That is a serious charge and the Minister owes an explanation not only to the House and the country but to the troops in Bosnia who were told that equipment was available to help. Why was the RFA Argos brought home at that critical time?
The Minister may refer to Sea Harriers, but they cannot provide 24-hour cover. They are dependent on ground guidance, and are unable to reach troops in the split second that is sometimes required. If light artillery were in place, it could provide the cover needed. I hope that the Minister will remedy that serious inadequacy as speedily as possible.

1027
The Government threaten our defence with their incompetence, indecision and inefficiency—but also by their negative approach. Nowhere is that more clearly seen than in the comprehensive test ban treaty. The United States, Russia and France all agreed to a moratorium on nuclear testing. Only Britain and China disagreed. It is widely understood that the British Government's position is the hardest of them all, and that threatens the complementary non-proliferation treaty, which is due for review in 1995.
It is widely acknowledged that, unless there is progress with a comprehensive test ban treaty, the future of the non-proliferation treaty will be at stake. Why are the Government so obstinate? There is no need for further testing.
In a letter to The Independent on 18 February, four former ambassadors and senior civil servants clearly and explicitly made the case against nuclear testing. Many leading scientists in this country and overseas—including Lord Zuckerman, the former MOD chief scientist—take a similar view. The Government know the situation. In a letter to me dated 14 June, the Secretary of State wrote:
"At the first meeting of the NPT preparatory committee held last month, some countries made it clear that in deciding their own approach toward the non-proliferation treaty they felt it important to see progress being made towards a
CTBT."
The Secretary of State cannot claim that he does not understand the argument. Why does he not act upon it? It is in the interests of Britain and of the whole world that the non-proliferation treaty is signed. Security is a far wider concept than defence. In a world of weapons of mass destruction, security is probably more vital than the narrow concept of defence.
A lack of leadership seems to characterise the Government, who constantly trail behind and are never in the vanguard. That is clear in the case of Bosnia in particular and of the United Nations in general. The Government have always lagged behind what is required in Bosnia, and people have lost their lives because of it.
The Labour party shares the Government's caution, but we have always argued and advocated a policy aimed at protecting non-combatants. Fortunately, we have been able to drag the Government along, but always slowly—and lives were lost in the meantime. If only the Government had acted earlier and with vigour, the consequences would have been much better.
As early as 7 August 1992 I called—on behalf of the Labour party—for United Kingdom troops to be sent to Bosnia to escort humanitarian convoys as part of the United. Nations effort, but we had to wait until 22 September before the Government decided to act. Why the delay? In December, the shadow Cabinet responded to my suggestion that the United Kingdom should advocate and support in the United Nations a no-fly zone over Bosnia. We had to wait until 1 April before Government support for such a policy was forthcoming.
When the House last debated Bosnia, on 29 April, I argued that United Nations safe havens should be protected by United Nations troops, and that if asked, Britain should consider allowing our troops to participate in that humanitarian role. We still await the Government's conversion. The six-nation declaration of 24 May that only United Nations troops will receive protection in safe
1028
havens almost beggars belief. Are not British troops there to protect non-combatants? They must be. That is their purpose.
Our defence industries play an integral part in our country's defence effort. We acknowledge that with defence spending cutbacks both here and abroad, there will inevitably be reductions in the numbers employed in those industries. We differ from the Government in that we feel that one simply cannot disregard the years of loyal service given by those employees. It is not sufficient to let the free market decide their fate and to throw them on the dole with the 3 million other unemployed.
In the past three years, the national press has logged 81,900 workers in defence-related industries as losing their jobs. That figure excludes thousands more job losses that have not been reported at a national level. Do the Government feel no obligation to those people? Why do they reject calls from this side of the House to assist those workers by establishing a defence diversification agency? The Governments of other countries assist their companies to develop into other markets and products. The dual use of technology may be difficult but it is not impossible. Other countries and other companies are achieving that. In Britain, many local authorities are endeavouring to assist in that way, so why do the Government shirk their responsibility?
This Government, in the words of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, are more interested in office than power. They are a Government without vision. They are a Government devoid of a leadership instinct. They are a Government for whom ideas seem too much of a burden. That is characteristic of all the Government's activities, but nowhere is it more clearly seen than in the sphere of defence. As a result, the very security of Britain is suffering.
5.36 pm
Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) attacked my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for dogma, but I could hear in the hon. Gentleman's words echoes again of the Labour party's anti-nuclear stance. The strength of our nuclear arm was surely one factor in the collapse of the Warsaw pact. We stuck with it through thick and thin, despite criticisms, and with difficulty and expense—but I believe that that was the most sensible, worthwhile and peace-promoting activity that the Government undertook in conjunction with their allies.
I want today to draw attention to our reserves. This afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made some important announcements. The world scene does not give me any feeling of great peace or security. I have not added up the figures, but the other day I was told that there are no fewer than 28 armed conflicts currently raging in the world.
I do not see any great reduction in the threat from the former Warsaw pact. Many of those soldiers have nothing to do and are hungry, and many of the factories are still producing armaments in substantial quantities. Furthermore, the Governments that are supposed to have control of those countries—although they may or may not have control—are themselves insecure and unstable, and those countries are on our borders. Elsewhere in the world, the scene is no happier.

1029
I did not cast my vote in support of "Options for Change", because I believed that it was premature and too much. It must be sensible at a time when we are reducing our regular forces to enhance our reserves. There cannot be a strategist in history who would not acknowledge that as a sensible way to proceed. In fact, regular officers in command of our armed services, who are responsible for deploying their resources with the maximum effect and maximum economy, in their opinion, will always derate the reservist and say, "I would rather have a regular frigate than 10 minesweepers," or, "I would rather have a regular company than 10 Territorial Army battalions." I am afraid that that philosophy has been allowed to prevail again. I understand that the Territorial Army is undergoing yet further inspection, months after "Options for Change".
More than 10 years ago, when I was at the Ministry of Defence, I had the welcome and happy task of helping to expand the Territorial Army. We set targets that I considered somewhat optimistic on the whole; indeed, they were never achieved. For a number of reasons that I have given the House before, recruitment was never maintained at the desired level.
When the "Options for Change" figures were published, I had to say that I thought it realistic to set a reasonable and sensible figure, in terms of recruitment and equipment. Now all that has been overturned, and a further examination of possible economies in the TA is being made. Rumour has it that up to 14 units may be involved.
Perhaps I should declare an interest—not a financial one. I have the honour to have been appointed honorary colonel of A squadron of the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, an amalgamation which—al-though, thanks to the common sense of the officers, it is proceeding happily—is far from natural.
The other day, I heard an ugly rumour that the MOD was thinking of abolishing honorary colonels; I sincerely hope that it was but a rumour. Although I well understand that the political power that such a collection of gentlemen can produce is sometimes uncomfortable for those sitting in Whitehall, I believe that they have a role to play, and that their abolition would be outrageous. In any case, I have not yet paid for my mess kit.
I think I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State say that he had no plans to reorganise the Territorial Army associations. They, too, play a political role of a sort: they not only maintain TA buildings, but maintain the liaison between employers, serving -TA soldiers and the community in every area. I hope that the Territorial Army volunteer reserve associations can be preserved in their present form.
My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of consultation. I note that each of the documents published this afternoon, concerning RAF and Royal Navy reserves, has "Consultative Documents" in large letters on the front page. To me, however, that has the ring of something produced by the MOD. However many consultations may be proposed, there seems little likelihood of change.
If my right hon. and learned Friend genuinely intends consultation to take place, I hope that he will study carefully the paper that has just been produced by the council of TAVRAs; it has been sent to some of us in the
1030
past few days. The document, which is extremely well written, calmly argues the fundamental point that a reservist, if trained to carry his personal weapon, to conduct himself in a military manner and to understand the chain of command—in other words, to look after himself—can be useful in any circumstances.
The same applies to the seaman. The mine counter-measures training of the Royal Naval Reserve may not be so relevant to today's threat, but the fact remains that—for very little pay, and with very little reward—reservists were able to operate and navigate their ships, to look after themselves and to behave in a seamanlike way. They, too, would have been of asssistance.
I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend can get away with hoping that he will not be criticised for his announcements about the RNR. The removal of no fewer than nine ships and 11 units, as announced in the document, deals a death blow to the RNR. It is ridiculous to suggest that re-enlisting 500 men in aircraft and submarine maintenance will produce anything like the present-day RNR. The truth is that the regular view has prevailed: "We will keep our regular frigates, and to hell with the reservists." It is a very sad day for the RNR; I deeply deplore what has happened, and I hope that what I have said will be counted as my contribution to the consultation.
I know that, in the next few months, Ministers' minds will be engaged by the question of the size and role of all the reserves. I emphasise the word "role". The regulars' favourite trick is to argue that there must be a role. Everything must be cut and dried: we must know exactly what this or that soldier will do when we go to war. One of the lessons of history is that almost never does a war obligingly come up to suit the staff college; wars are always unexpected and happen in the wrong place, the equipment is wrong and the soldiers have been trained in the wrong way. What, then, is wrong with training a reserve force? It must be sensible.
I believe that, last year, the reserve force cost the MOD 2·08 per cent. of its total expenditure. The Ministry cannot have anything cheaper than that. My regiment has 20-year-old vehicles. The standard of training is extremely high, and there is a good deal of enthusiasm; the pay, however, is minimal. If it were not for the enthusiastic way in which the soldiers are led, the MOD would be getting nothing for its money, but in fact it receives extraordinary good value. I hope that, one day, one of the Ministers will spare the time to visit us so that we can show him at first hand the excellent job that TA soldiers are doing.
I was interested to note that the hon. Member for South Shields mentioned the decision on the nuclear refit at Devonport. Although my constituency is about 100 miles from Devonport, the entire west country considers that decision crucial. There is no longer a justification for two dockyards the size of Rosyth and Devonport; at some point, hard decisions will have to be made. The sooner it is decided that Devonport shall be the principal dockyard for the south coast, the better: ultimately, that is what will happen, and if we go on dithering we shall simply waste a good deal of money and cause a good deal of ill feeling.
The west country is also affected by the question of the EH 101. I have often argued in the House for the provision of proper helicopter support for the British forces. As long as the RAF is responsible for supporting the Army, problems involving the allocation of money will arise—

1031
problems identical to those caused by the conflict between regulars and reserves. In 1987, Lord Younger—then Secretary of State for Defence—promised that the EH101 would be purchased in its utility version to provide medium heavy lift capacity for the British armed forces; nothing has been heard since.
We know that, because the so-called Air Mobile Brigade is about as mobile as the bicycle corps used to be because it has no helicopters, pressure is now building up. Experience of the Gulf and other such theatres—along with the experience of other armies, and the work of analysts—has shown that the British forces need a substantial helicopter enhancement.
The RAF was bemused by the offer of a cheap version of the Chinook, whose design is more than 30 years old. Of course it will pay the Americans to sell the British forces a cheap version of the helicopter: it will put our helicopter producers out of business, and in 10 or 15 years, when it comes to the next round, there will be no British alternative. The EH101 is technically an advanced helicopter, well capable of beating all its rivals. I accept that it is on the expensive side, but, if the RAF does not buy it, what hope have we of selling it anywhere else?
My hon. Friend the Minister may not be aware that the MOD made our aircraft industry a laughing stock in the recent Paris air show by revealing that MOD officials had inquired of the French Ministry whether it had any secondhand Pumas for sale. What on earth are we doing when something such as that happens? The EH 101 is a fine aircraft and we want a firm order—we have 40 in mind. Let us go ahead and show the world what we mean. That will be good for United Kingdom Ltd., because we will sell that helicopter around the world.
Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the initial purchase of the EH101 may appear to be expensive, if one compares the full life costs of that aircraft with that of the Chinook, it works out considerably cheaper?
Sir Jerry Wiggin: Yes, and it is not only that. The reliability that will be built in—such as the non-vibration factors and so on—will commend that helicopter enormously.
The hon. Member for South Shields was complaining about decisions that had been delayed for months. This decision has been delayed for years, and it is time it was made in favour of the EH101.
5.50 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is difficult to escape a sense that some of our deliberations this afternoon may be inconclusive because of the imminence of the publication of the estimates for 1993. For example, looking back at the Defence Committee's response to the 1992 estimates, it is clear that the Committee's observations about the submarine fleet are likely to be overtaken by events. The Government's proposals are likely to be available in a more detailed form in the 1993 estimates than in those for 1992.
In spite of that, a debate of this sort necessarily allows an opportunity for the discussion of a number of long-term issues. It was notable that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—he is no longer in the Chamber, because he has another obligation—began by
1032
asking for a full-scale defence review. There is never a defence review now that is not accompanied by the adjectives "full" and "scale".
A call for such a review was repeated this morning in the Scottish newspapers by Lieutenant-General Sir Peter Graham, the recently retired GOC Scotland. He has gone from that eminent position to lead the campaign to save the Gordon Highlanders. That may to some extent justify the view that, if there were to be a full-scale defence review, at least in the beginning, Mr. Alan Clark was sensible to consider that involving the service chiefs might not be wise.
The hon. Member for South Shields considered that the fact that it was thought that they might be the source of leaks was some sort of reflection on them. I should have thought that it was almost inevitable, in circumstances such as those outlined in the "Diaries", that leaks would have occurred, because there would necessarily be some inter-service rivalry. The hon. Member for South Shields was being, if not naive, perhaps a little disingenuous.
There is no doubt that Mr. Alan Clark believed that he was the progenitor of something in the nature of a review. However, it was clear when "Options for Change" was first announced in the House and spoken to by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), that he believed that a defence review was not under way.
Tribute was paid earlier in the debate to the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). I should like to add my congratulations to him on his tenure of office and to thank him for the courtesy that he displayed to me, particularly during the Gulf war. He was at pains on a number of occasions to ensure that I was aware of certain steps that were being taken by the Government so that the fullest information, consistent with security, was available to hon. Members of all parties.
The right hon. Gentleman conducted himself then and on many other occasions with a great deal of charm and courtesy for which I am grateful. I hope that we will hear from him frequently in debates of this sort, because he knows where the bodies are buried. He may be able to bring a perception to some of our debates that we would otherwise lack. If he is ever looking for battle honours, he may be able to claim, with some justification, that he served for a number of years in the Ministry of Defence with Mr. Alan Clark.
My criticisms of "Options for Change" are that there were never any options, there were never any choices and there was never any public discussion of the commitments, or the resources that might be made available to meet those commitments. I must say, particularly to those on the Opposition Front Bench—I do not excuse myself from this criticism—that it is far too easy to use the notion of a defence review as a shield against taking tough decisions.
There is no doubt that any Government of any political colour operating on the Treasury Bench now would face a series of critical and extremely difficult decisions because of the change in the strategic environment and reduced resources. It is important to realise that a defence review is not a solution. It is a means of identifying questions that will require solutions. I believe that a review is a better means of identifying those questions than any other, but it is important that one does not respond to every change in the defence environment by pretending to people in Harrogate, Rosyth and Devonport that, if there were to be

1033
a full-scale review, the difficult decisions involving their futures would be taken in a way entirely favourable to them.
Those of us who argue for a defence review have an obligation to make it clear that a review will be a more effective way of identifying the decisions, but that in the end, against the background of changes in the strategic environment and reduced resources, difficult decisions will have to be taken.
Another criticism of "Options for Change" is this. There have been substantial changes in the international security environment since July 1990. It would be surprising should there not be a change of policy to meet those changes. What policy decisions by any Department in July 1990, other than the Ministry of Defence, are still standing unaltered? The changes in the international security environment that I have in mind include Yugoslavia, the break-up of the Soviet Union, instability in the middle east and the extended role of the United Nations.
I do not believe that a middle-ranking power such as the United Kingdom can now maintain every capability, but I believe that an alliance can. Therefore, the significance of NATO and, in due course, the evolution of a common foreign and security policy within the European Community, is the means by which we may be able to provide the necessary range of capabilities. It was an alliance that met the Soviet threat. Alliances are now necessary to ensure access to the range of capabilities that the changing international situation may well require.
We must acknowledge that the driving force of a European security policy is financial as much as political, as is the reduction of United States forces in Europe. It was commonly believed that "Options for Change" was Treasury-driven, although that has been consistently denied by the Government. However, if, as is popularly believed, something such as "Options 11" is taking place, with the purpose of taking £4 billion over the next three years out of the Ministry of Defence budget, that can only be at the imperative of the Treasury, and cannot be the product of a strategic overview or some rational analysis of commitments.
Some weeks ago, Sir Richard Vincent. formerly senior commander in the United Kingdom and now a senior commander with NATO, exhorted the polititians to state what the clear political objectives might be in Yugoslavia before consideration of any commitment to further military resources. He was stating a truism but, like many truisms; it frequently has to be repeated. The same applies in defence policy.
We must have clear political objectives before we can determine what resources are necessary, but we must acknowledge that we do not start with a blank sheet of paper. Previous decisions of previous Governments have an influence over what we may do now, as do political commitments and historical responsibilities. There will always be a temptation to operate at the margin—to delay a particular procurement programme, or to make reductions in personnel, aircrafts or ships at the margin —because that is the easiest way to manage a reduction in defence spending. It is much easier to do it that way than to make difficult choices between, for example, size and
1034
quality. In the changing environment, I believe it will become more important for us to consider how we do something rather than how many things we do.
We must explore the question of force specialisation. I do not underestimate the difficulties of embarking on such a project. There would be opposition from the services and the defence industry and there would be political consequences within existing alliances, all of which would be mirrored in countries with which we sought to have a dialogue about force specialisation. It will, however, be essential to move in that direction because the financial compulsion will be overwhelming.
It would be too simplistic, especially in the light of the two opening speeches, to call for a consensus in the House, but we shall need some kind of general domestic political understanding of the direction in which policy is taking us because some of the decisions made will be irreversible. I cite an example which, as it did not happen in this way, might be thought to be neutral. If the Government had cancelled the European fighter aircraft, as they were under some pressure to do, the project would not have been reinstated. It is, therefore, very important that there should be a general domestic understanding of where policies are leading and what the consequences of certain decisions might be, perhaps not today or next year but in five or 10 years.
One matter in which consensus would be highly desirable is that of nuclear deterrence. I have never had any difficulty with the independent nuclear deterrent. I believe that for the foreseeable future it will be necessary for the United Kingdom to maintain it. I also believe, and have often said, that we need four submarines for that deterrent to be constantly available. However, I can see no justification for the deployment of any more warheads on Trident than on the Polaris system which it is to replace. Trident has twice the range, is much more accurate and is capable of being independently targeted.
I am not saying anything that the Minister has not heard me say before if I state that there is no justification for the tactical air-to-surface missile. We may just have persuaded the Government about that, but it is at least still a live issue. The TASM is the product of the old thinking which NATO has abandoned, the product of the doctrine of flexible response, nuclear war fighting, an effort to find a weapon that could cope with the massed tank formations of the Warsaw pact countries as they streamed across the inner German border.
Mr. Brazier: I am following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument carefully. On that narrow point, what type of deterrent does he think we could provide to a third world dictator—many, some as near as Libya and Algeria, are close to possessing nuclear weapons—without TASM, because Trident would be very difficult to use in a third world scenario?
Mr. Campbell: I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman from a technical point of view. The evidence given to the Select Committee on that topic was that Trident is capable of being used in a sub-strategic role—one missile with one warhead. I do not believe that it is a realistic threat, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why in a moment, but if he is anxious to maintain a capability against the threat that he outlines, he could have it with the Trident system. In what circumstances does the hon. Gentleman conceive that the United Kingdom, acting

1035
alone without its allies, would consider the independent use of a sub-strategic weapon? I find it difficult to imagine such circumstances. Let me put the question in a slightly different way to reveal the nature of my thinking.
What additional increment of deterrence does the United Kingdom need beyond what is already available within the alliances of which we are a member and which would be provided by our own tactical air-to-surface missile? I cannot conceive that the additionality—to use a rather heavy-handed word which is often used in the Community—is justified.
Mr. Brazier: I understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about specialisation and looking within the alliances and I agree with his general point, but he must face the reality that America may not be here for all time. It is essential that at least one European country—it can only be ourselves or France—has the capability to deal with the third world scenario that we are describing. No one is likely to have the political will to use Trident against a third world threat. Trident is invisible. Whereas an aircraft can hover on the edge of a radar screen as a threat, a third world dictator could conceal Trident from his own people.
Mr. Campbell: I fancy that most third world dictators would conceal from their own people an aircraft hovering on the edge of a radar net—I doubt whether they would take prime time in downtown Baghdad to say that several European fighter aircraft were hovering just outside their airspace with tactical air-to-surface missiles.
We must assume—indeed, I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to concede this—that the NATO alliance will continue, and that it will continue as a nuclear alliance. One of the conundrums that we must resolve is the fact that the United States is anxious for Europe to take a greater role in dealing with its own defence but that, whenever it appears that it is more capable of doing so, the United States begins to believe that there may be no justification for remaining on continental Europe. If one is seeking a lock, or a means of binding the United States to Europe, it is more likely to be the nuclear element than anything else.
To proceed as I have outlined, with no more warheads on Trident than on Polaris, would be consistent with our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and certainly with the NATO doctrine of minimum deterrence or nuclear weapons as weapons of last resort. That is necessarily relevant to the issue of nuclear proliferation, which must surely be the most significant threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom from a nuclear point of view.
I do not believe that the risk is necessarily one of direct attack on the United Kingdom. A nuclear war between two parties in the middle east would have a profound effect on the United Kingdom even if we did not come under direct attack. The non-proliferation treaty must be used to the maximum. We must use diplomatic and economic means, too. I believe that the United Kingdom's good faith would be a potent weapon in the battle against nuclear proliferation.
To some extent, the hon. Member for South Shields covered my next point but it is worth repeating. It is the question of the United Kingdom accepting a moratorium on nuclear testing. There are reports today that the Clinton Administration may be about to resume testing in
1036
Nevada. This week, a report from the Clinton Administration is circulating which suggests that there will be nine tests before 1996, of which three are for the United Kingdom.
In answer to questions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has made it clear in the past year that the moratorium had no significance for or application to the Trident system. If the United Kingdom is embarking on further tests, the implication is that they are for another warhead. Reports from Washington suggest that, with the three tests, the United Kingdom is seeking to test a redesigned warhead which would be fitted to a new sub-strategic system, either a free-fall bomb to replace the WE177 or, if the option is kept open, a tactical air-to-surface missile. I do not believe that that is in the interests of non-proliferation. Why should tests for the United Kingdom in Nevada be in the national interests of the United States of America?
As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) hinted in his intervention, it is time to explore the issue of nuclear co-operation with our allies—the United States and France—all of whom, at one time, have strategic deterrents at sea. It would be possible to achieve an agreement by which, without giving up an independent deterrent, the alliance could maintain a constantly available strategic system. It would require the coordination of patrols and the integration of doctrine and procedures. Those are not insurmountable obstacles if we bear in mind the fact that Polaris is already committed to NATO, and that the Trident system will be similarly committed once it is brought into service.
We will be able to make more realistic observations about procurement when we see the scope of the 1993 estimates. Although I do not agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) about the preference in favour of Devonport—which will hardly surprise him—I certainly agree with him about the EH101. The commitment, as he has rightly pointed out, was several years ago, and it has never been expressly withdrawn. The EH101 seems to fulfil the necessary requirements, and it is a United Kingdom aircraft with great potential for export sales.
There are some principles by which one should determine procurement issues. These are not my original thoughts but the distillation of a recent discussion with other members of the Select Committee on Defence, including the Chairman, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who is likely to try to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, later in the debate.
We cannot run a procurement policy in which the Ministry of Defence does not accept that it has a responsibility for the defence-industrial base—a policy in which it is accepted that, while competition is desirable, it should be the subject of intelligent application, not slavish adherence. We should have a procurement policy in which the Government robustly protect the interests of the United Kingdom in joint ventures and, perhaps most significantly, our policy should ensure the best value for money for our troops, not necessarily for the Treasury.
Those are all issues to which we shall return once the 1993 estimates are published when we will be required to focus on all the issues that I have raised and more. I feel that we sometimes deal in abstracts in these debates, whereas the reality is that the defence of the nation and the protection of the United Kingdom's interests requires not only our political contribution on how those interests are

1037
to be preserved and that defence to be maintained, but on the skill, courage and loyalty of all three of our services, which are being shown, even as we have this debate, in a number of places throughout the world. We owe it to those men and increasing number of women to show that we are worthy of their commitment.
6.13 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It must be a matter of regret that, in June 1993, we are discussing the defence estimates for 1992—almost a year after they were published and less than a month before the defence estimates for 1993. I know that Ministers are conscious of that and I look forward to our returning to a proper timetable. I hope that the 1994 defence estimates will be published next spring and that we shall be able to return to the system whereby they are published every spring and discussed, at the latest, in the summer.
Much has happened since the 1992 defence estimates were published. I should like briefly to remind the House of some of the more significant changes that have occurred. In the autumn statement last year, several hundred million pounds were sliced off the top of the defence budget for this year and the next two years. That has had a significant impact on our flexibility to respond to additional needs that crop up in the defence sphere and has made it extremely difficult for us to retain the defence capability that we need in an increasingly uncertain world.
Two battalions that had been under threat were reprieved, which was most welcome. Much less welcome was the fact that that was not specifically funded, and the danger is that the £80 million that it will cost will be offset in other ways, to which I shall return later. Although the reprieve is welcome, we are looking for more as the increasing demands of Bosnia and other United Nations commitments throw greater strain on our troops. That cannot be achieved under a defence budget that has no flexibility and is limited to what has already been assessed as today's need.
That is overshadowed by what has happened in Bosnia and by the threat of nuclear proliferation, which so far has been understated in the debate. The shadow Secretary of State read out the careful statement from the Labour party manifesto in what he described as words of almost one syllable. He did not reach a word as long as proliferation because nothing in the Labour party manifesto or in its planned statements dealt with the problem of the spread of nuclear weapons. The manifesto listed countries such as China, France and the United States and said that Labour would not remove our nuclear capability until those countries had done so, but what about the other countries that are now known to have nuclear weapons and the ones that are likely to have them in the near future? I think particularly of the Ukraine, Israel and North Korea, which must pose a serious threat to the stability of that part of the world and, therefore, a long-term threat to Britain and to the interests of our NATO allies.
Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the development of the Trident nuclear missile system, with a fourfold increase in nuclear warheads compared with the existing Polaris system, is not itself an enormous proliferation and, indeed, a breach of the United Nations treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not agree. There is no doubt that Trident is necessary for our security. We cannot take it for granted that the former Soviet Union, in its break-up —[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman listened instead of interrupting, he might hear.
Mr. Corbyn: Who is the enemy?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The enemy could be any country of the former Soviet Union that is still armed with nuclear weapons. We cannot take it for granted that the currently benign leadership of Russia will continue. Anyone who looks at foreign affairs with the remotest degree of intelligence must accept that. The Ukraine is showing increasing reluctance to surrender its substantial nuclear arsenal to Russia, as it previously agreed. There is the danger of North Korea arming itself with nuclear weapons. There is a large number of nuclear weapons in Israel.
Mr. Cormack: And Iraq.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As my hon. Friend says, there is the threat of Iran and Iraq, which are very close to having nuclear weapons. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who cannot see that we need a substantial nuclear arsenal to counter the threat of proliferation, is like a camel with its head in the sand.
Mr. Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I do not want to destroy his speech, but the only point that I should like to make in rebuttal is that roughly 170 countries—members of the United Nations—manage to live in peace and security without nuclear weapons, and many of them are not members of any alliance. Cannot the hon. Gentleman grow up and understand that nuclear weapons are a danger and that any firing of a nuclear weapon will spark off the most appalling holocaust that will kill all of us?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I find it extremely hard to answer such a fatuous point. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the NATO alliance has secured peace for western Europe. He says that there is peace throughout the world. I do not know whether he goes—[Interruption.].
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There have been too many sedentary observations.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had enough of that, and I shall get on with the serious speech that I intended to make.
I shall now deal with some smaller but not insignificant recent events, the first of which is the decision to withdraw from Belize. I believe that that decision is mistaken, not least because, as has been pointed out, Guatemala cannot be considered stable at the moment, and when a country is unstable that must throw doubt on whether any assurances given by the regime of the moment can be relied upon even in the short and medium term.
Our presence in Belize has an enormous value, way beyond the military element. It is welcomed by the Belizeans, by the United States and by the previous Guatemalan Administration—I am waiting to hear what the present Administration feel about it. I believe that, until we decided to withdraw, the United States, the Belizeans and the Guatemalans were all begging us to stay, but now that the Government have decided to withdraw,

1039
all those Governments are obligingly falling into line and announcing that of course they understand and they can perfectly well do without us. However, the troops and RAF personnel in that part of the world, and especially the guard ship stationed there, all play a significant role in anti-drugs operations, in bolstering the British presence in central America and in securing peace in that part of the world.
The withdrawal is short-sighted, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who was until recently Minister of State at the Foreign Office, told other hon. Members and myself when we went to see him that it is all for the sake of saving £9 million a year at most. That figure does not take into account any increased aid that we might feel that we have to give to Belize by way of overseas development grants and so on so as to offset what will be lost by the withdrawal of our troop presence.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friends have decided not to withdraw altogether but to maintain Belize as a training area. The Select Committee on Defence will go there in December and when we return I shall report to the House what we find.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend has left out one important factor—Belize is the only theatre in which British troops receive any training in jungle warfare. This will be the first time since the end of the second world war that no jungle warfare training is available.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I did not leave that factor out, because we are not withdrawing from the jungle training element; there will still be jungle training facilities in Belize. However, I doubt whether we have costed the true cost of sending people out to use those facilities and offset it against what we allegedly save by bringing people back regularly. I suspect that the decision represents a frantic effort by the Government to ease the emergency tour plot gap. Clearly, it will do that to some small degree.
The Defence Select Committee was in Cyprus a fortnight ago and I found there, as everywhere else we go, the troops are stretched to the utmost limit. Half our troops stationed at sovereign bases are not at the bases at all, but carrying out emergency tour plot operations in the Falklands. That means that they have had to take their families from this country out to Cyprus, and then promptly abandon them so that they can do a six-month tour in the Falklands, leaving their young wives extremely unsettled in Cyprus, in a strange place in which they do not especially want to be.
That is bad enough, but I am told that at least one unit will have to go away not once but twice during its Cyprus tour. That is an example of the difficulties that our troops face because of the shortage of infantry available to carry out all our tasks in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. My right hon. Friends in Government will have to tackle those problems.
The Select Committee on Defence will keep a close eye on developments in that sphere, and I shall not rest until the emergency tour plot gap is back to the 24 months that is supposed to be the minimum, rather than the 17 months that is the present average and the 10 or 11-month gap that can sometimes occur.
Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend was talking about families being abandoned for periods in Cyprus and other places. Does he agree that that has a deleterious effect on morale, and therefore affects a person's decision whether
1040
to remain in the services or to get out? Does that not represent a cost to the services to be offset against possible savings?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is right, of course. There is a distinct danger that morale will sink to the point at which we can no longer sustain the kind of troop forces that we need. That is especially important among those with specific skills, such as senior non-Commissioned officers. People of that age and rank tend to have young wives and children, and substantial family commitments. When we were in Northern Ireland, we saw evidence of the fact that if too great a stress is put on family life by removing too regularly the man of the house for six months at a time, it is the wife who finally puts her foot down and says, "I cannot put up with this any longer. You must leave the Army and find a better job so that you can be at home." One reason why service men are not leaving in greater numbers is the recession, so I fear that as we come out of recession we shall find it harder to keep troops with the necessary expertise, unless we can put that problem to bed.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Time and again, we have heard Ministers repeating the aspiration for a 24-month interval between tour duties. Has my hon. Friend or the Defence Committee seen any evidence that that aim may be achieved within the draw-down period to 1995?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I think that it is common ground that that will certainly not be achieved before 1995, and the Defence Committee has been unpersuaded by the Government's assurances from time to time that things will get better after 1995. I see no evidence in the detailed figures that that will happen, and it will certainly not happen if there are any other demands on our troops in other parts of the world—for example, if we have to increase our forces in Bosnia or honour some other United Nations commitment. I see little prospect of our getting anywhere near a 24-month minimum emergency tour plot gap in the foreseeable future.
I shall now consider how we are getting on with some of the specific points raised in the Select Committee's report on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992. I shall concentrate first on equipment. We are still waiting to hear details of the update of the Challenger 1 tank fleet. There have been many promises that Challenger 1 would be upgraded and be close to being as good as Challenger 2, and substantially cheaper. That announcement was made two years ago, and so far as I am aware we are not close to implementing it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be able to make a statement on that when he replies to the debate.
Likewise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Western-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said, the EH101 contract was promised by Lord Younger six years ago, and we are no closer to seeing that. It is time that a firm decision was made. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend said about the respective merits of the systems, and I hope that we shall not have to wait even as long as until the end of the year before there is a distinct EH I01 contract on the books and we know where we are going. The support helicopter role is critical to any future defence planning for this country, and at the moment we are a long way away from having anything effective in place.

1041
The Eurofighter, now called the Eurofighter 2000, is apparently on track now. When I last heard how the costings were going, I understood that I was being told that the cost was 13 per cent. less than that of the original European fighter aircraft; yet when I see figures showing how the costings are going, they rise inexorably, and faster than inflation. I hope that my hon. Friend will enlighten me as to how we are achieving a 13 per cent. saving on the original cost when the true cost of the project is rising at such an alarming speed. I have no doubt that EFA 2000 will be an excellent aircraft, and that we need it, but we must keep proper cost control and make certain that our partners honour their part of the deal, and we are not left holding the baby.
On naval matters, the Upholder class submarine is giving me cause for concern. I am not at all clear what the plans for it are. It is certainly true that we would not order that type now because of the change in the strategic needs for the Navy and the fact that nuclear submarines can fulfil most of the roles. None the less, we have got them and they are first-class submarines. I do not believe that we would get very much for them if we wanted to sell them. I look for some assurances that we will keep the Upholder submarines, keeping at least one of them operational, so that we have the skills necessary to benefit from the particular advantages that diesel submarines offer, with the rest being in a state of "extended readiness"—something on which I have commented before. We should have a diesel submarine fleet available when needed, particularly for coastal work.
With regard to personnel, the Committee has looked very closely at the housing and resettlement programme for those who have been made redundant. I look forward to hearing what further progress has been made on that front. I should also like to hear whether the Herford job centre is to be extended for two years, as we were told it might be. Everything that we have heard about the centre shows that it is doing a magnificent job in helping people who were in Germany to find jobs back home. I hope that the centre will be continued for as long as a need for it is apparent.
Pay is also very important. We have 1·5 per cent. for this year. The pay review body was not allowed to look at the merits of that award. I should like an assurance that it will be given back its remit to set the right level of pay for the armed forces, starting in 1994–95.
We also looked at the transitions work programme—paragraphs 4.23 to 4.25 of our report—and the £1·14 billion allocated in 1991 for new building and refurbishment. The Committee was worried that it was proving difficult to set up the programme within the time allocated and that money could not be rolled forward when it was not used. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would tell us how much was spent in 1992–93, whether the unspent balance was brought forward and how the £460 million allocated for this financial year, 1993–94, will be spent. As we said in our second report, either the money must be found to give the members of the services decent accommodation or they must be given more freedom to use their own resources to create it—in my view, that method is grossly underused. We have some magnificent people with magnificent skills in the armed forces, and too often they are prevented, in
1042
a way that is quite unnecessary, from using those skills to enhance the standard of their own accommodation. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a close look at that and give me the assurance that I request.
The Committee is concerned that the civilian element of the armed forces is not being run down quite as fast as the sharp-end element. There is nothing very unusual about that. When people are given the task of cutting back, it is most unlikely that they will cut back on themselves first. We were given assurances at our oral session that the civilian cuts would match the sharp-end cuts, but there are still, I believe, 135,000 civilians in the Ministry of Defence. It is by far the largest part that is left of any of the individual services, and I feel that the House would look askance were it to find that the civilian staff were not being run down in proper proportion to the armed forces.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Chairman of the Defence Select Committee seems to be categorising all civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence as boxwallahs in Whitehall, as it were, and part of the tail, not the teeth. Most of those civilians are involved in the repair or supply of equipment. I shall come to the role of some of them later, should I be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to give any false impressions. Of course, the civilians do an invaluable job in our armed forces. None the less, it remains true that the rundown has to be seen to be fair and balanced and the civilian element must be seen to be making the same kind of sacrifice as the rest of the armed forces are asked to make.
Today, we have had announcements about the reserves. I am glad to be able to welcome a great deal of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said. I specifically welcome the assurance that he has given the House as to his personal commitment to ensuring the future of our reserve forces. It is clearly essential, when our regular forces are being run down, that our reserve forces are bolstered. That is the only way in which we shall be able to maintain our long-term capabilities. My right hon. and learned Friend's assurances on that in general terms are most welcome, as is his statement about the widening of the role that can now he played by the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces. The TA has wanted for a long time to be given operational duties in peacetime, and I very much welcome its widened role.
I take some of the points that my hon. Friends have made about the difficulty of getting the detail right. I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend said that he was determined to have a consultation period and to make sure that the detail was agreed specifically by those directly concerned in the operation of the new system, so that none of the dangers and pitfalls that could flow from the change, if it were not properly handled, resulted.
I very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement that the details of the naval and RAF volunteer reserve forces that he has announced today are flexible, and that these are indeed consultation papers and not writ in stone, because I share some of the fears and reservations that have been expressed in the House today as to the consequences of some of the details.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I cannot argue with the logic that says that we

1043
cannot have minesweepers which are obsolete and for which there is no proper role. It clearly must be right, therefore, to look again at the role of the Royal Naval Reserve, what sort of vessels it should have and what they should do. However, I am reluctant to accept, without looking at the matter in more detail, that it is right to remove all ships from the RNVR and to say that their only future role will be maintenance or land based, or, in the case of about 500, that they will be attached to Royal Navy regular ships. It seems to me that the RNVR role will be very difficult to maintain, as will the enthusiasm of the people who join it, if they do not have some kind of ships of their own. They need not be terribly expensive—for example, coastal patrol vessels or something small but up to date. In any case, we must look at that matter in detail. There is nothing to be gained by speculation today as to what might be the best way forward on that front.
I wish to make one point about the Royal Air Force volunteer reserve. Today, the Defence Committee went down to the Army Air Corps, where there is a very large TA flying reserve unit; 666 Squadron is made up entirely, as I understand it, of volunteer airmen, and they undertake 28 per cent. of all United Kingdom land force flying commitments that the Army Air Corps undertakes. If that can be done in the Army, why can we not have a flying reserve in the RAF? It is something that most other countries—certainly the United States—have. We have a great many people in civilian life with flying skills, which I am sure could be adapted and used to military advantage, and I do not understand why we have always turned our backs on the idea of looking closely at an RAF flying reserve. l hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will adopt a more flexible and imaginative attitude to an RAF volunteer reserve than has been shown for several years. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who has his back to me, is nevertheless paying attention to every word that I say.
I turn finally to the other report which the Defence Committee tagged as relevant on the Order Paper—our fifth report, which we agreed yesterday and which takes forward the question of Army manpower, in particular infantry numbers. The Government's reply to our second report is attached.
I hope that hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Government's reply to our second report and our further Comments because, frankly, I am not happy with the present situation. Some of the answers seemed to me and other members of the Committee to be singularly weak. For example, the Government have claimed that, because the level of forces in Germany is being reduced, our commitments are likewise being reduced in parallel. That is simply not the case, because almost all our troops in Germany are at least double, triple or quadruple hatted.
The fact that our troops will not be in Germany does not mean that they will not still be used on emergency tour plots for United Nations duties, other duties, the rapid reaction corps and so on. The fact that they will no longer be needed in Germany does not mean that we will need fewer soldiers. The fact that they were there in the fore on
1044
paper—they were never there in fact, although they were there in paper strength—was a weak reply to our point about infantry numbers.
The same can be said about the emergency tour plot interval to which I have already referred. There is no doubt that we need to retain that as one of the criteria to examine when we assess whether the Army has adequate strength. The Government did not appear to be happy with that in their reply to our second report.
We welcome a broader approach to that matter because, if the emergency tour plot gap is taken globally, it does not reflect the true facts. Indeed, it understates the problems faced by individual soldiers, many of whom are on attachment from one unit to another and, therefore, have a shorter emergency tour plot gap than they would appear to have on paper if they had always served with the unit to which they are appended. I should like to see figures for nights out of bed on a much more specific basis than any that are available at present.
I refer to the add-back of 3,000 which was announced earlier. Of course, that add-back is extremely welcome. When we look at the details, it is difficult to find out exactly how those 3,000 come to exist. There are 1,300 added back for the two battalions and there is no dispute about that. However, if we look further, we discover that the 300 who will do public duty as increments to the guard battalions were already promised before the add-back, so that 300 is double counting. There are another 300 to cover an increase in the establishment of armoured regiments. That was already agreed in the autumn, so once again there appears to be double counting.
It is not clear whether we will reach the level of 119,000 that was promised. I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friends that that will be the case. I ask them clearly to tell the House whether those 119,000 are supposed to last beyond 1995 or whether it is planned to revert to 116,000 after 1995, because there seems to be no sign in any plans of any funding for the additional strength beyond 1995. That covers most of the major points that I wanted to make.
Before I finish, I shall mention the "Panorama" programme on the Atomic Weapons Establishment—in case anyone saw it. That was the most appalling piece of television that I have seen for some time. The programme grossly misled those who watched it. For example, there was a magnificent picture of members of the Committee getting out of their cars and going into Aldermaston. Members of the Committee were not being photographed —it was a lot of slimmer and much fitter gentlemen who leapt out of their cars, or, obviously, a lot of out-of-work actors. They ran from some smart limousines into a building that was alleged to be Aldermaston. In fact, my colleagues and I limped out of a large bus and hobbled gently into Aldermaston. There is no proper comparison at all.
Much more seriously, the programme makers claimed to have seen a leaked document to which the Committee was in the process of agreeing. It is true that the sentence that they produced was accurate. However, they photographed a document which, clearly, was not the report that it was alleged to be, but was a mock-up of a much earlier report from the Committee. Furthermore, I do not believe that the programme makers had seen the Committee's report, because, when it is published, they will find that there is more interesting reading in it than the innocuous sentence that they put in the programme.

1045
The most significant point is that the programme makers had another actor, who was purported to be a civil servant, announcing that the Committee had been deliberately misled by the Government. I am satisfied that we were not deliberately misled by anyone.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall give way in a moment.
I accept that there is a reluctance sometimes on the part of people giving evidence to us to disclose everything that we want to know. However, I can assure the House that on that visit there was absolutely no attempt deliberately to deceive the Committee and I am happy to report that to the House. Although there are matters in what we found that we will certainly continue to investigate, I am satisfied that there was no attempt deliberately to mislead the House.
Mr. Foulkes: I also saw the "Panorama" programme. I immediately knew that it was a reconstruction because of the slim figures who were meant to be the members of the Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, nevertheless, that the reconstructions with actors making some serious statements, the Health and Safety Executive official and the person reading a statement by a civil servant, and all the allegations about health and safety, raised some genuine concerns? It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that those concerns will be reflected in the report. In the light of all that, is not it unfortunate that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement did not take the opportunity of appearing on "Panorama" and dealing with some of those serious allegations?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: To deal with the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is right that some of the comments made by the Health and Safety Executive have resulted in further questions that need to be asked. The Committee reviews Aldermaston on an annual basis and we shall continue to do so. We will examine any serious points in detail.
To deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was absolutely right not to appear on the "Panorama" programme. I would not have gone anywhere near it. Indeed, I suspect that one of the reasons why the programme came out in the form that it did was that the request by the programme makers to be allowed to accompany us into Aldermaston was turned down unanimously by all members of the Committee. I do not think that the "Panorama" report was fair, accurate or properly researched. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
I have detained the House long enough. I have been the Chairman of the Committee for almost a year. I thank my colleagues on the Committee, all of whom work much harder than other hon. Members would undoubtedly give us credit for. It has been a useful year and I look forward to continuing the work of the Committee. I especially thank the staff who have worked extraordinarily hard to produce good and well-constructed reports for the Committee to vet and table in the House. The work that is done by the staff of the Select Committee on Defence and, indeed, all Select Committees is something to which the House should pay great tribute.
6.48 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I too watched the "Panorama" programme, which seemed to raise a whole series of quesions that should be answered. I hope that the Committee's report, when published, will answer some of them.
It seems a little ironic that, increasingly, television programmes suggest that Government Departments and others are misleading people, yet the programme makers do not stick to what seems to be a basic principle—that they should make it clear that they are using library film from the past or reconstructions. It would be simple to show that at the bottom of the screen. If the programme makers expect other people to tell the truth, they should do the same.
There is an odd contrast in the House tonight between now and what happened earlier. During Treasury questions, there was a great deal of scrutiny of public expenditure and the Government's willingness to examine in great detail how much money is being spent on things such as invalidity benefit.
When we turn to defence, the Government's approach is wholly different. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) gave a long list of cases of mismanagement in which the Government seem able to throw money at problems without the same scrutiny. If we want good defence forces, as I am sure we all do, it is important that we exercise the same level of scrutiny over expenditure on them as over all other Government expenditure.
I turn now to the way in which the armed forces have reviewed the pay office. Part of it is within Tameside, in which part of my constituency falls. There was considerable concern at the Government's decision to centralise the pay office. I understand the Government's logic in saying that it is better for civilians to deal with pay. It is also logical to deal with it in one office rather than in five or six centres around the country. However, it is odd that the Government did not think through the whole process from the beginning.
The Government started to civilianise the activity in a series of different centres, and then centralised it in one place. To have recruited people for the past two years to the Ashton office, admittedly to process allowances rather than pay, and then, part way through the recruitment process, to announce that a new national centre was being considered alarmed my constituents.
Obviously, Tameside council was particularly concerned at the possibility of losing jobs from the area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and other Members representing Tameside made representations to the Government. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) kindly saw the deputation. We were courteously received and the council made a good presentation.
However, part way through the presentation, it became clear that the Government wanted not a new site but an existing building. Sadly, Tameside could not find a new building for the pay office. We left a little disappointed, but, as representatives of Greater Manchester, we were well aware that there were many other empty offices in the area.
Rightly, Roy Oldham, the leader of Tameside council, got in touch with other leaders of councils in Greater Manchester, and eventually the alternative of Europa

1047
house in Stockport was proposed. We submitted the proposal and, much to our surprise, the Government, having half decided that the office would go to Glasgow, announced that they were having second thoughts and were considering the proposal.
Mr. Archie Hamilton indicated assent.
Mr. Bennett: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman's agreement that I am giving a fair precis of events.
There was considerable concern among the people who worked in Ashton when, at the Scottish Conservative party conference, it was announced that the office would go to Scotland. It seems to me and the stewards concerned that, despite what was supposed to be a financial appraisal of the situation, suddenly a political decision was made. I do not complain if decisions are made on the basis of wheeler-dealing and politics, but I am concerned when it is claimed that decisions are made purely on economic grounds, and it seems to me that the present proposals are not based on economic grounds.
I particularly want to raise with the Minister the problem facing many of my constituents who work in the pay office. They have been told that they can relocate to Glasgow but often their spouse also works. Indeed, by the nature of the pay levels, it is likely that both members of the household would work.
It is not much use to offer one member of the household the opportunity to relocate to Glasgow if it means that the other must give up a job. If it is necessary to recruit extra staff for the relocated office, if it eventually ends up in Glasgow, the Government should consider offering the new jobs first to the spouses of people who may be able to relocate if both could get jobs. Otherwise, the offer of relocation and of paying for people to move is an empty gesture. I am not satisfied that the relocation of the pay office to Scotland is the most effective use of resources.
Today, the Stonewall Trust has been in touch with me. It is concerned about a document it refers to as "Defense Counsel Instructions ICR M 2/87", which is supposed to deal with the question of homosexuals in the armed forces. The debate on this issue in the United States has not been particularly helpful, but if what the Stonewall Trust suggests in that document is correct, we are dealing with the issue in an even more squalid way here. Will the Minister ensure that there is a copy of the document in the Library so that Members can look at it? It may be more appropriate to deal with the issue in the debate on discipline in the armed forces late on Monday night.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) raised the question of nuclear tests. It is amazing that the Secretary of State could go through a long speech without mentioning that matter. I understand that we are in direct negotiations with the United States of America on whether we can carry out three more nuclear tests. If we are in favour of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the sooner we have an effective worldwide test ban, the better.
We have a moratorium which includes most of the countries involved. It is sad if there is pressure on the United States to start testing again. The danger is that, if the United States starts testing again, it will give an excuse to people in Russia and elsewhere who would like to carry out further tests. Certainly, some of the stories coming out
1048
of the old Soviet Union about the state of some areas where nuclear tests were carried out make it clear that it would be sad if more tests were carried out there.
There is no justification for it. We are told that President Clinton is proposing to Congress six further American tests and three further British tests. I do not know whether it is correct, but we are told that the Americans need to test the reliability of existing weapons. I cannot see why that is necessary. If they say that they will sign up to a comprehensive test ban treaty, there should now be sufficient scientific ways of verifying that weapons can do what they are supposed to do. Therefore, the tests are not needed.
Our argument is that we want not to verify the reliability of our existing weapons, but to develop the possibility of a new weapon of some sort or a modified form of the WE177. That is wholly in contravention of the non-proliferation treaty. I thought that we had signed it on the basis that we would not seek a new set of nuclear weapons.
It would be sad if the Americans agreed to start testing again. It would be particularly sad if they allowed us to carry out three tests, not to verify the reliability of our old weapon systems, but to develop a new system. If it is legitimate for Britain to plead that it needs a new system, surely it is legitimate for all sorts of other countries to plead the same. That would lead to the spread of those weapons. I therefore plead with the Government to stop begging the Americans to let us conduct more tests. Let us accept that, for the future of the world, no further nuclear tests are necessary.
We have Trident. Used with one warhead, it represents a sub-strategic nuclear deterrent. We do not need a new free-fall bomb. Let us say that, if we are to continue with nuclear weapons, the Trident system is sufficient, remembering that it can be modified for a sub-strategic role. In other words, we can stop wasting money on the development of more nuclear weapons.
I have always argued that we should go further and make it clear that, for non-proliferation purposes, we can do without nuclear weapons. In any event, let us say once and for all that we do not intend to put extra warheads on Trident missiles. The level of nuclear weapons we have, including Polaris missiles, is more than enough to provide us with a deterrent.
Given all the problems that exist on the Aldermaston production line, if we were committed to producing far fewer warheads, it might be easier to improve safety and production facilities there. We must consider deCommissioning our Polaris and other nuclear submarines.
The way in which we are cutting expenditure on defence is bound to be causing distress to the defence industries. That is why we must search for alternative jobs for those who are, or have been, employed in those industries. If the Government will not agree with some of the Opposition's proposals for the alternative use of large numbers of people involved in the defence industries, they should at least consider deCommissioning old nuclear submarines and the creation of new jobs.
We must give greater thought to the ways in which arms are proliferating worldwide. Particularly frightening are the number of arms from eastern Europe and the old Soviet Union that are being sold. As the hon. Member for Western-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) pointed out, there are 28 wars going on in the world. The more we can reduce the quantity of second-hand arms being sold, the safer the

1049
world will become. Perhaps we might consider buying some of those arms and dismantling them. That would be a better use of our money than some of the other activities that we are undertaking.
A sad aspect of not having a comprehensive review is that we have not examined the need for defence land in this country. I have often referred to this subject. The Ministry of Defence still argues that it needs more land for training purposes. Although I do not believe that that claim can be sustained, a proper view would enable us to see how much defence land is being used for training and whether more could be released, in this crowded island, for the public to enjoy for recreational purposes.
Considerable parts of the north Pennines are no longer being used for manoeuvres. As a result of past exercises, many unexploded weapons must be dealt with. I hope that they can be cleared out of the way and the land made available for recreational use.
I pay tribute to my many constituents who served with the Cheshires in Bosnia. It is important for us to carry out humanitarian roles in the world. They worked in extremely difficult circumstances, and we can be proud of the way in which they carried out their duties. We can be equally proud of those who replaced them.
7.3 pm
Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the kind remarks that he made about me and my service at the Ministry of Defence. It was a great pleasure for me to work with my right hon. and learned Friend and my fellow Ministers. I also thank the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) for his kind remarks.
I congratulate the Minister of State, who now has what I consider to be the best job in Government. He is ideally qualified for it. He has already had some experience of working in Northern Ireland with our troops, and the fact that he brings his expertise as an accountant to his tasks at the Ministry of Defence will prove useful to him when he looks hard at some of the investment appraisals that are put before him. I am sure that he will find the job as enjoyable as I found it.
I shall concentrate on the major argument over defence expenditure, which is the balance between resources, capabilities and commitments. Traditionally, in the days when the United Kingdom was positively threatened by the Warsaw pact, we began our consideration of the position with the commitments that we needed to defend these islands. Those commitments were, in great measure, tied up with our membership of NATO and the joint security that we received by co-operating with our allies. In addition, we had overseas commitments, so we worked backwards and considered how much money we should spend on defence.
As the Secretary of State pointed out, we spend about £24 billion on defence. A similar amount is spent by the Germans and French. We must not overlook the fact that their economies are larger than ours, so as a percentage of the gross national product, they are spending less than we are. I have no argument with the size of the defence budget. There are good reasons why we spend such a large sum on defence, not least because we have a nuclear deterrent and continue to have a number of overseas
1050
commitments. We also have professional forces, and they have proved themselves to be—for example, in the Gulf —most effective.
Nor should we overlook the fact that we are living this year with a public sector borrowing requirement of £50 billion. It is therefore unrealistic to expect us to spend more on defence than we are spending today. Here I question the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has constantly criticised decisions that the Government have taken. For example, he criticised the addback of two battalions and the fact that the increase in numbers of 3,000 was not funded.
There is no way in which any change in defence will be funded by extra money from outside, and it is unrealistic to expect otherwise. If we are to address the defence budget as a whole and claim that certain measures should be taken to increase our capabilities, we must find the money from within the defence budget. It would be unrealistic to consider the problem in any other way. The fixed point from which we should operate is that represented by the resources that are available.
What are we trying to achieve from our defence expenditure? It is important not to forget that the primary purpose of that expenditure is the defence of the United Kingdom. I am the first to acknowledge that the threat to this country has receded dramatically. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and the Warsaw pact has disintegrated. There are good reasons for thinking that the threats to Britain today are minimal.
But it is impossible to forecast the future, and we do not know what threats will emerge. For example, it is difficult to foresee where Russia will go—whether democracy will hold there, or whether it will become more threatening to its European neighbours—so the second priority of defence must be to keep our capabilities. That is a very expensive business indeed. I should be distressed if, because of other pressures in defence, we started to lose capabilities, such as our ability to wage anti-submarine warfare.
Anti-submarine warfare is no longer a great defence priority; Russian submarines are patrolling much less frequently, so the need to try to find them has radically reduced. We do not know, however, about future submarine deployment. We know very well that other countries are buying submarines, so we may be faced with great threats that we cannot foresee. I would be extremely concerned if we lost our anti-submarine warfare capability.
The Navy and the Air Force have great air defence capability—for example, the low-level bombing capability of the Tornado GR1s. Such capability is critical for the defence of the United Kingdom and that of our interests elsewhere.
We should remember that, when we talk about commitments, we are talking not about our commitment to defend the United Kingdom, but about our commitments to try to bring peace to different parts of the world and those to the United Nations. Our commitments are like a piece of string—they are as long as one wants to make them.
It is widely acknowledged that British troops are probably the best in the world. They are undoubtedly the best to undertake a peace-keeping, peace-making operation, because their experience in Northern Ireland enables them to deal with extremely difficult situations.

1051
That is why they were described in Bosnia by a well-known reporter as being "stunningly" the best troops on the ground.
Everyone wants British troops to play a role in the world, but we must limit our commitments, or they could serve in an unlimited number of theatres of war. Mention has already been made of the 28 different conflicts that are now going on. Are we to be involved in all of them? If so, our troops will be overstretched.
We must meet commitments according to our available resources. The defence budget of £24 billion will not increase. I certainly would not advocate, however, that it should be reduced dramatically. It is essential that we maintain our capabilities because, by the nature of defence, they are an insurance policy. We must, however, consider carefully the commitments that we may be asked to fulfil.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster criticised the decision to withdraw troops from Belize. If we do not constantly review our commitments, we will operate a ratchet—our troops will be sent all over the world. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred to Cyprus, where British troops have been stationed for the past 25 years. For some reason it is not possible to share the United Nations commitment in Cyprus with anyone else, but we have, finally, reduced the number of troops serving there.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not disagree in principle with my right hon. Friend, but he is slightly contradicting his own theme. He has told the House that we should assess our defence needs and act accordingly. In almost the next breath, however, he said that he considered that the budget of £24 billion was the one within which we must operate. Surely that must mean that we will have to cut our cloth to suit the financial limit that my right hon. Friend has artificially imposed upon it.
I accept that we must review our commitments regularly, but we are a member of the United Nations Security Council and we have enormous responsibilities in that role. Our international status and standing depends to a great extent on the magnificent work of our armed forces. My right hon. Friend should accept that we must have a degree of flexibility in a changing world. One cannot allow a Treasury ceiling of £24 billion to be the controlling factor on the size of our forces.
Mr. Hamilton: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, because that is the nub of my argument: with him. It is totally unrealistic to expect any more money for the defence budget. A major outside threat to the security of the United Kingdom would have to arise for that budget to be increased. I do not foresee that happening in the next 10 years. It is therefore unlikely that the defence budget will increase beyond £24 billion. We must accept that figure and work back from it. The result is a tremendous pressure on commitments.
It is interesting to consider who is contributing to the operations in Bosnia. The French, the Canadians, the British and the Spanish have sent troops, but none of our other European partners have done so. For some reason, they seem to believe that the conflict does not involve them. We are being asked to carry an unfair burden. We should remember that one is never paid the full costs of deploying troops on behalf of the UN, so that costs the
1052
Exchequer money. We must ensure that our European partners play a larger role in the peace-keeping operation, especially if it is considered to be a European one.
We should not forget our major peace-keeping operation in Northern Ireland. That operation takes up 19,000 troops, many of whom are rotated and are part of the emergency tour plot, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Upminister referred. For every one battalion in Northern Ireland, one must decide whether one needs four or five others to ensure that the rotation works.
We must take a hard look at our other commitments. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster would acknowledge that our undertaking in Bosnia contributes to the pressures on the emergency tour plot. It is another arduous commitment.
Quite apart from the pressures on the British Army, I believe that there is no military solution to the problems of Bosnia. The military can only operate there as long as they have the basic agreement of the warring factions to do so. The second that we try to impose our will on those factions by military means, we will be drawn into a civil war. I do not want to talk about numbers, because there is no limit on the number of troops who could be sent to Bosnia. That would only mean that we were drawn into a long, bloody war, which ultimately we would lose.
We must try to disabuse people of the idea that all that needs to be done is to use air power to shoot up a few Serbian artillery positions. They believe that that would result, somehow, in a change in Serbian attitudes. That attitude would change—for a week. The Serbs would then regroup and change tactics.
We must never forget that Yugoslav defence under Tito was based on guerrilla tactics. The plan was to withdraw to the mountains and use weapons kept in massive underground arsenals, which still exist, mostly in Serbian areas. The plan was to harry any Russian attack—that is what the Yugoslays were worried about—from guerrilla positions in the mountains.
There is no way in which we can impose a military solution on Bosnia, and there are great dangers in thinking that we can. We have done a magnificent job of distributing aid under the present system. That has been achieved on the basis of the warring factions accepting the presence of our troops and not regarding them as the enemy. If we start thinking that, by reinforcing our troops, we can impose our will, we will be faced with an extremely disappointing reaction.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for having kept us out of Bosnia. Long may that continue.
7.18 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I am always pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because it enables me to pay tribute to our security forces for the magnificent job that they do throughout the world, but particularly in my part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland.
I am privileged to have first-hand experience of the work that the Army does, both in and out of uniform. I never cease to marvel at the restraint that our security services display in the most difficult circumstances. But of

1053
course, Northern Ireland is not, as we have heard this afternoon, the only place in which the security forces face great danger.
We have just listened to the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) speak about the Bosnian conflict. I want to mention the Royal Irish Regiment, which served as part of the force in Bosnia at the time that the Cheshire Regiment was there. It is sometimes forgotten that the Royal Irish Regiment has played a vital role in Bosnia.
My colleagues and I have a deep concern about our forces in Bosnia. We have been unable to detect any coherent policy governing how those forces might be able to protect themselves. We know that there is a fluid situation in Bosnia, and that it is hard to lay down specific terms under which our security services can operate. But it is wrong and dangerous for our soldiers to have to appear to improvise in situations such as occurred recently when British forces were protecting a large Muslim convoy.
When one hears of our soldiers being disarmed, one waits in trepidation for a real tragedy. Already, our forces in Bosnia have been forced to open fire. Yet we know that they are not there in adequate numbers to protect themselves in a similar situation. I fear an occasion when our forces will be overwhelmed, and I dread hearing each day about the situation in which they find themselves.
My party supports our nation's contribution to and participation in United Nations' operations. But that should not mean that we require our soldiers to operate in limbo. Nor should participation oblige us to guarantee further reinforcements for Bosnia. There are more wealthy nations than Britain which are not playing their part, and far too much of the burden has fallen upon our own forces.
It is always a grave matter to commit one's security services to a theatre of open warfare. It should not be done —humanitarian considerations notwithstanding [without a clearly defined military objective and adequate military competence in terms of their self-defence.
I listened to what the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said. I agree with him that we cannot force the warring factions in Bosnia into submission. The point that I am making is different. If our forces are providing humanitarian assistance, we have a responsibility to ourselves and to those forces that I do not believe has been met.
I was particularly pleased, and I know that the voluntary reserves will be pleased, to hear what the Secretary of State said about their opportunities to volunteer again for active service. But I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who rightly speaks against the need for the reserves to have to volunteer twice. That is patent good sense. We all know the first thing that happens when one volunteers and gets into uniform—one is encouraged never to volunteer for anything again.
A country with a finite defence budget should not be paying for the training of what is hopefully that very small number of volunteers who will always depend on others to respond in an emergency. Under the Secretary of State's arrangement, they could enjoy an exciting social and—irrespective of what some hon. Members may think—tolerably well paid hobby without any real commitment.
1054
I do not want what I have said to reflect on the vast majority of volunteers who have a solid commitment, but we know from experience that there are those who do not share that commitment. Under the Secretary of State's new arrangement, I believe that that problem will increase.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) was more pessimistic, but I believe that worldwide conflict is unlikely to occur again within our lifetime on a scale that might have been expected no longer than four or five years ago. The likelihood of less widespread conflicts means that there is unlikely to be massive mobilisation. The volunteer reserves will not be called up in great numbers. Hence, a real and tangible obligation on every volunteer must be retained within the Secretary of State's arrangement for the reserves.
I shall briefly return home, to the situation in Northern Ireland. "Options for Change" specified the need to amalgamate the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment. That caused considerable misgivings in Northern Ireland. My party, and I as the person with responsibility to speak defence, looked carefully at the proposal and we saw many benefits for Northern Ireland in such an amalgamation. If the Royal Irish Rangers had been lost, Northern Ireland would have been left, for the first time in hundreds of years, with no tangible and total integration within the military system of the United Kingdom. We would have been left without a line regiment.

The leader of my party and I went to the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, and discussed the amalgamation at some length. I received assurances that, when the amalgamation had taken place, the Ulster Defence Regiment as it was, or the Royal Irish Regiment as it is, would not be interfered with again, and there would be a period of stabilisation for at least a year. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Defence did not effectively get that message across to the General Officer Commanding and other senior officers in Northern Ireland.
The amalgamation was meat and drink to the armchair generals; those who have the ability to undermine the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland it signalled the diminution of the effectiveness and the size of what had been the Ulster Defence Regiment. Among sensible people, there was certainly a feeling that at least the part-time element within the regiment would be run down. That did not help matters.
A broken promise, even if it is done with the best intentions or through necessity, will diminish the confidence of certain sections of our community in Northern Ireland, and that section of the community will begin to look elsewhere for its protection against terrorism.
I do not want to exaggerate, but to some extent the present unease within what is loosely termed the loyalist population derives from the fact that people are not assured of their protection. It does not matter what we say or how often we tell them, they see things in practical terms. They see the diminishing of the part-time element within the Royal Irish Regiment, and they start to be afraid and wonder whether they should seek protection elsewhere.
The Minister must quickly ensure that the regiment, and particularly the part-time element, is sustained. One of

1055
the immediate ways he can do that is by finding a means of recruiting to the officer corps within the regiment, as it has been neglected.
It is a problem of 23 years of continuous service. The first paragraph of page 27 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" relates to the amalgamation:
"A major objective is to create in the home service battalions an even more professional, effective and flexible security force, operating in support of the RUC and. in the interests of the whole community in Northern Ireland."
I suggest that the person who wrote that is extremely naive. What better professionalism, effectiveness and flexibility in terms of security can anyone show than to survive 24 hours a day, seven days a week, year in, year out, for the past 23 years in the face of determined terrorism with no rest and relaxation and no respite at home, at work in one's civilian job or on duty? That is what we face in Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, serving officers are being marginalised because they cannot do the battle training course or the assault courses the way they could 23 years ago when they first joined the regiment. Very few of their duties require assault course soldiery. They have to be mentally alert and place themselves directly between the terrorists and the ordinary law-abiding community and carry out their duties without alienating the extremely sensitive cornmunity in Northern Ireland.
It is wrong to say that, to make the Royal Irish Regiment home battalions more professional, they have to become Royal Marines, paratroopers or Royal Anglians. They need the confidence to continue on a day-to-day basis to do what they have done effectively for the past 23 years.
If the Minister will take note of what I have said and will consider the desperate need to recruit able young men to lead the regiment as we need officers, he will be doing a service to the military in general, because the Royal Irish Regiment plays a very important part in the day-to-day security of Northern Ireland. He will also be doing a particular favour to the people of Northern Ireland, for which they I can assure him will be more than grateful.
7.37 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the House listened with respect to the honourable and gallant Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I deliberately use that traditional form of address because he is an honourable and gallant Gentleman. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have listened to his speech with respect and with careful attention because he spoke from the heart and with great knowledge and obviously he must be taken extremely seriously.
The hon. Gentleman ended his speech on a parochial note. I shall begin on one. The last time that we debated defence in the House, my county regiment, the Staffordshire Regiment, was under threat. I am delighted to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Defence and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) for at long last listening to the pleas which we made time and again from the moment when that ill-advised merger with the Cheshires was announced until finally my right hon. Friend came to the Dispatch Box and announced that the
1056
regiment was reprieved. It was most frustrating for me as I was off sick that day and could not respond. But I can do now and say how glad I am.
I have rarely been more moved or impressed than I was when I went in April with the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) to a special lunch put on by the Staffords to say thank you to those who had campaigned in Parliament and outside. One met there a group of young men who were remarkably dedicated. They were thorough professionals in the best sense of that word. I was not only thrilled that the Staffords had been reprieved, which was absolutely right and necessary, but I also saw those young men—officers and men—as the very epitome of British manhood.
There are few institutions in this country today that are regarded with unreserved pride and admiration. This place is not always held up for the admiration that it might be. There are very few in the professions who are regarded with unrelieved and unreserved pride. But I know very few people who have anything other than respect and admiration for our armed forces; for the professionalism and dedication with which they perform the most difficult of tasks, for the quiet, understated and restrained courage and bravery that they invariably display, which we have seen so graphically demonstrated in Bosnia in recent months. It is good to begin by paying that tribute.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell is not here. He explained to me that he had to leave and he knew that I would be referring to him. But it is a pity to approach any defence debate from the point of view of Treasury figures. The absolute overriding duty of any Government, regardless of its political complexion, is to secure the defence of the realm. Our armed forces are second to none.
My right hon. Friend referred to a reporter. It was Kate Adie. I was in the Committee Room when she talked about the bravery and professionalism of our British soldiers and said quite unashamedly that no one could hold a candle to them. If one accepts that we are singularly fortunate in having such brilliant armed forces, always the arm of civil power and never anything else, and if one accepts that it is the overriding duty of any Government to secure the defence of the realm and its interests, one cannot and must not begin with a figure and fit everything within that figure.
Of course I was as delighted as anyone in the House at the end of the cold war; at the demise of the monolithic communist bloc. But I am as aware as anyone in the House that those old monolithic dangerous certainties have been replaced by something perhaps even more dangerous. Already it has been referred to this afternoon. Where once the Soviet Union existed as a monolithic nuclear power, regimented and controlled, there are now four nuclear powers, not very well regimented and controlled.
The danger implicit in that for the fragile peace of the world, a danger compounded by the fact that, within the decade, we may well see Iran and Iraq as nuclear powers, should make anyone realise that it is essential not to be dictated to by figures when one comes to work out the defence budget and the defence of the realm.
The Conservative party has much to be proud of in the way in which it has sustained the defence of this realm. We have a great deal to be proud of in the leading role that we have enabled our country to play in NATO during the past 14 years and before. But we must recognise—this was referred to in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who is Chairman

1057
of the Defence Select Committee—that Britain is a great power. It is a leading member of NATO. It is, after all, one of five permanent members of the Security Council. It is a member of the Group of Seven, the most important economic nations in the world. It has an important and pivotal role in the European Community.
Whichever way one looks at it, Britain is a great power and that brings with it responsibilities. I should like to make that the background of some remarks about a subject that has cropped up in every speech—the situation in the former Yugoslavia. I make no apology for raising that yet again. The House is a little fuller than it was at 3.30 am one cold December morning in 1991 when we first debated the situation in the former Yugoslavia. It was the first time that the House had discussed it.
To say "the House" is perhaps a slight exaggeration. I was here, as was my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member who had the next debate on the Consolidated Fund was here, sleeping gently on a Back Bench somewhere. Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair because Mr. Speaker Weatherill had had the good sense to go to bed. Someone was reporting from Hansard and I think that two people were asleep in the Public Gallery, and that was it.
Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): And a Whip.
Mr. Cormack: And a Whip.
I make that point because I want to say that at that time I and a number of others were saying that if only a united and resolute show of forceful resistance to what was going on in Yugoslavia were made, the problems that were then occurring in Dubrovnik—it was then a Croatian problem —would probably have been brought to an end and there probably would not have been an outbreak in Bosnia. What was needed, of course, was not massive forceful intervention, but a naval and air blockade. If they had been instituted we might have avoided all the carnage and horror and all the rape and distress that has followed since.
We must recognise that what has happened in the former Yugoslavia during the past 18 months is an indictment of the western powers, and the European powers in particular. Yes, we triumphantly won the cold war. Yes, it was a stunning victory. But in the first real test in this new disordered order that replaced those old certainties to which I have referred, we have failed.
There is no point in rescuing our reputations merely by heaping much-deserved praise on the troops. Yes, our troops have discharged themselves with marvellous fortitude and bravery. I have already referred to that. That no one can gainsay. But it is no good a politician saying that that is wonderful and all is right, because it is not. There has been a lack of cohesion and a failure to respond. An uncertain message has been sent about the effectiveness of the United Nations and of the European Community in dealing with such a crisis. The message that that conveys to warlords in many countries and to those who might become warlords in many parts of the Soviet Union is fraught with dire danger for us all.
There are various things that we can and should do. On 25 May I tabled, with the support of several of my hon. Friends, early-day motion 2082, which refers to the
1058
background to our failure and to the Washington accord, which had just been signed. We said that we had no confidence in that agreement.
"because it recognises, and thus rewards, unprincipled and brutal aggression and offers neither adequate protection nor reasonable hope to the victims of the worst crimes against humanity since World War Two."
I commend that motion to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House because it sets out the position fairly well and makes the point that, with each failure, the situation has become more difficult to deal with. Something that began as an act of Serbian regression and that was not a true civil war has degenerated into a civil war, with Muslim and Croat fighting each other.
I have never advocated and I do not advocate massive ground involvement and unnecessarily putting lives at risk. However, I may say in parenthesis that when one talks to young men in the Staffordshire and in other British Army regiments, they say some very sobering things. I asked one group what they would do if they were sent to Bosnia. They replied, "We joined up to serve, and if we are sent we will go. We only hope that we will not have one hand tied behind our back, like our mates in the Cheshires." One of them said, "Sometimes, you get killed —but if you didn't recognise that, you would not join the Army any more than a young man would join the police." It is not that they court disaster and danger, but they know that it is there. I regret the emotive talk about body bags and so on, but I have never advocated mass ground involvement.
What can be done now? We can make one last supreme effort to get the parties together, but we can only do that successfully if the Serbs in particular know—although this applies now to the Croats also to a degree—that we are prepared to take more punitive action than the mere imposition of sanctions. One tragedy of the situation has been the invalidation by ourselves of the doctrine of deterrent. For many years we taught that one deterred by having something that one was prepared to use. In the case of the Serbs, we signalled from the word go that we would not use force of any sort against them. We should have kept them guessing and we should have been resolute. Hence my advocacy from the beginning of an air and naval blockade.
I do not know whether we can rescue from that carnage and despair something identifiable as a nation. We recognised it as a sovereign nation and we still do—its president was with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at the beginning of this week. Some 200,000 people, and perhaps as many as 250,000, have died, and 2·5 million have been displaced. The statistics are overwhelming in their grotesque horror.
We can and must draw a lesson from that appalling catastrophe—that the old philosophy of NATO does not apply in the new world order. We have talked of rapid reaction and deployment and of fire brigade-type operations and forces. We must develop a new strategy to deal with situations which are far short of the threat of a world war but which are perhaps the beginning of cancerous conflicts that can destroy a nation. It is essential that we establish a group of Ministers from each of the NATO countries who should meet over the next few months, charged with the job of working out a strategy for the new, disordered world order.

1059
Britain has a remarkable contribution to make in that context, based on the brilliance of our armed forces, long traditions and ability to react. That tradition has never been and should not now be dictated to by Treasury figures. Of course, harsh decisions must be made on public expenditure—every right hon. and hon. Member recognises that—but the last thing to be cut should be that on which we all ultimately depend, which is the safety and security of the realm and its interests, which depend fundamentally on effective armed forces.
I was disturbed when I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster speak about the findings of his Select Committee, the length between tours that our troops are obliged to observe, and the young women in Cyprus who were left behind while their husbands went to the Falklands. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is a man of sensitivity and imagination. I hope that he, too, was disturbed and will consider carefully the implications.
I hope also that my hon. Friend the Minister above all realises that real imagination and vision is called for in dealing with the problems that now beset us. I make no apology for giving my hon. Friend a boost and plug, because earlier this year he published one of the most remarkable, successful, well-written and brilliantly researched biographies of any living political figure. I refer to my hon. Friend's biography of Nixon. I read every word of it because I had to review it and I thought that it was excellent.
My hon. Friend the Minister analysed a man who, whatever his domestic and personal shortcomings, was in the international sense a colossus. We lack a colossus on the international stage at the moment. Perhaps my hon. Friend, through his important place in the Government and close proximity to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will be able to play a part in fashioning just such another colossus because—by jove—we need leadership of that high order now in this dangerous world. If we are to supply it, or help to supply it from this country, we cannot do it with a defence budget that is so Treasury-dominated that real emergencies are neglected and real contingencies cannot be met.
7.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) spoke with his usual sense and honesty in probing beyond NATO into a much more complex world. Such searching after the truth will pay dividends. The hon. Gentleman began by hailing his success in retaining his local regiment, and he is justly proud of its history and traditions. Such things simply cannot be bought, and the hon. Gentleman will sympathise with and understand the Scottish view of our regiments and their importance within Scottish culture and the Scottish way of life.
The cliche that we live in a rapidly changing world has now proved absolutely true. Cataclysmic events of historic significance have seemed to pile up over the past few years; only now have we an opportunity to stop and take stock of the significance of what has happened. The old, ultimate cold war opponent has disappeared, to be replaced by a multiplicity of potential trouble spots. Problems of an entirely different nature have arisen throughout the world. In that context, surely we need a new and fundamental review of defence requirements and configurations.
1060
The old United Kingdom strategy, dominated by the cold war and nuclear weapons, must now be either justified or altered to meet changed circumstances. Is the Minister entirely satisfied with the current nuclear defence strategy, or does he admit that those changed circumstances now demand a root-and-branch review of our defence requirements? Let me again make a direct plea to the Government to scrap the plans for regimental amalgamation in Scotland: given the increased demand for conventional forces, it makes less and less sense to destroy Scotland's highly successful regiments by amalgamating them. I support the contention of Lt-Gen. Sir Peter Graham that the British Army is already overstretched with its current commitments, let alone any extra duties that may arise after the implementation of the proposed cuts.
This is very much an avoidable error. Sir Peter says:
"There is a need for more Infantry in the British Army. There is acute overstretch and the proof is that the interval between operations should be 24 months but it is actually down to 15 months! … We are facing heavy commitments within a world situation which has changed … If 47 battalions cannot cope, I cannot see how 40 battalions could cope!"
Sir Peter is a military strategist, and I am not; but even I can see that conventional forces are being required on an increasing scale throughout the world, for both peacekeeping and other duties. The Government's policy is to supply even more nuclear weapons which cannot be used, while at the same time dismantling infantry regiments that provide the only effective method of operation. That is a gross misuse of resources, and a major policy error.
The Government have never really answered the point about overstretching: I hope that they will do so this evening. Their first response to the outright opposition to regimental manpower cuts was to halt reductions at 119,000 men rather than 116,000, as originally planned. However, there has been no increase or addition in the strength of either men or infantry battalions; nor are any proposed. In fact, there has been a decrease only marginally less severe than those orginally scheduled in "Options for Change"—hence the problems of overstretch, stress and strain and grossly reduced intervals between duty tours. Those problems will continue, as will unnecessary family separations.
The price of those regimental cuts will be paid by the families of soldiers who will experience stress owing to the failure of Government policy. If finance is the Government's prime motivation, I should like to hear from them the extra costs and burdens that will be placed on individuals, local authorities and the local economies of the highlands and the north-east of Scotland. Will they do anything to help with new housing, employment and the retraining of the soldiers who would have preferred to remain in their chosen profession? At what cost will this take place, compared with the continuation of the battalions that are required by existing commitments?
Again, the price of the Government's policy will be paid by individuals, families and the local economy, which will be rocked by between 500 and 600 redundancies in an already depressed economic situation. I have not heard the Government deal with that. The highlands and the north-east of Scotland will pay a heavy price for unnecessary regimental cuts.
Let me remind the Minister that the planned amalgamations affect an area whose population is

1061
relatively small. One person in 3,000 joins the Army through the Queen's Own Highlanders each year: one in 19,000 does so in London. The impact of the redundancies, and the need for homes, will be disproportionate if the amalgamation goes ahead. I have never understood the logic of axing the Scottish regiments, which are popular and up to establishment—especially when, even in financial terms, recruitment is easier to achieve and retention levels are far higher.
I believe that the Government should play to the strengths of the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Scottish Highlanders, rather than destroy traditions and loyalties that have existed for centuries. Such things cannot be bought, and, once destroyed, they will be gone for ever.
In addition to all that, Scotland has another problem. Now, the economic and unemployment threat of the Rosyth closure hangs over the local population. Lord Younger of Prestwick has said:
"Before a final decision is taken, I feel I must remind all concerned of a matter of good faith which is involved here. I fought long and hard, first as Secretary of State for Scotland and then as Secretary of State for Defence, to persuade public opinion in Scotland to accept, however reluctantly, that Britain's base for the nuclear deterrent would be at Faslane on the Clyde.
One of the most powerful arguments which I deployed was that there would obviously be many jobs for Scotland associated with operating and maintaining the submarines. I know that many in Scotland would therefore feel badly let down if a major part of these jobs were now to be removed from Scotland.
I hope it will be understood that I would find it impossible to support such a move as my good faith would clearly be called into question."
If the Government close Rosyth, they will break their former colleague's word. They will leave Scotland with the worst of both worlds: a country that faced all the nuclear dangers will have lost any employment or economic benefits.
Mr. Mans: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman gave the impression that he favoured a transfer of defence resources from the nuclear deterrent to infantry battalions and conventional armaments. How does he reconcile that statement with his wish for Rosyth to be kept open to service nuclear submarines?
Mr. Welsh: I was quoting the words of Lord Younger, who was responsible for the policy. I am saying that, if there is to be a peace dividend and if it is to mean anything, Rosyth should be turned into a model of employment diversification and investment for the future. It appears that the-Government have no such intention. I am saying that Scotland will get the worst of both worlds: we had the nuclear dangers, and it appears that, if this decision goes ahead, we shall lose the employment that such an installation would provide.
I am simply giving the Government a previous Minister's view. He believes that his honour is at stake. I hope the Government will listen to that view. I also hope that they will go beyond the nuclear issue, and ensure that there is real defence diversification and a real future for Rosyth. Closure of Rosyth would bring about economic devastation. I am very worried about the general trend in the Government's policy: they tend to close such installations, rather than maintaining a presence to allow
1062
change, employment and a future. Once they have gone, local economies are utterly devastated. The Government have employed that policy in many spheres; I consider it very short-sighted.
In December 1992, the Ministry of Defence issued a publication entitled "Information to Local Authorities and Emergency Services on Nuclear Weapons Transport Contingency Plans". The information was intended to help local authorities to plan for, and deal with, any accident involving nuclear weapon convoys. Ministry of Defence advice from that document is that people should be advised to shelter up to 5 km from the accident locus. According to Strathclyde region, it is simply not feasible to achieve that, given the methods available for informing the public. Similarly, MOD advice is that evacuation may be necessary up to 600 m. In heavily built-up areas that may pose extreme difficulties.
We are talking about a centre of Scottish population. There would be nowhere to hide if any such accident took place. The Public Information on Radiation Emergencies Regulations place a statutory duty on regional councils to provide information and advice to the public affected by a radiation emergency. I put it to the Minister that Strathclyde regional emergency and planning officer is so concerned about the implications of the MOD guidance that he has advised that he could not effectively carry out the advice or plan for the safety of the public in the event of an accident involving the transport of nuclear weapons. He asks that hazardous convoys be either removed or made safe. I should like the Minister to address this problem, because we are talking about the central belt of Scotland and the bulk of the Scottish population.
In transporting nuclear weapons through heavily populated areas of central Scotland, what guarantees can the Government give on the safety of the civilian population? Are they aware of the alarm felt, not just in Strathclyde but by other local government planning officers, about the impossibility of dealing with a real emergency? If local government officials cannot provide safe conditions or emergency help for their civilian populations, the Government must stop the dangers from arising. I remind the Minister that I am talking about officials without any specific political input. It is their duty to carry out such measures, but they cannot do so.
What steps is the Minister taking now to eliminate the dangers? His need to transport nuclear weapons is placing at risk the population of the central belt of Scotland. Before the end of the debate, will he make clear the response that he is making to Strathclyde and the other Scottish regions involved? Will he stop all such nuclear weapons transportation until it can be clearly and publicly demonstrated that the safety of the public is not compromised by convoy movements?
That is another illustration of Scotland facing the dangers of radiation, but not many of the benefits. [Interruption.] The reaction of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) explains why the Conservative party is being thrown out of Scotland. Our population has to live with those dangers and does not wish to do so. If the Conservative party listened to the Scottish population, this problem and the others associated with it would not exist. [Interruption.] The fact that the hon. Gentleman is not getting to his feet is symptomatic of why the Conservatives are being rejected by the Scottish people.
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, under the present distribution of regional aid, his country receives approximately 30 per cent. of the grants, although it has just under 9 per cent. of the unemployment. Talk about special pleading.
Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman is on dangerous ground. The bulk of defence spending is in the south of England. Scotland has the gunnery ranges and other such facilities, but We real Government money and the real employment is in the south-east of England. The hon. Gentleman should not talk about subsidies. He has only to walk less than a mile from the House to London docklands to find out what subsidies really mean. I will not take such talk from the hon. Gentleman. His blinkered attitude towards Scotland is the reason why his party is being rejected by the Scottish people.
I know that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. There is a need for a fundamental review of United Kingdom defence policy to meet the changed circumstances and the needs of the late 1990s. My plea to the Minister is for the maintenance of Scottish regimental recruitment, the safety of the Scottish civilian population and the maintenance of employment in Scotland as the peace dividend allows new and unprecedented options for real change.
8.14 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) in his plea for the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders. I pay tribute to them, having served with both during my time in the forces. They are examples of Scottish regiments that have given long, proud and loyal service to the Crown of the United Kingdom.
To take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I remind the House of the old adage that the first duty of the Government is the defence of the realm. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. He is doing a difficult job in difficult times. I pay particular tribute to his steady handling of the Bosnian situation. We hear many calls for intervention, such as "taking out the Serbian artillery", as if it could be done in a neat surgical operation with a scalpel. However, anyone who knows anything about high explosive knows that its use is not a neat operation. It spreads its destruction all around That is a reflection of the ignorance of defence that one finds in the House. That ignorance surprises me, having had a career in the Army. It is exemplified by those who call for intervention while, at the same time, calling for further cuts in defence expenditure.
That ignorance of defence is paralleled in the country. That is not surprising as it is nearly 50 years since the end of the second world war and 30 years since the end of national service. I should like to see the House raise the standard of debate and have a proper public debate about defence.
"Options for Change" radically reduced the armed forces in pursuit of what we call the peace dividend. We have had the dividend in terms of saving, but there has been a conspicuous lack of peace. Since the launch of "Options for Change", we have had the Gulf war, Bosnia and Somalia—another example of the "surgical" use of air power was seen there last night—and there have been many other United Nations operations.
1064
Since the announcement of the planned reduction in the armed forces, we have been faced with an increasing number of potential tasks and commitments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said, with hindsight we can see that 1989 was the wrong time to review what was going on. We had seen the collapse of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet empire, but we had yet to see the breakdown of the Soviet Union. The world is now becoming much less stable and this is not the time to reduce our defences. Many have seen parallels with the 1930s in the instability in central Europe and in the difficult economic situation. Some time ago, I heard "Options for Change" defined within the Ministry of Defence as an "internal defence review". I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that we must look again at all the assumptions behind it.
Last weekend, I went to the Queen's birthday parade—trooping the colour—where the second battalion of my old regiment was, sadly, trooping its colour for the last time before marching off into the sunset. It was a sad occasion. I will not make any special pleading for my old regiment. The decision to reduce the number of Guards battalions may or may not be correct. However, it was sad to see that that set-piece affair had only six Guards battalions instead of the eight that it had last year and in the year when I took part. Some people say that they are just ceremonial troops. That is nonsense. While the second battalion of Coldstream Guards marched into the sunset, the first battalion was being warned off for service in Bosnia. I have seen those troops serve in the Gulf and Northern Ireland.
I am not saying that the decision to reduce troops is wrong, but it does typify the situation. In that Guards battalion, as elsewhere, morale is inevitably very low, for many reasons, but particularly because of uncertainty. There has been a huge take-up of redundancy packages, even in a recession when jobs are difficult to find. We have not had great success in recruiting officers. The armed forces has always been a respected profession, but we cannot now recruit officers even in a recession.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will say that his Ministry of Defence advisers tell him that all is well, and that we are experiencing a little local difficulty. I am reminded of the divorce between staff officers and troops on the ground, as appeared to happen in the first world war. We are not in such a war, but there is nevertheless a divorce between the thinking of the Ministry of Defence and many of those in the front line.
I shall expand a little on the standing of the armed forces, a topic to which my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South also referred. Although we may not all have read it, the police sent us a survey on the standing of the police in the eyes of the public. The police received a rating of about 60 or 65 per cent., a rating of which they are justly proud. The survey also showed that the standing of the armed forces—the approval rating, or whatever one wishes to call it—was about 87 per cent. I wish that the House had an approval rating of 87 per cent. The armed forces are an admired and respected part of British society. They are an admired and respected institution whereas other British institutions have, frankly, fallen on hard times.
What will happen to the armed forces if good-calibre recruits are not attracted to become officers or join the other ranks? Their standing will fall and performance will

1065
decline. Morale is already at rock bottom and in need of attention, and things will continue to get worse. What type of armed forces do we want in the future? Do we want high-calibre, professional armed forces? If so, we need to raise the level of debate and put the subject into the public domain.
I assure the House that I am not a radical, although I may sometimes look like one with my long hair, but I believe that we need an appraisal. I do not want radical change, but we must not allow a valued national asset to be lost by default. That valued national asset is definitely under threat.
In a changing world, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is moving to consider defence as part of security. I approve because security is no longer a question of NATO versus the Warsaw pact. We need to consider the totality of security: defence against terrorism—some of it state backed—and security in foreign policy. Of course,
"war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means."
Security policy should, therefore, be wider ranging than it has ever been. We need to consider the defence of the nation and of the national interest in that context. For those reasons, we must reconsider our strategic needs.
I fear that there will be further cuts in our armed forces by stealth. At the beginning of April, there was a reduction of 5,000 out of a total of 55,000 in the Navy. A 10 per cent. cut in the Royal Navy without proper debate is extremely disappointing. Last week, further cuts in the Royal Air Force were annouced, and today there has been talk of a reduction in the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. However one presents them, they are cuts in the armed forces, and we cannot ignore that. Our defences are deteriorating by stealth. We need an open, public debate.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer several questions. Will future units be smaller but better, as we were promised in "Options for Change"? I hope that the Minister will asure me that, in the coming years, all units will be fully manned and up to strength. What are the implications for defence expenditure of the long-term costings for 1993 and the projected long-term costings for 1994? What are the implications of the current review of public expenditure? What will the public expenditure survey round bring? What effect will Treasury pressure have on the Ministry of Defence?
I deal now with the much vaunted Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps. Can we man it? Some people suggest rather glibly that it will be an arm of the Western European Union, but the WEU is an organisation without a command structure, control or communications, direction or intelligence. NATO has served this nation, western Europe and the world extremely well. For good or ill, the United States provides an enormous part of the command, control and communications network which runs NATO. I have visited most NATO headquarters in Europe, and I can assure the House that that is the case. The United States provides strategic lift. If we move to the WEU, will we provide the strategic lift. and from where will we get command, control and communications? My hon. Friends may disagree, but I suspect that the ARRC may be little more than a political statement, perhaps allied to the aspirations of some European politicians and some of our partners. It would
1066
be a tragedy if the ARRC were to become nothing more than words which can never be employed. There is little flexibility in it as currently constituted.
As I said, we should have a full, public appraisal of our strategic needs. The Army is overstretched because there is a mismatch of resources and commitments. We currently have 12 battalions in Northern Ireland. They are usually infantry but, following "Options for Change", we shall have only 42 infantry battalions and commandos, minus the Gurkhas, available for service in Northern Ireland. Maths was never my strong point, but I envisage some difficulty in managing 24-month tour intervals with 42 battalions. A 24-month tour interval looks increasingly unlikely.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the reserve forces, but he should not regard them as an easy and cheap option. He spoke of professionalism and training. I welcome the further involvement of our excellent reserves in active duties, which can be offered to them as an incentive for their hard work. However, reserve forces are being cut. We won both world wars with our reserve forces and Territorial Army; they were not won by our regular forces. The British expeditionary force and the regular forces were slaughtered in the first world war and we then had to rely on our reserves, but they are now being cut. In these difficult times, it is essential that we do not cut them further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) noted how cheap reserves are, but they should not be regarded as a cheap option in peacetime. I agree that they cost much less than fully trained, pensioned soldiers, but if we want a professional Army and highly trained troops, we have to have professionals who are highly trained. That takes time; it cannot be done in a couple of weekends a year. I in no way want to criticise the reserve forces, because they are excellent, but they are not the solution to all our problems.
I heard that units would be half-manned by reserve forces. I have to say that that means that they will be undermanned. It is not a realistic option in which we should take pride. The reserves are not full-time personnel. Of course, some are on the dole and might welcome employment, but most of them are not. It would be disappointing if the Government wished to employ people without pension rights. They are not trained to the same standards, and it is futile to pretend that they are. If we want a reservist army, as some of our neighbours have, let us say so. We should look again at the whole question of our reserves and, for that reason, we should have a sensible, open and public appraisal of our requirements.
I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has the interests of the country and its defence close to his heart, but I would consider it tragic if such an able and committed Secretary of State were to oversee further deterioration in the state of our armed forces.
There has been a paucity of suggestions from the Opposition, but if we had an open debate it would allow more suggestions to be made at a more sensible, raised level. We do not want a debate at a financial level; we want to discuss the country's defence needs. What is essential for our defence? What sort of armed forces do we want in the long term?
Currently, there are threats all over the globe—it is not a safe world. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that we have just seen the

1067
most radical change in the armed forces since the 1940s, yet we have clone so without looking properly at our commitments and resources. We are seeing not so much salami slicing as butchery behind closed doors.
Ignorance extends to the general public, who expect the armed forces always to rise to the occasion, such as in the Falklands and the Gulf. We need to educate the public about what we can and cannot do. We cannot march into Bosnia with all flags flying and expect to be taken seriously. I remind the House of Kipling's "Tommy":
"Oh, It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' `Tommy, go away'; But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play."
We always turn to the armed forces in time of need. We hope that they will be there in future because the country will not forgive the House if the armed forces, including the reserve forces, are not able to rise to our need when the country is threatened.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) was absolutely correct to say that a strategic review is not the solution. However, at least after such a review we would understand the problems. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to arrange a proper strategic review of the defence of the nation. Only then will we understand and solve the very real problems facing our armed forces today.
8.32 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I have listened to most of the debate, apart from essential visits out of the House, and was particularly interested in the last two speeches. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for, Blaby (Mr. Robathan) saying that he did not think that the standard of defence debates was all that high and that there is some ignorance about defence issues. He joined the Secretary of State for Defence in criticising Opposition Members for what he alleged to be a lack of interest or of useful suggestions.
I certainly hope to put forward some ideas. Labour Members take a strong interest in defence, but Conservative Members sometimes misunderstand our interest. I hope that they will not take it unkindly when I say that perhaps they confuse their own interests in defence. From my experience of the armed forces, I know that they can certainly be said to represent the officer class, whereas for obvious reasons we tend to represent the other ranks. That is the nature of the way in which the Army is recruited—a point that was made by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) in relation to the Gordon Highlanders.
There is a relationship between levels of unemployment and deprivation and recruitment into the armed forces. It is partly tradition, but partly the lack of alternative jobs. In areas of high recruitment there is a lack of alternative jobs, so naturally we take an interest in the people who are recruited into the armed forces because we want to ensure that they are used properly. I hope that Conservative Members will not take that remark unkindly.
I refer to the clash between some of the claims that are made in the defence estimates and the realities as they have emerged in the past month during the saga, fiasco or foul-up at RAF St. Athan over the modification contract for F3 Tornadoes, which has reached the media following the termination of the Ministry of Defence contract to refit the 18 aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to this and I wish to point out
1068
what conclusions the Ministry of Defence should draw from the way in which the exercise has gone wrong and how it conflicts with the claims that are made in Cm 1981.
Paragraph 322 of the estimates says:
"Contractorisation of support services continues to achieve savings in the RAF support area."
Paragraph 313 refers to the aim of "total quality" in the merger of the Defence Research Agency with the directorate of quality assurance, which has also played a major part in this saga, as I hope to show shortly. It refers to the fact that the Government have appointed Mr. Littmoden, formerly of Marks and Spencer, as head of the merged agency to try to achieve higher standards of quality.
I am a great admirer of some of the work of Marks and Spencer in raising the efficiency of its textile suppliers. It was always said in management that only two bodies take a hands-on interest in trying to improve the efficiency of their suppliers—the Ministry of Defence and Marks and Spencer. They often compared notes and told suppliers, "You could be producing these goods at half the price if only you bought better machinery and did it this way. These are the places where you should be buying that better machinery. These are the people who you need to run it, and you could produce the same goods for us at half the price, make a bigger profit and we would both be better off. We will show you how to do it." Marks and Spencer went further and took shares in supplier companies. The Ministry of Defence obviously could not do that, but they were the only bodies that injected a drive to improve the efficiency of their own suppliers through a proper, active hands-on quality assurance directorate.
That was some 20 years ago when I was in the civil service, at which time I had interesting conversations with Ministry of Defence civil servants. The position seems to have deteriorated a great deal since because of the almost theological belief that the market will now do the job that active, hands-on, backside-kicking, engineering and value analysis expertise within the Ministry of Defence used to do. There is now total reliance on the market.
That was referred to by the Public Accounts Committee in its report, the first page of which says:
"We note that the Department generally rely on market forces to achieve value for money at the contract re-let stage and that they rarely prepare an in-house option to compare against bids from firms. We stress that this places a premium on maintaining effective competition between potential contractors, especially as the in-house staff who previously provided the service will often no longer be in post."
Fortunately, the RAF St. Athan and Airworks Services saga had not gone that far. As a result, in-house staff who were not allowed to bid for the modification contract for F3 Tornadoes have already started some remedial work on the two mildly damaged Tornado F3s of the 18 that were referred to by the shadow Secretary of State. Thank God they are still in post and have not been dispensed with in favour of putting everything out to compulsory competitive tendering, contractorisation, privatisation or some other variant of the Government's theology-driven alternatives to in-house capacity for carrying out improvements, modifications or life extensions to key equipment such as very expensive aircraft, which at the equivalent price today would cost £25 million each.
What happened at RAF St. Athan? When the Department decided to have a life extension exercise for the F3 Tornadoes, because of the amount of service that they had seen, to see whether their effective flying life could

1069
be doubled—that was a sensible idea—the initial contract was given to British Aerospace. Again, the RAF was not allowed to bid. The contract appears to have been completed successfully on the first 15 aircraft. But British Aerospace lost the contract for the next batch to Airwork Services from Bournemouth.
The RAF still had not been allowed to bid, although I understand that it did a ghost bidding exercise, just to test, and that its estimate came out about halfway between the rather high British Aerospace price and the low Airwork Services price, which has now turned out to be such a bad bargain—although litigation may remedy that. For obvious reasons, I shall not go into that possibility tonight, although the Minister may want to say something about it later.
The Government had gone in for a low-cost option and it appears that in the specifications for the contract there was almost no check on how Airwork Services, or any other lowest bidder, would carry out the contract. The contract had been given to the lowest bidder, with all the attendant dangers that that firm might neglect aspects such as supervision, craftsmanship and a quality assurance trail. Would there be any longstop to ensure that the aircraft were modified to the proper standard, without collateral damage being done in the course of the work? No, there was no quality assurance trail at all.
RAF St. Athan sent warning signs to the Ministry of Defence quality assurance directorate, which was told, "It looks to us as though something is going wrong on the contract." Having been notified, the quality assurance directorate staff went to RAF St. Athan and asked to look at the firm's quality assurance certificate, the ISO 9001 —the international equivalent of the BS 5750 quality systems certificate. That certificate is proliferating like a plague throughout British industry; people refer to it as, "never mind the quality, feel the certificate". I do not think that I am being unfair; I am reflecting an opinion that is widespread throughout industry, including the service industries, about those certificates, which have little meaning.
The Ministry of Defence said, "If the firm has a certificate, we do not want to look at the aeroplanes. Has it got a valid ISO 9001? If the answer is yes, we do not want to look at the planes." The MOD staff went back to London satisfied that the certificate was in order. They did not look at the aeroplanes, so they did not see the damage being done by the inappropriate trade practices and inappropriate tools until four of the aircraft had returned to their operational bases at RAF Leuchars, RAF Leeming or RAF Coningsby. I am not sure exactly which bases were involved, but they were among the three bases where F3 Tornadoes are normally used.
The damage was not discovered until four aircraft had gone back, which means that by the time it was discovered the aeroplanes could have been used operationally, in training exercises over the Lake District or mid Wales, at 50 ft off the ground. I am told that, as the fasteners had not been properly refastened and so were loose, two things could have happened. First, a fastener could have worked completely loose and because damage had been caused around the engine intake area, a loose fastener could have been sucked into the engine and sheared off the blades of the turbine from the shaft, which would have resulted in
1070
catastrophic engine failure. Secondly, as there were a lot of loose fasteners around the engine intake area, the engine itself could have sheared off. The lives of the air crew and of civilians unfortunate enough to live in the area over which Tornadoes usually perform low-level training, and also the lives of livestock such as sheep, could have been threatened in those two ways.
I find that frightening, especially as it was an avoidable risk. As the hon. Member for Blaby and many other hon. Members have said, there are unavoidable risks in operating a defence establishment. People do not join the armed forces because they think it will be all ENSA theatre parties and so on. They realise the risks of getting killed. But one does not expect people, including civilians, to be killed because of inefficiency or incompetence, especially when warnings have been given halfway through the saga but ignored because of an obsession with dodgy quality certificates that were not worth the paper they were written on.
Eighteen aircraft have now been damaged. Four of them, which are at RAF Leuchars, RAF Leeming or RAF Coningsby, have been cleared to limp back to RAF St. Athan, rather like a squadron of Lancasters that hit heavy flak over Hamburg in November 1944 and just made it back to Britain. The Tornadoes can just make it back to RAF St. Athan. However, 12 of the aircraft at RAF St. Athan have been classified as "seriously damaged". Those words are from the Ministry of Defence official statement on the affair. Two have been classified as superficially damaged and those two will now be rectified by RAF St. Athan in-house staff. They are mostly civilian staff, but I believe that about 120 service craftsmen have been transferred from their duties back to RAF St. Athan to assist the staff there in the remedial works on the two aircraft that are mildly damaged.
The 12 other aircraft are so seriously damaged that I understand that they have not yet been cleared to be towed on the ground from the modification hangar into the storage hangar to be taken out of the way and left free for examination purposes so that other works can proceed. They are not safe to tow along the ground in case further damage occurs to the structure of the aircraft, the engine intake areas and the longerons—the lengthways engineering members of the aircraft around which it is constructed.
We understand that damage was caused by the classic type of corner-cutting that occurs when a contractor is under pressure to complete a contract taken on at a low price and he knows that there is no active quality assurances specified in that contract, because it is totally reliant on certificates of quality systems and no one will come along and say, "Never mind about the certificate. Are you doing the job properly?" The contract was totally reliant on the idea that since the contractor had the certificate he must be doing the job properly. However, if a contractor bids very low in order to get the work, under the pressure of competitive tendering, he is likely to skimp on supervision and on the quality assurance trail. Unfortunately, that is what has happened since the Ministry of Defence deliberately omitted, or forgot, to provide an effective quality assurance check of its own, despite the risks to air crew and civilians which could result from faulty work.
I understand that the faulty work arose from the use of power tools that were far too powerful in an attempt to dismantle the aircraft so as to get at the insides. Pneumatic guns were used to remove the fasteners that attach the side

1071
skins to the longerons and that created enlarged holes. When the fasteners were put back in there could not be a tight fit between the side skins and the longerons and that compromised the aeronautical integrity of the aircraft. An aircraft with loosely attached screws holding the sides on is not fit to do what an F3 Tornado is meant to do in combat—or in training, for that matter.
That is the alarming situation in which we now find ourselves. What can happen now? We have been talking about options for change, but what we now have is options for repairs at RAF St. Athan. We are told that three options are now being considered. The first is cannibalisation. We could use the F2 Tornadoes that are in storage because they have completed most of their natural flying life. Fortunately, their central fuselage section is almost identical to that of the F3, so the section of the F3 that has been damaged in the attempt to double its flying life could be ripped out and a cannibalised central fuselage section from an F2 in storage could be put in. That is cannibalisation. This would be done by the RAF Abingdon team, the so-called repair and recovery—commonly known as the crash and smash—team, which has moved down to RAF St. Athan.
Then there is reconstruction. This is probably the most expensive option and the one that, for obvious reasons, the German engineers who built the centre fuselage section of the Tornado F3 would prefer, because it would mean money for them. It would mean taking the aircraft or flying the centre fuselage section back to Germany and rebuilding it from scratch on the manufacturer's original jigs. Deutche Aerospace has recommended that that is what is necessary if the aircraft are ever to be restored to full fitness. Obviously, that is a very expensive way of going about it, but they say that that is the only way. One can say that the Mandy Rice-Davies rule applies here—well, they would, wouldn't they?—but they may be right; we do not know.
The third option is rectification, asking the skilled civilians and service men at RAF St. Athan to do the work. There are about 1,000 civilians, mostly skilled tradesmen and supervising technicians, and 3,000 service men of the same skilled type. It is not an operational RAF base; it is the RAF garage, as it were. They could be asked what they could do about the damage, which is that the depressions around fastener holes have been enlarged so that they are 25 times as great as the maximum tolerance allowed in the design of the Tornado F3. Maximum tolerance for damage round the screw holes is 0·02 mil, and the actual damage on these 12 aircraft, I understand, is 0·5 mil. The RAF could ask if there was a way of doing the job on the cheap, even if it took a long time.
We face other concerns as well, in that Airwork 's own future may depend on certain matters on which the Minister may touch. It is not the purpose of this debate to throw accusations at the staff of Airwork, some of whom may be constituents of mine. Throwing terms such as cowboys at either staff or companies is of no interest to me. We are talking about policy decisions here tonight.
Is there a lesson here for the Ministry of Defence? I believe that there is and it falls into several categories. The first is how one judges whether a firm is the right sort to take on this kind of work. What sort of professional indemnity assurance against the contract getting into trouble do they have? If it gets to the stage of litigation against Airwork, do they have adequate insurance to cope with a bill for the writing off of two Tornadoes, costing £25
1072
million when new, although they are certainly not new? Should one specify that a firm must be of sufficient financial standing or have sufficient indemnity insurance to cover that kind of damage? One has to be sure about that before giving a firm that kind of contract.
Can we also learn lessons as to how these contracts should be written? What sort of specification should be put in the contract in terms of quality assurance? One lesson is that we must not allow the further proliferation of, and over-dependence on, quality certificates, which tell very little about the quality of the job being done. Even though some consultant has given a quality certificate, hands-on quality assurance on the job is necessary to check that it is being done properly.
The greatest lesson is that it is silly not to allow the RAF to bid for that kind of work. I hope that that lesson gets home to the Minister. When all the decisions have been made about what kind of repairs to do, whether there will be litigation and, if there is litigation, whether it will get back the money that seems to have been lost over this, the most important lesson seems to be that common sense has gone out of the window in not allowing the RAF to bid against British Aerospace and Airwork.
In the whole thrust towards market testing, compulsory competitive tendering, privatisation and contractorisation, this was a market testing or contractorisation exercise that went one bridge too far. I hope that the Ministry of Defence has learnt its lesson from this fiasco.
8.55 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will forgive me if I do not follow him down that rather specialist road.
This debate takes place against the background of a considerable fiscal difficulty that has figured a number of times. Nevertheless, I shall follow earlier speakers in arguing for the matching of capabilities and resources.
I start by referring to a comment from a speech which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made in winding up the last debate on defence. He described in a very picturesque fashion visiting sites from which the Russian army had disappeared, and seeing great hangars for equipment that had been either demolished or taken away.
It is very easy to draw the wrong lesson from this. As far as I know, no serious military analyst believes that the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation were capable of fighting a conventional battle against the forces of the Warsaw pact for more than a day or two. Our conventional forces provided a trigger for the policy of flexible response, which involved at a very early stage the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Even an enormous reduction in forces on the other side of the iron curtain would have left vastly greater forces than the NATO forces could have afforded a war against.
It is in the light of that observation that we have to look at the political situation now on the other side of what used to be the iron curtain, where we see, not one nuclear country but four; where we see a series of instabilities, some of which are getting worse.
I do not know whether it is true that Ukrainians are selling nuclear technology or whether it is true that Khazakistan is passing on nuclear technology to Iran, but we know that the spread of nuclear technology into the third world is a serious problem.

1073
If we look at the "Options for Change" exercise and, for a second, imagine that it is a properly balanced one—1 do not want to argue either way now—we realise that since then three things have changed on the threat side. First, the Soviet Union has broken up, so now there are four countries with nuclear weapons.
Secondly, another seven countries are on their way to becoming nuclear powers. Some of them are as close as north Africa and the middle east, and include Libya, Algeria and Syria. Those countries are not on the other side of the world. They are run by unstable dictators and will not necessarily respond easily to simple deterrence. They have not only nuclear weapons—they have built up chemical inventories and are developing biological weapons. Some also have enormous conventional forces. For example, Syria has more tanks than Britain and France put together. I mention those countries simply because we must not lose sight of the fact that they are close to home.
Thirdly, the commitments of the United Nations have grown. Ironically, this is the one that matters least from the point of view of the home base and the possible threat to the United Kingdom or our partners in western Europe. It is taking up most of our attention and a great deal of planning time of NATO and, indeed, the Ministry of Defence.
Since the options exercise, the problems have grown substantially. Resources have had one more round of cuts, and many of us are afraid that there will be another. I do not want to dwell on percentage reductions, because one can play all sorts of games against them—it depends on what one thinks they should be.
It is clear that the beans do not add up at present, and I shall give two succinct examples to show what I mean. The first is the rapid reaction corps. Its most important and most expensive training facility is at Suffield in Canada, where they practise combined training. The first three exercises this year turned into fiascos, because they were all done without infantry. We cannot talk about a rapid reaction corps: it cannot rapidly react if its troops are away doing other things, so they are not training for the role.
The other example is our amphibious forces. There is a case for having a strong amphibious capability. There is a case for saying that we, as a small country, cannot afford the capability to do such things. It is manifestly absurd to have the 80:20 ruling reversed and have all the overheads associated with the Royai Marines and the commando training.facilities—I understand that there are six generals. It is absurd to invest in a helicopter carrier that will have no capability at all. Without the two landing platform docks are the centre of any possible amphibious action, but which are completely clapped out at present. One of them is so clapped out that it would take the best part of a year to get it back into some sort of order.
We are finding all sorts of small problems. Cuts have been made to the money available for war stocks, which are already at an extremely low level. For example, in the Gulf, we exhausted our entire reserve of shells in a short time. The real problem is not peacetime overstretch, although it is a serious problem and I do not underestimate it. When I was canvassing on our married quarters patch
1074
during the local elections, I met a number of wives of senior NCOs who are leaving the Army shortly, having taken voluntary redundancy.
That is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the overstretch in capabilities. We are trying to maintain the capabilities to fight potential high-intensity wars against some of the serious threats on the one hand and resources on the other.
I follow other hon. Members on both sides of the House in saying that we need a genuine strategic review of defence policy and diplomatic policy. My simple question is: what alliance would tackle a nuclear threat in north Africa? Would it be tackled by some hastily cobbled together ad hoc combination? No rapid forces other than those of NATO have the capability at present. But under its charter, NATO is not allowed to tackle it. We need a strategic review. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will not pursue that matter.
The changes to the reserves are welcomed in principle. For many years, many of us in the Territorial Army have said that reserve forces should be used in peacetime. However, there is a right way and a wrong way of doing it. If it simply means that regular units that need to be all regular will be padded out by volunteers, some of whom are simply unemployed, that is not a proper use for them, and they will not help the territorials in the long term.
The Canadians, who do a lot of this, have a Territorial Army that is in extremely poor shape. Its level of recruiting is worse than ours and its turnover is as great. The right model is the one used by the United States national guard and the Australians. Both of them have a much lower turnover than we do.
I shall make four specific points. First, roles for Territorial Army units must be sensible, not half-baked. It is absurd, for example, that a recce regiment in the rapid reaction corps is Territorial Army. Of course, such a regiment could not be there quickly enough—it would have to go first.
Secondly, all units must have the same liability. The situation into which we have slipped with some high liability soldiers and some with lower liability is absurd. The paper that has been produced suggests that we should go further, but that is unworkable. It will simply create a sea of paperwork and will mean that the command structure in Territorial Army units will be bypassed.
Thirdly, units must be kept at a reasonable size. There is no earthly point in having mini, three-company battalions, with no support weapons—nothing. It would be far better to have fewer TA battalions embracing the existing number of companies so that each unit is a worthwhile size.
Fourthly, the arrangements for call-out are critical. As I said in my intervention in the Secretary of State's speech, if one lesson is clear from the Gulf it is that if we need a substantial number of TA soldiers, it is unfair to ask them to volunteer a second time. The call-out must be done as the Americans do it, which is to call out a unit. It saves individuals problems with their employers. It is understood in countries where it is used. Nevertheless, I see the possibility of progress in his statement.
I end where I began. Yes, we have economic difficulties but, my God, we also have political difficulties abroad. There is, indeed, a frightening similarity with what happened in the 1920s. Then there was no serious threat visible, but there was a huge amount of political and nationalist instability. The difference between now and

1075
then is the nuclear element in the cocktail. We must not make the mistake of disarming too quickly and without a properly planned strategic review.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the 15 minutes available before the Front-Bench replies, two hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I sincerely hope that both are successful. I call Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.
9.5 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
First, I associate myself with the tributes paid by hon. Members to the men and women of our armed forces. I include in that reference the high regard that we all have for the parents of the soldier whose inquest was held at Wrexham earlier this week, who spoke proudly about their son and his service. We would want to associate ourselves with some tribute to him and to their courage and dignity.
I wish to raise one relatively small matter in the Statement on the Defence Estimates. It is a pity that annex A,. which sets out the details of the fleet, does not include ships which are used exclusively for harbour training. If it did, I could refer to HMS Caroline, which is the last surviving ship that served in the battle of Jutland. It is languishing in a remote corner of Belfast dock, when the nation should be reinstating it with pride because it is part of our maritime and national history. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us that it will be restored.
There is an omission from the estimates. The Government are still not doing enough for ex-service men and their widows and orphans. One of the first things I did on being elected to the House just over a year ago was to table early-day motion 2 which has attracted 70 signatures. It calls for the appointment of a Minister for war veterans and their widows and orphans. I regret that only one Conservative Member has signed it, although service men and women and veterans support the idea of a dedicated Minister to look after ex-service men, veterans and their widows and orphans.
Such an appointment would be welcome in view of the conflicts that, unfortunately, our armed forces still have to face around the world and in Northern Ireland, with consequential casualties. Moreover, our parents' genera-tion—those who fought at Dunkirk, in north Africa and the far east—are, in the nature of things, getting elderly and frail. It would be a good signal if there were a Minister charged with promoting and protecting their interests and working with the various voluntary organisations which, incidentally, also support the appointment of such a Minister. I am thinking in particular of the Royal British Legion. Most countries have a veterans Minister. I hope that will be taken on board by the Minister.
There is reference in the documents to the Ministry of Defence police. I am pleased to have touched base with the Ministry of Defence Police Federation, the members of which do gallant service in protecting military establishments, pursuing crime and reassuring members of the public, service men and their families who operate at Ministry of Defence establishments.
That federation is anxious on two counts. The first is the growth in the number of civil static guards who do not have constabulary powers. Not only does the federation see the use of those guards as a diminution of its members'
1076
role as police officers, but fear that it is a form of short-termism for which we shall pay dearly in years to come, particularly in terms of diminished security.
Secondly, the federation is concerned lest the changed demands on members of the royal military police following the decline of BAOR will act as a temptation for the Secretary of State to use them in lieu of Ministry of Defence police, although their functions are different, particularly in the United Kingdom.
The Ministry of Defence police deal with civilians and service personnel in relation to crime and other traditional police duties. The royal military police, certainly in this country, have powers to deal only with military personnel. I hope we may be assured that, even by slippage, there will not be a shift to using the royal military police in lieu of the Ministry of Defence police.
I intervened earlier in the debate to refer to HMS Fort Victoria. I raise the issue again because a scandal surrounding the building of that vessel has not been properly aired. That armed support ship was ordered in 1986 at a contract price of £127 million. It was to be constructed at Harland and Wolff in Belfast. Its cost has escalated out of control, to approximately £190 million, and its delivery is three years behind schedule. It is time for the House to be given a full explanation of what has gone wrong and who is to blame.
I mention it as one who is interested and proud of our naval and auxiliary fleet, as an hon. Member who is concerned with public expenditure and, unashamedly, as an Opposition Member. Had Labour been in power, Conservative Members would be going bananas at this scandal of delay and overspending. I hope that there will be full disclosure of what has gone wrong because the Government have presided over considerable waste in respect of HMS Fort Victoria. The vessel has not been equipped as was originally intended and Parliament and the public should be told why there has been a failure to deliver the craft in the way originally intended.
9.13 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: There is probably no part of the United Kingdom where the impact of the second world war lingers on more than in my constituency. Thousands of American service men arrived in Suffolk in 1942. Their stay then continues to be acknowledged throughout my constituency. Remembrance day is a joint Anglo-American service, and in the past 12 months many hundreds of United States ex-service men have returned. I have had the privilege of meeting some of them, and it was a poignant and moving occasion. I take this opportunity to salute them for their bravery and nobility of purpose in coming here all those years ago to see off the forces of tyranny and oppression.
To paraphrase my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the long shadow of the cold war has been lifted to reveal smaller but intense shadows. No fewer than 21 civil wars are now taking place, even if television cameras tend to ignore most of them.
As important debate continues about the future of NATO and the Western European Union, the WEU. These are heady days. The former United States Secretary of State, James Baker, talked of NATO stretching potentially from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The simple fact, however, is that Europe suffers from significant military deficiencies, particularly in terms of intelligence

1077
and logistics. To put it bluntly, we have limited air transport capacity. We would not be able to mount a major airlift of troops. Last autumn, British troops were deployed to Bosnia in United States transport aircraft, because we do not have the required support capacity on hand.
It is true that my constituency enjoys significant economic spin-offs because of the 7,000 American personnel, plus dependants, at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, which my hon. Friend the Minister has visited. They put about £200 million into the economy. The relationship between those bases and the local community is, happily, not bettered anywhere in the world. The essential factor, however, is that that continuing United States presence in Britain and Europe is critical to our defence.
That relationship has had its tensions, but there is absolutely no question about the fact that, time and time again, it has been Britain and the United States that have promptly reacted, together, to events while, at times, our European partners have sat on the sidelines. The successful prosecution of the Falklands war would not have been possible without the considerable intelligence gathering support from the Americans.
Britain and Europe have legitimate security concerns in the middle east. The invasion of Kuwait threatened not only the stability of the region, but our oil supplies. Hon. Members may wish to remind themselves that Kuwaiti independence could not have been regained without American military power.
President Bush announced that United States forces in Europe would be halved to 150,000 by 1995; President Clinton is talking about reducing that number to 100,000 by 1996. The network of shared intelligence and signals appears, happily, to remain unaffected by those plans.
Part and parcel of this shared relationship, and still important to our security, is our independent nuclear deterrent. Whatever we think of the horrors of war, we cannot wish away nuclear weaponry. I hope that the British Government will continue to make it clear that, for us, a limited testing programme is important.
Most importantly, I urge the Government to press continually for recognition by the Americans of the importance of their presence in Europe. I am pleased that my constituency will, with the arrival of the new F15E fighter, host what many regard to be the most advanced tactical fighter currently in use. I am glad that we shall also continue to host the vital United States air force transport centre, now including the reconnaissance and special service missions. My constituents welcome that unreservedly.
Above all, my constituents recognise the importance of the American presence as a continuing guarantee of our security in a volatile and turbulent world. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to seek to ensure a continuing and substantial American commitment to the security of Europe, particularly as the new Administration in Washington formulates its defence goals.
As every business man knows, the home market is an important spring-board to export success. The defence industry is a great success story in terms of employment and technology, both directly and indirectly. Firms in my constituency that provide high-technology goods to the
1078
defence industry have seen their sales to export markets treble in the past few years. That has also increased employment opportunities.
A good home market is not only good for a firm's business and thereafter its employment and technology, but increases its standing abroad. Overseas buyers feel comforted by the size of a company in many instances. Even during the recession, there have been success stories in the defence export business in my constituency. Those companies would suffer catastrophically if ever the Labour party's defence policies were implemented.
I do not exaggerate when I say that the world needs Britain with an adequate defence capability. The country needs the defence industry for jobs, and also for high technology with its range of important spin-offs.
Time and time again, the instinctive love of freedom and democracy of the British people has been tested in adversity. We have never let ourselves or the world down. With that in mind, we must pursue a defence policy that is equal to our strategic needs. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do just that.
9.21 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: The last time I wound up a debate it was a debate on the Army. I suspected on that occasion that the Minister had come under friendly fire. This time, with the exception of two Conservative speakers, everyone has been sniping at the Minister. The first reason for the sniping is the fact that the estimates that we are debating will be superseded in a fortnight by the new defence estimates for 1993. We have had to wait almost 12 months for the debate. I understand now why the Government did not want a debate. There may not even be a debate on next year's estimates after today's events.
The debate today has not been about money. We are not to vote on whether the defence estimates are correct —-that has been done on the nod. The debate has been about the Government's stewardship of the defence of the country, and there is a credibility gap there that is every bit as big as the £50 billion budget deficit. The Secretary of State has not arrived in the Chamber yet—I presume that he will he coming back. He came to the House earlier today with a lot of bluster and attacked my hon. Friends and me. I was surprised that the Secretary of State was able to pin anything on me. I am classed as coming from the violent wing of the party, and he has done my credibility no end of good.
The only thing that the Secretary of State really said today was that there were to be cuts. When his remarks are distilled, they show that he said that both the naval and the RAF reserve were to be cut. He came to the House, attacked the Labour party and then cut the defence capability of the country once more. The Government do not want a defence review—that would never do, although nearly every Conservative Member and all Opposition Members called for one. We are talking about salami—slicing, as has been mentioned.
I had the pleasure of serving with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on the Select Committee on Agriculture for many years. It was a special pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman attack the Government. He did it very well, as one would expect from a former Defence Minister. He realised that there were going to be cuts in the reserves and he made it clear to the

1079
House that he found that unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman was also concerned, as are all other hon. Members, about the defence industry in the west country. It plays a major role in that part of England and the Government have no policy whatsoever for providing alternative jobs in the area. The subject of Westland helicopters was also mentioned, and I shall return to that later.
The Government have no idea of where they are going. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, Norh-East (Mr. Campbell) agreed with us on that point. Judging from what he said tonight, it would be difficult to get a bayonet between his policies and those of the Labour party. He must have been reading our manifesto. My experience of Liberals is that they usually carry bayonets anyway. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was a little churlish to say that, although the Labour party wants a defence review, the Government are right to say that there would be leaks. I find it surprising that a member of a party that believes in open government should worry about leaks from the defence chiefs of staff. There should have been a defence review and the chiefs of staff should have known about it. There would have been leaks—they are part and parcel of the system—but if we say that we should not have a defence review because we are afraid of leaks, we shall never have one in future.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) attacked Labour nuclear policy, but that was a smokescreen because he then put the knife into the Government. When I first heard the hon. Gentleman, I thought, "If I were a Conservative, I would want him to be a Minister," but it then became clear that he does not agree with Government policy.
The hon. Gentleman said that the saving of £9 million on Belize was not worth it. Central America is a very unstable part of the world, but it is extremely important. If we pull out, we shall find ourselves with the same difficulties that we had in the Falklands. I have not forgotten that the Conservative Government were responsible for the Falklands war because they withdrew the naval ship.
The hon. Gentleman did not agree with the short-sighted measure to reduce the number of battalions. He knows that we cannot meet our commitments and I am sure that he agrees that we should have a defence review. He is concerned, as we are, that the 1·5 per cent. pay increase to the armed forces will continue.
The Secretary of State does as the Chancellor says, and it is no coincidence that there are now rumours that defence was not part of the review being carried out by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who knew that the Secretary of State would give in without going to the star chamber. It would be wrong for the 1·5 per cent. pay increase to continue. As I explained in the debate on the Army, as those in the armed forces rarely have mortgages, that represents a cut in their wages over the years
Other right hon. and hon. Members have made valuable contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) touched on a variety of important issues, some of them concerning his constituency. The only real support for the Government came from the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (M r. Hamilton), who is not in his place. We shall miss him towering over us at the Dispatch Box and I pay tribute to the honesty of his answers, which is not always the case with other Ministers. I disagreed with a lot
1080
of what he said, but we were on common ground with regard to ground troops in Bosnia. I wish him well on the Back Benches.
I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) about the Scottish regiments. He seemed to think that radioactivity would stop at the Scottish border. I represent Carlisle, which is the last city in England. When I look out of my window I see Chapelcross, the last nuclear power station in England. The hon. Gentleman seemed confused about the nuclear deterrent and keeping Rosyth, but I understand his problem.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was devastating. The arguments he used against his own Government were based on experience, but again he called for a defence review, as did other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) must be congratulated on bringing to light the scandal about market testing at RAF St. Athan. The company concerned has done more harm to the RAF in one year than the Soviet air force did in 40 years. That is the result of privatisation. It is dogma ridden and dogma driven. Market forces are paramount. Whatever base one visits, one hears about market testing. I remember going to a real market in Hong Kong at 6 o'clock in the morning because Chinese chickens for British forces based there were being market tested. It is nonsense. It is dogma driven and we should take this as an opportunity to stop and reconsider.
In the olden days, when Ministers were honourable Members, someone would have resigned over the situation that my hon. Friend has exposed. However, that is not the case now. Times have changed. Anyone who has read Alan Clark's book will realise that. I have been doing a little reading of his work as well. It is not so much the content that seems to remind me of Ministers as the title. I am, of course, referring to his book "The Donkeys". I borrowed my copy from the War Office library, which shows how old it is. That is his famous book, for which he will be remembered, with the famous quote about British troops fighting like lions but being led by donkeys.
My experience of the armed forces is that all the donkeys have now left. The generals have left and have gone to work for the Jockey Club. Donkeys are stubborn, stupid creatures. Some may find them lovable, but they remind me of Ministers on the Treasury Bench—they do not have the ears, but I am sure that someone finds them lovable.
I say that because the Government have refused to have a defence review, which has led to overstretch in many parts of the armed forces. For example, we know that the Government will cancel the tactical air-to-surface missile, the sub-strategic nuclear weapon. They know it, the Royal Air Force knows it, but the Government are too stubborn to tell us. We do not know the future. They are not prepared to tell us. The 1989 White Paper said that the WE117 nuclear bomb could not continue beyond the 1990s. A Minister has since said that it will go into the next decade. We know that TASM is doomed. Why do not the Government say so?
There has been much comment about the European helicopter 101. I recently visited the Westland factory in Yeovil. It is a good aircraft. A promise of an order was placed in 1987 –sixyears ago—yet the Minister is still too stubborn to say where the Government will place that order. There is some opposition in the RAF, but

1081
sometimes Ministers have to lead; donkeys rarely do, but Ministers must. The west country needs that order if Britain is to continue to have a viable helicopter industry in the next century.
The Eurofighter 2000 is probably the most important technical and industrial project in Britain. The Minister told us in a recent parliamentary answer that the cost has gone up by some £250 million. We were told in January last year by Alan Clark—I presume that he was right—that it would fly at the Farnborough air show. It did not fly at Farnborough. It will not fly at Paris this week. We are not sure when it will take off. It has had two names, but it has not yet flown. If the Government do not get a grip on the project, bring the costs under control and bring it back on line, the enemies of that project, in this country and overseas, will come together, use that evidence and we shall lose it.
Will we get the larger share of the work? The Secretary of State said that an order would be placed for 250 aircraft, which will account for more than 50 per cent. of all orders that will be placed for it. According to the original agreement, that should mean that more than 50 per cent. of the work will be done in this country. I am not sure that will be the case, or whether the Government will buckle under German pressure.
It is a matter of concern that the Government are not prepared to listen and to re-examine issues. They seem to think only about elections. I am worried about the Government's statement today concerning reserves. I am a cynic when it comes to Government policy. They seem to be saying that they will use reserves instead of full-time troops. That is welcome in some ways, but I suspect that policy has nothing to do with giving the Territorial Army a greater role, but everything to do with making expensive professional soldiers redundant so that the Government can enjoy a cheaper option using part-timers. If I had not seen that happen in so many other areas, I might give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
The Secretary of State said that he would bring legislation before the House, and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) pointed out that a change had occurred. We do not want a repeat of the Gulf situation, in which reservists had to be asked twice to volunteer because employers would not release them. A Minister had to go into a huddle at Buckingham palace to ensure that those reservists could be sent. Legislation is needed to make it clear that reservists must go if required, be given leave of absence from their work and be guaranteed a job when they return. The unemployed who are called up to serve must be given a guarantee that they and their families will not lose benefits. The sooner that such clarification is provided, the better.
In the 1983 general election, a Conservative party poster depicted Labour defence policy in the form of a soldier with his hands up. Another used the headline, "Labour isn't working". In the next general election, a good poster for Labour would be one showing a queue of redundant soldiers, sailors, airmen, shipbuilders and workers from the west country with the headline, "Tory defence policy".
The Tories do not have a credible economic policy. Theirs is not the party of sound money or of law and order —and theirs is not the party of strong defence.
9.37 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): It is with some relish that I rise to wind up the first day of this two-day defence debate. It began five and a half hours ago with a wide-ranging speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, the highlight of which was his important statement on the future of our reserve forces.
The pantomime horse of the two Opposition spokesmen who began and ended today's debate could not think how to answer my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. At first, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) gave it a qualified welcome, but then fell back on a discreet silence after saying that he must wait and see. Winding up for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) seemed to regard my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement as a wicked Tory device to increase the dole queues. He had five and a half hours to work out that response. Between that gap of ignorant silence at the beginning and prejudiced misrepresentation at the end, it would have been a good idea to use the consultation period to learn the views of the public and of the reserves themselves.
We believe that our proposals represent a good way forward for the reserves in the new security atmosphere, which the reserves themselves will largely welcome because of the new tasks and roles that they will be given. Although I will not hesitate to give way to Opposition Members, I think that they should allow the consultation period to proceed: I believe that it will result in a welcome for the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Martlew: How much will the proposal cost and how much will they save?
Mr. Aitken: I think that, in round figures, there will be a saving of up to £10 million, but all that will come out during the consultation period.
I am bound to confess that I have an advantage here. Because of ministerial defence cuts, the House now has only three defence Ministers; the Opposition, overstaffed as always, have four defence spokesmen. One Minister must therefore speak twice during this two-day debate and I shall be opening the Monday debate. It is possible that, because of the breadth and depth of some of the topics that have been covered today, they would best be dealt with on Monday: I am thinking particularly of nuclear issues, the European fighter aircraft and one or two other matters. However, I shall do my best to answer the points that have been raised today, in so far as that is possible.
The hon. Member for South Shields opened his speech —as he often does, courteously and correctly—by paying tribute to our armed forces and to MOD civilians. Naturally, I share his view. Apart from that common ground, however, I considered his speech a rubbish of an oration. It contained not a word of constructive thought or policy on the future defence of our country; it was one long whine and whinge about a so-called collection of scandals, which became markedly less scandalous on examination.
One of the first great scandals unearthed by the hon. Gentleman—it dated back to 1988; he was digging quite deep—related to the extra money that he thought had been wasted on submarine refits. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a history lesson. He will recall that, in the wake of dramatic events in eastern Europe in the late 1980s, we

1083
had to review the size of our planned nuclear submarine fleet. We concluded that a smaller fleet would be sufficient in the new strategic environment and I do not think that the Opposition disagree with that conclusion. In September 1990, following careful analysis, we decided to pay off two submarines, HMS Warspite and HMS Churchill. It was, of course, a difficult decision, in view of the expenditure already incurred on their refits; but our assessment showed that paying them off was the right decision and the best way of saving the taxpayer the maximum amount.
As the hon. Gentleman will recall, those developments were started by no less than the fall of the Berlin wall on 9 November 1989. That is a significant date: HMS Warspite's refit had begun in March 1988 and HMS Churchill's in April 1989. Planning for the refits had begun even earlier. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman foresaw the fall of the Berlin wall; I wonder whether he anticipated that we might need fewer submarines. I think that the Government made a sensible decision. There was nothing scandalous about it; in the long run, it was in the best interests of the defence budget.
So much for the hon. Gentleman's first scandal. His second was all about shipping fraud during the Gulf crisis. It would not have been the first or last conflict in which one or two people may have profiteered; I draw no conclusions, but that happens. Let us put the matter in context, however. The Gulf war deployment was the largest deployment of troops and equipment since the second world war, involving 46,000 personnel, 46,000 tonnes of freight, 87,000 tonnes of ammunition and 7,000 containers. It was our own internal audit investigation that uncovered evidence that there might have been some irregularities in the ship chartering process. We called in the MOD police fraud squad to investigate; the results of that investigation were passed to the Crown Prosecution Service in November last year. We cannot say more now for fear of prejudicing any prosecutions; but the notion that the MOD has been involved in some murky cover-up or scandal is not justified. I think that we did the only thing that we could do in the circumstances: we conducted a thorough investigation of what may have happened. I can say no more than that.
Dr. David Clark: As the Minister has denied my allegation of fraud, I presume that he is telling the House that there can be no prosecution.
Mr. Aitken: It is under consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service. For the hon. Gentleman to hold it up as some terrible scandal in which the Ministry of Defence is gravely at fault is nonsense and he should know that.
The hon. Member for South Shields may have been on slightly better ground with his third great scandal, which was the unfortunate episode of Airwork. [Interruption.] Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away with merriment, he will find that, at least partly, the laugh is on him. Both he and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) have misunderstood the situation. I do not intend to back away from its gravity, but we must get the facts right. It was blamed on market testing and theologically driven policies. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West seemed to be under the extraordinary illusion that we had put Marks and Spencer in charge of defence research. The chief executive of defence research is
1084
Mr. John Chisholm. Mr. Littmoden, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, is the MOD's advisor on market testing.
The contract which has given us so much trouble was nothing to do with market testing. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carlisle said in his winding-up speech that it was about market testing. The contract is for a type of work that has been routinely undertaken by industry for many years. It has been our long-standing practice that a proportion of our aircraft repair and maintenance work is undertaken by industry. The RAF identifies those tasks which can sensibly be done in house and those —usually the longer and more specialised jobs —which can best be done by industry. Incorporating the fatigue modifications in the Tornado F3 fell into that category. Therefore, the question of an in-house bid from RAF St. Athan did not arise. It is off the beam to suggest that the aircraft industry cannot service the aircraft that it manufactures.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West should not lose sight of the fact that it was our prompt action that terminated the contract as soon as it became evident that it was being performed in an unsatisfactory manner. That demonstrates our commitment to meeting the exacting quality standards that are so essential for defence equipment, particularly aircraft where flight safety considerations are paramount.
Mr. Morgan: There are three mistakes in what the Minister has said. I did not say that this had not been done previously and satisfactorily by British Aerospace. Secondly, the Minister is not correct to say that the Ministry of Defence took prompt action. The RAF at St. Athan called in the quality assurance directorate which, as I said in my speech, merely checked the certificate without having checked any of the aircraft. Thirdly, on the question whether this was theologically driven, the Minister must face the fact that the Government have a general policy of, if it moves, privatise it. In this case, they did privatise it and now the aircraft cannot move.
Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating considerably. We acknowledge that this is an unfortunate episode. A small number of Tornado F3s have been damaged, but not as seriously as some press speculation and the hon. Gentleman have suggested. The necessary work of surveying the aircraft and estimating the cost of repairs is under way and my Department will be claiming against Airwork in due course. With a claim and legal proceedings pending, we cannot go into detail, but I can assure the House—this is the important point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—that the RAF's operational capability is not affected by the small number of aircraft damaged or the delays to the modification programme. There are sufficient Tornado F3 aircraft to meet all our present commitments for the air defence of the United Kingdom and the detachment to enforce the no-fly zone over Bosnia.
The fourth and last great scandal of the hon. Member for South Shields was that of the service chiefs who were not allowed to participate in the deliberations on "Options for Change" because of a fear that they may be the source of leaks. That was the hon. Gentleman at his most distorting. He must have read the letter from Mr. Mottram which appeared in the newspapers. It rebuts the hon. Gentleman's comments and makes the reverse suggestion.

1085
Some time ago the question was asked whether there were appropriate defence staff available following the 1984 reorganisation for the review. Mr. Mottram wrote:
"The answer is, it was. As my article briefly mentioned, the Options exercise was conducted under Ministerial and top management supervision by a small working group of central policy and programmes staffs. Three of its members were military and were selected on the basis of their jobs within the Defence Staff. This also produced a valuable spread of Service expertise involving a Vice-Admiral, a Major-General and an Air Vice-Marshal. Detailed analysis of possible options drew on the advice of the Service Plans divisions. The circle of those involved in the whole exercise in both the central and single-Service staffs was tightly drawn to enable a range of options to be looked at and often discarded on a confidential basis. This was intended to help to avoid the selective leaks to the media of the kind which can damage Service morale and indeed the reputation of the Services."
In plain language, Mr. Mottram is saying that the service chiefs were called in—not the chiefs of staff, but their major representatives—and that they were involved in all stages of the discussions. No one was excluded because they might be the cause of a leak; they were brought in to avoid leaks, so the hon. Gentleman has got it topsy-turvy. That was his fourth dud scandal. Much of his speech had nothing to do with defence policy, nor did it contain any constructive ideas. It consisted of trying to rake up scandals out of pretty thin air and was a failure as a result.
May I deal briskly with one or two issues raised by my hon. Friends and others who have participated in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned the EH101. I can assure him that we are actively thinking about helicopterb procurement and support. We have, of course, taken note of what Lord Younger has said, but the paramount consideration is to meet the needs of the armed services with proper value-for-money procurement. He also mentioned the Paris air show. Although I do not rule out second-hand Pumas entirely as a small part of our requirement, it is well known in Paris and elsewhere that this Minister is a Puma sceptic. I have said as much at internal meetings and I repeat it to the House. To other hon. Members who mentioned the EH101, I can say that I very much hope that we can find the right price.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) had the intellectual honesty to say that a defence review would not mean the avoidance of difficult decisions. His words must have come as a terrible blow to the Opposition, who have for a long time used the defence review as a device to avoid forming a policy. I agreed with much of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said and I assure him that when taking decisions on procurement policy we of course take into account factors such as export prospects and industrial considerations as well as value for money. It has been helpful to have the views of the House on the wider issues in our discussions about the European fighter aircraft and other matters.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Select Committee, on the Committee's report on the defence estimates for 1992. I agree that the threat of nuclear proliferation has been underestimated. I heard what he said about Belize and I look forward to receiving his report later this year. He was right to emphasise the fact that we shall be keeping a training presence and capability there. I
1086
shall deal in a moment with the interesting clash between him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton).
I am grateful for the tribute that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) paid to the Cheshires who are his constituents. If I may, I shall write to him about his points about the pay office in Glasgow, which are primarily a constituency interest. I thank him for his contribution to the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell made his first speech from the Back Benches for 11 years. He said in his resignation statement on 10 June, which I thought was a skilful blend of humour and loyalty, that his ministerial post from which he retired at his own request was one of the best jobs in Government. If I may return the compliment, I think that the Government were fortunate to have in that job for the past few years one of their best men. He gave us a timely reminder that defence is not an economic island isolated from the pressures of the economy in general or the public sector borrowing requirement. Defence tasks consist of the imperative, the desirable and the optional. One need only turn to the White Paper and read defence tasks 1, 2 and 3 to find that that is so. Yes, there must be limits.
There was an interesting debate, to which I shall perhaps return on Monday, between my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. The Select Committee does the job of defence reporting without financial responsibil-ity and therefore, in a sense, has an easy task. It is easy for a slightly financially unworldly note to creep into such reports. Where to draw the line and where to get value for money is a profound theme and I shall refer to it later as it runs with several other speeches. Finally, may I say what good sound sense my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke about Bosnia.
I was grateful for the tribute that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) paid to the security forces in Northern Ireland. I listened carefully to his constructive thoughts on the effects of the amalgamation and particularly to his point that recruits are badly needed for the officer corps. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will heed those points carefully and we shall take note of them.
I was moved by the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) paid to the dedication and professionalism of the Staffords, and he is rightly proud and pleased that they have been reprieved. I listened carefully to his analysis of the situation in the former Yugoslavia. He has shown consistency and great moral courage in his parliamentary stance. I have not always been able to agree with him. All of us are uneasy and unhappy about the dilemma that has faced the international community and we are profoundly distressed at our inability to bring peace to the killing fields of this civil war.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we must make one more effort to negotiate, but beyond that the new military strategy for the former Yugoslavia is very difficult territory indeed, as he recognised. He made me blush with his tributes to Nixon and he conjured up ghosts, but I was not able to hear a clear strategy that will be acceptable to the House and to the country, which is where we differ.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) wants to scrap regimental amalgamations in Scotland. I am

1087
afraid that we cannot follow him down that path, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will have heard his strong views.
Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Aitken: I have only five minutes and I am trying to cover everyone who has spoken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) seemed to be under the strange illusion that we are conducting our deliberations by stealth and behind closed doors. He used a vivid phrase about butchery behind closed doors. To use a military metaphor, I think that he went slightly over the top. Far from there being any stealth, we have, not counting defence questions, discussed the matter in the House on no fewer than 32 occasions since last year. That includes three single service debates, the debate on the defence industry, this two-day debate and 12 Adjournment debates. We shall try to answer his wide-ranging points in due course, but I am afraid that I cannot accept his thesis that we are doing butchery behind closed doors and that a valued national asset is being destroyed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) chided me for my optimism about the diminution of the threat, as I perceived it, from having visited former East Germany. I beg to differ with him on that point. There has been a great change in the strategic environment, which affects enormously our defence and readiness posture. Our defence posture for many years was based on the notion that the Soviets were coming, and now they are not. Our reserve forces, our state of readiness and the level of our procurement are influenced very much by that thought.
My hon. Friend was on weak ground with his amphibious forces point. We have ordered a landing platform helicopter vessel and are carrying out project definition studies on the landing platform docks, about which he was concerned. More careful thinking is going into our defence posture for the future than he seemed to give us credit for.
1088
I was glad that, in one of the final speeches, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) mentioned the great importance of the US-UK relationship. The constituency of Bury St. Edmunds, as he knows, is quite dear to my heart since I was born there and my father represented it for many years. Having lived in the arena of the American bases, I know what an enormous contribution they have made to the security of Europe and of the free world. On my way to my hon. Friend's constituency, I visited the American forces chapel in St. Paul's cathedral. There is a wonderful epitaph to those who gave their lives, which, if my memory serves me correctly, reads:
"They gave their lives defending freedom against the assaults of our enemies."
That is really what the American relationship is all about. Its purpose is not just, as my hon. Friend said, to lift capacity, intelligence sharing and nuclear testing, important though those matters are. The United States' presence in Europe has been of enormous importance to our security and I was pleased that one hon. Member brought that out so skilfully.
I do not think that I have quite answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels. It is true that they have had a somewhat chequered history. As was made clear at the time, the decision to build a second AOR vessel, Fort George, at Swan Hunter was taken on the basis of wider considerations of the kind being urged upon me by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East —wider considerations than the bottom line on the tender.
However, in response to his specific question about the transfer of Fort Victoria to the Cammell Laird yard at Birkenhead, I can tell the hon. Member for Thurrock exactly what the cost to the Government was. It was nothing. A commercial decision was taken by Harland and Wolff—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Cleveland County Council (Abolition)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
10 pm
Mr. Michael Bates: I am grateful for this opportunity to initiate a debate on the proposed abolition of Cleveland county council. When the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the review of local government boundaries last year, he said that the primary task of the Local Government Commission was to ensure that local service providers would "reflect the community identity", and to reflect the wishes and aspirations of the local people in its recommendations.
One of the first local authorities to be considered was the county of Cleveland, which was drawn together in 1974 out of Hartlepool county borough, Stockton rural district, Teesside county borough and the urban districts of Guisborough, Saltburn and Marske, Loftus, and Skelton and Brotten, in my constituency. The purpose of the debate is to place on record my strong disapproval of the tactics employed by Cleveland county council since 10 May, when the Local Government Commission presented four options for restructuring local government in Cleveland.
The preferred option was to abolish Cleveland county council and replace it with the four unitary district authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Langbaurgh. When the announcement of the preferred option was made on 10 May, the ferocity of the immediate reaction of Cleveland county council leaders left most people astounded. Yet it proved an accurate early sign of what was to come.
Paul Harford, the leader of Cleveland county council, described the announcement of the preferred option by the Local Government Commission as a "political fix". A week later, in "Personnel Comment", the internal staff newsletter of Cleveland county council, Mr. Bruce Stevenson, its chief executive and therefore a public servant, said:
"The Commission's arguments are weak, they appear to have overlooked many issues, failed to follow their guidance, failed to present their evidence objectively and their proposals to test local opinion verge on farce".
Things did not stop there. Councillor Paul Harford returned to the fray at a full meeting of the county council, calling the Commission's initial report "deliberately misleading". Cleveland chief executive Bruce Stevenson said of the report:
"it had reached a perverse conclusion which could not be reached by any reasonable person".
Language of that nature used by those who hold positions of authority and responsibility is at best irresponsible and at worst seeks to undermine the integrity and independence of the Local Government Commission. One can only speculate as to why no such comments were made before 10 May.
Cleveland county council employs more than 20,000 people, and in May each of them received a letter from the council leader and chief executive calling on them to
"lobby as a massive campaign team"
for the council's future. The first example of this lobby of public servants was demonstrated on 11 May, when the Northern Echo decided to conduct a readers' poll, votes being registered by telephone calls to two different numbers, one for yes and one for no. The result of the poll
1090
was that 77 per cent. of respondents were against the proposed abolition of Cleveland county council, and only 23 per cent. were in favour.
Only afterwards did the full story leak out. I have here a memo sent to employees in the environment, development and transportation department of the council, which says:
"The Northern Echo is conducting a phone survey to determine people's opinion on the Commission's proposals. Bruce Stevenson"—
the chief executive
"has given the OK for the ban on 0800 numbers to be lifted so that we can phone 0891 515153 to register a vote against the proposals … so get phoning!!!!!!!"
Our concern at this action was not the misuse of public funds, at which I am sure that the Audit Commission will be looking closely, but rather that public servants should be authorised to use council taxpayers' money in an attempt to distort an honest attempt to gauge public opinion.
Next came a series of public meetings which had been organised by the Commission, for the express purpose of listening to local people expressing their views about the type of local government that they wished to see. At the first meeting, held in Middlesbrough on 24 May 1993, the vast majority of the audience were employees of Cleveland county council. Speakers supporting unitary districts were heckled and barracked; those supporting the county were given standing ovations. Those few members of the public who had come along to give their views were intimidated into silence.
Such was the display of intimidation that Sir John Banham, chairman of the Local Government Commission, remarked in a television interview a few days later that people admitted to public meetings were
"putting on the kind of display which I last saw when I was dealing with Derek Hatton in Liverpool."
What a sad indictment. I do not blame the employees for this behaviour. They have been submitted to the same campaign of disinformation as the rest of us.
In the May edition of "Direct Approach", the Cleveland county direct services newsletter, the front page leads with three bold headings:
"Services under threat", "Your job could be on the line",
and
"Look inside and take action."
Under a section inside headed "Your job", it asks:
"What will a Middlesbrough Unitary Authority mean for staffing?"
and gives the answer:
"At least 15 per cent. job losses amongst permanent staff."
The Local Government Commission, in its report, states that it would envisage a reduction of staff under the four-district option of 2 per cent.
A similar tactic to mislead and deceive was attempted by the county council in its contact with the public. A booklet which cost £26,000 to produce and was sent to all homes in Cleveland stated on the front cover:
"Your Local Services are under threat—Read this leaflet, it could save you 100 per year or more."
Let us look a little closer at the claim that the Local Government Commission's preferred option could add £100 a year to the average council tax bill. The LGC, which, of course, had detailed access to the proposals of both the districts and the county, stated that it expected the result of reorganisation to lead to a £46 a year cut in the average level of council tax in Cleveland.

1091
I have already referred to the deception of the council's own staff in the newsletter "Direct Approach", which warned of a 15 per cent. cut in jobs, yet, in communication with the public whom they are there to serve, they claim that the four unitary districts would cost an extra £23 million.
Normally, job losses would be associated with reductions in expenditure, not increases. It is expedient to claim massive job losses to one's employees, as clearly they will be motivated to work against reorganization— understandably, because their prospects and security are in doubt. On the other hand, it is also expedient to claim that council taxpayers will have to pay more, as people are naturally fearful of increased bills and expense, and will react accordingly.
In short, one can make both these assertions, but they cannot both be true. Given that they come from the same source, Cleveland county council, one or both of them must be untrue. Therefore, Cleveland county council has blatantly sought to deceive either its own employees or, more seriously, the public whom it exists to serve. Such deception should be exposed and condemned.
Another example of this campaign of disinformation which I place before the House this evening concerns the future of a £28·5 million loan to Cleveland county council from the European Investment Bank. On 19 May, Cleveland county council issued a press release stating:
"a multi-million pound loan for major construction projects in the area is in jeopardy because the European bank involved is worried about the possible outcome of local government re-organisation in the area."
The National and Local Government Officers Association, in its local Cleveland county branch newsletter edition No. 3, said:
"the best attended branch meeting in years was addressed by County Councillor Paul Harford who in a detailed speech vigorously attacked the Local Government Commission's recommendations. He also revealed a shock decision of the European Community bankers who are not prepared to fund projects in Cleveland if the area was split up."
A recent meeting of the Cleveland county branch of NALGO voted to make £10,000 available for the fight to create a Teeside authority. I have been told that that money had been used to fund an organisation called Campaign for Teeside, which has been placing advertise-ments in the local press. In a letter to county branch members in Cleveland, the general secretary of the union, Alan Jinkinson, said:
"the union is gravely concerned at the county campaign … the action of some Cleveland County branch members has caused a great deal of concern locally. Many of this campaign's claims are unfounded and are only causing confusion and concern to people relying on local services and employees in local government."
This week, that stance was overwhelmingly endorsed by the NALGO national conference meeting in Brighton.
To return to the European Investment Bank loan on 19 May 1993, County Councillor Paul Harford wrote to his colleagues on the council saying:
"I enclose a copy of a letter received yesterday from the EIB showing their reluctance to support our £28·5 million roads programme if the Cleveland area is served by four authorities in future."
The headlines that followed must have brought joy to the eyes and ears of the Cleveland public relations team:
"Threat of shake up", "Risk to £28·5 million construction loan", "Loan in jeopardy", and "Projects in jeopardy".
1092
That night, the chief executive of Cleveland county council, Bruce Stevenson, appeared on BBC "Look North" and said:
"It"—
the European Investment Bank loan—
"can only be put together by combining the work which has been done in separate Boroughs."
Given that one of the three projects to be funded by that loan was the Guisborough bypass, which is vital to my constituency, I contacted the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg. The bank confirmed that it was content to offer the loan to the four unitary districts and said:
"There is no fundamental problem about reorganisation. This has been blown out of all proportion. It's a small legal problem, more of a technicality."
Having been caught out again, the chairman of the county economic development and transportation committee, David Walsh, had the nerve to say on local BBC Radio Cleveland:
"There is no doubt that the loan was at risk. But I can now confirm that, due to the hard and diligent work of county council officers the loan has been secured for the people of Cleveland."
One can only conclude from those examples that the whole episode had been designed to announce the bad news, destabilise confidence in the competency and ability of the districts and, when the truth is revealed, be prepared to announce the good news that the county had saved the day.
There are many more examples that I could give the House, such as the county's claim that the ring and ride scheme, which provides a vital service to the most vulnerable in our community—the disabled and the elderly—would be under threat if Cleveland county were abolished. In reality, the unitary districts had included in their submissions plans to improve the level of service in the scheme.
Ms Marjorie Mowlam rose—
Mr. Bates: The campaign contains the worst excesses of black propaganda. Political and civil service leaders have shown a propensity to deceive their employees and the people that they serve.
Ms Mowlam rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
Mr. Bates: Worst of all, by launching this campaign in a vital two months in which the people of Cleveland have had their first opportunity for 20 years to express their views on what form of local government they want, political and civil service leaders have sought to subvert the course of local democracy.
With only three weeks left in the consultation period, I appeal to the political and civil service leaders of the county council. If they have any faith in local democracy and public service, they should drop the campaign and let the people speak, or be prepared to face the consequences.
10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) has made a powerful speech and I welcome the opportunity to respond to a number of the concerns that he has raised.
It may be helpful to recall that, in December 1990, we announced that there was to be a review of local government. Our reasons were that, outside the main

1093
conurbations, the system of two principal authorities in each area still prevails, the usefulness of two tiers is being questioned and the continued existence of certain authorities which were created by the local government reorganisation of 1974 but which have not succeeded in inspiring local loyalty is also in question. Another challenge is that the role of authorities is changing as they increasingly become enablers rather than direct providers of services. Therefore, we have an opportunity to think afresh about the structure of local authorities.
The Government do not see this as an opportunity to impose a new pattern of local authorities according to a national prescription; nor do we believe that it is necessary to have a uniform pattern of authorities in every part of the country. Therefore, this does not mean the wholesale abolition of either county councils or district councils, nor even unitary authorities everywhere; it means arriving at the right solution for each community. We intend to adopt a practical approach in response to local views and conditions.
The Local Government Commission was set up last year to review the structure, boundaries and electoral arrangements of the shire counties and to assess the case for unitary authorities. The Commission has a statutory remit and is independent, but final decisions will of course be for Parliament to take.
Local government spending is significant. It is more than a quarter of all public spending—over £1,300 for every adult and child in the country. Local government needs to be in strong shape to make sure that it uses this money to deliver services effectively for local people.
There is a proper concern at the need to restore real community loyalty to local government areas, to reflect a sense of belonging based on where people live and work, and on a long-standing historical and geographical sense of identity. The task for the Commission is to review local government and to recommend structures which reflect that sense of local identity and local interests, and to secure effective and convenient local government.
The Commission is seeking to assess community identity in each area in a number of ways: through opinion polling, public meetings, freepost and questionnaires. Of course, it is receiving many, many letters from individuals and local organisations. In bringing forward its initial proposals, it is for the Commission to decide what weight to give to the varied responses. Local interest has been substantial, with thousands of people writing to make their views known in the review areas.
The task confronting the Commission is challenging. The conduct of reviews is a matter for the Commission. It has been given guidelines which it is obliged to follow. It has been given guidance on policy and procedures set out in documents that are widely available free of charge from the Department of the Environment, Local Government 1 Division, Room N7/15, 2 Marsham street, London SW 1.
This means that everyone should know the parameters within which the Commission should be operating, and everyone concerned can make known their views on any Commission proposals affecting their area. We want local people to get fully involved and make clear their views. This review is about the possible future map of England.
1094
Understandably, the review has provoked substantial interest in the local government press and among the local authorities concerned.
It is imperative that local people voice their concerns and let the Commission know their views, individually or together, reflecting the views of local organisations such as chambers of commerce, women's institutes, doctors' practices and trade councils. Individually and collectively, the people of England should let the Commission know what they think about the Commission's proposals for their part of England.
We have sought to ensure that local people have plenty of opportunities to put their views forward. The formal consultation periods commence with a two-and-a-halfmonth initial period in which to put views forward. There will then be over two months in which to comment on draft recommendations, such as those recently published for Cleveland and elsewhere.
Simply because people have commented and made their views known at an earlier stage should not deter them from making their views known once the Commission has made recommendations for their area. There is then a further six-week period in which to make representations to the Secretary of State on any eventual final recommendations. So a number of opportunities exist for local people to make clear their views.
On Monday, the Commission will publish proposals for Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire. Those proposals, like the others that the Commission has put forward, are its proposals and not those of the Government. They are proposals for consultation; they are not immutable decisions. The House will appreciate that it would be impertinent of me to comment on any proposals on any area while the review by the Commission is still being carried out.
Ms Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to say that it would be unacceptable for him to comment during the consultation period remembering what is happening in other parts of the country, bearing in mind that, after a full contribution from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), Opposition Members have not had a chance to say anything?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Minister to decide whether or not to give way.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject is important for the whole of our county and some perceptive criticisms have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates). It is important—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is in no way a point of order.
Mr. Baldry: I believe that it would be impertinent of me to comment on any proposals that the Commission has brought forward. It would not be right for any Minister to do that at this or any stage, until people have had the fullest opportunity to comment, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) tempts me to comment.
However, I wish to speak about local authorities' publicity campaigns and their associated costs, which are, rightly, of concern to my hon. Friend and others. That is a proper matter on which I can comment at this stage.

1095
Some might be tempted to think that publicity and frenetic advertising campaigns during the early stages of the review will influence local people's views of their own community identity, and even perhaps the views of the Commission.
People should understand that the Commission is, and will be, independent. Aggressive advertising campaigns and knocking copy against other councils will not influence the Commission in favour of a particular local authority option. The straightforward and simple fact is that people know where they live and with what they identify. Slick advertising will not change that perception.
There has been no change in local authority permitted spending and grant levels to cover any extra spending on any local authority publicity and advertising campaigns to influence the outcome of the Commission's review. So money being spent on such campaigns—such as those to which my hon. Friend referred—is money that is not being spent on providing services elsewhere. I suggest that the best way in which to build community loyalty is the effective delivery of high-quality local services, not frenetic advertising campaigns.
Local councils should not use public funds to mount a publicity campaign, the purpose of which is to persuade people to hold a particular view. Where councils overstep the mark and neglect their financial responsibilities, that should be brought to the attention of the local auditor, who has powers in respect of unlawful spending.
People can make their views known by writing to the Local Government Commission for England. The Commission has made considerable efforts to let people know how to contact it. I shall give its address, because I think that it is important that, should any constituent approach any hon. Member with concerns about any aspect of the Commission's work, that hon. Member should make it clear to that person that the Commission wants to hear his views and that everyone is entitled to be heard. People should write to the Local Government Commission for England, at Dolphyn court, 10–11 Great Turnstile, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, WC 1. There should be no mistake about the fact that everyone has the opportunity to have his views taken on board throughout the review process.
Disraeli observed:
"England is the only important European community that is still governed by traditionary interests."
The best guardians of those interests are the men and women of England. It is their map of England that is being redrawn. It is their voices that must be heard. It is their views that will count.
10.26 pm
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: A number of crucial points should be raised in the debate.
I must respond, in particular, to one point made by the Minister which was completely unsubstantiated—that there was evidence to suggest that Cleveland county council, by advertising and publicising the services that it has, historically, offered to the people of Cleveland, is, by default, not offering other services. He suggested that money is being moved from one budget head to another for such advertising.
Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Ms Mowlam: No.
That argument has been put on numerous occasions, but each time Cleveland county council has provided
1096
evidence to prove that the money has been spent from the publicity budget. It has behaved just like any other local authority, which would fight its corner in exactly the same way. That the Minister suggested that Cleveland county council is in any way reneging on the services it offers to the local people is appalling.
The Minister said that the period of consultation will last for two months. Surely the debate is part of that consultation. It is unfair of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) to cover one side of the argument, and I welcome the opportunity to put the other. Correspondence in my mailbag reveals that people hold the exact opposite view to that put by the hon. Gentleman. People would prefer one authority, on a Teesside-wide basis. At a public meeting in Skelton, in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, the overwhelming majority of people voted for a Teesside authority.
Mr. Devlin: That meeting was packed with council employees.
Ms Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman may shout that, but the employees of Cleveland county council have as much right as anyone else in Cleveland to argue for the desired options that they want. Just because they are employees does not make them lesser human beings. They have as much right to go to public meetings, write to Members of Parliament and argue their case as anyone else. I am pleased that many have taken the opportunity to do just that.
Many issues worry people in Cleveland. They are worried that, if the option that has been put by the Commission goes through, authorities will be created—quangos of the kind that have been created over the years by the Conservatives—to provide services, such as emergency services and economic planning, across the four district authorities. In common with the development corporations and the training councils, they would be unaccountable—
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ms Mowlam: They would be—
Mr. Mandelson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ms Mowlam: They would be unaccountable to the people—
Mr. Mandelson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ms Mowlam: They will be unaccountable to the people of Cleveland.
Mr. Mandelson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ms Mowlam: It is very clear that I am not giving way.
Mr. Mandelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. Ms Mowlam.
Mr. Mandelson: You do not know what the point of order is, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Ms Mowlam.
Ms Mowlam: People are worried that quangos will be set up, which will unaccountable to the people of Cleveland.
Mr. Mandelson: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Ms Mowlam: That unaccountability worries the people of Cleveland—
Mr. Mandelson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ms Mowlam: That worries—
Mr. Mandelson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is obvious that the hon. Lady is not giving way.
Mr. Mandelson: I just wanted my hon. Friend to give way on that point.
Ms Mowlam: I made it clear that I would not give way on either point.
I shall continue, for the third time, to try to make my argument. If we are talking about democracy and the rights of people in Cleveland, many people—
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Probate Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 October,Official Report, columns 436–37, if he will list the progress made in attaining improvements to the probate service in England and Wales in respect of each of the proposals in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report "Probate—Service to the Public"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Following the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in February 1992, an internal review was commissioned to report on such matters as staffing levels, the organisation of the service, storage of records and computerisation. That review reported in April 1993 and made several recommendations which are presently under consideration, although, like the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, it confirmed that the structure and organisation of the probate service were generally sound. When further information is available, I will make a statement, but the hon. Member for Dundee, East can be assured that the high standard of service provided by staff in the probate service will be maintained.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Stefan Kiszko
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Attorney-General when the report into the West Yorkshire police's handling of the Stefan Kiszko case by the Lancashire constabulary was completed and handed to the West Yorkshire police; and when the report was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  The Attorney-General
  The report was submitted to the West Yorkshire police on 2 June 1993 and to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 3 June 1993.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Attorney-General how Stefan Kiszko and the family of Lesley Molseed have been kept up to date with the progress of the investigation, and whether they have been informed of the contents and conclusions of the Lancashire constabulary report, on the handling of the Stefan Kiszko case by the West Yorkshire police.

  The Attorney-General
  The police service rather than the Crown Prosecution Service has the responsibility for maintaining appropriate contact with victims and others affected by crime. I understand that the investigating officer and his team have kept the legal representative of Stefan Kiszko and the family of Lesley Molseed informed 664
  in general terms as to the progress of their investigation. The contents of police reports relating to investigations are, however, confidential.

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 334,(1) how many Ministers were among those who made representations to him over Polly Peck prosecution;

  (2) what action he took regarding the (a) written representations and (b) oral representations over the Polly Peck prosecution; if he advised those making oral representation to put those representations to him in writing; and in how many cases was this done;

  (3) how many representations he has received from right hon. and hon. Members in the past two years over prosecutions relating to fraud where no court proceedings had yet taken place, excluding representations connected with the Polly Peck and Maxwell cases.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 10 June,Official Report, column 334, on Asil Nadir, how many of the representations received were (a) from Ministers and (b) from other hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I receive many representations from hon. Members of all parties, both written and oral, about matters within my ministerial responsibility which they believe raise points either of general concern or of concern to particular constituents. Statistics are not maintained for either the overall number of such representations or the particular class mentioned by the hon. Members.

  In some cases where the representations are informal or insufficiently precise, I may invite the hon. Member to write to me.

  Whenever the representations are sufficiently formal and particularised I consider the points raised carefully and dispassionately, causing inquiries to be made as necessary, before responding to the hon. Member.

  I do not intend to expand on my answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 10 June, Official Report, column 334; about representations made about the case of Mr. Nadir.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Football Offences
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences under section 3(1) of the Football (Offences) Act 1991 were reported in 1992; and how many resulted in(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions.

  Mr. Maclean
  Offences committed under the Football Offences Act 1991 are not notifiable. However, the football unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Service has advised that there were 76 arrests at Football League matches under section 3 of the Football Offences Act 1991, which came into force on 10 August 1991, for the 1991–92—August-May—season.

  In England and Wales in 1991, there were six prosecutions under section 3 of the Act, five of which resulted in a conviction.
  665
  1992 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Racial Incidents
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racial incidents were reported to each police division in 1992; what proportion of those incidents involved assault or violence; and how many resulted in(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions.

  Mr. Maclean
  The only information held centrally relates to the number of reported racial incidents and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 26 April,Official Report, column 266.

  Number of "known offenders" (those cautioned and found guilty) and the number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for prostitution related offences 1991

  England and Wales

  Offence

  Known offenders

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Indictable offences

  Procuring female for immoral purposes, or using drugs to obtain or facilitate sexual intercourse (Sexual Offences Act 1956, sections 2, 3, 4, 22 and 23)

  5

  13

  4

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16 (Sexual Offences Act 1956, sections 25 and 26)

  1

  3

  1

  Detention of female in brothel or other premises (Sexual Offences Act 1956, section 24)

  1

  —

  —

  Persons responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc. (Sexual Offences Act 1956, section 28)

  2

  2

  2

  Living on earnings of prostitution or exercising control over prostitute (Sexual Offences Act 1956, sections 30 and 31)

  81

  106

  79

  Procuring, permitting or causing the prostitution etc. of female defective (Sexual Offences Act 1956, sections 9, 27 and 29)

  1

  —

  1

  Man or woman living wholly or in part on the earnings of male prostitution (Sexual Offences Act 1967, section 5(1))

  —

  —

  —

  Summary offences

  Kerb crawling (Sexual Offences Act 1985, section 1)

  1,291

  1,323

  1,140

  Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution (Sexual Offences Act 1985,section 2)

  186

  71

  51

  Common prostitute behaving in a riotous and indecent manner in a public place (Vagrancy Act 1824, section 3; and section 4 so far as it relates to this offence when committed by a person who has been convicted as an idle and disorderly person)

  6

  6

  6

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution (Street Offences Act 1959, section 1)

  13,491

  10,262

  9,651

  Any other similar offences

  —

  —

  —

  Persons aiding and abetting offences by prostitutes

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales Police
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to improve the quality of service provided by the North Wales police force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The quality of service provided by North Wales police is the responsibility of the chief constable.

  Prostitution
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prostitution-related offences were recorded in 1992; and how many resulted in(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of prostitution related offences is not recorded centrally.

  The table shows the number of "known offenders"—those cautioned and found guilty—and the number of defendants prosecuted and convicted in England and Wales for prostitution-related offences in 1991.

  1992 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Ruislip Kennels, Bracknell
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of whether Ruislip kennels, Bracknell, is conforming with the Animal Boarding Establishment Act 1963; and when they were last inspected.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Enforcement of the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 is a matter for local authorities, which have powers to inspect licensed boarding establishments at all reasonable times and, if they wish, may nominate a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner to do so.
  667
  I understand that Ruislip kennels were last inspected by the local authority on 15 December 1992, prior to the issue of a licence under the 1963 Act.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail hostels there are within 50 miles of York; how many beds each of these hostels have; and on how many nights in the past 12 months(a) all or (b) 90 per cent. of those beds have been occupied.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are four approved bail hostels within a 50-mile radius of York:

  Places

  South Bank, Cleveland

  24

  Howden House, West Yorkshire

  27

  Walmer Villas, West Yorkshire

  18

  Town Moor, South Yorkshire

  25

  Total

  94

  Statistics on the occupancy of hostels are collected centrally in terms of a monthly average percentage and not on a daily basis, but in none of the four hostels concerned was average occupancy 90 per cent. or above during the last 12 months.

  Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) of 9 June,Official Report, column 246, what were the voting figures for each member state recorded in the meeting of the EC Home Affairs Council held on 2 to 3 June.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Work in the field of intergovernmental co-operation proceeds by consensus; decisions at the meeting of Immigration and Trevi Ministers on 1 and 2 June therefore required the agreement of all member states.

  Prisons, Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish new penal institutions in Wales; where such prisons would be situated and for what complement of prisoners; whether such institutions would be run by the private or public sector; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated June 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about plans to build new Prison Service establishments in Wales; where such prisons would be situated and their size; and whether such establishments would be run by the private or public sector.

  Work which has been carried out on the long term planning of the Prison Service estate has shown that there is a need for additional accommodation in Wales. We have already decided to increase the capacity of both Swansea and
  668
  Cardiff prisons by the provision of new houseblocks. But this expansion will not be sufficient to meet the demand for places, indicating the need for a further, new establishment. A final decision has not yet been made about such an establishment.

  We are also concerned that all prisoners whose homes are in North Wales have to be held in establishments in England. But the numbers concerned are relatively small, and there are other areas which are under greater pressure and which must therefore have higher priority for relief.

  On the question of whether any new establishment would be run by the private or public sector, no decision has yet been taken on the approach to be taken to the provision and management of new establishments.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of credit approvals/capital allocations given to local authorities in(a) England, (b) Greater London and (c) the south-east, excluding Greater London, for each year since 1982–83; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows:

  Local authority capital allocations

  £ million

  Year

  England

  Greater London

  South-east1

  1982–83

  4,288

  1,179

  593

  1983–84

  4,101

  1,041

  605

  1984–85

  3,730

  1,014

  554

  1985–86

  3,209

  739

  512

  1986–87

  2,977

  680

  474

  1987–88

  2,975

  671

  455

  1988–89

  3,094

  740

  475

  1989–90

  2,904

  635

  454

  1 Excluding Greater London.

  Local authority credit approvals

  £ million

  Year

  Issued1 England

  England

  Used2 Greater London

  South-east3

  1990–91

  2,827

  2,786

  744

  386

  41991–92

  3,222

  3,139

  752

  544

  51992–93

  3,287

  3,171

  707

  531

  1 Total credit approvals issued to local authorities by central Government Departments. Excludes credit approvals issued by Department of Transport to certain local authority owned airport companies. A breakdown of credit approvals issued by region is not readily available.

  2 Total credit approvals used, as reported by local authorities to the Department. Figures may differ from credit approval issued because of under-use of credit approvals and because authorities may have underestimated credit approvals.

  3 Excluding Greater London.

  4 Outturn (provisional).

  5 Estimate.

  Limehouse Link
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated annual cost of maintenance of the Limehouse link in respect of(a) ventilation, (b) electricity, (c) surface repairs and (d) other expenses by category.

  Mr. Baldry
  The estimated annual cost of maintenance for the Limehouse link tunnel is as follows:
  669

  £

  (a) Ventilation

  72,000

  (b) Electricity

  584,000

  (c) Surface repairs

  60,000

  (d) Other costs

  —Pumps

  20,000

  —Lighting and Lamps

  50,000

  —Electrical equipment

  50,000

  —Service building (Depot)

  48,000

  —Salaries of tunnel operating staff

  461,000

  Total

  £1,345,000

  Methane Emissions
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the report by the energy technology support unit assessing methane emissions from landfills.

  Mr. Yeo
  The report is being prepared as part of a series of reports from the controlled waste management research programme. It should be available within two months.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many residential care homes are liable for council tax in each local authority; what consideration he has given to allowing council tax discounts to such homes if there are resident staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total number of residential care homes in the area of each social services authority as at 31 March 1992 is set out in the table. No information is available on the distribution of these between districts in non-metropolitan areas or on the council tax liabilities relating to them.

  People receiving care in registered homes are not counted towards the personal element of the council tax. The council tax bill for a dwelling where all the residents are recipients of care will therefore be subject to a 50 per cent. council tax discount—the tax payable will be the same as that due for any empty property. Members of staff with accommodation in the home will not affect this discount provided that their main home is elsewhere. If separate, self-contained accommodation is provided for staff, this will be subject to a separate council tax bill, and will not affect the tax payable in respect of the care home itself.

  If, on the other hand, a member of staff has his sole or main residence in the care home itself, discount entitlement may be lost. But where this is the case, the discount forgone is likely to be smaller than the council tax for which the person would have been liable if he or she had lived elsewhere. It is also very likely to be smaller than the community charge which the member of staff will have paid in previous years.

  Social services authority

  Number of care homes

  Avon

  410

  Barking

  13

  Barnet

  83

  Barnsley

  48

  Bedfordshire

  133

  Berkshire

  195

  670

  Social services authority

  Number of care homes

  Bexley

  21

  Birmingham

  291

  Bolton

  53

  Bradford

  151

  Brent

  38

  Bromley

  81

  Buckinghamshire

  129

  Bury

  61

  Calderdale

  71

  Cambridgeshire

  147

  Camden

  39

  Cheshire

  220

  City of London

  0

  Cleveland

  120

  Cornwall

  265

  Coventry

  128

  Croydon

  99

  Cumbria

  175

  Derbyshire

  255

  Devon

  846

  Doncaster

  69

  Dorset

  453

  Dudley

  85

  Durham

  152

  Ealing

  56

  East Sussex

  589

  Enfield

  68

  Essex

  433

  Gateshead

  58

  Gloucestershire

  182

  Greenwich

  24

  Hackney

  31

  Hammersmith

  27

  Hampshire

  654

  Haringey

  64

  Harrow

  54

  Havering

  55

  Hereford and Worcester

  282

  Hertfordshire

  166

  Hillingdon

  48

  Hounslow

  23

  Humberside

  407

  Isle of Wight

  120

  Isles of Scilly

  2

  Islington

  38

  Kensington

  23

  Kent

  707

  Kingston upon Thames

  39

  Kirklees

  103

  Knowsley

  24

  Lambeth

  84

  Lancashire

  823

  Leeds

  167

  Leicestershire

  247

  Lewisham

  70

  Lincolnshire

  233

  Liverpool

  99

  Manchester

  121

  Merton

  33

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  74

  Newham

  25

  Norfolk

  319

  North Yorkshire

  350

  North Tyneside

  80

  Northamptonshire

  190

  Northumberland

  98

  Nottinghamshire

  259

  Oldham

  63

  Oxfordshire

  121

  Redbridge

  47

  Richmond upon Thames

  35

  Rochdale

  53

  Rotherham

  39

  Salford

  56

  Sandwell

  54

  Sefton

  201

  Sheffield

  116

  671

  Social services authority

  Number of care homes

  Shropshire

  151

  Solihull

  26

  Somerset

  205

  South Tyneside

  42

  Southwark

  38

  St. Helens

  33

  Staffordshire

  255

  Stockport

  72

  Suffolk

  196

  Sunderland

  73

  Surrey

  311

  Sutton

  36

  Tameside

  48

  Tower Hamlets

  17

  Trafford

  77

  Wakefield

  69

  Walsall

  63

  Waltham Forest

  53

  Wandsworth

  59

  Warwickshire

  148

  West Sussex

  435

  Westminster

  31

  Wigan

  61

  Wiltshire

  196

  Wirral

  145

  Wolverhampton

  68

  TOTAL ENGLAND

  16,073

  Mineral Planning Permission
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation to ensure that all mineral planning permission is reviewed at intervals of no longer than five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We consulted last year on options for the updating and review of old mineral permissions. I hope to issue a further consultation paper on detailed proposals for change later in the summer. It would be wrong to pre-empt the content of that paper or to prejudge the outcome of further consultations.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the procedure for an area coterminous with a shire county to be considered for unitary authority status by the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  If people living in localities bordering on an area being reviewed by the Local Government Commission feel that their area should be included in that review, they may make representations to the commission. Where the commission judges that there is strong community support for a review to be extended across a county boundary, it may ask the Secretary of State for a direction to widen the scope of the review.

  Housing (Compulsory Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the development of compulsory competitive tendering of housing management.

  Sir George Young
  I have today issued a consultation paper to all housing authorities in England, the local 672
  authority associations and other interested organisations. The paper sets out the Government's detailed proposals on some of the key components of compulsory competitive tendering—CCT—of housing management. I am placing copies in the Library.

  The consultation paper follows discussion with the local authority associations and the eight local authorities which are piloting housing management CCT. It also takes account of work done by consultants in co-operation with the pilot authorities.

  The proposals in the consultation paper address the scope of the defined activity, which lists the functions which authorities will have to subject to CCT, unless they contract them out voluntarily, the timetable that authorities will have to meet when they are introducing housing management CCT, and the size of contract packages. It is intended that the orders implementing the first two components should be in place from 1 April 1994. The third component will be implemented by way of guidance.

  I hope that issuing our proposals at this stage will help authorities in their detailed preparations for the introduction of housing management CCT. In addition, I am keen to have authorities' comments on the practical implications of the proposals, so that the final package takes account of the different circumstances prevailing in different authorities.

  CCT represents a new direction and opportunity for the management of local authority housing. Competition will improve quality of service and value for money by testing the market. It will expand the opportunities for the involvement of the private sector in housing management, while ensuring that local authorities themselves have every opportunity to compete. The consultation provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill, currently before Parliament, will ensure that tenants are fully involved throughout this process.

  The Government want tenants to secure the benefits of CCT as soon as possible, allowing for the healthy development of the market. It is intended therefore that housing management CCT should be phased in over three years with the first contracts in operation from 1 April 1996. The proposals contained in this consultation paper are at the centre of housing management CCT and represent a major step towards its successful introduction.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) of 8 June,Official Report, column 191, how many people attended the London Docklands development corporation banquet on 7 May; what proportion of the total cost was met from public funds; who were the catering contractors; and if he will place a list of those attending in the Library.

  Sir George Young
  Approximately 650 people attended the Limehouse link dinner on 14 May. The London Docklands development corporation paid £27,750 to-wards the cost, the remaining £21,950 was contributed by a variety of companies and individuals. The catering contractors were Crown Catering Group of Romford, Essex. I have asked the LDDC to send a list of participants to the hon. Member.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish the scheme council tax, used in calculating the transitional reduction for 1993–94, for each local authority in England;

  (2) if he will publish the amount of other adjustments which formed part of the personal community charge in 1992–93 for each local authority in England;

  (3) if he will publish the amount of the collection fund deficit at the most recent available date for each local authority in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), on 24 May,Official Report, column 369.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations Ministers or officials in his Department have received from, or on behalf of councillors, former councillors or officers who are the subject of the investigation by the district auditor into the designated sales programme of Westminister city council; and how many such representations were made by right hon. and hon. Members of this House.

  Mr. Curry
  I am not aware of any such representations.

  Local Government Commission (Lancashire)
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Local Government Commission will commence its inquiry into the county of Lancashire.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 20 September 1993.

  THORP
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received calling for a public inquiry to consider the potential environmental impact of planned radioactive discharges from BNFL's thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield; what is his policy on holding such an inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations calling for a public inquiry into the draft authorisations for the disposal of radioactive waste from BNFL's Sellafield site. He has received the regulators' report on the public consultation and is considering it and, in accordance with the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, is considering whether to call in the applications for authorisation and if so whether to cause a local inquiry to be held.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with, and what representations he has received from, senior management at BNFL on draft discharge authorisations for BNFL's thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent discussions
  674
  with senior management at British Nuclear Fuels plc. The chairman of BNFL has written to the Secretary of State on one recent occasion, about the timing of the issue of new authorisations for BNFL's Sellafield site.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations the Government have received calling for a joint Department of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food hearing to consider the potential environmental impact of planned radioactive discharges from BNFL's thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield; what is his policy on holding such an inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: The Government have received a number of representations calling for a hearing into the draft authorisations for the disposal of radioactive waste from BNFL's Sellafield site. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have received the regulators' report on the public consultation and are considering it and, in accordance with the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, are considering whether to afford a hearing.

TRANSPORT

  M1-M62 Link Road
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the current timetable for the establishment of an M1 to M62 link road; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has, following the formal consultation process, to alter or abandon the proposals for the M1 to M62 link road.

  Mr. Key
  We expect to be in a position to make an announcement about the way forward on this scheme before the autumn.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport's market-testing programme for the year from October 1992 to September 1993 was set out in the first report on the citizens charter. None of the cases has yet reached award stage.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) of 11 June,Official Report, columns 383–84, what were the voting figures for each member state recorded in the meeting of the European Community's Transport Council held on 7 to 8 June.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No formal votes were taken.

  M25
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make announcements on the subject of increasing the capacity of the M25 in(a) Kent, (b) Surrey, (c) Buckinghamshire, (d) Hertfordshire and (e) Essex.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend will make a statement in due course.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been spent on building works, maintenance and equipment at the Civil Service College, Sunningdale in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested covering college expenditure at the Sunningdale site is as follows:

  Year

  Building Works £ thousands

  Maintenance £ thousands

  Equipment £ thousands

  1988–89

  130

  436

  351

  1989–90

  367

  509

  492

  1990–91

  2,072

  519

  863

  1991–92

  1,960

  567

  996

  1992–93

  3,891

  632

  357

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total monetary value of overseas aid distributed in the 1992–93 financial year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The provisional outturn of gross domestic expenditure on the Overseas Development Administration's external assistance programmes for developing countries and for eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1992–93, including the United Kingdom's share of European community aid expen-diture, is £2,098,886,000.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the future of the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government have concluded their review of the aid and trade provision—ATP. They have decided that the scheme should continue. It will help finance sound projects that will contribute to sustainable development and that are of particular industrial and commercial importance to Britain. The ATP budget for 1993–94 of £110 million will be enhanced by £7 million subject to parliamentary approval. The scheme will in future focus on creditworthy, low-income—income per head under $700—developing countries.

  There will he a transitional period during which a few projects already at an advanced stage of consideration,
  676
  which would not be eligible under the revised scheme, will exceptionally be taken forward. The selection of projects under the revised scheme will take account of the new OECD rules governing the use of tied aid which came into force in 1992. Specific measures to improve the effectiveness of ATP and achieve better value for money will be implemented immediately.

  This revised scheme will provide a clearer framework for industry within which companies should be able to obtain an early indication of the prospects for ATP funding for individual projects.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation between Her Majesty's Government and the United Nations took place prior to the withdrawal by the United Nations of invitations to British-based human rights organisations concerned with human rights in(a) the Punjab, (b) Kashmir and (c) Assam, to attend a United Nations conference on human rights in Vienna; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The secretariat of the United Nations world conference on human rights was informed in advance of the conference that we had no objection to any British-based human rights non-governmental organisation being invited to participate. On learning of the withdrawal of the invitations to those organisations referred to by the hon. Member, we protested to the secretariat. As a direct result of this pressure, the invitations were reinstated.

  Burma
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to persuade the Government of Burma to comply with the European Community statement of 12 March.

  Mr. Goodlad
  With our European Community partners, we continue to monitor closely the human rights situation in Burma, and take every opportunity to underline our concern to the Burmese and in the appropriate international bodies.

  Xanana Gusmao
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Indonesia concerning the trial and imprisonment of Xanana Gusmao.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Following the trial's conclusion, Her Majesty's ambassador, together with other European Community representatives in Jakarta on 10 June, impressed on the Indonesian Government the importance the Community attach to humane treatment of Gusmao, including regular access by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  East Timor
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Indonesia to urge it to meet the requirements of the International Committee of the Red Cross with regard to prison visits in East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our ambassador in Jakarta with his European Community colleagues have urged the Indonesian authorities—most recently in representations this month—to facilitate the early resumption of International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners in East Timor.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Of the activities to be investigated for market testing in the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, decisions have been reached on three. The client function for the television facilities unit has been transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from the Central Office of Information; installation of local radio networks and satellite communications by in-house teams will effectively be abolished in 1994; and supply services for office stationery and machinery are being contracted out. Of the activities scheduled to be market tested in the aid wing, one, administration of overseas pensions, has almost been completed. The service is to be retained in-house.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Guatemala about human rights abuses against its indigenous peoples; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We take every opportunity to make clear to the Guatemalan authorities the concern felt in this country about observance of human rights, including those of the indigenous people. We welcome President Ramiro de Leon Carpio's commitment to improve matters.

  Libya
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consequences in terms of the availability of consular and other services are imposed on United Kingdom citizens who take up work in Libya against the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom has no diplomatic relations with Libya. As a result, the small British interests section of the embassy of our protecting power, Italy, can offer only limited consular services to British nationals in Libya.
  678
  We advise British nationals planning visits to Libya to consider whether their journey is really necessary, and the resident British community to consider whether they need to remain.

  I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the FCO's "Travel Advice on Libya".

  Karyn Smith and Patricia Cahill
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has received on whether the drugs found in the possession of Karyn Smith and Patricia Cahill, currently serving gaol sentences in Bangkok, could have physically fitted in the luggage of the two women, as alleged in court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The solicitor for the family of Karyn Smith has provided documentation to support his view that the drugs could not have fitted into the suitcases. HM Customs and Excise have reviewed this documentation. They have examined the photographs of the luggage and the drug containers. They are satisfied that the compressed heroin could have fitted into the luggage.

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of the European Community have not signed(a) The Hague and (b) the European conventions on child abduction.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Ten countries of the European Community have ratified The Hague convention; Italy and Begium have yet to ratify the convention.

  Eleven countries have signed and ratified the European convention. Italy has yet to ratify.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 7 and 9 June.

  Mr. Hurd
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I represented the United Kingdom at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 7 to 9 June.

  At an inter-institutional meeting between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on 7 June, no agreement was reached either on an inter-institutional agreement on subsidiarity or on a decision by the European Parliament on procedures for the ombudsman to be appointed by the Parliament. Both issues were blocked by the Parliament. Ministerial sessions of the accession negotiations with Norway, Austria, Sweden and Finland were held in the margins of the Council. These registered useful progress.

  Ministers had a substantial discussion on former Yugoslavia. They reaffirmed the overriding importance of efforts to achieve a lasting and equitable peace in co-operation with the rest of the international community, their full support for Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg in their contacts with the parties, and their commitment to the Vance/Owen peace plan. They agreed that measures contained in the joint action programme set out by the United States, France, Spain, Russia and the United

  679
  Kingdom on 22 May should be followed up: they will support the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to attract further troops and funding to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 836 on safe areas. They called for an increase in the international presence in Kosovo and Macedonia to help pre-empt possible spillover of the conflict.

  The Council heard a report by Sir Leon Brittan on recent developments related to the GATT Uruguay round negotiations. The French Foreign Minister presented his Government's recent memorandum setting out the French position on the round. The Council had a thorough exchange of views on both of these statements. We share the Commission's hope that it will be possible to agree the outline of an agreement on market access and services by the time of the economic summit in Tokyo in July.

  The Council also approved the EC/United States oilseeds agreement, which was negotiated as part of the Blair House agriculture package last November.

  Over lunch, Ministers discussed the humanitarian situation in northern Iraq, the continuing need for emergency aid, and the requirement for longer term development assistance. Ministers agreed the EC response to the establishment of the transitional executive council in South Africa. This will include the lifting of some of the remaining restrictions other than those related to the United Nations arms embargo, and the launch of the new EC development initiative. Sir Leon Brittan reported on his recent visit to Moscow.

  In the afternoon, the Council discussed the Commission's paper for the Copenhagen European Council on strengthening relations with the central European associate countries.

  The Council then discussed a Commission paper on openness access to information, summarising progress made since the Edinburgh European Council.

  The Council discussed the revision of the regulations governing the EC structural funds. The Commission reaffirmed its inclusion of Merseyside and the highlands and islands of Scotland in its proposed list of objective 1 regions. The Minister of State argued for further regions in the United Kingdom to be added to the list of areas in the Community classified as objective 1. There was also discussion of how objective 2 and 5b areas should be determined. In the discussion of the proposed new objective 4, the United Kingdom reiterated its reserve of principle and argued against the diversion of European social fund money away from helping the long-term unemployed. The question of greater Council involvement in decisions relating to Community initiatives under the structural funds was also raised. It was agreed that an extraordinary General Affairs Council be held on 2 July to discuss these matters further.

  The Danish presidency briefed the Council on its plans for the Copenhagen European Council. The main agenda items are likely to be economic growth and unemployment, the Community's relations with central and eastern Europe, the Community's relations with Russia, the progress of the enlargement negotiations, subsidiarity and the situation in the former Yugoslavia.

  No formal votes were taken.

EDUCATION

  Early Years Education
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to safeguard high-quality early years education; and what measures he will take to ensure the continued provision of suitably qualified graduate teachers for this age group.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government's policies are designed to improve standards at all levels of education, including pupils' early years in school. My right hon. Friend has recently issued for consultation proposals for an additional route into early years teaching, to allow those who are sufficiently able and experienced to reach the necessary standards in one year; this will complement and not replace existing routes into teaching. The Government believe that schools should be able to decide for themselves among teachers with different academic qualifications who have the required knowledge and skills for effective teaching.

  School Tests
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what date he plans to send to schools plans for next year's tests.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has written to all chairmen of governors and head teachers advising them of the streamlined arrangements for the 1994 tests for seven and 14-year-olds, which he announced to the House on 11 May. Detailed decisions on the scope and coverage of the tests will be made in the light of recommendations from Sir Ron Dearing, which are expected in July. Further information will be sent to schools as soon as possible thereafter.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the statutory duties and responsibilities on head teachers; and what monitoring is carried out to see they are fulfilled.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Head teachers of maintained schools, including self-governing—grant-maintained—schools, have statutory responsibility for a number of functions relating to the organisation and management of the school, the discipline of its pupils and the curriculum. In undertaking these functions, they are accountable in the first instance to the governing body of the school and to the local education authority in those schools which it maintains. Parents also have a formal opportunity to discuss the way the head teacher has carried out his or her duties, at the annual meeting which governors must hold for parents. Independent inspections of schools every four years under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 will report on quality and standards in schools, including how effectively they discharge their statutory functions. Reports and governors' action plans will be published.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the subject of top-up fees for university students; and if he will make a statement.
  681
  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 14 June,Official Report, column 420.

  Pre-school Places
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pre-school places for three to five-year-olds are provided in England and Wales by(a) local authorities, (b) private sector employees, (c) central Government for their own employees and (d) the private sector.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information held centrally covers places for children aged under five in day nurseries, playgroups and with childminders. This shows local authority provision, registered and non-registered provision and is recorded in the publication "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1991, England", copies of which are available in the Library. The number of pre-school places provided in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorism
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the figures for(a) killings by terrorists, (b) terrorist shooting incidents and (c) terrorist bombs, including explosions and defusings in 1985; and in which of the subsequent years the number of offences in each category has been lower.

  Mr. Mates
  In 1985, there were 47 murders believed to have been carried out by terrorist organisations, 237 terrorist shooting incidents and 215 terrorist bombs, including explosions and defusings. The number of terrorist incidents in each of these three categories has not been lower in any subsequent year.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were charged with terrorist offences in 1985; and in which of the subsequent years the number of such persons has been higher.

  Mr. Mates
  A total of 522 persons were charged with terrorist offences in 1985. The only subsequent year in which the number of such persons has been higher is 1986.

  Compensation Agency
  Sir James Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the business plan for 1993–94 for the Compensation Agency will be published.

  Mr. Mates
  The Compensation Agency's business plan for 1993–94 will be published today. The plan explains the agency's business and organisation and sets out assumptions about workloads and resources which underpin the plans and targets identified for the agency this year. I have made arrangements for copies to be placed in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  UN Commission on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 13, if he will list the organisations or individuals to whom the United Kingdom report to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development has been or will be distributed.

  The Prime Minister
  Copies of the progress report have been sent to the commission's secretariat and copies are available for delegates attending the commission's meeting this week and next in New York. Copies were also made available to delegates who attended an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development meeting in Paris last week.

  Colombia
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to meet the President of Colombia.

  The Prime Minister
  I look forward to meeting President Gaviria again during his planned visit to this country from 26 to 30 July

  Voluntary Bodies (Grants)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the total amount paid in grants by central Government Departments to voluntary bodies during the financial year 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Central Government funding to voluntary organisations in 1991–92 amounted to £3,387 million. Of this, £2,897 million consisted of payments to voluntary housing associations and £490 million went directly to a variety of voluntary organisations to support provision of services and a wide range of activities and projects.

  The amount spent under individual departmental programmes was as follows:

  Voluntary bodies

  £

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  178,486

  Defence

  11,038,930

  Education and Science

  5,503,286

  Sports Council

  14,255,000

  Employment

  32,693,716

  Environment (including Energy Efficiency Office)

  Direct grants

  24,854,376

  Urban programme

  54,400,000

  Housing corporation

  2,459,327,000

  Countryside Commission

  1,115,000

  English Nature

  1,057,000

  Rural Development Commission

  5,554,000

  UK 2000 initiative

  508,000

  Derelict Land Grant

  857,000

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  1,717,114

  Overseas Development Administration

  123,657,933

  Health

  Direct grants

  43,010,863

  Health Education Authority

  1,263,546

  Home Office

  Direct grants

  40,124,942

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  20,000

  Commission for Racial Equality

  773,740

  Northern Ireland Office

  Direct grants

  14,586,795

  Housing associations and societies

  40,538,706

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  657,954

  683

  Voluntary bodies

  £

  Scottish Office

  Direct grants

  20,722,515

  Urban programme

  41,932,000

  Housing Associations

  234,000,000

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  1,660,000

  Highland and Islands Enterprise

  1,200,000

  Sports Council for Scotland

  1,510,621

  Social Security

  16,303,257

  Trade and Industry

  12,472,500

  Transport

  532,017

  Welsh Office

  Direct grants

  10,431,725

  Urban programme

  2,957,865

  Joint Finance/Care in the community

  224,455

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  423,000

  Housing for Wales (Tai Cymru)—grants to housing associations

  163,690,067

  Sports Council for Wales and Play Wales

  Management Committee

  1,435,988

  GRAND TOTAL

  3,387,209,397

  I am placing in the Library of the House a list of voluntary bodies funded by the Government in 1991–92 other than those funded under housing programmes and the urban programme or via non-departmental public bodies.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

  Teaching Company
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Prime Minister to which Cabinet Minister the Teaching Company management committee reports.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: The Teaching Company management committee is a subcommittee of the Science and Engineering Research Council—SERC—and, therefore, formally reports to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, the terms of reference of this committee require it, inter alia, to report to the engineering board of SERC and to the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as to other funding bodies, and to advise SERC's engineering board, the DTI and others on the development of the scheme.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Theatres
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has on the number of theatres that have closed in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland since 1979.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information requested is not held centrally. I am however advised by the Theatres Trust that 684
  the rate of loss of theatres has slowed significantly since the mid-1970s; indeed, a number of theatres referred to as being closed in the report of a 1982 survey have subsequently reopened.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Cutlery and Silverware
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee (1) whether compensation has been sought from the firm which failed to scrap or remove the two portcullis engravings from the two consignments of House of Commons cutlery and silverware as agreed;

  (2) which firm failed to carry out the undertaking either to remove all marks or scrap the two recent consignments of House of Commons cutlery and silverware; and to which firm the items were subsequently sold.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  This is a matter for the Director of Catering Services and I shall ask her to write to the hon. Member.

HEALTH

  Adoption
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average time spent in fostered care/social service care prior to adoption by children adopted in each of the last 15 years;

  (2) what was the average time spent in foster care/social service care prior to adoption in each of the last 15 years for children adopted at the age of less than one year, one to four, five to nine, 10 to 14 and 15 to 17 years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information held centrally relates to the length of time a child was in care under the last legal status before leaving care. This will often be less than the total time he or she was in care. Averages for children leaving care on adoption or being freed for adoption for the year ending 31 March 1991 are shown in the table; figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The number of children leaving care in six duration bands are published in "Children in Care of Local Authorities, England", of which copies are available in the Library. Statistics on the total time looked after are being collected from 14 October 1991, but processing for the period ended 31 March 1992 is not yet complete.

  Number of children leaving care on adoption or on being freed for adoption in the year ending 31 March 1991; England

  Age on leaving care

  Number of children leaving care

  Average duration of last legal status on leaving care (years)

  All ages

  2,439

  3·4

  Under 1

  469

  0·5

  1 and under 5

  899

  2·1

  5 and under 10

  701

  4·1

  10 and under 15

  275

  7·4

  16 and over

  98

  11·5

  Children who were readmitted to care subsequently in the year ended 31 March 1991 are excluded. For children subject to a parental rights resolution, the duration of legal status relates to their time in care under section 2 of the Child Care Act 1980, not since the resolution.

  Trent Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for each of the hospital trusts in the Trent region, the names of the chairman and non-executive directors, their occupations or professions and details of any allowances or remuneration payable.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts in Trent region and the most up-to-date information about their occupations are shown in the table:

  NOTTINGHAM COMMUNITY HEALTH NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. I. Maclean—Group Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. A. Ripley—Retired Director

  Mr. B. Cooke—Former Bank Manager

  Mrs. J. Sterck—Voluntary Service Worker

  Mr. M. Rudge—Housing Association, Deputy Director

  Professor C. Chilvers—Professor of Epidemiology, University of Nottingham

  BASSETLAW HOSPITAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mrs. V. Dickinson—Housewife

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. J. Lee—General Manager

  Mr. L. Taylor—Solicitor

  Mr. P. Reynard—Former Company Director

  Mrs. L. Turner—Librarian

  Mr. R. Hassett—Chartered Surveyor

  BARNSLEY COMMUNITY AND PRIORITY SERVICES NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. D. Anderson—Managing Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. P. Kefford—Management Consultant

  Mr. P. Goldie—Building Society Manager

  Mrs. J. R. Lees—Solicitor

  Mr. K. Ellis—Community Worker

  Mrs. M. Michaels—Local Government Manager

  MULBERRY NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mrs. D. L. Miller—Solicitor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. M. Beacham—Former Company Director

  Mr. W. Carter—Company Director

  Mr. M. Hewings—Accountant

  Mr. M. Chappell—Farmer/Businessman

  Mrs. L. Scrimshaw—Former Social Worker

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE METROPOLITAN AND PARAMEDIC SERVICE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Dr. B. Kingston—Director of Careers Advisory Service

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. J. Chambers—Former Banker

  Mr. S. Mahon—Accountant

  Mrs. B. Godber—Former Red Cross Director

  Mr. P. Threlfall—Retired Headteacher

  Mrs. P. Battersby—Solicitor

  WESTON PARK. HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. R. J. Prest—Company Chairman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. B. Winston—Accountant

  Professor B. Hancock—Professor of Clinical Oncology,

  686

  University of Sheffield

  Mr. W. Macdonald—Broadcast Consultant

  Mrs. E. Hutton—Housewife

  Mrs. A. Freemantle—Housewife

  NOTTINGHAM CITY HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. N. Deakin—Chartered Accountant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. A. Walker—Consultant (housing area)

  Mrs. R. Waite—Area Organiser WRVS

  Professor I. Johnson—Professor, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nottingham University

  Mr. G. Martin—Management Consultant

  Mr. R. Illingworth—Former Bank Executive

  DONCASTER ROYAL INFIRMARY AND MONTAGU HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. C. Bryant—Corporate Business Solicitor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. G. Brown—Engineer

  Mr. M. Mitchell—Director

  Mr. J. Pickup—Surveyor

  Mrs. R. Cottrell—Teacher

  Mrs. E. Sparrow—Consultant

  NORTHERN GENERAL HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. H. Stokes—Polytechnic Chairman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. B. Smith—Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. J. Morris Cleasby—Marketing Consultant

  Professor F. Sharp—Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Sheffield

  Mr. O. Lawn—Retired Civil Servant

  Mrs. J. Short—Secretary

  SHEFFIELD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. A. Wood—Chartered Accountant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. R. Pickford—Solicitor

  Vacancy—

  Professor M. Tanner—Professor of Paediatrics, University of Sheffield

  Mrs. B. Barr—Company Director

  Vacancy—

  CENTRAL SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Dr. G. Tolley—Principal of Sheffield Polytechnic

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. S. Hamilton—Businessman

  Mr. A. Staniforth—Accountant

  Dr. I. Rennie—Lecturer

  Mrs. E. Swynnerton—Headteacher

  Mrs. J. Lee—Social Worker

  DONCASTER HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Horsburgh—Company Chairman and Managing Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. J. Lucas—Accountant

  Mr. J. Millar—General Manager

  Mrs. M. Spencer—Magistrate

  Mr. J. Liversedge—Chartered Valuation Surveyor

  Miss C. Fleming—Solicitor

  BARNSLEY DISTRICT GENERAL HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. A. Sherriff—Managing Director

  687
  Non-executive director:

  Mr. M. Robbins—Retired Consultant

  Mr. R. Cave—Accountant

  Mrs. M. Young—Solicitor

  Miss L. Ambler—Teacher

  Mr. B. Levitt—Development Director

  CENTRAL NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. G. Vere-Laurie—Managing Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Ms L. Hamer—Treasurer

  Ms A. Vintner—Managing Director

  Mr. S. Brown—Company Director

  Mr. A. Slade—Solicitor

  Mrs. E. Hanson—Proprietor Interior Decorating Service

  ROTHERHAM PRIORITY HEALTH SERVICES NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mrs. L. Shelton

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. T. Palmer—Property Manager

  Mrs. R. Rusby—Farm Manager

  Mrs. P. Qureshi—Community Volunteer

  Mr. J. Hyde—Solicitor

  Mr. J. Salmon—Company Director

  CHESTERFIELD AND NORTH DERBYSHIRE ROYAL HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Heaps—Company Managing Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. P. Lindley—Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. S. Cutt—Housewife

  Mrs. G. Goucher—Director, Chamber Of Commerce

  Mr. T. Barker—Personnel Director

  Vacancy—

  GLENFIELD HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. E. Stanger—Company Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Professor D. De Bono—Professor of Cardiology, University of Leicester

  Mr. P. Cusack—Director, Age Concern

  Mrs. F. Hussain—College Principal

  Mrs. J. Beaver—Lecturer

  Mr. P. Dobson—Managing Director

  LEICESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Hammersley—Commercial Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. Ayres—Chairman & Co. Founder

  Mrs. H. Gilfoy—Company Director

  Professor D. Barnett—Head of Clinical Pharmacology Leicester University

  Professor D. Chiddick—Executive Pro Vice Chancellor and Managing Director

  Mrs. P. Mansfield—WRVS Organiser

  SOUTH LINCOLNSHIRE COMMUNITY AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES NHS TRUST'

  Chairman:

  Mrs. E. Allison—Trustee of Lincolnshire Red Cross

  Non-executive directors:

  Cllr E. Hopkins—Chairman of Builders Merchants

  Mrs. M. Moorhouse—Headteacher

  Miss M. Le-Hair—Solicitor

  Mr. R. Blackbourn—Architect

  Mr. S. Sydall—Chartered Accountant

  FOSSE HEALTH, LEICESTERSHIRE COMMUNITY NHS TRUST
  688
  Chairman:

  Mrs. W. Hickling—Proprietor, Pre-school Playgroup

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. J. Butterfield—Accountant

  Mr. R. Harris—Managing Director

  Mr. J. Kapasi—Accountant

  Mrs. J. Paraskeva—Director, National Youth Agency

  Mrs. G. Parker—Assistant Director, Social Policy Research Unit

  QUEEN'S MEDICAL CENTRE, NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALNHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. M. Suthers—Solicitor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. G. Longbottom—Company Chief Executive and Chairman

  Professor E. Symonds—Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nottingham University

  Mrs. C. Bowering—Headteacher

  Mrs. P. Richards—Chief Executive, TEC

  DERBY CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. N. Woods—Solicitor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. B. Gildea—Personnel Manager

  Mr. G. White—Chief Executive

  Mrs. F. Cannon—Part Time PA

  Mr. P. Dobby—Consultant

  Mrs. N. Billing—Deputy College Principal

  LEICESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Stephens—Retired Financial Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. G. Walker—Retired Managing Director

  Mrs. C. Macpherson—Solicitor

  Professor M. Clarke—Professor of Epidemiology, University of Leicester

  Mrs. E. Carter—Property Consultant/Chartered Surveyor

  Mr. S. Bathia—Accountant

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Featherby—Chartered Surveyor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. J. Varnam—Chairman, Consumer Council

  Mrs. G. Coppell—Citizens Advice Bureau Worker

  Mr. A. Baines—Chartered Accountant

  Mr. M. Panchal—Business Development Officer

  ROTHERHAM GENERAL HOSPITALS NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. A. Baker—Steel Company Executive

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. J. Welch—Chartered Accountant

  Mr. I. Stephen—Solicitor

  Mr. M. Colbear—Company Chairman

  Mrs. G. Brooke—Magistrate

  Mrs. R. Muntus—Housewife

  SOUTHERN DERBYSHIRE MENTAL HEALTH UNIT NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Ms J. Street—Chief Executive, Southern Derbyshire TEC

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. J. Bowler—Chartered Accountant

  Mr. M. Ludlow—Senior Economic Development Officer

  Miss K. Johnson—Personnel Director

  Mr. A. Morgan—Headteacher

  Mr. W. Barron—Owner, Embroidery Business

  689
  COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES, SOUTHERN DERBYSHIRE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mrs. P. Zadora—Management Consultant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. C. Marsland—Company Chairman

  Mr. J. Byrne—Solicitor

  Mr. R. Brooksbank—Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. J. Denton—Area Manager

  Mr. B. Billings—Company Director

  GAINBOROUGH & DISTRICT HEALTH CARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. S. Buchanan-Parker—Marketing Consultant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. A. Roberts—Financial Director

  Mr. D. Weir—Assistant Director of Resources

  Mr. J. Jenkinson—Managing Director

  Dr. V. Stanton—Managing Director

  Mrs. E. LeMay—Housewife

  LINCOLNSHIRE AMBULANCE & HEALTH TRANSPORT SERVICE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. A. Bell—Business & Training Consultant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. J. Robinson—Partner in Family Business

  Mr. A. Gilpin—Banker

  Mr. J. Hill—Engineer

  Mrs. M. Lewis—Housewife

  Mrs. Z. Scoley—

  NHS trust chairmen are remunerated according to the unit turnover in 1988–89. The present annual rates are:

  Unit turnover 1988–89

  Band

  Rates PA £

  In excess of £50 million

  Band 1

  19,285

  Between £20 million and £50 million

  Band 2

  17,145

  Less than £20 million

  Band 3

  15,125

  Non-executive directors of NHS trusts are remunerated at the rate of £5,000 per annum.

  Chairmen and non-executive directors may also receive appropriate travelling and subsistence allowances.

  Sports Injuries
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths and severe injuries were caused by sport in each of the last five years; and if she will publish figures for the number of such incidents for each main sport.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publishes statistics on sporting deaths in the monitor "Fatal accidents during sporting and leisure activities", series DH4, a copy of which is available in the Library. The latest year for which information is available is 1991. The information for 1987 to 1991 has been summarised and will be placed in the Library. More detailed information may be obtained from the monitor.

  The information for severe injuries is published by the Department of Trade and Industry. Copies of the table will be placed in the Library.

  Mental Illness
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of residential places available for people with mental illness in the most recent year available; and how many of these were family placements or provided respite care or housing.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally shows that at 31 March 1992 in England there were 11,569 places in staffed local authority and independent sector residential homes, primarily for people with mental illness and 1,997 places in unstaffed local authority homes. Information is not available centrally for unstaffed homes in the independent sector. Information on places is not broken down by the type of care.

  In addition, there were 284 staffed residential homes reported at 31 March 1992 as serving mentally ill people as a second or third client group within the home, but information is not available on the number of places specifically designated for mentally ill people in these homes.

  Patients Charters
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what redress and compensation are available to patients when health authorities and trusts fail to meet service commitments made in local and national patients charters.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health authorities and hospitals are responsible on a day-to-day basis for delivering patients charter rights and standards and are expected to ensure that service commitments are fully met.

  In two specific instances the patients charter offers redress. Under the citizens charter, patients are guaranteed treatment within a maximum of two years—18 months for hip and knee replacement and cataract operations—from the date when their consultant places them on a waiting list. Where a hospital cannot give treatment within the guaranteed maximum waiting time, then health authorities should make alternative arrangements with another provider.

  Also operations should not be cancelled on the day a patient is due to arrive in hospital. If this happens twice, then treatment should be arranged within one month of the date of the second cancellation.

  Battens Disease
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures are being taken to ensure that all children who suffer from Battens disease are treated before they are three years of age;

  (2) how many cases of Battens disease have been recorded in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Bowis
  Battens disease is extremely rare, and its prevalence is not precisely known. There is no known effective treatment for Battens disease. In the infantile forms, with onset before the age of three, the health care of the children is guided by the basic principles which apply to all types of progressive disorder with handicap.

  NHS Employmnent Contracts
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice her Department gives to health authorities and trusts regarding employment contracts with particular reference to clauses designated to prevent staff speaking to the media.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Where explicit clauses on safeguarding confidentiality are included in individual contracts of employment, they must not conflict with the principles set out in the advice "Guidance for staff on relations with the public and the media" EL(93)51, issued recently by Sir Duncan Nichol to all health authorities and trusts. A copy of the guidance is available in the Library.

  Children's Health Records
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of chldren now have parent-held records;

  (2) what percentage of purchasing authorities are contracting for parent-held records.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information from the British Paediatric Association, which has produced a model personal child health record, shows that 107 district health authorities are contracting for the record. Information on the number of children who have been issued with the record is not available centrally.

  GP Fund Holders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general medical service funds is for budget holding in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92, (c) 1992–93, (d) 1993–94 and (e) 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The main component of spending on the general medical services—GMS—non-cash-limited element, consists of the payment of general practitioners fees and expenses. Arrangements are identical for fund holders and non-fund holders and no special allocations are made to the former. For the cash-limited component, the proportion of funds allocated by the Department to regional health authorities specifically for GP fund holders is shown in the table. Regional health authorities can supplement the national funding from their revenue allocations for hospital and community health services. Information on supplementary funding is not available centrally. No decisions have been taken on the funding to be made available in 1994–95.

  Funds allocated to Regional Health Authorities for Practice Fund Management Allowance and GP Fund holder Practice Staff as a proportion of total GMS cash-limited allocation

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  1

  1991–92

  8

  1992–93

  11

  1993–94

  118

  1 Estimated as 1993–94 allocations have not yet been finalised.

  Hospital Admission Times
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the guaranteed admission times for hospital treatment for each health authority.
  692
  Dr. Mawhinney
  As purchasers of health care, district health authorities will shortly be publishing their first annual report on performance achieved by their providers against all patients charter standards.

  Junior Doctors (Working Hours)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to her answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 44, what plans she has to assess the actual hours worked over 83 per week by junior doctors; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We continue to make clear to health authorities and trusts that, as well as monitoring reductions in the contracted hours of junior doctors and dentists, they should ensure that actual hours of duty do not exceed contracted hours. We are determined to ensure that junior doctors and dentists see real improvements in their working lives from the new deal.

  Learning Disabilities
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adult training centres exist in each local authority for people with learning disabilities; what places are available; and what figures she has on the number of people assessed as suitable for admission to an adult training centre for whom there are currently no places available.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest available information on the number of adult training centres, and the number of places available in them, by local authority, is published in "Adult Training Centres for People with Learning Disabilities and Local Authority Day Centres for Adults, at 31 March 1991, England", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Information on the number of people assessed as suitable for admission to an adult training centre for whom there are currently no places available is not available centrally.

  Corporate Affairs Intelligence Unit
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the budget for the corporate affairs intelligence unit for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 22 February at columns 482–83.

  Dental Health
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on how the dental health care of children is being improved; and what further plans she will bring forward;

  (2) what monitoring of adult and child dental health care her Department is now doing; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The provision of dental treatment and the monitoring of the dental health of all age groups of the population is a matter for district health authorities to undertake jointly with family health services authorities. Health authorities also arrange for the screening of teeth of children in state-funded schools at least three times in each child's school life.
  693
  The Department conducts decennial surveys of the dental health of adults and children alternately each five years. The last survey of adults was carried out in 1988. A survey of children is now in progress. The 1983 child dental health survey, copies of which are available in the Library, showed that among eight-year-olds, the proportion with some active decay in their permanent dentition had decreased from 40 per cent. in 1973 to 17 per cent. in 1983 and among 14-year-olds from 61 per cent. to 37 per cent.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to bring forward new proposals for dental remuneration; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We shall announce our proposals in due course.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what indemnities have been given by Yorkshire regional health authority to Yorkshire Water plc against all claims

  Name and Position in authority

  Occupation/Profession

  SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Regional Chairman:

  Ms R. Fritchie

  Company Director

  Non-executive members:

  Mr. U. Woodburn

  Solicitor and Partner

  Mr. D. Strachan

  Management Consultant

  Dame M. Fry

  Former Chairman

  Sir J. Kingman

  Vice Chancellor, University of Bristol

  Vacancy

  —

  GLOUCESTERSHIRE ROYAL NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Lady S. Beesley

  Journalist/Personnel Manager

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. A. Eve

  Partner and Retired Chartered Accountan

  Mr. G. Lane

  Director of Operations

  Mr. G. Simon

  Solicitor/Consultant

  Mr. P. Beloe

  Food Service Director

  Mrs. M. Melling

  Freelance Training Consultant

  EAST SOMERSET NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. M. Carter

  Company Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. T. Chappell

  Managing Director

  Mr. T. George

  Solicitor

  Mr. J. Keegan

  Senior Lecturer in Military History

  Mrs. P. Clark

  —

  Vacancy

  —

  CORNWALL AND ISLES OF SCILLY MENTAL HANDICAP NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Reverend T. McCabe

  Clergyman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. M. Bristow

  Counsellor

  Mr. A. Bell

  Shipping Consultant

  Ms F. Hunt

  Freelance Writer and Supply Teacher

  Mr. R. Stephens

  Solicitor

  SOUTH DEVON HEALTH CARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. A. Boyce

  Solicitor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. M. Hawkins

  Engineer

  Mr. M. Dobson

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. M. Ridgway

  Secretary

  Mr. K. Holmes

  Chartered Accountant

  Mr. G. Crosscombe

  Civil Engineering Manager

  EAST GLOUCESTERSHIRE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. C. Thomson

  Financial Consultant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. S. Pullen

  Secretary

  Mrs. J. Ralph

  Voluntary Worker

  Mrs. M. Baynham

  Secretary

  Mr. T. Griffin

  Surveyor

  Dr. G. Shephard

  Retired General Practitioner

  694
  arising from fluoridation of water supplies; if she will place a copy of the indemnity in the Library; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Though indemnities against liabilities arising from fluoridation may be provided, Yorkshire Water plc has not yet sought them.

  South-West Health Authorities
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the chairmen and non-executive members appointed to the South West regional health authority and to NHS trusts in the south-west, listing their current occupations and whether their main residence is within the authority or trust area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A list of all such appointees and the most recent information about their occupations, where this is held, is shown in the table. Where possible, people appointed to health authorities and national health service trusts are expected either to live or work in, or have other connections with the area served by the authority or trust.
  695

  Name and Position in authority

  Occupation! Profession

  TAUNTON AND SOMERSET NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. J. Stocks

  Company Chairman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. R. Clark

  Executive Director

  Mr. P. Swan

  Group Finance Director

  Dr. P. Mason

  Retired Medical Officer

  Mrs. J. Barrie

  Stockbroker

  Mrs. M. Pollard

  Voluntary Worker

  WESTERN AREA NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. J. Dickson

  Engineer

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. R. Norton-Collins

  Plant Director

  Mr. J. Williams

  Chartered Accountant

  Mr. M. Marsh

  Architect

  Mr. J. Bailey

  Solicitor

  Mrs. G. Lewis

  Retired Secretary

  CORNWALL HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman

  Capt. Mrs. A. Kirby-Harris

  Army Education Officer

  Non-executive directors:

  Lady F. Banham

  Voluntary Worker

  Mr. A. Wilkes

  Chartered Accountant

  Mrs. J. Dunkley

  Part-time Lecturer

  Maj. Gen. I. Baxter

  Retired Army Officer

  Mr. S. Young

  Chartered Accountant

  UNITED BRISTOL HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman.

  Mr. T. Durie

  Lay Member of Bristol University Council

  Non-executive directors:

  Professor B. Pickering

  Professor of Anatomy

  Mr. J. Woolley

  Chief Executive

  Mr. H. Harrison

  Farmer

  Mr. P. Sherwood

  Retired Chief Executive

  Mrs. V. Cox

  Nurse

  NORTHERN DEVON HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Sir M. Knight

  Defence and Security Consultant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. G. Andrews

  Consultant

  Mr. S. Pearce

  Chartered Accountant

  Mr. J. Nash

  Retired Schoolmaster

  Miss D. Dibble

  Retired Manager/Buyer

  Mr. J. Urquhart

  Pharmacist

  FRENCHAY HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Councillor C. Williams

  Chartered Accountant

  Non-executive directors:

  Dr. D. Fox

  Retired Medical Practitioner

  Mr. J. Kendal

  Former Deputy Managing Director

  Professor P. Parsloe

  Pro Vice Chancellor

  Mr. T. Bishop

  Strategic Planning Manager

  Mr. D. Moffat

  Businessman

  THE ROYAL CORNWALL HOSPITALS AND WEST CORNWALL HOSPITALS NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. A. Galsworthy

  Businessman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. J. Williams

  Solicitor

  Mr. G. McCabe

  —

  Mr. E. Latham

  Retired Chairman

  Mrs. D. Henderson

  Former Manager

  Mr. C. Micklewright

  Finance Director

  PHOENIX NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. D. Smith

  University Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. R. Maggs

  External Affairs Manager

  Mr. K. Oxtoby

  Chartered Electrical Engineer

  Mrs. J. Stevens

  Occupational Psychologist and Management Consultant

  Mr. T. Kent

  Redeployment Manager

  Mrs. J. Nation

  Housewife

  PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY SERVICES NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. A. Beauchamp

  Solicitor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. G. Beeching

  Business Counsellor

  Mr. J. Nicholas

  Property Developer

  Mr. E. Distin

  Chartered Surveyor

  Mrs. I. Miles

  Manager

  Vacancy

  —

  696 697

  Name and Position in authority

  Occupation/ Profession

  GLOUCESTERSHIRE AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mrs. J. Guillebaud

  Magistrate

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. J. Soutter

  Accountant

  Mr. M. Warner

  Managing Director

  Mr. R. Bretherton

  Solicitor

  Mr. C. Raymond

  Independent Financial Broker

  SOUTHMEAD HEALTH SERVICES NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Professor I. Silver

  Professor of Comparative Pathology

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. A. Checkley

  Retired Manager

  Mr. J. Portch

  Company Director

  Ms K Lyon

  Lecturer

  Mrs. R. Frankham

  Chartered Accountant

  Mr. R. Johnson

  Solicitor

  AVON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. D. Miller

  Retired Regional Manager

  Non-executive directors:

  Dr. A. Antonelli

  Management Development Adviser

  Mr. S. Johnson

  Financial Consultant

  Mrs. A. Foot

  Adult Education Tutor

  Mr. J. King

  Retired Journalist

  WEST COUNTRY AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. J. Pease-Watkin

  Personnel Director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. H. Bucklar

  Partner in a Company

  Mr. J. Luttrell

  Farmer and Forester

  Mrs. B. Collard

  Locum Pharmacist

  Lt. Col. R. Perkins

  Farmer

  Mr. P. Egan

  Chartered Accountant

  EXETER AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY HEALTH NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mrs. S. Russell

  Former Hotelier

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. A. Halse

  Housewife

  Mr. M. Domaille

  Proprietor of Residential Home

  Miss M. Stokes

  Retired Midwife

  Mr. A. Acton

  Chartered Accountant

  Professor A. Roy

  Retired Chief of Surgical Services

  AVALON NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mrs. M. Topp

  Voluntary Worker

  Non-executive directors:

  Sir D. Allen

  Former Defence Services Secretary HM The Queen

  Ms C. Baron

  Part-time Lecturer

  Mr. J. White

  Partner in Company

  Lady E. Gass

  Committee Member

  Mr. M. Pleeth

  Retired Chief Executive

  SEVERN NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Parkhouse

  Retired Civil Servant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. T. Boore

  Joint Managing Director

  Mr. J. Colquhoun

  Solicitor

  Ms S. Thame

  Trainer and Management Consultant

  Mrs. C. Elwes

  Commissioner

  Mr. C. Manners

  Industrial Consultant

  ROYAL DEVON AND EXETER NHS TRUST

  Chairman:

  Professor Dame

  Former President of Royal College of

  M. Turner-Warwick

  Physicians

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. Lamb

  Area Director

  Mrs. E. Tranah

  Solicitor

  Mr. J. Wendover

  Deputy Diretor

  Mr. H. Ball

  Director

  Mrs. A. Mayes

  Lecturer

  698

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library copies of her correspondence with the chairman of the Pharmaceutical Services National Committee concerning the modification or withdrawal of proposals for changes in the remuneration for pharmacists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the outcome of her meeting with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee on Tuesday 15 June.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department had a short, constructive meeting about the longer-term arrangements for pharmacists' remuneration and the elements of the settlement for 1993–94. Another formal meeting has been arranged for next month, with less formal joint working in the meantime to develop options further.

  Neo-natal Units
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action she is taking to ensure adequate provision of lung surfactant in NHS neo-natal intensive care units; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what action is being taken by her Department to improve nursing staff levels in NHS neo-natal units; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what new resources or policy initiatives are being devoted by her Department to increasing the number of temperature monitors, blood pressure monitors. ventilators and incubators available in NHS neo-natal units, and to updating existing equipment; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Allocations of funds to health authorities for purchasing health care services including neo-natal services are made on the basis of the size, age, distribution and relative health of their resident populations. Specific arrangements about staffing and equipment are matters for local decision. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group, set up by the United Kingdom Health Ministers, was asked to examine access to and availability of a number of specialised services, including neo-natal intensive care following the introduction of the national health service reforms. Its report and the Government's response will be published shortly. Health care purchasers and providers will need to take account of these in making decisions about future provision.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine on the appropriate provision of paediatric consultants for each neonatal unit; what response she has made; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  No recent representations have been received from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine.

  Young Smokers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has for each year since 1988 on the prevalence of 11 to 15-year-old smokers.
  700
  Mr. Sackville
  Information relating to the prevalence of smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds is available from the biennial Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "Smoking Among Secondary School Children", as shown in the table. A copy of the publication IN available in the Library.

  Prevalence of smoking cigarettes among secondary school children, by sex England 1988–90

  Per cent.

  Age

  All Pupils

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Boys 1988

  Regular

  7

  —

  2

  5

  8

  17

  Occasional

  5

  3

  2

  5

  7

  7

  1990

  Regular

  9

  —

  2

  6

  10

  25

  Occasional

  6

  4

  4

  5

  8

  10

  Girls 1988

  Regular

  9

  —

  —

  4

  12

  22

  Occasional

  5

  1

  1

  5

  7

  9

  1990

  Regular

  11

  1

  2

  9

  16

  25

  Occasional

  6

  1

  3

  6

  8

  12

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole figure.

  2. "—": nil or less than 0·5.

  Source: OPCS Smoking Among Secondary School Children. Definitions: Regular smokers are those pupils who smoke at least one cigarette a week. Current smokers who smoke less than one cigarette a week are classified as occasional smokers.

  "Help Us to Help You"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the budget for the "Help Us to Help You" campaign.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All regional and district health authorities, family health services authorities, national health service trusts, directly managed hospital units and community health councils have been sent copies of a "Help Us to Help You" information pack, which gives advice about how to develop a local campaign. The total cost of producing the packs was £31,870. Copies of the packs will be placed in the Library.

  Paediatric Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many intensive therapy unit beds for children there were in each of the last five years; and what was the total child population in each of those years;

  (2) how many times in each of the last five years a child has been refused admission to children intensive therapy unit beds; and how many child intensive therapy unit beds are closed at present;

  (3) what information she has on the children intensive therapy unit beds in each other EC country, and the total number of children in each of those countries;

  (4) what was the number of (a) paediatric beds and (b) intensive care paediatric beds in each region in each of the last 10 years.
  701
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 10 June 1993]: Figures showing the number of beds allocated for paediatric care in each regional health authority from 1987–88 to 1991–92 are shown in the table with details of the population. For earlier years, from 1981, statistics were calculated on a different basis and are not comparable.

  Although the figures show a decline in bed numbers in the period, patient activity has increased, due to the extended use of day surgery, decreases in lengths of stay, and developments in medical practice. Although the child population has remained fairly constant at around 9·5 million—under 16—patient activity in paediatrics increased by 58 per cent. between 1981 and 1988–89 and by 11·3 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1991–92.

  Information on the number or management of designated paediatric intensive therapy beds here or in other European community countries is not available centrally. However, the Department has funded an independent survey of the beds currently available within the national health service as part of a review of the need for intensive care facilities for critically ill children which a working party established by the British Paediatric Association is carrying out. Its report is due in the autumn. We expect that it will help health authorities in assessing the needs of their child population and negotiating contracts with hospital provider units to meet these needs.

  Health visitors employed at district level by clinical grade September 1991 (whole-time equivalent)

  Region/district health authority

  Scale F

  Scale G

  Scale H

  Scale I

  Total

  ENGLAND TOTAL

  230

  8,230

  1,620

  300

  10,380

  Northern RHA

  10

  550

  100

  20

  680

  Yorkshire RHA

  30

  630

  140

  20

  820

  Trent RHA

  10

  810

  150

  40

  1,000

  East Anglian RHA

  0

  300

  60

  20

  370

  North West Thames RHA

  40

  590

  150

  30

  820

  North East Thames RHA

  10

  570

  140

  30

  750

  South East Thames RHA

  0

  540

  130

  30

  700

  South West Thames RHA

  10

  510

  60

  10

  590

  Wessex RHA

  20

  530

  80

  20

  650

  Oxford RHA

  10

  470

  90

  20

  580

  South Western RHA

  20

  530 '

  110

  0

  670

  West Midlands RHA

  20

  890

  160

  40

  1,110

  Mersey RHA

  10

  380

  90

  10

  500

  North Western RHA

  40

  940

  150

  10

  1,150

  FHSA

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Northern RHA

  10

  550

  100

  20

  680

  HQ and Units

  0

  100

  20

  10

  120

  Hartlepool

  0

  30

  10

  0

  40

  North Tees

  0

  30

  0

  0

  30

  South Tees

  —

  0

  0

  —

  0

  East Cumbria

  0

  30

  0

  —

  30

  South Cumbria

  —

  30

  10

  —

  40

  West Cumbria

  —

  20

  10

  0

  30

  Darlington

  —

  20

  0

  —

  20

  Durham

  —

  20

  10

  —

  30

  North West Durham

  —

  20

  0

  0

  20

  South West Durham

  —

  20

  10

  —

  30

  Northumberland

  0

  70

  10

  —

  70

  Gateshead

  —

  40

  10

  0

  50

  Newcastle

  0

  40

  10

  10

  60

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  30

  0

  0

  30

  Sunderland

  —

  60

  10

  0

  70

  Yorkshire RHA

  30

  630

  140

  20

  820

  Hull

  0

  50

  10

  —

  60

  702

  Average of daily number of available paediatric beds

  Region

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  825

  778

  742

  714

  Yorkshire

  949

  897

  885

  871

  Trent

  1,058

  979

  936

  883

  East Anglian

  291

  295

  293

  289

  North West Thames

  737

  659

  620

  587

  North East Thames

  783

  728

  605

  620

  South East Thames

  906

  817

  812

  810

  South West Thames

  n/a

  546

  526

  492

  Wessex

  444

  494

  495

  472

  Oxford

  363

  428

  426

  413

  South Western

  617

  577

  554

  548

  West Midlands

  1,227

  1,194

  1,145

  1,120

  Mersey

  810

  775

  715

  673

  North Western

  1,284

  1,263

  1,256

  1,177

  Special Health Authorities

  520

  485

  469

  445

  England:

  Total paediatric beds

  110,814

  10,894

  10,479

  10,127

  Child (under 16) (000s) Population

  9,528·1

  9,507·4

  9,528·8

  9,593·8

  1 Excludes figure for South West Thames—n/a 1987–88.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by clinical grade and specialty for each district health authority and regional health authority the number of health visitor staff employed as at 1 April.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 11 June 1993]: The latest information available is shown in the table.
  703

  Region/district health authority

  Scale F

  Scale G

  Scale H

  Scale I

  Total

  East Yorkshire

  0

  30

  10

  —

  40

  Grimsby

  —

  30

  0

  —

  30

  Scunthorpe

  0

  30

  10

  0

  50

  Northallerton

  —

  20

  0

  0

  20

  York

  —

  50

  0

  0

  50

  Scarborough

  0

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Harrogate

  —

  10

  0

  0

  20

  Bradford

  —

  70

  10

  0

  90

  Airedale

  0

  30

  10

  —

  40

  Calderdale

  10

  50

  10

  0

  60

  Huddersfield

  —

  40

  10

  —

  50

  Dewsbury

  0

  —

  10

  0

  10

  Leeds

  10

  120

  40

  0

  170

  Wakefield

  0

  30

  0

  10

  40

  Pontefract

  0

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Trent RHA

  10

  810

  150

  40

  1,000

  North Derbyshire

  —

  60

  10

  0

  70

  Southern Derbyshire

  —

  80

  10

  10

  100

  Leicestershire

  —

  160

  30

  10

  200

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  40

  0

  0

  50

  South Lincolnshire

  —

  40

  10

  —

  50

  Bassetlaw

  —

  10

  0

  0

  20

  Central Nottinghamshire

  0

  40

  20

  0

  60

  Nottingham

  0

  120

  20

  10

  150

  Barnsley

  0

  50

  10

  —

  50

  Doncaster

  10

  60

  10

  —

  70

  Rotherham

  0

  50

  10

  0

  70

  Sheffield

  —

  90

  10

  10

  110

  East Anglian RHA

  0

  300

  60

  20

  370

  Cambridge

  —

  40

  10

  0

  50

  Peterborough

  —

  40

  10

  —

  40

  West Suffolk

  —

  40

  10

  0

  50

  East Suffolk

  —

  50

  10

  0

  60

  Norwich

  0

  50

  20

  0

  80

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  —

  30

  0

  0

  40

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  0

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Huntingdon

  —

  20

  0

  —

  20

  North West Thames RHA

  40

  590

  150

  30

  820

  North Bedfordshire

  0

  40

  10

  —

  50

  South Bedfordshire

  —

  40

  20

  —

  60

  North Hertfordshire

  —

  30

  10

  0

  40

  East Hertfordshire

  10

  50

  10

  0

  80

  North West Hertfordshire

  —

  40

  10

  —

  50

  South West Hertfordshire

  0

  30

  10

  —

  40

  Barnet

  0

  10

  10

  0

  20

  Harrow

  —

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Hillingdon

  0

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  20

  50

  30

  0

  90

  Ealing

  —

  60

  20

  10

  90

  Riverside

  0

  60

  10

  10

  90

  Parkside

  10

  100

  20

  0

  120

  North East Thames RHA

  10

  570

  140

  30

  750

  Basildon and Thurrock

  0

  40

  10

  0

  50

  Mid Essex

  —

  40

  10

  0

  50

  North East Essex

  —

  50

  10

  0

  50

  West Essex

  —

  40

  0

  —

  40

  Southend

  —

  30

  10

  0

  50

  Barking Havering and Brentwood

  0

  50

  10

  0

  70

  Hampstead

  —

  20

  10

  —

  30

  City and Hackney

  0

  40

  10

  0

  50

  Newham

  —

  40

  10

  10

  60

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  50

  20

  0

  70

  Enfield

  0

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Haringey

  0

  20

  10

  0

  40

  Redbridge

  —

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Waltham Forest

  0

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Bloomsbury and Islington

  0

  60

  20

  0

  80

  South East Thames RHA

  0

  540

  130

  30

  700

  Brighton

  —

  30

  10

  —

  40

  Eastbourne

  —

  50

  10

  0

  60

  Hastings

  —

  20

  0

  0

  30

  South East Kent

  —

  40

  10

  0

  50

  Canterbury and Thanet

  —

  50

  0

  0

  50

  704 705

  Region/district health authority

  Scale F

  Scale G

  Scale H

  Scale I

  Total

  Dartford and Gravesham

  —

  40

  10

  —

  40

  Maidstone

  —

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Medway

  0

  50

  10

  —

  60

  Tunbridge Wells

  —

  30

  0

  0

  40

  Bexley

  —

  40

  10

  —

  40

  Greenwich

  0

  30

  20

  0

  50

  Bromley

  —

  40

  10

  10

  60

  West Lambeth

  —

  20

  10

  0

  30

  Camberwell

  —

  20

  10

  —

  40

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  0

  50

  20

  10

  80

  South West Thames RHA

  10

  510

  60

  10

  590

  North West Surrey

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  —

  60

  10

  0

  60

  South West Surrey

  0

  40

  0

  —

  40

  Mid Surrey

  0

  40

  0

  0

  40

  East Surrey

  —

  40

  10

  0

  40

  Chichester

  —

  30

  0

  —

  40

  Mid Downs

  0

  60

  10

  0

  70

  Worthing District

  —

  40

  10

  0

  50

  Croydon

  —

  60

  0

  0

  60

  Kingston and Esher

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  —

  50

  10

  0

  60

  Wandsworth

  —

  30

  10

  —

  40

  Merton and Sutton

  —

  70

  10

  —

  80

  Wessex RHA

  20

  530

  80

  20

  650

  East Dorset

  0

  90

  10

  10

  100

  West Dorset

  —

  40

  10

  —

  40

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  0

  90

  10

  —

  100

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  10

  70

  20

  0

  110

  Winchester

  —

  30

  0

  —

  40

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  —

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Salisbury

  0

  30

  0

  0

  40

  Swindon

  —

  50

  10

  0

  50

  Bath District

  0

  80

  10

  0

  100

  Isle of Wight

  —

  20

  0

  —

  20

  Oxford RHA

  10

  470

  90

  20

  580

  East Berkshire

  0

  60

  10

  0

  80

  West Berkshire

  0

  80

  10

  10

  100

  Aylesbury Vale

  —

  30

  0

  —

  30

  Wycombe

  —

  50

  10

  0

  60

  Milton Keynes

  0

  40

  10

  0

  50

  Kettering

  —

  40

  10

  0

  50

  Northampton

  0

  60

  10

  0

  80

  Oxfordshire

  —

  100

  20

  10

  130

  South Western RHA

  20

  530

  110

  0

  670

  Bristol and District

  10

  170

  20

  0

  210

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  —

  60

  30

  —

  90

  Exeter

  0

  40

  0

  —

  50

  North Devon

  —

  20

  0

  —

  30

  Plymouth

  —

  50

  20

  —

  70

  Torbay

  —

  40

  10

  —

  40

  Cheltenham and District

  0

  30

  10

  —

  40

  Gloucester

  0

  60

  10

  0

  70

  Somerset

  0

  50

  10

  —

  70

  West Midlands RHA

  20

  890

  160

  40

  1,110

  HQ and Units

  —

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  0

  40

  0

  0

  40

  Herefordshire

  —

  30

  0

  0

  40

  Kidderminster and District

  0

  30

  0

  —

  30

  Worcester and District

  10

  40

  10

  —

  60

  Shropshire

  —

  80

  10

  0

  90

  Mid Staffordshire

  0

  40

  10

  —

  50

  North Staffordshire

  —

  80

  10

  0

  90

  South East Staffordshire

  —

  50

  10

  0

  50

  South Warwickshire

  0

  30

  0

  0

  40

  East Birmingham

  0

  30

  10

  0

  40

  North Birmingham

  —

  30

  10

  0

  40

  West Birmingham

  —

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Coventry

  —

  50

  0

  0

  50

  Dudley

  0

  60

  0

  0

  70

  Sandwell

  —

  50

  10

  0

  70

  706 707

  Region/district health authority

  Scale F

  Scale G

  Scale H

  Scale I

  Total

  Solihull

  —

  70

  10

  0

  80

  Walsall

  —

  20

  20

  10

  50

  Wolverhampton

  —

  50

  10

  0

  60

  North East Warwickshire

  0

  20

  0

  0

  20

  South Birmingham

  0

  70

  20

  10

  100

  Mersey RHA

  10

  380

  90

  10

  500

  Chester

  —

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Crewe

  —

  30

  10

  —

  40

  Halton

  —

  60

  0

  0

  70

  Macclesfield

  —

  20

  10

  —

  30

  Warrington

  0

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Liverpool

  0

  60

  30

  0

  90

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0

  60

  10

  0

  80

  Southport and Formby

  —

  20

  0

  0

  30

  South Sefton

  —

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Wirral

  0

  70

  10

  0

  80

  North Western RHA

  40

  940

  150

  10

  1,150

  Lancaster

  —

  30

  0

  0

  30

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  20

  70

  20

  —

  110

  Preston

  —

  40

  0

  —

  40

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  0

  70

  10

  —

  80

  Burnley, F'endle and Rossendale

  —

  60

  10

  0

  70

  West Lancashire

  0

  30

  10

  —

  40

  Chorley and South Ribble

  —

  50

  10

  —

  50

  Bolton

  0

  60

  10

  —

  70

  Bury

  0

  30

  10

  —

  40

  North Manchester

  0

  40

  10

  0

  50

  Central Manchester

  0

  30

  10

  0

  40

  Oldham

  l0

  50

  10

  —

  70

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Product Marking
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals his Department has to require all retail products(a) to be labelled in metric units and (b) to be labelled with their price per metric unit of weight.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  All existing requirements for retail products to be marked with their weight or volume and for unit prices to be displayed are to be amended in accordance with the Units of Measurement Directive 1989.

  Package Tours
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the Association of British Travel Agents regarding the consequences of the EC package tour directive on its members.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department maintained close contact with ABTA during the negotiation of the directive and during the preparation of the implementing regulations.

  Wood
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total annual value of imports into the United Kingdom of wood and wood-related products.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1992, total United Kingdom imports of wood and wood-related products were valued at £2·6708
  billion.

  UKAEA Constabulary
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the future of the UKAEA constabulary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The future of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary will need to be considered in the context of the study I have set in hand to advise on options for the future of the Atomic Energy Authority. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 1 April 1993,Official Report, column 407.

  Anti-dumping Cases
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the anti-dumping and countervailing action cases filed against British companies by United States steel companies; what progress has been made in each case; and what representations have been made by the DTI to the European Community and to the Government of the USA.

  Mr. Needham
  On 19 January 1993, the US Department of Commerce—DOC—imposed final duties on certain United Kingdom lead and bismuth carbon steel products as follows:

  Company

  Countervailing Duty Per cent.

  Anti-Dumping Duty Per cent.

  United Engineering Steels

  12·69

  25·82

  Allied Steel and Wire

  20·33

  25·82

  Glynwed

  00·00

  25·82

  Folowing this decision, the US International Trade Commission—ITC—upheld the United States steel

  709
  However, in a separate anti-dumping case concerning steel rails exported by British Steel plc, the ITC rejected the United States industry's allegations of injury.

  The US DOC have also imposed provisional countervailing and anti-dumping duties of 19·13 per cent. and 109·22 per cent. respectively on plate products produced by British Steel plc. Final determinations are expected on 21 June.

  The Government are particularly concerned about countervailing duties imposed on the grounds that British Steel and others are still benefiting from subsidies paid prior to privatisation. We totally reject this allegation and have argued our case strenuously and in detail with the United States authorities. The European Commission has also taken up our case in its actions against the United States under the GATT subsidies and anti-dumping codes.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has raised the privatisation issue on several occasions in writing with Ron Brown, the US Secretary of Commerce, and his predecessor. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry also raised the subject with Mr. Brown in Paris on 2 June.

  Space Planes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what policy he has towards the development of space planes; and what studies, research or demonstration projects he supported in 1992–93 and proposes to support in 1993–94.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government recognise the importance of securing access to space for satellite manufacturers at the most economical cost and the role which reusable launchers, such as spaceplanes, might play in reducing those costs. The Government believe that the case for the development of such vehicles would need to be judged in the context of the likely international competition for the supply of launch services, the evolution of the uses of space and the costs of development.

  The Government firmly believe that the development of such vehicles could only be afforded on an international collaborative basis and recognise the efforts made by United Kingdom companies to establish collaborative links with European and other industrial partners. The Government supported studies of winged launchers and spaceplanes through the European Space Agency—ESA—during 1992–93 and are supporting ESA studies of a rocket-assisted demonstration vehicle during 1993–94.

  Textiles
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which issues he will raise in relation to the international trade in textiles when he next meets his EEC counterparts.

  Mr. Needham
  The provisional GATT agreement on future arrangements for international trade in textiles forms part of the continuing Uruguay round negotiations which are regularly discussed by the EC Council of Ministers.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest figures for bankruptcies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Information on insolvencies is regularly published by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, in "Business Briefing"; copies are available in the Library of the House. Figures for the first quarter of 1993 were published on 14 May 1993.

  Post Office
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the chairman of the Post Office; and what was discussed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last met Michael Heron, the chairman of the Post Office, on 19 May. They discussed various matters relating to the Post office and the Post Office review.

  I had an introductory meeting with the chairman on 8 June.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many sub-post offices and post offices in the United Kingdom receive(a) remuneration in the form of basic payment and (b) payment for transactions carried out of less than £5,000, £6,000, £7,000, £8,000, £9,000, £10,000, £11,000 and £12,000 a year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: Some 2,700 offices receive remuneration in the form of fixed payment, rather than on a scale reflecting units of work transacted. The vast majority of these are paid less than £5,000. The remaining offices are paid on a sliding scale. Of these, some 4,150 offices are paid less than £10,900, and 8,240 offices between £10,900 and £30,150. Precise information is not available in the form requested on numbers of offices falling into £1,000 bands.

  Radioactive Sand
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the application of(a) the export licence regime and (b) radioactive materials transport regulations to the export of sand from beaches and estuaries found to be radioactively contaminated.

  Mr. Needham
  There is no requirement for an export licence for sand under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992 unless it contains radioactive materials or properties as specified in the order. Equally, if sand or other material falls within the International Atomic Energy Agency definition of radioactive material, its transport would need to comply with that organisation's standards and international regulations for the transport of hazardous cargoes by air or sea.

  EC Technology Report
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he received a copy of the European Commission report EUR 14456 of 1992, "Technology and the Future of Europe"; and what assessment he has made of the relevance of the report to the impact of emerging technologies on the British industrial economy.
  711
  Mr. McLoughlin
  This report, which has only recently been brought to my attention, offers a useful analysis of how we have got to where we are in Europe, what challenges we are facing, what technologies are becoming important, what effects these technologies are having on us and what changes we are likely to see in future years.

  Thus the report makes a useful contribution to the debate on how emerging technologies are affecting the economies of Europe.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make available the paper submitted to the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations by the nuclear installations inspectorate on generic safety issues in Magnox nuclear reactors.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. However, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 25 May 1993,Official Report, column 488. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate proposes to place a copy of its report on generic Magnox power station issues in the Library of the House in due course.

  Steel Imports
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost to British industry of trading restraints on steel imports.

  Mr. Needham
  A precise estimate cannot readily be made, but the cost is likely to be small. In 1992 United Kingdom steel imports were unrestricted except from North Korea. For 1993, Community-wide quotas or tariff quotas are also in force against the Commonwealth of Independent States, Georgia, Bulgaria and the Czech and Slovak Republics, but United Kingdom imports of the products concerned from these sources accounted last year for only 1·17 per cent. of total United Kingdom steel consumption. The Government have made it clear in the Community that such measures should not be applied after this year unless they are clearly justified.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet submitted to the European Commission the Government's proposal for a new assisted areas map.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government's proposals for a new assisted areas map were submitted to the European Commission on 15 June for approval. As soon as Commission approval has been received, the proposed new map will be published. In order not to prejudice

  Cash value of guaranteed loans (£ million)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  North East

  4·46

  5·19

  4·64

  3·61

  2·15

  North West

  6·76

  10·13

  8·59

  5·43

  3·55

  Yorks and Humberside

  5·25

  7·47

  5·13

  3·33

  3·75

  West Midlands

  4·95

  6·32

  5·93

  4·71

  3·56

  East Midlands and Eastern

  3·85

  4·85

  5·12

  7·17

  6·32

  London and South East

  22·01

  41·62

  36·90

  27·32

  17·74

  South West

  5·62

  9·89

  9·13

  9·76

  7·15

  Scotland

  4·14

  7·67

  4·44

  4·29

  4·33

  Wales

  5·45

  5·34

  3·47

  3·28

  3·39

  712
  negotiation with the Commission and to avoid uncertainty, no information on the proposed map will be released until Commission approval has been received.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 171, if it is his intention to publish the outcome of his Department's assisted areas review before the end of July.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: I hope to announce the outcome of the review before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average time taken to approve applications under the loan guarantee scheme in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No information is held on the average time taken to approve applications prior to January 1992. Since that time, 99 per cent. of applications were cleared by the Department of Trade and Industry within five working days of receipt.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications under the loan guarantee scheme were successful in each of the last five years; and what was the average value of the loan guaranteed expressed in constant 1993 prices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the scheme is held by financial year. The number of applications guaranteed in the last five years with their average value expressed in constant 1993 prices is as follows:

  Year

  Loans guaranteed

  Average value (£) (constant 1993 prices)

  1988–89

  2,266

  35,071

  1989–90

  3,204

  36,323

  1990–91

  3,387

  27,582

  1991–92

  2,933

  24,515

  1992–93

  2,342

  22,350

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of loans secured under the loan guarantee scheme in each region of Britain in each of the last five years, expressed in(a) cash and (b) constant 1993 prices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the scheme is held by financial year. The total value of loans guaranteed in each region of Britain in each of the last five years, expressed in(a) cash and (b) constant 1993 prices is as follows:
  713

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern Ireland

  1·12

  ·92

  1·21

  ·58

  ·41

  Value of guaranteed loans by constant 1993 prices (£ million)

  North East

  5·57

  6·08

  5·12

  3·73

  2·15

  North West

  8·44

  11·87

  9·48

  5·62

  3·55

  Yorks and Humberside

  6·55

  8·75

  5·66

  3·44

  3·75

  West Midlands

  6·18

  7·41

  6·54

  4·87

  3·56

  East Midlands and Eastern

  4·81

  5·68

  5·65

  7·42

  6·32

  London and South East

  27·47

  48·77

  40·71

  28·26

  17·74

  South West

  7·01

  11·59

  10·07

  10·10

  7·15

  Scotland

  5·17

  8·99

  4·9

  4·44

  4·33

  Wales

  6·8

  6·26

  3·83

  3·39

  3·39

  Northern Ireland

  1·4

  1·08

  1·33

  ·60

  ·41

  Trade Associations
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage trade associations to provide an effective voice in representing the needs of business to Government.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I want trade associations to be effective organizations—in representing the views of members to Government Departments, the European Commission and other bodies, in promoting the international competitiveness of their member companies and in providing a strong point of focus for their industry. The principal responsibility for ensuring that this is the case falls on the companies that are their members.

  But the CBI also has a role to play. And so do the Government. We must be open in our discussions with companies and industrialists about our perceptions of the effectiveness of the organisations which represent them.

  In light of this, I am considering adopting a new approach to representations from trade associations to my Department. Where a lead association has emerged in a sector and the subject of proposls was relevant to the sector as a whole, I would ask the lead association to co-ordinate representations received from other associations in that sector before submitting them to me.

  To support the efforts of the trade associations to promote the competitiveness of their sectors, I am inviting them to submit proposals for "competitiveness clubs" to carry out benchmarking studies of processes important to their sectors. I propose allocating up to £0·5 million to support the 10 or so most attractive schemes.

  I will be setting out my views in a speech which I am delivering at the CBI today. I am placing copies of my speech in the House of Commons Library.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to allow post offices to widen the range of activities and businesses they undertake.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: Sub-post offices may undertake an almost unlimited range of activities on the private side of their shops. Requests by Post Office Counters Ltd. to widen the range of activities undertaken by them through the post office network are considered on their merits. We have recently announced that Post Office Counters will be allowed to take on work in connection with the national lottery. More generally, we
  714
  are considering the question of Counters' activities as part of our review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the future of Parcelforce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 15 July 1992 his intention of privatising Parcelforce—Official Report, column 1137. Decisions on the most appropriate method and timing for the sale will be announced in due course.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the shipbuilding yards in the United Kingdom which have access to intervention funding; and where Her Majesty's Government have wholly or partly placed warship orders since 1985.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: The following shipbuilders yards in the United Kingdom have access to the shipbuilding intervention fund:

  Appledore Shipbuilders Ltd.

  Richard Dunston (Hessle) Ltd.

  FBM Marine Ltd.

  Ferguson Shipbuilders Ltd.

  Harland and Wolff Shipbuilding & Heavy Industries Ltd.

  Kvaerner Govan Ltd.

  John Mowlem Construction plc—McTay Marine Division Richards (Shipbuilders) Ltd.

  Yorkshire Dry Dock Co Ltd.

  All yards listed, with the exception of Appledore Shipbuilders Ltd., Ferguson Shipbuilders Ltd. and Yorkshire Dry Dock Ltd have received orders from the Ministry of Defence since 1985. However, as the shipbuilding intervention fund does not apply to orders placed by the Ministry of Defence, no support has been provided in respect of those orders.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to improve the take-up of grants and other incentives for research and development by small and medium enterprises.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: The three schemes of support specifically for small and medium sized enterprises for research and development projects continue to be popular. The small firms merit award for

  715
  research and technology—SMART—and support for products under research—SPUR—have maintained their levels of activity and I expect all the available funds to be committed. Regional innovation grants—RIN—have experienced a dramatic increase in take up since May 1992

  Scheme

  SMART (Stages 1 and 2)

  SPUR

  RIN

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Applications

  1,453

  1,416

  281

  210

  454

  887

  Awards

  286

  288

  140

  139

  1193

  1432

  1 Offers accepted.

  Innovation Support
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to improve the ease of access to innovation support programmes by small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 2·18 of the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential—Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" and to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on 26 May, Official Report, columns 583–86.One-stop shops will play a key role in providing access for smaller and medium-sized businesses to innovation support both from my Department and from other organisations.

  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to draw up a concordat of co-operation between his Department and the Science and Engineering Research Council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: As the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" makes clear, a new system of research councils will come into effect on 1 April 1994. The Government have proposed that each of these new research councils should work with each of the Government Departments in which they have a significant policy connection to draw up and publish concordats. In the case of the Department of Trade and Industry, work to conclude concordats with the existing research councils has been under-way for a number of months.

  "Forward Look"
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will designate one of his Ministers to be responsible for his Department's contribution to the Government's science and technology "Forward Look".

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: Paragraph 2.37 of the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" describes the preparation of the forward look by the Office of Science and Technology, arid the participation of Government Departments through the existing, well-established machinery of the official and ministerial Cabinet committees on science and technology.
  716
  when the scheme was expanded to additional geographical areas, the upper limit on the size of business was raised to fewer than 50 employees and the restriction of one grant per business was removed. In the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 the take-up of the schemes was as follows:

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the annual number of second-hand refrigerators and freezers exported to South Africa; what precautions are taken to prevent leakage of harmful gases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: Information on the export of second-hand refrigerators and freezers to South Africa is not available. Under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it is illegal to treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste, which includes chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants, in a manner likely to cause pollution to the environment. There is no United Kingdom legislation covering discharges from refrigerators outside the United Kingdom.

  Near-market Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department's policy is with regard to the funding of near-market research.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the recent Government White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" (HMSO Cm 2250), sections 2.20 to 2.22.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Taxation and Benefits (Merger)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent progress has been made towards merging the taxation and benefit systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  There are no plans to merge the tax and benefit systems. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, however, recently set up a working group to identify options for reducing the administrative difficulties for business caused by the difference in the rules for national insurance and income tax, which he announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 26 May 1993 at column 638.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the independent living fund ceased accepting applications under the special rules covering the terminally ill; and what are the financial savings from this decision.
  717
  Mr. Scott
  The former independent living fund ceased to operate on 31 March 1993. At the same time two new bodies were established, one of which was the independent living (1993) fund. This fund is an independent trust. Within the discretion accorded them by the trust deed, the trustees are responsible for deciding the fund's priorities.

  The trustees have recently decided that the fund's resources should be targeted on the most severely disabled people in order to allow them to live as full a life as possible in the community, rather than on terminally ill people, for whom separate provision is made both by this Department and the Department of Health as well as a number of charitable and voluntary bodies. Because the fund is cash limited, no financial savings arise from the trustees' decision.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the decision of the independent living fund not to give help to new applicants who are terminally ill.

  Mr. Scott
  The former independent living fund ceased to operate on 31 March 1993. At the same time, two new bodies were established, one of which was the independent living (1993) fund. This fund is an independent trust. Within the discretion accorded them by the trust deed, the trustees are responsible for deciding the fund's priorities.

  The trustees have recently decided that the fund's resources should be targeted on the most severely disabled people in order to allow them to live as full a life as possible in the community, rather than on terminally ill people, for whom separate provision is made both by this Department and the Department of Health as well as a number of charitable and voluntary bodies.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of the mobility component of the disability living allowance in(a) Orkney and (b) Scotland.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and dcould be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the clearance target used in the new compensation scheme, announced on 4 May, will be the target for the year the payment should have been made or the target for the year the payment was finally made.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to him on 21 May at columns 326–27.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish a leaflet for the public setting out the rules governing the new compensation scheme for late payment of social security benefits announced on 4 May, to include the clearance targets relevant to each benefit;

  (2) if he will publish the full rules governing the award and calculation of compensation in the new compensation scheme for late payment of social security benefits announced on 4 May.

  Mr. Hague
  The special payment arrangements to compensate for late payment of benefit are not new but 718
  were introduced several years ago. We have, however, recently significantly improved the arrangements by reducing, in the majority of cases, the period before which payment of compensation is considered and linking it with the relevant clearance targets.

  The arrangements are ex-gratia and so it is not considered appropriate to publish the internal guidance. However, the criteria under which payment of compensa-tion is considered are:
  The delay must be six months plus the relevant target clearance time set for the majority of claims (usually between 85 per cent. and 95 per cent.);
  The delay must be caused by official error;
  The arrears must be £50 or more.
  There are no plans to publish a leaflet.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the clearance target for each social security benefit which will be used in the calculation of the new compensation scheme announced on 4 May.

  Mr. Hague
  The targets will be used in the calculation of the revised compensation arrangements will be the Secretary of State secondary targets for the clearance of new claims to the relevant benefit as published in the Benefits Agency business plan. For those benefits which do not have a Secretary of State clearance target the target will be the operational or internal target set by the BA. In the case of those benefits which do not have a secondary clearance target, the primary target will be used.

  Spending Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the change in social security spending in real terms between 1979 and 1992–93 and the proportion of this rise due to(a) increased benefits levels, (b) changes in demographic and family patterns and (c) changes in levels of unemployment.

  Mr. Scott
  Information in the form requested is not available, but the 1993 departmental report contains information about benefit expenditure on certain categories of beneficiaries. A copy of the report is in the Library. In real terms, social security spending, at 1992–93 prices, has risen from £46,341 million in 1978–79 to £78,343 million in 1992–93.

SCOTLAND

  Timex
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the sum total of Government grants received by Timex Corporation and Timex Electronic Corporation in relation to their Dundee factories since 1980, indicating the year, amount and nature of each grant.

  Mr. Stewart
  The principal sources of Government grants available to Timex Corporation and subsequently Timex Electronics Corporation since 1980 have comprised regional development grant—RDG—and regional selec-tive assistance—RSA. Comprehensive records on the RDG 1 scheme, which was terminated in 1984, are not retained. No grants were made in respect of the RDG II scheme which was terminated in 1988. Offers of RSA under which payments were made were as follows:
  719

  Year of offer

  Amount offered

  1983

  £700,000

  1985

  £270,000

  1987

  £865,000

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number and proportion of children receiving school meals broken down into(a) paid and (b) free in (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) special schools in each year since 1987–88.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: The information requested, taken from the annual school meals census returns for each year since 1987–88, is as follows:

  School Meals Survey: Schools/Departments

  Meals paid

  Meals free

  Total

  Pupils

  1Per cent.

  Pupils

  1Per cent.

  Pupils

  1Per cent.

  Primary

  1987–88

  106,319

  26·3

  126,303

  31·2

  232,622

  57·5

  1988–89

  134,411

  33·8

  71,257

  17·7

  207,668

  51·4

  1989–90

  142,737

  35·4

  69,862

  17·3

  212,599

  52·7

  1990–91

  141,612

  35·0

  72,437

  17·9

  214,049

  52·9

  1991–92

  135,871

  33·8

  76,792

  19·1

  212,663

  52·9

  Secondary

  1987–88

  75,573

  26·9

  41,853

  14·9

  117,426

  41·8

  1988–89

  73,318

  27·9

  27,384

  10·4

  100,702

  38·3

  1989–90

  83,894

  33·1

  23,449

  9·2

  107,343

  42·2

  1990–91

  85,249

  34·7

  23,505

  9·6

  108,754

  44·2

  1991–92

  88,680

  36·1

  24,809

  10·1

  113,489

  46·1

  Special

  1987–88

  1,603

  20·5

  5,856

  74·8

  7,459

  95·2

  1988–89

  1,940

  25·3

  4,868

  63·4

  6,808

  88·7

  1989–90

  2,068

  28·8

  4,343

  60·6

  6,411

  89·4

  1990–91

  1,881

  26·7

  4,418

  62·7

  6,299

  89·4

  1991–92

  1,710

  24·5

  4,275

  61·2

  5,985

  85·7

  1 Percentage of pupils present on day of survey.

  Note: In a number of cases, figures for special classes or units forming part of a primary or secondary school are included with the figures for that primary or secondary.

  Near-market Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department's policy is with regard to the funding of near-market research.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 2.20 to 2.22 of the White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology".

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training, Newham
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of young people on the youth training scheme in the London borough of Newham in each of the last five years; and what percentage(a) finished their course and (b) left early.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not available for the London borough of Newham. Results available are for 720
  east London area office, which later became London East training and enterprise council—LETEC—and includes the London borough of Newham.

  Table 1 gives the number of youth training and table 2 gives completers and early leavers information, for each of the last five years.

  Table 1

  Youth Training Scheme/Youth Training Numbers In-Training March 1989 to March 1993 East London Area Office1/London East TEC2

  Number

  1March 1989

  3,510

  1March 1990

  3,600

  1 2March 1991

  3,180

  3March 1992

  4,760

  3 4March 1993

  4,380

  Source: SPECTRUM, Management Information, TEC Operating Agreement (Annex J).

  1 East London area office.

  2 Excludes Tower Hamlets. Excludes trainees in training with National Providers.

  3 London East TEC (includes Tower Hamlets).

  4 March 1993 figure is provisional.

  Table 2

  Youth training scheme/youth training completers and early leavers (percentage) April 1988 to January 1993 London East TEC area

  Completers

  Early leavers1

  Not stated/not known

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  April 1988 to March 1989

  31

  69

  —

  April 1989 to March 1990

  26

  74

  —

  April 1990 to March 1991

  27

  67

  6

  April 1991 to March 1992

  25

  68

  7

  April 1992 to January 19932

  24

  66

  9

  Source: Youth Training Leavers Database.

  1 Early Leavers' are those whose actual completion date was earlier than anticipated at the time they started training. This group will include those starting employment and those who subsequently take up another Youth Training course or a full-time course elsewhere.

  2 1992–93 figures are provisional.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Four tests have been completed since November 1992, all of which are included in the Employment Department headquarters' 1992–93 market-testing programme:

  (i) van service—3 van service runs were tested, 2 were contracted out and 1 remained in-house;

  (ii) travel service—was contracted out;

  (iii) the Field System—was contracted out;

  (iv) TECs and National Providers Unit—was con-tracted out.

  Benlate
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions are taking place with the United States Government on the investigation being undertaken by the Federal National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health into the use and effects of Benlate; and if he will make a statement.
  721
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: No discussions are taking place with the United States Government on any investigation by the Federal National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health into the use and effects of Benlate.

  Government Departments with responsibility for pesticides maintain a watching brief on the scientific and technical literature and assess the results of relevant research. Where appropriate, the results are forwarded to the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides—ACP.

  The ACP reviewed benomyl, the active ingredient in the pesticide product Benlate, in 1992 and considered further information from a university of California study in March 1993. The ACP concluded that there was no cause for concern over the continued use of benomyl in the United Kingdom.

WALES

  Open-Heart Surgery
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many adults resident in Wales had open-heart surgery outside Wales in 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information is given as follows:

  Patients treated in English NHS hospitals: Finished consultant episodes, by main operation, 1991–921 2

  Aged 16 and over

  Age not known

  431

  88

  1 Excludes patients recorded as being under 16 years of age.

  2 Includes operations of heart valves and adjacent structures, operations on coronary artery and other open heart operations.

  Cancer
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cancer cases were confirmed per 1,000 population in each county in Wales in 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987 and 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Data on cancer registrations in Wales for the current district health authorities are only available from 1974. Prior to this date, the Welsh Cancer Registry only collated data for the previous districts of south and mid Wales. Data for 1992 have not yet been processed. The latest available recorded number of cases of malignant cancers per 1,000 population for each health authority in Wales for 1977, 1982 and 1987 are given in the following table:

  19971

  19821 2

  1987

  Clwyd

  4·65

  5·10

  5·07

  East Dyfed

  4·85

  4·67

  6·23

  Pembrokeshire

  4·35

  3·86

  5·20

  Gwent

  3·73

  4·19

  5·58

  Gwynedd

  4·73

  5·10

  6·24

  Mid Glamorgan

  3·52

  4·06

  5·01

  Powys

  4·29

  4·48

  5·35

  South Glamorgan

  3·98

  4·35

  4·35

  West Glamorgan

  4·65

  4·98

  6·36

  Wales

  4·19

  4·53

  5·41

  722
  Source: Welsh Cancer Registry

  1 Data for these years have been revised since previous publication.

  2 1982 data may be under-recorded due to industrial action in medical records departments at that time.

  Firms (Receivership)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage change in the number of Welsh firms going into receivership between the first four months of 1993 and the first four months of 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Official statistics on companies placed into receivership are not available separately for Wales.

  Strategic Planning Guidance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the strategic planning guidance document commissioned from the Assembly of Welsh Counties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my predecessor gave to him on 27 May at column 716.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales have died from solvent abuse in each county in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of deaths to residents of Wales associated with abuse of volatile substances in each year since 1979 are given in the following table. Information at county level is not available for reasons of confidentiality.

  Deaths to residents

  1979

  1

  1980

  1

  1981

  2

  1982

  3

  1983

  2

  1984

  7

  1985

  2

  1986

  4

  1987

  8

  1988

  4

  1989

  2

  1990

  7

  Source: St. George's Hospital Medical School.

  Radon
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to help those people in Clwyd whose homes are at risk from radon seepage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The results of further research, to delineate more accurately areas where radon levels may be higher than average, are expected in the spring of 1994. In the meantime, free measurement of radon levels is available to concerned householders living in areas where concentrations may be elevated. Home renovation grants may be available for homes where radon concentrations are found to be above the Government action level of 200 bq/cu m.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many rural schools have been closed in each county in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Number of maintained primary schools

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid-Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1979–80

  264

  355

  278

  200

  321

  131

  178

  198

  1,925

  1980–81

  263

  353

  275

  200

  317

  129

  175

  196

  1,908

  1981–82

  260

  347

  265

  199

  315

  125

  171

  191

  1,873

  1982–83

  258

  342

  264

  198

  317

  122

  164

  179

  1,844

  1983–84

  253

  338

  261

  198

  314

  121

  161

  175

  1,821

  1984–85

  252

  335

  253

  98

  309

  119

  158

  172

  1,796

  1985–86

  251

  329

  239

  198

  312

  117

  156

  172

  1,774

  1986–87

  251

  323

  238

  198

  312

  115

  156

  169

  1,762

  1987–88

  252

  323

  232

  196

  312

  114

  156

  168

  1,753

  1988–89

  251

  319

  228

  195

  312

  114

  157

  167

  1,743

  1989–90

  248

  315

  226

  194

  312

  113

  157

  164

  1,729

  1990–91

  246

  315

  225

  193

  305

  112

  157

  164

  1,717

  1991–92

  245

  315

  215

  192

  306

  109

  158

  164

  1,704

  (a) Excludes pupils in special schools

  Number of maintained secondary schools1

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  34

  34

  34

  34

  33

  33

  33

  33

  33

  33

  33

  33

  33

  Dyfed

  35

  35

  35

  35

  34

  34

  34

  33

  33

  32

  31

  31

  31

  Gwent

  40

  38

  38

  35

  35

  35

  35

  33

  33

  34

  34

  34

  33

  Gwynedd

  23

  23

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  23

  23

  23

  23

  Mid-Glamorgan

  41

  41

  42

  42

  42

  42

  42

  42

  42

  42

  42

  42

  42

  Powys

  12

  12

  12

  12

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  South Glamorgan

  30

  30

  30

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  28

  28

  28

  27

  27

  West Glamorgan

  26

  26

  26

  27

  26

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  Wales

  241

  239

  241

  238

  236

  237

  237

  234

  233

  232

  231

  230

  229

  1 Includes Grant Maintained schools.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to ensure that the bathing beaches at Kimnel bay and Rhyl comply with the mandatory coliform standards as laid down by the EC; and when they are expected to meet these standards.

  Mr. Redwood
  As part of its major investment programme, Dwr Cymru is constructing a long sea outfall and a new sewage treatment works in the area which, on completion in 1995, should ensure compliance of the bathing waters at Kimnel bay and Rhyl with the mandatory bacteriological standards of the EC bathing waters directive.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to protect vulnerable areas of the Welsh coast from damaging erosion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  District councils in Wales have spent over £32 million during the past 10 years protecting vulnerable areas of the Welsh coast from erosion, with some £21 million of this being provided by the Welsh Office as grant aid under the Coast Protection Act 1949.

  Maritime district councils, the National Rivers Authority and other bodies whose interests involve coastal defence have formed themselves into coastal groups
  724
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information is not collected in the form requested. The available information is as follows:

  extending around the Welsh coast. These groups ensure that protection of the coastline is managed strategically. The Welsh office is working closely with these groups to co-ordinate a new survey of the complete Welsh coastline and its defences.

  Welsh Development Agency (Chairman)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to fill the vacancy of chairman of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  I expect to make an announcement about Dr. Jones' successor shortly.

  Autism
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are known to suffer from autism; what measures are being taken to provide support and treatment to those children in Wales who suffer from autism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Although detailed information is not held centrally, it is believed that autistic disorders affect between 2,500 and 5,000 people in Wales.

  Financial assistance is provided, under the mental handicap strategy, for the development of services for people with autism where these have been identified as priorities by county joint planning teams.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 467, how many vacancies there are in Welsh non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Redwood
  As at 11 June, there were 18 vacancies among appointments which I make.

  Tourism
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the contribution from tourism to the gross domestic product of Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Current data do not allow such an assessment to be made, but the available information on expenditure by overnight and day visitors to Wales is listed as follows. Comparable figures prior to 1989 are not available.

  Estimated expenditure by overnight and day visitors to Wales

  £ million1

  1989

  1,330

  1990

  1,260

  1991

  1,255

  Source: Wales Tourist Board.

  1To the nearest £5 million. Estimated expenditure by day visitors in 1988–89 is used for all years.

  Details of Wales' gross domestic product at factor cost were published in the December 1992 edition of "Economic Trends" (No. 470), available in the Library of the House.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether Aberconwy will be given priority in his discussions regarding allocation of objective 5(b) status in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My overriding objective for the current review of the structural funds is to both retain and extend our present geographical coverage in Wales. The omission of Aberconwy from objective 5(b) status is widely recognised as an anomaly which needs to be rectified and my predecessor drew the attention of the relevant EC Commissioners to this fact earlier this year. I propose to continue to pursue vigorously its case for future eligibility.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people from Wales have been detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is in the following table:

  Admissions to hospitals and units in Wales under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 19831

  Year

  1985

  275

  1986

  357

  1987

  329

  726

  Year

  1988

  320

  1989

  327

  1990

  415

  1991–92

  380

  1 Prior to 30 September 1983 Section 2 was classified as Section 25 of the Mental Health Act 1959. The data collection system was revised in April 1991. Financial year figures are given for 1991–92.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) district nurses and (b) community midwifery staff have been employed by the NHS in Wales in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Detailed breakdowns of nursing staff employed by health authorities and NHS trusts into occupational groups such as those requested are not considered reliable. However, information on the whole-time equivalent numbers of all nursing and midwifery staff is as follows.

  Staff in post as at 30 September

  Number

  1987

  27,764

  1988

  27,920

  1989

  28,037

  1990

  28,093

  1991

  27,962

  19921

  27,583

  1 In addition there are about 1,000 student nurses who have been reclassified as students from nurses following the introduction of Project 2000 nursing education reforms.

  Trawsfynydd Lake
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the importance of Trawsfynydd lake as a centre for recreation in North Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Trawsfynydd lake is used for watersports, but has no particular significance as a centre for active recreation.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Redwood
  The contract for building management services previously undertaken by the Property Services Agency has been market tested and awarded to Kirkham, Williams and Lewis.

  The catering service to the Welsh Office has also been market tested. The contract was retained by Forward Catering Service.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many landfill sites have closed in Wales in each year since 1985; and what measures are being taken to prevent them leaking toxic liquids and explosive gases.
  727
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not maintained centrally, but is available from the individual district councils.

  Local Government
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many private representations he has so far received on the reorganisation of local government in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  It was made clear in the White Paper that all responses received would, unless otherwise requested, be placed in the Welsh Office's library and the Library of the House. No respondents sending in representations to the Welsh Office have indicated that they want their comments to be private.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what closing date he has set for comments on the White Paper on the reorganisation of local government in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not set a formal closing date. But I have made it clear that I would find it helpful to receive comments by the end of June. That will be four months after the publication of the White Paper.

  Cockle Pickers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from cockle pickers in Wales about access to cockles; if he will seek to introduce legislation to license cockle pickers in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. Responsibility for managing inshore fisheries in Wales, including the licensing of cockle pickers, rests with sea fisheries committees, whose management regimes are enforced in accordance with byelaws which require my confirmation.

  Minister for Women
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment so far of the consequences of his decision to designate, in his Department, a Minister having responsibilities for women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has had special responsibility for issue relating to women in Wales for some years. He has been a member of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Women's Issues since April 1992; and prior to that was a member of the ministerial group on women's issues.

  The present ministerial sub committee aims to focus Government thinking and policy on women's issues and allows my Department to contribute to the overall range of Government activity affecting women.

  My right hon. Friend's role also ensures that policy measures across the wide spectrum of my Department's own responsibilities are co-ordinated to take full account of the needs of women in Wales.

  Urban Investment Grants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, columns 346–48, if he will list the public bodies, other than the
  728
  Welsh Office, which can offer urban investment grants; what are the maximum thresholds of grants above which the Welsh Office has to give separate approval; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Cardiff Bay development corporation is the only public sector body in Wales, other than the Welsh Office, which offers urban investment grants. Welsh Office approval is required if the development corporation proposes to make an offer of grant which is greater than the current delegation threshold for projects of £250,000. These delegation arrangements are no different from those which apply to other types of project.

  Minister for Children
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will appoint a Minister for Children at his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in considering the practical implications of the new regulations concerning small abattoirs.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 27 May,Official Report, column 715.

  Multi-annual Guidance Programme
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the minimum and maximum number of half days provided under the multi-annual guidance programme obligation and the average for each segment of the fleet; and what relations those figures bear to the provisions made under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1992 for(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland, and by each port.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom's multi-annual guidance programme is expressed primarily in terms of capacity. The United Kingdom's target is a 19 per cent. reduction in capacity—45 per cent. of which can be achieved by reductions in time at sea. Time at sea will be controlled on an individual basis and initially the Sea Fish Licensing (Time at Sea) (Principles) Order will restrict fishing patterns to 1991 levels.

  Fish Catches (Monitoring)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many EC fishery officers are employed to monitor fish catches in each EC country that possesses an ocean fishing fleet.

  Mr. Jack
  The most recent information on numbers of fisheries officers employed in member states with ocean fishing fleets is contained in a Commission report on
  729
  monitoring implementation of the common fisheries policy, published in March 1992 a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Floods
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to provide additional funding to help meet the costs resulting from the recent floods in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Jack
  Local authorities that have incurred an exceptional financial burden as a consequence of the recent flooding events can apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for activation of the Bellwin scheme of emergency financial assistance. Each case is considered on its merits.

  Grant aid is available to local authorities and the National Rivers Authority from the Ministry for new and improved flood defence works. Grant provision has increased in recent years and priority is given to flood warning and urban flood and sea defence works.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Shipping and Shipbuilding
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are under consideration to arrest the decline of the British shipping and shipbuilding industries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Along with the rest of United Kingdom industry, ship owners and builders are operating with the lowest rate of inflation for 30 years; the lowest interest rates in the EC; and the lowest rate of corporation tax in the EC. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be meeting the Chamber of Shipping shortly to examine their case for special measures.

  Unemployment
  Ms Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement of a halving of the rate of unemployment.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara).

  Any attempt to quantify the effect of changes in unemployment on the PSBR would depend on a large number of assumptions, and would be subject to great uncertainty. In particular, there are no reliable estimates of the effects of unemployment on tax revenues.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of Government economic policies on unemployment over the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government's success in bringing down underlying inflation to its lowest levels for 25 years has created a secure foundation for sustained recovery. Interest rates are at their lowest levels for 15 years, and manufacturing unit wage cost performance is the best on record. These developments; combined with the measures for business and the unemployed in the March Budget,730
  provide the basis for sustainable, non-inflationary growth and improving employment prospects, as recent labour market indicators show.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions for public sector pay for 1993–94.

  Mr. Portillo
  As announced in the last autumn statement, public sector pay restraint, which limits all settlement within the range zero to 1·5 per cent., will be applied for one year. There can be no catching-up settlements following that. Public sector pay is an important part of public expenditure and will obviously have to be kept under tight control.

  Manufacturing (Unit Wage Growth)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his latest figures for unit wage growth in manufacturing in the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.

  Sir John Cope
  Over the last year unit wage costs in Britain fell by almost 3 per cent. In comparison, they rose by 9 per cent. in Japan and 10 per cent. in Germany.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of recent tax changes on economic recovery.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have every confidence that the measures announced in the Budget will ensure recovery is sustainable. They demonstrate the Government's commitment to low inflation and sound public finances.

  Unemployed People (Tax Burden)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the direct and indirect tax burden is on a single person in receipt of unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A single person receiving unemployment benefit with no other source of income will pay no income tax. The amount of indirect tax paid will depend on his pattern of spending.

  Financial Policy
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss financial policy.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has recently held with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss financial policy.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I meet the Governor from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Taxation
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate he has about the income distribution of the direct and indirect tax burden.
  731
  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest information is given in the May 1993 edition of "Economic Trends".

  11 Downing Street (Rental Value)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the rental value of the residential accommodation at 11 Downing street.

  Sir John Cope
  The Treasury is charged a rent of £139,359 per annum for No. 11 Downing street through the Government's internal charging, property repayment system. The residential element is not separately assessed.

  G7 Summit
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will be proposing at the G7 summit in Tokyo in July to enhance international economic growth.

  Sir John Cope
  The continuing weakness of the world economy is a serious cause for concern. Tackling the problem will require short-term national measures to boost confidence and promote recovery and medium-term measures to strengthen the sustainable rate of growth. The appropriate medium-term measures include a reduction of budget deficits and structural reform to make markets work better. However, the one single measure that will do most to promote non-inflationary growth is a successful outcome to the GATT negotiations.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reorganise the responsibilities undertaken by Ministers in his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no plans at present.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the proportion of public spending accounted for by unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  In 1992–93, unemployment benefit accounted for 0·7 per cent. of general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of VAT on domestic fuel on inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The extension of VAT to domestic fuel and power is estimated to add just under 0·4 per cent. to the retail prices index in 1994–95, and just over 0·4 per cent. further in 1995–96.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he intends to take to reduce Government borrowing.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The economic recovery will reduce Government borrowing. We shall also maintain firm control of public expenditure and implement the tax measures announced in the Budget.

  Trinidad Terms
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) of II February 1993,Official Report, column 719, what reasons underlie the treatment of levels of debt of other countries as confidential; and if such treatment has been requested by all the countries concerned.

  Mr. Nelson
  The answer to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn related to bilateral debt reduction undertaken by all of the Paris club group of creditor countries. We do not hold details of bilateral obligations between all debtor and creditor countries. Moreover, on United Kingdom bilateral debt, the details of individual debtors' positions are confidential to the country concerned and we cannot publish these figures without the consent of the authorities.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has recently held with the Governor of the Bank of England about the state of the economy.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the Governor from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected current annual yield from income tax at the basic, lower and higher rates; what are the comparable figures for 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates of taxpayers' income tax liabilities at the various rate bands are as follows:

  £ billion

  1978–791

  1983–841

  1993–94

  Lower rate

  4·4

  —

  10·8

  Basic rate

  13·7

  29·7

  36·5

  Higher rate

  1·9

  3·5

  12·8

  Investment income surcharge

  0·2

  0·2

  —

  Total income tax liability

  20·2

  33·4

  60·1

  1 For years prior to 1990–91 liability is determined by the taxable income of the tax unit (ie single person or married couple). From 1990–91 onwards following the introduction of Independent Taxation each individual's liability is calculated separately.

  Open-ended Investment Companies
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on legislation to allow the introduction of open-ended investment companies.

  Mr. Nelson
  Following informal consultations with the unit trust industry and others, the Treasury intends to publish later this year a consultation document on the proposed structure of onshore open-ended investment companies. This will discuss proposals for regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to permit, as a first step, the introduction of open-ended investment companies which fulfil the requirements of EC Council directive 85/611—the UCITS directive.

DEFENCE

  School of Aeronautical Engineering
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to move the School of Aeronautical Engineering to Arborfield.

  Mr. Hanley
  The principles on which the further restructuring of the Army's training organisation were to be based were announced on 16 December 1992. Much detailed work has been done to identify the future training locations for the Army, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  British Army of the Rhine
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British soldiers are currently serving in Germany.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current military strength of the British Army of the Rhine is some 39,000.

  Army Recruitment
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Regular Army recruiting offices operate a capping system whereby a top figure of potential recruits has been allocated irrespective of the number of potential applicants.

  Mr. Hanley
  Individual Army careers information offices do not operate capping systems. The total number 734
  of recruits into the Army is, however, limited by the number of vacancies which are forecast to arise. The acceptance of any potential recruit into the Army is therefore determined centrally and on merit, regardless of the Army careers information office to which he or she applied.

  House Sales
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish a specific housing trust to oversee the disposal of MOD houses to local authorities and housing associations.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to set up such a body. It remains our policy to dispose of surplus married quarters as quickly as possible, with priority given to the services discount scheme.

  Ulverston Drill Hall
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many offers were received for the purchase of the Ulverston drill hall; and when his Department intends to arrive at a decision as to which offer to accept.

  Mr. Hanley
  Four offers have been received and all are still being considered. A final decision will not be taken on which offer to accept until an alternative training venue has been found for the cadets who use the hall at present.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich. ): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Fuel Cell Technology
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that British industry will be able to compete in future in the manufacture of fuel cells, in view of the substantial sums being spent on their development by the Americans and the Japanese.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, a collaborative research and development programme for advanced fuel cells was established by the DTI in April last year to provide a focus for United Kingdom fuel cell interests. It is helping industry to assess this technology, contributing to its development and promoting collaboration with both the research community and with programmes elsewhere.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that already in Japan there is an 11 megawatt fuel cell generating station? Does she agree that the fuel cell will almost certainly become very important for several uses before the end of this century? Has she received information that the Americans recently claimed to have produced a plastic which will reduce the cost of fuel cells by 80 per cent. or more? Finally, does she recognise that I am anxious that we should be in a position to capitalise on this technology when the time comes?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell the noble Viscount that we do indeed agree with him on the importance of this technology. That is why we started our programme. I am well aware of developments in the United States and also in Japan, many of which are driven by their need to reduce reliance on fuel imports. It is estimated that total funding for fuel cells in Europe from both government and industry is broadly on a par with that in the United States and Japan
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the first manned landing on the moon had its auxiliary power provided by hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells designed by Tom Bacon, now a Fellow of the Royal Society? He was supported by what is now the British Technology Group. There is no lack of skill in this country.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to confirm to the noble Earl that that is
1660
indeed the case. We recognise the work that has been done. I also recognise that my depth of knowledge on this subject will never match his.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that fuel cells have a great potential in transportation, particularly in public transportation, since they would reduce pollution and, it is to be hoped, be cheaper, silent and environmentally friendly? Are the Government taking this into account in making an allocation of money for development?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Yes, indeed, my Lords. We believe that as an alternative to the internal combustion engine fuel cell technology has much to offer. We are looking at both that and other areas where small scale efficiency, coupled with quiet operation and low emissions, bring great benefit. That is why we are staying alongside the programme and why, indeed, we doubled expenditure on the programme this year.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Baroness indicate whether there is collaborative research on fuel cells within the European Community?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the noble Lord points out, this is not an area in which national governments should work alone. I am pleased to say that under the last European Community JOULE round, 10 of the 17 fuel cell projects recommended for support and some £10 million of public funding involved at least one United Kingdom participant.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, fuel cell technology may not yet have inflamed the collective imagination of noble Lords, but does the Minister agree that the potential is of enormous importance? Does she further agree that it is, as an energy, pollution free? Is she aware that the Japanese have already begun to power, heat and ventilate office buildings with fuel cell technology? Would it not be an excellent beginning and example if government buildings—perhaps starting with the Minister's department—were also powered by fuel cell technology?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I cannot totally agree with the noble Lord because if that were to be done at extra cost to the taxpayer I certainly would not find it acceptable. Much work is being done in different areas in different parts of the world. I am delighted to tell him that this country is hosting a major international fuel cell conference in September this year

Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Disposal
3.7 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they take to ensure that spent sheep dips are properly and safely disposed of.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, detailed guidance to farmers on correct

1661
disposal is provided in statutory codes of good practice on the prevention of pollution from agricultural activity which have been published, widely publicised and made available free of charge to farmers. Warnings of the dangers of these dips and advice on their disposal are also given in leaflets produced and widely distributed by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department
It is an offence to dispose of spent sheep dip in any way which pollutes the water environment
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Is he aware that until very recently responsible farmers who contacted the authorities asking how they should dispose of their dip have been told only what not to do—in other words, not to let it get into a water course—and not what to do? Recent instructions that it should either be mixed with slurry or stored for disposal by a specialist company cause problems because a lot of sheep farmers do not have slurry available so that they can mix it and spread it on their land and the other disposal method is very expensive. Is the noble Earl aware that some research has been done which indicates that organophosphates, if they have all the phenols removed from them, can be mixed with hypochlorite solution which renders them harmless? Can he say why this has not been introduced as a matter of urgency?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the safe method of disposal for spent sheep dip depends on whether there are suitable areas for disposal. If there is doubt over the risk of polluting water, the NRA, or in Scotland the local River Purification Board, should be consulted. If a suitable area of land cannot be identified the spent sheep dip should be stored in a holding tank pending disposal by a reputable specialist contractor. In other circumstances, where there is no risk to controlled water, the spreading of spent sheep dip onto suitable land is permitted subject to appropriate precautions
With regard to the noble Countess's second question, we are aware that preliminary research in this area is under way but the results have yet to be evaluated. The use of hypochlorite for the treatment of spent sheep dip formulations containing phenols would not be considered suitable in the light of the formation of chlorinated phenolic compounds.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that the United Kingdom Government is facing the possibility of legal action by European Community officials over the disposal of organophosphorous sheep dips? If such action is pending, do Her Majesty's Government contemplate any advice to farmers meanwhile?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government have received a letter from the EC Commission following a complaint that it received about the application in the United Kingdom of Directive 80/68EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution. It is alleged that farmers in Scotland dispose of sheep dip containing diazinon in ways contrary to the
1662
requirements of the directive. The Government are carefully considering the Commission's letter and will be sending a full reply in due course.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the cost of disposing of sheep dip in the recommended way is very prohibitive for farmers? If the cost is too great, does the Minister agree that farmers might be persuaded just to open a tap and let it go? Have the Government undertaken any investigation as to whether the costs are proper in relation to the job which is done?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is obviously a cost attached to the disposal of sheep dip where a licensed contractor is employed to undertake the work. It is around £200, and up to £500 in some cases
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Earl say why the development of sheep dips not containing phenols has not been hastened? I understand that phenols do not serve much purpose in a sheep dip. I have been told that Welsh farmers like it because it gives the dip a nice smell, and that is what they have been used to over the years. It is a very important question concerning environmental safety. Can the Minister say whether the matter can be expedited?
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is a matter for the manufacturers to consider as a question of commercial judgment.

EC Exclusive Competence: Scope
3.11 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What areas would not fall within the exclusive competence of the European Community under Article 3b of Title II of the Treaty on European Union, and what areas would.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, areas which fall within the exclusive competence of the European Community are those where the comprehensive nature of the treaty's requirements for the Community to adopt a common policy prevents action within the ambit of that policy by member states. In all other areas member states remain competent to act provided their action does not conflict with existing Community rules. An example of an area of exclusive competence is the common agriculture policy. Not all action on agriculture by member states is excluded. For example, the law on agriculture holdings and fiscal policy on agriculture remain for member states.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. It goes to the heart of the Government's position when they claim that subsidiarity will be our shield against further attacks on our sovereignty by the Community. Since my noble and learned friend has not defined precisely which areas will be protected by the somewhat illusory shield of subsidiarity and those which will not, can he say by whom this vital decision will be taken? Will it

1663
be taken by the unelected Commission? Or will it be taken by the Council? If the decision is taken by the Council, will it be a majority or a unanimous vote? Or will the decision be taken by the Luxembourg court? If the court is to have anything to do with the decision, does my noble and learned friend agree with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General that our concept of judicial review is not available in that court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the definition of these areas is on the lines that I have sought to describe. I believe that that can be applied to any term of the treaty. However, as I sought to point out in the speech that I made on Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, the third paragraph of Article 3b on subsidiarity applies whether or not the area in question is an area of exclusive competence. Therefore, the rule of subsidiarity can have effect both within and outside the areas of exclusive competence of the Community. The question of what is such an area or what is the effect of subsidiarity, if disputed, is ultimately a matter for the Court of Justice of the European Community. Its decision is a decision on a matter of Community law. My noble friend referred to an answer by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. It is true that the procedures of the Court of Justice are somewhat different from ours. But the procedures of the Court of Justice enable the kind of question asked by my noble friend to be fairly and fully discussed and decided.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware, as I am sure he is, of the 24-page document published by the European Commission exactly on this subject? Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the document contradicts the treaty under discussion in that there is no such thing as exclusive competence referred to in Article 3b, but only the notion of exclusive competence? Further, is he aware that the document does not list the areas covered by that term?
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Commission itself has further contributed to the confusion, which we trust the noble and learned Lord will assist us in resolving, as regards subsidiarity, which now becomes muddled up, if I may use the term, with intensity, proportionality, the functional and material elements of it, the complementary measures required even to consider it, the hierarchy of norms, which is another bit of gobbledegook, and so on? Is the noble and learned Lord aware that this whole question has now become shrouded in such ambiguity as to become almost an abuse of Parliament?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure that I have discerned, in the clarity of the noble Lord's question, the heart of the question. If it is a question of the difference between a Community document and the treaty, there is no doubt which is the decisive document; namely, the treaty. It is of course possible to shroud even the clearest concept in mystery if one cares to aim for that. I have sought to indicate with as
1664
much clarity as I can command what the scope of that doctrine is. I believe that it is an important doctrine and that it is reasonably clearly set out in the three paragraphs of Article 3b of the treaty.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the case that some of the most valuable legal concepts are really much simpler than some people think; for instance, that of the reasonable man? Is it not the case that they are matters of degree and fact to be decided on all the circumstances of the case and that anybody with a certain amount of common sense finds no difficulty with them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I respectfully agree with my noble and learned friend. It is of course possible for people to argue at almost indefinite length about what the reasonable man would do in particular circumstances, but that in no way detracts from the value of the concept in our law. It has proved a valuable concept over many generations. I believe that subsidiarity may do the same.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept that many of us are overwhelmed with gratitude for the clarity with which he has managed to disentangle these complex arguments? Does he also agree that we are going to have, I believe, six days in which to discuss the matter in connection with the Maastricht Bill and that that will be a more suitable time for dealing with it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when Questions are put down it is the responsibility of the Government and of myself, when they happen to be allotted to me, to try to answer them within the confines of the time allowed at Question Time. I am grateful for the noble Baroness's first question.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while accepting what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said in answer to the various questions put to him, does he agree that our courts will have to take judicial notice from time to time of the decisions of the European Court of Justice as to the application of subsidiarity? Will our courts be able to rule, when the issue arises, following the precedent of the Court of Justice?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is perhaps an existing application of the doctrine of subsidiarity that the system of law within the Community is that the national courts are responsible for enforcing the law within member states but that when a question of Community law arises it may be referred for the opinion of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. If the question arises in a final court of appeal, it must be referred to Luxembourg. The decision of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg on the question of European law is final: it is then given effect to in the manner in which the national court thinks appropriate in applying the law within the member state.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in order to clarify this vital question of subsidiarity, would not the noble and learned Lord agree that Article B of Title 1 of the

1665
treaty states categorically that the acquis communautaire must be maintained in full? Does that not mean, in effect, that everything which has already been devolved to the Community by the member states can never be devolved back to them, and that therefore subsidiarity can apply only to new laws and regulations, and not to existing ones?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, strictly speaking, as adopted in the treaty, the new article will apply from the date of ratification of the treaty, which I hope will not be unduly delayed. However, the principle, once accepted, may well actuate proposals for changing the existing law. It could well be that existing laws might be shorn of some unnecessary detail as a result of a desire in the Community as a whole to simplify matters. If the Community moved in that direction, it would be in accordance with public opinion not only here, but in other member states as well.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is not the only defined definition of subsidiarity a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church which states that the Bishop of Rome shall allow the bishops and others in their own dioceses to interpret something which does not interest him at the time? If, however, he decides that it is of his interest, he can bring it back just like that. At the moment, that is the only definition of subsidiarity. Does my noble and learned friend agree that that is a rather clearer definition than the one which he has just given, because if what he has said is a clear definition, I do not know what it would be like if he was talking gobbledegook?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not agree that the definition to which my noble friend has just referred is the only one. Indeed, the latter part of his question appears to assume that it is not, because the definition of the principle in Article 3b of the treaty does not refer in any way to the Bishop of Rome. I have to say that the words used in the definition appear to me to be reasonably clear. Their application may not always be as clear, but that is often the way in relation to legal concepts. They have to be applied to the circumstances of the particular case. This Question is not so much directed to the definition of subsidiarity as to the areas of exclusive competence.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, have we not already seen a great deal of creeping competence within the Community? Is it not implicit in the Maastricht Treaty that there are to be many more areas in which the Community will be involved where previously it has not been involved? Does not experience tell us that the Community is a centralising Community and that the European Court will, in general, come down in favour of that? That is the real question. And before we pass this treaty, would it not be as well to know exactly what we are doing?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is always advisable to know exactly what we are doing, and I commend that course. In so far as I can assist the noble Lord to know exactly what he is doing in
1666
passing this treaty, as I hope that we shall, I shall be happy to do so. It is often said that the European Court of Justice has a centralising influence. The truth is, I believe, that the European Court of Justice endeavours to give effect as fully as it can to the terms of the treaty taken in their contexts. I have no doubt that it would seek to apply the same principles faithfully to construction of Article 3b of the new treaty when it becomes part of the law of the Community
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, we should be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and move on to the next Question.

Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
3.25 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated total loss of budget revenue to the Exchequer in the current financial year due to income tax relief for mortgage interest payments.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, about £4.3 billion.
Lord Jay: My Lords, since this rather arbitrary tax relief, which goes to some tax payers and not others, is no longer justifiable —certainly not in these enormous amounts—and since the Government are now so worried about the budget deficit, which is in large part due to the irresponsible tax cuts made in 1987 and 1988, would not, say, a 50 per cent. reduction in this tax relief be a very wise step towards bridging the budget gap?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will recall that in 1991 mortgage interest relief was limited to the basic rate of tax and that from next year, 1994–95, the relief will be at 20 per cent. That will reduce the borrowing requirement and be a further step towards a basic rate of 20 per cent.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, if mortgage interest relief were cancelled, what would be the impact upon house prices, especially in the lower range, and upon the mortgage security relating to them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be difficult to predict what would happen to house prices. I am certainly in no position to give that answer to my noble friend this afternoon. Clearly, however, it would disappoint a lot of potential house buyers. The Government are very proud of the help that they have been able to give to house buyers, and are delighted that people have been able to take the opportunity to own their own homes.
Lord Desai: My Lords, since the tax on domestic fuel will raise less money than the abolition of mortgage relief, have the Government carefully examined the effects of both proposals? Why did they choose the one that will benefit the better off and hurt the worse off?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I admire the noble Lord's skill at being able to translate one Question into a rather wider Question. If he would like to table that Question I am sure that a Minister would answer it on behalf of the Government.

Business
3.28 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the National Lottery etc. Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the time-limited Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be taken. Following the recent agreement by the House to this new procedure for time-limiting dinner break Unstarred Questions, no speech on the Question should exceed 12 minutes in length.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has been re-committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clause 3,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 4 and 5,

Schedule 4,

Clause 6,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 7 to 19,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 20 and 21,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 22 to 34.—(Viscount St. Davids.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Lottery etc. Bill
3.29 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Director General of the National Lottery]:
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 26, line 24, after ("staff") insert ("and advisers").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 12, 16 and 28. Taken together, they form the substance of the amendment that I am moving. I should like to say at the outset that the amendments are not intended to damage or alter the Bill dramatically in any way. I believe in the Bill and in its purposes. What I do not believe is that the mechanism for achieving that is as perfect as it should be. My amendments are concerned with one thing only; that is, that the mechanism for implementing the worthwhile purposes of the Bill should be put into the hands not of a body corporate but of a charitable foundation. The lottery should be run as a charity.
I have a number of reasons for saying that, but all of them suppose that the Bill's aim since it was first announced in the manifesto, in all its stages in another place and here is that there are five good causes which should benefit from it: arts, sports, national heritage, the Millenium Fund and charities in general. That is set out as clearly as can be in the Bill and should not be altered, because together they form what I call the foundation of our life, the quality of it, and the lottery will enhance it with the sums it raises beyond any measure we have so far seen.
Why therefore do I suggest that there should be any change? Partly, and first, because a charitable foundation would spell out exactly the Bill's purposes. It is for a charitable purpose. It is not a lottery designed merely to make anyone rich beyond the fortunate winner of the lottery. It is to make the nation rich by the methods I have already outlined. It would sit well with other charities, and many other charities have been worried about the effect a national lottery may have upon their life.
I do not believe that those effects will be as serious as some have outlined. It is interesting to look at Ireland, which has featured greatly in everyone's statistics lately. Just under half the charities questioned in Ireland about whether they had won or lost as a result of the introduction of a national lottery answered. The top 20 grew by an overall 30 per cent. after the introduction of a lottery; some 32 per cent. of them were forced, I believe beneficially, to think clearly about their means of raising money, and whether they could be effective and efficient; and only 15 per cent. suffered any loss.
If the predictions of a national lottery's income are correct, something not far short of £200 million will be going to charities through the new charities foundation or committee which is set up by the Bill. I should have thought that that was more than enough to compensate for any possible loss to charities. I see that there are other amendments down which suggest that such statistics should be published to this place regularly. I see no reason why not. If everyone is worried about the effect of a lottery, any monitoring mechanism that would report back to both Houses of Parliament on the effect of a lottery should be welcomed. I do not believe that charities will suffer as has been predicted. If the lottery itself were a charity, it would sit better.
Another reason why I believe a charitable foundation would do better than what is suggested in the Bill is that I do not believe that it is necessary for big business to run, at a profit, for a percentage, the lottery. There is a superstition abroad that only big business knows how to make big money. That is not true. There are plenty of charitable foundations which make a great deal of money without the incentive of a piece of the action at the end of the day. I have nothing against big business or the making of money. There will be enough to be made within the lottery: the provision of its equipment; provision of its ticketing facilities. There will be plenty of money for the expert firms of this country, and thank goodness we have several of them. I have nothing against big business, but I can see no reason why the amount of money raised by the lottery should be subject to a percentage, or a business. It could do it without it. That is a good reason why the lottery should be a charity and not a business.
Lastly, everyone says, "Well, the amount of money needed to set up the lottery in the first place will be enormous". Indeed it will. The sheer physical machinery required will need money, and predictions range from £100 million, £200 million or even £300 million. The experience of lotteries all over the world shows that they are a good banking risk. I can see no reason why the money required should not be raised in ordinary banking terms. Whoever does so, and if he banks for the lottery, will be banking in terms of billions over the years. There is no need for a percentage in that. The ordinary banking facilities will be enormous.
I do not believe that it would be difficult to raise from the banking community the capital necessary to run the lottery from the start. It has even been suggested that a charity will only be able to give to other charities, that some legal constraint will be placed upon it. The only legal constraints that will be placed upon a charitable foundation will be the legal constraints put within the very terms of the foundation. I understand that the Sports Council is worried on that score. But it is significant that this very morning in The Times there is a letter from 11 of the most distinguished sportsmen in this country suggesting that a charitable foundation is the only way for the lottery properly to proceed and to provide the money that sport so badly needs and about which the Prime Minister spoke so eloquently when he first introduced the measure in the manifesto.
The second reason why I believe a charitable foundation would be a much better advised mechanism than the one suggested in the Bill is that there is too much government influence spread throughout the Bill. Two of my amendments replace the words, "Secretary of State" with "Director General". By "Director General", which is already in the Bill, of course I mean the director general of the charitable foundation that I propose.
It must be remembered that we are not dealing with public money. That is a good argument for saying that there should be no tax upon it. I am, however, well aware that that does not form part of the Bill, and it
1670
cannot form part of my amendments. It has been announced, although happily not confirmed—I hope that it will not be for a long time—that the tax will run at 12 per cent. I believe, and I have a strong suspicion that many Members of the Committee agree with me, that there should be no tax at all. It would probably even benefit the Treasury not to tax the lottery. The spin-offs of the spending on arts, sports, the environment and all the other things would come back to it more fully that way than by tax. I cannot argue that the charitable foundation is a tax device because it is not part of our competence to argue that this afternoon.
It should be remembered that when the Government suggest that a 12 per cent. tax is justifiable because it will compensate for tax or income to the Treasury lost in other ways because of the lottery, that assumes that every penny spent upon it would have been spent upon something which would have provided tax of at least 12 per cent. It is never mentioned, however, that almost all the funds raised by the lottery and the projects into which they go—the heritage, arts and sports—would surely have been asked for from the Government. I do not say that the Government would necessarily have granted them, but they would nevertheless be the sort of funds for which one would look to the Government.
It cannot be an accident that the British Museum owes a great deal to the lotteries of the past. It cannot be an accident that the Government have handsomely and sensibly spent an immense sum of money on the new British Library. If a lottery had been able to provide those funds it would have saved the Treasury more in a decade than it could have gained in tax.
Therefore, I do not believe that the Government should have as big a say in the Bill as they do now. The Secretary of State has powers in all kinds of directions. I believe that they should be delegated to the director general of this charitable foundation, who ought to be within the control of Parliament; indeed, he must be. One of my amendments would ensure that he is, in perhaps a complicated way, by misplacing a clause from one part of the Bill to another part. I cannot believe that the Government should have the degree of control that they have. My proposal would not damage the lottery or the nation's chances one whit.
Thirdly, the Bill provides that the money should be paid directly to five recipients and that five people should decide upon the spending of that money. They are all good and sufficient bodies. They are: the Sports Council, the Arts Council, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the new Millennium Commission and the new charities organisation to be set up by the Bill. Please believe that my amendments do not suppose that those bodies are not to be considered. Indeed, they will remain the most important sources of advice and counsel on how to spend the money. However, I believe that they should not be the only sources of counsel, advice and decision. That is why the first amendment standing in my name adds to the power of the director-general to appoint his staff the power to appoint his advisors.
I believe that a charitable foundation will ensure the fair running of the lottery. It will ensure as well as

1671
any organisation can that the maximum amount of money will go to the causes in which we all believe and not into private pockets, government pockets, or elsewhere. I cannot believe that this is anything but an entirely sensible and beneficial amendment. I hope that Members on all sides of the Committee will feel free to support me. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, moved his amendments in an attractive way. Indeed, they are attractive amendments because all of us would like to see maximised the extent to which the proceeds of the national lottery go to the beneficiaries, the good causes, provided for in the Bill.
My anxiety about the amendments arises from a point to which the noble Lord referred but on which he did not elaborate. The matter was raised in a letter from the Sports Council within the previous two days and we need to know the facts. The Sports Council claims that if the lottery franchise were won by a charitable foundation applicants for grants to that charitable foundation would themselves have to prove that their purposes are charitable. The good causes provided for in the Bill cover a wide range of arts, sports, national heritage, charities and the Millennium Fund. Many of those have charitable status but many, such as small sports organisations, do not.
I now address my remarks to the Minister. If it is correct that applicants to a charitable foundation must themselves have charitable status, all the attractive arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, fall to the ground. I should like to know the facts about that matter before we go further.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: We on these Benches listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. He has part paternity in the Bill and must therefore be listened to with particular interest and respect. The noble Lord probably knows that we do not share his enthusiasm for the Bill as a whole. We approach it with great scepticism and in some senses have reservations about its whole principle.
The noble Lord has, however, made a powerful case for a charitable foundation. It would be a large charity, would it not? On some estimates it would deal with between £2 billion and £4 billion per year; it would be a kind of super charity. We on these Benches have an open mind about whether that is the correct way in which to achieve the aim. However, our attitude will be conditioned by the Government's response to the question about the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that they are far too wide. The discretion which the Bill gives to the Secretary of State is extremely comprehensive and it should be limited in one way or another. Of course, the powers given to the director general of the new foundation will have that effect. We shall see during Committee what restrictions the Government are prepared to accept on the powers of the Secretary of State. That might, in turn, condition our response to the proposal for a charitable foundation. I share the reservation of the
1672
noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which was also passed to me from the Sports Council. I should like to hear the Government's response to that.
If we are to have such a lottery it is important that it is run as professionally as possible, that it is marketed as efficiently as possible, and that it is conducted as responsibly as possible. There is no point in having a national lottery unless it is properly run. In that regard, I shall be interested to hear the Government's reaction to the prospect of the charitable foundation being the operative body within the Bill.
Baroness Seear: While I do not disagree with my noble friend I believe that there is no earthly reason to suppose that a charity will not be professionally run. The days when charities were run by well-meaning amateurs are long past. Almost all the large voluntary organisations and charities employ extremely competent and professional people to run them. There is every reason to suppose that a charity on this scale will attract and deploy some of the highest talent in the field. My only reservation about the amendment relates to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is essential that this body should be able to give out its money more widely than to registered charities. I cannot believe that a way cannot be found round that. If it can, the noble Lord's amendment has everything to recommend it.
Lord Rix: Somewhat to my surprise I rise to support the amendment, because I do not see eye to eye with my noble friend Lord Birkett on the working of the charitable foundation. If the amendment falls today I shall on Report propose a mechanism co-ordinating both the body corporate and the charitable foundation, which can undertake the administration of the lottery.
In speaking in support of the amendment as it stands, I refer to a letter that I, as Chairman of MENCAP, wrote on 16th January to Mr. Robert Key, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage. I stated:
"as I understand Part I of the Bill, the body licensed to run the Lottery and the bodies licensed to promote it could be entrepreneurs in business to make a profit. Put bluntly, the overall system, taking account of all expenses, profits and tax, suggests an invitation to the punter—who used to put £1 in the collecting tin knowing that about 90% of it would go directly to a charitable cause—to put £1 in the Lottery knowing that 90% of it will go elsewhere. I would hate to see the Lottery renamed the Lootery. Would not direct administration by a Government Agency, or using a non-profit Company provide better guarantees?".
That was my letter on 16th January. I have had reason to change my thinking slightly as to that charitable foundation since that time. However, I support some form of charitable foundation, perhaps in co-operation with a business enterprise, so that it can be run expertly but also so that more money would be available for the five constituent bodies which will receive money from the lottery. Indeed, the charitable foundation could be made up of those bodies themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, questioned whether a charitable foundation could give to non-charities. In my experience, which I admit is

1673
limited to the MENCAP City Foundation and the King George V fund, those foundations have given to bodies which are not charities. I cannot believe that that would not apply in this case.
Finally, two nights ago the Performance Alliance held a reception within the Palace of Westminster in the Jubilee Room—Equity, the Writers' Guild and the Musicians' Union —where it was said:
"Under the present proposals too little money is allocated to the worthy causes representing a mere 5 per cent."—
actually it is less—
"for each category, ie, arts, sport, national heritage, the Millennium Fund and Charities with the lion's share going to the Exchequer".
I shall support the amendment, although I have reservations as to the means by which the charitable foundation will operate.
Lord Howell: I support the views which have just been expressed. It is interesting that this first set of amendments goes to the heart of the anxieties of many of us that the Government will kill the golden goose before it has laid a single egg. In other words, the windfall for charities, for good causes, for sport, the arts and so on will be so insignificant after the 12 per cent. tax and the considerable running costs and profits for the operators that disillusionment will set in. Faced with the very competitive situation provided by football pools, which are themselves a lottery these days, the lottery will fail.
On Second Reading some of us expressed those views. We hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider his predecessor's proposal to impose a 12 per cent. tax on the lottery. I do not know whether the Minister who is to reply is able to offer any words of comfort now, although we understand the difficulties of speaking about taxation when the Chancellor is considering those matters for the next Budget. That is one reason why the proposal for this charitable foundation has come about: to protect the good causes from the ravages of the operators and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in imposing his tax. Therefore, this is an extremely serious proposal which in my judgment deserves support.
I am astonished that the Sports Council has written a letter which states that a charitable body cannot give money or make grants to non-charitable bodies. That seems to me to be the purport of the letter which I read with some anxiety. If that were the case, I must have broken the law many times because I sit on a number of charitable bodies and it has never previously been explained to me that I am not able to make grants to organisations which are not charitable. We give grants to people who we believe are proceeding to enhance the objectives of our charity, whether or not they are charities. That point needs to be clarified.
I am no expert on this matter but the whole of charitable law in this country is in a somewhat chaotic state. Therefore, it seems to me that proceeding along the lines of the amendment, Parliament would need to look at the status of charities as a whole, the restrictions imposed upon them and the objectives which they can embrace. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will appreciate the importance of the amendments. In my judgment, they may be the key to
1674
whether the lottery will prove to be successful or otherwise. For that reason, I am disposed to support the amendment unless the Minister can give us assurances in other directions that the proceeds available to the good causes will not be as restricted as some of us fear they may be.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, made it quite clear that his amendments refer only to Part I of the Bill which is concerned with the way in which money is raised by the lottery. They are not concerned with the distribution and he has been so open as to say that he does not wish to challenge what is in Clause 20, which deals with how the money will be distributed.
I must confess that I cannot see that there will be any great difference between the amount of money raised by the method proposed in Part I and the amount of money raised under the method advocated by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of what the effect will be on charities. It is no doubt my fault but I had not studied the amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, until he began to speak to them; I have not discussed this with the noble Lord, Lord Rix; and I have received no briefing from MENCAP on the subject. Therefore, I am expressing my own opinion.
Charities like MENCAP receive their funds in various ways—small local lotteries, gift aid to an increasing extent and in various other ways. I am rather worried that if this group of amendments were accepted, some people would say, "Oh, don't let us give our money to our usual charities. Let's give it to this charitable foundation", proposed by the noble Lord. I fear that charities' income from various sources, especially from small lotteries, may suffer if the amendments are accepted. That is merely a question of what the purchasers of lottery tickets may think.
I believe that that is a factor that needs to be borne in mind by MENCAP and by all who are interested in charities of one kind or another which receive some of their funds from lotteries and, indeed, those charities which receive funds in other ways as well.
On the question of how much money altogether might be raised, I should like to hear what the Government have to say. It is very difficult to make an estimate or a comparison but at this moment I cannot see that the method proposed by the amendment would lead to larger sums being contributed. It may do but I believe that it would be marginal.
As regards the costs of administering and operating the scheme, I should have thought that the charitable foundation proposed by the noble Lord and the body corporate proposed by the Government are likely to have the same kind of administrative costs. I cannot see that there would be very much difference. Having said that, I do not wish to continue and become tedious. I hope that I have said enough to show that there does not seem to be any clear or great advantage either to charities or to the scheme as a hole by accepting the amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I am prompted to intervene by hearing the noble Lord, Lord Howell, say that charity law should be reviewed. Thinking of the time that we spent discussing what became the Charities Act, I find that slightly depressing. I have two comments to make. I share the great problem that, although the charity envisaged by the noble Lord would not be obliged to make grants to bodies which were themselves charitable, my understanding is that they would be obliged to limit their grants to bodies whose work could be described as having a charitable purpose.
My other point concerns a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. He said that there was no question of altering the proposals about taxation. If we are to have a charitable body raising money and 12 per cent. tax is to be paid on it, that seems to me to be setting a precedent which other charities would not welcome.
Lord Swinfen: I am not in favour of the amendment. I should, however, first declare an interest as I am employed by a charity. I follow very strongly the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In my view, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, was accepted, it would very considerably reduce the income of many charities, especially those small charities which rely a good deal on local lotteries. I say that because the general public would think that they were giving £1 for every £1 that they paid to the national lottery to charity, when in actual fact it comes out at a one figure percentage.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that a charitable grant-making body can give to organisations and individuals that are not themselves charitable by registration but are charitable by what they do and by virtue of the cause that the funds support. However, as I understand it, under the legislation the expression is "good causes", which goes rather wider than causes that could be considered to be charitable. There will be a number of instances when it is quite right and proper for money to be given under the national lottery to a good cause that in no way could be considered charitable.
My further point is purely an inquiry. If the amendment is accepted and a foundation introduced, will it not be limited in the number of lotteries that it can run during the year, or in the size of the lottery, both under the Bill and under current charity law?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am not in favour of this wolf being put in sheep's clothing. We are hearing much about charity in connection with the Bill. Indeed, the very first amendment talks about a charity and a charitable foundation. But there is no charity in the Bill: it is a money-making Bill for those who want to promote it. Many people will make a great deal of money out of it.
It seems to me that in such matters our sense of hypocrisy rises to the surface. We do not want to call a spade a spade and we are thinking of all the words that we can use in connection with the national lottery which will give it a more respectable appearance. To
1676
my mind, there is no doubt that charity comes into the Bill not for charity's sake and not because charities have asked for it, but because it makes a lottery more respectable. So far as I am concerned, I draw upon my earlier nonconformist conscience. I am dead against it.
Viscount Astor: The proposed new clause seeks to allow Parliament to prescribe the powers and duties of the director general by resolution of both Houses. Those duties of the director general have been drafted into the Bill because the Government feel that they provide the crucial underpinning of the whole of the lottery operation. To set additional duties would represent a massive and unnecessary transfer in the burden of responsibility from the director general. The matters which would be discussed under the proposed amendment would be predominantly operational matters, not matters of policy which are for the Secretary of State. That would not, I suggest, be a good way to run a successful national lottery.
The performance of the director general will be clear from the annual report of the director general which will be laid before Parliament and will be open to parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, would like to change the role of the director general entirely. Instead of taking sole charge of the regulation of the lottery and the licensing of games, which together is no small task, the director general and his advisers would perhaps form an overall board which would also be involved in the distribution of the money available for good causes. That is an extension of the director general's role.
One of the strongest points which emerged from the consultation period after the publication of the White Paper last year was that the functions of running the game and of distributing the money should be kept entirely separate from one another.
It has been suggested that the regulatory role of OFLOT will not be onerous: I should like to dispel that notion now. We intend that the director general, through his staff, should keep a very close eye on the operation of the lottery, including looking at cash flows and banking arrangements and conducting a continual and detailed audit. The job seems to me to be very different from the overall supervision of the distributing bodies.
There is a suggestion here, which I cannot accept, that the appointment of a new person to oversee all of the distribution process will better allow for a visionary use of lottery funds which would not otherwise happen. In our discussions with the bodies which will distribute the money, it has been very clear that those bodies see the lottery as presenting a wholly new opportunity. The arts and sports councils and the National Heritage Memorial Fund do not consider the lottery as merely an adjunct to their existing responsibilities but as a new area of activity to be taken forward creatively and with a new vision of what can be achieved in each of those major areas to improve and enhance the quality of life for the nation.
The Charities Board and the Millennium Commission will also be appointed precisely because of their ability to view the needs of the nation in a strategic and far-sighted way. I am confident that all the distributing bodies will use the lottery funds to

1677
enhance significantly the quality of national life, with a strategic and visionary framework within which to make decisions on the multitude of worthy applications which will come in. That is no small risk. I do not think that it would be sensible for any one person—even the director general—to take on that supervisory role. Therefore, I cannot see the involvement of the director general in the distribution process as being sensible; I believe that it would be misguided and ill-conceived. It might even mean that the operation and regulation of the lottery did not receive due attention, leaving the revenue-raising arm exposed to the risks of under-performance.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, proposes to make it a statutory requirement that the licence to run the lottery and the licences to run games as part of the lottery could only be held by a charitable foundation. I think that the noble Lord should be aware that such a requirement would place inflexible limits on the kinds of project which the lottery is able to fund. For example, if the amendment was accepted, we might find that a project which the majority of people considered should be able to receive money was excluded by the articles of the foundation.
At present, charities which derive some of their income from lotteries often decide to contract with a company for a lottery to be run on their behalf. This is in recognition of the fact that business skills are very different from expertise in grant-making and—dare I say?—lobbying, or any other functions which the voluntary and charitable sectors perform to such good effect in this country.
The Government have taken the important decision that the private sector will deliver the most effective operation for the lottery. There is nothing to suggest that a charitable organisation would be able to introduce a more successful UK lottery or, indeed, raise any more money. There is some evidence to suggest that it would not. Let me put to rest two misunderstandings, on profits and taxation. First, a charitable foundation would still need to employ profit-making companies actually to run the lottery, supply the equipment, print the tickets and handle the marketing. Therefore the level of operating costs would be the same and the profit would be no lower or higher. The lottery would still have to be run in a businesslike way.
Secondly, it is not true that a charitable foundation would not be required to pay the 12 per cent. tax which was announced on 16th March. I can assure the Committee that the tax would be levied by the Chancellor on the turnover of the lottery, regardless of the type of organisation which runs it. It is a tax on the lottery, not a tax on charities as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, suggested.
The running of a successful lottery, raising as much as possible for good causes, is a serious commercial operation. We believe that it should be the responsibility of a reputable and efficient private sector operator, with the skills and experience to launch and market a new product successfully. In drafting this Bill the Government have sought a balance between the public regulatory role, played by
1678
the Secretary of State and the director general; the distribution role played by the bodies in Clause 21, with financial monitoring by the Secretary of State and Parliament; and the commercial function of introducing a successful lottery. I think that the structure we have devised will make it possible for government and Parliament, the public distributing bodies, and the private sector, all to use their strengths to the full, and for each to complement the activities of the other, rather than duplicate them. I firmly believe that the concept of the lottery is too large for a single body, no matter where it might look for advice.
The Bill sets out that there should be accountability to Parliament. To establish a lottery as a charity would blur the lines of accountability, with direct accountability to the Charity Commissioners and not to Parliament. We live in a parliamentary democracy. As regards something as important to national life as the lottery, it is important that Parliament has first call on scrutinising what will become an important national institution. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was in a way arguing against this amendment, although perhaps he is in favour of it, when he talked about killing the goose that lays the golden egg. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that we want a well-run, efficient, properly-run lottery. I agree with my noble friend Lord Swinfen that the purpose of the lottery is to help good causes. Some of those good causes may not be charities.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked me about the letter from the Sports Council and whether applicants to the charitable foundation must be charities. If the charitable foundation operates under charity law, the beneficiaries would have to be charitable. It is true that a charity may give to a non-charity—for example, an individual or organisation—but the latter must be in need of philanthropic or charitable benefaction. Therefore, some good causes could lose out.
The Government gave an undertaking in their election manifesto to introduce a lottery. The Bill reflects the sort of lottery which the Government want to introduce, after over 12 months of consideration and determination to get it right. The Government have talked to many bodies involved in this matter. These amendments would totally unravel the structure which the Government consider essential to a sound lottery. They would create a totally different lottery, and not one which the Committee would want. I believe this new clause runs contrary to the whole concept of the efficiency and accountability of the national lottery to Parliament.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have been debating a group of amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. I do not know whether he agreed to the grouping or proposed it, but the grouping contains a number of different issues and it is important that we should get our minds clear about what it is we are debating. Most of the earlier discussion concerned Amendments Nos. 9 and 16, which provide that the body running the lottery should itself be a charitable

1679
foundation rather than a body corporate. The Minister chose in his reply almost to ignore that aspect and concentrate on the other amendments, in particular the proposed new clause, which refer to the relationship between the Secretary of State and the director general. As a result, I do not think we have reached the firm conclusion from our discussions that we need to reach.
Viscount Astor: I believe I clearly covered the matter of why the lottery should not be a charitable foundation. I covered the tax issue and the complications caused when charities give to bodies that may not be charities. I also discussed the issue of turnover raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. If the noble Lord had listened carefully, he would have heard me cover those issues during my speech.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened carefully and I acknowledge that the noble Viscount covered those points although they were somewhat swamped by the other points he made which did not bear any relation to the issue that most Members of the Committee wished to discuss. The noble Viscount gave an unqualified reply to my question and I am grateful to him for that. The reply he gave was—this seems to me the most significant point to come out of the discussion so far—that a charitable foundation could only give to a charity. A number of Members of the Committee said that they are involved in charities which give to non-charities. If a charitable foundation gives to a non-charity—I assume that Members of the Committee are not breaking the law—then the gift must be for a charitable purpose. I believe that is what the Government are saying.
The question on which we must resolve to make up our minds is this: is there a significant body of good causes within the scope of the legislation under the headings of arts, sport, national heritage, charities and the Millennium Fund which is neither a charity itself nor run for charitable purposes? The Sports Council is suggesting that there are many small sports clubs around the country which are not charities themselves and are not run for charitable purposes; they are simply clubs. If we can resolve that question of fact as to whether there is a significant body of good causes to which the proceeds of the lottery should be devoted, which do not fall within the category and which could be provided for by a charitable foundation, then I am afraid the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, fall. If that is not the case, they do not.
Viscount Astor: I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has rather misquoted me. As regards charities giving to non-charities, he made various remarks which are totally at variance with what I was at pains to explain to the Committee. I said that a charity can give to a non-charity—an individual or organisation—but it must be in need of philanthropic or charitable benefaction. I was clear on that point. I believe that addresses the issue. However, the most important issue which the noble Lord has perhaps chosen not to emphasise is that if this amendment
1680
were accepted it would remove the accountability of the national lottery to Parliament. We consider that to be very important.
Baroness Seear: What the Minister did not address, however, is something that lies at the heart of this amendment. If the lottery were organised by a charity, a larger sum of money would go to charities at the end of the day because less would go to either the profits of the undertaking running it, or to the Government. A member of the Committee said that he was afraid that this would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Many of us are afraid that the Government are going to eat the golden eggs.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I believe that my argument shows that we care about charitable lotteries. One of the complications of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is that it confuses the national lottery with charitable lotteries. We have always been at pains to point out that the national lottery is not a charitable lottery. It is a lottery in which the primary objective of people who take part will be to win prizes. Their primary objective will not be to give to charities. It is important that some of the money raised will go to good causes, but I stress that when somebody buys a lottery ticket they will not be buying that ticket for charitable purposes. They will be buying a ticket in order to win a prize.
If we make the national lottery a charity we shall totally confuse the issue in relation to important charitable lotteries, which we do not want to suffer. We do not want anybody to be confused when they buy a ticket in the national lottery into thinking that they are supporting a charity. If they want to support a charity they will buy a ticket in a lottery run by one of the charities. That is a totally separate issue. To create the national lottery as a charitable foundation will have a detrimental effect on charities.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I believe that this point will run through our deliberations in Committee. Does he accept that people's motives are bound to be mixed? They will both hope to win a prize and hope that as large a proportion of their money as possible will do some good and go to good causes rather than specifically to charities. Does the Minister accept that for the lottery to be successful there will be a mixture of motives on the part of the people who participate in it?
Viscount Astor: I am sure that there will be a mixture of motives. However, I believe that the primary motive in the national lottery will be to win a prize. A secondary motive will be that a proportion of the money paid for a lottery ticket will go to good causes. If we blur the distinction between the national lottery and charitable lotteries that can only have a detrimental effect on charitable lotteries.
Lord Birkett: I believe that it would be helpful, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, if at this stage I said that the grouping of these five amendments together was given to me today. I agree

1681
with it entirely, for the simple reason that all the amendments relate to the nature of the body which will run the lottery. I would not have proposed changes between "Secretary of State" and "Director General" had I not assumed that we were talking of a charitable foundation in the first place. The amendments all go together. Nor would I have suggested "advisers" as well as "staff" in the slightly marginal area of how the money is spent in the long run had I not supposed that that body would come into existence. Therefore, I can assure the Committee that I am entirely happy for all the amendments to stand or fall by the one which happens to come first.
There has been a great deal of confusion about charities, good causes, philanthropy and so forth this afternoon. Someone described me as noble and learned. I wish I were, because then I could answer the point. Alas, I am not learned. I am in exactly the same position as a number of Members of the Committee in that I serve on charitable bodies, and in some cases I chair them. Indeed, I give money left, right and centre to causes which are not charities. However, I always do so for the charitable purpose of the charity concerned. Our experiences are vastly different, but in this case the charitable purpose would be the very purpose set out in the Bill. It would obviously be necessary to set up a charitable foundation with those objects in mind.
I cannot think of anybody who will fall through the net. It is said that there may be organisations which would not be able to receive money. I cannot think of any, assuming that the charitable foundation is set up to do exactly what the Bill intends.
Therefore, I cannot say that anybody has persuaded me that I am on a wrong tack here. Perhaps I may take one or two moments to reassure some Members of the Committee, particularly in relation to other charities. I do not believe that a national lottery on this scale will divert people from a small lottery for their local hospital or local church or all the charitable purposes to which we have been used to subscribing over the years. I believe that they will be regarded as being totally different. This lottery has a general purpose while those have particular purposes. We espouse particular purposes in particular small lotteries. I do not believe that those will suffer. I believe that the public will make an immediate and obvious distinction.
The noble Viscount said that people will enter the lottery to win. Indeed they will. If I put in £1 I shall hope to win, like anybody else. However, I would have a reassurance which I do not have when I gamble in any other way; when I lose, at least a proportion of my money will go to a cause that I am very happy should receive it. That is more than one can say at a racecourse.
How much of the money goes to those good causes is another matter which has been raised a great deal this afternoon. It is more or less accepted as axiomatic in the lottery world, which includes almost every nation except ourselves, that about 50 per cent. of the money placed into the lottery should be set aside for prizes, in whatever shape or form they take—perhaps
1682
big ones at the top and lots of small ones at the bottom. We have discussed that question often enough in this Chamber. Unless 50 per cent. goes into prize money the incentive of the lottery will be lost. That is not my wisdom; it is the wisdom and experience of the accumulated lotteries of the world.
That leaves 50 per cent. In what way will the lottery do better if my amendments are accepted this afternoon? Everybody has pointed out that there will be sizeable administrative expenses, just as there would be with a non-charitable foundation or body corporate. Yes, there will be. It will have exactly the same expenses. However, it will not take a percentage of the profits, which a commercial company would expect to earn on top of the expenses of running the lottery. That is the difference. If 15 per cent.—which is the average around the world for the expenses of running a lottery—is the right amount, I believe that there should not be an additional 15 per cent. to pay back to the shareholders of the company. My ideal would be to see a lottery in which 50 per cent. of its income is spent on prizes, 15 per cent. on expenses and the remaining 35 per cent. goes to good causes.
The noble Viscount pointed out that its being a charity will not stop the Treasury from taxing the body which runs the lottery. I am afraid that I believe him. Nothing will stop the Treasury, in certain moods, from taxing anything. I do not say that making the body running the lottery a charity would avoid taxation. I say no such thing. However, I hope that the Treasury might conceivably tax it with a little more shame and more lightly, or perhaps reconsider its decisions. The amendment would not make the Treasury do so, but it might make the Treasury inclined to think more about the tax aspect.
I turn now to the whole question of parliamentary responsibility and the duties of the director general. The entire body is set up by Parliament. Parliament would have the means of overhauling it or dismantling it. It would not become separate from the wishes of the nation because it was a charitable foundation. To suppose that we would somehow let out of the nation's grasp something intended to benefit the nation is not the case.
Nor is it the case that the director general would suddenly find enormous duties thrust upon him when he already has enough duties set out in the Bill as it stands. It is perfectly possible for an organisation to deal with the three segments of the life of the lottery —setting it up, regulating it and the payment of the proceeds. It is perfectly possible for an organisation to employ people to carry out all of those functions, just as possible as it is for three separate bodies to do it. There would be no more complications and no more staff involved. Indeed, there might even be a streamlining of the organisation if there were only one body. The director general would not be overwhelmed. The functions would have to be performed by somebody. I believe that more functions should be performed by him than by the Secretary of State. That is all. They will have to be performed sooner or later. I do not share the noble Viscount's view of an overwhelming and intolerable burden being placed on one individual.

1683
I have heard nothing this afternoon that dissuades me from the view that what I have proposed is the best and most advantageous way of running the lottery. It will not spoil it. The noble Viscount suggested that it would make it a totally different lottery. It will not. It will make it the lottery that we all want. It will not need an unravelling of its own organisation. Nor does the proposal aim to unravel the organisation put together in the Bill. I believe that the provision simplifies it. I cannot believe that it is not a sensible way of going about it. I urge noble Lords to believe that the five amendments that I have put forward represent the best chance of making the lottery—
Lord Renton: There may be one point that the noble Lord overlooks. It is this. The director general whom he proposes in place of the Secretary of State will not be answerable in Parliament for the decisions that he takes. The Secretary of State will be answerable; and that is a great safeguard.
Lord Birkett: That is true. The provision for the director general that I propose already exists in the Bill. It is simply an extension of his responsibilities.
It is worth remembering that the Bill states quite clearly the purposes for which the money shall be used and the organisation that must set it up. Within the Bill restraints are placed upon all manners of operation—they are entirely sensible—which the director general must accept, as the Secretary of State must. It states quite clearly the split of proceeds—to whom they shall go in the long run. None of that will be changed. Parliament has the ultimate and overriding responsibility to make sure that the lottery runs well. If it does not, it needs merely ordinary parliamentary procedures to bring it to heel. I cannot believe that a director general is more likely to evade the ire of Parliament than a Secretary of State. In fact, I believe that a Secretary of State is in a better position to dodge than a director general will be.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Birkett, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mulley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Newall, L.

Foot, L.

Rix, L.

Gibson, L.[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Grantchester, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Listowel, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Benson, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Annaly, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Astor, V.

Boardman, L.

Auckland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Barber, L.

Brigstocke, B.

1684

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Caldecote, V.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Moyne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Munster, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Congleton, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Craigavon, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Crathorne, L.

Orkney, E.

Cross, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V.

Porritt, L.

Denham, L.

Prentice, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Prior, L.

Dormer, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Downshire, M.

Reay, L.

Dudley, E.

Rennell, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elibank, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich,

Erne, E.

Bp.

Erroll, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sandford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Foley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Harvington, L.

Swaythling, L.

Hastings, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wakeham, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Warnock, B.

Long, V.

Waterford, M.

Lucas, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Lyell, L.

Wise, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wynford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 26, line 44, at end insert:
("The Council on Tribunals
.—(1) In section 7 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (which restricts Ministers' powers to remove members of tribunals listed in Schedule 1 to that Act) in subsection (2) (tribunals to which that section does not apply) after "33(a)," there shall be inserted "33A,".
(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (tribunals under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals) after paragraph 33 there shall be inserted—

1685
"National Lottery33A. The Director General of the National Lottery in respect of his functions under section 10 of and Schedule 3 to the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c.00), and any member of the Director General's staff authorised under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to that Act to exercise any of those functions." ")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and speak to Amendments Nos. 29 to 36. These amendments are technical, although they have a practical effect. They will allow oral representations to be made to the director general against the proposed revocation of a licence and will also bring the director general under the supervision of the council on tribunals when revoking licences and give the Secretary of State power to make regulations on the procedure to be followed in connection with the hearing of oral representations. The revised procedure proposed under the amendments will allow a 21-day period for written representations and for expressing the intention to make oral representations. The Secretary of State is currently minded, when making regulations under the new powers, to provide that the director general must give seven days' notice of his intention to hold an oral hearing. That could allow the process to be completed within 28 days.
We have decided that it is right and fair that the director general should be under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals in respect of the revocation of a licence, and that the operator, if he wishes to make representations, should enjoy procedures which are laid down in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The amendments will ensure that the procedures are fair and impartial and so provide a proper balance between the interests of the operator and those of the lottery as a whole. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Overriding duties of the Secretary of State and Director General]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 10, after ("propriety") insert ("in a manner that does not encourage the purchase of lottery tickets by those under 18 years old or those on low or no incomes.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and anything else I may say during the Committee stage of the Bill are entirely without prejudice to my overriding objection to the Bill in principle. Although I shall help now and again to improve the Bill, that will not in any way prejudice my objection to it.
The amendment proposes to add a second pious hope to the one already in the Bill. Clause 4(1) states that the Secretary of State and the director of the lottery shall be responsible for seeing,
"that the National Lottery is run, and every lottery that forms part of it … with all due propriety".
Those are almost weasel words. The amendment proposes to define the legislation a little more closely in one respect; namely, that it shall be conducted,
1686
"in a manner that does not encourage the purchase of lottery tickets by those under 18 years old or those on low or no incomes".
There are many things that we think that young persons under the age of 18 should not do. All of them are difficult to enforce; nevertheless they remain in our law as a declaration of intent. I do not apologise for introducing the age factor as regards the selling of lottery tickets. I do not believe that anyone who buys a lottery ticket feels uplifted by it. I have met no one who felt that he had been spiritually reinforced through buying a lottery ticket. He does not feel better for it, nor has he any sense of having supported a good cause. On the whole, the purchase is made in rather commonplace conditions.
We try to discourage young people under the age of 18 forming bad habits or indulging in behaviour which is not becoming in society. With the Bill, we are on the downward slide. Its influence and effect socially and morally will probably be widespread and unpleasant. I do not like it.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has just left the Chamber; otherwise I should say that he is an expert on what young people under the age of 18 should not do. He is a member of the British Board of Film Classification and a kind of censor of video nasties, which occupy your Lordships' House from time to time. Members of the board know, instinctively almost, what young people under the age of 18 should not be allowed to see. Of course, young people laugh their heads off about what they should not be allowed to see: they could tell the film censors a few things about what they should not be allowed to see.
However, I must not divert from my main theme. I am sure that the Government will not feel that they have to object to the amendment on strong political or other lines; it is just an addition to what they probably wish to happen. In case the Committee wonders what has brought together the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and myself—we are not usually in the same Division Lobby, as I explained on Second Reading, I am a subscriber to the policy of the Jubilee Policy Group on the Bill and it happens to have suggested this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: When the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, states at the end of the debate what he intends to do with the amendment, will he explain to the Committee why he considers that under this Bill the minimum age should be 18, whereas under the current law, I understand, it is 16? Why should people be two years older for the lottery?
I strongly recommend Amendment No. 7, which is grouped with this one. It is designed to prevent advertising being aimed at young people.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I hope Ministers will take account of the great concern that is felt that young people at a most impressionable age should not be led by their Government into gambling. All the amendments in this group deal, in one way or another, with young people. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, simply states in a wide sense that we should not encourage gambling. The

1687
amendment of my noble friend Lord Redesdale proposes to make it an offence for people to sell lottery tickets to those under 18.
I wish to speak to Amendment No. 7 which is a rather specific and entirely practical measure. It proposes a code of advertising within the parameters of the lottery which stops advertising and promotion being aimed specifically at young people. We have a precedent for that. As the Committee may know, alcohol advertising may not feature people under 25 years old having a good time, enjoying themselves getting drunk or whatever people do with alcohol. It may not even feature young-looking people. The reason is that it is not thought right to encourage young people to take up the habit of drinking. For a long time there have been advertising restrictions of one sort or another on tobacco for the same reason.
I hope that in responding to this set of amendments the Government will give some encouragement to the view that young people at an impressionable age should not specifically be encouraged to participate in gambling because it is trendy or exciting. Those who can remember—my noble friend will remember much better than I do—will know that young people like to experiment. They like to do new and exciting things. I do not think that it is in the interests of our society to encourage young people to think that what is described as "having a flutter" is exciting. I believe, specifically, that advertising which has that effect should not be allowed.
Lord Redesdale: The aim of Amendment No. 48, to which I wish to speak, is to stop people under 18 buying lottery tickets. The purpose of the whole group of amendments is to restrict in one form or another the lottery being aimed at people under 18. It is an interesting point that the youngest person and the oldest person in this Chamber are both speaking on the same side to this group of amendments.
When the age limit on the lottery was debated in another place much was made about the contradictions in age restrictions which now exist. At 16 one is allowed to get married; it is the age of consent; and one is also allowed to smoke—all fairly dangerous pursuits. At the age of 18 one is allowed to take part in one of the biggest lotteries; one is allowed to vote; one is allowed to drink; and one is allowed to gamble. I agree that at the moment one is allowed to take part in a lottery at the age of 16, but I feel that the national lottery is to be a new form of "beastie" altogether. It will be marketed in a completely different manner to the lotteries that we have now. It will be advertised in a completely different way, and to such a different audience, that it can be seen as being slightly different.
The basis of a lottery is, as the Minister was at pains to stress, a gamble. When the lottery Bill goes through I, for one, will put my pound on to win as much money as possible. So will everybody else. Whether or not the money goes to good causes will not come into most people's perspective. In regard to the lottery as a form of gambling, is it right that we should lower the age limit? The age of 18 or 16 is now given as a stop-off point. Most people take up smoking at below the age of 16—I have to admit that I was one of them—and buy cigarettes below that age. If we set the age limit at
1688
16, young people under that age will be able to buy lottery tickets in certain situations. If we allow people to gamble on the lotteries at 16, are we to lower the age at which one can place a bet at a bookmakers?
Viscount Astor: I hate to come between the happy, spiritually reinforced partnership of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and my noble friend Lord Brentford, but I am afraid that I must do so.
There is a clear power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to regulate as to the age limits for selling tickets and participating in the national lottery. Clause 12(2) (a) gives the Secretary of State the power to regulate as to the age of those who might be selling or buying tickets for the national lottery. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is minded to set this age at 16.
The reason for that is entirely practical. At the moment the age limit for small lotteries is set at 16, and as there is no intention of preventing the sale of tickets for small lotteries from the premises where national lottery tickets are sold, then it is logical to set the limits at the same age. Otherwise, think what difficulties could occur when a retailer, having to exercise two different age limits for different products, is faced with that confusion. The potential retailer might, under such circumstances, decide it was easier only to sell one product, and that might disadvantage small lotteries. The Bill was also amended in another place to set the age limits for participating in the football pools at 16 so that the policy for the retailer is coherent.
If we were to set the age limit at 18, then we should in logic be led to amend the regulations regarding small lotteries so that the limit for these lotteries would be 18 as well. Therefore, those over the age of 16 but under the age of 18 would be unable to buy raffle tickets at charitable events. That would not be a popular measure; not least among those who run existing lotteries for charitable purposes. My noble friend Lord Swinfen made that point. We should not deny young people the opportunity to participate in the lottery. Neither should we deny them the opportunity of supporting charities through the purchase of raffle tickets.
I have to say that there is no evidence that participating in a national lottery at the age of 16 will cause particular harm to an individual; just as there is no evidence that participation in the national lottery will harm any member of the population. Nor is there any evidence that state lotteries anywhere in the world target young people or gain sales from young people above other segments of the population.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, gave some examples of the difference in ages. I have to say to the noble Lord that one can do many things at 16. I should say (in the hope that her Ladyship does not read Hansard) that one has to face the lottery of marriage at 16 if one goes to Scotland. So there are a great many things that one can do at 16.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked about advertising. It is an extremely important point. Advertising for the national lottery will be governed by both the operator's licence under Clause 5 and by the Independent Television Commission and the

1689
Radio Authority codes. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that if necessary, by direction from the Secretary of State, the director general will be required to set licence conditions to prevent advertising being aimed specifically at young people.
Having explained to the Committee the various differences in age, and the effect of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I think it is better to give ourselves flexibility to regulate in this area. I believe that the Secretary of State has got it about right when he is minded to set the age limit at 16. That is why I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for explaining some of the complexities in this area. I should like to speak particularly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on Amendment No. 7 and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on Amendment No. 48.
In his answer the Minister did not confront the central, moral, question that was raised by my noble friend Lord Houghton. It is not just a question of smoothing out the anomalies in this area; nor have they been smoothed out. There is a central issue; namely, that the Government are extending gambling in a quite massive way. They are extending gambling to youth, even in areas where previously gambling was allowed only at a higher age. They are extending it to 16 year-olds. We on this side are unhappy about that.
The new national lottery will lead to high-pressure salesmanship of a kind that many are not yet fully aware of. It will lead to television advertising on a massive scale. That is why in Amendment No. 7 we focus on advertising. We know that the young are particularly vulnerable to it. The Minister said there was no evidence of damage to youth. However, he will be aware that research in the United States, which has longer experience than we have, shows that young people are particularly targeted and there is evidence of young people becoming addicted. We should seriously ask why we need to introduce to Britain that risk and that exposure.
It may be the view that only a few 16 year-olds will participate in the lottery and it is not thought to be a problem. In that case why bother to change the law? If it generates large incomes for 16 and 17 year-olds and almost certainly will lead to social and personal problems, then the lottery is wrong. I understand that we shall keep the legal age for betting in betting shops at 18. That seems to me to be inconsistent with setting an age of 16 for the lottery and then trying to introduce some consistency by setting an age of 16 for the pools. I believe that the right age is 18. Marriage at 16 was mentioned. In England, to marry at that age requires parental permission. I do not know whether the Minister intends that 16 to 18 year-olds will have to have parental permission to use the lottery. We are uncomfortable with the situation. We support the amendment and wish the age to be set at 18.
5 p.m.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps the Committee will find it useful if I deal with some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The most important point is that the amendment seeks to put in the Bill —that is, in primary legislation—the age of 18. The Government's view is that it should not be done in that way.
Clause 12 gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to make a provision in relation to the promotion of lotteries. Those regulations include:
"the minimum age of persons to whom or by whom tickets or chances may be sold".
There is power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to alter the age. I said that he was minded to consider the age of 16. I am sure that if the Secretary of State saw that there was considerable evidence to support another age, he would look closely at the matter. Obviously it is a decision that he will make. But there is that flexibility in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about betting. Betting is very different from a national lottery. People go into betting shops because they are interested in greyhounds or in racing. Betting is to a degree a skill. It is very different from buying a national lottery ticket, and that is an important factor.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I find the Minister's explanation rather disingenuous. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the area of gambling; the interest of gambling; the audience for gambling; and participation in gambling. The obvious target is the young.
Gambling is an addiction. There is no question at all about that. The purpose of those who promote the national lottery will be to create or enhance an addiction among young people. The argument for putting an age limit on the face of the Bill is self-evident: to hold back as long as possible the formation of a tendency toward the addictive nature of participation in the national lottery.
Even if only a minority of youngsters are to be hooked on that addiction, as they are on others, there is a very strong case against it. Flexibility—that is the word used by the Minister—is at best a misleading concept. One does not want flexibility. What is needed is a basis and floor below which there is much less likelihood of young people becoming addicted to that activity. I should have thought therefore that the case for putting the age on the face of the Bill is overwhelming.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am very grateful for the support of my noble friend. I remind the Committee of the terms of the amendment. There is no bar or ban. We are dealing with the way in which the lottery should be conducted and the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the director general. The terms of the amendment are worth stating. It seeks to insert the words:
"in a manner that does not encourage the purchase of lottery tickets by those under 18 years old or those on low or no incomes".
Those phrases have to be taken together. This is a matter of targeting the publicity. It is intended as a discouragement of sales talk, which can easily be

1691
directed toward young people. We are all conscious of the fact that many dangers surround young people today. They are blamed for many things and many excuses are offered for their behaviour at different times—unemployment, the permissive society, lack of parental discipline or the tumult of school. The Government will be put in a difficulty if they oppose an amendment which asks the Secretary of State to ensure that the lottery is conducted in a manner which does not encourage young people of 18 to go in for the purchase of lottery tickets.
The danger is the lure of the prizes. Nobody talks about the prizes and one would think that there were not any. But they are the most prominent and alluring part of the whole outfit. If there are no prizes there is no lottery. The sales talk will not be about how much good one is doing for the poor or the sick by the purchase of a lottery ticket. The inducement will be on the lines of, "This is a way of coming into big money" —and the big money has to be pretty big.
I read the evidence of some people who had come from elsewhere to give advice on the lottery. I was rather surprised to find that they said that the prizes had to be big. The fact is that, although a prize of £1 million may seem a long way from those who buy a lottery ticket, in time one begins to feel that it is possible to win it. In my Second Reading speech I referred to the complete ignorance of many people about the length of the odds. People are sometimes too optimistic about what such a purchase might bring.
Nobody has spoken about investing in a lottery ticket as one does with the football pools. Football pools are supposed to be an investment. I am sure that no idiot will call the lottery ticket an investment. He may emphasise the good that will be done. I have already read what I imagine to be a rather facetious article in which it is argued that the losers in the lottery will be the winners. The losers are the people who will do good. If one loses the money, one can comfort oneself with saying, "Thank God I did it. Some poor charity will benefit from this. Some poor lurching young person will be rescued from the dangers of unemployment", and all that sort of rubbish.
As I speak I am rather reinforced in my intention to stick to my amendment. It would be unwise of the Government to be seen to be putting any obstacle in the way of discouraging young people from becoming too addicted to the lottery ticket. If one can scrounge a little money from somewhere to buy a lottery ticket and the inducement is there, it may be found that it has an effect on petty crime. One never knows. It is not the kind of thing that we want.
I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that up until now Parliament and the people have set their minds against a national lottery. Many attempts have been made to change public opinion in favour of a national lottery but they have not succeeded. Parliament has not gone that way. Now we want to do it in a big way and we have to watch our step very carefully. We may be setting in train social tendencies and evils of which as yet we know nothing. The reason why we cloak our lottery enterprise with good causes, such as charities and heritage—as if we have not already got a heritage department—is that the benefits of the enterprise will
1692
arise from persuading people to buy tickets that they would not otherwise buy. I have persuaded myself, and I hope that I have persuaded noble Lords opposite, that this is a benign amendment, not an anodyne amendment, so that the Secretary of State (whoever he may be) or the director general (whoever he may be) can ensure that young people under the age of 18 are not targeted in the sales talk—of which there will be an awful lot—to buy lottery tickets. I hope that your Lordships will approve the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 4 [Overriding duties of the Secretary of State and Director General]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 10, after ("propriety") insert:
("( ) that the National Lottery is not promoted or run in any way likely to lead to a diversion of donation income away from charities and").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 4 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 37, 43 and 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that have been grouped with this amendment. With this group of amendments we come to what we regard as the most serious problem with the Bill. As was made clear at Second Reading, we are not opposed to the Bill in principle. It has been said that this is a Bill that has both support and opposition, regardless of party affiliations. We respect the views of those who for religious or other reasons—for example, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby—oppose the Bill in principle. We do not collectively share that view. However, we are very much concerned by the potential effect of the Bill on charities in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett (who I am sorry to see is no longer in his place), made reference to research done in Ireland on the effect of a national lottery on charities in that country. I am sorry to say that the impression he gave, that a significant number were increasing their income despite the presence of a national lottery or sweepstake, was based on a sample of leading charities that was not entirely comprehensive. Such evidence on the subject as is available is difficult to assess. I know that because I have spent most of my life doing research, a lot of which has been concerned with products that do not yet exist. I believe that the only one that I can be certain I got right was a rather negative assessment on the colour copier market before that product was introduced. In general, it is extremely difficult to do convincing and accurate research into hypothetical subjects and things that have not yet happened. None of us knows what the effect of the national lottery will be on charities.
We gather what evidence we can. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has commissioned national opinion polls to carry out a survey of individuals about their likely reaction to the establishment of a national lottery. I have looked at the research and judged it to be satisfactory from a professional point of view. It comes to the conclusion that approximately 4 to 7 per cent. of the income of charities will be lost if a national lottery is successfully established. In 1978 the Rothschild Royal

1693
Commission carried out research that came very much to the same conclusion. It was estimated that 4 per cent. would be lost, although I do not know the professional quality of the work. Two projects have been carried out in Ireland: the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett (who I see is now back in his place) and the other a more recent analysis by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations of the experience of half of the 100 leading charities in Ireland.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I should like to put a question for clarification. He said that the loss to charities was estimated at between 4 and 7 per cent. Is that the loss after account has been taken of the moneys that charities will get back from the lottery, or does it exclude that? If it is supposed to include what they get back from the national lottery, how will we know? We do not yet know what percentage they will get from the national lottery.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is why I say it is a difficult matter to assess. The intention is to calculate the net loss after receipts from the national lottery. The estimates for the national lottery are those used by the Government in their planning. They may not be perfect but they are the best we can do.
As I said before I was so politely interrupted, the best estimate arising from the most recent research in Ireland is that there has been a loss of about 4 per cent. Four per cent. may not seem very much, but the income of charities in this country is £3.1 billion. A number of estimates have been given—one of which I believe was given by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, at Second Reading—that suggest that charities may find themselves losing very substantial amounts. I believe that the figure that the noble Lord gave was over £200 million. Even if the income of charities from their own lotteries, appeals and other activities is kept up where a national lottery exists, the experience is that considerable extra cost tends to be incurred in fund-raising.
This may work in a number of ways. For example, if there were to be kiosks selling lottery tickets—as there are in Spain and used to be in France—the fear is that they may affect the receipts from street collections made on behalf of charities. If as part of the national lottery there were to be instant-win scratch cards—which matter is the subject of a number of amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees that we shall be debating later—the fear is that they will affect a number of small lotteries that use such a system. If lotteries were to be advertised as charity lotteries—one can see the temptation even for a corporate body to advertise the benefits to charities of a lottery—the fear is that that will cause a further diversion of expenditure from charities to lotteries which will produce less for them.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to safeguard the situation of charities by placing on the organisers of the lottery and the Secretary of State the requirement to ensure,
1694
"that the National Lottery is not promoted or run in any way likely to lead to a diversion of donation income away from charities".
Amendment No. 8 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the best evidence that he can on the likely diversion and on the best ways of avoiding such a diversion. The amendment follows the recommendations of the National Heritage Select Committee in another place on 14th January of this year. Amendment No. 37, which is in Clause 1 1 of the Bill, requires the Secretary of State to give directions to the director general that, in granting the licence to an operator, he will ensure that the interests of charities are protected. Amendment No. 43, in Clause 14, requires the Secretary of State to report on the directions he has given to the director general in that respect. Amendment No. 47, which is in the same group, is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and he will no doubt speak to that amendment.
These are extremely serious problems. We do not have adequate evidence and I certainly do not think that the Government have adequate evidence to reassure us on the matter. Such evidence as we have indicates that the effect of the national lottery on the income of charities could well be, and is likely to be, disadvantageous rather than advantageous. We believe that every possible step should be taken to protect the interests of charities which are responsible for so much voluntary work and work in the voluntary sector in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who so ably introduced this group of amendments, twice inadvertently attributed Amendment No. 47 to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. In fact it stands in my name, and so if I speak rather than the noble Lord, he will understand why.
I speak for the amendment in the context of generally supporting this whole set of amendments. They all deal with the same problem—the problem of how this new lottery, in its effect, shall inflict minimal damage on the money raised by charities. Amendment No. 47 tries to adopt what I hope will commend itself to the Government, which is a market-led solution to this problem. Other amendments in the group deal by contrast with what the Government should do or what OFLOT should do.
The amendment states:
"The licensee shall display … on the tickets sold for the National Lottery a statement clearly indicating the proportion of the stake which is to be applied for the purposes of the Distribution Fund".
Let us suppose, as I and other Members of the Committee hope —we have an amendment on this point later—that 35 per cent. of the price of the ticket ends up going to these various good causes. That should be clearly stated on the ticket. That would then allow people, with this mixture of motives that I described earlier—both hoping to win, as people do when they gamble, but also hoping that as they indulge themselves in this minor vice they can also be doing some good—to know that the good they are doing is limited to 35 per cent. of their stake and that the balance will go, as we know, to the Exchequer, to

1695
the operators of the lottery and in prize money. It is a way of trying to supply information that is relevant to the decision that the gambler is making at the point of purchase. I hope, since it is in accordance with the fondness for the market which the Government so often exhibit, that they will find themselves able to take it on board.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has said, my name is not attached to Amendment No. 47 I agree with it and support what he has just said. My name is down to Amendment No. 8. I am just a shade uneasy about it being grouped with the others. It seems to me to be on a slightly different point and could well stand on its own feet whatever happens to Amendment No. 4. But there it is.
I very much support the line which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has so ably put in his opening speech. I do not want to recapitulate what I said in some detail on Second Reading but it seems to me that charities are at risk in two main respects; first, a diversion of contributions, which even at 4 per cent., which seems to be the minimum likely, would mean a very noticeable reduction in charity income as a whole; and, secondly, the possibility of some loss of income from central government—I know that we shall come to additionality later on—and perhaps, more especially, from local government, which supports voluntary effort in a big way at the moment but which is itself subject to great financial pressures.
The only other point I should like to add to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about the Irish research is that, although there seems some reason for believing that the big charities have managed to keep afloat and do reasonably well, it has been at the cost of additional efforts in advertising and so forth which is an additional cost. I am not at all sure that we have the net figure of what is involved. If the same pattern were repeated over here, I very much fear that it is the medium and small charities that would be at risk.
Turning specifically to Amendment No. 8, I recall that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said at Second Reading:
"Of course"—
I always view with grave suspicion any sentence which has "of course" in it—
"we shall monitor the effect on charities… However, we are considering how best to assess, in general terms, the effect of the lottery and changes in charitable income once the lottery is established".—[Official Report,27/5/93; col. 483.]
It would give a great deal of comfort to the voluntary sector if those admirable intentions were set out on the face of the Bill. No one is claiming that it would be a very easy process but I think that there ought to be a clear statutory obligation on the Government to take responsibility for conducting such research and that it should be the Government and not those who organise the lottery—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I would not be surprised to see at some stage in the course of this Bill a proposal to set up a compensation fund by the lottery authorities to reimburse charities which can bring forward evidence of the adverse effect of the lottery upon their income. This is the real bugbear of
1696
the Bill to the charitable world. It worries charities greatly. They do not know the answer. They have many fears.
Viscount Astor: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is aware but the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, had not finished speaking. I do not know whether the noble Lord intends to ask the noble Lord a question. But if he is intending to speak, perhaps he will allow the noble Lord, Lord Allen, to finish his speech.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I assumed, to begin with, that it was an intervention in order to ask a question, but it turned out not to be quite that. But it brings out a point that I myself would like to make.
It is to the advantage of the Government to be able to demonstrate that all the fine words that they have been able to say about helping charity prove to be true. It would be helpful to the voluntary sector to know if the words turn out not to be true. If they turned out not to be true there would be a case for some kind of compensation—one need not discuss at this stage how it should be done. But it is a rather gloomy prospect that, after everything we have heard about the lottery, there is quite a distinct chance that charities as a whole will be worse off and certainly not very much better off. As the Government have already conceded in principle, it would be desirable that steps should be taken to ensure that the facts are known, in so far as they are capable of being ascertained, and will also be available when the time comes to redistribute the allocation made in the Bill to the Millennium Fund when that unhappy creation disappears.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I owe an apology to the noble Lord. Unfortunately, the Chamber is so arranged that one cannot see through the back of one's head. I agree with everything that he said. Both he and I have been members of the all-party charities group of the two Houses of Parliament. The group is meeting at the present time. The charities have been telling us of their worries. They are trying to do some research to see what the effects of this legislation might be.
One cannot yet see what will be the consequences of their fears. I hope that what will not emerge from the uncertainty experienced by the charities is that the appeals for charitable support go beyond what is reasonable and fair in presenting the case to the public. There is already the risk of advertising for the charities getting into the hands of the professional advertising agencies. That can come very close to going beyond what is a fair presentation of the charitable purpose which they have.
I am very worried about that. I must not anticipate my amendment which seeks to take charities out of the Bill altogether. I am sure that that is a sensible solution. But that would not stop the fear that even if they were not in the Bill, their income might be affected by the heavier claims on people's attention through the publicity on the lottery. I shall not argue that now.

1697
The chief problem and the source of much discontent and worry is going to arise on the issue in this amendment. I do not believe that there are any assurances that can be given that will allay the fears. Experience may confirm them or it may not. This is a matter which must be heavily borne in mind. We should have some assurance from the Government that they are conscious of the difficulty. The charities never asked for this Bill. Their attitude to it is very reserved indeed. They appear to adopt the view that if the Government are being headstrong about this, the country has gone sufficiently pagan to agree with them and that the charities will have to live with it.
It is incumbent on the Government, when introducing a scheme for a national lottery which is going to make a strong appeal for public support involving surplus incomes and disposable money, that they should be conscious of the harm which they may be doing to other worthy causes which were in the field long before the Government. The Government's claims to charitable expenditure are minimal. They have not done any charitable work. They will not have the funds to do very much either. The lure of rewards with the purchase of a lottery ticket may overcome some people's scruples. I hope that we can get some further understanding from the Government about this issue.
Lord Swinfen: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The charities did not really want this Bill; they are rather frightened of it. I do not believe that it was brought in until the Treasury thought it would be quite a good idea to have another provider of revenue. It is interesting to note that once administrative expenses are paid and prizes given, the Treasury benefits to a greater extent than anyone else.
Generally, I am a supporter of all these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has said what I intended to say very much better than I could. I support every word that he said. It is not only important that we accept Amendment No. 4, but that we also accept Amendment No. 8 so that we can see how Amendment No. 4 works in the long run. In addition, Amendment No. 47 would ensure that the proportion to be distributed to the various recipients is on the lottery ticket. That would help charities in that people would not think that the money they spent on a lottery ticket was all going to charity. There is a very great fear in the charity world that money will be diverted from them.
The best evidence we have of that is, as has already been mentioned, the surveys which have been done since 1987 in the Republic of Ireland. There are national charities in other European countries, but in those countries there is not the same system of charities and charitable giving as exists in the British Isles. When dealing with this amendment the Government should bear in mind that with Care in the Community they are relying to a large extent on charities to provide a considerable amount of that care. Therefore, they should ensure that there is no reduction in the income of those charities.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Perhaps I may take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has made so well. I should have thought that the Government would recognise that it is in their interest to accept the principle and to allow these amendments because of the importance which they have expressly attached to the role of charities in society as providers, initiators and stimulators of activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, has spoken about the two ways in which the charities will suffer. There will be the direct fall in giving and also the fall in government provision. The fall in giving will most certainly come about, first, through the effects on small lotteries run by many charities. People who have the odd flutter on a small lottery will go for the big one. They are going to go for the chance of £100,000 or £1 million. There will most certainly be a fall in income from that source.
The second and more important consequence, as many speakers have said, will be the fall in direct giving as a result of competition from the national lottery. I am sure that many noble Lords have had the same experience as I have had. One has gone from house to house or stood with a box on the corner. But one knows of the effect which "Telethon" has had on giving. People say: "I have sent to the BBC" or something of that kind. People will see that as an alternative. They will not see it as a stimulator for giving to charities as such.
A direct consequence of this new competition—it is competition for the charities—will be that the charities themselves will have to put more money into fund-raising. They will have to spend more money on advocacy. They will have to raise the ratio of expenditure to revenue and that in turn will give yet more people the opportunity and incentive to say: "Look at the amount the charities spend on administration rather than providing projects themselves". The multiplier effect of what is proposed is something which has not been adequately taken into account even in the study made by the NCVO. I repeat: what the national lottery will not do is to stimulate giving to charities as such. It is not unreasonable that the Government should look to charities to enlarge their activities. If the Government are looking to charities to do those things, not to accept the principles underlying these amendments is to expect far too much of charities. It is in the Government's interest that charities should not be starved of funds, as they could well be as a consequence of this new initiative.
Lord Thurlow: I support the broad thrust of the amendments, although it may well be that the wording could be improved. In particular, I should like to support Amendment No. 8. It does not seem to me to be entirely fair to future generations of Ministers (and even less so to officials) to rest the case for preventing the diversion of funds from charities in the long run on assurances and broad principles. Therefore, I strongly support the proposal that something should be placed on the face of the Bill, whatever its exact wording may be.
Lord Airedale: I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, say that the wording could be clearer. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 adopt the wording of paragraph (a) which they follow and show up a curiosity in its drafting. Paragraph (a) refers to two things: first, to the "National Lottery" itself and, secondly, to,
"every lottery that forms part of it".
The paragraph also uses the two words, "run" and "promoted". I take it that "run" means "operated". Incidentally, I should have thought that "operated" is a better parliamentary word than "run". I take it that "promoted" means "organised in advance of the actual operation".
The curiosity is this: "run" applies only to the national lottery and not to,
"every lottery that forms part of it",
and "promoted" applies only to,
"every lottery that forms part of it",
and not to the national lottery.
I do not understand the drafting, but I do understand the perils of trying to draft legislation on one's feet. Perhaps I may put forward to the Minister for his consideration the view that paragraph (a) would be very much clearer and would avoid legal argument if it stated, "that the National Lottery, and every lottery that forms part of it is promoted, and operated, with all due propriety". I merely put forward that suggestion.
Lord Lucas: My noble friend will be aware that I have some sympathy with the aims behind these amendments, but looking at the wording of the amendments, they seem to me to be suffering from an attack of the absolutes. To take Amendment No. 4, for instance, reading it as it runs, it would seem to make running a national lottery totally impossible because I cannot imagine any circumstances under which that condition would not be satisfied.
As far as Amendment No. 8 is concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, there is no means to do this at the moment. What is the poor Secretary of State to do if he receives instructions in legislation to do something which proves to be totally impossible? The same applies to Amendment No. 37 where the director general is asked to take into account "the likely effect" when it is entirely impossible to determine what that "likely effect" is. I do not oppose the principle, but I believe that before we pass any such amendment we should be more careful about the wording.
So far as Amendment No. 47 is concerned, I very much hope that the Government will resist it. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, put it very well when he said that we should not clothe this wolf in sheep's clothing. Although I do not agree with his description of the lottery, nonetheless I feel that we should not pull the wool over the punters' eyes.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: I believe that your Lordships know that I am very worried—and have been since Second Reading—about the effect of the national lottery on charitable giving and on the incomes of charities. There is no doubt that I support the motivation
1700
behind the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, I, too, am somewhat concerned about the vehicle which the noble Lord has chosen—I would not dare to say that the wording worried me—when he refers to the promotion, running or operation of a lottery being,
"likely to lead to a diversion of donation".
Surely that will be a matter of opinion and different people will have different opinions. The promoter will clearly not think that it is diverting money, whereas the charities will. I cannot see how that will ever be resolved. Presumably, at the end of the day, it will be resolved in a court, but it would be a nightmare to try to do it.
The same applies to Amendment No. 8. The problem with the amendment is that the provisions would be operating in arrears, as it were, in that the problem would already have occurred by the time that the provisions of Amendment No. 8 were brought into force. The damage would have been done and the charities would have lost their income. Therefore, although the motivation and thinking behind the amendment are again admirable, I cannot see that either of those amendments is the correct tool to bring about that which the noble Lord wishes to bring about.
Turning to Amendment No. 47, again I am not entirely sure how successful or useful it will be to have the proportion of the distribution written on the ticket. It may be helpful, but I do not think that it will be particularly helpful, especially in view of the fact that nobody will know the proportion until after they have purchased the ticket because they will not have the chance to read the ticket until then, by which time knowledge of the proportion will have lost its effect. Therefore, although I very much support the motivation and thinking behind these amendments, I do not see that they will achieve the admirable aims which they set out to achieve.
Lord Birkett: I have two tiny worries. First, I thought—I stand ready to be corrected—that the Bill had taken on board the whole question of compensating charities for their possible loss of income. Many years ago I recommended to your Lordships that we should have a lottery. There was no lottery Bill then and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said from the Government Benches that the Government had no intention of introducing one. I remember that my proposals at that time contained the thought that some 10 per cent. of the proceeds of any lottery should be put aside for the very purpose of compensating charities which might lose by the introduction of the lottery. Now that we have a Bill, the proportion is 20 per cent. or one-fifth of all the proceeds. Those statistics may merely prove me to have been a skinflint in the old days, but I should have thought that that purpose was the intention of the 20 per cent. that is being provided under the Bill.
I turn to my other little worry. I must apologise first to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for not being in my place when he opened his remarks—even in this House one is allowed time to lick one's wounds. It occurs to me that in his phrase,

1701
"run in any way likely to lead to a diversion of donation income",
the word "likely" must be a speculation. I do not see how either the Secretary of State or the director general will be able to comply with it. Had the wording been "intended to" or "to encourage a diversion", it would have referred to a deliberate act of rivalry on the part of the lottery which should be discouraged. I do not see that the director general will be able to comply with provisions which are worded "likely to".
Lord Renton: I am of rather the same opinion as that which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has just expressed. I am sure that all of us on both sides of the Committee want to help charities in one way or another. The first three amendments in this group seem to be a question of swings and roundabouts and of an unascertainable effect on the swings and roundabouts.
The Bill will help charities. There is no doubt about that. It is intended to, and if we turn to Clause 20, we see that subsection (3) (d) states:
"20 per cent. shall be allocated for charitable expenditure".
Lord Mancroft: If my noble friend will give way for a moment, he said that the Bill will help charities. I think that the reason behind these amendments is that many noble Lords, including myself, do not think that the Bill will help charities.
Lord Renton: All that I can say is that the Bill is intended to do so, but it is impossible to say how much it will. Only a small proportion of the £13.1 million which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said charities receive by way of donations and income of one kind and another comes from their lotteries, which are mostly fairly small. If the noble Lord or any other Member of the Committee can say what proportion of that £13.1 million comes from lotteries, that might throw some relevant information into the debate. I should have thought that it was difficult to say that.
To the extent that charities might suffer, I believe that the effect on their small lotteries would be marginal. I do not believe that they are likely to be affected in any other way. We may be wrong because, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, we are speculating.
The national lottery was a manifesto commitment. The Government had to introduce the Bill, and they were right to do so. We have to see how it works out. There are already safeguards within the Bill. I should have hoped that we could somehow unite the two points of view that have been expressed on this group of amendments by conceding that there will be changes, and that under the Bill there will also be a benefit to charities. Let us perhaps leave it like that.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 47 relate to separate matters. They deal with matters wider than the charitable effects of the lottery. What it is intended to achieve by Amendment No. 47 could be achieved by a simple process. We all know that under the modern law relating to lotteries, and the practice which has grown up which elaborates the matter, a great deal of information is properly given on the tickets that are
1702
sold for charities. I would have hoped that the effects of Clause 20(3), paraphrased and summarised, could be stated on each ticket. That would serve the purpose that is intended to be served in a broader sense by Amendment No. 47.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that he will agree with me that it is not the income solely of charities' small lotteries about which the charitable world is worried, but the income in the form of personal donations, whether through small lotteries, street collections, house-to-house collections or plain donations in response to appeals, because it is thought that the general public will think that by buying a lottery ticket they are giving the whole of that money to charities. It is the view of charities generally that there is likely to be a major misconception.
Lord Renton: The trouble is that no one can quantify these things. It is speculation. My answer to my noble friend, for what it is worth, is that I do not believe that the lottery will affect gifting which at the moment amounts to £250 a year or more. It is now an important part of charities' income. I do not believe that the lottery will affect the amount that people leave to charities in their wills; I do not believe that it will affect money-raising efforts such as, for example, the small opera companies which perform in various parts of the country and which give a portion of their proceeds—generally a stated proportion—to charity. I do not believe that the lottery will affect that. We are left with only a small proportion of the total income that charities receive. It is impossible to quantify the amount, but we should bear in mind that it is a probability.
Lord Moyne: The purpose of buying a lottery ticket is not to make a donation but to bet. Many Members of the Committee have been speaking under a misapprehension.
Lord Ennals: I support the amendments. The words can perhaps be improved. The Minister might say that he accepts the principle and will make some change to the wording. I am not nearly as optimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the lottery will not affect gifting. Many charities share that anxiety. Those anxieties should be made clear on the face of the Bill. It will help if the amendments are accepted. I am worried because I believe that the lottery will not affect the largest charities but it will affect the middle ranking charities. It may affect gifting. The assumption that there will be more gain than loss is one that I do not accept.
Lord Rix: Earlier this afternoon the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that it would be cupidity which would cause people to bet on the lottery and that the charitable aspect of it would not necessarily attract additional money. As has just been said, betting may be the better term to use. If we were to adopt some form of Amendment No. 47, it should be in the nature of a health warning. It should be stated flatly that if one bets on the lottery, only 25 per cent. of the money will go to good causes, some of which

1703
one may not wish to support, and that one should remember that the next time one supports a good cause which is close to one's heart.
Lord Howell: The conception that some Members of the Committee have about the intelligence of the British public is something to be regretted. I believe that when the British public goes in for a national lottery it knows that the proceeds will be divided among sport, the arts and other causes, including charity. I do not believe that it is not capable of understanding what it is doing with its money. We should give the public credit for that understanding.
I happen to be involved in a number of charities, as I believe I have told this place before. I am involved in trying to raise £1 million in Birmingham for charities relating to cancer. When people give money to a charity they do so for the purpose of that charity specifically. They will not believe that they should not give money to that charity if they enter a national lottery. I have expressed my support and sympathy for all types of charity, but it seems to me that the charities are doing rather well out of the Bill. When the concept of a national lottery was first introduced it was to support sport and the arts, and other things were added on. We now have 20 per cent. of the proceeds of the lottery guaranteed to be used for charitable purposes, ostensibly, as the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Birkett, have said, to compensate them for any loss of income.
How much is 20 per cent.? If our calculations are right, it is about £150 million. Given all the doubts that have been expressed, I cannot believe that charities will lose £150 million a year as a result of the national lottery. That being so, since at least £150 million a year is guaranteed to charities, charities would be well advised not to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Viscount Astor: I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendments and the anxieties the Committee has about charitable income, but I shall argue against the amendments because of their impracticability, on the one hand, and the consequences for the national lottery, on the other.
The first effect of Amendment No. 4, which would set out in statute that the national lottery must not be run in any way likely to lead to a diversion of donations away from charities, would be to put the director general and the national lottery operator in the unacceptable position of having constantly to prove the unprovable—that aspects of its operation in the types of lotteries which it runs or its promotion had or had not affected charitable donations.
Such amendments would do no more than create a situation in which the lottery and the director-general were open to intractable, acrimonious and inconclusive challenge. My noble friend Lord Mancroft agreed that point.
Perhaps I may explain and give an example. Imagine, if you will; a particular charity that is not doing very well. Its fund-raising for the past few years has not been a success. Major funders have withdrawn because, frankly, the charity is not seen to be fulfilling its stated purpose. There are problems with
1704
management. The charity applies to the National Lottery Charities Board for money. But the board can see that the charity is not a very well organised or a very good one and it declines to support it; it has important priorities elsewhere. The charity feels aggrieved at the decision. And what better than to blame the national lottery? Why not say that the way the national lottery has been promoted has adversely affected that organisation and seek redress? Why not assert that the national lottery's method of marketing was a direct cause for the failure of this year's raffle or fund-raising? There is nothing to lose and the connection cannot be proven one way or another.
In setting up the lottery we must seek to protect it. It would be very obviously at risk of challenge if the amendment were carried. I suggest that it would make the job of both the director general and the operator impossible.
Perhaps I may deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Ireland is often cited as an example of what could happen here. We have had a new NCVO report this week. It is, I have to say, a slightly disappointing document. It looks at the "perceptions" of voluntary organisations of the impact of the lottery in Ireland. But it gives no hard facts. Out of 100 organisations which were asked their "perceptions", only 48 responded. In life I find that those who are content rarely voice complaint. At the end of the day, out of 100 organisations asked for their "perceptions", only 27 perceived that the Irish lottery had an impact. There is no evidence for what this perceived impact was.
Let us look further at the business of perception. The economic consultants looked at the effect of the lottery on a range of voluntary organisations. More than one organisation did not reply to their survey, perhaps on the grounds that they had done so well out of the lottery they were a little embarrassed. The report concluded that the income of 20 charities looked at since the lottery began had risen by 19 per cent. in real terms. This was during a time of recession, when in the UK, with no national lottery, charities' incomes had fallen by a third. However, despite this evidence, some organisations "perceived" their income to have fallen. In fact, they had expected their income to increase by 40 per cent. in real terms, not the 19 per cent. average which occurred. "Perception" turns out to be the difference between expectation and reality. I merely say this to illustrate the difficulty of drawing hard and fast conclusions.
It is important to realise that the Irish lottery is different from ours. There money is divided by politicians. It is directly intended to fund health and welfare and youth work; areas where the voluntary sector is strong. In the UK the lottery is intended to help more broadly-defined good causes. Its impact will, therefore, be quite different. We have a method of distribution for the charitable sector which will be fair and efficient. Let us not get too caught up in drawing dire conclusions from the Republic of Ireland.
I turn to the amendments which refer to the advertising and promotion of the national lottery. In the light of worldwide experience, let us consider for a moment how the UK national lottery will market

1705
itself. It will market itself as an opportunity to participate in a way which is fun in an activity which gives a chance to win a substantial prize. As I said earlier, the focus of the promotion will not be the good causes; that is, arts, sport, the heritage, charities and the Millennium Commission. In marketing terms it will be the prizes. We must make that clear because we do not want the lottery to take money away from charitable lotteries or to confuse the public by suggesting that it is a charitable lottery. It is important to maximise its proceeds and that must be done on the basis of prizes. The public will not be invited, by participating in the lottery, to give to a good cause and therefore not to give to their favourite charity. The national lottery will not be saying, "Don't participate in charity lotteries but come to us".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is difficult to assess the effects, in particular when we are crystal ball gazing into the future. The Government will certainly reflect very carefully on the anxieties expressed in this Committee on the lottery and the charitable sector. My right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office undertook in another place that the Home Office will look at ways of assessing in general terms the effect of the lottery and changes in charitable income once the lottery is established. It is already talking to the voluntary sector about this. That is the proper way to take this forward. If fears prove to have foundation Parliament has the power to increase the proportion of national lottery funds going to charities.
It will take some time to establish whether the charitable sector as a whole is affected. As I have said, the Home Office has agreed to monitor the situation. If it were established that there was an effect, the Secretary of State could change the percentage of the national lottery to go to the charities by order within a few weeks. It would be done by affirmative resolution. But if an individual charity were to put in a meritorious application for funds to the Charities Board, that charity could be funded for a particular project very quickly indeed.
I turn to Amendment No. 47, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I understand that the Minister is leaving Amendment No. 8. He has given a firm undertaking that the provision will be carried out but why should it not be on the face of the Bill? Great comfort would be given to many voluntary bodies if it were.
Viscount Astor: It is because an undertaking was given in another place and I have reiterated that undertaking. It is difficult to put anything into the Bill which enables that undertaking to be given while retaining the flexibility of the Government. As I said earlier, we do not want any person or charity to use their lack of funds as a way of attacking the whole undertaking or of attacking other charities or the National Lotteries Board. Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 47—
Baroness Seear: The Minister said categorically that if it were found that the income to charities had fallen the Government would make an adjustment so that they received more. Where would that money come from? Would the Government reduce the tax levy or would they insist on cutting the cost of running the charity? Where will the Government find that money?
Viscount Astor: I said that, if that were the case, the Secretary of State could make an adjustment of the percentage going to charities out of the distribution fund. Of course, that would affect the percentage going to the other four bodies in the fund. There is a limited amount of money; I am not inventing money.
I turn now to Amendment No. 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, as regards information to be made available to players in the national lottery. The ticket will be sold in a place where the relevant information is given. I assure the Committee that we intend to ensure that the director general ensures that the operator makes available appropriate information, including the information on the amount of the net proceeds that will go to the various beneficiary sectors.
It is important that that does not become the marketing focus of the national lottery. I go back to what I said earlier. We do not wish the lottery to compete in that way with charitable lotteries.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. Both on this amendment and on the earlier amendments he came very close to saying that the Government, or the director general in awarding the franchise, will make it a condition that the operator should promote this only by appealing to the public as regards the prize money rather than appealing to the mixed motives that a person could win a big prize but that he is doing good at the same time. I understand that this suits the Government's arguments today to say that this is a very unmixed motive for buying. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said that it is a bet and let us not complicate it with anything else. If a substantial part of the proceeds are to go to good causes, that will be known generally to the public and I would guess that a sophisticated promoter of the scheme would wish, albeit in a minor key, to make the point that not only is there a chance of winning a lot of money but some good may be done. If I heard correctly what the noble Viscount said in the last few minutes both on earlier amendments and on Amendment No. 47, he categorically stated that the operators will be instructed, guided or directed to focus only on the winnings which people might make. Is that correct?
Viscount Astor: I think that is going further than what I said. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said in the first part of his intervention. My point is not that we want to preclude those who sell lottery tickets from making available the information as to the percentage which will go to good causes. However, we do not want the lottery

1707
tickets to be sold only on that basis. I believe that there is a mixed motive and I agree with everything that the noble Lord said. We are trying to find a balance.
It is important that that balance should be set by the director general under the licensing conditions to the operator. It is quite properly a condition of licence and the director general will have to lay down extremely careful rules to the operators on how that will be carried out and how the information will be made available. That is properly a condition of licence and I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, agrees about that.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, about drafting. I may be able to help the noble Lord but I, too, am rather nervous about trying to draft on my feet. The national lottery is the sum total of all the lotteries promoted as part of it. "Run" is used to mean the overall operation: the systems, the business, the investment and so on. "Promote" is the normal legal term used for lotteries and means "operate". The Clause 5 licensee will run the whole operation with the games licensed under Clause 6. The due propriety obligation extends to every aspect of the operation, including Clause 5 operations and Clause 6 games. I hope that that explains matters to the noble Lord. I shall look carefully at what he has said when we consider the drafting because he may have made a point that the draftsman wish to take into consideration.
Lord Airedale: I, too, am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I shall look carefully at what he said.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I return to the substantive part of the amendment. I am happy to repeat to the Committee the undertaking that the Government and the Home Office will look at ways to assess the changes to charitable income once the lottery is established. I make no apology for repeating that. We are already speaking to the voluntary sector about it.
I hope that I have been able to set at rest the minds of Members of the Committee. Not only would the amendments not work but their effect—they seek to protect charities—could be to damage charities by reducing the amount of money which the national lottery raises for good causes. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose that the debate will teach me not to put professional qualifications into what I say. After all, as Casey Stengel, the manager of the New York Yankees said, "It's terrible difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future".
It is true that there is no absolutely certain way in which to assess and calculate what will be the effect of the national lottery on charities. However, we are not quite so stupid as some people seem to think we are. The research that has been carried out has two virtues. First, it takes into account all the considerations that have been raised by Members of the Committee in the debate. It is recognised that a high proportion of the
1708
people who will wish to take part in the lottery simply want to have a gamble and they are not the kind of people who give to charities in any event.
It is recognised that a high proportion of charity giving is not of the kind which is subject to competition from the lottery. For example, the point was made about charitable bequests in people's wills. Obviously they will not be affected by the fact that somebody has bought tickets in a national lottery. All those matters have been taken into account.
At the end of the day the conclusion is that a net loss is calculated of between 4 per cent. and 7 per cent. to the charities as a result of the national lottery. That comes from not one source but from a whole number of sources, all of which reach the same conclusion, whether they are surveys of individuals about their charitable giving and their gambling behaviour or whether they are surveys of the charities themselves. I quite understand the qualifications which the Minister has about charities' own surveys and about surveys carried out in another country.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has mentioned that numerous people have made these calculations. Did they all work on the same assumptions? Did they work on different assumptions, on unknown assumptions or what did they do?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are no unknown assumptions about what people think they will do in the event of a national lottery being instituted. Any inquiry carried out on that basis would be on broadly the same assumption.
It is more difficult to make an assumption about the actual income from the national lottery because we do not know the form that it will take. If we say, for the sake of argument, that the donation income of charities is just over £3 billion and that, according to the evidence of charities, 7 per cent. of that would be lost, they are losing something like £230 million, which is the figure used by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on Second Reading. If we say that this is a £1.5 billion national lottery of which 25 per cent. is to go to good causes and of that amount 20 per cent.—that is 5 per cent. of the total—is to go to the charities, then the charities will get out of the lottery £75 million or £80 million, which means that the net loss for charities is in the order of £150 million.
I do not believe that there is anything arcane about those calculations. They will not be exact. In fact, I believe that the figures appear to be more exact than they actually are but all the evidence points in the same direction. Therefore, at the end of this debate I am still confident that my assertion—that the likelihood is, unless action is taken, that there will be a loss to charities—has not been damaged in any way.
I turn briefly to the issue of the wording. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has it right. If there is any particular difficulty with the wording in Amendment No. 4, it is a defect in the wording of Clause 4. I rely on the Minister being able to secure the support of the parliamentary draftsman for the wording used.
I found the final points made by the Minister to be most interesting. He said—and he was moving

1709
towards it hesitantly; and there is some justification for being hesitant—that the issues were proper conditions of the licence. If they are proper conditions of the licence, is there any reason why they should not be put on the face of the Bill in Clause 4 just as the phrase "due propriety" has been included in the clause? In another place, the Government sought to counter comparable amendments to those proposed by saying that they were too general. But what could be more general than "due propriety"?
If there is a choice in the licence about the kind of conditions to be imposed on the operators, with one choice favouring charities and the other not—that is, if the word used in the amendment is "likely"—then the choice that would favour charities should be made. We are saying that that should be on the face of the Bill. I believe that all the debate that has taken place, even, if I may say so, the contributions from those who are worried about the wording of the amendments, has confirmed that it is right to do so. I wish to take the opinion of the Committee.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Listowel, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

Mayhew, L.

Blackstone, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Milverton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northbourne, L.

Congleton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Rix, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Glenamara, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich,

[Teller.]

Bp.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L

Shannon, E.

Hertford, M.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Swinfen, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L. Thurlow, L.

Thurlow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. Turner of Camden, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wharton, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Barber, L.

Aldington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Birkett, L.

Blake, L.

Arran, E.

Blatch, B.

Astor, V.

Blyth, L.

Attlee, E.

Boardman, L.

Auckland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

1710

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cadman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Moyne, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Munster, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Cranborne, V.

Orkney, E.

Crathorne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Davidson, V.

Prentice, L.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Dormer, L.

Rennell, L.

Downshire, M.

Renton, L.

Elibank, L.

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elton, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Albans, D.

Flather, B.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainsborough, E.

Seccombe, B.

Gibson, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Stewartby, L.

Hacking, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.[Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Harrowby, E.

Swansea, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swaythling, L.

Henley, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Howe, E.

Wakeham, L.

Jeffreys, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Lauderdale, E.

Warnock, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lucas, L.

Wynford, L.

Lyell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("and") and insert:
("( ) that nothing in the way that the National Lottery is run, and every lottery that forms part of it is promoted, shall encourage, directly or indirectly, excessive gambling, and").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, which is also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 18, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
I have never made any secret of the fact that I view with great distaste the addition to the gambling culture of the country which the Bill is intended to make. In the light of my experience as a Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office and some years as chairman of the Gaming Board, I view with particular apprehension the prospect of addictive or excessive gambling.
The proposed lottery is often referred to as just a piece of harmless entertainment; in other words, a piece of fun. However, with prizes of a size that we

1711
have never known, and bearing in mind the variety of games that are being talked about, the disproportionate use of lotteries by the lower income groups and also the threats to the young which we discussed earlier, I am not so sure.
Some of the information coming from across the Atlantic is distinctly disquieting. New Jersey, which was the first state to follow the example of Nevada in licensing casinos, set up a hotline in 1982 for people with gambling problems. In the first year there were no complaints to the hotline about lotteries but by 1987 21 per cent. of the calls were lottery related. A study in Delaware found that the incidence of what they described as pathological gambling had almost doubled after a daily lottery was introduced. In Canada, where big jackpots resulted from rolling over prize money, outlets reported that sales had doubled or tripled their normal level and that people were queueing for hours to buy tickets.
There are a number of forms of game or activities which the national lottery could adopt which could well be more harmful than others. I am not terribly well up in the jargon but I believe there are multiple tickets known as continuity features which include the rollover of prize money. I know the Government have promised that the national lottery will not be able to roll over unwon prize money for more than three games in a row. However, they have estimated that even this might result in a jackpot of between £4 million and £8 million. Other people have estimated that the figure might be much higher. It seems to me that if prizes of this size are allowed, there is a real risk that the lottery mania which has been experienced in other countries where large jackpots are available will begin to afflict the UK.
I believe that the instant win scratchcards are particularly addictive among young people. When you scratch the cards you find out immediately whether you have won something. If a player has not won anything, he can buy more cards and before he knows what has happened he has spent much more money than he can afford. This is particularly true of young people. Who will decide whether these games can be included in the national lottery? Will the Government lay down some sort of regulation, or will this matter be left to commercial enterprise? Unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, cannot be present but he has tabled some later amendments about instant prizes.
The Government have said they are anxious not to encourage excessive and addictive play. If they really mean that, there is a great deal to be said for putting it on the face of the Bill so that we can all be told from time to time just what is being done to carry out the obligation. I submit that this amendment is free from some of the drafting objections which were raised in connection with the previous amendment. If the Government refuse to put a commitment on this issue on the face of the Bill, they leave one with the great suspicion that they do not mind about the risks of addictive or excessive gambling and that the only thing they care about is raising money. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I shall do so briefly as he has covered most of the problems that could affect vulnerable people who will be tempted to bet on the national lottery. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, pointed out on Second Reading, the national lottery should be regarded merely as a flutter. For a £l stake people gamble on winning a large amount of money but the odds against that happening are millions to one. The only people who will not realise that are vulnerable people such as the young or those who are afflicted by a compulsive gambling habit. Those are the people who should be protected. Obviously there is a conflict here because a company that will promote the national lottery will want to sell as many tickets as possible. We hope that will not be done at the expense of vulnerable people.
Earl Ferrers: I can understand the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, saying that he does not like addictive or excessive gambling. We would all go along with that. Within the duties and powers currently drafted for the Secretary of State and the director general there is the power to prevent games or their marketing which many of us would consider insidious—which might encourage people to chase their losses repeatedly, for example. That power is a means of controlling types of game. However, it is never possible to control all the potential effects of any new product. The director general will take a reasonable view, when a type of game is proposed, on whether it seems fair and honest for the players. Neither he, nor anyone else, can be expected to know whether an individual with a propensity to gamble will choose the national lottery as his outlet. In most cases this seems unlikely: serious gamblers generally choose games where they think they can influence their chances of winning with some element of skill.
Some people may gamble to an extent that harms them or their families. But the Home Secretary cannot be held responsible for individual behaviour. Government policy on gambling is based on the principle that the state should interfere as little as possible with individual liberty to take part in the various forms of gambling, but that controls are necessary to prevent crime, to ensure that players are aware of what they are letting themselves in for, and to protect the vulnerable, in particular young people. This is achieved by taking a reasonable view, for example, on the places where different types of gambling may go on, but the Government cannot be held automatically responsible for the behaviour of individuals. It is no part of government policy to prevent people gambling.
The Government and the director general will take action to prevent games where there is a possibility of damage to the interests of players, including those games which encourage excessive repeat play. But the way normal and acceptable games are played by particular individuals is not a matter which is suitable for statutory control.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that the amendments were free of the drafting objections

1713
applicable to others. However, they bump up against other objections. For instance, there is no way of determining in law what excessive or addictive gambling is or of determining when the Rubicon is crossed between normal and excessive gambling. It would be very difficult to prove or disprove that some form of indirect encouragement had been given to stimulate excessive gambling. I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, but to impose a duty of the kind set out in the amendment would not work.
Lord Airedale: The noble Lord, Lord Allen, mentioned scratch cards. I am worried about that as a possible source of fraud. I take it that there is no possibility of the seller of an ordinary lottery ticket knowing whether he is selling a winning or losing ticket. However, although I have never done it, I believe that one can buy a scratch card in a pub. Presumably, some of the cards held behind the counter are winning cards and others are losing cards. One hopes that the publican has no idea which is which.
There was a case not long ago where the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of certain terrorists. After the Court of Appeal hearing a machine was invented which showed a police notebook to have been altered. The case went back to the Court of Appeal and the conviction was quashed. When one considers that case and the pace of technology nowadays, perhaps it would not be very difficult for a dishonest seller of scratch cards to find out which were the winning tickets. There is a basis for fraud there. Do we really want the national lottery to have anything to do with a game which may in some cases involve fraud?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has once again exhibited his fascinating imagination. I can assure him that there is no connection between the instrument which detected whether someone had written something in a police notebook contemporaneously and a scratch card. I believe that the noble Lord is concerned that the advent of technology could be such that a person in a pub might have an instrument which would enable him to detect the number on a scratch card. Obviously, that would be a fundamental objection to any such scratch card system. The director general will obviously have to keep his eye very closely on such forms of modern technology to ensure that that does not happen.
One cannot legislate for all conceivable eventualities. When a person scratches a scratch card he does not know whether he will be a winner and the person who sells him the scratch card does not know whether he will be a winner. While I understand the noble Lord's anxiety, I do not believe that he should be too worried. If such technology was developed in the future steps would have to be taken to ensure that the game was run fairly.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I see that I have an amendment which is linked to the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I shall not go
1714
over the ground again. However, I notice one inconvenience in this Chamber, especially in Committee. If one leaves the Chamber for a few minutes—as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, did, to lick his wounds—when one returns, one has lost touch with the position which the Committee has reached. There is nothing to tell one. Before the Minister stood up, I looked around when I heard my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale speaking, and I thought, "Is this Amendment No. 5?" What does one do? There is no form of communication. However, I shall leave that point. There is much that is wrong with this place, and it would not be in order if I were to start on that subject.
I make only this observation. We have now gone over some of the ground of concern. Each time, we come to another field of concern in relation to the effects of the national lottery. One can see now why the public and Parliament have been so reluctant to embrace the idea in this country, notwithstanding strong pressure. There have been lotteries in Europe for a very long time, but those of us who had the privilege to travel in Europe many years ago saw that lotteries flourished where people were poorest. It may be the same today. They flourished in countries where the government wanted to get money out of the poorest people, which they could not do by taxation. By offering the inducement of prizes in lotteries they managed to do so.
Basically, this is an evil thing, and it has been from the beginning. It is not virtuous, even when embroidered with all the safeguards. It panders to something in human desire we have hitherto discouraged. It is now coming out full blast in a gambling system which comes into our midst under the cloak of good causes.
There is no answer to the questions we are raising. The Minister said that it cannot be proved. The measure will be the cause of constant parliamentary concern. There will be Questions to the Secretary of State at the Home Office on the organisation and running of the lottery. By the time we have finished with the Bill it will not be clear what good we expect it to do. What is it for? Whose interests is it to satisfy? Who has asked for it? Who will benefit? And so on and so forth. I shall not pursue the matter, but it arises constantly. It arose during the previous string of amendments and now we are dealing with a different field of anxiety. That anxiety will not be lifted by observations from the Front Bench that those fears are exaggerated.
There is no evidence from the running of lotteries anywhere in the world which makes us feel that we have a better answer than other countries. We know what is happening to the social system in the United States and in other countries. That springs from the desire for gambling games of one kind or another. It is as if humanity is being drugged. People must have excitement, risk, drugs and stimulants. One wonders how the human race will finish up. But that is a long story and a long way from now.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I was a little surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, criticised the amendment on the grounds that "excessive gambling" is not a

1715
phrase which is susceptible of legal definition. I wonder whether the phrase which is already contained in the clause we are considering—"with all due propriety"—is one which the courts can define with precision. I rather doubt it.
However, the noble Earl made one rather astonishing remark which, perhaps I may say with all deference, reflected extremely well on him. He stated that heavy gamblers only go in for games requiring some modicum of skill—a remark which plainly demonstrates that he is unfamiliar with what goes on in the West End casinos. A great deal of money is won and lost on games which involve no element of skill. I do not include blackjack in that observation.
I cannot say that I am satisfied with the explanation given. However, I do not propose to divide the Committee, although I consider Amendment No. 5 a better amendment than Amendment No. 4 on which we did divide. I shall read carefully what the Minister said before deciding whether to pursue the issue at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
(" (c) that no contract or other arrangement is made by or on behalf of the National Lottery or any lottery that forms part of it whereby tickets in such a lottery are only to be offered for sale on the basis that tickets in local lotteries or societies lotteries are not to be sold; and
(d) that no advertisement or other promotion of the National Lottery or any lottery that forms part of it seeks to compare the amount that may be won in such a lottery with the amount that may be won in a local lottery or a societies lottery.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I sometimes feel out of touch even when I am in the Chamber of your Lordships' House. I do not need to be outside the Chamber to feel that.
The amendment was aired in another place. It is proposed in the belief that charitable and society lotteries need to be protected against the possibility of being swamped by the national lottery. The assurance was given in another place that such a situation could not arise and that the national lottery would not impose restrictions on its sales outlets. Those sales outlets would be free to sell lottery tickets if they so wished. Of course, we must accept those assurances. I am grateful to the Government for the attention that they have given to safeguarding the position of existing lotteries in aid of charities and societies.
However, I believe that there is need for more assurance. It would be better if a provision were incorporated on the face of the Bill that such restrictive practices will not be legal. Unless that happens I fear that many small lotteries will disappear and with them the income generated for the organisations which promote them. It will be too late to redress the situation after the damage has been done. We need to take steps to ensure that that does not occur in the first place.
I am sure that all of us—I certainly do—wish the national lottery to be as successful as it possibly can be, but not if that involves weakening or possibly
1716
destroying the existing charity lottery system which allows so many worthwhile organisations to continue splendid and worthwhile work.
We have discussed on both sides of the Chamber the situation in Ireland. The situation there is not clear; that is the problem. Both sides have produced evidence indicating either that the income appears to be good or that it is not. It is clear that although some of the larger charities in Ireland have done well, many of the medium or small sized charities have not. Before the national lottery in Ireland there were 22 charitable organisations running their own lotteries. There are now only six. The income from such lotteries fell by 60 per cent. Of the lottery tickets in Ireland, 98 per cent. are sold on behalf of the Irish National Lottery. If we were to reach a similar stage in Britain, with an overall annual income from lotteries of say, £2 billion, the small lotteries' share of that would be £40 million. That is very small compared with the present income of well over £200 million.
I appreciate that those figures are slightly different from the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in a previous amendment. However, they are not markedly different. The proportions are much the same. Whichever figure one takes—even if one makes the position more favourable—it would still be a disastrous drop in income for those small charities. We should not allow that to occur.
We must give serious consideration to the issue at this stage. Rather than hoping that the situation which I have outlined does not occur, it would be better to ensure that such a situation could not occur and so protect the myriad of charities which wish to raise their own income. They wish to show their independence and decide for themselves the most appropriate way in which to raise income. I beg to move.
Lord Donoughue: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 15 which is grouped with Amendment No. 6. I support what was so ably said by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I shall not delay Members of the Committee from dinner, or from the equally crucial matter of Amendment No. 8A.
All businesses incline to monopolistic practices. All businessmen speak in favour of competition—but they mean for others. The Irish National Lottery is but one example. I suspect that the Minister's response, as it was in another place, will be that there is no problem and that what is feared is forbidden under competition policies both in this country and in the EC. However, I do not believe that that is enough. The process of operating competition policies is very slow, as we know. By the time it had operated, frankly, the game would be over for many local and society lotteries. They would have been driven out and killed off. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the national lottery will not be allowed to operate an anti-competition policy by stipulating that its retailers should not retail other lotteries. How will that situation be avoided? Like the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I believe that it would be much better if the provision were on the face of the Bill.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I speak as a supporter of Amendment No. 6 and as a signatory to Amendment No. 15. The national lottery will be enormous business. It would be understandable, given its vast power of promotion—with advertising on television—if it attempted to negotiate what I believe is called a solus spot for distribution, using its muscle in the market place to say to retailers and other distributors, "Give us not only a special position but a solus position. Let us be the main purveyor of that particular product at your retailing point of sale".
The Government would rightly say, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, stated, that it was a straightforward competition issue. It arises in other retail trades. There is currently a case before the European competition authorities about who may use ice cream cabinets. Can any ice cream company use them or only the company which placed them? The Government may say, "This is a straightforward competition issue", to be dealt with presumably by the Office of Fair Trading and the competition authorities.
Two problems arise from that potential government answer. First, the issue is bound to be dealt with retrospectively and in that time other smaller competitor charities which are running lotteries may have been forced out of business. Secondly, the Government have got themselves into a quite difficult intellectual position. They say that those small lottery charities are not really competition because the national lottery is an entirely different issue; it is not competitive; everyone will be able to tell the difference; and one is a bet and the other a charitable donation in disguised form. The Government are impaled on their own logic. If those other lotteries are, as I maintain, competitors, some of the statements made earlier by the Government are invalid. At all events it would be a wise precaution to include the provision on the face of the Bill in the way that Members of the Committee have asked.
Lord Swinfen: I have put my name down to Amendment No. 6. I also support Amendment No. 15. Both amendments seek to prevent a local monopoly position being brought about by the heavy muscle of the national lottery. It will be much bigger. It is likely that the operators will sell a much larger volume of tickets or chances, and even if the commission that they pay to the seller is the same as for a small local lottery, they are likely to force out the local lottery. The latter may be charitable, it may be that, as happens in some areas already, it is for the local authority or it may be for some local worthy cause. I feel that it is essential to make certain that the big lotteries are not allowed to use their monopoly position to force out the smaller lotteries.
I know that organisations such as sub-post offices and corner shops are all likely to wish to take on the national lottery. Often they have a precarious living to make. If there is any hint that one source of income may be withdrawn because they are prepared to offer the product of a rival, that which offers them the greatest profit, and possibly the more secure long-term profit, will be preferred.
1718
Of the two, I prefer Amendment No. 6 because it goes further than Amendment No. 15 by including advertising and promotion of the national lottery. It may be difficult to see how advertisements and promotion can seek to compare the amount to be won in the big lottery with that of small local lotteries. However, it can happen. I am sure that if we do not outlaw it in the Bill it will happen, to the detriment of the smaller lotteries.
The Government have said on many occasions that they do not wish to see the income of charities diminish. Some charities rely for a large proportion of their income on local lotteries run on a number of occasions during the year. Therefore, I support my noble friend's amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I too wish to add my support to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. It seeks to prevent the operator of the lotteries from indulging in the very natural desire to squeeze out competition. I feel that the wording of the amendment is too narrow but perhaps it is impossible to make it wide enough because there are so many ways in which commerce can indulge in such practices.
I am sure that my noble friend will say, as was stated in another place, that the existing legislation provides a remedy for that, and that this pig already has wings. However, even such a well-endowed pig as the late Robert Maxwell was unable to obtain lift off and was sunk by the Evening Standard's monopoly of the distribution system. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to allow the director general to take action to prevent such abuses. He or she will be the only person in a position to be fast enough and flexible enough.
Viscount Astor: I appreciate the concerns behind the amendments. They seek to prevent those who deal in the national lottery tickets from entering into exclusive deals with retailers which would preclude the selling of other lottery tickets. Such a contract which sought to hold a retailer to an exclusive deal would have the potential to be anti-competitive and would be open to scrutiny and challenge by this country's competition authorities—principally the Office of Fair Trading—and also from Europe. There would be nothing to stop the operator from setting up its own shops or franchises which dealt exclusively with the national lottery product, but the operator would clearly be open to challenge if it were to enter into exclusive anti-competitive deals with general retail outlets; as, of course, would the pools companies or charitable lotteries.
The amendments are based on fears expressed by the charities as to what happened in Ireland where, I understand, the Irish National Lottery marketed itself very aggressively against existing lotteries. However, as I have said again and again this afternoon, our lottery is a very different animal from the one in the Republic of Ireland. Not only are we in a different situation in this country, but I argue that we have the benefit of being able to see what happened over there. Those who run small lotteries in this country will be

1719
quick to spot the tell-tale signs of uncompetitive behaviour and to alert the appropriate competition authorities if there is seen to be a problem.
However, I appreciate the concern of my noble friends Lord Mancroft, Lord Lucas and Lord Swinfen and other noble Lords. Therefore, I should like to take this amendment away and consider whether it could be a proper area for the licence conditions. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mancroft: I thank noble Lords for their comments during the course of that short debate and my noble friend for the answer he gave. One or two comments came to my mind as he spoke. He referred to the national lottery in this country as a "different animal" and indeed it will be different from the Irish example. He also pointed out that the operators of charities of this country would have the benefit of being able to see whether restrictive practices take place. However, neither of those factors would give them the power to deal with the restrictive practices if they were to take place. It is true that we may be able to recognise the signs, but what would anyone do about them? Those are the important issues, which the Minister did not address. However, he was kind enough to say that he would take the amendment away and look at it and I am grateful to him for doing that. I hope that the Government will take on board the real concerns expressed gently but from all sides of the Committee. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Donoughue: I also wish to thank the Minister and welcome what he said. The key to it is that the beginning of the process will be when the pattern of distribution is established. We must have it clear from the beginning that such practices are not on. However, I shall not move my Amendment No. 15.
Viscount Astor: To be absolutely clear what I said, it was that I should consider it as part of the licence conditions set by the director general to the operator. I believe that that is the right area to look at.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, when are we likely to see the licence conditions?
Viscount Astor: That is a matter for the future. First, we have to pass the Bill, so that it becomes an Act, then the director general has to look at the bids that he will be offered by the various bodies, companies or whatever, which seek to operate the lottery. At that stage, the director general will issue a licence when he has chosen which entity should run the lottery. Then there will be the licence conditions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should like to be clear exactly what the noble Viscount is undertaking to do. He indicated—very reasonably, in my view—that he is prepared to look at the question of whether the provision should appear in the licence, and we welcome that. However, we would welcome it even more if, at the next stage of the Bill, he is able to tell us whether the Government have come to a firm conclusion on the matter. Most of us wish to know the answer to that before the Bill leaves the House.
Viscount Astor: I believe that I have to stand by the words I used earlier. I do not think that it would be right for me to be drawn further at this stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am not asking the noble Lord to go further today. I am asking him to indicate whether he will tell us, before the Bill leaves this House—not today—whether the Government have reached a conclusion on the matter. Some of us would inevitably wish it to come back to the House if the Government were not prepared to indicate at some stage over the next few weeks whether they had reached a conclusion on the matter.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord is not asking me, as he quite rightly said, to go further today, but on another day. I take note of what he said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Birkett: I had intended to oppose Clause 4, but that was only in the hope that the Committee would like my Amendment No. 28, to which I spoke earlier this afternoon. Since the Committee did not, there is no point in my opposition to Clause 4 and I withdraw it.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Energy Efficiency of Buildings
7.10 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that sufficient is being done to improve the energy efficiency of buildings.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe we are breaking new ground taking this Unstarred Question in the dinner hour. I should like to thank noble Lords who are participating in this debate for sacrificing that period.
I have asked this Question on the energy efficiency of buildings in the context of the Government's commitment that the UK will return its carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The significance of the energy consumption of buildings is that they account for half final energy usage and are therefore a major cause of carbon dioxide emissions.
It could well be asked whether the national target is sufficiently demanding. If the European Community as a whole is to stabilise emissions by the year 2000, and if countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal are to be permitted to increase emissions in order to achieve their economic growth targets, it follows that the more affluent countries such as the United Kingdom should be aiming to reduce emissions significantly below 1990 levels. Such an example is being set by Denmark, which is seeking a reduction of

1721
20 per cent. by the year 2000, and by Germany, which is targeting a reduction of 25 to 30 per cent. by the year 2005. Why is the UK being so modest?
The Danish target is all the more laudable in the light of the achievements already made. For example, during the 1980s, residential energy consumption in Denmark fell by 33 per cent., whereas in the UK it marginally rose. During the 1980s Denmark's CO2, emissions per capita fell by over 12 per cent. During the same period the UK's fell by less than 4 per cent. One is bound to ask why Denmark is able to set such a significantly better reduction target starting from a far more efficient base. Clearly one of the reasons is that country's very positive commitment to improving the energy efficiency of both new and existing buildings. I should like to suggest various ways in which I believe we could act similarly in Britain.
In its report, Energy Use In Buildings and Carbon Dioxide Emissions, the Building Research Establishment identified that 44 million tonnes of carbon dioxide could be saved annually using cost-effective and technically proven methods of improving the energy efficiency of buildings. I should like to ask what is being planned to enable that target to be realised.
The United Kingdom has a legacy of almost 20 million poorly insulated homes. There is a grant scheme, as we well know, the home energy efficiency scheme, which is targeted at a minority of occupants; namely, those in receipt of social benefits. These are the people on low incomes whose homes are heated to a low standard and therefore the effect of any modest insulation measures will be largely, and quite rightly, taken up by improving their standards of warmth rather than by reducing energy consumption. This work is being spearheaded by Neighbourhood Energy Action (with which I have been connected for some years) which has already insulated over a million homes; but there are still about 6 million to go in this category.
The home energy efficiency scheme at present covers the installation of draught-stripping and loft insulation only. As walls are the biggest area of heat loss from a dwelling, one might well ask why the grants do not extend to wall insulation. By doing so this scheme would achieve further improvements in the level of comfort of occupants and a significant additional reduction in CO2, emissions.
I should like to comment on the proposed imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. I am in favour of the use of fiscal measures to promote energy efficiency. But for VAT to have this effect, some or all of the revenue generated must be returned to householders to stimulate them to apply energy saving measures. At present, with the exception of the scheme I referred to which applies to a limited sector of the population, there is no such incentive.
The Energy Saving Trust has been set up to help bring about a better use of energy. I hope that it will be provided with adequate resources. The trust needs quickly and vigorously to tackle the generally poor energy performance in the existing housing stock. A
1722
national programme aimed at systematically improving the standards of insulation of all existing houses would bring substantial benefits. I understand that the Energy Saving Trust says that it could implement activities to generate 40,000 new jobs by the year 1997 if resources were forthcoming.
A procedure which I believe can positively help to improve the energy efficiency of buildings is energy rating. The National Energy Foundation, a charitable trust based at Milton Keynes, has produced a system called the national home energy rating (NHER) which evaluates dwellings on a 1 to 10 scale. Unfortunately, the Government have encouraged the introduction of other home energy rating schemes and indeed have recently developed the standard assessment procedure evaluation method of their own. This proliferation can only be an impediment to the general acceptance of home energy ratings and it is to be hoped that a single government supported scheme becomes established soon. That was indeed proposed in the report on energy and the environment by the European Select Committee in June 1991.
While existing housing is the biggest single contributor of CO2, and therefore the principal target for energy efficiency measures, we should not forget that the existing stock is poorly insulated because it was constructed under building regulations which have been inadequate. If we are to ensure that the housing stock of the future is energy efficient, we have to strengthen the standards to which new housing is built. The design of a house today represents a commitment to a pattern of energy use for several decades ahead. This places a grave responsibility on house builders and on those who frame building regulations.
I was pleased to see the statement by the Government on 29th March that the proposals to review Part L of the building regulations have been brought forward because of growing environmental concerns. However, the proposals for revisions to this part seem inadequate. No improvements in insulation levels to walls, roofs or floors are proposed, apart from a small correction to the manner in which these levels are calculated. The preamble to the consultative document on Part L revisions states that they will achieve the elimination of 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. But many believe that that estimate is exaggerated and that the measures proposed require substantial strengthening. Would the Minister care to comment?
If press reports are to be believed, there has been a recent development which threatens even the modest CO2, savings of the Government's proposals. Under the DTI's deregulation initiative, the task force looking at the construction industry appears to be considering the abolition of building regulations, including, one presumes, the part governing the conservation of energy. But there is no alternative to regulation if appropriate standards of energy efficiency in new buildings are to be achieved. I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that the press reports are inaccurate.
The requirement for higher standards of energy efficiency would be beneficial to UK business, and

1723
experience in countries such as Denmark shows what can be achieved. It could stimulate the market for UK products and create an incentive for development and innovation. This would generate export opportunities for products and manufacturing technology. For example, the German subsidiary of Pilkington has produced a sophisticated range of insulating glass as a direct result of the high standards of energy efficiency required in German buildings. If we are slow to improve the required standards of energy efficiency in UK buildings, then when these standards are ultimately introduced they are more likely to be satisfied by products produced in other countries. There are many examples of ways in which we have failed to develop new technology to meet higher standards because of our slowness in introducing those standards.
There are many benefits, therefore, which will accrue to UK business, to the national economy, to individual house occupants and to the global environment if the UK pursues a more vigorous energy conservation strategy for buildings. The techniques which can improve the energy performance of new and existing houses are proven and readily available. I hope that in his reply the Minister will indicate what further measures the Government have in mind.
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for asking this Question. I speak in my capacity as the immediate past president of the Combined Heat and Power Association. The question of energy efficiency in buildings is particularly topical now that we have VAT on domestic fuel. In fact, it is nothing more than a partial implementation of the Community's carbon tax. Yet, as all noble Lords will know, the VAT is exceedingly unpopular. Noble Lords will also know that Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, examined the full carbon tax and rejected it, for much the same reason as the opponents of VAT on domestic fuel; namely, that it hits hardest the poor and the elderly.
However, there was one phrase in the proposed carbon tax that we did not hear in the Budget and that was the phrase "revenue neutral". If the Government collect extra taxes from carbon, they must reduce other taxes or increase other benefits. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I cannot see any financial objection to VAT on domestic fuel, if those who suffer are reimbursed by an increase in their pensions or some such thing.
But even that is merely financial and defeats the main purpose of a carbon tax, which is to lessen carbon dioxide emissions worldwide and avoid global warming. That, as they say, is the bottom line. That is what makes the energy efficiency of a building of such importance.
In this country our buildings are supremely inefficient. So I regard thermal insulation as of supreme importance. Conserving heat and power is much more important than any of the fancy non-fossil
1724
fuel power sources that are now in vogue: wind power, wave power, tidal power, hot rocks, fuel cells—you name it. They are exciting but they are not as important as loft insulation or double glazing. That is what I call the boring truth of energy efficiency.
On a bigger scale, it is inefficient to have thousands of small boilers heating thousands of small houses. A large boiler for a large town uses much less fuel. District heating schemes are good friends to the environmentalist. It is fascinating to see them working. For instance, in Denmark I saw a district heating network in Aarhus. It contained a loop of pipe stretching out to a hamlet 32 kilometres away. The water went out to the hamlet at 96°C. When it came back it was still 92°C, having heated the hamlet and travelled a total of 64 kilometres. The insulation of the pipes was near perfect. I understand that there is a bigger and even better network that heats the whole of Copenhagen. Denmark seems to be a most efficient country from the heat conservation point of view and I was interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also featured Denmark in his remarks.
I believe that I can forecast my noble friend's reply to what I have said; namely, that the Government are indeed keen to promote combined heat and power and that they are aiming for 4 gigawatts by the millenium. I must give the schemes in Sheffield, Teesside and the City of London their due. But those are mere flea bites compared with what is 'on the continent. As might be expected, Scandinavia leads the way, but even France is well ahead of us. They have a scheme which heats nearly half of Lyons. I do not believe that we have anything on that scale. Perhaps I could ask my noble friend whether he knows of any country in the Community which has less combined heat and power per capita than we do. But I am not a one-track minded combined heat and power man. Tonight I seek to find ways to use less energy. That is the objective.
In Helsinki I was shown a table of what it costs to heat one cubic metre of air up to 20°C throughout Europe. Noble Lords might think that the farther south one goes the less it costs because the weather is warmer. Surprisingly, it costs the same in Finland, where one starts with an outdoor temperature of −20°, as it does in Milan, where one starts with an outdoor temperature of +10°. That is because the energy efficiency of the buildings decreases as the ambient temperature increases. Thus, one can draw a line from Helsinki through Copenhagen, Hamburg, Zurich, Turin and Palermo and find that the heating costs are always about the same. The one exception is this country, where London should be about as efficient as Amsterdam. But with our history of plentiful coal, oil and North Sea gas, we seem to throw energy efficiency out of the window. In fact, we are only as efficient as Tangier.
I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench could improve our energy efficiency a little by answering two questions. First, are there still two scales for carrying out an energy audit on houses? There used to be two. There was a scale of 10 under the Lady Mary Archer system and also a scale of stars. That was confusing. I wonder whether the two have

1725
yet been integrated. Secondly, can my noble friend give any hope that energy insulating materials will soon be VAT zero rated or exempt?
The answer to our energy problem is not anything as exciting as a tidal barrage across the Mersey. It is foam and cavity walls, blankets in lofts and double or even triple glazing in windows. If we conserve the energy that we now produce, that is much better than having to produce more of it.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I also am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for tabling this question. The energy efficiency of buildings is a subject close to my heart. That is largely because the energy efficiency of buildings has the greatest potential for reducing our total energy requirement in the UK. Approximately 46 per cent. of total UK energy use is for heating buildings generally. For domestic heating it is about 30 per cent.
Energy conservation in buildings is one of those very rare matters on which everybody wins: the house owner will recover the cost many times over the life of the building and he will be more comfortable; the construction industry will benefit from the extra work; and the nation will benefit because fuel that is not used will be there for another day or can be exported, thus improving our balance of payments. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings will reduce the demand for fossil fuels and help in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. It will be a plus for everyone if the Government would only think straight and set out a consistent policy for energy reduction in buildings for the future.
Back in 1983 the then Secretary of State for Energy set an objective of improving the energy efficiency of buildings by 20 per cent. in 10 to 15 years, which would save about £4 billion per annum. I believe that the target set in 1983 should have been achievable. But I very much doubt whether we have improved by more than a few percent in the past 10 years, owing to lack of determination to tackle the matter.
I wish to develop further the matter of building regulations, which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned, where it is very important to get our thinking straight. There were attempts in 1985 and 1990 at upgrading Section L of the building regulations, which deals with the insulation of the fabric of buildings. The consultation period has just ended for a further attempt to upgrade them. The result of the first two upgrades has been very small. The 1990 regulations were supposed to achieve a reduction in energy use of 20 per cent. but it is now estimated that only about 6 per cent. is being achieved because of trade-offs permitted in the regulations. For instance, it is possible to omit floor insulation if double glazing is fitted. That seems particularly stupid because double glazing can be added at any time whereas floor insulation must go in when the house is built. Those trade-offs were introduced in order to placate those who objected to the improvements because they either were considered too difficult or cost too much.
1726
The proposed new regulations are shaping up even worse. They have introduced a new concept "target 'U' value" where the under-performance of one element can be compensated by the over-performance of another. The absurdity of it is that the fabric of the building can be degraded if, for example, a condensing heating boiler is used.
For new buildings it is obviously important to ensure that the fabric of the structure is insulated to the highest practical value and that the fitting of condensing boilers or efficient refrigerators can be dealt with separately. These will change several times in the life of a house, which will be 50 years or more, so it is of fundamental importance to get the fabric right to start with. The Royal Institute of British Architects and most responsible bodies concerned with the construction industry have submitted proposals to that effect. The objectors are house building groups and others interested in house building. They say that the proposed "U" values will cost too much and will lead to problems. The department, following consultations, is tending towards trade-offs and other handicaps in relation to high fabric insulation.
The main problem arises with wall insulation, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Adding insulation to a traditional cavity wall presents technical problems. It is labour intensive, adds to the cost of building and is difficult to supervise. It is common for its performance to fall short of expectations by 20 or even 50 per cent. A variety of alternatives to cavity walls is standard practice in countries in Northern Europe, some of which have weather conditions similar to ours. If the wall problem can be overcome then "U" values of 0.35 or even 0.3 can be set for walls; 0.2 for roofs (as agreed by most authorities); and 0.25 for floors. That would result in the energy reduction in new houses approaching 50 per cent., provided that airtightness is dealt with.
I must declare an interest in insulation. My company manufactures insulation for the construction industry. But it manufactures insulation because of its interest in energy conservation, not the other way round. My family firm was part of the linen industry in Northern Ireland for 100 or 150 years. When our section of the industry faced terminal decline in about 1960 we sought an alternative activity. It was felt that to manufacture insulation would be a reasonable thing to do. It was hoped that the demand for it would rapidly increase. The difficulty of applying insulation effectively and economically to cavity walls soon became apparent. We studied construction methods in all Northern European countries, North America and Canada. Building systems do not always translate from one country to another, and a few false starts have been made. However, the firm now offers a fully developed building concept for which it has a certificate from the British Board of Agrement. This system is compatible with and uses traditional trades and skills except that bricklayers are not required. It is quick to build. Houses built in accordance with this system have an energy requirement one-third that of a similar house built to the current regulations. That is a reduction of

1727
66 per cent. The system offers a delivered "U" value for walls of 0.27. The reason I have gone into this in detail is to show that there is no valid reason for failing to go for "U" values that will produce astonishing reductions in new houses.
As to the cost of such a system, I offer two examples. A contractor is now commencing work on the construction of houses for the Focus Housing Association in Handsworth, Birmingham, using this system. The contract was awarded on cost in competition with houses built to the current regulations. This means that the reduction of 66 per cent. in energy use will not add to the cost. The system was also used to build a classroom accommodation block for Stafford independent grammar school in 1989. That is a building of 6,000 square feet with seven classrooms to accommodate about 130 pupils. Last year the bill for heat, light and ventilation exceeded £200 per annum for the first time—at £220. I do not know what those costs are for a normal school accommodation block of that kind but certainly it can be measured in the thousands. The cost of that accommodation block was competitive. The pupils moved in 13 weeks after the commencement of site works. There are many other proven building systems that can achieve similar results, and I suggest it is time that more attention was paid to them.
I hope that the Minister will direct his department to look more positively and constructively at the setting of high standards. I suggest that the standards that I mentioned earlier should be included in new building regulations and that the construction industry should be given two or three years' notice of that intention so that it has time to develop suitable methods to meet the standard without additional cost. We should then be moving towards substantial energy conservation in new buildings.
I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the new regulations should require an energy rating certificate, such as the National Energy Foundation Certificate with minor modifications. I believe that that is a more suitable and relevant method of assessing buildings than the one presently proposed by the Government. Something must be done about the existing building stock because generally the waste is absurdly high. I applaud the Energy Saving Trust concept. I also believe that it must move more quickly and be funded one way or another so that its work can achieve much greater momentum in a short time and improve energy use in existing buildings.
I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage us today by concurring that new regulations will be looked at more positively.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his initiative. It is not unique; it is regular and consistent. The House is indebted to the noble Lord who not only is uniquely qualified to speak on these matters but who also enjoys a high reputation outside the House. In raising this matter he is attempting to nudge and
1728
remind the Government, not that major steps have to be taken, but that the issue has to be kept constantly in focus.
All three previous speakers stressed that we are looking at a package of measures; not a single measure, cut, grant or initiative. What I believe we are learning, and the record will show, is that this Chamber is not short on suggestions. I know that the Minister will very fairly tell us a great deal about what is being done. What we want to encourage him and his colleague to do is to look at examples in other countries.
The issue of the sheer waste of energy literally going up the chimney needs to be recognised and blanched at. We ought to find a better way of getting the maximum use out of the energy that we burn. The Labour Party would want a national programme of energy efficiency work, with the linked objectives certainly of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and generating substantial amounts of long-term employment. Not too much was made of this—it is not directly appropriate—but in the present national economic climate and crisis, where we are trying to reduce £50 billion of debt, one of the factors that the Minister and his colleagues should look at, whenever they have the opportunity of examining these matters, is how many jobs can be created or how many jobs can be saved. We think that the highest priority in this economic recovery should be to save jobs—permanent jobs—to reduce the number of households which are unable to afford to heat their homes adequately and to achieve reductions in national energy demand—with environmental benefit and less reliance on imported coal, electricity and opencasting.
I want to make three positive proposals for the Minister and his colleagues to consider. First, there should be a scheme to provide a variety of packages of insulation and efficiency work at no extra cost to households, with a small subsequent premium being added in return to those households' unit energy costs. We suggest that this can be organised and funded by the regional electricity companies and British Gas. There could be worse ways of encouraging these bodies, which have made large profits since they have been privatised, than using some of them—not necessarily losing any of them—to provide the seed corn for encouraging better efficiency. It would be at no capital cost to the householder but it would be recouped in one way or another at a later date.
Secondly, we propose a change in the regulatory regime for the energy utilities, so that a direct incentive is built into their pricing mechanisms to promote energy efficiency. And thirdly, we propose a change to building regulations—a point that has been referred to by more than one speaker —to improve standards of insulation and thermal efficiency coupled with an energy audit to be carried out when major refurbishment takes place.
We believe that the work which could be achieved under the first of these initiatives, backed up by the others, could provide better standards of warmth and energy use for more than half a million homes a year, and could, for example, generate 50,000 permanent jobs. It could also remove more than 1 million tonnes

1729
of carbon dioxide output a year, rising cumulatively. After a 10-year programme, emissions totalling 55 million tonnes would have been prevented. There would be no additional cost to the taxpayer.
The Minister and his colleagues may look at these statistics with scepticism. I am certainly not able wholly to defend them in detail but this is what I have been told could be achieved if the Minister and his colleagues looked at the matter.
Can the Minister confirm that investment in energy efficiency has declined in the United Kingdom by 28 per cent. over the past two years? We believe that the Government should be launching a nation-wide programme to achieve better use of our energy. Although I am sure that the Minister will tell us of a small range of things being done, they do not add up in our eyes to what is required.
The Minister knows that the present position is bleak. Local authority expenditure under housing investment programme authorisations on improved insulation was £210 million in 1991–92 (cut from £280 million in 1989–90) on council housing stock; and £30 million in 1991–92 on grants for non-council dwellings. If the Minister denies that those statistics are correct he has to justify to the House how reducing the amount of money, funnelled through one source or another, to encourage councils to insulate their houses is improving the situation.
The Green House programme, to assist local authorities specifically for energy efficiency work, was £45 million in 1992–93 but was cut to only £5 million in 1993–94. Then there is the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, which was mentioned by more than one speaker. It began in 1991 and offers insulation work to low income households, at reduced costs but requiring a client contribution. Thirty-five million pounds has been allocated in 1992–93 and the amount is set to remain the same in cash terms for the current year. How does that encourage the better use of energy?
The Energy Savings Trust has recently been established, with the former Cabinet Member, the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Lower Marsh, as its chairman, with the participation of British Gas and most of the regional electricity companies, and with a remit to promote energy saving. Its budget for the first year is only £6 million. Now £6 million in the billions of pounds that are at stake in wasting or saving energy is nothing short of a disgrace.
Some noble Lords have told us what other countries are doing. I am certain that the Minister will tell us that there are equally interesting examples in this country. I am told that Japan provides free energy audits for small companies, tax concessions on investment in energy-saving equipment and low interest loans from the Housing Finance Corporation to help pay for insulation and imposes a legal requirement on companies to employ qualified engineers as energy managers.
In Holland, the utilities are authorised to raise a levy of up to 2 per cent. on the price of gas and electricity in order to finance grants for the installation of high-efficiency boilers, insulation and low-energy light bulbs. In Wisconsin, in the United States, a
1730
similar provision exists for a 3 per cent. levy. Many of the states in the US have weatherisation programmes, and the US utilities are regulated according to a rate of return basis, such as we have suggested, which deliberately encourages energy efficiency promotion. In Germany, mandatory provision comes into force next year for the inclusion of low-emissivity glass in all new buildings; similar provisions already exist in Sweden. I hope that the Minister, while not being able to deny those initiatives, will encourage me to believe that there are equally good and sound initiatives being taken by his department.
We do not have to go abroad to see innovations in this field. Leicester City Council has filled the cavity walls in nearly 13,000 council houses, achieving cost savings of more than 50 per cent. because of economies of scale. It is also conducting an energy survey of all its housing stock, and has an imaginative scheme for selling low-energy light bulbs to tenants at cost price.
Glasgow City Council has a central energy conservation budget, and an automatic policy of improving insulation when refurbishing properties or tackling damp problems. By the city working together with community-based business Heatwise, 70,000 homes have been draught-proofed and insulated. Newcastle—I am proud to say, my own home town —has worked up a project, together with the European Commission, British Gas, Northern Electric and British Coal, aimed at reductions of CO2, emissions and any energy consumption in the city by the year 2000.
We debate this powerful and emotive topic against the background that around 7 million families in Britain cannot afford to pay for the warmth they need and that 3 million homes suffer from condensation and mould growth. Helping to reduce energy bills and promote greater warmth is of prime importance to any anti-poverty strategy. We believe that the needs of low-income households should be central to the work carried out under the scheme we propose. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has, more than anyone else, given the Minister an opportunity to remind us of what is being done. He has been reminded of what we believe can be done. I look forward with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others to what he has to tell the House.
7.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I am delighted that this is a debate which is taking place at this far more charitable time of the evening than is normal for Unstarred Questions. I believe that that has helped the quality of the debate. I very much enjoyed the speeches to which I have listened.
A number of points have been made with regard to the government's policies and programmes to promote energy efficiency in buildings, but, before I respond to these, the House may find it helpful if I first describe the context within which the government's policies are set.
Although energy efficiency has been promoted for a number of years as a cost effective way of reducing

1731
energy costs in business, in the public sector and in the home, more recently the associated environmental benefits have become of increasing relevance and importance.
This environmental linkage was, of course, given clear focus by the Prime Minister's signing at the Earth Summit last year of the Climate Change Convention. When ratified, this will commit us to prepare and implement a national strategy for limiting our emissions of greenhouse gases, and to aim to return our emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This entails finding reductions of 10 million tonnes of carbon by the end of the decade. It is a challenging target. We have already made considerable progress towards developing our national strategy to achieve it. I am of course aware of the aspirational targets set by some countries such as Denmark and Germany.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that I believe that the United Kingdom has performed well in recent years, with the Energy Efficiency Office programmes alone achieving annual savings of over £500 million. The United Kingdom GDP has increased by over 20 per cent. since 1979, while energy use is virtually unchanged, which is another indication of improved energy efficiency.
The most widely used indicator for comparing international performance is energy intensity—the ratio of energy used to GDP. That of course is not a perfect measure, but OECD figures show that our energy ratio has reduced by almost 25 per cent. since 1979. That is a better performance over this period than most of our major competitors, including Japan, the USA and Germany. Between 1982 and 1988 the UK's average ratio improved at twice the European Community average.
However, the focus should be on achieving co-ordinated worldwide action through ratification and implementation of the convention. The target for the year 2000 is only the first step. We will be playing a positive role in international discussions on what further commitments should be agreed under the convention going beyond 2000.
Meanwhile, the Government are conducting an extensive consultation exercise on the shape and balance of our national programme. Last December we published a discussion document on CO2 emissions which set out the options and opportunities for action by individuals, business and the public sector to help meet our national target, and invited views and commitments to action. This was followed by a series of workshops in March. The results of these consultations will be fed into the development of the national programme later this year.
The Government hold the widely-shared view that energy efficiency is one of the quickest and most cost-effective ways of reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions, although there are certain barriers to the natural operation of the energy and associated services market which result in a less than optimal take-up of potential cost-effective energy efficiency improvements.
It is for these reasons that we have been widening and strengthening the range of instruments available
1732
to encourage the take-up of such improvements, and increasing the resources for implementing them. Thus the budget of my department's energy efficiency office has increased by 75 per cent. in two years and now stands at some £70 million; and the energy saving trust, set up by the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office and the private sector, in the shape of the gas and electricity utilities, has launched its first two schemes, with others under development. That is the sign of the very real commitment from the privatised utilities requested by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
The Energy Efficiency Office has identified three main barriers to the efficient working of the market. These are: a lack of knowledge and information; the low priority given to investment in energy efficiency; and market distortions such as the lack of correlation between energy prices and environmental costs. To be effective, therefore, energy efficiency programmes must address one or more of these market barriers.
Bearing this in mind, perhaps I may now turn to issues raised by noble Lords during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the 44 million tonnes of carbon dioxide savings identified in a Building Research Establishment report. The report made clear that this figure referred only to potential technically achievable savings; potential cost-effective savings would amount to some 29 million tonnes, though the report pointed out that some of these savings would be taken in the form of increased comfort.
The largest proportion of the identified potential savings could come from wall insulation. The Government have been working with the cavity wall insulation industry through a number of programmes to increase the take-up of wall insulation, and further work in this area is planned.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, then asked whether grants under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) could be extended to cavity wall insulation. At present we prefer to concentrate on the basic insulation measures of loft, tank and pipe insulation and draught-proofing. As the scheme is cash limited, the adoption of a higher cost measure would reduce the overall number of homes which could be treated. There are therefore no plans at present to widen the scope of the scheme.
However, the future of the scheme will be considered in some detail after the completion of a review which is expected to start in the autumn. There are various ways in which the scheme might be developed, but it would not be profitable to speculate on these in advance of the review.
The noble Lord also suggested that the revenue generated by imposing value added tax upon domestic fuel could be used to stimulate energy efficiency improvements. The Government already fund a substantial programme of energy efficiency improvements for low-income households through the HEES. This provides an average grant of £150 for basic insulation measures. Thus, in addition to social benefits, the scheme provides considerable energy and

1733
carbon dioxide savings, the latter amounting to a potential annual saving of 0.7 tonnes of CO2, per household.
In addition, local authorities have substantial investment programmes to improve the energy efficiency of their housing stock, and are spending some £350 million on such measures this year.
Turning to the subject of home energy labels, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Mersey, the Government do not have the power to compel either of the existing labelling organisations to drop its own approach, although they have developed the standard assessment procedure to enable the two types of label to be compared. By promoting labels which incorporate the standard assessment procedure, and by proposing that it be incorporated in the building regulations, we hope to encourage a move towards a single system so that there is no confusion and greater acceptance by the consumer.
While on the subject of the building regulations, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that the proposed improvements to the regulations do not go far enough. In fact, the new provisions represent a significant improvement on the existing provisions. The aim of the revision is to reduce CO2, emissions from buildings by incorporating cost-effective improvements in a way which does not introduce unacceptable technical risks and which maintains some flexibility for designers.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, spoke most knowledgeably on that subject. The Government have recently consulted on a revision of the thermal efficiency provisions of the building regulations. We estimate that the proposed provisions will improve energy performance in the space and water heating of an average new dwelling by 25 per cent. to 35 per cent. compared with current provisions and save around 0.25 million tonnes of carbon a year by the year 2000. We are considering carefully our response to the consultation exercise.
Some consultees think the measures go too far; others, that they do not go far enough. Our job in government is to listen carefully to all representations in the context of the consultation exercise. However, I can reassure all noble Lords that there are no present plans to abolish Part L of the building regulations.
My noble friend Lord Mersey talked about the "fleabites" that were our policy on combined heat and power. I understand why he should think that because, compared with other countries in the European Community, we have a low incidence of CHP. The House will know that the Government have a target to double the present installed capacity of CHP to 4,000 megawatts by the year 2000, a target that we are very confident that we can meet. It would result in the reduction of UK CO2, emissions equivalent to between 3 million and 3.5 million tonnes of carbon per year. Last year I was delighted to attend with my noble friend Lord Mersey a presentation on a novel CHP scheme by Citigen for the Corporation of London. The scheme, which is currently being
1734
installed, will provide 30 megawatts in its initial stage and is the only one in Europe also to provide chilled water for air conditioning.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made an interesting and useful speech on energy efficiency. He referred to a number of things that we are doing already and asked whether we could do more. We have a national scheme to promote energy efficiency. The campaign, "Helping the Earth Begins at Home", has been hugely successful. The advertising campaign has been seen by millions of people and we are gradually seeing an increase in the amount of investment in energy efficient products.
It is important to recognise that government programmes and initiatives to promote improvements in the energy efficiency of buildings are carefully designed to meet specific purposes; all the programmes have objectives and targets against which progress can be measured, and the programmes and their objectives are regularly reviewed. Ultimately, however, improving energy efficiency in buildings depends on organisations and individuals taking actions which are essentially in their own interest. The debate has highlighted a number of important aspects of this subject, and I congratulate noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the useful contributions they have made.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.1 to 8.10 p.m.]

National Lottery etc. Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 8A:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Secretary of State's duty to report to Parliament on the effects of the National Lottery
—(1) As soon as possible after the first anniversary of the sale of tickets or chances in any lottery forming part of the National Lottery, the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament on the effects of the National Lottery on the matters specified in subsection (2).
(2) The report shall contain information as to the effect on the National Lottery on

(a) the level of charitable income other than through the Charities Board;

(b) the level of revenue paid to the Levy Board from the betting levy;

(c) any other matters deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45. The Committee will be aware that I have interests in racing, although none of them is paid. Frequently, they lead to a financial deficit. There is a printing error in the Marshalled List. Subsection (2) should refer to the effect "of" the National Lottery" on the levy. My noble friend Lord McIntosh has spoken about the impact on charitable income. The Minister says that the impact on charities will be monitored. I need say no more on that subject, and I shall not expect the Minister to say more unless he chooses to do so.
I shall speak basically to paragraph (b) of the amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the new lottery on betting duty. Amendment No. 45 places a similar duty on the director general. The Committee will recall that on Second Reading several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, and the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, expressed serious fears that the lottery will have a damaging effect on horserace betting and, via betting duty, on the racing industry's revenues.
It is estimated that the national lottery's turnover may be £4 billion. That must come from somewhere. There will be losers as well as winners. My fear is that racing may be a big loser. That would be ironic, following the Government's excellent recent tax concessions, and bearing in mind the parlous financial state of racing which led to those concessions. I shall not take up the time of the Committee repeating the well established financial figures and the difficulties of the racing industry. I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention to undermine their own good work in recently coming to the rescue of the industry.
We do not know what impact the lottery will have, but we soon will once it starts, as we assume and, on this side, trust that it will, after the autumn of 1994. The amendment is constructive. It builds in a simple process of monitoring, analysis and reporting. With that information, it will be possible to consider whether racing is being damaged, unintentionally, by the new lottery, and whether the tax regime should then be modified to mitigate that damage. Those are two distinct processes, and in the amendment I am speaking to the first only.
I should like to press the Minister to reply constructively. I believe that the amendment presents no problems to him, the Bill, or the working of the lottery. The Bill and the lottery continue unhindered by the clause, if accepted. It merely provides for the monitoring and reporting of facts: facts on the impact on betting duty and facts on the impact on charities, which we have already discussed. I believe that we should be given that information anyway.
It would be much better if the Secretary of State were to produce official figures. I note that on Amendment No. 4, the Minister gave an assurance, or I felt that he gave an assurance, that the impact on charities would be monitored by the Home Office. We merely ask that a similar process should occur with betting duty. If the Minister accepts that, it will be greatly to his credit, even if it upsets the odd bureaucrat. I shall press him to do that. It is an enjoyable experience anyway. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Skelmersdale): I should point out that there is an error in the Marshalled List. The word "of" should be substituted for the word "on" in line 5 of the new clause.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was unable to be present on Second Reading, and so this is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill. I should declare an interest in that I advise a major bookmaking
1736
company. It is an important amendment because, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has explained, there will undoubtedly be an impact on the turnover of horserace betting. The Jockey Club estimates that it will be as much as 15 per cent. If we take that as a maximum, then in reality it may be a little less. But undoubtedly it will happen. There is much more certainty about an impact on bookmaking from the lottery than there is about the impact on charities that we discussed before the dinner break.
I suppose that it is not directly a problem for the Government if there is a drop in bookmakers' turnover, but what should be a problem for the Government is the knock-on effect. One knock-on effect which will interest the new Chancellor of the Exchequer is that there will be a reduction in the total take from betting duty. The more general concern, which the noble Lord has already mentioned, is that the racing industry will not receive as much money as it does presently from the betting levy. Any reduction in the betting levy for the horserace industry is bound to be felt severely. As we know, the industry is having difficulties, and the Government have recently, as the noble Lord said, recognised those difficulties. I do not believe that that recognition was due entirely to the by-election. The recognition was coming long before the by-election, as I think we could see in this place when the matter was raised by a number of Peers on a number of occasions.
The Government's action shows that they are concerned. It would be ironic if that concern, and the efforts to meet the concern of the industry, were put at naught by a reduction in the horserace betting levy as a direct consequence of the lottery. Some method should be found to monitor what happens to the horserace betting levy. I am sure that the Chancellor will he monitoring what happens to his tax return as a result of the lottery. It would be comparatively simple to undertake such monitoring whereas charities' monitoring would be complicated. It would be difficult to untangle the various impacts on charitable giving.
I support the noble Lord. I hope that my noble friend Lord Astor will be able to give some assurance that the Government appreciate the problem that could occur, that they are alive to it, will watch for it, and, if necessary, will take action to help the horseracing industry should it face a reduction in income.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I should like briefly to support the amendment, in particular as regards the levy board revenue. Although I have declared an interest as regards other aspects of the Bill, I did not on Second Reading declare a triple interest, which I now do. I am the owner of a racecourse—that is Cartmel Races in Cumbria—I am a director and shareholder of that company and I am a racehorse owner, albeit on a modest scale.
I do not know what effect the Bill will have on the levy but some authoritative comments were made in the Chamber which are quite convincing. It is fair to say that owners are probably one of the largest contributors to racing. I have been an extraordinarily fortunate owner; almost unparalleled in the limited

1737
number of horses I have owned. Yet it is rare for my racing account to go into surplus. Few owners make money out of racing; nor should they, nor do they want to. They race horses because they love it and they are involved in racing because they wish to support the sport.
I do not believe that the racing fraternity could contribute more than it does to racing without damaging the sport to a great extent. Any diminution in the levy would be catastrophic to racing. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has the merit of not crying foul; it simply asks for monitoring and reporting. It is reasonable that the Government should keep the matter under review and should report as the amendment provides. I hope that it will find favour with my noble friend Lord Astor.
Lord Swaythling: I too support the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I declare my interests as a member of the British Horseracing Board, as a member of the Horserace Totalisator Board and as the owner of some painfully slow and expensively hungry horses.
The effects of the National Lottery etc. Bill on the horse-racing industry could be serious. It has been estimated that there will be as much as £8.3 million reduction in the levy. That would be a most serious blow to racing. In dealing with this potential problem I urge the Government to be pro-active rather than reactive to an industry which employs more than 100,000 people and which already has severe financial problems despite the helpful measures introduced by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Gainsborough: I too wish briefly to support the amendment for the reasons given by other noble Lords. It meets the case of having a national lottery, which is a new concept in this country. Irrespective of the racing industry and other allied industries, it is a good idea to look again at the situation after one year.
The proposal is not entirely non-political. The Government may not wish to deal with it precisely tonight but they should look at it. The Bill will have effects of which no one knows today, as was said earlier. A national lottery is an entirely new concept. If we look at the position after one year and report to Parliament on the effects of the lottery that would be good. I hope that the Government will take the proposal on board and consider carefully the principle behind it.
Lord Lucas: The lottery aims to raise £2 billion or so. This will all come from somewhere; it will all be money that has not been spent on something else. Many industries will suffer. Those we might guess at are sweets, cigarettes and beer on which expenditure may be cut down. Many industries will suffer as a result of losing turnover to the lottery. I hope that the Government will be very careful before they subsidise
1738
one particular industry—namely, horse-racing—as a result of losing turnover to the lottery just because it is something in which noble Lords like to indulge.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Given the chorus of unanimity from Members of the Committee in the racing fraternity perhaps I may say that we on these Benches support subsection (2) (a) of the amendment. I was struck by the mention of the Newbury by-election and the good that it has done the racing industry. Perhaps we may venture to hope that the Christchurch by-election will have a similar effect on the welfare of old-age pensioners.
Lord Birkett: Although I understand the anxieties of Members of the Committee who have spoken about horse-racing I wonder whether the proposal of the first anniversary of the lottery is a clever move. I have a strong suspicion that, whatever the fortunes of the national lottery, the first months, possibly even the first year, will show an enormous bulge. It will be a novelty for the nation. In the first months people may buy more tickets than they will ever buy later. As a great supporter of the lottery I hope that that is not so; I hope that it will continue to be as successful as possible. However, I wonder whether one year's statistics are not an invitation to jump to conclusions which might prove to be false.
Viscount Astor: I agree with everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. I am sure that he will be pleased to be in the happy position of having the Government agreeing with him as opposed to the earlier situation. Perhaps I too should declare a modest interest. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is a director of Towcester Racecourse and he has an interest in racing. I too am a racegoer and I have also owned rather slow horses. I have even ridden rather slow horses in races and they were much slower then than when other jockeys rode them—but that is a different matter.
I turn to the amendment. The evidence from Ireland suggests that, following the introducing of the national lottery, the income from betting went up. That is an extremely important factor and we should not lose sight of it. Of course I understand the concern of those involved in racing. Perhaps I may point out that the director general of OFLOT will have no right to gather information on the income of the levy board or business to publish it. The income and turnover of the national lottery will be available from the operator and the levy board will make its annual report in the usual way. There will be no relationship between the one and the other. They are entirely separate entities.
As I said, I understand the concern of racing that its income may be affected when the lottery is introduced. The appropriate level for the betting levy is a matter for the bookmaking and racing industries to consider together. They will of course need to take into account all matters which appear relevant to their discussions. I repeat that it is a matter for agreement between those industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned subsection (2) (a) of the amendment. We had a substantial discussion on charitable income and

1739
its effect in relation to an earlier amendment. I do not think that I would be helping the Committee if I added to that discussion. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, wishes me to go further than I am able to, but perhaps he will accept that this is a matter for the bookmaking and racing industries.
Lord Donoughue: I thank Members of the Committee who have contributed to the discussion. I am pleased to say that the majority support the amendment. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the Government do not subsidise racing—and I am sure that he will not repeat that again. Racing subsidises Treasury revenues to the tune of nearly £0.5 billion per year. Racing is in fact different from chocolates and so on, in that it depends greatly on specific gambling revenues for which the lottery represents competition.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that the first year's figures may be unreliable, but they will be interesting. In fact, we need to have the first year's figures and every year's figures. Whether or not the Government react to those figures is a matter for them. I am not dealing with that in the amendment. I say merely that the matter needs to be monitored.
I have listened to the Minister's response, which I felt was rather unsatisfactory. I do not believe that it is a matter for the bookmakers and the industry. The Government have initiated this major new measure in the gambling industry which may have enormous—or they may be minor—consequences for other aspects of the gambling industry, for charity and for racing. I say again that I see no reason whatever for the Government not to accept the amendment, which simply asks them to monitor and report. Parliament should have that important information.
I may wish to return to this issue on Report, which will not coincide with Ascot, and I shall expect even wider support, especially from the Benches behind the Minister. However, in the hope that the Government will return on Report with a slightly more constructive and encouraging approach, I am happy for the time being to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Licensing of a body to run the National Lottery]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) A licence given under this section shall be subject to a formula obtained by the Director General which includes factors for efficiency and success.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I intend to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 19, which have been grouped with it in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and others. All three amendments relate to the same area of concern; namely, the terms under which the operator will perform.
I must apologise because my amendment is rather infelicitously worded. It was dictated over the
1740
telephone and it would read better if it referred to a formula laid down by the director general rather than "obtained by the Director General".
In the Bill, the key determinant of what the good causes will receive ultimately is what the operator is paid. I am afraid that we must assume—although we shall attempt to change their mind later—that the Government will remain obdurate as regards the level of tax. If we accept that the prizes cannot be much below 50 per cent. in order to motivate people to take part in the lottery, and indeed to be fair in terms of prizes to those who participate, it stands to reason that what remains is split between the operator and the good causes; in other words, more to the operator means, by definition, less to the good causes.
There are estimates of what will be the appropriate costs of running an efficient national lottery. Based on the experience of other countries, those estimates vary between 5 per cent. and 15 per cent. On the other hand, while recognising that paying too much money to the operator will detract from what is available for the good causes, we need to accept that the lottery must be professionally run. It must be run in the best possible manner by the best talent available.
In other words, although I accept the word "administration" in Amendments Nos. 11 and 19 and I understand what is meant by that, I do not believe that that is an adequate description of what will be required of the operator. Clearly, the operator will need entrepreneurial management to make a success of this.
I take one aspect of the matter. There will be very high front-end costs. High promotion costs will be involved in launching the lottery, setting up systems to operate it and so on. Whoever does that must take a long-term view of the returns obtainable on that front-end investment. Therefore, we are not talking simply about a sub-contract for administration. We are talking about putting the lottery into the hands of entrepreneurial professional management.
The question is bound to arise: on what basis will the contract for operation be awarded? I suggest that a flat rate percentage, although it may help calculations of the rough and ready sort that we have been doing in the Committee today, is entirely inappropriate. It depends on the scale of the operation.
It occurred to me that the situation of this operator is not unanalogous to the privatised utilities, where there is, if not a monopoly, a quasi monopoly and a very large one at that. The company will be operating an enormous business. I said on Second Reading—and it is worth repeating in case one or two Members of the Committee did not hear it—that it is said that whoever runs the lottery will become almost immediately one of the Financial Times Stock Exchange Index top 100 companies. Therefore, we are talking about an enormous contract. Already we know that there are rumblings as various companies and consortia position themselves to bid for that enormous contract.
The purpose of the amendment—and, I think, the intention of all the amendments—is that the Government must be rather more forthcoming in the

1741
Bill about the kind of considerations that will go into deciding the formula by which the contract will be arrived at. My amendment is concerned with two criteria which occur in privatised utilities and the kind of formula that regulators must oversee where there is some reward for efficiency—a K factor—and success.
It would be inappropriate in Committee for me to try to lay down exactly what the formula should be. Therefore, I say in advance that I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a Division. However, I should appreciate—and it would affect our attitude on Report—a much clearer indication from the Government, given the enormous size of the potential contract and the direct effect that it has on the funds available ultimately for the good causes, as to what is their thinking on the criteria that will go into the award of the contract. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I wish to add only a few words to the speech that we have just heard, with which I very much agree. This matter must be run professionally and it is a very big affair. I am not particularly wedded to the form of words in the amendments in my name but I am very much with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, in asking the Government to be rather more forthcoming.
We are told very little about the kind of criteria which will lay down the conditions to be met. As has been pointed out, that is the only area in which there is any room for manoeuvre. If you have prizes at 52 per cent. and tax at 12 per cent. then the rest of the funds must be divided between the good causes and the operator. As I say, that is the only area in which there is room for manoeuvre.
I do not know whether the Government can give any idea of the kind of formula that they are thinking of as regards the amount of profit which the operators will be allowed to receive. When it all takes place, if it is discovered that the operators do rather better out of the lottery than any of the good causes, I believe that there will be a lot of trouble.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support the amendment. My noble friend knows that, in my view, the proposed tax rate of 12 per cent. is too high. In my view, the only reason that the Bill has come before Parliament is to give the Treasury another opportunity to raise income. Some years ago there was no hint of it: people pooh-poohed the whole idea. As the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, it is obvious that administration must be kept as tight as possible.
However, I should like to point out that the criterion laid down for good administration must not be a set percentage of the proceeds; otherwise, there will be a very grave temptation on the part of the operators to allow their administration costs to rise to just below that maximum ceiling and not make any efforts to reduce it and become more efficient. I believe that there are other methods of judging the administration, and its quality, in that respect. I say that we should not specify a set percentage figure.
Viscount Astor: The amendments have a sensible purpose, but I hope to put the Committee's mind at rest and demonstrate that they are not needed.
The director general's overriding duties are set out in Clause 4. Subject to propriety and the protection of the interests of participants, there is a need to maximise proceeds for beneficiaries. Putting further such requirements in the Bill is superfluous. I can assure the Committee that in order to carry out that duty, in issuing a licence the director general will necessarily be concerned to ensure both efficiency—that is the holding down of operating costs—and success. That is the maximisation of revenue. Those are key elements of any bid, and the director general will be looking to ensure the best outcome through the competitive bidding process. Included in the bidding process will be specific references to costs, and the director general will be looking to get the best deal which delivers the maximum amount to good causes. There will be a licence condition setting out the proceeds to be returned for good causes, and other key financial factors, and that licence condition will have the force of law.
I hope that I have demonstrated to the Committee that the spirit behind the amendments is accepted by the Government, but that the amendments themselves are unnecessary because the matters they cover will be dealt with in the licence which will be arrived at through the competitive bidding process.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, proposes that the licence should contain measures to ensure and demonstrate that the administrative costs incurred are the minimum required for the proper running of the national lottery. The whole purpose of the competitive tendering process for letting the licences is to keep down the costs. A licence will clearly contain measures which ensure that the operator's costs start as low as possible and remain as low as possible, commensurate with the need to ensure that the lottery is run properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked me to be more forthcoming on conditions. I do not want to set a bench mark for bids. What we want is the best bid, through the commercial, competitive tendering process, which will return the maximum amount for good causes. That is the important point. That will come out of the bid and, following the bid, we will have the licence conditions set by the director general. With that explanation, I hope that I have been able to put Members' minds at rest. The intentions behind the amendments are also the intentions of the Government in that area.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I welcome the noble Viscount's words. There is a certain feeling about today's debate of "Waiting for Godot"; in other words, that in time all will be revealed and that we should leave it to the director general and the Secretary of State. However, I put the following point to the noble Viscount. This Chamber, and indeed Parliament as a whole, spent weeks debating the terms upon which the television contracts should be awarded. They were decisions that affected our

1743
society. Very large sums of money and issues of public policy were involved, as well as the very important commercial points to which the noble Viscount referred.
The director general will want—indeed, we all want—a good commercial deal. It is, however, a little bland to say that the best commercial deal is the best one. Any business awarding a contract of such a size, and most government departments awarding such a contract, would have desiderata, considerations and criteria a great deal more specific than "Leave it to us; we'll get the best deal we can".
As I said earlier, I do not intend to press the amendment tonight. However, I hope that between now and the Report stage the noble Viscount—and, indeed, the Government as a whole—will think about being, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, a little more forthcoming about the way in which such momentous decisions will be made, rather than simply reassuring us that the spirit is the right spirit.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. When I said "competitive", obviously that is crucial. But while the bid must maximise the proceeds for good causes, the director general will also have to look at all aspects of the bid; for example, whether it is sensible and whether it is well financed. There are many complicated aspects that he will consider, not just one particular element.
It will be most important to ensure that the bidding process is handled with care. In due course, a document setting out the licence heads and the areas covered will be available both in this and another place. The criteria for selection will be developed and may be complex. I can assure the Committee that two of those criteria will be the level of operating costs and the maximisation of the proceeds for the beneficiaries. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, will appreciate that there is a limit to how much work we can undertake before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Can the noble Viscount say whether that document will be available before the Report stage?
Viscount Astor: I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Allen, tonight. Perhaps I may write to him.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am sure that it would help the Government as regards the passage of the Bill if they shared such important thinking with Parliament before we finally pass the Bill. Therefore, following the request of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I urge the noble Viscount to ensure that we have at least an outline of what is proposed before the Report stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 40, after ("determined") insert ("provided that such sums shall in all cases be not less than 35 per cent of the total revenue of lotteries forming part of the National Lottery.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the determination of what is to be handed over to the lottery by lotteries that are formed within the ambit of the national lottery. Subsection (b) of Clause 5 provides for the licence to contain the obligations of the subsidiary lottery towards the main lottery. It says that it shall hand over such sums "as may be determined." I am not clear as to the meaning of the words "as may be determined". One does not want the amount handed over by the subsidiary lottery to be a lower percentage of the proceeds of the lottery than is the case with the main lottery. The amendment provides for the sum to be determined under Clause 5(6) to be not less than 35 per cent. of the total revenue of the subsidiary lotteries. I believe this is a technical point but it is material if there is to be some variation between the proportion of proceeds to be handed over by subsidiaries and that handed over by the main lottery. We are discussing a uniform minimum that is to be handed over to the national lottery. I hope the point is clear and that the Minister can give me a short reply. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Amendment No. 49 marches with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and has much the same objective. We have four streams into which the money derived from the punter paying for his ticket will go. One stream will go to the Exchequer; that is, 12 per cent. One stream will go to the operator, which is an undetermined amount. One stream comprising 50 to 52 per cent. will go for prizes. What is left will go to the good causes. In other words, there are three fixed costs and one variable cost. There are three fixed commitments and one that is utterly contingent on the other three.
The Government have this measure the wrong way round. Many people in this country are rather reluctant to see a national lottery but they are prepared to go along with it if it helps good causes. They believe that the good causes should benefit from the lottery. However, this Bill leaves the good causes totally at the risk of the other three fixed elements. A wise government would have done this the other way round. They would have said that, whatever happens, they would ensure that 35 per cent. of the take would go to good causes. They might then have to consider such radical matters as whether the Exchequer should take so much money.
I hesitate to repeat what I said on Second Reading but I believe I was right and therefore I shall repeat it. I see no good case at all for the Exchequer receiving any money at all from this. I do not believe the lottery should be a tax raising stunt. I do not understand why the Exchequer should gain any money from it, but if it is to receive some money —the Treasury tends to get its finger into every pie—why should it not receive less than 12 per cent.? We have already talked about the possibility of linking the remuneration of the operator to the relative success of the lottery. We must look hard at the prizes. Clearly they have to be set at a level that is fair and motivating, but the Government

1745
should have asked themselves how much of this great national exercise they wanted to see going to the good causes. I recognise that 35 per cent. is a high figure. However, the Government should consider whether it is right that at best the good causes should receive that figure, but it might be a great deal less. The Government should consider whether that is adequate. I do not expect for one moment that the Government will accept this amendment but I wish they would think hard about it.
Lord Donoughue: I speak to Amendment No. 49. That amendment, together with Amendment No. 13, seems to me to reach the heart of our problem with this Bill. The Bill offers no guaranteed percentage at all to the good causes. Tax is set at a certain level and the administration is set at a certain assumed level—some consider it will be set at a level of up to 15 per cent. The Bill would therefore leave a possible percentage for the five good causes of somewhere in the 20 per cent. range. That means that each good cause would receive less than half of what the Treasury takes and roughly the same amount would be allocated for sales commissions by the operator.
The position could become worse. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the tax rising as the Bill does not deal with that. We know now that this Government believe in increasing taxes. They have been increasing taxes and they will further increase taxes. The Government have a horrendous PSBR problem which we on this side of the Chamber totally sympathise with as the problem is far worse than when the IMF was brought in in 1976. Given those kind of constraints, I submit that the 12 per cent. figure is not even secure and that the Chancellor may in future be tempted to push it higher. Administration costs may well rise in pursuit of turnover.
As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, this measure is the wrong way round. The good causes are the residuals and their percentage, which is already too low, can be squeezed down further. But what is the real purpose of the lottery? We believe that its real and only purpose is to support the good causes. Its purpose should not be to generate rising tax revenues. The 12 per cent. figure I have mentioned is twice the average figure that is paid by the European lotteries. It is a quite outrageous figure. We must protect the good causes, and the figure that has been suggested in the amendment seems a reasonable figure to guarantee. That figure can be achieved but the tax level must be constrained or reduced, as must the administrative costs. I believe that is the right way to proceed. We support these amendments.
Lord Swinfen: My name is added to Amendment No. 49. I support both these amendments. The figure of 35 per cent. for the good causes that has been mentioned is reasonable. It is not too low. If it could be raised higher, I would support that. Those of us who propose these amendments have been extremely reasonable in asking the Government for this proportion. As I said on Second Reading, the tax level of 12 per cent. is too high. The promoters of the lottery will have to set up a massive computer system. It
1746
would not be difficult to guarantee the 35 per cent. figure for the good causes if the tax was not taken off the takings that the promoters will obtain from the punters but instead was removed from the prizes that are handed out. If the computers are programmed properly, the promoters would suffer no additional expense in doing that and it would help to ensure that the good causes received a proportion of 35 per cent.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have not so far intervened on this Bill but I hope I may do so now to demur, with respect, from the dangerous rhetoric of the term "good causes". The percentage allocated to the good causes has been compared to the percentage seized by a rapacious Treasury. Many years ago when I went to the Treasury I had heard for years how rapacious it was and how it called in money from the innocent populace and no doubt accumulated it. When I entered Treasury chambers I made a careful search. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Barber, did the same. That search yielded nothing. However, both our initial jobs also involved the Inland Revenue. So I went down to Somerset House. I was introduced to an official called the Revenue Secretary. In his office there was a large safe. "Ah", I thought, "at last I shall see all this bullion that the Treasury rakes in". So I asked that it should be opened. There was nothing in it, not even a crust of bread or a quarter bottle of wine. So much for what the Treasury gets as opposed to the good causes.
The Treasury is really no more than an accounting agency. Money is paid in to the Consolidated Fund and paid out according to the decrees of the Committee of Ways and Means. It is paid out on such items as the armed services, the National Health Service and welfare. Is not the defence of the realm a good cause? Is not the health of the populace a good cause? What about the welfare of those who are most unfortunate? Is that not equally a good cause?
Therefore, I hope that we shall hear no more of the Treasury —uttered with a hiss every time it is mentioned—compared with the good causes.
9 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him whether he went to visit Mr. George Soros or various foreign exchange dealers to discover what the Treasury had done with some of our money.
Viscount Brentford: As I put my name to the first of the two amendments I should like to speak in support of the amendments. I do not mind particularly which one is adopted, but I fully endorse the arguments that have been made in support of them. I shall not take the line of the noble and learned Lord and either attack or defend the Treasury. I should like to see law that is clear and understandable so that we all know where we are. At present the Bill is too vague.
As has already been suggested, I can see the good causes being squeezed out. I am sure that the Treasury will not be squeezed out because it has powers which others do not. I therefore plead that a minimum amount should be written into the Bill. I agree entirely that 35 per cent. is a reasonable minimum. Whether

1747
we like it or not, the objective of the national lottery is to provide additional money for those causes. I believe that we should write into the Bill a minimum proportion, and 35 per cent. seems a reasonable figure. I am therefore happy to support the amendments.
Lord Birkett: This is exactly the formula which I favour for the running of a lottery. The figure of 35 per cent. is exactly right, if one assumes that prizes absorb 50 per cent. and 15 per cent. goes on administration. However, the problem is that if one sets down 35 per cent. as an automatic figure and leaves the rest to fight it out, there is a natural law in the world of lotteries which decrees that if one reduces the amount of money for prizes to less than 50 per cent. of the whole the lottery declines. I cannot say what makes that natural law work in that way, but it seems to be the experience of all the countries which have lotteries.
Therefore, if one starts with 35 per cent. and the Government insist upon taxation, despite all our endeavours to dissuade them, the only way in which that 35 per cent. can be maintained is by reducing the amount that is devoted to prizes. I suspect that if one does that the amount one receives in cash, whether or not it is 35 per cent., will be less than if the formula were more vague.
I believe that the same natural law applies to the taxing of prizes but not the whole. In the experience of the lottery world to tax the prize money and leave the rest alone is also guaranteed to result in the decline of the lottery. Tax has to be on the whole amount or there should be no tax.
Having said that, I believe that this is the ideal way of handling the matter. I believe that prizes should indeed amount to 50 per cent. of the total. I believe that administration should amount to no more than 15 per cent. and that 35 per cent. should go to the good causes. That leaves a small hole in the Government's calculations, but it is a hole which I think they ought to live with.
Viscount Astor: I certainly do not intend to argue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as to whether or not the Treasury is a good cause. I shall leave it to other Members of the Committee to decide for themselves. However, I point out to the noble and learned Lord that we state in the Bill the good causes which we believe should be supported from the money which is paid into the distribution fund. The Bill states that we will pay into the fund 20 per cent. for the arts, and the same amount for sport, the national heritage, charities and projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium.
All of us are concerned that the lottery should live up to our intentions. If it does not there would be no point to this legislation. That is why the Bill places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State and on the director general to ensure that the maximum amount possible is available for distribution to good causes.
It may help the Committee if I explain further how the bidding process for the Clause 5 licence will work. We envisage that potential operators will be invited to set out in detail their financial strategy for the lottery. This will cover their prize strategy, their operating
1748
costs, the returns for good causes and their forecast turnover. In considering their bids the director general will, among other things, consider the realism of their financial strategy and judge their proposals for maximising turnover and hence maximising the money for good causes. But once the bidding process is completed and the successful operator has been chosen, key elements will of course be set in licence conditions. The Government wish to ensure that the maximum should be raised for good causes. That is why we propose a process of competitive bidding, the result of which is then set in licence conditions which will have the force of law.
Any amendment on the lines of those proposed this evening would, paradoxically, probably mean that arts, sport, heritage, charities and millennium projects receive less money, not more. Setting a proportion of 35 per cent. for good causes would impact on the prizes which can be offered, limiting the attractiveness of the lottery to potential players and inhibiting its success. The important thing is the total amount which goes to good causes, which will depend not only on the proportion which potential operators might make available for good causes but, more crucially, on the likely overall turnover of the lottery.
It is absolutely clear from worldwide evidence that the most important single factor in generating lottery turnover is the amount returned to the players in prizes. That factor will do more than any other to determine whether our lottery will be successful. If the amount available for prizes is held down, the turnover will undoubtedly suffer. That is the opposite, I think, of what this amendment hopes to achieve.
As the noble Lord, Lord Birkett said, successful lotteries worldwide devote around 50 per cent. of their turnover to prizes. On that basis, our lottery might achieve a turnover of £1.5 billion, or perhaps even £2 billion. If the returns to good causes were to be set at 35 per cent. we must consider what effect that would in fact have. It is not possible to squeeze the amount for taxation. That has been set by the Chancellor at 12 per cent. It is not possible to squeeze by very much the amount for operating costs: the operator will have necessary costs which cannot be avoided —equipment has to be bought, staff have to be paid. So the area which could be squeezed would be the amount returned in prizes. But if the amount returned to players in prizes is less, then fewer people will play and the turnover will be lower.
Baroness Seear: We all fully understand that. What we argue about—we have not had an answer—is why the Government have to take 12 per cent. The remainder is very simple arithmetic which we do not need to have spelt out to us. To say that the Chancellor has to have 12 per cent. is not an answer: it is an assertion.
Viscount Astor: I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, understands my simple arithmetic.
Baroness Seear: May I ask the noble Viscount why he assumes that I cannot understand his extremely simple arithmetic?
Viscount Astor: I am sure that the noble Baroness understands simple arithmetic, complicated arithmetic, and realms of algebra and geometry that I should find immensely perplexing.
Lord Clark of Kempston: And trigonometry.
Viscount Astor: And, as my noble friend reminds the Committee, trigonometry too.
We have a difference of opinion. The noble Baroness seems to feel that we have put the cart before the horse. I seek to show the noble Baroness that the horse is before the cart: it is in the right place.
The Chancellor has set his rate of tax. That cannot be moved. As the Committee knows, it is not possible for this Chamber to put down amendments which affect that rate of tax. We have to deal with the real world in which we find ourselves. That is why, with the explanation that I have given, the 35 per cent. cannot work.
I am sorry if I bored the noble Baroness. Her mind was obviously working much faster than mine. However, having given that, I hope, simple explanation perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before the noble Lord responds on the first amendment, perhaps I may say that I believe the Government Front Bench would be wise to note the support from around the Chamber for Amendment No. 49, which stands in my name. Although I do not intend to press it today, it is a matter to which we shall return at Report stage. I am sure that the Government will use the intervening time to deal with the issue. Of course, we cannot deal with tax matters in this Chamber, as we well know. However, Chancellors change. I read that tax policies are not inviolable. Who knows, there may be some new thinking!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The best thing that I can do is to ask leave to withdraw the amendment so that the Committee will have time to go into the arithmetic a little further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Licensing of bodies to promote lotteries]:
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 not moved.]
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) No licence under this section shall permit the running of a lottery by telephone.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I wish to ask the Government whether they have any plans to limit the use of telephones as a means of running a lottery. I draw the Minister's attention to remarks in Standing Committee A of another place in which the Minister, Mr. Key, said:
"In the regulations that the Secretary of State will initiate, we intend to ban telephone sales, games that encourage excessive playing and addictive games".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 16/2/93; col. 126.]
A lottery should not be run via the telephone because of the dangers that exist of large numbers of young people misusing telephones. I do not believe that a
1750
lottery run on those lines would be of benefit to people, apart from those who run it. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend replies, if the Government are contemplating that lotteries should be run by telephone—and I say "if"—how will they ensure that those under the ages of 16 or 18 do not take part? They may buy lottery tickets, wasting their parents', relatives' or friends' money by using one of the numbers which run up the telephone bill remarkably fast. I can never remember the numbers.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has drawn our attention to the possibility that the telephone, perhaps the most commonly owned piece of modern technology, might be used by the lottery operator in a way which might be considered insidious, let alone improper.
There are concerns about possible use of "cold calling" as a means of selling tickets. This marketing technique is perhaps most often used to sell double glazing to householders. Not all of those householders take kindly to being telephoned.
The director general will be able to consider whether any use of telephone marketing—if that is indeed proposed by the potential operator—is likely to constitute a nuisance to potential players. Should this technique be used, and should it cause people annoyance, he will also be able to act on receipt of complaints. He will therefore have the power to prevent this happening. But it would not be appropriate to limit the lottery in statute for all time, when an acceptable marketing technique using telephone lines may be possible, and freely available to other businesses.
In addition, the first amendment would have the effect of outlawing the use of any telecommunications network in operating the lottery. This sort of network is, of course, one of the main ways of establishing links to the on-line computer terminals. I am sure the noble Lord did not intend that effect.
The Government have already made it clear that they are minded to direct the director general not to license potentially addictive games or those which exploit the player. I think that perhaps that is the safeguard that Members of the Committee seek and I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for his reply and hope that it will be one of the requirements of the director general to look carefully into the telephone lotteries. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) A licence under this section shall include a condition that no unclaimed prize money in any one lottery shall be allowed to roll-over to any subsequent lottery.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the question of roll-over of prize money from one lottery to another. I understand that the Government

1751
have said that they intend to allow limited roll-over prizes for both the pools and the lottery. Roll-over is the unclaimed prizes from one lottery added to the prizes for the following lottery. In exceptional circumstances, it can lead to a large, inflated prize fund at some stage in the roll-over. I do not know whether it is called a jackpot, but at all events, it increases the attraction of a particular lottery against more normal lotteries.
In other countries, when unclaimed prizes have been accumulated down the line, there has been a terrific national crisis about the lottery which carries the enormous, boosted prize money, because so many people feel that they can win the lot and try to win the wonderful prize, far more than they would ever normally receive from a lottery. That is an undesirable variation of expectations in the course of the subscriptions to the lotteries. It can have undesirable consequences for one lottery against another and there may be an artificially inflated demand for tickets. All sorts of complications can arise if that process goes on too long. The idea is that each lottery occasion will stand by itself and the unclaimed prizes will not go down the line.
This amendment proposes to have no roll-over. Some people will say that there ought to be one and some will say that there should not be. I believe it is undesirable for the uncertain incidence of unclaimed prizes to inflate the amount available for prize money in a subsequent lottery. Let the lottery money he as much as may be, normally in the same area of token. That is the proposition here.
I do not know what the case is for roll-over, unless it is that it was once prize money and not claimed and should remain prize money. But I do not think that that is a principle upon which the lottery should be conducted when it leads to a considerable unevenness in the possible rewards for one lottery as against another, due entirely to the fortuitous incidence of unclaimed prizes. I beg to move.
Lord Donoughue: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 41, which is grouped with Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 41 is what in my briefing was described as "a roll-over probe". I leave the Minister to contemplate that. It relates to where prizes are carried forward to ever more stratospheric levels. Our concern is the potential for abuse of roll-over in the promotion of the lottery in that lottery outlets could advertise very unrealistic and high levels of prizes. That also presents an opportunity for the Minister to reply to the very pertinent question of my noble friend Lord Houghton. The Minister should explain exactly what he meant at Second Reading when he spoke about limited roll-over. Perhaps he can tell us how that works.
As my noble friend Lord Houghton said, the use of roll-over in the United States has at times produced a frenzy and a mania as prizes rocket. United States research suggests that it can lead to addictive gambling. That is the point where the lottery would cease to be the soft gambling that the Government have often described it as and become very hard indeed—certainly much harder than horse-race betting. So it is our view that the roll-over must
1752
certainly be limited. We want to hear what the Minister's version of "limited" is, if it exists at all. At that point, if I may, I shall apologise to the House on behalf of my noble friend Lord Howell, whose name was attached to this amendment with mine. He had to leave earlier. It is his wife's birthday, and I think that all noble Lords would agree that he has the right priorities.
The point which my noble friend wished to make quite strongly is that he would like an assurance that under no circumstances will the pools, which have been given roll-over privilege, have the advantage of either having a roll-over before the lottery is in a position to use a roll-over or have more roll-over than the lottery. He wants a clear assurance on those points of timing and degree. My noble friend feels that grotesque levels of prizes which can result from roll-over would be very socially undesirable. He would like to know why we need to have roll-over. Why cannot the operation of the lottery be that, if there is not a winner (which is not very likely), the prizes can be distributed to those who come next in order for a prize? Indeed, that happens on the pools and could continue.
Viscount Brentford: In supporting the amendment I entirely agree with what has been said on this matter by both noble Lords. The first draft of Amendment No. 22 said that no major roll-over should be permitted, which again picks up the pools point. I do not like that in a legal document or statute because it is vague. That point needs to be crystallised. I have not seen wording in the pools legislation to allow them limited roll-over.
I echo the question put to my noble friend the Minister and ask him to explain how that would operate. I have no great objection to a reasonable, limited roll-over being permitted provided that it is small. But my preference undoubtedly would be for no roll-over at all and for the money to be distributed, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, down the line. That would be my preference provided that what happens is clear and we do not let the lottery run the risk of the sort of "mania" (as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, expressed it) that can arise and has arisen in other countries which have that provision. I should like to know my noble friend's view on that but I should be happy to support a limited roll-over.
Lord Birkett: It seems to me that the amount of the big prizes is a very interesting factor in lotteries. I am told that most countries adopt the principle of a convex shape for prizes. That means that there is a lot of money at the top in very few but very big prizes and a lot of money at the bottom with a very large number of very small prizes (as it were on a £1 ticket prizes of £2, £5 or £10) and almost nothing in between.
It is the big prizes at the top that cause the excitement and are the draw for people. It has always seemed to me that if one has, for example, £4 million a week in big prizes to distribute, it is better to have four £1 million prizes than to have one £4 million prize. When the prizes get out of hand, compulsive gambling is a danger.

1753
There is a nice compromise, which I invite the Government to consider; namely, that one does not have a normal roll-over but a jackpot at Christmas: there is one enormous bonanza prize which makes everybody very excited at a festive season. The rest is not rolled over. Therefore there is only one cumulative jackpot which is exhausted every Christmas. That gives the excitement of one very big prize without spoiling the even distribution of prizes in the meantime.
Lord Swinfen: I should be interested to learn from my noble friend when he replies, first, whether the Government are contemplating allowing roll-over; and, secondly, how many times roll-over will occur and whether there will be a limit on it? If so, what happens when that limit has been reached and the prizes have not been won? Will the Treasury take the money? Will the promoters take it as profit? Will it be used to bolster good causes, as I would advocate?
The money was going to be given away by the promoters in any case. It would not have gone into their profits. It would not affect the way in which the Government propose to tax the money. The Government will take tax from what people pay when they buy a ticket. If roll-over takes place, I recommend that, when the limit is reached, it is added to the money available for good causes.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I do not want to repeat the points that I made when I spoke earlier. However, I understand that the Government so far have said that the roll-over should be limited to three occasions. As I said earlier, that of itself is likely to produce prizes which are too great and may encourage addictive gambling. I should also like to know the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. What happens if there have been three roll-overs and the prizes still have not been allocated?
Viscount Astor: The subject of roll-over is obviously an important concern for your Lordships. Roll-over happens in a draw or lotto when the numbers drawn at the end of the game are not held by any player. This is possible because players choose their own numbers, rather than as in a raffle each having one unique ticket out of a finite set. Prizes which are not won as a function of this game structure may be rolled forward to subsequent competitions. The Secretary of State will give a direction to ensure that prize money is never rolled forward more than three times. There is no question of unclaimed prizes being rolled forward. The Secretary of State is minded to direct that prizes which are not claimed should in the first instance be retained against a later claim and after a certain period should be paid into the distribution fund to be spent on good causes. This mirrors arrangements for society lotteries where prizes which are not collected, either through chance or the choice of a winner, are the property of the intended beneficiary. The position on prizes which are not won is different. It is in the nature of a draw lottery that a prize may not be won by any player. Likewise, prizes may well be won by more than one player. The
1754
Secretary of State will issue a direction to ensure that unwon prize money will not be rolled forward into following competitions more than three consecutive times. In the very unlikely event that the prize was not won after that, it would be distributed among lower level prizewinners.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would give the Secretary of State power to make laws, breach of which would be criminal offence, concerning information which must be given to lottery players on the amount of money not claimed in the last competition which might be won in the following one. I can tell your Lordships now what that information will be: no unclaimed prizes will have been rolled forward. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is concerned that, when they are considering buying tickets, players should know whether a roll-over has happened in the previous draw and, if so, how much has been added to the week's prize. It seems to me unlikely that the operator will not make this known since a roll-over in the lottery will be news and will attract attention. I suggest it would be inappropriate to use regulations to ensure that this information is available, for example making it a criminal offence if a retailer omitted to mention it to a single player.
We shall come later to the pools roll-over clauses in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Ferrers will be dealing with those. However, I can assure your Lordships that the pools roll-over will not have an advantage over the national lottery either in numbers of roll-over or in the timing of its introduction.
I hope your Lordships will be satisfied with that explanation as regards unclaimed prizes and that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I thank the Minister for that full explanation. I do not know whether there is any desire to take the debate any further. What the Minister has said does not meet the proposal in the amendment. However, I do not feel able to propose any alternative off the cuff. With the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw the amendment. We shall have to see whether we wish to do anything further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Licences under sections 5 and 6: further provisions]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert ("(including, if the information is of a description specified in the licence, information for publication by him)").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is intended to assist the director general in carrying out his important duty of protecting the interests of the participants in the national lottery by ensuring that there is no bar to him publishing information of a description which he has specified in the licence.
The kind of information he may specify might, for example, cover such matters as the progress of coverage across the country by online terminals, the numbers of prizes won, the number of complaints

1755
received, and other information relating to the performance of the national lottery which might be a matter of public interest and which should be capable of publication, but which might not form a normal part of the Clause 5 licensee's annual report and accounts under the Companies Act. These are measures in the interests of customers. I am sure that the Committee will agree that they are both fair and sensible and that they will be welcomed both within and outside the Chamber. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Variation of conditions in licences]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment. No. 27:
Page 4, line 26, at end insert:
("( ) The Director General shall publish the conditions from time to time pertaining to each licence granted under section 5 or 6.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was part of a group of amendments, all dealing with the same issue, about the director general publishing the conditions contained in any licence that is granted. I hope that the Government will find the spirit of the amendments acceptable, because they are all about the openness set out in the Citizen's Charter. They are about making sure that the public and Parliament understand and know the conditions under which a licence was granted. In other words, this is an extension of the discussion we were having a short time ago. I hope that the Government will not find the amendment contentious. I do not intend to press it but it is important that any licence issued is publicly understood.
In this context, perhaps I may raise another matter that is relevant to this and which has been drawn to my attention. There is a need for the Government, in describing the conditions under which licences are awarded, to deal a little further with the question of what is a fit and proper licensee and what is meant by probity. In the case of the Gaming Act, concerning casinos and so on, quite close conditions are laid down by the Home Office as to who is a fit and proper person or company to exercise these important opportunities and powers. I would hope that at Report stage, as part of the policy of openness which this group of amendments is meant to encourage, the Government would want to expand on "fit and proper" and "probity". As I said some time ago in this debate, these are large contracts and it is in the public interest to know not only that they end up in the hands of people who are commercially viable but also that we can be sure that those people will be operating in the public interest. Having said that, unless the noble Viscount wants to come back, I intend to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Astor: We debated most of this area when we dealt with Amendment No. 14. I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. I said then that it is our intention to make as much of the licence as possible available to both Houses and to make it as public as possible. I said that we would not be able to publish
1756
all the licence conditions in full because it is important that some things in the licence should be kept private for the security of the operation of the national lottery, whereas to publish them might undermine the lottery and breach that all-important security. I am sure that the Committee would not wish that to happen. I hope that that goes some way to reassure the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: Can my noble friend indicate whether each licence will be drafted in terms of the company to which the licence is given, or will the licences be in a general form applicable to all such companies?
Viscount Astor: There are two licences. There is the licence granted under Section 5, which is to the one lottery operator. There are further licences under Clause 6 to promoters of the lottery. Under that clause there may be more than one promoter and they might have different and varied licence conditions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Revocation of licences]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 36:
Page 27, line 16, leave out ("paragraph 6(1) (c)") and insert ("Part II of this Schedule").
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("twenty-one").
Page 28, line 9, leave out from ("notice") to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("either make written representations about the matter to him or notify him in writing of the licensee's intention to make oral representations,").
Page 28, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert:
("(2) If, within the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (c), the Director General receives neither written representations nor written notification of the licensee's intention to make oral representations, the revocation shall take effect at the end of that period.").
Page 28, line 27, at end insert:
("7A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the procedure to be followed where a licensee's intention to make oral representations is notified to the Director General as mentioned in paragraph 6(1) (c).
(2) The regulations may in particular make provision

(a) for the revocation of the licence to take effect if the licensee fails to comply with any requirements imposed by or under the regulations, and

(b) as to the hearing by the Director General of oral representations.").

Page 28, line 28, after ("any") insert ("written").
Page 28, line 29, after ("6(1) (c)") insert ("or any oral representations against the revocation of a licence are made in accordance with regulations under paragraph 7A").
Page 28, line 32, leave out ("him") and insert ("the licensee").
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 2. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I shall move them together. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Directions to the Director General]:
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Regulations as to the promotion of lotteries]:
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 5, line 33, after ("lottery") insert ("including a requirement that the odds against winning the jackpot shall be prominently displayed").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns a piece of additional information which must be published—that is, the odds against winning a jackpot. That will now be related to the diminished size of the jackpot, if there is one. There is no other point involved in the amendment except publication of the odds against winning inflated prize money in a particular lottery due to a roll-over. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I lack expertise in gambling. Occasionally I go horseracing, but I do not often win money. I have never heard of a jackpot being part of a lottery. I always thought that jackpots came with gambling machines. We are not concerned here with gambling machines. If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, knows something that I have missed, he should explain it to the Committee because, frankly, I do not see how jackpots apply to the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: Perhaps I may say a word in support of the amendment. I am not sure about the technical use of the word "jackpot", but the purpose behind the wording is to discourage the addictive gambling instinct in a person who sees a prize of £1 million or £2 million and says, "Oh, perhaps I'll get that", and, quite unrealistically and wrongly for that person, goes in for it. If information about the odds is publicly available so that such a person can see that he is not likely to win, that will bring some realism into the national lottery. As I understand it, that is the objective of the amendment. Whether or not the wording is right, I would welcome my noble friend's views on giving such publicity to try to curb the addictive instinct.
Viscount Astor: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering ways in which the overall odds against winning a prize might be made available to players, perhaps through inclusion on the tickets. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, feels that any advertisement for the lottery should contain, prominently displayed, the odds against winning the jackpot. We have a problem. We do not know what they will be. The odds against scooping the pool may well seem very high, but there will be more than one prize and the lower-tier prizes are not to be sniffed at. Displaying only the odds against winning the jackpot could be misleading in itself since it would neglect to mention the multitude of other chances that a player may have to win.
I think that people who buy a lottery ticket know that the odds against winning a large prize are very high indeed. The public are well aware of that although we cannot point out what some of those odds might be because it depends on how many
1758
players are playing and whether there is a roll-over. Therefore, I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I think that his amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I thank the Minister for that. I think that we had better reconsider the amendment alongside the earlier amendment regarding the restriction of the roll-over and look at the two together because the one is bound up with the other. We are dealing with an inflated prize—whether or not we call it a jackpot—due to a roll-over of unclaimed prizes from earlier lotteries. If the roll-over is to be limited to three consecutive occasions, that at least will prevent an accumulation of unclaimed prizes mounting up to some astronomical figure which would lead to a frenzy of people rushing to buy tickets for this gift from heaven of untold wealth. We do not want to see Trafalgar Square in a state of riot with people trying to buy tickets to win unclaimed prizes amounting to tens of millions of pounds. But that is not likely to happen anyhow. In order that we can look at the two amendments together, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) the use which may be made in advertising and promotion of reference to charitable causes which may be likely to receive moneys from lottery proceeds.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to place a duty on the Government to publish regulations about how the lottery can use either images or references to charitable causes in its promotional material. I believe that during the Report stage in another place the Minister said that he recognised that this matter was important and that the department would give it further consideration over the next year. I wonder whether that goes quite far enough.
There must be a temptation for lottery operators, in the massive advertising campaign that we shall experience, to want to use images of charitable work to a disproportionate degree. It is perhaps true that images of sick or undernourished children are more likely to encourage people to buy tickets than pictures of sports stadia or perhaps the unveiling of Prince Albert.
There are two risks here. First, although the Advertising Standards Authority and the broadcasting authorities will no doubt monitor lottery advertising in their ordinary, efficient way to ensure that it is legal, decent, honest and truthful, there is a strong feeling among charities that for charity one needs a little more than that. Long experience has shown that considerable skills are required to ensure that charitable work is presented to the public in a way that does not patronise or offend the people with whom charities are working. At the very least, there should be a requirement on promoters to obtain the consent of the charity before using its name, images or a description of its work in the promotion of lottery material.
The second danger takes us back to matters that we have discussed a great deal as the evening has worn on: that the more the emphasis is put on charitable work, the greater the risk that people will buy lottery tickets in the belief that they are helping charity work and will subscribe less to the appeals made directly by individual charities. There is an argument here for regulations to be made which could be prepared, presumably, in consultation with the voluntary organisations, the Advertising Standards Authority and the broadcasting authorities. It is an important matter from the point of view of charities. I hope that the Government, who have as I say, already shown themselves sympathetic, will be prepared to go just a little bit further. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although I do not agree with the exact wording of the amendment, its purpose is one which deserves the careful consideration and support of my noble friends on the Front Bench. If we had something which, in the course of the promotion of the national lottery, indicated that charities stood to benefit from it, that would to some extent reduce the fears expressed, mainly by noble Lords opposite, about the effects of the national lottery on charities. For that reason, the amendment deserves consideration.
Lord Birkett: I do not agree entirely with the amendment for the simple reason that, although I understand well the feelings of charities that they should not be subject to unfair competition, the whole point of the lottery, as I understand it, is not merely to have a lottery but to have it for what have become known as the good causes: the sports, the arts. the heritage, the Millenium Fund and other charities. It would be unduly inhibiting upon the operator of a lottery not to mention the obvious fact that that form of mild gambling has a beneficial spin-off that others do not. It was Benjamin Franklin, I think, who once described a national lottery of this sort as a tax paid only by the willing. That seems to be a good description. I do not see how the operator can be inhibited from pointing out the good that will result, albeit 35 per cent. or less—I agree—for the good causes. I believe that there should be no kind of deliberate rivalry between ordinary charities and this lottery. However, the operator cannot be quite as inhibited as the amendment suggests.
Lord Swinfen: The quality of the advertising is the important aspect of the amendment. In general, charities have a high and honest content to their advertising. Years ago some were rather disreputable. There is a grave concern in the charity world that in order to get people to invest in the national lottery the charity angle will be used as part of the advertising. It is feared that that will be misused to the detriment of charity as a whole. It is appreciated that a small proportion of what will be spent on the national lottery will go to charities. However, there is the danger that people will be turned off by bad advertising. They will be turned off not only the national lottery but from giving to charities in general.
Viscount Astor: There appears to be some confusion about the amendment and I shall try to help the Committee to sort it out. The amendment refers to:
"the use which may be made in advertising and promotion of reference to charitable causes which may be likely to receive moneys from lottery proceeds".
Let us look at what is receiving moneys from lottery proceeds. It is the good causes: the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the Millennium Commission. They are not all charities, and they are not going to give the money to charities. Charities are only a part. Therefore the amendment is confusing because it implies that the good causes are charities. That is not the case.
I had hoped that I had made it clear to the Committee earlier today that we do not want the lottery to market itself in a way that is confused with charitable lotteries. That was the thrust of my argument to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, in respect of the first amendment. I believe that the amendment will not work. I understand the anxieties which Members of the Committee have about charities. I have said that the national lottery will market itself in such a way as to give players an opportunity to participate, which is fun, in an activity that gives them a chance to win a substantial prize. In the light of that and my earlier comments, advertising is quite properly part of the licence condition to which I referred. It is part of that licence condition which should be set by the director general.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I must have put forward my arguments with even less clarity than I normally manage. I found the Minister's reply quite incomprehensible. The amendment is aimed at charities; it is not aimed at good causes, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will permit me to use the phrase. It is aimed at charities for two reasons. First, charities are the only ones which could suffer from clumsy advertising. If one handles the advertising in a clumsy way one can upset people concerning the disabled and children. That does not apply to all the other good causes which are listed in the Bill. Secondly, charities are the only one of the five good causes which are likely to suffer under the Bill for the reasons that have been mentioned time and again today.
Therefore, the amendment aims to protect to some extent the interests of charities. I understood that it was in line with what a former ministerial colleague of the noble Viscount said in another place. Perhaps the hour is so late that I am not able to take in what he said. I shall read the Minister's reply in Hansard and consider what must happen at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) the number of draws which may be held in any calendar month").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment asks for publicity. The idea is to push in front of the general

1761
public as much relevant information as possible. It seems to me that the number of draws to be held is an item of information which the general public is entitled to have. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: This Bill has been drafted to ensure as far as possible that the regulation of the lottery operation is achieved through licence conditions, which have the force of law, and not in regulations, which are criminal law. Some people or organisations are not subject to licence conditions; for example, players or retailers. Their behaviour is therefore to be controlled through regulations made by the Secretary of State. The lottery operator will be subject to licence conditions and will face the risk of losing his licence for serious breach of those conditions. There is no need to place limits on his behaviour using criminal law.
In addition, I must add that the Government are not convinced of the need for the Secretary of State to limit the number of lotteries held in a given period. The Director General of OFLOT will be able to take a view, when an application for a Clause 6 licence is received, on whether there are already quite enough draws scheduled to happen in the period proposed. Exactly what frequency and variety of lotteries the people of this country will want is a commercial judgment to be made by the operator together with the director general, and this mixture may change over time. Therefore, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Brentford: The amendment seeks in no way to be restrictive. It merely asks for publicity so that people may know the facts. I appreciate fully that the number may vary from time to time. That is not an issue. We merely seek publicity. However, at this late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Annual report]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) The Director General shall include in his report under subsection (1) a report on the pattern of purchase of lottery tickets on a regional basis and across income groups.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 91 and I shall introduce Amendments Nos. 70 and 90.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the monitoring of patterns of the purchase of lottery tickets and the patterns of distribution of proceeds. We want to do that in order to determine whether the national lottery money has been transferred from low to high income groups or from some regions to others.
Amendment No. 44 provides that:
"The Director General shall include in his report … a report on the pattern of purchase of lottery tickets on a regional basis and across income groups".
1762
Amendment No. 91 requires that the distributing bodies should include in their annual reports information about how lottery proceeds have been,
"distributed or applied on a regional basis and across income groups",
so far, we concede, as can be determined.
On the patterns of participation, we should note that research recently undertaken in the United Kingdom by Saatchi and Saatchi on behalf of the Sports Council supports the view that participation in the lottery is likely to be weighted towards those on lower incomes. The survey which examined the public's intention as regards the purchase of lottery tickets suggested that a larger proportion of those in social classes C1 and C2 will be more regular lottery participants than those in the AB category. Moreover, Professor John Kay in a report on the national lottery for the Gulbenkian Foundation notes that the findings by Saatchi and Saatchi to which I have just referred,
"are consistent with the results of surveys in other countries".
The general finding is that poorer people spend a larger proportion of their income on lotteries. A number of studies are quoted to support that view.
In a debate in another place much concern was expressed about the fact that national lottery advertising would be organised so as to target low income groups. Many were worried about that aspect, but the then Minister resisted any moves to meet that concern. We hope that the Government will now undertake to try to ensure that national lottery advertising is not specifically targeted on the poorer members of society.
As regards the pattern of distribution of the proceeds, we know that the aim of the lottery is to raise money for the arts, the heritage, charities and the Millennium Fund. Many fear that a large proportion of lottery money will be spent on high prestige projects such as Olympic stadia, opera houses or historic buildings. We are not opposed to that; indeed, we should like to see more of it. However, the research on the current patterns of the use of those facilities shows, perhaps not surprisingly, that people on low incomes are less likely to benefit from those projects than are high earners.
Therefore, if we put it together, the evidence suggests that the lottery is likely to be a form of regressive taxation. It will obtain a disproportionate amount of its revenue from the least well off and the proceeds will go disproportionately to finance services which the better off enjoy. We believe that it is most important that we should have the information about the patterns of participation and of distribution.
The amendments aim to ensure that we are aware of those patterns and ultimately, it is to be hoped, can secure a fairer geographic distribution and distribution across all social groups. I should point out that the amendments are very much at the heart of the approach of this side of the Committee to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will take them seriously because we take them most seriously. I should also mention that Amendment No. 91 concerns the structure and capacity of the distributing bodies to deal with the regional question. That is consequential to our main concern. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like to support the group of amendments under discussion so far as it relates to regional policy. I am not so occupied with Amendment No. 44, but Amendment No. 69, which refers to the "regional" distribution of the proceeds, seems to me to be most important. For reasons just indicated by the noble Lord, there is a distinct possibility of the distribution favouring real estate in the metropolis. We need to see a proper spread of the proceeds throughout the United Kingdom, particularly as regards sport, the arts and indeed charities.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for supporting the regions. I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 70, 90, 91 and 110. We on these Benches feel that these amendments are particularly important because they concern the distribution of the funds around the regions. I count the North East as my home. The lottery is of a national character and the South East, and particularly London, should not be the main beneficiaries of it. The funds should be spread equally. These amendments seek to divide the money equally around the country.
I speak particularly to Amendment No. 110 which concerns the Millennium Fund. We have a distinct feeling that the Millennium Fund will bring with it a blaze of glory that will be centred on the capital. A large proportion of the moneys that are going to good causes will go to the Millennium Fund. Therefore we on these Benches feel that any money that is going to projects for the Millennium Fund should be divided around the country.
Lord Renton: So far as the regions are concerned, I hope that the money will be distributed to the regions according to their need and not according to the number of tickets bought in each region. I think it would be utterly wrong to try to distribute it on that basis. That makes me doubt whether all these amendments are right. As to the idea of the director general reporting about the pattern of purchase of lottery tickets across income groups, how on earth is he to find out except by asking people to which income group they belong when they buy tickets? That is unthinkable. I can imagine nothing more socially divisive. Good heavens, I am sure the Government could not agree to that being done. Therefore I have some doubt whether these amendments collectively deserve the enthusiastic support which the speeches in support of them have so far given. I hope that the Government will look rather critically at these amendments because they could do more harm than good.
Lord Lucas: I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Renton has said. I have a great deal of sympathy for the underlying reasons that I detect behind these amendments—that the projects supported by this enterprise should be spread widely across the country. But to take the example offered by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, of the Olympic stadium in Manchester, what region does that benefit? It does not benefit a region; it benefits the whole country. What income group does it benefit? It
1764
benefits us all. How can one start subdividing that and saying, "Well Manchester has got that so it cannot have anything else"? That seems to me an entirely inappropriate way of going about things. To start measuring these things would create an enormous bureaucracy.
Lord Donoughue: I advise the noble Lord to do a little reading on the preparation for the Olympic bid, which, as Ministers know, has involved a considerable amount of professional research which demonstrates that the North West would benefit considerably.
Lord Lucas: I am not denying that the North West would benefit; I am just saying that we would all benefit from it. It is not something which is confined to the North West. Likewise, if one takes the example of the capital, I do not believe that new building in the capital, if it serves some national purpose, should be allocated purely to the capital's share of the money.
Lord Redesdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am afraid that I have to disagree with him. If one lived in Newcastle and had never been to the capital, building a new opera house in London would hardly do one any good.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Not to my credit, I have never been to Manchester, but I do not believe that the building of an Olympic stadium in Manchester would do me anything but good, whether or not I go there, because I am part of this country. I do not agree with the idea of spreading the benefits widely among the regions. I believe that the lottery has to do things of significance. How many regions do we have in this country? Do we have 10, 50 or 150? If we start subdividing the fund in that way we shall only ever do little things.
I agree that at the lower level, in relation to the smaller projects, particularly in the Millenium Fund, the funds should certainly be spread out among the regions. There is no reason why the money spent at village hall level should all go to Sussex. The benefits should be divided up. But the big projects should happen where they need to happen because of what they are and not because there should be some spreading out of the money across the whole country. The money should do significant things. It should do things for the whole country and we should not start arguing about whether they happen in particular corners of this country.
As to the underlying question of whether the money should all go into opera houses or into projects in London, I entirely agree with the spirit of the amendments that it should be shared around the country. I would not mind in the slightest if nothing happened in London. However, the idea that we should monitor exactly where the money is going and how it is being spent is complete anathema to me.
Baroness Seear: I do not believe for one moment that it was suggested that there should be a detailed arithmetical distribution. We seem to be rather arithmetic this evening. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would agree that if the Olympics go to Manchester, while that does the whole country good,

1765
in terms of jobs, prestige and the general refurbishment of Manchester it will do more for the Mancunians than for Londoners.
Speaking as a Londoner, I am very conscious of the fact that a great many advantages are available to people in London which have never been available in the regions, unlike in a great many other countries. If one goes to countries such as Germany or Italy, one finds very good opera houses and theatres all over the country. One does not find the equivalent in this country, although there are important exceptions. That is something that we need to balance out. Surely a reasonable distribution towards the regions is very much to be desired.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may begin by dealing with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, concerning low-income groups. We question the so-called evidence—I believe that he referred to Saatchi and Saatchi research—which suggests that people from low-income groups will participate more than any other group in the national lottery. In almost every other state lottery the profile of the playing population largely matches the profile of the population overall. We expect that the population as a whole will want to play the lottery in this country, as they do in other countries. For example, in Spain, 98 per cent. of the adult population participates in the national lottery.
I now turn to the general point concerning the regions. The amendments are intended to ensure that the distribution of lottery money across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, and perhaps among the regions of England, is fair and reasonable. The Government are in complete agreement with that principle. However, I hope to explain to your Lordships why it would not be appropriate to set that in statute for all cases.
The Bill already makes provision for funds to be divided among the four countries of the United Kingdom in the sports sector. At present there are four independent sports councils, and for simplicity and transparency of lottery distribution in this case the proportions each will receive have been set out in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, proposes to do the same for the arts sector. However, the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils are not at present independent bodies as the sports councils are but are technically committees of the Arts Council of Great Britain. The Government intend to establish new independent arts councils for Scotland and Wales. When that is achieved, Clause 21 of the Bill will be amended by order to make clear the shares which each will distribute.
In the heritage sector, only one body exists which is wholly independent of Government and has the wide remit, including both the natural and built heritage, which is required for lottery distribution. That is the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which currently makes grants across the whole of Great Britain. The Secretary of State will direct the National Heritage
1766
Memorial Fund to take account of relative populations and of need in different areas from year to year in making grant decisions.
The Charities Board will be required by the Bill to establish four committees with special responsibility for considering applications which are particularly relevant to each of the four countries of Britain. The board may also, if it wishes, set up committees for the regions of England, or other committees, possibly subject-based, if that seems appropriate to the board. The Home Secretary will expect the board to demonstrate a reasonable spread of expenditure, but will take account of the fact that some projects which are clearly located in one or other of the four countries are in fact for the benefit of everyone in the UK.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. He lays great emphasis on the Scottish and Welsh boards. In most instances Scotland and Wales are expressly dealt with; and that is as it should be, because with regard to heritage and art they have different traditions and cultures. However, the group of amendments that we are discussing relate to the other 85 per cent. of the country. It is worth remembering that England amounts to 85 per cent. of Great Britain. It is precisely the distribution within England that underlies the wish to see a regional dimension.
Viscount Astor: I understand the point made by the noble Lord. I stated with specific regard to charities that if the board wishes it can set up charities for the regions of England. It will be for the other boards to look very closely on how they distribute their funds within the regions. I am sure that they will do so. We are not prescribing how they should do that and exactly to which regions. It will be up to the boards.
However, let us not forget that the Arts Council has great experience already in distributing funds to the regions of England. Many of its grants are already made to the regions in the North and South. That is a fact. With that experience, I am sure that it will continue to do so with lottery money in the future.
I turn to the Millennium Commission. With the Millennium Commission, a statutory requirement to demonstrate a fair spread of expenditure over each year could undermine the whole purpose of the commission. The Government intend the commission to fund large, lasting capital projects. These, as the Committee well knows, do not come cheap, and funding may well take more than one year for each of the several projects envisaged. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he expects the commission to fund such projects in each of the four home countries—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Millennium Commission will have more than one year at a time to achieve that.
Reports and accounts of the distributors' conduct over each year will be made available to Parliament, which will be able to consider whether shares have been fair or whether there were good grounds for any temporary shift in emphasis. I hope the Committee is reassured that the Government share its intentions in the matter, and that the amendments are not needed.
Lord Donoughue: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the information on participation by income groups is not strange, difficult or undesirable. It is very easy indeed. It is done by most other countries which have lotteries in relation to their own lottery participation. It is professionally easy; it is professionally familiar; and we simply ask for an assurance that it should be done in this country as elsewhere.
On the regions, one of the central points was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The Government have stated that the proceeds go mainly to capital projects. We shall come later to deal with that. Capital projects mean big construction employment and they should go regionally, on a balanced basis. I absolutely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said. We are dealing with the England problem. Unless there is commitment by the Government which is built into what is required of the distributing bodies, it could go very wrong. However, I seek to withdraw my amendment on the basis that we may return to it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
Extension of powers of Horserace Totalisator Board

(".—(1) The Horserace Totalisator Board may hold a licence under section 5 or 6.

(2) The Horserace Totalisator Board may hold an interest in a body corporate the only or principal object of which is the holding of a licence under section 5 or 6.

(3) In subsection (2) the reference to holding an interest in a body corporate is to holding, or being beneficially entitled to, shares in that body or to possessing voting power in that body.").

The noble Lord said: I have to declare a personal interest in this amendment as I am chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board. We run it as a commercial entity, independent of interference from the Home Office and we operate as a commercial venture. As is fairly well known, we also give all our profits to racing. We hope that we may be able to receive a chunk of the lottery, which may to some extent compensate for the inevitable loss to the racing levy from the introduction of the lottery. That happened in France. The amount decreased considerably when the lottery was introduced and I believe that the same will apply here. That is one of the reasons why the Tote wishes to be able to play a part in operating the lottery. The amendment is self-explanatory and I do not believe that I need waste the Committee's time any further on the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Benson: I support the amendment. The profits of the Tote are of critical importance to the horse-racing industry of the country. Its contribution at present is, I am told, of the order of £6 million. A decline in the profits of the Tote by reason of the lottery could have a most damaging effect upon the horse-racing industry. It therefore seems appropriate that the Tote should be entitled to hold a licence under
1768
the terms of Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. I can see no reason against that and I hope that the Government will smile upon the proposal.
Lord Donoughue: We on these Benches support the amendment and hope that the Government will look favourably on the Tote's bid. It would be helpful to racing, but that is not the only or the main issue. The fact is that it would be very appropriate for the Tote to participate in the lottery as an operator. The Tote would be British and I think that that is important. It would be unfortunate if the operating of this great industry went overseas. There is no need for that to happen. There are constraints on how far we can keep it national and we should certainly have to look at the Europeans, but I hope we would not look any further than that.
We are also impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, said earlier; that he had been in discussions with the Post Office. That would be attractive to us also. Thus, basically we support the amendment.
On a subsidiary and sartorial matter, I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, why he did not wear his top hat for us. We would all have enjoyed it. When we see the pictures down the corridors, we note that noble Lords in those days frequently wore top hats in this Chamber. I am unclear as to whether any rule prevents it, and perhaps the Minister will tell us. If not, I hope that next time the noble Lord will wear his top hat. There are many Peers who would like to see him topped!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Especially on Gold Cup day!
10.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say from these Benches that we are inclined to support this clause. It must be said, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, at some length on Second Reading, that the Tote has much of the capital equipment in place that other potential bidders do not have, and therefore it should be a contender. We are inclined to accept that. I hope that the noble Lord will not take it amiss if I say that by the time we get to Report stage it would be quite nice to find some other noble Lord advancing the interests of the Tote, rather than the noble Lord himself having to be embarrassed by doing so. I find the use of the word "we" in Parliament easier to be "of the Chamber" rather than of the particular organisation. I should find it very much easier to support the proposition if the noble Lord could, in turn, find other noble Lords to advance it rather than having to do it himself.
Lord Lucas: I wish only to ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. Is the noble Lord satisfied that the powers in subsection (3) are wide enough to allow for the possible complexities of a joint venture company?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Yes, I am.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, has been chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board for a number of years. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that he wished he would appear in a top hat. All that I can say is that that noble Lord has come with everything else other than the top hat. There he is on Ascot Day with his morning coat and his carnation, and indeed even his Royal Enclosure ticket on him. So he is minus only his top hat. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, say that he hoped that somebody else would move these amendments so as not to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. I am bound to say that I have never found the noble Lord to be in the slightest bit embarrassed by having to move amendments or lobby on behalf of the totalisator board.
During the time that he has been chairman, the noble Lord has done a great deal to turn the Tote around so that today it is a valuable contributor to the finances of the racing industry. He is to be commended on what he has done, and for his ingenuity in looking at new opportunities for improving the profitability of the Tote, which will benefit both the Tote and racing alike. He has made no secret of the fact that he sees the national lottery as an opportunity which the Tote would not like to miss.
As the noble Lord indicated, his new clause would enable the Tote to hold a licence under Clause 5 of the Bill to run the national lottery, or to hold a licence under Clause 6 of the Bill to promote lotteries as part of the national lottery. The noble Lord's new clause would simply put the Tote on exactly the same footing as any other operator in the betting industry. Any bid by the Tote to run the national lottery will be considered by the director general on precisely the same terms as bids from other applicants for a Clause 5 licence.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, said that he hoped the Government would smile upon this amendment. I can tell the noble Lord that the Government do smile upon it, and we are content to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Apportionment of money in Distribution Fund]:
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 15, after ("appropriate") insert ("in the light of his duty under subsection (4) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 68, 74, 88 and 89. The purpose of this group of amendments is to entrench the principle of additionality and to avoid the feared substitution which was a centre of concern in previous debates on the lottery. We seek that, in some cases, by suggesting forms of words—I draw the Minister's attention especially to Amendment No. 68.
Ministers here and in another place have said that it is not possible to entrench the principle of additionality. We do not accept that. We believe that having it on the face of the Bill is an improvement. If
1770
additionality is entrenched in the Bill, it will act as a discipline on both the Government and the distributing bodies to ensure that additionality is followed and that there is not substitution for previous public expenditure ends.
We also require, through Amendments Nos. 88 and 89, that the Secretary of State should report on the levels of funding to recipients. The idea is that it should be clear when published that it is additional. From the publication it will be clear that it is. Those are the purposes of the amendments. I shall speak again to Amendment No. 74 following the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, on a slightly separate aspect. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I wish to speak briefly to both the principal amendment and Amendment No. 89, on which my name appears. The view is widely held in this Chamber that it is imperative that the funds raised by the lottery are additional to moneys disbursed by central and local government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, an hour or two ago rebuked us for implying that the Treasury was rapacious. But we know that the Government have a consistent history in this matter. There is the example of the European regional funds. If they can find funding to replace that which is a normal charge upon them, they will do so with relish. When we look at the money raised from the national lottery, I believe that we are right to be suspicious that the recipients—the good causes, as we have been calling them today—could end up with no more money because what has been given with the right hand will be taken away with the left hand. That suspicion exists and is quite widespread in this Chamber and in another place.
We all know that it is extremely difficult to deal with the problem. It is difficult to legislate for people to be good. Although I support the other amendments also, Amendment No. 89 in particular is a way of helping to deal with the problem which the Government can readily concede. It attempts to deal with it through transparency and by ensuring that the Government in their annual report show exactly the level of funding by government departments and local authorities, for the financial year to which the report relates, to each recipient involving money distributed by the new body.
I hope that the Government can accept the amendment. It seems to me that it does not strike at the heart of government. It does not set an intolerable precedent. It does—if I may refer to the point again—follow the principle of the Citizen's Charter and the open government of which the Prime Minister speaks. Parliament and the public can then judge. We can attempt to make our own judgment as to whether there has been an attempt to replace public funding by the proceeds of the lottery.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I speak especially to Amendment No. 74. When I tabled that amendment, as in the Second Reading debate several noble Lords raised the question of exactly how lottery funds would be distributed by agencies such as the National

1771
Heritage Memorial Fund, the Arts Council and the Sports Council, which are already grant aiding heritage, arts and sports projects in a variety of ways.
It has been generally understood, perhaps not correctly, that lottery funding will not be available to top up programmes which are already funded by taxpayers' money. The intention is to ensure that the Government are not tempted to reduce support from the Exchequer for activities and areas to which they are already committed; in other words, to ensure that lottery funding remains additional to public money.
Without wishing to challenge that excellent principle, perhaps I may remind my noble friend that a number of projects are and will remain seriously underfunded. Historic building grants from English Heritage cannot keep pace with the rising cost of repairs to buildings. The purchase grants of museums and galleries have been frozen since 1985. The garden grants scheme for historic houses never got off the ground through lack of resources.
My noble friend is probably aware—but certainly should know—that it is the understanding and fear of many organisations who hope to be involved in distributing money from the lottery that they will be unable to support projects and schemes that theoretically will be eligible for funding through established government schemes. That will virtually preclude everything that is worthwhile. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Bill or the Government, or the understanding of the general public. This amendment has been tabled to encourage the Government to give a specific undertaking on two points. First, that the National Heritage Memorial Fund will not be debarred on doctrinaire grounds from drawing on lottery money if necessary to continue to do what it has done so superbly since its inception; that is, to be the rescuer of last resort when an important part of Britain's heritage is at immediate risk.
Secondly, I ask my noble friend to confirm that the National Heritage Memorial Fund will be able to continue to use its undoubted skill in negotiating partnerships between such bodies as English Heritage, the National Trusts, the National Art Collection Fund, and so on, which in the past have saved such places as Calke Abbey and the Cholmondley Holbein. It is vital that the National Heritage Memorial Fund is allowed to use lottery money in partnership with such organisations and the private sector. Perhaps one of the best present examples is Brighton West Pier, which is literally falling into the sea. Only a partnership scheme between Brighton Council, English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund using lottery money can possibly save it.
The object of paragraph (c) of the amendment is to ensure that the National Heritage Memorial Fund is able to spend money on small as well as grand projects. The National Heritage Act 1980 uses the test of "outstanding" for the purposes of grants by the fund's trustees. This was clearly appropriate for the type of grant expected to be made with public money when the fund was set up, but it is clearly inappropriate for the range of potential beneficiaries intended to receive lottery funds. For example, a small
1772
village hall in need of repair in a remote location will clearly be an ideal beneficiary for national lottery funds. However, it seems unlikely that under the terms of the 1980 Act such a hall can be considered to be "outstanding" and eligible for help.
It is important for the future success of the national lottery that everyone concerned has a clear understanding of how the Government intend the problem to be resolved. I believe that all of us will want to hear an undertaking from the Government that there will be no guidelines or instructions from the Department of National Heritage, or particularly the Treasury, to limit the range of funding decisions open to the trustees of the distributing bodies. I hope that after listening to my noble friend's reply I will be reassured and able to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Donoughue: My name is added to Amendment No. 74. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has excellently and succinctly expressed the basic concern in the heritage sector that the Treasury is issuing instructions that no lottery proceeds should go to heritage projects that are currently eligible for government funding, even though they are not actually receiving funds and in some cases are unlikely to receive any. I think that the purchase of land of high conservation value is often cited. The amendment will provide the two undertakings asked for and stated by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I support his request for government clarification.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: Perhaps I may say a few words on Amendment No. 74. First, however, I declare my interest in that for the first 12 years of the National Heritage Memorial Fund's existence I had the honour to be its chairman. I agree with the thought behind the amendment but it should not really be necessary. Paragraphs (a) and (b), although addressed to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, should really be addressed to the Treasury, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and others have said, does not quite seem to hoist in the true philosophy of additionality.
I should like also to say a few words about paragraph (c) and the test of "outstanding". It is very necessary from the point of view of the National Heritage Memorial Fund that the criterion of "outstanding" should be maintained whenever it is a question of dealing with something on a national basis. On the other hand, something could be outstanding for a local area or for a region. For instance, in my time the National Heritage Memorial Fund bought two pictures for the Aberdeen Gallery. It would never have dreamed of spending money on them if they had been going to the National Gallery or to the Tate Gallery, but they were in fact of great outstanding interest in Aberdeen.
Perhaps I should mention at this stage with regard to outstanding that we have talked today as if the National Heritage Memorial Fund was concerned only with the built heritage. I should like to point out to Members of the Committee that only 50 per cent. of the National Heritage Memorial Fund's money

1773
during the first 12 years of its existence was spent on the built heritage. Much was spent on museum objects, on pictures, on gold and silver, on furniture and on glass as well as on such diverse things as bats, bees, birds, butterflies, bogs, fens, flats, mountains, moors and all the joys and beauties of the wilderness, to say nothing of helping to raise the "Mary Rose" to the surface, spending money on trade union banners and on industrial archaeology. With this hugely wide scope, if the fund is to survive, it must stick, except occasionally with regard to a local area or region, to the criteria of "outstanding".
Baroness Birk: I wish to say a few words in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has just said as I was in on the beginning of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. He is right that the conditions and criteria that were laid down at that time should be adhered to. The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, makes quite sure that the fund is on the right map and will not be pushed aside, overlooked or in any way dealt with which is to its detriment.
Lord Gibson: I support those of the amendments which seek to protect the principle of additionality by making it clear in the report at the end of the year what has been spent and how so that the lottery funds are, as it were, ring-fenced. That is wholly desirable. But I am not so happy about the amendments which seek to protect the principle of additionality by distinguishing between the various objects to which the money can be given. We should run into serious danger, as I tried to emphasise in my Second Reading speech, if we go so far in the direction of protecting additionality that we prevent the money from being spent as wisely as it should be. I hope that that can be borne in mind.
Lord Swinfen: My name is attached to Amendments Nos. 68 and 88. I am very concerned about additionality. We must remember that in paragraph 7 of the Government's White Paper, A National Lottery: Raising Money for Good Causes, the Government themselves wrote:
The Government is firmly of the view, however, that the proceeds should not be directed towards the main areas of public expenditure, and that it would be inappropriate for the lottery to be seen as a way of funding the National Health Service, education or similar major programmes. However, there is no objection in principle to including amongst the beneficiaries of the national lottery charities operating in the health and educational areas".
Many voluntary organisations which would hope to get funds as a result of the national lottery are operating, and have been operating for a very long time, in conjunction with local authorities and in some instances, with national government. That is increasing under Care in the Community. The charity for which I work does that with physically disabled people. It has considerable difficulty in negotiating with local authorities to obtain a proper price for the places in the homes which it runs for very severely disabled people. That is because the local authorities themselves are under financial pressure.
1774
There will be a grave temptation for local authorities and central government to say that the money which the voluntary organisations obtain as a result of the national lottery should be used to help to pay for some of the provision. At the moment most voluntary organisations are not being paid by the local authorities the full cost for the places for the disabled people whom they are looking after. They are having to make up the balance from voluntary donations. There is a danger that those donations, as has already been said this evening, will be decreased by the advent of a national lottery.
Therefore, it is extremely important that some form of ensuring that additionality is properly accounted for is on the face of the Bill. If the Government are not prepared to accept any of this series of amendments this evening, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to assure the Committee that they will come forward at Report stage with a satisfactory amendment of their own.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I have sympathy for the intentions behind all the amendments in this group, but especially I wish to support Amendment No. 74 in the name of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. At Second Reading I declared my personal interest as a commissioner of English Heritage, but, as Members of the Committee well know, until relatively recently my noble friend was the distinguished chairman of that body and remains without question far better qualified than I to speak on heritage matters.
In consequence I shall seek not to cover the ground which he has so ably explored. The heritage community supports the concept of a lottery. It has welcomed the commitments of the Department of National Heritage and is grateful to Ministers and officials for the immense amount of work which they have done in bringing forward a Bill which strives to meet all concerns. Nonetheless, there is still more work to be done.
The Department of National Heritage has consistently stated its view that the grant-in-aid of the Sports Council, the Arts Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund should be kept separate from lottery money. This diktat has taken two main forms: projects partly funded by grant-in-aid could not be topped up by lottery funds, as has been said, and projects which fall within the scope of programme funding, regardless of whether any money is available, might be ineligible for lottery grants.
I and a number of other noble Lords cited examples at Second Reading of the anomalies such a principle would give rise to. They read like a new edition of Catch 22. The most important projects—the ones which by implication fall within the programmes of English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund—might fail if lottery money is denied to them because, as everyone knows, there is never enough money to satisfy even the highest priority calls on our resources. Those outside our programmes—by definition the less important projects—might fare better since they could claim lottery money.
We have been repeatedly reassured that these consequences are not intended by the department and that the concept of additionality would not work like

1775
that. However, the statements made by my noble friend Lord Astor and by Ministers both in Committee and at Report stage in another place are clear: "Don't mix grant-in-aid and lottery money —and, if you do, woe betide you".
It seems plain to me that the Department of National Heritage genuinely wants to see lottery and public funds put to the best possible use - and that is excellent. The basis for the distinction between programme and lottery funding would appear to stem from a fear that the Treasury will seek to reduce our funding if it believes that we are replacing -"replacing" being the operative word, although the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, used the word "substitution"—grant-in-aid with lottery money. My response to this would be that this issue is not about hoarding away a secret cache of public funds; still less is it about failing to put public money to the best possible use. I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee in another place would have something to say about that. Quite the opposite: it is about making priority funding go further. Surely that makes sense.
What the department seems to be saying is, "Beware of the bogeyman; you have only yourselves to blame if you cross him". Is it not more sensible to see how the bogeyman can be civilised? The bogeyman is more than keen to encourage the funding of major projects by partnerships between government and other sources of finance. What we are talking about here is not very different.
So I would say to my noble friend Lord Astor in his capacity as a spokesman for the Government and not just for the Department of National Heritage that the distributors will go to great lengths to show Parliament, the public and the Treasury that they are making the best possible use of the resources available. They will not misuse taxpayers' money simply because complementary funding could be available. These are highly competent bodies, run by highly competent people. They would, I believe, amply repay the Government's full trust.
Viscount Astor: These amendments attempt to reach some sort of mechanism which gives statutory protection to additionality. There are two approaches: to make the Secretary of State satisfy himself and report on additionality or to make the distributive bodies themselves undertake this.
I have doubts as to the practicality of the amendments which seek to make the distributors satisfy themselves that in making grants they are not substituting for public expenditure, and then to list the income from various sources in their annual report. There are likely to be many hundreds of beneficiaries from each distributing body. They will get grants from a number of sources at a number of different times in the year. The likelihood of there being a clear and consistent position available at the time of year when the distributor makes his annual report is remote. We would have an incomplete and possibly misleading picture which would tell us very little about additionality. It would be impossible to know why any particular source of funding had increased or
1776
decreased and the evidence would be impossible to interpret. The extra administrative burden placed on the distributing body would be enormous and costly.
The amendments also make reference to local authorities. Consider how much more difficult it would be to gather and present any meaningful information on local authority spending in this area, demonstrating the effect of the national lottery.
This Bill is very thorough in the way in which it sets out how the money is to be distributed and in the way it distances government from that distribution. In this respect it is unique among lottery legislation in the world. Ministers have stated their clear intention that the lottery money will be additional to that provided by public expenditure. It is just not, however, practicable, to frame a legislative provision which circumscribes the Government's ability to manage their public expenditure responsibilities in the way that they judge appropriate. This Bill, with its separate framework of distribution, and its transparent accounting, does all that is practicable to enshrine additionality. The two sets of figures will be freely available: programme expenditure from bodies' annual reports, as now, and lottery money from a new report on how the money is spent and the new transparent and separate accounts.
It is essentially up to the distributing bodies themselves to look at what they are funding and to avoid areas where there might be difficulty with regard to additionality. There can be no hard and fast rules, but good practice which will emerge over time.
I know that there have been concerns in the heritage area. The rules under which the National Heritage Memorial Fund will work are the most flexible applied to any heritage organisation. It is difficult for me to respond categorically to those Members of the Committee who have asked whether this or that particular case would be in or out. The trustees must decide what does and does not receive grant, working within the very broad directions that we shall issue on such matters as the presumption in favour of capital projects and of the need for a partnership contribution.
I can assure the Committee that the scope of the trustees' powers is extremely wide and the Bill will extend the scope further. They will be able quite properly to fund restoration and conservation work as well as acquisition, and joint funding projects with grant aid from other organisations such as English Heritage are not ruled out. But I do have to make clear the importance of making every effort to distinguish what is funded from the lottery from what is already provided for. That is the essence of what we are saying about additionality and which perhaps we have not put over sufficiently clearly until this evening. It does not mean that everything that the lottery supports must be quite new and distinct in nature from anything which is done now. That is clearly not possible and would lead to the absurdities which some of your Lordships so vividly pointed out on Second Reading. There is no intention to prescribe the funding decisions of the NHMF in that way. I hope that my noble friend Lord Montagu and the noble

1777
Lord, Lord Donoughue, will accept that the concerns expressed in their amendment are therefore unfounded.
There is another point to their amendment—the proposed removal of the "outstanding" criterion in grant decisions. The NHMF was set up to operate under that condition. It looks, on the face of it, pretty stern, but it functions really as a general quality requirement for grants, and is of course dependent on the interpretation of the trustees. The trustees have always interpreted it imaginatively, responsively and responsibly. The Government cannot accept the removal of that requirement. It would bring with it the suspicion that somehow a good quality application would receive government money, but shabbier efforts could always try to compete for some lottery cash. There is no shortage of good quality potential projects in this country. The requirement serves both applicants and the trustees, and is operated with flexibility and breadth. It should continue to stand.
The Treasury has issued no guidance. Under Clause 24, there is an intention that directions will be issued at a high level in favour, for example, of capital and partnership. They will not cover exclusively the issue of additionality. The preservation of that principle will be a matter, as I have said, for the trustees of the fund. My noble friend Lord Montagu is worried that the powers of the NHMF to fund projects of outstanding scenic, historic, aesthetic, architectural, or scientific interest may be too restrictive in relation to lottery applications. The trustees of the fund have always exercised their powers with flexibility and wisdom. I am sure that they will continue to do so.
The lottery-funded programmes will need to develop their own characteristics and ways of operating which will mark them out from existing programmes. This is an opportunity for fresh thinking and new approaches—new thinking not just for its own sake but because we have the challenge of directing additional resources in new ways to old and often familiar problems. It is in that frame of mind that the trustees will wish to avoid the danger of taking on what was already provided for with public sector grants, and ensure that the lottery has a genuinely additional effect.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee with that lengthy explanation, and that the Committee will agree that the amendment should be withdrawn.
Lord Birkett: Before the Minister sits down, I was not clear from his reply about the danger outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Montagu, that a project in receipt of or even eligible for government funds may not have the other half of those funds. Is he, for example, not reassuring us that, where refurbishment of the east wing of a famous and valuable building is funded by a government source, the National Heritage Memorial Fund cannot use lottery money to finance refurbishment of the west wing? I have not understood the Minister.
Viscount Astor: I do not believe that that is the case. I had hoped that I had been reasonably clear. It is difficult for me to give examples because it will be up to the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Perhaps in going further than I ought, I believe that the example of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is good. He asked about the west wing in circumstances in which the east wing had been refurbished. The west wing would be a separate project.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank my noble friend for clearing the air considerably. His reply will come as a great relief to many people who had got the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps that was the fault of the Government for not explaining themselves clearly. I am glad that my amendment and others have given the Government the opportunity to explain the situation. In view of that, I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Trade Union and Employment Rights Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

London Underground (Jubilee) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 7th—9th JUNE
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 7th—9th JUNE
  AID AND TRADE PROVISIONS
  AID AND TRADE PROVISIONS
  SARAJEVO: PROTECTION BY UNPROFOR
  SARAJEVO: PROTECTION BY UNPROFOR
  BOSNIA: ALLEGED GENOCIDE
  BOSNIA: ALLEGED GENOCIDE
  NEPAL: ARUN III PROJECT
  NEPAL: ARUN III PROJECT
  NHS: ASSESSMENT OF PRIORITY FOR TREATMENT
  NHS: ASSESSMENT OF PRIORITY FOR TREATMENT
  MoT CERTIFICATES: FRAUD
  MoT CERTIFICATES: FRAUD
  HOUSING MANAGEMENT AND CCT
  HOUSING MANAGEMENT AND CCT
  THE VOLUNTEER RESERVES
  THE VOLUNTEER RESERVES