Sitting of 19 May 1993

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

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the Director General of Electricity Supply to discuss the regulation of electricity generation.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I meet the Director General of Electricity Supply from time to time and discuss a wide range of electricity issues.
    Mr. Cummings: As electricity prices have risen by 9 per cent. in the past month, while British Coal prices have fallen by 19 per cent., does the Minister agree that the generators are failing abysmally to pass those benefits on to the consumer? Does he also agree that the cost of coal-fired electricity is considerably lower than gas-fired generation? If he does agree, why does he continue to shut pits, while promoting the building of new gas power stations?
    Mr. Eggar: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the coal review White Paper, which I am sure he has read, which examines all those arguments in detail, as they were examined by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman should have set the record straight and pointed out that electricity prices to the domestic consumer have fallen in nominal terms and have certainly fallen in real terms in almost every area.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the forecast of the National Grid is that there will be 57 per cent. over-capacity by 1997–98, do the Government make it clear to the electricity supply industry that its priority should be conservation rather than production, and if not, why not?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman should study the National Grid statement in rather more detail. It sets out a number of scenarios making different assumptions on a seven-year horizon. The Government are, of course, concerned to promote energy conservation. That is why the budget of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in this area has almost doubled.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recall that, in March, the House was told that the Government had saved 12 pits by coming up with a subsidy to enable the generators to burn more coal? Is he aware that, in the two
    224
    months since then, far from burning more coal. the generators have been burning even less than they had planned? Will he meet the generators and ask them when they intend to place a contract for a single extra bag of coal? If he does not get that contract, does he appreciate that those 12 pits will go the way of the rest? If that happens, his subsidy will look like a sham which solved a political crisis for the Conservative party but has not solved the jobs crisis in the coal industry.
    Mr. Eggar: That is absolutely typical of the hon. Gentleman: when he identifies a problem, he wants the Government to get in and sort it out. He believes in state direction. He has no belief whatever in the private sector and wants to spend taxpayers' money regardless of the value to the economy as a whole. The Government have made it absolutely clear that we will make a subsidy available, but that it is a matter for negotiation between British Coal and the private sector generators to see whether additional coal sales can be identified.

    Exporters
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department has taken to increase the competitiveness of British exporters.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): The Government give a high priority to helping British exporters. United Kingdom companies are now in a better position than ever to win business overseas.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the competitiveness of our exchange rate has helped to constrain inflation and that we need to keep bearing down on domestic costs to keep inflation under control? Those economic measures introduced by our Government are more effective than the, gloom and carping by the Opposition about the performance of our manufacturing industry and exports.
    Hon. Members: Rubbish.
    Mr. Needham: Despite Opposition Members' cries of "Rubbish" from a sedentary position, since 1981 the volume of British manufactured exports has grown faster than that of France, Germany, Italy, the United States or Japan. During the past three years, manufactured exports have risen by four times as much as imports, and since 1989 our exports of manufactures are up 16 per cent. Instead of doom, doom, gloom and gloom, which is all that we get from Opposition Members, that is the real history behind British manufacturing exports.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the enormous role that the steel industry plays in United Kingdom exports, is the Secretary of State aware of the serious potential threat posed to the British steel industry by the closure of Ucar Carbon, the only plant in Britain that manufactures graphite electrodes, which are part of the electric arc smelting process in special steel manufacture? It is the only United Kingdom plant, and it is scheduled for closure. What can the Secretary of State and his Ministers do, along with Opposition Members, to prevent that closure?
    Mr. Needham: As the hon. Lady knows, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend. I believe that she is in discussion with him on that issue, and I am sure that he will work as hard as he can with her to ensure that whatever action

    225
    might be taken will be taken. However, with regard to trade generally, as the hon. Lady says, British Steel's performance is unrivalled, and it is unrivalled and competing in markets all over the world because it has been privatised.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to manufactured exports, what distinguishes manufacturers from the service sector is that manufacturing is more capital intensive? Does he further agree that there may be a danger that our progress in recovering from recession may be affected by a shortfall of capital in the small firms manufacturing sector? Will he, therefore, as the champion on this cause with the Treasury, urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, within the lifetime of this Parliament, the abolition of capital taxation, which will work wonders for inward investment and give us a clear competive edge within Europe and in the broader world market?
    Mr. Needham: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As he knows, the Budget contained major measures, such as the loan guarantee scheme, for assisting small companies, and the Government are determined to do all they can to help small companies, not least in exports.
    Mr. Robin Cook: As the Minister has been so free in lecturing the Opposition for talking doom and gloom, will he take the opportunity to rebuke the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in his Budget statement, forecast that the manufacturing deficit will double this year? Did he get it wrong, or is he also peddling doom and gloom? Will the Minister confirm that, in every year until 1982, we had a surplus in manufactured trade, and that in every year since 1982, we have had a deficit in manufactured trade? If, after 14 years, the hon. Gentleman really believes that the Government now have the right policies for industry, can he say in which year we shall return to the manufactured trade surplus that we used to have in every year until the Conservative party was elected?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that such forecasts from anybody are totally meaningless, and he would never make such a forecast himself. The figures I gave for manufacturing exports are true. They are not figures that he has ever used and he would never use them because, as far as he is concerned, they do not paint the true picture of British manufacturing —which is one of tremendous success. The Government do hare a policy on exports and manufacturing exports. We have a policy to do everything that we can, with manufacturers and business, to promote our exports. That is very different from the hon. Gentleman's policy, which is to join the social chapter and to push up costs and push up the incentives for people to leave this country.

    Mobile Phones
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals his Department has to change the law to prevent the fraudulent re-chipping of mobile phones.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): I am not persuaded that a change in the law is necessary.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I declare an interest as an adviser to the Telecommunication Manufacturers Association and as an owner of one of those terrible machines that are likely to be stolen. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows of the growing prevalence of telephones being stolen and adapted for fraudulent use, which has come to the attention of not only the industry and users but even the House authorities, because a large number of telephones have been stolen from this place. Will my hon. Friend meet a delegation from the industry and of others concerned, and think again about improving the law to stop the fraudulent changing of mobile phones?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of that subject, and I should be happy to meet a delegation led by him. Our legal advice is that there are adequate powers available under the Theft Act 1978 to prosecute, and further powers available under section 42 of the Telecommunications Act 1987. We are not convinced that further legislation is necessary in this instance.

    Travel Operators (Funds)
    Dr. Godman: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is taking to ensure that travel agents and tour operators have sufficient funds to protect holidaymakers in the event of financial collapse; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Leigh: Tour operators and travel agents who sell packages are required under the Package Travel Regulations 1992 to have security for the refund of customers' prepayments and for repatriation in the event of insolvency. It is their responsibility to ensure that they have sufficient funds to provide that security.
    Dr. Godman: Is it not the case, if we can hear the truth, that the Minister has implemented an Arthur Daley-type charter for unscrupulous tour operators? What will he do this summer, when the first unbonded tour operator collapses, to repatriate stranded holidaymakers abroad who have no financial protection? Should we not all be urging our constituents to stick to dealing with firms in membership of the Association of British Travel Agents?
    Mr. Leigh: For the first time under the directive, holidaymakers who deal with a package tour operator will have the reassurance that their deposit will be protected under an insurance, bonding or trust scheme. The Opposition proposed that we should institute an immensely bureaucratic licensing system, which would add enormously to consumer costs and to business regulation. That is why we rejected that licensing system, and we consider that our proposal gives sufficient consumer protection.
    Mr. Page: I support my hon. Friend's remark that bonding and insurance will give greater protection to holidaymakers than ever before, reinforced by criminal sanctions if bonding and insurance do not take place. Does my hon. Friend accept that efforts by the five trade bodies to form an umbrella organisation, the Travel Protection Association, will give even more protection to holidaymakers wishing to travel under the auspices of those five organisations?
    Mr. Leigh: I have heard of that scheme, which is much in the spirit of the directive. It is based on a flexible approach, the industry regulating itself, and ensuring customer protection without enormous costs and bureaucratic burdens being placed on the industry. That is precisely the approach that the Department favours.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister says that a licensing scheme would be excessively burdensome and bureaucratic. Why is it that, before the last election, he issued a press statement saying that he would introduce licensing? Does the Minister realise that his regulations fail to implement fully article 7 of the package travel directive? What will he do to ensure that holidaymakers stranded abroad by travel companies that collapse are brought home at no extra cost?
    Mr. Leigh: When we launched a consultation exercise, we found that if we were to introduce a licensing system, literally tens of thousands of operators would be covered by it. We would be tying them up in a tangle of red tape. One cannot legislate against fraud. We would only have ensured that business would be over-regulated and that the consumer would have to pay a lot more for his holiday. We have ensured that, when a deposit is paid to a travel package company, that deposit is protected by bonding, insurance or a trust scheme. That is a flexible approach, behind which the whole House can unite.

    Teesside Industry
    Mr. Bates: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he held on his last visit to Teesside in relation to measures to be taken to encourage manufacturing industry and exports.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I last went to Teesside on 29 April. I visited the Greentyre company, held discussions with local business men and gave the toast to commerce and industry at the Teesside chamber's annual dinner.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. If he has had an opportunity to read the latest "Business Survey North", which is a survey of 1,000 businesses carried out by the Northern Development Company and the chambers of commerce, he will have noted that it clearly points out that 61 per cent. of manufacturing firms on Teesside have experienced an increase in export orders in the past three months and that it goes on to conclude that export orders on Teesside in manufacturing industry are now at a record level. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these facts are a clear vindication of this Government's economic and industrial policies and an equally clear demonstration of the dynamism of manufacturing industry on Teesside'
    Mr. Heseltine: By one of those curious coincidences, I have seen the figures to which my hon. Friend draws my attention. They give grounds for precisely the optimism to which he refers. In the fourth quarter of 1992, manufactured exports, excluding erratics, were at a record level. Output in the three months to March was 2 per cent. higher than it was a year ago, and a quarter higher than in 1981.
    Mr. Mandelson: At the same time as the right hon. Gentleman was holding his welcome discussions on Teesside, was he aware that his Department was preparing to desert the interests of a key manufacturing company, Steetley Magnesia Products Ltd. of Hartlepool? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at a meeting today in Brussels, his Department is, I am told, withholding its support from vital anti-dumping measures that are needed to cope with unfair competition from China? Will he undertake today to reconsider the Government's position on this issue before Steetley Magnesia Products Ltd. and the future of this vital industry are placed in serious jeopardy?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises an important question. I can assure him that we are looking at this case, as we look at all allegations of dumping, extremely clearly and carefully, but the House must realise that there are just too many examples of companies that lose orders and immediately suggest that they did so for unfair reasons. Our overall national interest is to preserve openness of trade and not to become involved in recriminations. However, I shall certainly look at the hon. Gentleman's case.
    Mr. Batiste: The Government have said repeatedly that they are seeking to help British industry by negotiating with our European partners to bring to an end the Arab boycott. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that remains the Government's intention, and can he say whether—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question refers to Teesside. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his question to Teesside.
    Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware that industry in Teesside is seriously affected by the impact of the Arab boycott on Israel. Can he say whether any progress was made over raising that boycott in the recent negotiations between European Community Ministers and the Gulf Co-operation Council?
    Mr. Heseltine: To the best of my knowledge, this matter was not raised at the recent meeting, but my hon. Friend has our sympathy. He will be aware, though, that there is not a mind to introduce legislation to deal with these matters. I think that that has the overwhelming support of the people who have an interest in those matters.

    Textile Regions
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received by his Department for use of the European Community Retex funds for development of textile regions; and when the result of these applications will be announced.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Sixty-seven applications have been received. The projects will be selected by the Retex programme monitoring committee after the programme has finally been approved by the Commission. The results will be announced shortly thereafter.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank the Minister for his reply, but can he tell the House why the British Government insist on the submission of 12-month schemes, whereas elsewhere in Europe five-year rolling schemes are the order of the day?

    229
    Can he assure the House that there will be no foot-dragging by the Department of Trade and Industry, which would imperil the bids from my own area, submitted by Lancashire Enterprises on behalf of the six north-east Lancashire district councils, which come to £750,000 and which would help 200 struggling firms in this area?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at the Edinburgh Council, the United Kingdom was not alone in expressing serious reservations about the benefits of these Commission schemes, which merely draw funds away from the general structural programmes. We do not know at this stage whether there will be another Retex scheme. The Edinburgh Council suggested that these schemes should concentrate on cross-border activities, but I do not think that Retex would naturally feature as such an activity. There is no foot-dragging by my Department. If there is a delay, it is because of the great length of time taken by the Commission—it took more than four months to respond to our proposals.
    Mr. Dickens: Has my right hon. Friend stressed to the Commission the importance of Retex money for the regeneration of textile areas and the importance of an early decision? When does he expect the decision? Let us have no beating about the bush—are we talking about July, August or September? People need to know because it is a matter of job creation.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to say that, if anyone is beating about the bush, it is up to us to try to get answers from the Commission. So far, the Commission has not approved proposals from any Community country. It took four months to respond to our proposals, and we are still negotiating a final agreement. As soon as we have that agreement, a programme committee can be constituted. There will be no delay from my Department.
    Mr. Purchase: It is no use the Minister claiming that he is not dragging his feet. Is he aware that 1,000 redundancies were declared every month in the textile industry last year? That is a tragedy for British industry. The Minister seems to be bobbing when he should be getting weaving.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I note the web and the weft of the hon. Gentleman's question. I draw his attention to one of the serious drawbacks of the Retex scheme, which is one of the reasons why the United Kingdom, in common with a majority of European Community states, voted against it. Only European Commission areas in objective 2 and 5b are eligible for help under the Retex scheme. Many of the parts of Britain that have the largest concentration of textile employees are outside those areas. The scheme is meant to help textiles, but can do so only in certain areas, and perhaps not the most important.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Now that so many companies in Hinckley in my constituency have taken steps to improve their competitiveness, has my right hon. Friend any initiatives, that in addition to the Retex scheme, could further assist the reconstruction of the industry? Can he say anything about the potential for the hosiery and knitwear industry of a successful GATT round?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to the great strides that the textile industry has made in improving its productivity, which is
    230
    vital if it is to retain its competitiveness in a very competitive market and if it is to build on its achievements in exporting about £5 billion-worth of textiles last year.
    The textile industry, like all other industries, is, of course, eligible for help under the whole range of my Department's schemes. Many of them are especially structured to help smaller businesses of which there are many in the textile industry. I entirely agree that a satisfactory outcome to the Uruguay round of GATT, which would lower tariff peaks, especially in one or two of our most important export markets, would be very helpful to the industry.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does not the Minister understand the importance and relevance of the Retex scheme to an industry that has lost 400,000 jobs in the past 10 years? Has he not let the cat out of the bag by making it abundantly clear in previous answers that the Government are opposed to the Retex scheme and to helping those in the textile industry who have lost their jobs? Is he not asking the House to believe in a myth when he says that he as Minister will go to Brussels to rattle the cage of the European Commission? Are not we in fact dealing with an insensitive, indifferent and inefficient Minister, who will not be able to apply pressure in Brussels?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is furthering the cause of the textile industry by what he says, but perhaps he should be reminded of what I just said to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). The Retex scheme can help the textile industry only in areas that fall within the objective 2 and 5b map, which excludes many areas in Britain with a high concentration of textile employees. The funds for the Retex scheme are drawn from the general structural funds of the Community; they are not under the control of the Council of Ministers. It is a bureaucratic scheme, under the control of the Commission, it is costly and I do not think that it is very effective. That is the view of most EC countries.

    EC Insurance Accounts Directive
    Mr. French: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the implementation of the EC insurance accounts directive; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I have received a number of comments from a range of interested parties in response to a consultative document that I issued in June 1992. My officials have been in informal contact with a number of such parties. I expect to publish draft regulations for comment next month.
    Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the directive is, broadly, a step in the right direction in terms of establishing proper comparability between insurance company accounts in this country and those in other European countries, it will work only if carried out on a consistent basis? Will he, therefore, explain why the Government seem inclined to go beyond the directive on the disclosure of distributable profits, when the only certain consequence of that would be that British insurance companies could be put at a disadvantage in takeovers?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is not our intention to go further than European directives require of us unless we can justify such extensions. The consultation has hardly started yet, so my hon. Friend is a little premature in assuming that we have come to any final conclusions. I shall certainly bear what he says strongly in mind.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that for British insurers to reap the full benefits of the single market which flow from the proposals that he has put forward for consultation, we need to resolve the problem of the long shadow of Maxwell, which affects the credibility of British insurers in the European single market? What steps will he take to ensure that that matter is finally resolved before his regulations are in place?
    Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that has little relevance to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). Of course, we do not countenance fraud in any way, but we have to be realistic. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology said in answer to the question about travel companies, we cannot pass laws that will make fraud impossible; we can only make fraud more difficult. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a policy of the highest importance, to which the Government are firmly committed.

    Car Exports
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cars are currently being exported each month from the United Kingdom; and what is the total value of the automotive industry to the United Kingdom economy.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The automotive industry is an important part of the United Kingdom's manufacturing industry. So far this year, production for export is up by 7.31 per cent. on the same period last year.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that success has been brought about by record inward investment, encouraged by low taxation, low interest rates and low inflation? Is he aware that because of unprecedented economic success under successive Governments, it is now impossible to park one's car in the House of Commons car park, as the lot opposite, w ho used to come here on bikes, now come here in cars?
    Mr. Sainsbury: How welcome it is to hear praise for the achievements of any part of British industry and what a contrast it is with what we hear from the moaning minnies in the Opposition. How graphically my hon. Friend illustrated the success of the Government's economic policies; I congratulate him on that.
    Mr. Eastham: Would not it be timely if the Minister were to congratulate some of the engineers who made those successful export figures possible? Is not it worth reminding him that Japanese investment in Britain has shown that Japanese management can manage the automobile industry far better than traditional British management and that the Japanese have invested in the industry, which traditional British management never did?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that, these days, when anyone on either side of the House congratulates British industry on an achievement—the automotive industry certainly
    232
    deserves congratulation on the transformation that it has achieved—we are congratulating not the work force or the management as separate entities, but the whole of British industry working together, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he visited the car factories of today.
    Mr. Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Ford Motor Company on its outstanding success in recently being awarded the Queen's award for export?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Ford Motor Company. I would only add my congratulations to all sections of the automotive industry, including—let us not forget—the many component companies which are steadily increasing their exports to Europe.
    Mr. Cousins: The whole House will want to congratulate the teams of car manufacturers and car manufacturing work forces, including that coming on stream in the great county of Derbyshire, which we still have with us. Does the Minister recognise that our car exporters have now fought their way back to their position of two years ago? Our balance of payment deficit on cars was more than £2 billion last year. Does the Minister expect the balance of payments deficit to be £2 billion or less this year?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that we will all look forward to a steady increase in the proportion of cars sold in Britain that are produced in Britain, whether they are produced by Japanese-owned companies, American-owned companies, French-owned companies or British-owned companies. The export success is put in perspective if one bears in mind the fact that the first-quarter exports this year were nearly three times the level of the first-quarter exports of five years ago.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I pay tribute to the role of the motor industry in our economy, as my right hon. Friend has done, but can he say when we will reduce our growing deficit in manufactured goods?
    Mr. Sainsbury: One way of reducing that deficit to which I draw the attention of my hon. Friend is by encouraging inward investors to come here and produce manufactured goods, as the Japanese car companies are doing effectively. Of course, if we are to retain our attraction as a location for inward investors, we must be seen to remain a central part of the European Community and must also avoid saddling our manufacturers with the social chapter.

    Energy Projects (Merseyside)
    Mr. Alton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the development of energy projects in Liverpool bay and the River Mersey.
    Mr. Eggar: Progress is a matter for the private sector, but we shall keep in close touch with developments on these projects.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister accept that the development of the oil and gas fields in Liverpool bay could mark a crucial and significant turn in the economies of both Merseyside and Deeside? When is his Department likely to give final approval for the development of the gas

    233
    fields and what active role is it playing to try to ensure that the construction of the rigs necessary for the exploration and exploitation of the field is carried out at the Cammell Laird yard on Merseyside, where there is a desperate need for employment opportunities? Where would be a more fitting place than Merseyside for the construction of those facilities?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the coal review my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave permission under section 36 for Connah's Quay to proceed. That in turn will have a significant impact on the economic viability of the find in Liverpool bay. It was quite remarkable that, although certain sections of the Liberal party gave their support, not a single voice was raised by the Liverpool Labour party in favour of proceeding with that project during the whole consultation process leading up to the coal review White Paper. It is recognised that the project would have led to at least 5,000 construction jobs. The Labour party should balance the energy demands of this country.
    Mr. Richards: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is only because of the Government's energy policy that Liverpool bay will be developed and that, if the Labour party had had its way, we would still be producing coal that no one wants?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the Welsh TUC which, at the last minute, made its position absolutely clear: it wanted the Liverpool bay development to go ahead.
    Mr. George Howarth: In the light of his previous answer, will the Minister confirm that I wrote a letter to his right hon. Friend which bore the signature of every Labour Member on Merseyside and also the signatures of Liberal and Conservative Members urging him to go ahead precisely along the lines that he did during the period of the coal review? Will the Minister now apologise for this earlier statement? While he is on the subject, will he pull together Hamilton Oil, the Department and Cammell Laird and work out precisely what can be done to bring the orders for the oil drilling platforms to Cammell Laird—or is he prepared to see another Swan Hunter on Merseyside?
    Mr. Eggar rose—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw!
    Mr. Eggar: I should certainly be willing to apologise to the hon. Gentleman if the letter makes it quite clear that those hon. Members were willing to see the closure of mines as a result—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Yes, but that is just the point. Opposition Members are not prepared to make hard and difficult choices. That is why they are in opposition and why they will remain in opposition.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the Labour party in Merseyside has supported both proposals because it considers it necessary to have a balanced energy policy? That is why we also believe that the petroleum revenue tax changes may prejudice the prospect of any other inshore projects of the kind envisaged in the question. The Minister is misleading the House and the country when he suggests that this narrow and blinkered view of energy
    234
    policy, if that is what it amounts to, can produce anything like the share that the country requires between oil, gas and coal—resources which the country already owns.
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is now on record as being against any restriction on the production of coal, being in favour of nuclear production and being in favour of the expansion of gas-fired electricity production. That is highly responsible from the Opposition Front Bench that seeks to form the Government of this country. I suggest that he makes those on the Benches behind him aware that it is necessary to make difficult choices. It is no good his coming to the Dispatch Box to ask for every single thing to proceed in order to persuade and make happy different sectors of his own party.

    Manufacturing Industry (East Midlands)
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next visit the east midlands to discuss job losses in manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Heseltine: I hope to visit the east midlands shortly. I expect to discuss a range of issues with manufacturing and other businesses in the region.
    Mr. Barnes: The Secretary of State certainly needs to talk to a great number of people in the east midlands. In the shire county elections in the east midlands, Labour took 211 seats to the Conservatives' 134. We need investment in manufacturing industry in the east midlands, where investment is still below the 1979 level. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he has good talks with a host of people who might have ideas about what he should do?
    Mr. Heseltine: I can give the hon. Gentleman an unqualified assurance. I will talk to Toyota at Burnaston which is creating 3,000 new jobs, to Toray Textiles at Mansfield which has created 400 new jobs, to Walkers and Sons in Leicester which has created 250 new jobs, to Land's End at Oakham which has created 100 new jobs, to Airwair of Woolaston in Northamptonshire which has created 70 new jobs and to Fisher Controls in Braunstone in Leicestershire which has created 66 new jobs. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman, who says that Labour has won all those seats, enjoy it while it lasts, because it will not be long.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Price Waterhouse survey of Derbyshire firms, which was published last week, in which 80 per cent. of companies said that they were coming out of recession and that profits were improving and in which one third were proposing to increase their work forces? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should congratulate those companies and that the way forward is through a closer partnership between the Government and manufacturing industry to help companies invest and so create the jobs that are needed in that area and elsewhere in the country?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right, but why is it that one only ever sees support for the things that are going right in Derbyshire from hon. Members on the Government side of the House?

    Commodity Prices
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect on businesses, consumers and trade of the recent changes in the price of commodities.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The impact of movements in commodity prices varies between businesses.
    Mr. Cohen: Following the exchange rate mechanism debacle eight months ago, which cost Britain about £2 billion, are not higher prices now in the pipeline? Is not that reflected by commodity price rises? Timber is up 126 per cent., sugar 46 per cent., coffee 38 per cent., beef—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, reading. They are very high figures, are they not? Beef is up 35 per cent. and cotton 25 per cent. Will not that harm businesses and the standard of living of people on tight incomes and make the nation's economic recession worse? Are not the Government caught in a new web of recession of their own making?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will share the Government's view that the control of inflation is an extremely important objective and is very important to help manufacturing industry, particularly in export markets. I hope that he is also aware that food price inflation has been running at a very low level. It was only 1·5 per cent., which was lower than the general level of inflation in the year to March 1993.
    The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that the chairman of one of our leading supermarket companies —indeed, I think that I can say the leading supermarket company in the country—recently forecast that true price inflation would increase from about 2 per cent. to 3 or 4 per cent. next year because of devaluation. We should like to see less, but that is not an astronomical figure.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a devaluation affects only some prices, not all prices, and that inflation can be caused only by an increase in the money supply?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As he knows, were we to embark upon a discussion of the second part of his question, it is possible that we would not find ourselves entirely in agreement and we would certainly take up much of the House's time.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the Minister recognise that the price of commodities to manufacturers is now tip more than 8 per cent., that that is a direct result of what happened in September and that we are in grave danger of going around the cycle again? When will the Government bring forward a policy for the long-term development and protection of our trade and manufacturing industry? That will be the only way out of the stop-go cycle.
    Mr. Sainsbury: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is calling for not only regulation of trade but protection, or higher tariffs, against imports into this country, which of course would be an invitation to a trade war—just the thing in 1929 to 1931 reduced world trade by 40 per cent. and, as a consequence, reduced world output of manufactured goods by 30 per cent. That seems to be a more than usually stupid policy to be proposed, even by the Opposition.

    Russian Federation
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet his counterparts in the Government of the Russian Federation to discuss bilateral trade.
    Mr. Heseltine: Deputy Prime Minister Shokhin, with whom I established contact at the first meeting of the British-Russian steering committee on trade and investment in Moscow last September, and I attended a second meeting of that committee this morning. We plan to continue our talks tomorrow.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that business with the Soviet Union, or Russia as it is today, is well worth pursuing in the long term due to its huge resources in gold and oil? Regarding of the short term, my right hon. Friend's meeting this morning with Aleksandr Nicolaivitch Shokhin, what does he think will be the short-term benefits that will accrue?
    Mr. Heseltine: I must crave the indulgence of the House, Madam Speaker. I was so carried away by the full explanation of where I have been today that I missed the important part of the question.
    Madam Speaker: In that case we will have a question from Dr. Howells.
    Mr. Fabricant rose—
    Madam Speaker: Very well, but very quickly.
    Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is worth pursuing long-term prospects with Russia given its huge reserves of gold and oil? Given his meeting this morning with Aleksandr Nicolaivitch Shokhin, what short-term benefits does he believe will accrue?
    Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend, who has a considerable knowledge of these matters and a facility for articulating them, is right to ask the House this question. The conclusion that I draw is that we have much to gain in both the long and the short term.
    Madam Speaker: It was worth a repeat performance.
    Dr. Howells: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that one of the greatest success stories of British exports to the former Soviet Union—to Kazakhstan and Russia—is that of British Gas? British Gas is deeply concerned that if it is broken up, as some propose it should be, it will no longer be large enough to be a world player and to take British exports to those countries.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise that these matters are currently before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.

    Overseas Trade Services
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people the Overseas Trade Services employs; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: At present, there are some 2,000 staff engaged in export promotion work within Overseas Trade

    237
    Services, including those employed in the commercial sections of Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts overseas.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: While Britain currently enjoys record export levels, is my hon. Friend satisfied that we are doing everything possible to ensure that there is a proper range of services to help British business men win the orders that they rightly deserve?
    Mr. Needham: One can never be satisfied. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade recently announced a new structure within the DTI which I think will go a long way towards meeting the needs mentioned by my hon. Friend. We have restructured the Overseas Project Board—and are in the process of doing so with the British Overseas Trade Board—to reflect business needs more closely. We have announced the taking on of 100 export promoters, of whom 33 are in place. We are strengthening the relationship between the Foreign Office and the DTI through the joint directorate and linking export promoters with DTI regional offices and, thereafter, this country as a whole. I am sure that, in a short time, we will be giving a package of support to our exporters which will be without equal anywhere in the world.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister acknowledge the competitiveness of the British aerospace industry, which exported £5·5 billion worth of its products last year? May I tell the Minister of a great little export earner in my constituency, the 125 executive jet made at the Broughton works? May I further tell him of the concern of the work force there—not just worry at the loss of 269 jobs from the production line, but fear that that efficient unit may soon be bought, lock, stock and barrel by an American company? What can the Minister do to assuage the fears of the work force? Is he prepared to visit the factory and to meet management and labour?
    Mr. Needham: My right hon. Friend has already visited the plant. Obviously it will be a commercial decision for British Aerospace. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to congratulate the British Aerospace company and its subsidiaries—and all other companies in aerospace—on the success of their exports, which I am sure will continue.
    We can be proud of many other industries in this country, whose export performances are getting better day by day.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Can my hon. Friend assure us that there will be adequate staffing to ensure the proper packaging of exports of British goods and services, as was carried out in the Kuwait reconstruction and the recent Proyecto Venezuela? It is a very effective way of putting across opportunities for Britain in these markets.
    Mr. Needham: My right hon. Friend recently announced an additional 60 posts to deal with the 80 top markets for British exports. As I have said, we are in the process of putting in place an export promotion assistance package that no other country in the world can better.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the staffing levels in the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
    Mr. Heseltine: ECGD's staffing levels are periodically reviewed and determined as part of the annual public expenditure survey and the Minis scrutiny.
    Mr. Spellar: I think that it is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman could not be more forthcoming on the figures. One suspects that that gives substance to the concerns expressed by the staff of ECGD on this matter. Although an increase in the amounts available is welcome, would not it be a good idea to give an assurance to the staff that their jobs will be secure and that we will therefore have the necessary back-up to progress what will, one hopes, be an increase in exports?
    Mr. Heseltine: I cannot answer that question in the way in which the hon. Gentleman wants. I have looked in great detail at the number of people employed in providing this service. I was extremely concerned at the overheads involved in providing support to the front-line services and, therefore, I have asked for some urgent reviews to take place, which it is my proper responsibility to do.

    Northern Cyprus
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of (a) imports and (b) exports between the United Kingdom and northern Cyprus in the last three years for which records are kept.
    Mr. Needham: The Government do not recognise the northern Cyprus regime. Therefore, northern Cyprus is not separately identified by Customs and Excise in the United Kingdom trade statistics.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is not it the case, as the recent exploits of Asil Nadir brought to public attention, that a considerable amount of trade goes on between the United Kingdom and northern Cyprus? Should not the Government now take a closer interest in the terms under which such trade is conducted? In particular, how many of the business assets through which that trade is conducted belong legally to refugees who were dispossessed in 1974? is not it an insult to those refugees that in the last honours list an OBE was awarded to a northern Cyprus business man for his services to trade with the United Kingdom? Should not the Government now review their policy of accepting export credit certificates from a regime which the United Kingdom does not recognise and which evidently does not recognise any obligations to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the trade that takes place between the island of Cyprus and the United Kingdom is regulated through the association agreement with the Community and, therefore, is a Community matter. We recognise the island of Cyprus as a whole and it would be unthinkable to the people on the rest of the island if we differentiated between one part and another.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the parts of manufacturing industry which show the greatest potential for growth; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The Department's objective is to encourage and assist all sectors of the United Kingdom's manufacturing industry to become more competitive both at home and abroad.
    Mr. Greenway: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that between 1 million and 1·5 million more people are in work now than were in work in 1983? That means that more than 25 million people are in jobs in the United Kingdom. Are not a substantial number of those in the manufacturing industries? Will my right hon. Friend encourage small business—while not neglecting large business—to provide jobs, because that is where a large potential for increase in manufacturing jobs lies?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree that smaller businesses have a valuable role not only in manufacturing industry but in the provision of employment opportunities. Indeed, that is why the Government have a comprehensive range of services to assist small firms, including the small firms loan guarantee scheme, which was enhanced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget; consultancies under the enterprise initiative; one-stop shops, which will give a better service to small firms; and the partnership sourcing initiative.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should not regional policy be framed in such a way as to back growth sectors of the economy? On the whole question of regional policy, when will we have a statement from the Government on the redrawing of the assisted areas map? It is causing deep concern in my county of Cumbria.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned to have an announcement—we will certainly make one as soon as we can. He is aware that the proposals for the new map for assisted areas are subject to the approval of the Commission. We can never be sure how long the Commission will take to give us that approval, as I drew to the attention of the House in answer to an earlier question.
    The hon. Gentleman is well aware that regional policy is directed at providing better employment opportunities in areas of the country that suffer from a lack of employment opportunities relative to other more prosperous areas.

    Arab Boycott
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the implications of the Arab boycott on British exports.
    Mr. Needham: I receive representations about the Arab boycott from time to time, but we cannot measure its effect on United Kingdom exports.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that such an iniquitous boycott must affect the level of United Kingdom exports? As the German and American Governments are willing to legislate against the boycott, will he explain why the British Government will not? May we have an assurance that the matter will he discussed at the forthcoming G7 conference?
    Mr. Needham: I cannot give such an assurance to my hon. Friend, but I will make sure that his comments are passed on. We have not followed the line taken by the Governments of the United States or Germany because in this matter we take the views of British companies and exporters carefully into account. Those companies do not believe that the introduction of such legislation in this country would be effective, because it would be unenforceable.

    Deregulation Unit
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement about the work of the deregulation unit.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Departments are conducting a comprehensive review of all their regulations. Seven business task forces are also undertaking a comprehensive review of all the regulations that affect those industrial sectors. We are also urging the European Community to consult business and consider the burden that its proposals might impose on it. At the local level, there are nine partnerships between local authorities and business in local areas. Local authorities and business are trying to learn from their experience of working with one another.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my hon. Friend encourage the civil service unions to be less defensive about the proposals and remind them that public service efficiency will be enhanced by the work of the unit?
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend. There will ultimately be gains for the Government, and hence for the taxpayer, from the deregulation initiative. It can be in nobody's interest to have red tape entangling them. Nor is it in anyone's interest to have taxpayers' money wasted on unnecessary rules and regulations.

Abortion Clinics (Access)
3.31 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit interference with, and intimidation or harassment of, any person using an abortion clinic or any person employed therein, and the obstruction of access to such premises; to provide remedies for persons affected by such acts; to require information on counselling services to be given to persons seeking an abortion; and for connected purposes.
The activities referred to in the Bill should be written into our law as a clear criminal offence. When it boils down to it, such activity is another form of violence towards women, in this case women who are already in an anxious state.
Abortion is legal. It is outrageous that, after making a painful and difficult decision, perhaps after careful counselling and discussion with their partner, women attending clinics for treatment should be the subject of abuse and harassment and placed in fear of violence. The same goes for clinical workers.
Seven weeks ago, Rescue America despicably forced several women to run the gauntlet of its abuse and intimidation. A report of that appeared in The Guardian on 2 April. One woman said:
"I couldn't believe the way they just descended on me. They swarmed around me and I was very frightened."
When she arrived at the clinic, she burst into tears. She said:
"Having an abortion is not an easy decision and I was already feeling emotionally unstable. These people just took advantage of that. I was shaking and crying and had to go and sit in a room to calm myself down …They are not going to achieve anything like this. Women think very carefully about having abortions and these people are not going to change anybody's mind. I think they are all sick and very intimidating. I believe that everyone has the right to hold an opinion but these people hounded me. I felt like a criminal and am still very disturbed by what happened … It was very distressing and occurred at a time when I have enough to worry about already."
Those were the words of a woman who was harassed by Rescue America.
The activities of Rescue America and Rescue Outreach are becoming increasingly violent in the United States. The groups do not merely block access. They have undertaken fire bombings, arson attacks and acid attacks on clinics. They have stormed hospital theatres. There have been shootings. A Florida doctor was shot dead outside his clinic earlier this year. The director of Rescue America, Don Treshman, called it "unfortunate" and added chillingly:
"had he not been killed, many more babies would have died at his hands."
Last year marked a record for violence against clinics in the United States. There were 1,107 acts of serious violence such as bombing, arson, chemical contamination, invasion and vandalism. It cost almost $50 million. Special camps were set up to train members to read licence plates, follow people and harass them at home, and illegally enter schools to leaflet children with pictures of foetuses.
With such fanaticism, there must be a real danger of harm to women arriving at abortion clinics and to the workers there. The people involved are trying to export this intimidation and violence to the United Kingdom. They have set up Rescue UK, and training courses have been organised by their American counterparts. These include instruction on how to intervene physically, with
242
violence. James Morrow, the founder of Rescue UK, has been arrested more than a dozen times, and in 1989 he was convicted of assault on a pregnant clinic manager.
I believe that, for infamy and ignominy, the demonstrations that took place outside abortion clinics seven weeks ago were on a par with those of the racist dockers in the 1960s. The rights of women should be protected by law, yet the role of the police was far from satisfactory. They did not ensure complete freedom of access or freedom from intimidation. They put the demonstrators first and the women second. At some demonstrations, they refused to allow women to go through on their own, despite the fact that these women were engaging in lawful personal business, and, on grounds of public order, they also refused to allow escorts, such as those from the National Abortion Campaign, to accompany the women.
With such tactics, the police were, in effect, doing Operation Rescue's job for it. It is also known that some of the police officers involved expressed their support for Operation Rescue. Policing tactics were inconsistent, being down to individual police officers. That is most unsatisfactory. The Home Office should produce some consistent guidelines and ensure that women's rights are paramount.
In our democracy, anti-abortion groups have the right to demonstrate. They can lobby Parliament and march through London or any other town. However, they should not be allowed to abuse individual women who, having made an often painful and difficult decision, are attending clinics for treatment that they are, by law, allowed to have. Threatening individual women who are seeking treatment is cowardly. My Bill puts the women's rights and their safety first. It creates a clear criminal offence where there is intimidation or where people's access is blocked.
It is necessary to give women a choice at an earlier stage, when they are considering what to do. That is why my Bill puts on general practitioners an onus to inform women what sort of counselling is available and might be helpful to them. Violent demonstration and intimidation should be no part of the process. The Home Secretary was right to have Don Treshman of Rescue America arrested and deported on the grounds that his activities were not conducive to the public good. However, that was not a satisfactory mechanism. In any case, we have our own home-grown intimidation and women bashers. Nor are obstruction laws the right ones to use in these circumstances. We saw how the police implemented those laws: they prevented women from securing their legal rights. We need a clear-cut law making it illegal to block access to abortion clinics.
It is ironic that one outcome of these incidents is that demonstrations in the royal parks are not acceptable. In the interests of the women and clinic workers, demonstrations outside abortion clinics should not be acceptable. We should have this law in place before these dangerous fanatics return in September, as they have vowed to do.
The Bill is supported by the National Abortion Campaign and the Abortion Law Reform Group. Last week, one anti-abortion hon. Member tabled a motion on obscenity. It urges the Government to balance freedom of speech with their responsibility to protect children, women and men from degradation and violence. I similarly seek to protect women who are lawfully using abortion clinics

243
from this latest form of violence by anti-abortion extremists. An editorial on this issue in The Independent concluded with these words:
"Women should know that they can have abortions within the law without fear of intimidation or more distress than they will in any case experience."
My Bill enshrines that.
3.40 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I wish to oppose the motion. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised a number of important issues on which opinions in the House and outside are deeply held and strongly felt.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the recent scenes that we have witnessed outside both abortion clinics and the administrative headquarters of those who advocate abortion. Those of us who are members of the all-party parliamentary pro-life group have no truck whatever with those individuals or organisations, whatever their views or philosophy, who advocate violence, intimidation or the flouting of the law as a means of furthering their ends.
That rejection of violence and intimidation applies to those from the Socialist Workers party and the National Abortion Campaign who have turned up with the deliberate intention of disrupting peaceful demonstrations, rallies and religious services. It applies equally to those who share our abhorrence of abortion but adopt methods with which we have no sympathy and to which we give no support.
Our opposition to the criminal destruction of property in abortion clinics is as strong as our opposition to the destruction of property that took place during the debate on the Bill introduced some time ago by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), when the headquarters of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children was ransacked by pro-abortion extremists. Our opposition to assaults on any person seeking or advocating an abortion is as strong as our opposition to the sort of cowardly attack which was perpetrated some time ago on the then Father of the House and right hon. Member for Castle Point, Sir Bernard Braine, who was assaulted by a gang of pro-abortion thugs outside a prayer meeting at the Royal Albert hall.
I hope that I have shown that there is some common ground between myself and the hon. Member for Leyton, but despite our common rejection of violence as a means of achieving political change within our parliamentary democracy, I cannot support his appeal. Violence and intimidation are already illegal in this country, as indeed are crimes against property. There already exists a wide range of powers available to the courts to deal with such activities, whether they take place outside abortion clinics or outside factories.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be so keen to ask for tougher action against those on the Timex picket line? The law surely must be applied firmly, but fairly and equally, to protect all who seek to exercise their right to demonstrate peacefully, and to prevent violence and intimidation wherever it arises.
The hon. Member for Leyton seeks also to liberalise still further the Abortion Act 1967 by creating a new requirement to provide information and counseling
244
services, which suggests that there is a right under present legislation to have an abortion. That is not the case. The legislation merely provides a defence against prosecution if abortion is performed under one of a given set of circumstances. It does not provide for a right of access to abortion.
That is an important legal point, because it is now common practice to interpret the legislation differently, with many doctors openly operating a policy of abortion on demand. The result is that more than 90 per cent. of abortions are performed for reasons of social convenience. A staggering 3·7 million abortions have now been performed under the terms of the Abortion Act. Of those, only 151—or 0·004 per cent.—were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), when he promoted the legislation 25 years ago, told us that abortion would liberate women and make every child a wanted child. The opposite has been the effect. Abortion has allowed society to sweep under the carpet the very problems for which it was hailed as a panacea.
Abortion has failed abysmally. It allows the continuing exploitation of women and their health and, as the inexorable increase in child abuse has shown, the devaluation of human life before birth has altered society's attitudes to children after birth. The hon. Member for Leyton and those who profess their faith in the nostrum of liberal abortion laws can now look back on 25 years of failure, of the exploitation of women, and of the slaughter of unborn children.
For those reasons, we should not give the hon. Member leave to bring in his Bill. Those listening to what is said today should take note of the fact that a decision not to divide the House should not be taken to mean support for this measure. It is simply a sign that there are many important issues on today's Order Paper—issues on which hon. Members want to make progress without wasting time by dividing the House over an issue which is little more than a stunt to enable those who share the hon. Gentleman's extremist views to curry favour with their supporters in the pro-abortion lobby outside the House.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Bill Michie, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Barbara Roche and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

ABORTION CLINICS (ACCESS)
Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit interference with, and intimidation or harassment of, any person using an abortion clinic or any person employed therein, and the obstruction of access to such premises; to provide remedies for persons affected by such acts; to require information on counselling services to be given to persons seeking an abortion; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July and to be printed. [Bill 199.]
Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Madam Speaker: There is a great deal of interest in the two debates today. I appeal to hon. Members for short speeches. I am not in a position to put a time limit on speeches, but I do ask for co-operation from hon. Members when they are speaking.
  I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
  That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to make clear without qualification that the use of Automated Credit Transfer in the payment of pensions and benefits is a decision for the free choice of the individual customer and that there will be no element of compulsion or undue pressure from the Department of Social Security; and condemns the uncertainty for customers that has resulted from the Government's current campaign on Automated Credit Transfer and the threat to the important social and economic role in the community of sub-post offices which is being undermined by this Government's mismanagement of the economy and its determination to pave the way for privatisation.
  This is a debate about choice and about fairness. I want to make it clear at the beginning that I am not arguing against the use of automated credit transfers. That option is properly available to clients of the DSS and is used by them in increasing numbers. Our case is essentially that the method of paying pensions is a matter for the customer, and for that person alone.
  Replying to the Adjournment debate last Thursday, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) said that scaremongering is behind this campaign. That was an irresponsible statement. The basis for this debate is the widespread and genuine concern that has been reflected in the mail of every hon. Member, irrespective of party. This is particularly an issue in rural areas, but not only in rural areas.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. Does he recollect that a couple of years ago his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) went around the country telling the sick and the elderly that the new GP contract would lead to doctors spending less time with patients? That proved untrue. It was a scare story put around for party political ends. Is not this story out of exactly the same mould?
  Mr. Dewar: No. The hon. Gentleman's question was a rather clumsy attempt at a diversion. I at least intend to speak about the subject of the debate.
  The cause of the dissent is the open determination of the Government to encourage the use of ACT and the methods that have been used to promote that. We must be clear about the complaint. The starting point is the decision to review the form sent to those who have become eligible for retirement pensions inviting them to opt for a method of payment. Three types of form have been tested,
  246
  each sent to 8,000 customers. That in itself is not sinister, and Ministers have persistently offered reassurances to customers.
  A typical example was the Under-Secretary of State for Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry, who on 19 April wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). He said:
  "I understand that all three versions of the form made clear to recipients that there was a choice of payment methods."
  The Minister may understand that—he can understand what he likes—but the forms do not do that, and that is the essence of our complaint.
  The first version is the one that clearly sets out the options. As well as variations of ACT, it contains a clear invitation to opt for post office payment. The recipient is invited, if he or she wishes, to complete a form specifying the post office that is to be used. That is fair enough, but the second version is quite different. The first page is an extensive sales pitch for ACT and the page contains no mention of a post office order book.
  On the section that is to be completed to indicate choice, there is an extensive invitation to opt for ACT. People have to read what can properly and fairly be described as a footnote which says that people may express an interest in payment through a post office. If people say yes to that method, they are told that they will receive a letter about it, which is hardly an open invitation.
  The third form which has been distributed and market tested is even more ingenious. There was a four-page hard sell for ACT alone, and again the alternative was relegated to the small print. This time it merely states:
  "Do you want to be paid by other means?"
  At no point was post office payment mentioned. Those who stood firm and expressed interest in other means were told that they would be written to—to what effect is not yet clear.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, whatever retrospective deficiencies there may have been in some pilot forms, the Government have made it obvious on every occasion that it is up to the customer to decide? The hon. Gentleman said that he accepted that ACT was used and that many people want to use it. Therefore, his position is exactly the same as that of the Government and he does his personal reputation no credit by indulging in the scaremongering that has been going on.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, if I am scaremongering, then over the past week the hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Rochford (Dr. Clark), for Corby (Mr. Powell) and many other hon. Members have been scaremongering as well. But they have not: they are reflecting the genuine worries of their constituents, and the hon. Gentleman should recognise that.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: Of course I will, as I mentioned the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Arnold: Although the hon. Gentleman mentioned me, he clearly did not hear what I said. In the debate last night I said that it was quite reasonable for the Government to issue samples to test the reaction to

  247
  different forms. The clear response was that people wanted to continue to be paid through the post office. The sampling is quite in order. I did not engage in scaremongering.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Dewar: The flying picket for debates such as this is in the Chamber. Hon. Members will have to live with the fact that it beggars belief to argue, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) argued, that in retrospect there might have been an odd mistake but, basically, the whole thing was well intentioned. There was a deliberate attempt to restrict choice by withholding information, and there is no escape from that.
  If it is suggested that that was some sort of idle exercise carried out on a dull afternoon by a civil servant on a whim which meant nothing, we are being asked to believe the unbelievable. The Secretary of State for Social Security allowed his enthusiasm for ACT to override common sense and sought to persuade a large number of people to opt for it by suggesting that that, in effect, was the only option open to them, and that borders on the dishonest.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend add to his sentiments the representations that I have received from hundreds of my constituents and those of thousands of other constituents who have written to their Members of Parliament? There is no scaremongering. People are concerned about the devious way in which the Government have approached the issue. It should be impressed upon Conservative Members that this is a serious matter about which millions are concerned.
  Mr. Dewar: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am not aware of the results of the test, but I need not be fearless and run risks to predict that those who were given the form that did not even mention the post office option almost certainly opted in much larger numbers for ACT, and that was the whole point of the exercise.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have let the cat out of the bag by stating in their amendment that their aim is to reduce cost, and they are doing that by forcing people to use the means of payment that they wish them to use, which is causing great resentment throughout the country? It shows the Government's ruthlessness that they are prepared to disregard the wishes of the British people in order to reduce costs.
  Mr. Dewar: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I take this opportunity to say that I heed your statement, Madam Speaker, about the need for reasonably short speeches. If I give way constantly, I shall stop others speaking. Therefore, I shall give way once or twice in a little while, but—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to me?
  Mr. Dewar: I cannot resist that.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have the three forms here and all of them say:
  "Ask at your local post office".
  Mr. Dewar: I have the forms here. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has made a point that I cannot confirm. What I have here is a form that has on the front page a hard sell for ACT and, on the second page—what one might call the executive section—an invitation to go for ACT. At the bottom it says:
  "Do you want to be paid by other means?"
  Against the yes box it says:
  "We will write to you about this".
  Is that a fair and unbiased attempt to offer choice?
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth rose—
  Mr. Dewar: It is as if, if I may say to the hon. Gentleman who is looking so keen, at one of the excellent restaurants in his city, six items were provided by the kitchen and there was to be a fair choice, but only five were put on the menu and then surprise was expressed that no one had opted for the sixth—of course, because no one knew it was there. It is that kind of weighted choice that is deplorable.
  It is the Secretary of State who will reply to the debate, so he must tell us what the test was about. What was it meant to achieve? If it was not a whim or a joke, if it was not something done, as I say, to fill an afternoon, what on earth was it all about? Why should we not believe the point that has been put by many of the Secretary of State's right hon. and hon. Friends—certainly by his hon. Friends—that it was no more than an attempt to weight
  choice?
  The Secretary of State will remember that it was the hon. Member for Rochford who said—I paraphrase—that the only conclusion that he could draw from what had happened was that it was a way of discovering how the wool could most effectively be pulled over the eyes of the customer. That was the considered view of a responsible Conservative Back Bencher and someone to whom the right hon. Gentleman should pay attention.
  Let us consider in passing a little of the history of the matter and take, for example, the reply given to a parliamentary question on 12 March by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). She said:
  "Post Office Counters Limited was made aware of the trial."—[Official Report, 12 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 751.]
  That is true up to a point; but it was not made aware of what was happening in detail or the form that the trial would take.
  A letter that I received from Mr. R. T. B. Dykes, who I understand is managing director of Post Office Counters, is of interest in terms of the honesty and openness with which the matter has been handled. There was a discussion with Post Office Counters last September, when it was told—and this came as no surprise, according to Mr. Dykes—that the Government were examining possible ways of increasing ACT penetration. Mr. Dykes writes:
  "At that stage there were no firm plans and our negotiators requested details of the nature, location and timing of any trials of such new approaches. We also stressed to DSS that it was essential that we be provided with as much information as possible of their plans, as they would be a source of considerable concern both to Counters and to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters.
  There the matter rested for two months until December 1992 when DSS told us that they had been specifically targeted to increase ACT take up from its current level of 14 per cent. to 20 per cent. by 1995–96. When Counters asked how they proposed to do this their response was vague, but they repeated that they would be seeking to trial new claim

  249
  forms, as well as extending ACT to groups to which it was not available. Our negotiators repeated their request for details of their plans. We heard nothing more until 2 March"
  when they were told by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters that they had found the forms in circulation.
  "I also have to tell you that our requests for information on the outcome of the trial have been rejected by DSS and that they have refused to give us any details of their plans for Mailshots to existing beneficiaries.
  I hope that this letter will reassure you that we had no involvement in, nor were we consulted about, the trial of which you rightly complain. It does seem to me that DSS have been less than straightforward in their handling of this matter, and I have expressed my extreme concern about this issue to Michael Bichard, the Benefits Agency Chief Executive"
  I express my concern also on behalf of the Opposition, and of a large number of Conservative Members. Some Conservative Members accuse us of scaremongering, but that account learly shows that Mr. Dykes and his colleagues at Post Office Counters believed they were kept deliberately in the dark—and I put it at at least that. No one can say that we have been scaremongering in raising the matter on the Floor of the House.
  Ministers should remember the Government's rhetoric. We hear about choice, protecting choice, level playing fields, and open government. Over the past few months, we have seen an example of the reality—and that is very different from the rhetoric. One cannot exercise choice if one has no knowledge of the options available.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be embarrassed if I congratulate him on securing this debate, which will give the House a chance to reassure all the people who are frightened that they will be unable to collect their benefits at a post office in future and all the sub-postmasters and mistresses who are worried about their future income.
  Mr. Dewar: I also take that point seriously. This is an important debate. The only scaremongering is the scare that has been put into the Government by the public campaign and the campaign in the House, which will force the Government to abandon their clear strategy and underhand tactics. I repeat the words of the hon. Member for Rochford on Thursday night:
  "The forms are designed to discover how effectively the wool can be pulled over the eyes of those who receive pensions and benefits."—[Official Report, 13 May 1993; Vol. 1034, c. 224.]
  In the same debate, the hon. Member for St. Ives made it clear that he does not believe it was a fair example of market testing, when people were not told the options open to them.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman unequivocally deny that the words
  "Ask at your local post office"
  are on each of the forms?
  Mr. Dewar: No. What I am saying is that the forms are totally misleading and totally weighted. If any reasonable people had read form B or form C, they would, in my view, have come to the conclusion that they were expected to go for automated credit transfer and that that option was being forced upon them; of that there can be no doubt at all. That is the view of sub-postmasters, Conservative Back
  250
  Benchers, the media and Post Office Counters. Frankly, that would have been the view of any sensible person who, as a potential customer, had read the forms.
  The Minister may be reduced to making the charge that we are scaremongering, but let me remind him that a third of the business of Post Office Counters comes from the Department of Social Security. Let us not forget that all the talk of broadening the base to replace the custom that would have been lost by post offices boils down to the suggestion that, at some future point, post offices may be allowed to sell national lottery tickets. That may be a good idea. I do not object to it. However, it would have been highly speculative compensation for the loss of business that would have resulted from the artificial restriction of choice that was invited and planned for in the forms to which I referred.
  The importance of rural post offices—their place in the community as a point of contact and as an information exchange—will not be challenged in this House. I do not pretend that each of them is a place of romance and mystery that would find its place conveniently in a Hovis advertisement, but I know from personal experience and from the many people to whom I have spoken that post offices are valued and are regarded as integral and important parts of the community.
  Rural communities are fragile, in some cases because of the actions of this Government. I am thinking of the way in which small pharmacies have been treated and of the way that rural bus services have been treated. There is now the potential, as a result of this strategy, to undermine local post offices.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), the Under-Secretary of State for Technology, claimed in his letter of 19 April fully to understand the importance of DSS transactions to post offices, but he went on to argue that the DSS is required to deliver its benefits as economically as possible. Of course I understand the importance of economy. As the Minister knows, in the past few months there has been a devastating series of reports—from Select Committees, the National Audit Office, and the ombudsman—pointing to the inefficiency with which his Department operates and delivers its services.
  I certainly want to see increased efficiency, but wider considerations ought to be borne in mind in a policy area such as this. I do not believe that we should try to trick —I believe that is a fair way of putting it—people into taking one option at the expense of another by excluding information when its exclusion would do so much damage to the structure of our communities.
  Mr. Dafydd WigleyWe have heard a great deal about extension of choice as the rationale for this survey, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that some people will lose choice altogether if the result of small rural post offices losing business is that they close down and people have to travel many miles to find alternative facilities? Is it not more important to ensure that that basic choice remains, and that if there is to be a loss of revenue to post offices as a result of ACT, the making up of that revenue must be guaranteed to allow post offices to stay in business?
  Mr. Dewar: I certainly agree with that. It was the reason for the anger, discontent and unease that was so evident on the Conservative Benches until the whippers-in got to work for the purposes of this afternoon's debate.
  I do not believe that efficiency must equate with a demolition job on the traditional role of sub-post offices. That, I believe, was the point of the intervention by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The Minister set out his stall on many occasions, arguing for ACT. The Federation of Sub-Postmasters is entitled to put forward its points about the convenience and friendly services offered by post offices.
  Perhaps I could be allowed the luxury of saying that it is not just a question of rural post offices. My constituency, which borders the marches of western Glasgow, is a housing scheme constituency. There is great distress there and a genuine feeling of social loss when a post office closes. If we take the classic peripheral housing schemes in my city of Glasgow—I am thinking of Drumchapel, Castlemilk and Easterhouse—in which between 70,000 and 80,000 people live, there is only one bank in each scheme and there is not a single building society in any of them. Therefore, sub-post offices have an important role. Even after the substantial closures—more than 2,500 since 1979—there are still more sub-post office outlets than are provided by the four big banks in England and Wales and the six top building societies put together.
  There are many reasons why we should be careful to preserve the local post office system, including the potential for bank charges. Lord Henley, the Minister in the House of Lords for the Department of Social Security, said in a recent letter, which I have read:
  "The banks have not yet introduced charges and indeed some of them have recently said they do not intend to do so."
  The news that some have not yet and that some may not introduce charges hardly has the ring of confidence as to what may happen if we lose our national network.
  Another problem is that of weekly payments. If one believes that an electronic notebook is an essential sign of civilisation, one may not have much sympathy with the idea that people budget on a weekly basis. However, many of my constituents do not want to be paid four weeks in arrears or once in 13 weeks. They want to ensure that the ACT scheme does not go ahead.
  Mr. Giles Radice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way; I have already spoken for longer than I intended.
  Conservative Members may talk about scaremongering, but when they see that the Government are in trouble or as soon as they see that a Minister is low in the water, the immediate cry is, "It is scaremongering" or, "He must be an innocent victim." However, I have never seen a less innocent victim than the Secretary of State for Social Security. He planned a little job by stealth, he has been found out, and he should pay the price.
  It is not only Labour which is suggesting that the situation is serious. Hon. Members will be aware of the views of Mr. Bill Cockburn, the chief executive of the Post Office, who suggested that, if the wrong forms emerged from the test—why were they being tested if not for possible use?—as many as 5,000 post offices could be forced to close. He said:
  252
  "If such a thing were to happen, the entire network of post offices would be on the line."
  That is not an irresponsible scare story concocted by Labour. We are taking up a cause that is well documented and an anxiety that is very real.
  I know that ACT is growing. My objection is that the Government should not try to encourage it artificially by withholding information. The right to choose is important. The Minister should support that idea, but he cannot if the choice is not properly explained. In the rush for economy, he has been prepared to manipulate and mislead, and that is a serious matter which the House should consider.
  Are the Conservatives who are protesting today happy that £3·5 million will be spent in 1993–94 on encouraging the growth of ACT? Certainly one can buy a lot of persuasion for £3·5 million, but one should not do so in the underhand way in which this operation was mounted and launched.
  The Minister tells us that there is nothing to fear. He may be right. He may favour the view of the hon. Member for Corby, who, during the spring Adjournment motion debate on 18 May, said:
  "Frankly, it is incredible that the Government have got themselves into this absurd position. The heads of those who were responsible for drafting the extremely maladroit letters —to put the matter mildly—should be presented on a plate. It is one of the most serious political misjudgments, and a matter that my right hon. Friends must do much more to correct at once. These things did not happen when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was responsible for the Department which seems to be at fault in this case."—[Official Report, 18 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 178.]
  That is another ringing vote of confidence for the Secretary of State for Social Security! If that is the explanation—that it is bungling, maladroit, incompetent and stupid—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to plead guilty to the underhand dealings which I suspect are the truth of the matter.
  The Prime Minister is now offering assurances of his commitment to retain a national network of post offices. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) is reported in The Times today as saying:
  "that clear statement … will dispel all anxiety".
  I must tell the Secretary of State that all anxiety will not be dispelled—[Interruption.] Let me finish my sentence. All anxiety will not be dispelled by a generalised statement of that kind—of the kind that we have so often heard. I want the anxiety to be dispelled and the fears laid to rest. It was in order to give the Government a chance to do that that we initiated the debate.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West—again, I have to rely on The Times for my information—was called in by the Secretary of State to hear of his revised proposals. That implies that the Secretary of State has now, late in the day, admitted that his proposals need revision. If there are revised proposals, it is appropriate that the House should hear them now.
  I want the Secretary of State unashamedly to save his skin by backing down and doing another U-turn—the Government have had plenty of practice at that. It is in the public interest that the right hon. Gentleman should now recant. I do not want another generalised statement; I want him to tell us why he launched the test and to give an absolute commitment that he will now abandon it, and will shred and scrap any document that does not give a fair range of options to the public. I want him to say that he will ensure that in future the one guiding principle will be

  253
  that people should be informed of their rights and the decision on what to do should be theirs alone. We want not generalised commitment but specific action to undo the damage and to lay the fears to rest. I commend the motion to the House.
  4.15 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "endorses Her Majesty's Government's clear commitment to freedom of choice in the means by which social security benefits are paid, while reducing fraud and unnecessary costs by extending the availability of Automated Credit Transfer to all benefits and encouraging people with bank accounts to choose to have benefits paid into their accounts, to the continuation of a national network of post offices and sub-post offices and to securing the efficient and effective delivery of the vital service which the Post Office provides.".
  Before responding to the extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), may I refer briefly to the two-hour paving debate on the same subject that, rather unusually, preceded the debate last Thursday? That debate was exceptional both in length and in quality. Every contribution was more balanced, less partisan, and better than the one that we have heard from the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  Every hon. Member who spoke on Thursday expressed concern about the future of sub-post offices. Of course, I shall respond to that concern. But every hon. Member tried to avoid making party political points, and every hon. Member from every party tried to avoid scaremongering, unlike the hon. Member for Garscadden, whose whole approach is based on scaring the poor, the sick and the needy. Indeed, since he has been shadow social security spokesman his principal stock-in-trade has been scaremongering.
  Last autumn, full of foreboding, he warned the media that I would be unable to fulfil our pledge to uprate pensions. He was wrong. Before the Budget he said that the Chancellor would introduce taxation on invalidity benefit then and there. He was wrong. Now he forecasts that we are about to close rural post offices. I have news for the hon. Gentleman, which will be no surprise to my hon. Friends. He is wrong again. I challenge him to name one scare story that he has told about my Department since he has had that job, which has come true. [Interruption.]— The hon. Gentleman's silence condemns him.
  Mr. Barry Jones rose—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It might be advantageous for the debate if the House were to settle down, quieten down, and listen to the debate.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Secretary Lilley.
  Mr. Lilley: It may be helpful if I set out the order in which I shall deal with the issues before us. First, I shall spell out the Government's commitment to sub-post
  254
  offices and to choice. Secondly, I shall explain why we are encouraging payment into bank accounts and building societies.
  Mr. Peter Hain rose—
  Mr. Lilley: In a moment.
  Thirdly, I shall explain how we are encouraging automated credit transfer, and I shall deal in particular with the trial forms.
  I shall largely leave the issue of privatisation to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology—or rather, the postmaster-general, as I imagine he is now called—who hopes to catch your eye at the end of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Secretary of State has explained how he intends to deal with the questions raised, but when will he deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), which applies, for example, to the post office in Dalmellington in my constituency, which is just surviving at the moment? If the Secretary of State is successful and persuades just a small number of people to take ACT, that post office will close and all the people in Dalmellington will have no choice at all. Will he answer that key question now before he gets on to the other points?
  Mr. Lilley: I will answer that question in the second part of my remarks. This is the pledge that we made in our manifesto—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already appealed for the Secretary of State to be given a fair hearing. [Interruption.]Order. I intend that that should be the case.
  Mr. Lilley: The pledge in our manifesto said:
  "We are committed to maintaining … a nation-wide network of post offices."
  The words are unambiguous—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Lilley: Our commitment is unequivocal, and I can reaffirm it emphatically today.
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you came to the Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) gave way virtually every two minutes—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Lilley: No other party made such a pledge—indeed, neither the Labour party nor the Liberal party even mentioned sub-post offices in their manifestos, but now they are happy to hijack any campaign that comes along.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, especially on his party's manifesto. While he is reading that part out, will he read out the commitments on tax and particularly on VAT?
  Mr. Lilley: There was no such pledge. [Laughter.] We made our pledge because we recognised the focal role that sub-post offices play in many communities, especially in rural areas. That role was spelt out eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) last Thursday and by many other right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. David Alton: Does the Secretary of State accept that the problem affects not only rural communities but urban areas? Many people are concerned because they see choice being razed. The post offices will suffer a decline in their trade and go out of business if ACT is introduced. That is the core of the question and that is the fear that the right hon. Gentleman's pilot scheme has raised. Is it not worth saying that, although it may have been a useful exercise, the whole idea should now be abandoned?
  Mr. Lilley: I entirely accept that sub-post offices in urban areas are also valuable and play an important role. I shall come on to that. I recognise the fears that have been aroused by the leaflet from the Sub Postmasters' Federation and I shall deal with that systematically if I am allowed to by the mob on the Opposition Benches.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I intend that we should have an orderly debate. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether to give way and if he decides not to, hon. Members should resume their seats.
  Mr. Lilley: I have spelt out our manifesto commitment. However, the maintenance of a network of post offices is not only a manifesto commitment; it is also in the direct self-interest of my Department. We need the post office network to deliver our benefits, especially—but not only —in rural areas. We will continue to need it for the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may find that what I am saying will satisfy his constituents, if not himself.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my point, I will happily give way to him if he still has a query.
  However successful we are in encouraging people to choose payment into bank accounts, there will still be many who prefer the present system, including millions who have no suitable account. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) said—I congratulate him on securing the debate the other night—if sub-post offices did not exist, we would need to invent them.
  At the end of the day, that means that we must pay to help keep in being a viable network of sub-post offices and to make it profitable for postmasters and postmistresses to remain in business and deliver our benefits. We have always accepted that.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State will know that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is sitting beside him, and I share most of the Lake district where there are many small hamlets, many of which have post offices. Will the Secretary of State
  256
  give the Minister sitting beside him and me an assurance that the further introduction and promotion of ACT' will not in any way prejudice the future of those small post offices in the Minister's constituency and in my constituency? May I have a clear assurance on that now from the Dispatch Box?
  Mr. Lilley: I have already given our assurance and I have reaffirmed our pledge to maintain a national network of sub-post offices and I am now explaining the mechanism by which that is achieved.
  Mr. Graham: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to explain that mechanism at greater length.
  We have always accepted that we must make it profitable for postmasters to deliver our benefits. We do that via our contract with Post Office Counters Ltd and the terms are adjusted to reflect changing volumes of transactions, the switch from order books to ACT and all the other factors that affect viability.
  As it so happens, the contract between the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. is currently being renegotiated. It is perhaps no coincidence that bloodcurdling warnings about the collapse of the branch network are circulating at this time. It is often the way when a contract is being negotiated that rather extreme statements are made.
  I do not want to pursue the negotiations in public. Suffice it to say that I am confident that we will agree a sensible contract which reflects the common interest of both Post Office Counters Ltd. and the Benefits Agency in maintaining a viable network.
  Mr. Dewar: I want to be clear about what the Secretary of State is saying. I took the implication of those remarks to be that he thinks that the present campaign has been deliberately promoted, as a means of putting pressure on his Department, by the Post Office in its negotiations and that it is therefore dishonest and totally self-interested. Is that the Secretary of State's position?
  Mr. Lilley: I merely mentioned the common coincidence between blood-curdling warnings and negotiations.
  Hon. Members have from us a triple assurance that we will maintain a viable network of post offices: we are pledged to do so, we need that network to deliver our benefits and we are prepared to pay to help sustain that network through our contract with the Post Office.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: The nub of the issue is choice. For choice to be real, Department of Social Security customers must have free and equal information about all the options available to them. Will the Secretary of State accept that as a fundamental principle which he will implement? Does he also accept that the forms that were sent out fell way short of that principle?
  Mr. Lilley: As I have said, I will come to the issue of the forms in due course and deal frankly with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  On top of the assurances that we have given, we believe in encouraging sub-post offices to diversify into new businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was right to emphasise that point in the debate the other night. The Government have already made it clear that they are more than willing for post

  257
  offices to be a selling point for the national lottery, should the successful contractor choose to sell tickets in that way. The possibility of allowing Post Office Counters Ltd. wider powers to take on new products and offer other services is being actively considered as part of the Post Office review.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State remind the House of the exact nature of the assurance that he has just given? Is he assuring the House that no small post office or sub-post office will close as a result of a lack of business or loss of business caused by his campaign to switch to ACT? Is he going to arrange the contract with post offices in such a way that no small post office will close as a result of his campaign? Yes or no?
  Mr. Lilley: No Minister and no Government can guarantee that every post office will remain in operation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, each year 700 postmasters and postmistresses resign. Some are replaced, and sometimes the location is moved. But I have given an assurance that we will maintain the viability of the national network and will do that through our contract. We have shown our commitment to do so.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Lilley: Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to make a little more progress.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. About six hon. Members on each side of the Chamber are attempting to intervene. The Secretary of State has indicated that he will not give way, so will hon. Members please remain in their seats?
  Mr. Lilley: At the same time as supporting the post office network, we have always believed in choice. We reaffirmed that in the citizens charter, and I reaffirm it now.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Has not my right hon. Friend given the many pensioners in my constituency precisely the assurance that they need—that their sub-post office will remain open?
  Mr. Lilley: Absolutely. I believe that pensioners will respond with satisfaction to the points that we have made and that they will despise Opposition Members who continue to try to keep a scare going even when the very assurances which they seek have been given.
  At the same time as supporting the post office network, we have always believed in choice. We have reaffirmed that in the citizens charter and I reaffirm it now. By contrast, the Labour party has never been the party of choice in this or any other matter. It opposed giving people the option of ACT, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) today failed to welcome our plans to extend that option to all benefits.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Before my right hon. Friend talks about new products, will he confirm that giro accounts are available for post office customers to collect their benefits and pensions from both Crown post offices and sub-post offices?
  Mr. Lilley: That is absolutely right. It is one way that we could all have the best of both worlds—a cheaper, more
  258
  effective means of delivery which none the less helps to sustain the sub-post office network, brings people into shops, and brings business with it. Although I am not allowed to advertise any private system of distribution, I hope that people in the privacy of the Chamber have heard my point and will transmit it onwards.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lilley: May I make a little progress and then give way to my hon. Friend?
  Let me refer to why we are encouraging people to choose automated credit transfer on a voluntary basis.
  Mr. Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman.
  Colleagues will recall that I announced that we would be continuing to encourage more use of ACT at the end of a very difficult public expenditure survey round. Prior to my uprating statement, there had been widespread fears, fanned by scaremongering from the hon. Member for Garscadden, that I would be unable to keep our pledges to pensioners and families, that I would be unable to uprate benefits for the least well-off, and that I would have to curtail help to victims of the recession. He simply did not understand my priorities. My objective throughout was to maintain existing benefits and secure resources to fulfil modest but very important pledges such as that to introduce our new independent living fund, which has been going through the House of Lords this week.
  In my Department, money goes on benefits, on fraud or on operating costs. So savings had to come from fraud and operating costs. I was able to promise my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and colleagues on the expenditure committee some substantial reductions and savings as a result of reduction in fraud elsewhere, but it could not escape their notice that the biggest single item in my operating costs is the cost of delivering benefits—£650 million a year. Of that, over £100 million is accounted for by order books and giro cheques which are stolen and fraudulently encashed.
  Moreover, the cost of paying out of order books is 14 times as great as the cost of payment by ACT. Each payment by order book costs 44p; the same payment into a bank account costs just 3p. In those circumstances, we were bound to continue encouraging people to choose payment into their bank accounts.
  If I had passed up the prospect of even modest savings here, could I realistically have asked for more resources for the independent living fund or the social fund, let alone the massive resources that we secured to uprate all benefits? That is why I told the House last November:
  "I … propose to encourage more customers to accept payment of benefits directly into their bank or building society accounts."—[Official Report, 12 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 1015.]
  The hon. Member for Garscadden raised no objection then—but of course no scare campaign was being run at the time.
  The option to receive payment into bank accounts was introduced for certain payments in 1982. Since then, the proportion of people receiving payment has built up gradually to around 15 per cent. The main source of growth is new claimants, especially new pensioners.
  Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend clarify an issue on which, with respect, I believe we will come unstuck if he does not explain it more clearly? He was asked whether any sub-post office was likely to close. He could not give an assurance about that, because he did not know about bad management, people falling ill or changing their jobs and so on; but he did imply—I think this ought to be clarified—that no sub-post office would close as a result of ACT, meaning that this would be reflected in new contracts. Is that right or wrong?
  Mr. Lilley: That is, of course, our intention. All small post offices are currently paid a fixed sum regardless of volume, so people switching to ACT will make no difference to the amount of remuneration that they receive.
  People are increasingly accustomed to receiving payment into their bank accounts: 70 per cent. of claimants have bank accounts, and many find payment into their accounts more convenient and safer. It enables them to carry less cash and possibly to earn a bit of interest. Some 35 per cent. of new claimants who have the option of ACT choose it. As new claimants gradually replace existing claimants, the proportion using ACT increases by a little over 1 per cent. a year.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I must make considerable progress before giving way again.
  Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week the Public Accounts Committee criticised the substantial fraud arising from organised criminal activity that has resulted in the substantial losses to which he referred? Would it be possible for ACT payments to be paid into post office savings accounts, which cost the holders nothing but would still enable them to draw their pensions at the post office?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes two good points. First, the Public Accounts Committee has looked at the matter. In 1985, the all-party public accounts committee urged the DSS to encourage people to take their payments of benefits in their accounts, rather than use order books. People can have payments made into their Giro accounts in the Post Office through electronic banking systems. The National Savings bank does not provide that facility. If it did, we would be happy to make use of it.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I said that I would make some progress. The hon. Gentleman has intervened once and has spoken for half an hour. If he forgot to make the points that he intended at the time, that is his fault. If he listens, he might learn.
  When the option for ACT was introduced, dire warnings were sounded. They have proved unfounded. It may give some comfort to the hon. Member far the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who did not pursue an alarmist tack, to recall how alarmist his predecessor's fears turned out to be. In 1980, when the proposals for ACT were made to the House, the then hon. Member for Western Isles, Donald Stewart, predicted:
  "The Government's proposals would inevitably close down rural post offices."
  They would be "disastrous" and
  260
  "another nail in the coffin of the rural areas".—[Official Report, 19 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 294–297.]
  Yet since then, the system has not collapsed.
  Although the proportion of people using ACT has been steadily rising, this has not led to a decline in the volume or value of DSS business handled by post offices. On the contrary, the number of DSS payments made through post offices has risen in each of the past three years.
  All retailers have faced a tough time during the recession, and sub-post offices are no exception. But the number of closures over the past five years has been less than it was between 1974 and 1979—to pick a period at random.
  Mr. Dewar: I do not wish to raise a point that I forgot to make in my speech—I simply want to understand what the Secretary of State has just told the House, because it is of some interest. He seemed to say that, if local sub-post offices lost business because customers shifted to ACT, the system was so constructed that they would not lose any revenue from the DSS. Is that the position?
  Mr. Lilley: Small post offices—from memory, there are 2,700— receive a fixed payment, regardless of the number of transactions made through them.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that, he should resume his seat. I answered the question perfectly clearly and everybody understood the answer.
  It is a mistake to suppose that the savings that are made when people switch from order books to ACT arise primarily as a result of the reduced payments to sub-post offices. Sub-post offices are generally lean, efficient family-run businesses. Payments to sub-post offices account for only one quarter of the extra costs. A large part of the extra costs of order books arise within the Benefits Agency itself. Preparing, printing and distributing order books and girocheques costs £200 million. By contract, ACT simply involves our computer transmitting information to the bank's computer at the press of a button.
  Fraud and theft are also a significant cost factor—£100 million a year—as well as the contribution that we make to post office counters, overheads, warehousing costs, Crown offices and other overheads. In principle, therefore, we can encourage a shift to ACT, agree to sustain sub-post office incomes despite the reduction in volume and still make substantial savings for the taxpayer.
  The major step that we are taking to encourage the use of ACT is simply extending that option to most benefits where it is not yet available. At present, the main benefits for which it is available are pensions and child benefit and disability allowances. This month, we are starting to phase in availability of ACT for unemployment, income support for the unemployed, sickness and invalidity benefit and severe disability allowance. Many people are asking for ACT to be extended. Disabled people in particular often find that it is a convenient way to receive all their benefits. Would Labour Members wish to deny people that?
  As many hon. Members have said, we are preparing to redesign the claim forms.
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is obvious that the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can Labour Back Bench Members quiz the Secretary of State when he will not allow us to intervene?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is a matter for the Minister to decide whether to give way.
  Mr. Lilley: I have given way to a great number of hon. Members—rather more than did the Opposition spokesman. There is a demand from my colleagues that we make progress.
  As colleagues will know, the Benefits Agency ran trials of three variants of a pension claim form that was sent to those approaching pension age. The trials ran for the first 10 days of March. Let me make four things clear. These were trials. As such, their purpose was to enable the Benefits Agency to design a new form in the light of the response to all three specimens. All the forms were clearly headed,
  "How you want to be paid?—You can choose".
  The new form will mention the Post Office option. In this respect, the new Benefits Agency forms will contrast sharply with the leaflets given to potential claimants by many post offices, which make no mention of any alternative to payment by order books. Indeed, the post office leaflets assert that there is no alternative way of receiving benefits in cash. The child benefit leaflet given to expectant mothers says:
  "The only place where you can collect it in cash is your local post office".
  Everyone knows that one can get cash from a bank. Perhaps the Sub Postmasters Federation—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Garscadden—should cast a critical eye at these leaflets, which have been distributed by thousands of post offices to thousands of benefit claimants over many months, before getting too concerned about 8,000 copies of a trial leaflet issued over 10 days.
  As well as revising our forms, we are also looking at ways of making order books more fraud proof. A new type of order book will be introduced this summer which, through improved design and some new technical features, will, I hope, stop some of the cheats in their tracks.
  The clear assurances that I have given to postmasters and pensioners could not be more robust. They are in line with our long-standing policy and reflect our sound Conservative principles. I have shown that the shameless scaremongering over the past few weeks has been without foundation. It is monstrous to exploit the vulnerability of sick, needy and elderly people by whipping up groundless fears. It is time for the mischief to stop. The federation should withdraw its misleading leaflet forthwith and the Labour party should withdraw its scaremongering motion at once.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Martin Redmond: The debate is not about choice. The rent-a-mob that we heard earlier made it plain where they stood. The same rent-a-mob shouted down Opposition Members on the privatisation of water, the poll tax, education and law and order. Everything that Labour Members said, the rent-a-mob condemned. The debate is not about choices; it is about money. The Secretary of State could be accused of being economical
  262
  with the truth. It was clear from his speech that the proposals are not about choice, but about money that his Department hopes to save and then squander.
  It is not about choice, but about the Secretary of State getting his sticky fingers caught in the till. If he wants to do something to give people choice, why does he not give choice to people in receipt of benefits who want the benefits to be dealt with at source, so that some of them can go to housing departments as payment for rent and council tax?
  Ms Kate Hoey: We all agree that choice is paramount in this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that there can be real choice only if information is available? If the information about bank charges and the possibility that there will be fewer banks and post offices throughout the country is not made available to people, ACT offers no real choice.
  Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Perhaps she should spend an hour or two explaining her views in a little more detail to the Secretary of State. I am not sure whether she would make any impression.
  The stubborn and greedy way in which the Government have behaved since 1979 has meant that people do not trust what they say and, because of that, they are rightly sceptical about what is proposed. It is not about choice, but about money.
  I come from a mixed urban and rural constituency in which the village post office plays an important role. I have received hundreds of letters about the proposals to stop payments at post offices. The Secretary of State may shake his head all he likes, but he has not convinced the Opposition about his intentions. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) have also received many hundreds of letters.
  If the Secretary of State wants to keep village post offices open and viable, he should withdraw the proposals. The village post office is a vital part of the community. The Secretary of State is not giving people choice. Public transport has been taken away from the people of rural villages, so if the post office closes the local people will not be able to hop on a bus into Doncaster. They will suffer as a consequence. The Government should give people the choice of using public transport, if the post offices are to close. It is clear that the proposal is not about choice, but about money.
  The message from the people who live in my patch to the Secretary of State is that he should get his sticky fingers out of the post offices and let people continue to draw their benefits. OAPs are the most vulnerable people in our society. The Opposition are not scaremongering. The Government want to close village post offices and they are not giving people the right information.
  In view of Madam Speaker's request, I will close on that point. I hope that the Secretry of State will take note of the many hundreds of letters sent from my constituency and others across the country.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Derek Conway: I usually listen to the speeches of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) with great care and interest. I believe him to be an intelligent man who makes interesting speeches. However, he has done his reputation

  263
  no good by the way in which he moved this motion. He was not prepared to address many of the sensible points made by my hon. Friends in their interventions.
  If people who live in rural areas such as Shrewsbury and Atcham, where there are 120 villages and a county town, and who care for and use their sub-post offices had listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, they might have been inclined to think that he was genuine in his concern for the future of sub-post offices. They would no doubt contrast that with the fact that, when in government, the Labour party closed more sub-post offices than can be imagined. The Labour party was so concerned about sub-post offices that they were not mentioned once in the party's election manifesto. The tears shed by the Opposition this afternoon were plainly crocodile tears.
  Mr. Hain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sub-post office in Great Stukeley closed recently? If the Prime Minister cannot even keep his local post office open, what prospect is there for the other 10,000 rural post offices that the Government are threatening?
  Mr. Conway: I am staggered that the hon. Gentleman should even think that the Prime Minister would act in a gerrymandering way in his constituency. That may be the practice of the Labour party when in government in awarding contracts, but it is not the way in which Conservative Prime Ministers behave.
  The debate has been termed a "scaremongering" one. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an effective speech this afternoon, despite a clearly well-organised barracking tactic on the Opposition Benches. It did not put him off because he has a strong case to put to the House. That is why so many Opposition Members tried to stop him delivering it.
  We accept that politics and life in this Chamber are not for the squeamish. None of us should be in this place unless we are prepared to take a bit of knockabout. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can more than cope with it. However, the scaremongering among pensioners displeases me immensely and is to the shame of those involved in politics.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Our case has been given a great deal of force by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which is not known to be a natural ally of the working class and the Labour party. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is insulting sub-postmasters? Is he saying that their anxieties are not genuine and that they are merely scaremongering? I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can draw that conclusion.
  Mr. Conway: I can explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly what happened. There are two reasons why the campaign came about. First, as my right hon. Friend said, the contract has been renegotiated. People rightly put pressure on the Government when they are negotiating a contract. All is fair in that. Secondly, in the recent county council election campaign, some sub-postmasters, including those in my constituency, were conned into believing that politicians interested in their own future were expressing a genuine interest rather than seeking to use sub-postmasters as part of a party political campaign.
  264
  Yesterday I had a word with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who is an honourable and decent man. He promised yesterday something which I know that he will deliver.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is on the Board.
  Mr. Conway: I am assured that it is on the Board. I am grateful for that. It is a petition of 3,000 names gathered at sub-post office counters in the Rea valley in my constituency. I have spoken to the sub-postmasters involved. They had no idea that they were being used as part of a Liberal campaigning tactic. They thought that the petition was a genuine expression of interest in their concern.
  When it was pointed out that the petitions were being distributed in the middle of a county council election campaign and that they should perhaps encourage people to write to their Member of Parliament rather than be conned by the Liberal party, the sub-postmasters said that they would have nothing to do with the petition. They stopped putting the petition on their counters. They are honourable and decent men trying to make a sensible living. They do not want to be used by political parties in a scaremongering campaign to garner a few cheap votes out of frightened pensioners during the county council elections.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Conway: No. I wish to make progress because many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Was the campaign genuine? Having looked at the leaflet, I thought that it could have been clearer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to the House the point of the 8,000 trial leaflets. They were issued over a period of 10 days. The trial did not go on for months. It was precisely that—a trial to find out how the public responded. My right hon. Friend has had a clear response.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Conway: I give way to the hon. Member for Garscadden, although he was not prepared to give way to me on the several occasions when I tried to intervene in his speech.
  Mr. Dewar: I gave way rather generously to a wide variety of life on the Conservative Benches. Will the hon. Gentleman consider one point? We had a great deal of argument of mixed value from the Secretary of State, but we did not receive an assurance that if and when a redesigned form is produced, it will refer specifically in the part dealing with choice to all the options available. Does he join me in hoping that we shall receive such an assurance and that we shall rule out the possibility that the choice of the post office will not be specifically referred to on the form? He seemed to hint that that would be unsatisfactory.
  Mr. Conway: I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend, but my understanding is that, when the new forms are sent out, the public will be left in no doubt that choice is to continue. We shall see in tomorrow's Official Report whether that is the case. On the question of choice, there has never been any doubt in the minds of the Government or of other Conservative Members. The campaign that was

  265
  mounted by Labour and Liberal candidates in the local elections was intended to frighten pensioners by making them believe that they would cease to have a choice.
  Mr. Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Conway: If all the interventions are not to be counted against my time, I shall happily give way. In this regard, I seek the protection of the Chair.
  Mr. Davidson: There have been no recent local government elections in Scotland, yet in that part of the world there has been a sustained campaign against the Government's proposals for sub-post offices. The thrust of the campaign was not concerned solely with the local elections. The hon. Gentleman does great injustice to the many people who have signed petitions and written letters if he assumes that they are allowing themselves to be used by the Labour party or by the Liberals.
  Mr. Conway: The hon. Gentleman has misconstrued my remarks. The hundreds of pensioners who have written to me are not party political dupes. I am talking about people who have sent letters in their own hand, not about people who have been prompted by a campaign involving photocopies and pro formas, which count for nothing among hon. Members. People have been falsely scared into thinking that the Government intend to take action which, in fact, has never been in their minds.
  It has been made clear by my right hon. Friend, as it has been made clear in interviews and press releases, that the Government never intended to remove the option to use post offices, rather then banks and building societies, for the purpose of obtaining cash. As so many rural constituencies are represented by Conservative Members, no Conservative Government would be daft enough to take such action.
  Indeed, the scaremongering campaign will blow up in the faces of the Labour and Liberal parties. As we found in the "Jennifer's ear" incident during the general election campaign, one can run a scare campaign but one must ensure that there is an element of truth in it. This debate will make it clear to the people who have written to me and to those who follow the proceedings of the House that there is not a kernel of truth in the scare campaigns that the Labour and Liberal parties have been running. The general public will turn on the members of those parties for that abuse.
  My right hon. Friend gave the House three pledges today. He said that the Conservative Government are pledged to maintain sub-post offices. That pledge was given in our manifesto, but it was not mentioned by the Labour party or in the speech of its principal spokesman today. My right hon. Friend's second pledge concerned the need to maintain sub-post offices. The Government accept that it is necessary to continue services that are provided so efficiently. My right hon. Friend's third pledge was that the Government would continue to pay for retention and that they would ensure that the block payment was provided regardless of the volume of credit transfers.
  It is most important to ensure that choice is maintained. This is a matter of which the Government have at no stage in their consideration lost sight. The Opposition spokesman's opening speech today will have served my right hon. Friend and other Conservative Members very
  266
  well. We should be able to demonstrate to our constituents that they have been conned by the Opposition. When people are made aware of the facts, what the Opposition parties are doing will backfire on them, as they deserve.
  5.3 Pm
  Mr. David Rendel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this early opportunity to do what the Prime Minister would no doubt describe as "breaking my duck".
  As is traditional, I should like to begin by recalling the sad circumstances of my election to the House. In February of this year, my predecessor, Judith Chaplin, tragically and very suddenly died after what had appeared to be a routine and successful minor operation. Her death was a great loss not only to the House, and particularly to her many close friends here, but also to all of us in west Berkshire. I do not think that anyone doubted that she was a woman of immense ability. Indeed, she was believed on all sides to be destined for high office. For her parliamentary career to be cut short after only 10 months was indeed a tragedy.
  Sadly, just one week after he had given the oration at Judith's memorial service, her predecessor, Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, also died. He too will be long remembered with great affection by many in this House, as well as by all of us who knew him in west Berkshire. He had many friends and, so far as I know, not a single enemy, even among those who, like myself, were his political opponents. But, above all, we shall remember him for his immense courage after his health failed him. He not only remained a Member of the House while on kidney dialysis, but fought and won in a further general election. It is a great sadness that he enjoyed less than a year of retirement before he too died.
  Both my predecessors were admired greatly as first-class, hard-working constituency MPs. As I said in my acceptance speech, they will be a very hard double act to follow. The constituency that they have passed on to me covers almost half of the area of Berkshire. Although it is dominated by the two largest towns—Newbury and Thatcham—nearly half the population live in the town of Hungerford, in the larger villages such as Lambourn, Compton, Mortimer and Burghfield Common, or in the smaller villages and outlying settlements spread across the rural area. With the M4 cutting across the constituency from west to east, we lie in the now somewhat tarnished silicon valley, with high-tech industries providing a large share of local employment. We are also, of course, famous for our racing stables, particularly in Lambourn and West Ilsley.
  Many hon. Members will, for one reason or another, have had cause to visit our beautiful constituency during the past few weeks. Indeed, there was a time when we saw so much of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) that I began to wonder whether he was looking for a home in the area. It is, of course, no surprise to me that people should wish to visit west Berkshire, a very large proportion of which is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, but I suppose that it is only fair to say that, of the two principal tourists who visited us from Somerset recently, one—the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who often sits in the seat that I have temporarily occupied today—got a rather better reception than the other.

  267
  It is because so large a proportion of our population live in the rural area that I particularly wished to speak in this debate. Over the past few weeks, hon. Members on both sides of the House have found their mail bags full —as I have done—of letters pleading for the retention of rural sub-post offices. Indeed, if the Secretary of State has done anything for post offices recently, it is perhaps that many extra stamps have been sold to pensioners who have written to their Members of Parliament on this subject.
  But it is not just a matter of letters. As I went round my constituency during the recent by-election, I was struck by how often this issue was raised on the doorstep. As we all know, rural sub-post offices are often housed in the village shop, and thousands upon thousands of our village shops are dependent on their post office income for survival.
  Let me illustrate briefly how important these village shops are for life in rural areas by telling the House about what one village postmistress said to me only a week or two ago. She told me about the lady who comes into her shop almost every day, takes just one or two items off the shelves, and then waits to pay. After a while, the attendant at the till motions to the lady, to indicate that it is her turn to pay, but, in reply, the lady stands back and motions others to go ahead of her.
  At first the postmistress could not understand why the lady should act in this way, but eventually it dawned on her that the lady comes into the shop not merely to buy her daily rations but also because the shop is her sole meeting point for contact with her fellow human beings. She lives on her own—a lonely existence, without relatives around her—and her contact with humanity consists of her daily visit to her village shop-cum-post office, where she always waits at the end, of the queue, listening to the village gossip.
  For all too many people, the village shop is now the only escape from their well of loneliness. If we lose such shops, we shall lose a vital ingredient of the quality of life in rural areas.
  Let there be no doubt that the sub-post office system is vital to the survival of village shops. I have long since lost count of the number of letters that I have received, mainly from elderly people, but also from those in receipt of various other benefits as well. They have all stated that their local post office is now the only remaining place in the village where they can obtain cash. The banks have mostly long since closed their village branches.
  If the post offices close as well, the only option will be a trip into town. It may sound easy, but it is not when people have to rely on public transport because they are too old or too disabled to have a car of their own. Public transport has more or less disappeared from most rural villages. Even when a bus is available, many people have written of how a trip into town to draw their pension will cost them more in bus fares than the total increase in their pensions this year.
  Of course I understand that the Secretary of State intends to leave it to the individual to choose between payment through a bank and payment through a post office, but that is not the choice that people want—a real choice for them means choosing between paying through a bank in the town or paying through the post office in their local village. That choice is under threat today.
  I understand that the Secretary of State wishes to reduce the taxpayers' subsidy to rural post offices, but surely hon. Members should take a wider view. Yes, we can save the taxpayer money by reducing the subsidy to rural post offices, but what about the far greater cost to the
  268
  taxpayer of the extra traffic on the roads as more and more people have to drive their cars into towns? What about the cost of car parks, petrol and environmental pollution?
  The overall cost to the community caused by the loss of the sub-post office system will be far greater than any possible savings. Let all hon. Members join to save village sub-post offices, not by merely giving a vague pledge—such as the Secretary of State gave about some national network—but by giving a specific pledge that the number of sub-post offices will not be further reduced. A small, but important, aspect of our country is in danger. It is our duty to save it before it is gone for ever. I therefore urge hon. Members to vote for the motion, not for the Government's amendment.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: It is a great pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). He was generous in his warm tribute to the late Judith Chaplin and Sir Michael McNair-Wilson. If he is half as good a Member as they were, as I am sure he will be, he will be a worthy successor to them. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I thank him for his kind words in memory of our two colleagues.
  It is hard to believe that the hon. Member for Newbury has been here but two weeks, as he spoke with the fluency of an experienced Member of Parliament. His description of Newbury, to which I have yet to make a visit, makes it sound almost as beautiful as Brigg and Cleethorpes. I should advise the hon. Gentleman that I had the dubious privilege of visiting Eastbourne three years ago, but following that visit, Ministers thought it wise for me to stay well away from Newbury—although it did not seem to make any difference.
  I do not know for how long the hon. Gentleman will be a Member of the House. It may be three years, perhaps it will be four—who knows? If there has to be a Liberal Member for Newbury, there is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman, with his local knowledge and experience as a councillor, will ensure that the constituency could not be better served. I wish him a happy and enjoyable time as a Member of Parliament.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the issue of sub-post offices in his constituency. I understand and empathise with many of his comments, as my constituency of Brigg and Cleethorpes has a large number of sub-post offices, both in the town of Cleethorpes and in rural areas. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon gave the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman's constituents were seeking when he campaigned during the by-election.
  The robust speech this afternoon of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has laid the ghost. The Labour party raised the fears for party political purposes, as did the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to some extent. I understand—as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) said —that negotiations are taking place between sub-postmasters and the Government. It is inevitable—I make no particular complaint about it—that exaggeration sometimes occurs in such negotiations, and there has been some exaggeration in the current negotiations. We must bear in mind the fact that the first duty of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security when

  269
  dispersing the huge Government budget over which he presides is to ensure that that budget is distributed directly to the claimants.
  I am concerned to learn that the total cost of transferring from the taxpayer to my mother and father —who are both old-age pensioners—and all the other pensioners and claimants on various benefits paid by the Department, is £475 million a year. I believe that every penny that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raises should go to the claimants for whom it is intended.
  We can have a separate debate in the House under the umbrella of the Department of Trade and Industry on whether the Government and Parliament, for reasons of social and rural policy, want to assist in ensuring that the structure of the sub-post office service is maintained. That is a matter on which Parliament, the House of Commons and the Government can rightly hold a view.
  In the Budget debate earlier this year, I called for cuts in public expenditure—or if not cuts, for the necessary funds to meet that public expenditure. I want all the money —or as near as possible all the money—in the massive budget over which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State presides, to go to my mother and father and all the other claimants. I am worried when I see that £475 million of the money available for distribution to pensioners has to be spent on transferring the funds from the Government to the claimant.
  I made a calculation earlier today—
  Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: No, I shall make my point and then give way.
  My mother and father are 65 and 67 respectively, and are both pensioners. They both receive their pensions directly into their bank accounts, in arrears, every 13 weeks. That means that there are eight transactions per year for my mother and father—four for my father and four for my mother. To make the transfer payments from the state for my parents' old age pensions costs the state 24p for all the transactions.
  My mother and father could, instead, each walk the two and a half miles from the village of Crossbush in West Sussex where they live to the town of Arundel. Everyone says that sub-post offices are right on the doorstep of every claimant. That is largely true, but a great number of people have to walk a long way to their local post offices.
  According to my calculations, if my mother and father were to elect to take their pension books and walk the two and a half miles each way 52 weeks of the year, on the basis of the figures that the Department has given me of 44p per transaction, it would cost 44p, times 52, times two—to account for my mother and father—a total of, I think, £45·76. If the Secretary of State went to my mother and told her that she could have an additional £45·76 over and above the Christmas bonus in return for having her pension paid directly into her bank, I am sure that she, like many other pensioners, would consider that good value for money.
  I have made it clear that it is certainly right that sub-post offices should be part of our social and rural policy. I am satisfied from what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon that this is an extension of choice. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) says that
  270
  he agrees with choice, so let us not forget that, until 12 May of this year, there was no choice for the payment of certain benefits—invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance, sickness benefit, income support and unemployment benefit. None of those could be paid into bank accounts, so there was no choice. Now there is. The new regulations, in short, introduced more choice.
  Mr. Connarty: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to secure his parents' future to the extent that they can go without their pensions for 13 weeks at a time, as they are paid in arrears. Will he ponder the fact that it is not possible to transmit money around the country at no cost? He might care to consider the massive cost of the disability living allowance shambles that the Government instigated by trying to put the system on one computer.
  Where does the hon. Gentleman get the idea that any Opposition Member has suggested any element of compulsion? The worries began when people saw that the forms did not list post offices as an option, and thought that they would be compelled to use the banking method.
  Mr. Brown: I readily acknowledge that many pensioners want a weekly benefit in cash. There is no problem for them. We do not seek to change that, as my right hon. Friend made clear this afternoon. Let the message go out to pensioners who want to receive their pensions in weekly cash from post offices that they will be able to do so, just as they have done in the past.
  The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition do not want to restrict choice, and the Opposition drew attention to the leaflets that the Post Office is putting out in which it appears to deny choice. I have with me a post office leaflet, issued by Post Office Counters, relating to child benefit. I also have a leaflet about pensions. Both leaflets make it clear that drawing the money could be done only through post offices—there was no other choice.
  Because of the sheer quantity of cash sloshing around the country, £100 million is lost to fraud. I support anything that we can do to ensure that that money finds its way into the hands of genuine claimants.
  Pensioners can relax. They should realise that the Government simply want to ensure that as much as possible of the £475 million now used for administration and transfer costs gets to the claimant. Reducing the public expenditure deficit must be our first priority, as I said during the debate on the Budget.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden has some questions to answer. Perhaps one of his colleagues will answer them at the end of this debate. The Opposition have a duty to tell the House whether they would prefer cuts in benefits or cuts in costs. My right hon. Friend seeks cuts in administration costs so that there is no question of cuts in benefits. We are talking only of increases in benefits.
  As recently as 23 April, the hon. Member for Garscadden said that he wanted to root out fraud. He claimed that he was anxious to get rid of any fraud in the system. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department are merely anxious to draw attention to the benefits of ACT so as to get rid of fraud—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am conscious of having gone on longer than I had intended. Hon. Members know that I give way generously, but I think that I really ought to conclude.

  271
  To quote the Foreign Secretary, there has been a great deal of froth and bubble about this subject. In Lincolnshire, we would say that there has been a lot of candy floss; indeed, in north Lincolnshire we call this sort of event a great stitheram. That is what we have had from the Opposition today. The Secretary of State clearly said that claimants who want to claim cash from local post offices will be able to continue to do so. I ask the House to bear in mind the massive cost of transferring limited resources from the state to claimants, and to compare that with the savings that can be made through the ACT system.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: On behalf of the Opposition and in particular of the alternative Bench on which I sit, I too congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on his speech.
  I am amazed by the attitude of the Secretary of State. The first time this matter was raised was 8 March, when I tabled an early-day motion 1539 about it. I did that before the campaign began, and before Newbury and the county council elections. It was even before the postmasters themselves had begun their campaign.
  I raised the matter in the first place because constituents had complained to me about the possible closure not of rural post offices but of post offices in my urban area, where 11 sub-postmasters and mistresses administer pensions for the Secretary of State. This followed the pilot scheme in which 24,000 new pensioners in the north-west were sent certain forms. Those forms were loaded so as not to offer the post office system as an option. No wonder then that there was a problem or that people were suspicious. Given the Secretary of State's record—
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Surely, if there has been any scaremongering, it was started by the forms sent out by the Government. They offered no choice, so people thought that they would have no choice. That is why we have had hundreds of personal, handwritten letters from people who are worried about losing their post offices.
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is right, of course. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is waving a leaflet: he is wide of the mark. My hon. Friend correctly states that the complaints started to roll in because of the wording of the Secretary of State's leaflet, not because of the subsequent campaign.
  The Secretary of State should think for a moment not about pensioners who take their pensions three months in arrears but about those who go to post offices to collect their pensions with their groceries. He should think about those pensioners who are watched over by the sub-postmaster. In my area, if someone has not called for his pension by about 4 o'clock, the sub-postmaster sends somebody round to find out what is wrong and whether the old gentleman or lady is ill and needs to be looked after. Sub-post offices offer such social services.
  I know that it is trite and that it has been said more times than "level playing field", but the trouble with Conservative Members is that they understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Nothing was ever truer. I would accept as a reasonable argument the possible saving of £500 million if the Ministers who advance it were not putting out glossy leaflets every five minutes. Hon. Members have all received from
  272
  Departments glossy excuses for Government policy. More money is spent on publicity by Departments than on administration. The Secretary of State smiles. I must have touched a nerve. Most of the publications are sent out to excuse mistakes and to try to brainwash people into believing that the Government know what they are doing.
  Miss Joan Lestor: My hon. Friend and I are neighbours in the north-west and were at the receiving end of the concern over the form that did not make it clear that the post office was an option. Judging from the petitions that I have received, hundreds of people have been panicked into opting for ACT because they thought that they had to. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State should give those people the facility to switch back to post offices?
  Mr. Lewis: I was coming to that, because it is the nub of the argument. It is said that there will be choice and that some pensioners will accept ACT as a reasonable way to do business. However, the heat that has been generated on the issue will drive people into expense that will arise from collecting their dues. That is because many people cannot afford to have bank accounts. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) is right. There will he a haemorrhage of customers who would not normally choose to leave the post office.
  Mr. David Sumberg: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the matter affects urban areas. In my constituency it affects Ainsworth, Whitefield, Prestwich and Radcliffe. Whatever has happened in the past, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Secretary of State has made it as clear as crystal that all our constituents, including the old and the disabled, will now have the ability to take benefits in cash if that is what they want?
  Mr. Lewis: That is hardly the point. Before the debate closes at 7 o'clock, the Secretary of State should say that sub-post offices will remain intact and that the current negotiations will ensure that any diminution in pensions business will not result in any reduction in the income of sub-post offices, thereby forcing closures. The Secretary of State skirted around that question. He was challenged several times and did not see fit to answer in the way that I and my hon. Friends want.
  The Secretary of State should speak to his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry about another threat. In my area the privatised electricity company, Norweb, is now ending a trial of cards that can be used on meters. One sub-post office that I know will lose £5,000 in revenue when that trial ends. The problems are caused by regulation and by Secretaries of State not understanding what is happening on the ground. It would be useful if that threat to sub-post offices were included in ministerial discussions.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: My hon. Friend speaks about cards for slot meters. Such devices undermine post offices and show the Government's dogmatic intention to destroy some sacred cows. The debate clearly shows that, whatever the short-term effects, long term, post office services will be undermined at that level and that will creep through to every level.
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is right. That issue has been adequately covered by me and in some interventions.

  273
  I remind Conservative Members of what the Prime Minister said when he was selling the objectives of his citizens charter. He said that services to suit the customer would always be provided. I want to see services provided for the customers who need to use post offices not just to collect their pensions but for the social reasons that I have outlined. My hon. Friends agree on that. Sub-post offices provide a vital public service, and the Government should make it clear that they will discontinue any threat to undermine that service.
  5.36 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I do not want to rehearse the need for sub-post offices because the arguments have been eloquently put, especially by the new hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), whom I welcome to the House. I am sure that we have all had experience similar to the lady's case that he outlined because, as good constituency Members, we are aware of the fundamental role played by rural and urban sub-post offices in the social milieu of our constituencies.
  The Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party have been vociferous in their support for sub-post offices and I look forward to the promises that they will no doubt put in their next manifestos. It will be interesting to see what weasel words are used. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has expressed his continuing commitment to the sub-posts offices and their continued financing.
  Mr. David Hanson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Lait: No, because I should like to come to the meat of my speech and many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  We are debating post offices that reflect our current society, but we should be examining how they will reflect our future society. That is part of the argument for ACT. More and more retired people will be used to bank accounts and will wish to take their pensions through ACT. That will apply especially to those with occupational pensions. That means that there is likely to be a change anyway in the service that sub-post offices will be required to provide.
  We have all received much mail from the elderly and those who are on benefits and wish to retain sub-post offices. I received a letter from two frail elderly ladies whose even more frail elderly brother is in a residential home. They said that they would like to cease visiting the post office to collect income support for their brother. They were frightened about carrying large sums and they were becoming too frail to go to the post office. They asked whether the money could go through their bank account.
  It was therefore with enormous pleasure that I was able to reply saying that on 12 May, which was the date of their letter, new regulations had come into force which would allow them to use their bank. That is a measure of the need to change the functions of the post office.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: How many letters did the hon. Lady have in her postbag asking for the cash to be paid directly to a bank account and how many from those asking for the continuation of the right to collect cash
  274
  from the local post office? The hon. Lady makes one point, but I think that she ignores the far larger case that I am sure has been made in her postbag.
  Mrs. Lait: The point that I am making is that there is still a demand for changes in the services that sub-post offices deliver. They should be providing private sector operations. They do not belong to the post office: they are not branches of the post office: they are franchises of the post office. Those post offices should have the opportunity to deliver a much wider range of services.
  I suspect that one reason many postmasters and postmistresses reacted so nervously to what happened is that over the past few years they have had a bad time, as have many other businesses. We need to widen the functions and services that they can offer. That is our responsibility, because what happens in post offices is, in many cases, constrained not just by custom but by statute. We need to consider what services post offices can deliver.
  I think that all would agree that post offices are providers of cash. They could also be providers of cash from the banks. They could be providers of building society money in villages. They could be providers of tickets for road, rail and entertainment. They could act as reservation centres for such things. It has already been mentioned that they could provide and sell tickets for the national lottery.
  The sub-post offices should consider offering—we have a responsibility to ensure that it is possible—the wider range of services that so many people want in order to live the sort of lives that they will expect to live in future. Perhaps we should also think of allowing the post offices a computer link so that money can be transferred with the minimum difficulty and they can offer the speedy and cheap service we are used to in other financial aspects of our lives.
  I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will be able to offer the assurances that we want so that the rural and sub-post offices can respond to the changing demands of society and can deliver a yet better service to those who wish to use them.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: The debate, and certainly the Secretary of State's speech, clearly suggest that the Government's intention is to undermine post office services. The misinformation or lack of information shows the Government's insensitivity to pensioners.
  We have heard of a number of instances of people, particularly pensioners and those on benefit, who depend on being able to go to their post offices to receive the money that they require to sustain their life, and in some cases, their families as well.
  I was somewhat surprised to hear about 13-week pension arrears. That is not common in the real world where people wait for their pensions to meet the cost week by week of rent, food and so on. Again, that is a measure of how remote the Government are from reality.
  It was once said by one of the more reactionary elements on the Conservative Benches that the Government were destroying all of what they refer to as sacred cows, which in their view impeded the progress of private enterprise wherever it might occur. In the process of doing that, there has been no understanding of the value of certain things. As my hon. Friend the Member for

  275
  Worsley (Mr. Lewis) said a few moments ago, the Government appear to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. They have given no thought to the social consequences of the proposal.
  I hope that further thought will be given to this matter. I have already received not letters but petitions signed by concerned pensioners. Whether their concerns are grounded is of no consequence. They are concerned, and they have been made concerned by the Government, who failed to inform them properly about their choice, trying to push pensioners into a system that is more complicated than going to a post office. Whether one likes it or not, people of a certain age become less capable in dealing with certain aspects of banking and so on; that should be taken into account by the Government when they make proposals of this kind.
  We all know that banks constantly review their charges, and we shall certainly see in the future not a reduction but an increase in those charges. Once pensioners are trapped by the banks, they will have to find additional money for such charges, which will reduce the value of their pensions. That is another factor that the Government should take into account.
  Mr. Ainger: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had an experience similar to one that I had recently in my surgery, when two constituents found that their mortgage interest payments, paid direct from the Department of Social Security into their bank account, had, for various reasons, been delayed. Because they had a series of standing orders, their account went into the red and, as a direct result of mistakes made by the Department of Social Security, they now have to pay substantial bank charges which they cannot afford. Many pensioners are afraid that, if their money is paid directly to the bank, something similar will happen to them.
  Mr. Loyden: I too am concerned about that. Experience will show that that will happen. Banks are not perfect organisations. Instead of, as I used to do, paying my landlord or the collector every week when he came to the door, my rent is now paid through the bank, and I have found myself with arrears of £565 because of the time that the transactions have taken. People, particularly the elderly, are worried about problems that might arise from accountancy procedures, and that is something that they can well do without.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Conservative Members spoke about the enormous amounts that are lost to the Treasury through social security fraud, but they made no mention of the even larger amounts that are being lost by the commercial and high street banks through a different kind of fraud at cash tills and via bank cards.
  Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said, banks are not perfect institutions, and that is a good example.
  The Government have pursued policies without paying any regard to those who will be affected by them. The House will he well advised to vote against the Government, who should then re-examine the rundown of post offices, not only in the past 10 or 15 years but longer than that. Crown post offices have been closed and substituted by smaller offices, resulting in queues of pensioners. Those queues can be eradicated by reinstating
  276
  Crown offices, so that people can transact their business in comfort and enjoy the efficiency of which the Post Office is capable. The Post Office code of practice clearly states how business should be conducted.
  I hope that the Government will recognise that the post office services should be maintained. This latest development is another step towards undermining the whole post office service.
  5.50 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am the only Ulsterman who is able to be present because Ulster is in the middle of council elections, but I am glad that at least one Ulster voice will be raised on the side of old-age pensioners and others who are deeply concerned.
  The remark of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that the majority of pensioners could wait 13 weeks in arrears for their pension was unreal. In another apparition, the hon. Gentleman is parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He ought to visit Northern Ireland to hear what senior citizens there have to say about the Government's proposal. I do not believe that the parents of whom the hon. Gentleman spoke would have walked to the post office; they probably had a car and could have driven there. If they had to visit the post office, they would have visited the bank also. The hon. Gentleman spent a ludicrous amount of time trying to persuade the House that a large number of pensioners would prefer to be paid by ACT.
  In Northern Ireland, the sub-post office is part of the cement of the community. It is vital in keeping the community together. We have lost village schools, smaller churches, and the other cement of society. Today, the village and rural sub-post office provides a focus, a place where people can meet and talk and where the needs of pensioners are well known by the sub-postmistress or sub-postmaster. When a pensioner does not arrive to collect his or her pension, the sub-post office staff know that something is wrong and will make inquiries; there is no doubt about that. Many relatives have paid tribute to the staff for the care that the elderly have received as a consequence of their contact with the local sub-post office.
  I would have been happy if the Secretary of State had given an unequivocal assurance that things would carry on as in the past, but he did not. He spoke of a viable national network of sub-post offices. I have heard about viable national networks of public transport or railways, but when big finance came to bear, both were axed. I was amazed to hear the Secretary of State say that the best way to save money was by using ACT. He argued with such strength that perhaps overshadowing this debate is an axe over sub-post offices. Anyone who hears this debate will agree.
  One hon. Member said that he backed the Government but admitted that the original form could have been clearer. That is where it started—not as a political way of getting at the Government, but with a form which was unclear. After 22 years' membership of the House, I have some experience of large postbags, but no constituency issue has ever brought a bigger one than this issue. I have also been on doorsteps for the council elections. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is now in his place; he mentioned this point in the

  277
  local press. At the door, every pensioner has raised the issue and spoken of his or her concern. Their fears should be acknowledged.
  It is a question not of scaremongering but of fear. If Members of Parliament and sub-post office officials want to raise the issue, they are entitled to do so. That is not scaremongering against the Government. The Government can put the matter to rest tonight by saying that they will maintain a sub-post office in every community.
  The Secretary of State said that, even if trade is taken away from sub-post offices, they will be paid the same grant. Does any right hon. or hon. Member believe that? We are asked to make fools of ourselves and to accept that, as post office business declines, sub-postmasters and mistresses will still be paid the same.
  This debate has given the House a valuable opportunity to express the feelings of senior citizens. I am glad that the Government have at least done part of a U-turn. To begin with, they would do nothing, but now they are under pressure. They should face up to it and give an undertaking that they will maintain post offices for the sake of the communities that they serve.
  Some hon. Members have argued that pensioners should not carry large sums of money home. A weekly pension is not a large sum of money. I wonder how many of the people who make that argument have ever spent any time with pensioners, who budget not for 13 weeks but for one week. They have the money in their hands to deal only with the needs of the week. It is ridiculous to say that pensioners can budget 13 weeks in arrears.
  We should heed the cries of a valuable group of people who have served their day and generation well. The House owes them a copper-fastened assurance so that their fears can be laid to rest.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Bill Michie: It is no surprise that on this occasion I fully agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The hon. Gentleman put his finger on our real worry. Also, it may come as no surprise that I am suspicious when I hear a Conservative Secretary of State assure the House that everything will be all right at the end of the day and that there is no real threat to our sub-post offices because the Government will find ways of helping them out. Over the years, this Government have said, "Don't worry about factories closing down; we'll build others to manufacture different products." I wonder, therefore, why more than 4·5 million people are still unemployed. The Government's assurances appear to have no credibility whatsoever.
  The Secretary of State and other Ministers have said on more than one occasion that the purpose of the exercise is to save money. They wrap up that argument with the protection of old-age pensioners from being mugged. I do not know what to say about that argument. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, if we gave pensioners more money, mugging might be an attraction, but it is not a sufficient attraction at the moment. The Government shoot themselves in the foot on some occasions. They are something of head bangers, anyway.
  If the Government want, for example, to save £50 million, a large percentage of the sum saved will be lost by
  278
  local post offices, many of which are struggling to keep open. The Secretary of State assured the House that new contracts are being negotiated. He said that post offices will obtain new business from selling national lottery tickets, but everybody else will be selling them too, it seems.
  People view their post office with great respect. They believe that it provides a good service in a variety of ways. They do not regard their post office as a glorified betting shop, or as a bookie's runner. If the only option left to post offices is to become glorified betting shops, the Government will have lost the argument. That is not the kind of service that people want, particularly the old, the sick, the disabled and the vulnerable.
  Ms Ann Coffey: Does my hon. Friend agree that we want to preserve choice for the elderly about the way that they collect their pensions? If the Minister is serious about providing choice, does my hon. Friend agree that the forms that the civil service designs should be simple, straightforward and easy to understand? My constituents often complain that civil service forms are complicated and incomprehensible.
  Mr. Michie: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She made that point far better than I could have done. It has been referred to more than once during the debate.
  The Secretary of State admits that millions of people do not have bank accounts. Most of them are poor. People with a reasonable job and income usually acquire a bank account, but the poorest and most vulnerable—those who rely absolutely on benefits—do not have bank accounts. There is no reason for them to have bank accounts, for they live each week from hand to mouth.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The very poor and vulnerable are exactly the people who have been targeted during the campaign. It is shameful that the fear has been piled on that their post offices will be closed. Opposition Members have a great opportunity this afternoon to discuss the future of our post offices, but they have not put forward one credible alternative. They have said nothing about the way in which post offices may be able to build up their business. Will the hon. Gentleman draw attention to those services that post offices may be able to provide in the future?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does so, I remind hon. Members that many of them are hoping to catch my eye and that long interventions do not help.
  Mr. Michie: That was a very interesting, if too long, intervention. The hon. Gentleman invites us to enter into negotiations on the closure and the death of some sub-post offices. That is not the role of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman referred to the future. According to the Government, the future of sub-post offices is safe. But people are worried. We are not scaremongering. This is what ordinary people say. I have never believed that the Government's attempts to save money benefit people such as those who use post office services.
  Hon. Members have received thousands of letters from people from all walks of life who are worried about this issue. Many of those who come to our surgeries are worried about it, too. I have had a letter from a constituent who says that since bus deregulation there are no local bus services. She says that she can walk to the post office,

  279
  which is not far away, but that if she had to go anywhere else for her pension she would be faced with a problem. Her husband is totally disabled and she has difficulty in walking.
  In another letter an 86-year-old says:
  "I am 86 years old, housebound with arthritis and poor sight. At present I rely on a friend to collect my pension weekly from the local PO down the road."
  The friend may be able to fetch that person's pension from the bank, if it were possible to get clearance from the bank to do so, but this is all hassle which, frankly, that 86-year-old does not want.
  Another letter makes a very good point. The writer is disabled; so is her husband. They rely on a home help service, a service that is already stretched. The home help goes to the post office to collect their pension. It is a local post office and a local home help service. The home help would be unable to travel out of that area to the bank —if, again, it was possible to obtain permission from the bank to collect their pension. That is a service that will disappear if local post offices close.
  Some people go to the other extreme. I have a letter from a constituent who believes that this is some form of Conservative plot. He calls it old-age cleansing. It appears to be a humorous letter but it contains a serious point. It says:
  "As the older generation are now living longer, do you think in order to save money on pensions the Government are embarking on a subtle policy of ethnic cleansing of O.A.P.s. First they put V.A.T. on fuel in order that many may die of hypothermia, then they propose to close local post offices so that we shall have to go further to collect pensions from banks etc and succumb to traffic accidents in the process. Thirdly I hear that they also propose to withdraw the prescription service from local chemist shops so that we may pass on before we can get our tablets."
  All the Government's actions over the past decade or so have affected the most vulnerable people in our society; there is no argument about that.
  The Government may believe that saving money is much more important than providing services. They may believe that it is not important that the most vulnerable people in our society have the services and care that they require, providing the economics are acceptable. However, we care. However humorous Conservative Members may find it, we shall continue to fight and raise the issue of injustice to the poor whenever the opportunity arises.
  6.9 pm
  Mrs. Angela Knight: I do not represent a rural constituency, but I too have received many letters from pensioners who are worried about the future of local post offices. I believe that the people who have expressed such concern to me can take genuine comfort from the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon in which he pledged himself to ensure that we continue to have a viable network of sub-post offices. He also underlined the fact that pensioners will be able to continue to draw their pensions from the local post office if they wish.
  I take issue with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), who rather dismissed the notion of "cost saving". We should examine the issue closely because the delivery of Department of Social Security benefits costs about £650 million, of which just over half goes to the Post Office and a fraction to sub-post offices. The rest—about £300 million—goes in administration and fraud.
  280
  I cannot justify a system which costs that much to administer and loses that much in fraud. Every £1 that is spent on administration or lost in fraud means £1 less available for benefits. I can fight for an efficient system which ensures that social security money goes to those who should receive it, but I cannot fight for a system which costs too much to administer. Therefore, I do not take administration costs and fraud as lightly as the hon. Member for Heeley.
  Mr. Ainger: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, especially on the issue of administration costs. Does not she accept that many of the administration costs are paid direct to the sub-post offices for the work that they carry out? It does not square with the Secretary of State's assurance that he will continue to support sub-post offices while at the same time making massive cuts in the administration. One cannot have one without the other.
  Mrs. Knight: The sum of money that goes to sub-post offices is fairly small, as I am sure the Minister will emphasise later.
  The Post Office is treated with great respect. Costs should be kept to a minimum, but there is a need to ensure that we have a network of post offices, not only because some 35 per cent. of pensioners still wish to draw their money in cash but because post offices are the huh of so many local communities.
  However, one must recognise that a change is taking place. More people have bank accounts and building society accounts and pay for goods by cheque. We must ensure that there is a choice. Increasingly, pensioners, choosing not to collect their pensions in cash but to collect them from the bank. Therefore, the amount of money going through local post offices is declining, as it the frequency with which people visit them. We need to examine the issue, therefore from a wider viewpoint to discover whether the role of post offices can be enhanced.
  The letters that I receive mention various services that constituents want to receive from their local post offices. That applies not only to rural post offices but to those in the suburbs of towns such as those in my constituency. Post offices must be allowed to conduct more and different types of business.
  I have three suggestions. First, only some post offices are allowed to issue vehicle licences. That task is essentially limited to Crown post offices and a few others. Ilkeston in my constituency has about 35,000 inhabitants but only two post offices that will issue motor vehicle tax discs. One is the old Crown post office, near which it is impossible to park, and the other is a small office tucked away on one side of the town and very difficult to find.
  Local people organised a petition, which I supported, asking for another post office to become a motor vehicle licensing office. The regional manager said that he could allow only a certain number of vehicle licensing offices in the area, and only two were allowed for Ilkeston. I took the matter up with the Department of Transport, which could not help me. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider allowing more post offices to offer such a valuable service, because it is one that people want. and it would bring more business to post offices.
  My second suggestion has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). We should enable post offices to offer additional financial services. My local sub-post masters certainly wish to be

  281
  able to do so. An estate agency can be an outlet for a building society, and I believe that sub-post offices should also be allowed to provide that service.
  I understand that there is some confusion about what they can and cannot offer in the way of financial services. One of my local post offices has a contract which states that it cannot offer any financial service which could be deemed to compete with its Post Office duties. That regulation should be examined, because post offices want to increase their financial services, which would bring in more people and increase their viability.
  I also make a plea for post offices to be able to sell tickets for buses, the railway, theatres and the national lottery. I do not knock the national lottery as Opposition members have done because it will be popular. Allowing post offices to sell such tickets will enhance the range of services which they offer.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Is it not clear from what my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) have said that we are talking about a sustainable future for all post offices—opening them up to allow them to provide more services for the elderly and others in our villages and towns? The Labour party wants to fossilise the Post Office and make its running costs burdensome to the very people we want to help.
  Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend makes the point well. We seek to provide even more valuable services for the community, so that more people will go to the post offices, thus allowing a diversification of business so that they can meet the changing requirements of the people whom they serve.
  Mr. Hain: I welcome the hon. Lady's contribution, but the person responsible for blocking the ability of local post offices to provide that additional range of services is the Under-Secretary of State for Technology. The Government should change their policy. In some local village post offices, such as that in my home village of Resolven, about 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of business —if not more—comes from benefits. If that were taken away, or even a slice of it, they would be forced to close.
  Mrs. Knight: I am trying to make it clear that I seek to enhance the role of post offices, not limit it to the traditional duties which they have undertaken. I am sure that the Minister will deal admirably with that topic when he winds up the debate.
  Mr. Connarty: Does the hon. Lady not accept that those are the policies in the Labour party manifesto, which Conservative Ministers have refused for years to adopt? They refused to adopt those policies when my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) suggested them in a recent Adjournment debate.
  Mrs. Knight: The Labour party made no mention whatever in its manifesto of maintaining the viability of the sub-post office network. In this debate, too, the Labour par.), has missed all its opportunities to support post offices and to say how they should develop and provide more services to their local communities. I am sorry that the Labour party has missed those opportunities.
  My third suggestion is the result of a conversation with the excellent manager of the sub-post office at Ockbrook,
  282
  in my constituency, who told me about the various charges that are made when people pay water, gas and electricity bills. Apparently people can pay their water bill at the post office in cash or by cheque at a cost of 15p—less than the cost of a stamp to send a cheque to the company.
  However, anyone who wishes to pay his gas or electricity bill at the post office can do so only in cash, at a cost of 80p. The water authority has provided an excellent service for people who wish to pay their bills in that way, and I am urging my local gas and electricity companies to do a similar deal, so that their bills can be paid in the same way through the local post office. I am sure that my hon. Friends, too, will urge their local electricity, gas and water companies to make the same arrangments as the water company in my constituency.
  I understand that some of the matters that I have raised are not within the jurisdiction either of the Secretary of State for Social Security or of the Under-Secretary of State for Technology, but I hope that they will consider carefully the matters for which they are responsible, so that we can maintain the valuable service to the local community, and our post offices can be fostered and allowed to develop in a way that benefits the changing society in which we all live.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudon): I am glad that the debate is taking place and I congratulate Opposition Front-Bench Members on selecting the subject. Whatever our views are, whatever we may say, and whatever the Government may say about the rights and wrongs and the motives involved—whether the forms were badly designed either deliberately or carelessly, whether there was any intention of hoodwinking old-age pensioners, or whether the Government attempted to protect them—pensioners and those who look after their interests will ensure that what is said in the debate is dispatched to the post offices and sub-post offices so that people can chat among themselves and make up their own minds. That is the essence of a democratic structure.
  When that has happened it will be interesting to find our whether we receive another load of letters from pensioners expressing their views about whether the debate was necessary and about what we may have unmasked or uncovered. Like most hon. Members, I have received letters and petitions directly from old-age pensioners in my constituency—280 of them, in fact. They are not mass-printed petitions that people can easily sign; most of them are handwritten letters from people who are not terrified but who are genuinely and honestly concerned.
  They are articulate, too. We do our pensioners a disservice if we think that they cannot articulate their own case or make up their own minds, or assess whether there is threat to their sub-post offices.
  Ms Janet Anderson: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a survey done in my constituency by the Blackburn and district branch of Age Concern? It was initiated by Councillor Kevin Durkin and was published today in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. Of the 150 pensioners interviewed, 93 per cent. received their pensions in cash at their post office and none of them said that he or she wanted to change to a different method

  283
  of payment. Does my hon. Friend agree with one of the pensioners interviewed, who said that the Government's plan was the daftest idea since the poll tax?
  Mr. McKelvey: I totally and unequivocally agree with those sentiments.
  There are 19 sub-post offices in my constituency. That may not sound a lot, in view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has more than 80 in his constituency. The scale of the problem of closure will vary from one constituency to another. Perhaps I can best illustrate the problem by describing the village in which live, outside Kilmarnock.
  As one comes into the village there is a church, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a fish and chip shop, a Chinese carry-out shop, a masonic lodge and social club and a bowling club with a social club. We also have three pubs, another newsagent, a garage, a garage showroom and a resident Member of Parliament. What more could anybody want? That may not be the idyllic village scene depicted in the Hovis advertisement, but it is a viable village and at the moment we can sustain that viability and variety.
  By the way, I missed out the bookie, but that was because his establishment is next door to a vacant shop which used to be the bank. When the banks in Kilmarnock started to close what they called their satellite stations in the villages, every village got up a petition and tried to persuade them to change their minds. But the banks said that because of economies of scale, because of the difficulties of the recession, and because robberies were taking place in the village banks, they had to withdraw the facilities.
  The withdrawal of banking facilities created difficulties for those who used bank accounts, even if their pensions were paid into the bank. 13ecause people could no longer go into the banks to withdraw their money—or to deposit money, for that matter—they had to travel to Kilmarnock to do their banking if they did not have a post office account. That often meant that they then spent their money in Kilmarnock. The economy of Kilmarnock is not suffering because of that, but the viability of the village is and the whole community is beginning to suffer because of the lack of a bank. Even the bookmaker complained to me about that.
  Mr. David Hanson: I wonder whether, when the Minister replies to the debate, he will define viability. I should like to know where my hon. Friend's post office and the 33 post offices in my constituency fit into the viable national network that has been mentioned. So far as I can see, it will not include the vast majority of the post offices in my constituency and probably not the post office in my hon. Friend's constituency, either.
  Mr. McKelvey: The total income of the sub-post office in my village is derived from payments of benefits and from selling stamps and perhaps the odd birthday card. It has not diversified into haberdashery or anything else of that nature, nor is it licensed to sell spirits and cigarettes. All those facilities are already available in the village. The post office does not have to put a petrol pump outside and diversify into selling petrol, as post offices in some rural villages may do. I do not see how my post office can diversify into any areas, other than the sale of lottery tickets, without taking trade away from existing outlets in the village.
  Mr. Connarty: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. McKelvey: I am sorry, but I running out of time and I know that the Front-Bench spokesmen want to start winding up as soon as possible. If any hon. Member who has sat here throughout the debate has not yet had the opportunity to intervene, I would gladly let him or her in, but I shall not give way to anyone who has already spoken.
  As I have said, I have received 280 personal letters from elderly people. I have chosen one of those letters to read to the House, not because it is terrifically articulate, but because it is typical of the representations that I have received and expresses an attitude that I completely understand. It was not written in panic, either. My constituent writes:
  "As a pensioner I say 'Hands off the Sub Post Office.' We cannot afford bank charges or the inconvenience of banks. Also we cannot take our pensions in arrears or once a month because we simply could not afford to live. This is another nail in the coffin of freedom."
  Freedom of choice is the important thing. The letter concludes:
  "I and thousands of others demand the right as to how our pension is paid."
  If Ministers tell us that the right of all pensioners and claimants to draw benefit at the post office will be protected, the debate will have done a tremendous service. We shall have gone some way at least to allaying the fears of pensioners about the threat that they face and the fears of those who work in sub-post offices about their future. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that he will safeguard the incomes of the sub-post offices and, more important, that pensioners will be able to continue, as of right, to draw their pensions as they wish to draw them.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on his gracious and thoughtful references to his two predecessors. I am sure that their friends and the whole House will appreciate the content and the tone of his remarks. We look forward to hearing further from him in future.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on the debate that he initiated the other night and thank all the hon. Members who spoke in that debate, during which we heard some telling rebukes to the Government from the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) about the quality of the forms about which we have heard so much today. On that occasion, the House was treated to the remarkable spectacle of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs presenting himself in this context as the latest in a long line of caring liberals. I fear that the transformation is not complete, but we live in hope.
  I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey). I am concerned lest my hon. Friend should decide to take up residence at the bookie's or in the masonic lodge, although I recognise that some of these matters are ordered differently north of the border.
  The Government's wish to switch payments of pensions and benefits to banks and building societies has been made crystal clear in today's debate. It is part of their planned

  285
  intention and has been set out in the Secretary of State's speech today and in the Department's report to the House in the public expenditure statement last autumn.
  I fear that it is also clear that the full facts of the matter have not been heard. Much has been made of a comparison of transaction costs—3p through banks and building societies and 44p through post offices. Will the Minister confirm, however, that half the pensions processed by post offices in Britain bear a direct handling charge to those post offices of less than 12p and that the comparisons that have been drawn tonight are wholly inaccurate?
  May I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in addition to the transaction costs to the Government which have been made the subject of the comparisons, there are transaction costs to the people receiving pensions and benefits? It is crystal clear that, if payments are transferred to banks and building societies, hidden transaction costs will be borne by those who use those banks and building societies to process their pensions and benefit claims. That significant factor has not been brought into the equation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made the point clearly: what the Secretary of State said did not amount to a clear statement that a fairly and equally weighted choice will be given to future pension and benefits claimants. We have heard only that the existing, thoroughly rigged, choice may be withdrawn. The Government must give the assurance that pensioners will have a full and fair choice of payment methods and a guarantee that the advantages and disadvantages of each payment method will be fairly spelt out. It is simply not right that future pensioners—many of whom will not have bank accounts—should be confronted by forms telling them that banks have interest-bearing accounts without similarly pointing out that bank accounts can incur charges. The present comparison is not fair and it is not right to put it before pensioners and benefit claimants.
  The Secretary of State says that he believes that the issue is not of great significance, because sub-post offices are paid a fiat rate fee. His remarks were published, although not in quotation marks, in today's edition of The Times and he made the point again during the debate.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that is a wholly misleading and untrue statement? It is simply not the case that sub-post offices are paid on a flat-rate basis. They are paid on the basis of transaction unit payments which vary according to the number of transactions that take place. It is true that, to secure the viability of some of the very small sub-post offices, a minimum payment is made, but that is entirely different from the flat-rate payment that the Secretary of State clearly stated was the basis of payment to sub-post offices. It is not.
  I should be grateful to be informed, if the facts can be presented, what Ministers think that minimum payment is. I shall cheerfully give way so that they can inform the House what order of advantage is given to the barely 10 per cent. of post offices that receive it. I repeat that it is not a flat-rate payment but a minimum payment. I should be delighted to hear what the Government think that payment actually is. We look forward to enlightenment on that point, on which for the moment there is total silence.
  286
  The Secretary of State should recognise that he has totally misled the House about the method of payment to post offices. He may regard that as a matter of no great significance, but the sub-post offices, which will be informed about the debate and which anxiously await its outcome, will certainly bear it in mind.
  The Post Office operates an internal cross-subsidy arrangement that is weighted in favour of the smaller post offices. That has been a feature of cross-subsidy within the Post Office's accounts since the Liberal Government of 1908. The future of the smallest 7,500 sub-post offices, which do only 6 per cent. of the total volume of the Post Office's pensions and benefits business, depends vitally upon that system of weighted payments.
  It would be a tremendous advantage to those involved, many of whose businesses are in great difficulty because of the current difficult economic circumstances, to be given a clear statement from the Government tonight to the effect that that system of cross-subsidy, on which they and their predecessors have depended since 1908, will continue to be a feature of the Government's policy towards sub-post offices. If the Government cannot guarantee the continuation of that transaction unit cross-subsidy, they cannot secure the future of the network and all their assurances and manifesto promises about their guarantee of a universal service and network of post offices are unreal and worthless.
  The 20,000 sub-post offices know that, and they are looking to the Government to clarify the point tonight. Without that cross-subsidy and system of weighted payments, the whole viability of the post office network will be brought into doubt.
  It might suit the Government if the 5,000 small post officers referred to by the chief executive of the Post Office went out of existence. If the network was truncated in that way, it is possible that the Post Office Counters Ltd. network would be easier to sell off. However, the Government must recognise that an enormous amount of political good will, economic good will and social good will would be lost if that were to happen.
  What does the universal service network, which the Government say that they have in their manifesto, promise? What does it mean? At the moment, 60 per cent. of urban and rural parishes contain a post office. Does the commitment to a universal service network mean that 60 per cent. of urban and rural parishes will continue to have the benefit of a sub-post office?
  Ms Jean Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that people believe that the threat is serious? That is evidenced by the fact that, in Bristol, 1,141 signatures were appended to a petition in three days last week in Redcliffe post office. Is not it significant that, while the majority of the people who signed that petition and who use that post office reside in my constituency, the post office itself is in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)? There may be implications for the citizens charter in relation to the element of the freedom of choice.
  Mr. Cousins: I confirm what my hon. Friend said and that experience is repeated around the country. However, I regret to say that, with longer experience of the House, my hon. Friend will find that turkeys do vote for Christmas and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may be one of them.

  287
  Forty-one per cent. of the business of the sub-post office network is accounted for by pension and benefits payments. The undermining of that financial commitment undermines the viability of the whole network.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North was right to be concerned about the position in Northern Ireland because half the business of sub-post offices in Northern Ireland comprises pension and benefits payments. That is the highest proportion in the United Kingdom. I hope that hon. Members from Northern Ireland will take these matters fully into account when they consider how to vote tonight and how to vote in the future when such matters are considered.
  Much has been made of opening up the sub-post office network for other kinds of business. This is a Government of deregulation. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) can rest assured in the knowledge that none of us would have doubts about opening up the sub-post office network to wider commercial business and allocating it that task. However, we are waiting for the conclusion of the Government's review of the Post Office which has taken far too long and no proceedings of which have been reported back to the House or the other place.
  Furthermore, the Department of Trade and Industry is capable of misunderstanding popular feeling. It misjudged the reaction to the closure of 31 pits and the sacking of 30,000 miners. I have bad news for the DTI tonight. Post office surveys indicate that the smallest 5,000 post offices employ 25,000 people. We have an issue before us—the viability of the smaller sub-post offices—which is as dramatic in its employment consequences as the closure of the coal mines.
  The post offices have been rocked by the recession, but their business has held up better than that of the banks and building societies to which the Government want to send the business. The reduction in the number of bank and building society branches has been proceeding far faster than the reduction in the number of sub-post offices. The post office network is larger, more robust and more resilient than the network of bank and building society branches. It would be wrong for the Government, through their decision about the method of pension and benefits payments, to rig the market in favour of the banks and building societies and against the interests of the post offices.
  The Government do not appreciate the fact that when we talk about sub-post offices, we are talking about self-employed people. We are talking about people who run small businesses. The Government talk about privatising the Post Office. The fact is that the bulk of the counters network is privatised already. One thing that could be said with great advantage tonight is that the Government will withdraw their proposals to privatise the counters network. The Government could justify their U-turn readily by saying that it is already privatised. That is a wonderful get-out for the Government. The door is open and we would all welcome them going through it.
  However, the Government have already today chosen to make war on the sub-post offices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] The remarks of Conservative Members carry a clear message. References have been made to Timex and to picket lines and the sub-post offices have been brought into that setting. That message will go out to the sub-post offices.
  Like many of the people they serve, sub-post offices live from week to week. They are small businesses that provide
  288
  a community service and they are trying to continue in the face of difficult economic circumstances. They will be looking to the results of this debate. From the reaction of the people they serve, they know that the people of this country value them and wish them to be protected. If the Government take any other course, they will rue the day that they set out on it.
  6.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): If I may, I would like to begin by referring to the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). The whole House enjoyed his speech, which was a classic of its type in its lyrical description of a constituency which the hon. Gentleman loves and where he lives. We on the Conservative Benches were very grateful for his very kind comments about Judith Chaplin and Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, who were obviously very valued colleagues of ours.
  We welcome the hon. Member for Newbury to the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said, we do not know whether it will be for three or four years, but we welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House and we welcome his comments today.
  I am glad to have the opportunity to reinforce the message that we are absolutely committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices.
  Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I have hardly started, so I can hardly give way. I will explain what I mean in a moment.
  The Conservative party is the only party with an election manifesto commitment to maintaining such a network, and we have made it clear on many occasions in the House and subsequently that we will stick by it. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), the first Conservative Back Bencher to speak in the debate, and it was repeated by every Conservative Back Bencher to speak after him.
  Mr. Ainger: The Minister, the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs are all current or past members of the No Turning Back group. Page 14 of the group's document, "Choice and Responsibility—the Enabling State", states:
  "The post office monopoly can no longer be justified."
  Does the Minister still hold that view?
  Mr. Leigh: Actually, members of the No Turning Back group are in the majority on the Government Front Bench. We are never bound by pamphlets that we wrote in our youth, I assure the hon. Gentleman.
  I say to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) that I and my colleagues in the Government are well aware of the vital importance of post offices in our rural and urban local communities. I point out to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) that I have 78 post offices within my constituency, although sadly not one in my own village. There are no pubs or clubs, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is a Member of Parliament, and that is probably good enough.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) made it clear that sub-post offices are an

  289
  integral part of rural and urban life, and we will keep them. I reassure the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) that the Government remain absolutely committed to maintaining the nationwide network of post offices.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked us what we mean by that commitment. I mean a service that is readily accessible by everyone and to everyone in town and country alike. That does not and cannot mean that no post office will ever close—that would be absurd. People move to different areas; they change their shopping patterns. The network has to be kept sufficiently flexible to adapt to those changes. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made clear when in July he announced his review of the Post Office, that commitment is non-negotiable; it is in our manifests, and ours is the only party with such a commitment in its manifesto.
  Mr. Hain: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leigh: No; I have insufficient time.
  We have been debating the important issue of the payment of pensions and other benefits by automated credit transfer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already explained why our policy is to encourage—I underline that word—more beneficiaries to have their benefits paid by ACT on a voluntary basis. I do not propose to repeat what he has said. However, I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) that my colleagues and I well understand the importance of social security work to sub-post offices. It represents, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said, at least 30 per cent. of all Post Office Counters' turnover, rising to as much as 50 per cent. in some smaller rural offices.
  What has not been fully understood this afternoon is that the option of direct payment into bank accounts has been available for at least 10 years. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said in his north Lincolnshire dialect, this has really been a great stitheram about nothing, because that option has existed for 10 years.
  Mr. Dewar: I want to be helpful and I hope that I shall get a clear answer from the Minister. Will he guarantee that in any future forms that are issued. on which people will nominate how they will get payment of their pensions, there will be a clear commitment to equal treatment of all options—in other words, that there will be no question of the Post Office disappearing into an addendum or disappearing off the main part of the form?
  Mr. Leigh: I give a commitment that their right to take up their pensions with the Post Office will be clearly stated, as indeed it was stated in the forms that we are talking about.
  ACT is an option that has gradually been taken up by pensioners and others, yet total Government business transacted through post offices has in fact increased during each of the past three years, in spite of increased use of ACT. We do not now expect any sudden increase in the numbers making use of ACT. I say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that experience over the past
  290
  decade simply does not bear out fears about the future of post offices of the kind that have been expressed today by the Opposition.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear only yesterday, pensioners will continue to be able to receive pensions from most post offices. It is not Government policy to remove the right of pensioners to receive their pensions from the Post Office. I hope that that is an unequivocal statement: it is clear, the Prime Minister made it yesterday, and I have repeated it today. We are encouraging people, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said—we have been encouraging them for many years—to receive their benefits through their bank accounts, but only on a voluntary basis. I will take no lessons from Opposition Members about the importance of choice. We have always been the party of choice, and, as the party of the citizens charter, we will remain so. We are extending a choice of payment method—
  Mr. Connarty: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leigh: No, I will not give way.
  We are extending a choice of payment method to those receiving all types of DSS benefit; we are not restricting that choice. To suggest otherwise is misleading scaremongering, and we have had plenty of scaremongering today and in the weeks leading up to this debate.
  Mr. George Walden: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I had better not, if my hon. Friend will allow me, as I have only six minutes left. I must reply to the points that have been made.
  Concern has been expressed today and during recent weeks about the trial that was recently undertaken to test —I emphasise that word—three different forms on 24,000 new pensioners. My right hon. Friend has already spoken in some detail about the trial. The trial—I stress that it is only a trial—is merely to test the impact of the different methods of presentation. The aim is to provide information about the advantages to customers of the ACT option, which are not yet widely understood, and to encourage take-up of that method on a voluntary basis.
  Some hon. Members have today expressed their concern about the way in which the payment options have been presented in some of the trial forms. Let me therefore add a word of reassurance that the Benefits Agency, which is responsible for the administration of benefits, will take full account of hon. Members' comments on that point.
  First, our commitment to a nationwide network is not negotiable, whether the Post Office's future lies in the public or private sector. Secondly, there is no link whatever between the encouragement of ACT and our review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office. Thirdly, our policy is to encourage ACT. That policy will not endanger the nationwide network, including the rural network. I say to the hon. Members for Antrim, North and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) that we will continue to give pensioners a choice in how their pensions are paid.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle- upon Tyne, Central raised questions about the Post Office review. I can assure hon. Members that the review is being undertaken with no preconceptions as to its outcome and it is looking at both private and public sector options. It is Labour Members who are frightened of ideas. All new ideas in their hands have turned out to be vote losers.

  291
  The Opposition have suggested today that there is a link between privatisation of the Post Office, encouragement of ACT, and post office closures. I find it hard to follow their argument. lf, as they claim, we are trying to fatten up the Post Office for privatisation, why should we wish to encourage ACT at all? Surely, if fattening up the Post Office was our intention, we would be trying to minimise ACT payments so that the Post Office would get more and more of that work. If we were seeking only to maximise the Post Office's profits in preparation for privatisation, why should we be making repeated assurances about maintaining the nationwide network, including the rural offices which are the least profitable?
  I say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) that we have an open mind on privatisation. Opposition Members have a closed mind. We look at private and public sector options. Opposition Members consider only public sector options. Of course, the Labour party predicted disaster for customer services before every privatisation. "No privatised company would ever bother looking after the customer," the Labour party said. "All that it would be interested in would be profits." Labour got it wrong in every privatisation. We have only to look at British Telecom and the investment that has gone into the network to know that.
  The Labour party's refusal even to consider the benefits that privatisation might bring the Post Office is an indication of a deeper malaise in the Labour party. Labour Members have a dinosaur-like conservatism which would allow the Post Office to ossify—shackled by unavoidable public sector constraints, unable to compete effectively in a changing world. They would condemn the Post Office to a slow decline, as they would have condemned all the other nationalised industries. Of course, they have opposed every nationalisation.
  We have heard a lot of nonsense today about ACT. It was a Labour Minister, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who, about 15 years ago—perhaps he will listen to this—said:
  "I am expecting a report by the end of the month … I am in favour of the principle"—
  of payment direct into pensioners' bank accounts—
  "and the introduction of such an arrangement would cover child benefit as well as retirement pensions … I hope to make some progress in the near future."—[Official Report, 6 March 1979; Vol. 963, c. 1078]
  Mr. Michael Lord: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Leigh: No, I must finish my remarks.
  That was a Labour Minister about 15 years ago, saying that he would welcome progress to ACT.
  I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central that I am surprised that he has not protested that his constituents are charged by the Labour council when they pay their council tax at their post offices. In central Newcastle, the council expects—it even demands of—people to pay the council tax at the local housing office, and if it is paid at a post office a charge is made. What kind of choice is that in Labour's heartland?
  Mr. Cousins: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leigh: No; the hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
  Labour's scaremongering about the Post Office was as wrong 10 years ago as it is today. It was wrong at the time of the privatisation of British Telecom, and wrong on
  292
  every other privatisation. Labour was wrong yesterday, is wrong today and no doubt will be wrong tomorrow. Labour says that it is opposed to closures, but it has closed more post offices than we ever did. Labour says that it favours a national network of post offices, yet ours is the only party that is committed to it. Labour says that it favours investment, yet it has opposed any discussion of the options that would result in private investment to improve the service.
  Labour says that it cares about pensioners. Why does it indulge in scaremongering? Labour says that it favours choice. Why does it deride our commitment to choice? We will give new opportunities to our small post offices. They will be allowed to compete for national lottery work and we will consider giving them further opportunities in financial services, bill payments and ticket sales. Other interesting ideas have been raised and considered in the course of our review, all of which Labour has opposed.
  We have raised the standard for choice, investment and free enterprise. The existence of all 19,000 privately run sub-post offices is a tribute to the spirit of entrepreneurship which we wish to foster and which the Opposition despise. We want those businesses to grow and expand—to be providers of valued services in villages and towns—and we will continue to offer them that opportunity. We will continue to offer all our pensioners the right to choose between the bank and the post office for payment of their pensions.
  That is our commitment—to choice, to investment and to the Post Office. I urge my hon. Friends to reject this absurd motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 311.

  Division No. 275]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Callaghan, Jim

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Alton, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cann, Jamie

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ashton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ann

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benton, Joe

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Berts, Clive

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Blair, Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Cummings, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Cunliffe,. Lawrence

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dafis, Cynog

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

  Darling, Alistair

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Davidson, Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Byers, Stephen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Caborn, Richard

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  293

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

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Denham, John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Leighton, Ron

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Enright, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Macdonald, Calum

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McFall, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McKelvey, William

  Flynn, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Madden, Max

  Foulkes, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Fraser, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Garrett, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martlew, Eric

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Maxton, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meale, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michael, Alun

  Gould, Bryan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Graham, Thomas

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gunnell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hall. Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mudie, George

  Harvey, Nick

  Murphy, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Olner, William

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoey, Kate

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Home Robertson, John

  Parry, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prescott, John

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Illsley, Eric

  Purchase, Ken

  Ingram, Adam

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Radice, Giles

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jamieson, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Janner, Greville

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Richardson, Jo

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  294

  Rowlands, Ted

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Salmond, Alex

  Trimble, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dennis

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tyler, Paul

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Short, Clare

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Simpson, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watson, Mike

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

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

  Wigley, Dafydd

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

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Snape, Peter

  Wilson, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Winnick, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wise, Audrey

  Spellar, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Wray, Jimmy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Stott, Roger

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Straw, Jack

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Churchill, Mr

  Alexander, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey.

  Amess, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Ancram, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Congdon, David

  Arnold. Jacques (Gravesham)

  Conway, Derek

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ashby, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cormack, Patrick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Couchman, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cran, James

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

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

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Day, Stephen

  Bates, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Batiste, Spencer

  Devlin, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dicks, Terry

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dover, Den

  Body, Sir Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Booth, Hartley

  Dunn, Bob

  Boswell, Tim

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Eggar, Tim

  Bowden, Andrew

  Elletson, Harold

  Bowis, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burns, Simon

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Forman, Nigel

  Butcher, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butler, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Freeman, Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  French, Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Cash, William

  Gale, Roger

  295

  Gallie, Phil

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Legg, Barry

  Garnier, Edward

  Leigh, Edward

  Gill, Christopher

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Lidington, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gorst, John

  Lord, Michael

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Luff, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maclean, David

  Hague, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Madel, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mans, Keith

  Harris, David

  Marland, Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Marlow, Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mates, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hendry, Charles

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Hicks, Robert

  Milligan, Stephen

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Mills, Iain

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Horam, John

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

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

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Needham, Richard

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Norris, Steve

  Jessel, Toby

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Page, Richard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Patnick, Irvine

  Key, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  King, Rt Hon Torn

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Pawsey, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Pickles, Eric

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Knox, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Powell, William (Corby)

  296

  Redwood, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Richards, Rod

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Riddick, Graham

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thomason, Roy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Sackville, Tom

  Tredinnick, David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walden, George

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sims, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Watts, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Whitney, Ray

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sproat, Iain

  Wilkinson, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Stephen, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stern, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sumberg, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sykes, John

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House endorses Her Majesty's Government's clear commitment to freedom of choice in the means by which social security benefits are paid, while reducing fraud and unnecessary costs by extending the availability of Automated Credit Transfer to all benefits and encouraging people with bank accounts to choose to have benefits paid into their accounts, to the continuation of a national network of post offices and sub-post offices and to securing the efficient and effective delivery of the vital service which the Post Office provides.

  Defence Industrial Base
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.15 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
  That this House recognises with gratitude the efforts and skills over the years of all workers in the defence industries who have ensured that the United Kingdom's security has been maintained with the best of equipment and weapons; notes that with its laissez faire approach to the reduction in defence orders, Her Majesty's Government now threatens the long term viability of Britain's defence industry; regrets that the Government is now treating defence workers in a callous and cavalier manner, as has been most recently witnessed in the case of Swan Hunter on Tyneside; and calls upon the Government to ensure an adequate package of measures to attract investment and employment to those areas adversely affected and to establish a Defence Diversification Agency as part of a strategy of harnessing all the available skills for the national manufacturing effort.
  The Labour party felt that it was necessary to call this debate in time allocated to us, in view of the Government's failure to allow a debate on defence. As the House knows, it has long been a convention that two days each year are allocated to discuss the defence estimates, which permits hon. and right hon. Members to raise a wide variety of issues affecting the defence of Britain. However, the Government have resolutely refused to arrange such a debate, despite repeated requests from Labour Members. One must go back to 1991 to find the previous opportunity for the House to have a general debate on defence.
  We all know why the Government have failed to arrange a debate—it is simply that they are in such a mess on defence and dare not face the exposure of their inadequacies in this field. The crisis management approach, which is inevitable once' they abandoned the strategy in favour of expediency, has been widely criticised throughout the defence and security field.
  The Labour party has made its position clear. At the last general election, our manifesto said that we would
  "provide whatever resources are needed for effective defence for our country".
  That is clear—there is no hesitation, no calculation and no equivocation.
  Mr. David Sumberg: How does the hon. Gentleman square that statement with the commitment made at the Labour party conference for £6 billion-worth of cuts and the commitment of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to reduce expenditure to the western European average? Such policies would decimate the defence industry in the United Kingdom, kill jobs in and around my constituency and be an absolute disaster for the industries which the hon. Gentleman says he represents.
  Mr. Clark: I had intended to speak only briefly today, but, in view of the hon. Member's inane intervention, I will not do so. Let me take it clear where the Labour party stands. We will provide whatever resources are needed for the effective defence of our country. I hope that Conservative Members can understand that.
  Mr. Rod Richards rose—
  Mr. Clark: I will not give way, because it will be an inane comment.
  298
  When we speak of "whatever resources", we are conscious that it is not sufficient merely to count the number of our armed forces. One must take into account the resources and equipment available to our troops. Those resources and equipment have been among the best in the world, and have been largely produced in British factories. The skill and commmitment have been absolute. One has only to visit our defence factories to appreciate the pride and dedication of the workers. The House and the nation owe a debt of gratitude to our workers in the defence industries.
  With the break-up of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of the Warsaw pact, almost every country in the western world has reduced, or plans to reduce, its defence spending—that is natural—and this Government have been no exception. Even before the round of defence cuts which are currently being planned, Her Majesty's Government have announced cuts of up to 20 per cent. by 1995–96 and a projected further 9 per cent. thereafter.
  The Opposition do not quibble with reducing defence spending. We quibble only about how the Government have arrived at their decisions without a defence review. How have they determined to implement the cuts, sweeping aside all moral, social and strategic consequences affecting all those involved in our defence industry?
  Since 1990, more than 100,000 workers in defence-related industries have lost their jobs. Men and women who have given years of service have found themselves suddenly dumped on the scrap heap. With their sole reliance on market forces, Her Majesty's Government have not only acted unfairly but put at risk the ability of Britain to supply our own defence needs in the future.
  In essence, the Government have taken a laissez-faire approach to the future of our defence industries. Whatever is cheapest in the short run is preferred and damn the consequences. Their strategy towards the defence industry of Britain is little more than industrial Darwinism. Whatever emerges from the free market must be correct and they will worry about tomorrow when the day comes. As a nation, we shall rue the consequences of that policy.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House and the country which shipyard would have been given the landing platform helicopter contract if he had been Secretary of State for Defence?
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has asked a fair question. I shall answer the question because it deserves an answer. Given a difference of £70 million in an order of £210 million, there was no choice but to give the order to Barrow and Govan. I hope that that is sufficiently plain and straight for the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal with the point further later.
  Mr. David Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: No. I want to make progress, not deal with some fatuous point.
  By their position as monopoly buyer, the Government have weakened the industrial base of Britain. That is extremely dangerous. As Gerald Boxall, chairman of Vickers, recently argued crudely:
  "You can't go to war without an industrial base."
  John Weston, the managing director of British Aerospace—one of Britain's largest companies—put it more diplomatically when describing the defence industrial base. He rightly claimed that it was

  299
  "part of the essential make-up of the country's defence posture."
  Both were right in their own way.
  Nowhere has the problem been seen more clearly than in the case of Swan Hunter on Tyneside, a shipbuilding company with a long tradition of building fine ships which have met the exacting standards of the Royal Navy. There was no mention of its sterling work in the Falklands conflict, when the men worked night and day to ensure that the ships were prepared for the conflict.
  Last week, events occurred at Swan Hunter which no one has been able to explain satisfactorily. On the day that it was announced that the helicopter landing ship was to be built at Govan and Barrow, the Evening Chronicle in Newcastle ran a dramatic story, supplied by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), under the banner headline on the front page "Victory", that the ship was to go to Swan Hunter.
  Given the Government's view that the Royal Navy should have fewer than 40 surface ships, the hon. Member for Tynemouth cannot have realised that the Government had decided that Swan Hunter was expendable.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman does my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) a great disservice. I can confirm that, between half-past 1 and half-past 2 on that day, which I spent in the company of my hon. Friend, he did not know the outcome of the Ministry of Defence decision. So to blame him for floating that story is utterly unworthy and unfair. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw the accusation.
  Dr. Clark: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. He is right. The hon. Member for Tynemouth did not know what the position was. He would not have made any comments to the press along those lines if he had known.
  Mr. Neville Trotter: It is good of my hon. Friend to explain what happened on that day. He and I had lunch together. I was riot aware of the outcome of the decision on the order. I did not advise the Evening Chronicle in the way that it reported. What the hon. Gentleman said is not true. I appreciate that he said it on the basis of an inaccurate account in a newspaper. The truth is as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson).
  Dr. Clark: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because, as I notified him, I mentioned him in my speech. I do not suggest for one moment that he knew the outcome. Of course he did not know. That adds to the mystery of the events surrounding the whole tendering process. That is the point that I want to raise tonight.
  In view of the background, several pertinent questions need to be answered about the events surrounding the affair. I see that the hon. Member for Tynemouth agrees with me on that point. Those questions can be answered only by an independent inquiry. I am glad that the Defence Select Committee shares my view, and I am delighted that the National Audit Office is now to investigate.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I have made it clear that I wish to complete my speech as quickly as possible.
  Many questions arise. How is it that two bids were different to the tune of £70 million out of an order of £210 million? That stretches the imagination. Were the two
  300
  companies bidding for precisely the same ship? I understand from the hon. Member for Tynemouth, through the north-eastern newspapers, that, in a meeting with him, the Controller the Navy, Admiral Sir Kenneth Eaton, confirmed that the companies were bidding for the same ship.
  If Swan Hunter goes under, how will that affect the Government's procurement policy? There will be no warship building yards in Britain capable of building anything larger than a frigate, with the possible exception of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. in Barrow, and that only if massive investment in slipways and cranage was undertaken there.
  Mr. Trotter: I noted what the controller said when I asked him about the matter. He said:
  "They were two good designs and either was acceptable to the Navy."
  He categorically denied that there was anything wrong in the process by which the decision was taken.
  Dr. Clark: I am grateful for that intervention. However, to say that either design was acceptable to the Royal Navy is not the same as saying both yards bid for the same type of ship. That is the essence of one of the questions to which we need the answer.
  If we have no large warship building capacity, with the possible exception of VSEL, where will our future large naval ships be built? Will they be built in foreign yards? Will they be built in South Korea? Will VSEL be given the monopoly for large ships as well as for submarines? If that is the case, how does the Government's competition policy operate? Furthermore, have the Government no concern about the prospect in strategic terms of not retaining some capacity for large warship building?
  Opposition Members believe that we need an answer to such questions. We need an inquiry, not to reopen the bid but to ensure that no mistakes which may or may not have occurred in the tendering procedure are repeated.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: No. I must continue.
  There is too much at stake for any mistakes to be repeated. Not only the livelihood of men and women is at stake but the long-term ability of Britain to defend itself.
  Mr. Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I must make progress. I am sorry, but I must continue.
  Until such an inquiry has reported, many will believe that Her Majesty's Government deliberately and callously set out to deceive all those at Swan Hunter, including the hon. Member for Tynemouth, into believing that it was favourite to win the order when clearly, with an overbid of £70 million, it was never a runner. It is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the Government had it in for Swan Hunter. How otherwise can one explain a local newspaper headline claiming victory? How otherwise can one explain the Prime Minister's being given credit for the order by none other than the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter)?
  Mr. Michael Bates: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Dr. Clark: No.
  Labour believes that we must have more planning in this respect—flexible and viable planning, but nonetheless with a strategy. Like Her Majesty's Government, we have accepted that the amount we spend on defence in the years to come is likely to be reduced. Thereafter, we depart from the Government's approach.
  Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: No.
  Mr. Devlin: It is a very good point.
  Dr. Clark: If it were a very good point, it would be unique for the hon. Gentleman.
  The Government must show in a tangible manner that they are prepared to provide financial assistance for areas affected by defence industry closures and rundown. The Tyneside offer, for example, is a mere fleabite, bearing in mind the enormity of the problem involved. In south Tyneside, where about 40 per cent. of the work force of Swan Hunter live, there is already male unemployment, according to the Government's own figures, of more than 28 per cent. That does not take into account the 1,100 miners at Westoe colliery, where work stopped just 10 days ago.
  We are talking about male unemployment of more than 33 per cent. in a big borough—not a small town—of 150,000 people. That will be the effect. I realise that Conservative Members are not interested in unemployment, especially in the north-east of England. I am dealing with figures not for wards or for towns but for a large travel-to-work area. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may cackle, but the people of this country will agree that an unemployment rate of one in three is unforgivable and that the Government must do something about it.
  Mr. Bates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: As the hon. Gentleman represents a seat in the north-east, I am sorry to say that I cannot give way.
  Even the European Community recognises that former defence industry areas may have a problem. Indeed, its own KONVER fund is available. Can the Government give the House an assurance tonight that Britain will avail itself fully of this programme? Will areas such as Tyneside, which are outside the scheme, be brought within it?
  I am trying to get across to Ministers a point that they have not yet taken—that we are talking about a situation in which one in three men are out of work. This is not short-term unemployment, but massive long-term unemployment.
  Mr. Bates: The hon. Gentleman seems to be basing his defence policy on the Evening Chronicle. Given Labour's policy, that is a fairly credible base. Nobody doubts for one minute that unemployment is a tragedy. The hon. Gentleman himself has just said to the House that, given the same criteria and the same bids, he would have made the same decision. That being the case, what does he propose?
  Dr. Clark: We need answers to a number of questions about the whole process of tendering. I cannot say what I would have done if I had been the Secretary of State for Defence. Quite clearly there is not available to me anything like as much information as is available to the Government. I shall not bore the House. Surely hon.
  302
  Members are not so stupid as to fail to understand that the Government have tens of thousands of civil servants, including some of the top contract lawyers in the country, helping them to evaluate contracts.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Like you, Sir, I am well aware of the fact that a standard defence tactic is the firing of chaff in the event of illumination by enemy fire. Is it in order for Conservative Members to use debating chaff to disrupt the development of a genuine theme by the Opposition spokesman? Will you please enable my hon. Friend to speak without interruption so that we may understand the logic, even if Conservative Members are incapable of understanding it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I was in the Royal Air Force, and it seems to me that the Opposition spokesman is a pathfinder. [Interruption.] The hon. Member, having intervened at least once—perhaps twice —should realise that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way to him.
  Dr. Clark: If this is the best that Conservative Members can produce, it will not be very difficult to handle. The Government must take seriously the need to aid areas that are suffering from massive unemployment. These problems will not go away. Labour Members believe that the Government should be more pre-emptive.
  It is our belief that Britain needs a defence diversification agency—a body that would ensure that companies in the defence field were assisted with defence conversion work and, where appropriate, helped to diversify into other markets, products and technologies. We accept that this is not an easy remit, but it is one that is worth pursuing.
  In spite of attempts by the Government to ridicule the idea, other countries are now adopting this approach. This applies to France, Germany and, most recently of all, the United States of America. Even that high apostle of the free market is not so obsessed as are the Government and Conservative MPs with the free market that is prepared to sacrifice its own indigenous defence industry and the skills of its workers for some short-term financial gain, which will probably cost dear in the long run. Congress has allocated billions of dollars for defence diversification and for the use of dual technology. There is no doubt that the Administration in the United States are aware of the problem and of the challenge. Unlike the British Government, they are prepared to face up to the challenge.
  Defence diversification is a runner even at the moment. There is defence diversification in this country. Companies are already involved in the process.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I should like to give way, but I must make some progress.
  In Devonport, I saw luxury yachts being built. In Rosyth, I saw London underground trains being refurbished. In Southampton, Vosper Thorneycroft is working on fireproofing techniques for North sea oil platforms. This is admirable. In Weymouth, Ferranti Thompson has adapted its sonar work for seal scaring in Scottish fish farms. Swan Hunter itself has diversified. It

  303
  was building the new Tyne ferry and various pontoons. In addition, it had an order book of more than £5 million in general engineering. Firms have diversified.
  Furthermore, many local authorities and trade unions, unlike the Government, have accepted the challenge of defence diversification. Much work is being done up and down the country. All this is being achieved despite lack of encouragement from the Government—indeed, at times, despite their discouragement. Imagine what could be achieved if there were an enabling hand.
  The innovative skills of the defence industry could be harnessed in the civilian field as well as the military field. There are many opportunities to create dual technologies. If we were to pursue this path, the manufacturing decline that we have seen for the past 14 years might well be reversed. The Government owe it to the defence workers and the country at large to ensure that that happens.
  7.40 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'recognises with gratitude the efforts and skills over the years of all workers in the defence industries who have ensured that the United Kingdom's security has been maintained with the best of equipment and weapons; notes that the policy of competition for defence orders adopted by Her Majesty's Government has resulted in an efficient United Kingdom defence industry with world-class export performance; condemns the 25 per cent. defence cuts demanded by the Labour Party Conference which would cripple Britain's armed forces and her defence industry; rejects the idea of a Defence Diversification Agency to second-guess business decisions that should more properly be taken by companies; but welcomes the assistance provided by Her Majesty's Government to help regions to adjust more effectively to major industrial change by creating opportunities for new industries, as exemplified by the wide-ranging package of measures announced last week for Tyneside.'.
  The House has just listened to a wildly intemperate and inaccurate speech. As I listened to the feeble attempt of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to become a rabble rouser for the evening, the words of a famous Labour party icon came into my head. They were used by the great and late Nye Bevan, who once opened a debate in the House by saying that he welcomed the opportunity to prick the bloated bladder of lies with a poniard of truth. That is exactly what I am going to do this evening.
  I shall not stray out of order and accuse the hon. Gentleman of outright mendacity, but I have seldom heard a more unconvincing mish-mash of half truths, misrepresentations and fantasies from the Evening Chronicle—all washed down by heady draughts of conspiracy theory. I am glad to take on the hon. Gentleman point by point and answer the questions that he has posed.
  Tonight's debate is taking place against a background of the sad receivership of Swan Hunter. The feelings of sadness run deep on both sides of the House. Swan Hunter is a proud name and a great yard which has built warships for the Royal Navy to the highest standards for many years. For that company to go into receivership with a potentially large loss of jobs is a human and commercial tragedy which we all deeply regret.
  However, according to the words of the Opposition's motion and the flamboyant language of the hon. Member for South Shields, the Opposition seem to want to express not regret, but recrimination. In the motion they accuse us
  304
  of behaving in a "callous and cavalier" manner towards Swan Hunter. That is a false and baseless charge. I am glad to have a chance to answer it, and the fundamental question: could the Government have done anything to avoid Swan Hunter going into receivership? I am sorry to have to say that the only realistic and responsible answer to that question is no.
  We think that the Government acted not only scrupulously fairly, but also as positively and helpfully as they could do in relation to Swan Hunter's helicopter carrier bid. Sadly, the plain truth of the matter is that Swan Hunter's deep-seated financial problems were far too great, and its bid for the LPH was far too high for the Government to be able to take any practical steps that might have helped the company to avoid receivership.
  Mr. Frank Cook: What is the Government's intention with regard to the three frigates awaiting completion in the Swan Hunter yard?
  Mr. Aitken: Those matters are being discussed by my Department and the receiver, who has already been good enough to describe our attitude to the problem as positive and constructive. We hope that it may be possible to finish the ships in the Swan Hunter yard, but that is a matter for continued negotiation and discussions between the receiver and us.
  When bids are more than £50 million apart and the lower bid fully meets the Navy's requirement, no responsible Minister, in the interests of being fair to the taxpayer or the competitive bids, would argue in favour of accepting the higher hid. He would have to be certified to do so. I am glad that the one theme of commonsense that emerged from the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he seemed to recognise that, although it was not recognised by some of his Front Bench colleagues in yesterday's debate.
  I recognise that what I have just said is unwelcome news to some hon. Members and some outside commentators who have spoken out so vociferously in understandable sympathy with Swan Hunter in the past few days. But defeat in a major commercial bid competition is often the father of unconvincing excuses and sometimes, as we have seen tonight, even the mother of ridiculous conspiracy theories. I am glad to have this chance to answer, point by point, some of the allegations that have been floated, particularly those made in yesterday's debate by the hon. Member for Newcastle on Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). He made the totally unconvincing charge that Swan Hunter's failure to win the LPH competition was the deliberate fault of the Ministry of Defence.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear last week, the Government were sufficiently concerned earlier this year about the deteriorating financial situation at Swan Hunter to bring forward by several months the LPH bids and their decision on them. We felt that by giving Swan Hunter a fair chance to win the competition we were offering the yard and its employees their best and perhaps only immediate chance to secure their future.
  I think that that was well recognised at Swan Hunter. When I visited the yard on 3 March I found that most people with whom I talked, especially the union leaders, recognised that the company had to put in a keenly priced bid to win the contract against what they must have known

  305
  would be an equally keenly priced bid from their competitor, VSEL, which also had profound employment and other worries.
  When the two bids came in, we were surprised, just as others have subsequently been surprised, by the size of the difference between them. It was, as I have already said, a difference in excess of £50 million. However, we were not surprised that VSEL's bid was so low, but that Swan Hunter's bid was so high. The VSEL bid did not surprise us because it came in at about the price which the internal estimates of our experts had suggested would be a fair and proper price for such a ship.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East made a number of fanciful claims in the House yesterday which deserve a rebuttal. First, he suggested that we deliberately changed the specifications to increase Swan Hunter's costs. Let me make it clear that both yards tendered a ship to meet exactly the same specification.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: The Minister will be aware that one of the concerns is that the yards may have been tendering for two different sorts of ship. Will he comment on the statement made this afternoon by David Smith, the commercial director of Kvaerner Govan, that the company tendered for a commercial vessel, whereas Swan Hunter tendered for a naval vessel?
  Mr. Aitken: I shall comment not on the statement as I have not read it, but on the hon. Gentleman's general claim, which is not new. The charge has been made several times in the feverish atmosphere of the past few days. However, I shall first respond to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East.
  Some changes were included in the specification issued with the invitation to submit best and final offers. Those changes were, in general, relaxations of the specification. Swan Hunter made some material additions to its bid to meet that relaxed specification, but none would begin to account for the extraordinary gap in price between the two final bids.
  There have been claims—such as those just made by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers)—that Swan Hunter bid for a warship and VSEL bid for a merchant vessel or commercial ship. As I have said, our requirements and specifications were made crystal clear to both companies. We operated on an entirely level playing field. We did not, as some have claimed, ask one company to bid for one sort of ship and the other company to bid for a quite different sort of ship. Although they based their bids on different designs of their choosing, the similarity between the two proposals was remarkable.
  The tonnage of both bids was virtually the same, the length of the two designs was the same to within a few metres, and the width or beam of the ships was almost identical. Both companies bid in the knowledge that we required a merchant shipping quality hull rather than a warship quality hull as we have always seen the LPH as a vessel that is likely to stand off from the heat of the land or sea battle protected by a frigate or destroyer escort.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East claimed that VSEL unfairly subsidised its bid. Our shipbuilding experts in the Ministry of Defence were not born yesterday. They were always on the lookout for what is called "buying the contract" by VSEL by cross-subsidies
  306
  or by unfair underpricing. But we found no evidence of such practices in the VSEL bid, which I emphasise came in at the ballpark level of price which we expected for such a vessel.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My hon. Friend the Minister is being extremely helpful to the House. Will he give the figures for the bids tendered by Swan Hunter and VSEL/Kvaerner Govan in the first round, and in the second—the best and final—round?
  Mr. Aitken: For good reason, it is the practice of the Ministry of Defence—at the request of all competitors—not to give detailed, specific figures. We are prepared to supply the figures to the National Audit Office, but for reasons of commercial confidentiality—
  Dr. John Reid: Not good enough.
  Mr. Aitken: We have clearly explained the gap between the two bids, and we have not been criticised for giving the broad figure.
  Dr. David Clark: The Minister has tried as best he can, given the difficulties with commercial confidentiality, to explain the matter to us. I must ask him, however, whether the difference in the initial bids was as great as he suggests. Was there a considerable difference between the initial bids? When was the final bid actually received?
  Mr. Aitken: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise date, because it was only a few days—[Interruption.] My colleague will give the answer in his reply to the debate, because I do not have the precise date in my head. There was certainly a gap between the original bids and the second bids, but the best and final offers were the ones that counted.
  Dr. Clark: The Minister has misunderstood my genuine inquiry. Was there a difference between the bids of the two companies at the initial stage?
  Mr. Aitken: There was certainly a difference, which did widen. We do not give the figures, for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The detailed figures that the hon. Gentleman requests should not be given across the Floor of the House, but they will be given, in terms of commercial confidentiality, to the NAO and, if appropriate, to the Select Committee.
  Finally, and most conspiratorially of all, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, echoed by the hon. Member for South Shields, told us that my Department had been plotting the downfall of Swan Hunter for some months. That is an absurd accusation, not borne out by the facts that I have given the House.
  To return to reality: we evaluated the bids thoroughly against our usual technical and value-for-money criteria. We examined them for omissions or signs that the bidders had under-estimated the complexity of the task of the risks involved. We took our findings on these points into account when reaching our final decision. It was the VSEL bid that fully met our requirements, at the price that we had expected to pay for such a ship, and it was more than £50 million lower than the Swan Hunter bid. In those circumstances, we had no choice but to accept the lower bid.
  After saying so much about Swan Hunter, it is only fair to congratulate VSEL on putting in a first-class, highly competitive bid.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: As the Minister has referred directly to me, I am grateful to him for giving way. I understand that, following my speech yesterday, he is under a duty to attack me—but much of what he has said merely confirms what I said then. Will he tell the House whether the AOR1 bid was carefully checked by the Department for cross-subsidy, and whether there was such a large difference between the initial bids of VSEL and Swan Hunter that the Government felt that they had to place the order with the former and could not proceed with Swan Hunter?
  Mr. Aitken: I have never heard such a wriggling intervention. I have just blown up every one of the charges that the hon. Gentleman launched last night, and now he says that my speech has confirmed what he said. The AOR1 was a politically directed bid to Harland and Wolff. That did not turn out successfully; it is not comparable with a competition that we evaluated purely on technical and value for money grounds.
  My last point on the subject of Swan Hunter is that the Department welcomes the initiative taken by the Select Committee to ask the National Audit Office to review our bid evaluation and selection process. We have nothing to hide in this matter. The bids were carefully evaluated with the integrity and professionalism that we have long come to expect from my Department's sea systems controllerate.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East appears to be repeating the grave slur that the books were cooked or the figures rigged in order to tilt the bid away from Swan Hunter. I hope that he will, in a calmer moment, think of withdrawing the allegation that he made last night. I do not believe that he possesses a shred of evidence to support it.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I will willingly acquit the Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of the charge of deliberately closing Swan Hunter as a warship building yard if the Minister will now say that the Ministry of Defence is willing to put further warship work into Tyneside.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is turning himself into a stunt man, which is not like him. I understand his frustrations as a constituency Member—frustrations felt just as keenly by other constituency members. The future of Swan Hunter must depend on its future ownership, about which I can say nothing tonight.
  My point is that we welcome the involvement of the National Audit Office. We are glad to supply the factual evidence—it appears of little interest to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen—to the Select Committee and the NAO. That is not a precedent, so it is no use the hon. Member for South Shields trying to claim credit for a breakthrough.
  In the past, we have routinely given information on our handling of major procurement projects to the NAO and the Select Committee in commercial confidence, if they have asked for the information. We are perfectly happy to accept this extra dimension of oversight, and we are confident that our judgment will be seen to be right, in the interests of the taxpayer and in the interests of upholding fair play as between competitive bidders.
  The hon. Member for South Shields launched an attack that went much wider than just our handling of Swan Hunter. His debate was originally entitled "The destruction of Britain's defence industrial base". Evidently
  308
  there were some nervous second thoughts and cooler heads prevailed, because the words "destruction or have been lifted from the title. The thinking behind the motion, however, remains the same.
  Judging by the motion and by the hon. Gentleman's dyspeptic undertaker's manner of delivery tonight one might be forgiven for thinking that Britain's defence industry was tottering towards the grave. It is not even a case of
  "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated",
  as Mark Twain once said: Britain's defence industrial base, as I shall go on to point out, is thriving in the circumstances.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to diversification in the defence industry, and to the Rosyth dockyard and the overhaul of underground carriages. Was it not the Government's far-sighted vision, when they privatised the dockyard, which gave it that ability? Did not Opposition Members oppose that privatisation?
  Mr. Aitken: I thank my hon. Friend for that good point. The consortium that runs the dockyard has been able to diversify splendidly without any help from an expensive Government quango of the sort that the hon. Member for South Shields wants to set up. Business makes these decisions better than advisers in the Government trying to second-guess commercial affairs.
  We had better define what Britain's industrial base is. We believe that it includes about 440 United Kingdom-based companies which last year won contracts from the Department worth £1 million or more each. The defence industrial base employs, directly or indirectly, about 500,000 people. It won domestic orders from us worth £8·8 billion, and it won export orders for overseas contracts worth £5·1 billion.
  Within an industry of this size and complexity there are bound to be winners and losers, but even in the difficult post-cold war climate, in which defence budgets are diminishing—our own by 10 per cent. over the next three years—a great many British defence companies are not merely surviving but thriving. One reason for that is the boom in exports of defence equipment. Britain's defence exports are a tremendous success story. For the year ended 31 December 1992 Britain achieved defence export orders worth more than £5·1 billion, or 20 per cent. of the world market. Both are record figures. This year we will do even better.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Would the Minister clarify whether there will be defence cuts of 10 per cent. in the next three years?
  Mr. Aitken: I said that the defence budget planned a reduction of 10 per cent. over the next three years—
  Dr. Reid: So it will decline by 30 per cent. in the next nine years.
  Mr. Aitken: More statistical juggling by the hon. Gentleman. We do not employ Labour's voodoo economics in our party. I know that Opposition Members cannot stand hearing good news, but that is what I am trying to give them.
  I was saying that our record-breaking defence exports are no flash in the pan. They are the result of a lot of hard work by British companies and by the Defence Export

  309
  Services Organisation, and they are greatly to the credit of our competitive procurement approach. We can say proudly that defence exports are rising, have risen and will continue to rise. In 1982, they were worth £1·7 billion, but they are now three times higher at £5·1 billion and we confidently predict another record-breaking year in 1994 and a world market share of even more than 20 per cent.
  It is not only our exports that support the defence industry. Domestic procurement is a vital factor, and although it is undeniable that the defence equipment budget is declining in real terms, we remain British industry's biggest single customer.
  I am lucky enough to be able to travel all over the country to Britain's defence companies and I enjoy good dialogue with many of them. Since my surprising elevation to the Front Bench last year, I have made about 30 industrial visits to companies and have had more than 50 meetings with company representatives. I simply do not recognise the pessimistic portrait of the defence industrial base painted by the Opposition.
  I shall come in a moment to the issue of jobs and diversification, but I urge the House not to make the mistake of believing that the outlook for our defence industry is one of gloom and doom. Many of our defence companies are continuing to do well. They are maintaining their profitability and turnover, winning new business and reshaping their activities to take advantage of their market strengths.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems faced by the shipbuilding industry, especially in relation to warships, is that for some reason it has not sold a single new large frigate to any other nation? If shipbuilding followed the example of the rest of the defence industry, all these jobs would not be lost on Tyneside.
  Mr. Aitken: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is inaccurate. He is not even close, because we have some successful warship export orders. We have been listening to a litany of woe about shipbuilding, so I shall give some examples of successful companies. Vospers of Southampton has a record order book of £700 million, which has doubled in the past 12 months, and 95 per cent. of that is for export. Vosper employs 2,000 people and plans to recruit another 200 for its present order book. Although it remains a 90 per cent. defence company, it is broadening the base of its business into new markets without any help from Government quangos, such as the diversification agency suggested by the Opposition.
  There is plenty of good news in the aerospace sector. The Government's resolute support for the important European fighter aircraft has given work on the development phase to some 300 United Kingdom-based companies. I was not surprised by the big cheer and the warm reception that greeted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he visited the aerospace workers of Lancashire at British Aerospace's Warton factory last month, given all that he has done for the EFA and Tornado exports. [Interruption.] In the light of the Opposition speeches, one would not think that there was all-party support for the defence industrial base. The party workers may cheer the Prime Minister, but the Opposition spokesman did his best to talk Britain's industry down.
  310
  There is also good news for land systems. Only last Thursday I visited the modern and highly efficient production line of one of our major manufacturing companies, GKN Defence at Telford, which makes the world beating Warrior armoured personnel carrier that has served our troops so well in Bosnia. I certainly did not find my GKN hosts wreathed in doom and gloom, but I learned an instructive lesson on jobs.
  I said to the engineers working on the production line, "If you win, as I think you will, the £1 billion-plus Kuwait order for Warrior, which we are now negotiating Government to Government, will you take on much more labour?" In effect, the answer was, "Well, perhaps there will be a few more jobs, but not many." I was surprised by that answer but I soon learned how GKN, like so many of our defence companies, is steadily becoming tauter, leaner and more productive, partly at least by engineering labour out of the system through high-tech advances.
  Mr. Derek Conway: My hon. Friend's visit to Shropshire to the GKN plant was greatly welcomed. As he knows, the engine for the Warrior is built in Shrewsbury by Perkins. The Warrior is not only an excellent vehicle but has an excellent engine. On behalf of Shropshire, I thank my hon. Friend not only for his highly successful visit, which was well covered, but for his efforts to help us to sell Warrior. It is a superb vehicle made by a good work force who deeply appreciate the efforts that he and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade made to keep jobs and businesses in Shropshire.
  Mr. Aitken: I thank my hon. Friend for his gracious intervention. I shall repay the compliment by saying that the people in the factory there think that he is a superb parliamentary advocate for their cause, which he is.
  Time and again I was shown new equipment which, sadly in human terms, mean that the human element on a factory floor is often diminished. A computer-guided friction welder means, sadly, that fewer human welders are necessary.
  Dr. David Clark: We accept that.
  Mr. Aitken: I am not sure whether Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen have accepted that, but I am glad to hear it.
  Visiting a modern defence company is more like visiting the frontiers of new technology. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) is in his place. Earlier this month I visited his constituency and saw three of our smaller defence companies which are all at the high-tech end of the business; companies such as Link-Miles, Ricardo Engineers and ECC Simulation, and they are all engaged on high-tech work in computer software.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: My hon. Friend's visit to my constituency was greatly appreciated, and I hope that he found it valuable. I should like to be assured on three matters. First, the costs of bidding for—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be about to make a speech.
  Mr. Stephen: Could the Minister give me an assurance on one matter? I may have an opportunity to speak later in the debate. Will he assure me that the Government will

  311
  do all that they can to reduce the cost of bidding for defence contracts, because those costs are becoming an almost impossible burden for medium-sized companies?
  Mr. Aitken: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have embarked on a major contracts review to simplify the procedures, and we have small and medium-sized companies very much in mind.
  The Opposition spoke about a defence diversification agency. There is no serious merit in that wonderful wheeze. They say that the Americans do it, but they should look at some of the reactions of the Administration to the initiative that has been lodged. For example, The Wall Street Journal had a full-page article—[Interruption.] It is better than—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will not engage in semi-private conversations. We should all like to hear what is being said.
  Mr. Aitken: I am doing my best to be publicly heard.
  There has been criticism of the notion of a magical new formula. I should like to quote no less a figure than the United States Deputy Secretary of Defence, Mr. Bill Perry, who described the record of industrial defence diversification as:
  "unblemished by a single success."
  The Opposition idea of introducing such unsuccessful projects to our economy is a misguided return to the old days of the national enterprise board.
  Mr. James Hill: The Minister mentioned the firm of Vosper. On Monday, not only did the President of the Board of Trade visit Vosper, but the Lord Lieutenant of Hampshire gave the firm the Queen's award for exports. That disproves the assertion that some of our yards are not exporting. A company with a record like that should be supported and in the not too distant future it will look towards the Government.
  Mr. Aitken: The diet of good news is too much for the Opposition.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents who work for English Electric Valve would be heartened if the Opposition sought ways to help the Government to persuade the Americans to drop their protectionist policy which prevents image intensifiers being sold to the American Army? That would be better than raising hypothetical cases about a diversification agency in America that does not seem to work properly and, I suspect, never will.
  Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right to make the point that, apart from the defence diversification wheeze, we had not a single constructive new idea from the Opposition, only one long whinge.
  The debate has marked a new milestone in the Opposition's slide into opportunistic political humbug. The hon. Member for South Shields—CND, retired—represents a party which, let us remember, has voted four years in a row at its annual conference for a 25 per cent. or a £6 billion cut in Britain's defence spending. Now he suddenly proclaims that. Britain's defence companies need more orders.
  Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Aitken: No, no more interventions.
  312
  What on earth was the flash of light that brought about that conversion? The cause of the U-turn, transforming the hon. Gentleman and a few of his hon. Friends who agree with him into the new military tendency, a party within a party that now opposes reductions in defence spending and proposes extra orders to create employment in defence companies, was that the Government placed a large defence order for a helicopter carrier, fairly and honourably won by a wide margin by VSEL.
  In using an Opposition Supply day in this way, the hon. Gentleman has caused some splits and ructions in his party. Perhaps that is why he had to change the title of the debate. But it would be interesting to know where will be the dogs that will not bark tonight from the Opposition Benches. Where will be the voices of Scotland, Clydeside, Barrow and all the other constituencies in which jobs will be created by the LPH order? I do not think that we shall hear them joining the preposterous cry of foul play on the basis of no evidence.
  Mr. John Hutton: Many of us hope to contribute to the debate, but because the Minister has been on his feet for so long, many of us will not have the chance to do so.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman has not been backward in speaking in defence debates. During his recent Adjournment debate he talked of the terrible suicide rate in Barrow and the tranquillisers that were needed, all because orders were desperately needed. Now that the region has an order, it might be gracious enough to say what a successful job the Government are doing.
  Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Aitken: No, no more interventions.
  I do not believe that in the Labour heartlands people will join in the preposterous cries of foul play that we have heard from the Opposition. They will not believe in the destruction of Britain's industrial base when taxpayers' resources are being so visibly directed to this sector of Britain's manufacturing industry, not just with the LPH order, but with the EFA project, the Challenger project and many other defence projects that I could list.
  Not everyone likes the implications of the Opposition motion. I read with great amusement in The Guardian last Saturday an interview by Mr. Andrew Rawnsley with that old Nestor of Labour Secretaries of State for Defence, Lord Healey. On the Opposition's defence policies he said:
  "We have become very timid. We tag along, we attack every proposal for cutting defence spending for example. Sometimes we attack the Tories for cutting when it is clearly absolutely essential. This for me is one of the tragic legacies of Bennery."
  There we have it—Bennery, Clarkery, CND current, CND retired. As Shakespeare said:
  "there's small choice in rotten apples."
  The rotten apples have given us a rotten motion. It takes no account of the good strong trees that are growing sturdily in Britain's defence industrial base. It takes no account of our £8 billion a year spending on Britain's defence companies. It takes no account of our £1·2 billion market testing programme which offers big new commercial opportunities to Britain's defence companies. It takes no account of our record-breaking export figure of which I have spoken.
  No, Britain's defence industrial base is standing up well in the post-cold war climate. We can be proud of it. We can

  313
  be proud of it's achievements. We can be proud of the Government's support for it. The Opposition have chosen their weapon for this parliamentary duel. They have chosen a boomerang and it will rebound against them. I urge the House to reject this absurd motion.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. David Young: Listening to the spate of self-congratulations coming from the Conservative Benches, one might have thought that we were approaching a general election rather than just having had one. All hon. Members were glad to see the thawing of the cold war. But as the threat of that cold war diminished, other strategies were called for, strategies on forces and on the military supplies to those forces. That is where the Government have been lacking. If my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) seemed like an undertaker, it may have been because he was burying the Government's pretence to have strategies to deal with the new circumstances that come before us now.
  Between June 1990 and May 1993, about 55,000 workers in defence industries lost their jobs. A British Aerospace factory near my constituency has, during the past few years, had its work force halved. It is obvious, and it is said throughout the north-west, that once a highly skilled defence engineer is sacked, he seldom reappears in engineering. I should have thought that, given the Government's commitment to the manufacturing industry and the fact that between 1979 and 1993 five jobs in the manufacturing industry in the north-west were reduced to two, there is a need for all the highly trained skills that we have dispensed with and are dispensing with in the former defence industries to transfer to manufacturing.
  Other priorities have appeared. When the cold war thawed, the United Nations demands became greater. Demands were created by nationalism in Yugoslavia. There were other United Nations involvements in Cyprus, Angola, Somalia and Bosnia. British troops may not be involved in all those cases, but it is obvious that the United Nations will become more and more involved and more and more troops will be needed. Britain will more and more be called on to provide those troops, not only over a few months, but over many years.
  The Government do not appear to have a long-term strategy for that changed situation. It is a difficult problem and it is one to which we must now bend our minds. I listened with interest when I met the British ambassador to the United Nations recently and my feelings are confirmed by his experience, which shows that we must start planning for a situation in which British forces are frequently used as part of a world peace-keeping force.
  Military strategy also demands an industrial strategy. The trade unions, which the Government often attack, made clear the position. They said that we require a coherent total approach which first defines defence requirements and secondly ensures that forces can count on adequate manufacturing capacity in Britain. That does not mean that we can manufacture everything that our forces require, but it means that, when we have a tried product, we should look after it.
  For example, the British Government failed to intervene positively in Leyland DAF in the way in which the Belgian Government did. A company in my
  314
  constituency, Edbros Engineering, supplies the bodies for the Leyland DAF trucks which are used by the British Army—the tried four-by-four trucks that are in use in Bosnia. I am saddened to see such a national resource of a tried piece of equipment being thrown into jeopardy because the Government are unwilling, through party dogma, to support the companies that produce that equipment.
  I am not asking for subsidies, but I am asking for positive financial help to allow those companies to continue. [Interruption.] While Conservative Members may scorn, other Governments and our European partners do not hesitate to give such assistance. Perhaps that is why they have a manufacturing industry while ours is in decline—because our Government will not put the national interest first. Try telling the French, when their industries and jobs are involved, that it is not wise for their Government to intervene. If the Government had intervened a little more, there would he fewer people in the dole queues of Britain today.
  Mr. Richard Spring: About 100,000 people are employed in defence exports. Can the hon. Gentleman speculate how many jobs would be lost if Labour's policy of further restricting defence exports was introduced?
  Mr. Young: I will not hazard a reply, but had we been a little more selective after Iraq, we would not have found ourselves in the position that we did.
  I have one constant principle, which is not a Labour party political principle, but comes from having served in the British forces. Nothing is more disheartening to the sailor, soldier or airman than seeing comrades slaughtered by home-produced equipment. If we are cautious about exporting arms, I would have thought that recent history justified that caution.
  We need defence and defence forces and Labour has said that it will never leave this country undefended. We have a duty to our service men and women to ensure that they are adequately backed by the equipment that they need. Equally, if particular industries and special skills become redundant—and even with British Aerospace's success with the Eurofighter, it accepts that thousands will still have to be dismissed—there is a duty on the Government to ensure that the skilled work force are retrained and redeployed in manufacturing industry, which we need in the peacetime battle for our economy.
  I am not against the concept of competition, but with VSEL and Swan Hunter, Government principles of competition—if "principles" is the right word in that context—have been taken to the extent that Britain now has a monopoly supplier of warships. A monopoly sits ill with the concept of competition.
  I argue for a new strategy for the future role of the British forces in the new context in which we find ourselves, and a new industrial strategy for the supply of defence equipment to those forces. It is to be hoped that equipment will come from our own industries. If we need to collaborate with our friends in NATO, we should examine joint products in which British manufacturers could be involved.
  When the skills of the British defence industry workers must be dispensed with, there should be a strategy of

  315
  retraining and redeployment so that those skills can be adequately used in this country's manufacturing industries, which are the economic lifeblood of the nation.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I hope that the House will forgive me if I make an unashamedly constituency speech, because Chelmsford is greatly reliant on defence industries. I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in his place, because he represents an adjoining constituency and many of his constituents work in the four main companies in Chelmsford that meet many of our armed services' defence requirements.
  Chelmsford has traditionally been heavily reliant on defence jobs because it is the home of the Marconi companies—Marconi Communications, Marconi Radar, English Electric Valve Company and Marconi Research. In the past 12 months, we have paid a heavy price in redundancies at three of those companies because of changing world patterns.
  Despite jibes made earlier in the debate, nothing is more demoralising or debilitating than people who desperately want to work being out of work. Let no one make the mistake of thinking that the vast majority of registered unemployed are scroungers. They are not— they are desperately seeking to return to work and to use their skills. That is particularly true of those from the defence industries, who are a highly skilled, highly motivated work force who produce defence equipment, as well as communications equipment, for not only this country but others.
  Unfortunately, as in other parts of the country and throughout the world, Chelmsford's defence companies have paid a heavy price for two reasons. The first is the ending of the cold war, the dismantling of the Berlin wall and the peace dividend. All nations have been compelled substantially to rethink established defence views and the future of their defence industries. The dramatic ending of the cold war came as a surprise, as did the crumbling of the nations in the eastern block.
  Secondly, the worldwide recession has not only meant that United Kingdom companies have been fighting a continuing battle to be competitive, but it has had a knock-on effect on other countries, which have also cut their defence requirements—and because the United Kingdom has such an excellent defence exports record, it has been affected. I am delighted that British industry has responded to that challenge and continues to fight throughout the world for orders for its first-class military products.
  It has not escaped the attention of companies in my constituency and in others that there is a need to diversify, so that they have a better balance between military and non-military orders. There has been diversification in companies such as Marconi Communications for several years—even before the ending of the cold war. In the area of civil communications, Marconi Communications supplies high-power and low-power radio and television transmitters to the BBC, IBA and clients worldwide. It sells space communications equipment to British Telecom and Mercury and marine and other equipment that can be used in civil applications but also adapted for the military.
  Marconi Communications also sells military communications equipment, such as the Scimitar backpack —although that business is declining because of the
  316
  situation in this country and worldwide. The company also helps to equip the Royal Navy, the United States navy, Holland and the far east with communications products. There again, the market has contracted because of the changes in our defence requirements.
  In anticipation of changes and to break down reliance upon military equipment, a few years ago Marconi Communications began to invest heavily in developing new non-military products—for instance, special vehicle radios for the emergency services: the police, the fire service and the ambulance service—in the use of the old VHF television frequencies for equipment, thus giving large transport organisations direct contact with vehicles on the move, and in special projects, including radio distress signalling for fire brigades, portable space equipment and public telecommunications.
  It is slightly odd that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made no mention of the fact that it was a Labour conference two years ago that supported and voted for a policy that would cut defence spending by £6 billion. If implemented, that policy would mean far more job losses in companies similar to those in my constituency.
  If my memory serves me aright, the policy of the Liberal Democrats is to cut defence spending by 50 per cent. over 10 years. That would not bring much comfort to my constituents, certainly to those who work for companies such as Marconi. In my constituency, the Marconi Radar company supplies defence equipment to the Royal Navy. It has had an extremely tough time, but it, too, is seeking to diversify to make up the shortfall on the military side of its business.
  English Electric Valve has gone through a difficult time. In February and March last year, English Electric Valve, which produces the third generation image intensifiers—a first-class world product—was saved from having to make substantial redundancies by an order that it won from the Ministry of Defence. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and I, as constituency Members of Parliament, brought to the attention of the Ministry of Defence the fine qualities of that product. I thank the Ministry of Defence for placing that contract with English Electric Valve.
  What is particularly galling is that we do not necessarily fight on a level playing field with overseas nations. Through an Act of Congress, the United States Department of Defence forbids companies such as English Electric Valve from tendering to supply the United States Army with image intensifiers. That is wrong.
  I raised the matter two years ago with the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement. Through the offices of the British embassy, he kindly raised the matter with and vigorously lobbied the US Government and the Department of Defence on the unfairness of the unlevel playing field. Unfortunately, the Americans refused to budge and change their policy. It is highly protectionist and it is wrong. If there is a first-class product, it should be able to compete worldwide, particularly if the Americans are to compete in our markets.
  I pay tribute to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for the fact that over 90 per cent. of the defence requirements of this country are placed with British companies, which saves British jobs and provides the British armed forces with first-rate equipment. That is

  317
  right and it must continue. It is important that we should look after our own, provided that the product is cost competitive and that its quality is right.
  At a time such as this, when companies are having to make a difficult transition, it is important that the Ministry of Defence should place, whenever it is feasible and possible to do so, its orders or its upgradings or maintenance contracts as quickly as is humanly possible with companies so as to encourage them to continue to provide those services. I am sure that the Minister is more than aware of the need to do so and is seeking ways to ensure that that is done.
  It is important for us not to get sidetracked by the tantalising but unrealistic suggestion that an agency such as a diversification agency is the panacea for all problems. Industry and commerce, which have their own entrepreneurial flair and leadership, do not want and do not need politicians to interfere and tell them how to run their businesses and how to win orders. It is important that business men, management and the work force should work together, invest heavily in research and development and come up with ideas for products that are viable and relevant to the needs of the market in both the military and non-military spheres. In that way, and by being highly competitive, they will win the orders that will allow the technological trail blazing and frontier busting to continue.
  Furthermore, it should not be forgotten in a debate of this nature that the British Government provide help both to defence-related companies and to others that have nothing to do with the defence industry. For example, the Budget provided for export credit guarantees to be extended. That will benefit companies. The Government also support business men when they go overseas and try to get people to buy British.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: So that Opposition Members can understand more fully what my hon. Friend says about diversification, another Marconi company looked at its transponder work for satellite dishes, went into the television side and produced transponders for Alan Sugar's satellite terminals. That was an intriguing diversification. It was not, however, driven by the Government. It was driven by private industry looking for ways to diversify.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has identified another area where the flair of private enterprise and the acumen and intelligence of the boffins can work together to identify something new and exciting to present to the market and, we hope, have a successful launch and then win orders and secure jobs.
  We should not forget, either, the help that the Department of Trade and Industry gives by means of changing tack seminars, which encourage companies to build on their excellent skills and technology and develop new business through diversification. Many schemes focus not so much on the large defence companies but on small and medium-sized enterprises, of all natures. The enterprise initiative consultancy scheme provides financial support for consultancy help in designing, marketing and manufacturing systems and business plans and spurs support for products under research. The aim is to help to develop new products and processes, thus pulling research
  318
  capability towards the marketplace. There are many exciting initiatives to help businesses of all sizes. They should be embraced and used to their nth degree to help businesses.
  The KONVER programme was referred to briefly by the hon. Member for South Shields, but he was then diverted from it by an intervention. That scheme was devised by the European Commission. However, because of delays in the Commission notifying member state Governments, the programme is still being discussed and put together. It is an important programme. If the European Commission is to provide money, any member state should be able to take advantage of the funding made available.
  I am sure that all hon. Members who have an interest in the subject will look closely at the result and will seek to push the interests of their constituencies, if they think that they could benefit from the programme. If there are to be European initiatives, it would be foolish of us not to take
  It is crucial that the companies should be competitive and should diversify of their own free will with flair and initiative so as to be able to meet the challenges of the 1990s in a world where there will be fewer defence orders and compete successfully for both defence and nonmilitary orders, thus ensuring that people can get back into work and use their skills. Too many highly skilled people are out of work. They must be given every help to re-skill so that they can get back to work and once again be productive and generate orders and products for this country.
  I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to debate a subject that is important to many of my constituents who have been going through a very tough time. It is important for them to know that they are not forgotten and that action is being taken at Government and company level to solve their problems and to give the individuals and companies involved the opportunity to flourish and get back to work as quickly as humanly possible.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, may I point out that many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and it would be appreciated if those who are called to speak would keep their contributions as brief as possible.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am sure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is worried about his constituents, but his message is a little confused and contradictory. He began by saying how concerned he was about how many people in the defence industry were out of work, but concluded by saying that everything appeared to be going well. The two comments cannot be squared. He also appeared to denounce any new Government help but then welcomed a number of existing Government initiatives.
  We must recognise the reality of the situation, a point mentioned by many hon. Members. We all make party political points about who will cut defence spending most —that is easy—but we must accept the facts. In 1984–85, spending on defence amounted to £26·3 billion; education spending was £24·9 billion, health spending £25·3 billion and social security spending £60·6 billion. In the last complete year, defence spending was down to £22·8

  319
  billion, education spending was up to £31 billion, spending on health amounted to £33·2 billion and spending on social security £75·9 billion. That is the reality of the cuts that have been imposed. Most people working in the defence industry are more interested in the current climate than in the threats of the Opposition, who, after all, did not win the election. The consequences of the cuts are that there has been real pain.
  I always enjoy the speeches of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. He said that he was surprised at his promotion, but I was not. We have debated a number of issues, and I believe that his promotion was well deserved, although he may be rather surprised at where he has ended up. He dealt constructively with a number of the issues that have been raised, but he must recognise that the cuts mean that orders are not reduced, which has repercussions for an important sector of our manufacturing industry and for the highly skilled people who work in it.
  The trigger for this debate has been the crisis at Swan Hunter as a result of the placing of a recent order. I shall deal briefly with that issue and then make some more general comments.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: No, I shall respond to the constraints of the Chair. I know that there is not a 10-minute limit, but I must press on.
  The Minister and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) have made it quite clear that when there is a discrepancy of £70 million in a bid there is no question of choice. As someone who stood a little apart, I wondered why, given the scale of Swan Hunter's failure to make a competitive bid, expectations had run so high. What made Swan Hunter believe that it was close to winning the order? Was it a mistake on its part in wholly misreading the runes or misunderstanding the signals, or were there factors at play which it did not appreciate or of which it was not aware?
  I welcome the fact that the National Audit Office has said that it will investigate. It will be no consolation after the event, but the investigation might come up with an answer. The Minister said that the Government would make the relevant information available, which is constructive.
  Several questions arise from the placing of the order. The Minister said that the Government were not surprised by VSEL's bid but that they were surprised by the size of Swan Hunter's bid. That at least moves on the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked in the House the other day. He wondered whether there was any sign that Swan Hunter had been encouraged or advised to include a wider spread of overheads and costs in its bid whereas VSEL was able to offset some of those costs because it had the benefit of previous contracts. I know that the Minister cannot answer that question directly, although he seemed to imply that that was not his understanding of the case.
  We are given to understand that, although the two designs were similar, given the difference in price the guts must have been different, whatever they looked like. Alternatively, one must conclude that Swan Hunter was shooting in the dark at what it thought were the Ministry's expectations. Such questions need to be asked, and we shall no doubt hear more about them in due course.
  320
  Another issue that arises, not only in relation to Swan Hunter, is the Ministry of Defence's apparent slowness to pay. Apparently, £20 million is due to Swan Hunter. That may not have forced it into receivership—losing the contract was perhaps the final straw—but £20 million is a considerable sum for a company to be owed by the Government. It has often been said in the House that, of all organisations within our economy, the Government should set an example of prompt payment. It does not help British industry to know that they are setting a bad example.
  If we are to run down our defence manufacturing base, will we have a strategic overview at the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Trade and Industry—or preferably the two together—as to what that base should be? That point is mentioned in the amendment that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled to the motion. We believe that the Government should accept that, although we cannot retain our capacity at the previous level if the requirements are not the same, we cannot allow the vagaries of the outcome of a bid at a particular time to determine what our future capacity is likely to be.
  Do we, in the national interest, need the capability that exists at Swan Hunter? Does it matter, not to the people of the north-east to whom it clearly matters a great deal, but to the nation as a whole if we lose Swan Hunter? The Government do not appear to have considered that aspect. Some of us would have a little more confidence in the forward thinking of the Government's management of the defence base if there were evidence that it was being considered.
  If it was concluded that a certain capacity was required, we should have more confidence if a strategy were then determined to ensure that that capacity was maintained. That is why we have suggested a 10-year review of procurement contracts. I accept that that may be regarded as a long-term view, but it would be proof that the Government were considering not only the Ministry of Defence's requirements but the industrial base to supply them over a reasonable time. I hope that Ministers will be able to tell us whether that is being considered.
  The motion mentions diversification, to which the hon. Member for Chelmsford also referred. Point scoring apart, there is general agreement that our defence base has contracted and that further contraction is likely. On the positive side, we must accept that within our defence capability there is a great deal of skill and technology and a resource that should not readily be dispersed. It is said that 45 per cent. of all Britain's research and development expenditure goes on defence.
  If we remove that from the economy and do not seek ways of replacing it, our research and development base will fall alarmingly in comparison to that of our major competitors, and our ability to maintain—or even achieve —a competitive edge will be seriously undermined. I accept that the Ministry of Defence may say that that is not its responsibility, but it certainly is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry to calculate the consequences of the rundown in research and development.
  It is fine to do as the Minister and other hon. Members did and cite examples of the successes of companies that have managed to diversify or to redeploy, but those are often large companies that have been able to take time to readjust. Other companies do not have the ability to respond as quickly, and for every success story there are

  321
  stories of other companies that have not been able to move far enough or fast enough, either to stay in business at all, or to maintain anything like the size of their previous operations. For many companies it is wholly unrealistic to say that they should expand their research and development activities so as to move into new areas at a time when their market is contracting dramatically.
  Private and City investors are likely to be a little sceptical about such a sudden switch, and about companies' ability to respond. Of course, some companies will be able to cope, but it is cavalier of the Government to dismiss out of hand the idea of agencies to assist companies that cannot adjust, or that require a little time. Yet it was the Minister who accused the Opposition of taking a cavalier attitude.
  It is also important to realise that, however concerned we are to focus on the impact on the people of Tyneside of a disaster such as the Swan Hunter closure—there has been a catalogue of such events, and people understand what effect taking a major, long-established employer out of the heart of a community has on morale—the fact remains that the cut in defence expenditure affects almost every part of the United Kingdom economy.
  The Minister said that more than 400 companies were regarded as major defence contractors, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has given me a letter that takes the argument one stage further. A company in his constituency, Horstman Defence Systems Ltd., had a £300,000 order with Swan Hunter, and it looks like losing the outstanding balance of that, which amounts to £141,000. That company is probably not one of the 400-plus that the Minister identified, so we see the knock-on effect of the failure of a company such as Swan Hunter. There are signs that defence contractors in Scotland, in Wales and in the far south of England are affected, and we must recognise that many of those companies cannot respond quickly.
  In my constituency we have a considerable number of high-technology companies engaged in the offshore oil and gas industry. The Department of Trade and Industry should take on board the fact that that industry is volatile; it goes up and down; confidence ebbs and flows, and activity increases and decreases. In the mid-1980s, there was a sharp downturn in North sea activity as the oil price fell. In order to protect their future and ensure that their market, was more broadly based, many of the high-technology companies diversified into—yes, defence contracting. They believed that they had developed on the civil side technology that had a military application, for which they could develop a comparable market. Just as they have managed to penetrate that market, it is undergoing a savage contraction.
  The Government should consider whether there are any areas in which they could provide a legitimate stimulus, particularly for research and development and for high technology, to ensure that neither the peaceful nor the military applications of the technology are lost because of the sharp contraction in the market.
  It has been pointed out to me that we probably have a smaller marine offshore research programme than do most of our major European competitors. France certainly spends a lot more money on marine and offshore research and development, and Germany probably does, too. That
  322
  is a shame, in view of our status as an island nation. We ought to be leading the research and development technology for offshore activity, which, I may say, runs well with our naval expertise.
  I should like the Minister to consider whether initiatives could be taken jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the technical expertise and capacity that we have developed in our defence and other high-tech industries are not lost simply because we have had to undergo a contraction that both sides of the House accept is necessary.
  I urge the Government to take that idea seriously. If they do not, we may find that, in five or 10 years' time, our already weak high-tech capacity is further weakened because a public spending decision was taken without a full assessment of the implications for our trading and industrial base. I am glad that Ministers from both the DTI and the MOD are here, because it is proper that there should be a joint approach. I urge those two Departments to get together and to give us a long-term idea of a real strategy.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Like other hon. Members, I regret that the debate should have to take place against the sombre backdrop of the awful news about Swan Hunter. I should have much preferred a two-day defence debate to take place long since, in which our overall defence equipment and procurement strategy could have been discussed within the general context of defence policy as a whole. Nevertheless, we must accept facts as they are and make the best of them.
  At the outset I must declare two interests. One is political, inasmuch as I have the privilege of being on a postgraduate parliamentary industrial fellowship with TI plc, of which Dowty, TI Aerospace, is involved in military business. Secondly, I am a parliamentary adviser to Thorn EMI, which is an important defence contractor.
  We shall face a growing squeeze on defence equipment procurement. I suspect that the Ministry of Defence now has the greatest difficulty in concluding its long-term costings and I know that many important programmes are under the severest critical scrutiny. Over the past eight years, the proportion of the defence budget allocated to defence equipment procurement has declined. In 1984–85, the proportion was 45·8 per cent., whereas in 1992–93—the most recent financial year for which I have figures from the Ministry of Defence—it was down to 37·3 per cent. The biggest annual drop, of 2·2 per cent., came between 1991–92 and 1992–93.
  It is not surprising, therefore, that there should have been such severe redundancies. The human suffering which has been consequential upon the rundown of our defence industries has been marked, and has been felt not just on Tyneside but right across the country. It has been extremely severe in the south-east, with Rolls-Royce shedding workers at its small engine division at Leavesden, with British Aerospace losing workers from Kingston, Stevenage and Hatfield, and with job losses at Marconi and Thorn EMI. Thousands and thousands of extremely well qualified, dedicated people have lost their jobs and many communities have been hit very hard.
  We must also recognise that, with our armed forces decreasing in number, it is more important than ever that we compensate for those reduced numbers by securing the

  323
  very best equipment that money can buy—within reason, of course, because a balance has to be struck between quantity and quality. If we go overboard in trying to avoid gold-plating, there will be dangers of the kind that became evident in the Falklands war. The type 21 frigates, built cheap and light, were extremely vulnerable: the aluminium decks burned and the vessels were not as effective as we had hoped. We all remember the awful scenes or HMS Ardent burning in Carlos water.
  It is erroneous to suggest that one can lightly forgo naval construction standards in respect of amphibious vessels. The House will remember what happened to Atlantic Conveyor as it carried our helicopters to the scene of the action—we lost most of our Chinooks when Atlantic Conveyor went down—and what happened off Bluff Cove, when the LSL Sir Galahad was attacked. Both vessels were subject to enemy air action.
  To say that we need not worry too much about the standards of construction of the LPHs because there will be destroyer screens and so on is to overlook the fact that probably the greatest threat, apart from the submarine threat, will be from enemy air attack, often with stand-off weapons delivered at very great range. I understand why the Government have pursued the path that they have and why VSEL's consortium approach with Kvaerner Govan has found favour, but we must be careful when we seek always to go for the cheapest option.
  As I said, the Government face many calls upon their equipment procurement budget. In the past year and a half or so, they have to their credit announced go-aheads for the Merlin helicopter, Challenger 2 tanks, Warrior APCs, Firefly trainers and the advanced short-range air-to-air missile, ASRAAM, among other programmes but there are many pressing projects which merit a go-ahead: the new transport aircraft, either to follow on from the Hercules—the C130J—or the future large aircraft; the support helicopters that the Royal Air Force so badly needs; the attack helicopters for the Army and, I trust, the Royal Marines; multiple-launch rocket system 3 ror our Army; in air-launched stand-off weaponry, the tactical air-to-surface missile and COSM, one nuclear, one conventional; a medium surface to-air missile; and long-range TRIGAT—the third-generation anti-tank guided weapons system. All those projects are bearing down upon a defence budget that is reducing constantly.
  If we are to have properly equipped armed forces and defence industries that will be able to secure long-term employment for their dedicated work forces and continue to win-good orders, it will be very important to modify our defence policies to make those resources available. I would advocate greater use of reserves and a steady programme of withdrawal from Germany, if and when the Russians come out of the eastern part of that country. I do not believe that we can afford from any point of view to run down our defence industries further.
  I wish to refer specifically to the Navy, which I know is dear to your heart, Madam Deputy Speaker, and which is of great concern to the House. We should not forget that the Navy will have to acquire not only the new LPH but two new LPDs. Those are the sort of vessels that Swan Hunter had an almost unique capability to build. Swan's is the one yard that can build everything from CVSs—aircraft carriers—to corvettes. I know the yard well. My company had the privilege of having it briefly as a client. I know the management team, which has devoted its
  324
  livelihood to achieving the management buy-out. I know the work force and the dedication and skill which it has offered to the nation.
  I recognise that Swan Hunter ships are regarded as the best in the Royal Navy. No one has supported them through thick and thin, and with greater dedication, greater conviction or more impressively than my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). In the last Navy debate, I was proud to say that I knew of no hon. Member with greater expertise of the naval construction industry than he.
  I hope and trust that we will be able to rescue shipbuilding capability on the Tyne. We need it. The Horizon 2000 programme of anti-aircraft frigates must go ahead and eventually we will have to replace our existing Invincible class of aircraft carriers. We will also need more type 23s.
  What lessons do I draw from this? I suggest that we need to be more open. I see no reason why we should not have open tendering, as in the United States, for major defence orders. I have said that before, I have written about it in books and I will continue to say it.
  If we keep these matters under a wrap of secrecy, it does no one any good; it simply arouses suspicions. The congressional system in the United States allows the relevant committee to have an appropriations function and there is proper democratic oversight and scrutiny. I regret to say that we do not have it in this place.
  At least the Americans have been able, through their congressional support, to maintain AV8A and AV8B—the Harriers I and II—in service with the United States marine corps which would not otherwise have happened. In addition, the V22 Osprey continues thanks to congressional support. We do ourselves a disservice by being as secretive as we are.
  There is a disparity of £72 million. I have the actual figures and I will not embarrass my hon. Friend the Minister by repeating them. I will study the National Audit Office report with great interest as I have the real figures for VSEL and for Swan Hunter on both bids.
  I suspect that the disparity arises from the huge profits that VSEL obtained from the Trident programme. The profits allowed it to pare its overheads. The factors include the differences in construction and the advice that Swan Hunter received from third parties which it hoped would be a party to the programme if the LPH went ahead on the Tyne. There are many factors and they will be revealed by the NAO.
  However, in respect of the procurement business, I hope that we will learn the need for open tendering, for proper accountability to the House, for regular defence debates and for a defence procurement strategy that meets the problem of the hour, which is a declining defence budget in real terms with personnel costs that are not reducing and, ultimately, a need to develop a European dimension with the assumption by the Western European Union of the old function of the Independent European Programme Group.
  I welcome this timely debate. I cannot support the defence diversification agency as I do not believe that it would do the job that the Opposition believe that it will. However, I hope and pray that my colleagues on the Government Front Bench can obtain the funds from the Treasury which our national defence needs and which our defence industry requires.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I am pleased to catch your eye tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker, because this subject is a matter of mutual interest to you and me as Plymouth representatives. I would like to move the debate a little further south and perhaps a little towards the west. Other than from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), we have heard nothing tonight about Plymouth and the south-west of England.
  The south-west of England is the most defence-dependent area of Britain. In 1991, it was estimated that there were 187,000 defence-related jobs in the south-west. That is approximately one in 10 of the total work force.
  I have made the point in the House before that Devonport was created for the needs of the Navy. The people came after the Navy. Since King William established the dockyard in 1691, it has had 302 years of service. In addition to defence-related jobs, Plymouth has a large number of service personnel.
  It is worth stating in this debate that many people in Plymouth and the south-west have given their lives in conflicts during this century and in the years before it. I am bound to say that many civilians, too, who have worked in defence-related industries have given their lives. I draw testimony from the many widows whose husbands died from working with asbestos in the royal dockyards years ago.
  We have lost thousands of jobs in the Devonport dockyard. Many thousands of jobs have been lost in other industries as well. Now we are seeing service personnel in our area lose their jobs. Our motion calls for action to save people who have served their country in one capacity or another from the humiliation of unemployment and the economic scrap heap. Many people who previously worked or currently work in the Devonport dockyard will be saying that Britain must now come to the aid of those who have come to the aid of Britain.
  As has been said, Opposition Members accept the need for change. The defence industry, like other industries, must move with the times. Indeed, Devonport dockyard has distinguished itself in recent years by its ability to change, to adapt, to modernise and to diversify into other sectors in which it hitherto did not operate. Unlike the Government, we do not accept that the change in defence needs should automatically mean mass unemployment, skills lost to the economy, and the economic devastation of whole areas to Britain.
  I recall the Conservative election promise before the election, which is now looking extremely hollow. I remember that the Conservative party said at the time that Labour's policies would lead to huge job losses in the defence industry. Conservative Members said that defence jobs were safe in their hands. The 8,000 people who have lost their jobs in the Devonport dockyard in the past five years will be asking whose fault it was that they lost their jobs. At the time they had a Tory city council, Tory Devon county council and a Tory Government. It was not the fault of the Labour party.
  Since then, the people of Plymouth have had the good sense to realise that they have been betrayed by the Government and now they have a Labour city council. There are more Labour Members on Devonport county
  326
  council than Conservatives. Given the chance at the next general election, the south-west will make sure that it has more than one Labour representative.
  We have heard some of the reasons why diversification must take place. I would like to consider a range of Ministry of Defence activities in which diversification is needed, not just within the direct defence industries. It is not just a matter of the dockyard. In the 12 months since the election—since we were told that defence jobs would be safe in the hands of the Conservatives—we have had a drip-feed of disaster in Plymouth. The Royal Naval armaments depot in Ernesettle in my constituency is absolutely vital to the back-up work of servicing weapons. We are told now that there is a projected loss of 400 jobs in that establishment.
  The Royal Naval engineering college, in which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have taken great personal interest, and which is in Manadon in my constituency, is the Navy's only university. For more than 50 years it has had a distinguished record of producing engineering graduates of the very highest quality for the Navy. It undertakes postgraduate work that is unavailable elsewhere, serving navies throughout the world, yet we hear that a decision will be made shortly to close the Royal Naval engineering colleges, with a loss of about 300 local jobs. There has been no consultation and no thought of how those jobs might be used in the future.
  We have in my constituency the Goshen Yard training school which at one time trained up to 700 engineering apprentices for the dockyard. It is currently run by a company owned by the college of further education in Devonport called Devonport Training for Quality. Now there are just a handful of students in that building. It is unique in the south-west and it contains facilities of huge potential value to other businesses and industry in the region.
  Recently, British Rail and South West Water, among other large concerns in the region, have been showing great interest in the training available at the Goschen Yard school. How has the Ministry of Defence reacted to that? Negotiations between Devonport Training for Quality and the Ministry of Defence have been drifting for months. Through sheer frustration, the company has had to impose a deadline of the end of June for the achievement of a long-term lease of the premises.
  If negotiations fail, the company will move to other, less suitable premises and the school—with its unique facilities —will be lost to the economy of Plymouth. I ask the Minister to act to ensure that Devonport Training for Quality has a long lease on the premises, to enable vital training work to continue.
  Our dockyard in Devonport employs just over 5,000 people; five years ago, it employed 13,500. Its future now hangs on the decision on the Trident nuclear refit contract. The Minister may recall the Secretary of State for Defence saying, in a BBC television programme on 19 August last year:
  "the decision will be made before Christmas."
  Perhaps he can enlighten the House about which Christmas he had in mind.
  So concerned were Ministers to secure a decision, as a matter of urgency, that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—who was present earlier—said on 12 January that he hoped to "make an announcement shortly". That urgency was reflected in last night's Adjournment debate,

  327
  when the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was so gripped by anxiety for a swift decision that he regretted that the process had taken
  "longer than I had hoped."—[Official Report, 18 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 222.]
  This important decision—important, that is, to Plymouth and the south-west and to Scotland—has been subjected to procrastination, fumbling and delay by a Government who have nothing as urgent as "manana" in their lexicon. People in the south-west are asking, "Where is the planning? Where is the strategy? Who is driving the defence changes—the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury?" The thousands who have lost their jobs and the many thousands of loyal workers whose jobs are threatened have the right to an answer.
  The Government's defence policy in regard to jobs is in tatters. Even on such important matters as surplus MOD housing, the Government dither while houses are vandalised. Around the country, the Ministry now has 9,291 empty properties, 527 of them in Plymouth—21 per cent. of the total. What has been Ministers' response over the past five years?
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked questions. On 24 October 1988, we were told:
  "Over the next 12 months it is expected that 164 will be offered for sale … sold on the open market."—[Official Report, 24 October 1988; Vol. 139, c. 62.]
  On 11 May, we were told:
  "Many of the vacant properties are undergoing modernisation … others are being prepared for disposal."—[Official Report, 11 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 522.]
  The latest answer in this catalogue is the one that I received on 4 May:
  "to ensure the early reuse of the dwellings arrangements are now in hand to sell the estate on the open market."—[Official Report, 4 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 20.]
  The Government have certainly proved that procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.
  Earlier this evening, the Minister quoted Aneurin Bevan; I hope that he will forgive me if I quote Winston Churchill—not the rather troublesome Winston Churchill who often sits across from me in the Chamber, but one from an earlier era. He said:
  "They are decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, all-powerful for impotence."
  Plymouth and the south-west have great potential. The people have many skills; the city council is helping to provide an environment in which new enterprise can flourish and new ideas can develop. However, we desperately need the planning and co-ordination that a diversification agency could bring. At present, the south-west is like a sinking ship with Ministers throwing men overboard without supplying lifeboats. That is why I urge hon. Members to vote for our motion.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: The House will not be surprised to hear that I intend to concentrate on the disastrous consequences that have flowed from Swan Hunter not winning the order for the landing platform helicopter carrier, followed by the immediate collapse of that esteemed and proud company. All hon. Members can understand the effect of that awful news on Tyneside.
  Swan Hunter had already slimmed to a shadow of its former self but was still a major employer and a proud part of our traditional industrial scene. It is a company of which all on Tyneside have been justly proud for many years. It has a record that is second to none in its
  328
  performance in turning out magnificent ships for the Royal Navy, including ships with no defects whatever—senior admirals have told me that that is almost impossible to achieve.
  We meet for this debate tonight under a great cloud of sadness at the news that Swan Hunter lost the order. It has closed its doors under its present ownership and a receiver has been appointed. The House will appreciate how our local community has been hit hard in its mind, its soul and its prospects by this tragic news.
  Every effort must be made to create alternative economic activity in Wallsend and on Tyneside. We have reason to be hopeful because we have a good record in the north-east of inward investment from abroad. We have experienced regional agencies—there are none better in the United Kingdom—for attracting and using to the utmost the tools that are available for the creation of new employment and new industry. I welcome the new enterprise zone. Such zones have proved successful in other parts of the country and we are determined that the enterprise zone will prove successful for the people of Tyneside, too. We have the assurance of continued regional assistance status which will be helpful to the whole area. Of course, our principal asset is our excellent local labour force.
  My main aim tonight is to concentrate on the future of Swan Hunter. In the light of some of the comments made earlier, I shall refer to its recent history for a moment. First, I pay tribute to the yard's great achievements. It has built ships of the highest quality and concentrated recently on warships. The yard tried ceaselessly to obtain export orders—an enormous amount of effort has gone in that direction. Sadly, there was no prospect of success until recently, although ironically at the last minute there was hope of obtaining an order for two ships for Oman. Even in the present circumstances, I hope that it will be possible for Swan Hunter to build those two Omani ships.
  I must remind the House that Swan Hunter is still continuing to operate at present, and it would be very good news if it could build those two ships. We are talking about a yard with the highest standard of technology and a first-class design facility which is not bettered anywhere in the country or—I would like to think—in the shipbuilding world.
  Recently there has been a steady slimming of the Swan Hunter labour force. I found it interesting to be reminded of these figures. In 1981, there were well over 9,000 people working at Swan Hunter. The number fell steadily over the years to 7,000 in 1984, 4,000 in 1985, then 3,000 and now 2,200 today. Recently, there have been a number of sad blows. We lost the last frigate order. Sadly, we were not second in the competition—we were third. That shows the tremendous competitive pressures in the warship building industry. It is perfectly legitimate for the House to consider whether the possible end of warship building at Swan Hunter unfortunately limits the competition for the future. That negative effect should be borne in mind when we contemplate the ultimate future of Swan Hunter as a warship building unit.
  Swan Hunter diversified into building the Antarctic survey vessel. I understand that a large loss' was made on building this superb ship, but I do not know the reason for that. Latterly, the yard ran into severe financial difficulties—that had been the case for some months. At

  329
  the end, it was hanging on by its financial fingernails from day to day. It was entirely dependent on that one order, which we all hoped that Swan Hunter would win.
  I do not know what the Vickers figures were, but I have been told the Swan Hunter figures. The initial bid was £174 million. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) can confirm that figure. The £174 million rose to £210 million. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with my figures. I was alarmed when the final bid was increased by £36 million. A question was asked earlier about when the final bid went in. I believe that it happened on 22 April.
  It is unfortunate in any bidding process to add a figure of that size to one's bid at the final stage. When the National Audit Office report comes out I shall read with interest the circumstances which required that huge increase in the bid. I fear that it may well have been the final straw.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is enlightening the House on important matters. He is right that the first bid was £174 million. The final bid from Swan Hunter was £210 million, but it was revised upwards to £230 million. There is a suggestion—it may be contradicted—that Ministry of Defence officials were not averse to that upward adjustment. I do not know whether that is true. My hon. Friend may be able to elucidate. However, it was instructive and interesting that from the first to the second bid the VSEL-Kvaerner bid went down, not up.
  Mr. Trotter: It is a feature of commercial haggling that one tends to bring one's price down at the final stage to secure the contract. That is why I have in my mind the question about how Swan Hunter was ill advised, required or forced, perhaps by financial pressures—we shall know in due course when the auditor reports—to make an enormous increase of 30 or 40 per cent. in its original bid. I have been given the figure of £210 million as the final bid that was entered.
  I was amazed when I heard about the incredibly large difference. Of course there is always a loser and a winner. There is always a difference. But a difference on this scale seemed beyond normal experience. I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister whether I could talk to the Controller of the Navy and he was good enough to agree to that. I received assurances, one of which I relayed to the House this evening, from the controller. His basic assurances were that both yards had been asked to design for the same requirements, and that the Navy was perfectly satisfied with the ship that it was getting. When I asked him about the price, he said that it was in line with the original estimate of the cost to the Navy.
  It was not sufficient on an issue of this enormous significance and effect on Tyneside that an individual Member of Parliament should have simply an assurance from the Controller. The Controller is a most honourable man whom I have known and respected for many years. He gave me answers to my questions. It seemed to me that the issue was so great that a formal independent inquiry was required. That is what the directors of Swan Hunter requested.
  Therefore, I contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. He accepted that an emergency meeting
  330
  should be held. At that meeting, the members of the Committee, including myself, agreed that an inquiry should be undertaken. We were prepared to undertake the inquiry ourselves if the NAO did not accept our invitation.
  It is in everyone's interest that the NAO has accepted the invitation. It is the best qualified body to undertake the inquiry. It has the power to send for all information and all persons. It has expert staff to carry out the inquiry. I know that the whole House and certainly the whole of Tyneside will await its ultimate conclusions with the greatest of interest.
  In the light of some of the comments made earlier tonight, it is fitting to say that I am convinced that the ship would never have been built if we had had a Labour Government. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Only a few months ago, the Labour party voted overwhelmingly for a cut of £6 billion or £7 billion a year in defence spending. That is equivalent to the whole cost of the Royal Navy, and about four times what we spend each year on the purchase of ships for the Navy.
  The most important matter that I wish to draw to the attention of the House is the immediate and critical decision that the three frigates being built on the Tyne should be completed there. That is essential to the ongoing future of the great skill centre at Swan Hunter. If there is to be any future for that firm, it is essential that those frigates be built there. Yesterday afternoon, I saw my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in connection with this matter, and I noted his words:
  "I share the concern of you and everyone on Tyneside that Swan Hunter should be able to complete the type 23 frigates if at all possible. We have that aim very much in mind in our current discussions with the receiver."
  I hope that those discussions will be speedy. I understand the complexity of what is involved in renegotiating from the start, but it is essential that the uncertainty on Tyneside be brought to an end as soon as possible. I believe that we can finish those ships to our normal high standards and specifications, and at a better cost than could be achieved by their removal to any other place. I need hardly stress the significance to Tyneside of this decision. The future of Swan Hunter and of its new owners depends entirely on it.
  There has been some reference to a takeover of Swan Hunter. It was quite clear that the company could not have continued independently, even if it had obtained the LPH order. Heads of agreement between Swan Hunter and GEC had been signed. If the order had gone to Swan Hunter, GEC would immediately have taken the company over and would presumably have put in the cash that was needed to keep it going. I hope that, even in the present circumstances, we shall still see such a move. GEC is one of our great companies. It has intimate knowledge of the background of the technology and of every other feature of Swan Hunter. It has been through all aspects of the business.
  I am told by the receiver that there has been an encouraging number of inquiries about the future of the yard. He can be assured that all hon. Members will give him every possible assistance as he seeks to provide further activity to ensure a future for Swan Hunter. This is a matter of the greatest concern to the people of Tyneside.
  9.32pm
  Mr. Stephen Byers: In the very brief time available to me I do not want to dwell on the events of last week, but I have to say that the concern that people on Tyneside feel about the way in which the LPH contract was awarded has not been lessened by today's admission of Kvaerner Govan's commercial director, David Smith, that his company tendered for a commercial ship, not a naval vessel. The fact that an LPH carrying Royal Marines into trouble spots will have been built to the same specifications as a passenger ferry must cause great concern among many hon. Members.
  Mr. Davidson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Byers: As I have only two minutes, I cannot give way.
  The sequence of events last week has galvanised the community on Tyneside around a very simple campaign, which has a number of clear and precise objectives. Paramount is the fact that we wish to retain a shipyard and a shipbuilding capacity on the Tyne. If we are to be successful in that regard, it is imperative that we retain the design team. We must retain the technical expertise at Swan Hunter. There must be no steps to declare any of those people redundant until all the options and all the potential buyers have been investigated.
  Secondly, the order for the three type 23 frigates, on which work is continuing as normal, must be guaranteed by the Ministry of Defence. Assurances from Ministers —even from the Prime Minister—that the Government will use their best endeavours are not enough; the work must be guaranteed within the next few days.
  Thirdly, we know that there are other Ministry of Defence orders in the programme. These should be brought forward as a matter of urgency. Those orders include refits on three landing ships, an AOR3 and a batch of new type 23 frigates. There must be access to intervention funding so that there can be diversification in future into the merchant sector. Help must be given with export orders. A tender went in last Friday for a contract in Oman. I hope that the Government will give all possible assistance to efforts to secure that tender.
  Mr. Aitken: We are in touch with the Omani authorities and have been trying to be as helpful as possible to Swan Hunter in receivership.
  Mr. Byers: I am grateful for those comments.
  Tyneside is not using special pleading, but asking for fair play. Shipbuilding is vital to the manufacturing and industrial base of Tyneside. If the Government thought that the people of Tyneside would sit back and let shipbuilding die, they made a grave error. The survival of shipbuilding is vital to provide jobs for the present and a future for our children. With political will, our objectives can be achieved. The country will be waiting to see what action the Government will take to retain shipbuilding on Tyneside.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: Naturally, much of tonight's debate has centred on the problems facing Swan Hunter and what a number of my hon. Friends have described as the human and commercial tragedy in Tyneside. The sad fact is that, while Swan Hunter makes an immediate focus for tonight's debate, over the past two
  332
  or three years there has been a catalogue of defence companies in all regions that have faced exactly the same problems as Swan Hunter.
  The list of companies is not a catalogue of doom and gloom, but is crucial in relation to the argument. It contains Swan Hunter, Cammell Laird, VSEL at Barrow —which has lost substantial numbers of jobs even though it won the recent contract—British Aerospace at Kingston upon Thames, British Aerospace in Lancashire, British Aerospace dynamics division in Bristol, Rolls Royce military engines division in Bristol, British Aerospace in Stevenage, GEC Avionics in Kent, the royal ordnance factories in Nottingham and Vickers in Leeds. All those companies have experienced substantial job losses.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: No, because we are short of time and we have already heard an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
  The crucial point about each of those companies is that the change in job structure and employment opportunities has not occurred as a result of technological changes as the Minister argued, but as a result of changes in the market place.
  The Minister claimed that the Labour party—it could also be said of the Liberals—was trying to advance the argument that the defence industry was "tottering towards the grave". Nothing could be further from the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) recognised the success, importance, achievements, technology and skills of many of those companies. The Opposition do not want to run down the industries, but advance an argument to show the problems that those companies face in the marketplace.
  The list of companies is strategically important to the British industrial base for a variety of reasons, including the fact that a major skills base exists in our defence-related industries, which contain many of our best trained employees. The same is true of shipbuilding and aerospace. I saw a comment last week—I think made by the Minister with responsibility for industry—that some of the arguments in relation to Swan Hunter sounded like those of the 1970s. The Minister is out of touch with the substantial technological changes that have taken place in shipbuilding and does not understand the high level of technology and skills involved in that industry.
  When British Aerospace announced 2,000 redundancies at its Kingston plant, according to a survey by the local training and enterprise council 45 per cent. of the laid-off workers were professional and technical staff and another 20 per cent. were skilled craft workers—all of them crucial to the country. Such workers are leaving manufacturing industry because they feel that their skills have been undervalued and their jobs made insecure. I fear that many of them are going into the service industries. So we are losing skills into which a great deal of investment has gone for a number of years. We need those skills for our future industrial performance.
  The research and development base is crucial not just to the defence industries but to the spin-offs in the civilian sector. These companies make large investments, often with Government money and often in Government-sponsored research or collaboration projects. If we take

  333
  away this base the country will be left lagging behind in R and D and falling even further behind in its ability to compete with Europe.
  According to a recent European Commission report, Britain has the second most defence-dependent economy in the EC after France. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) and the hon. Members for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) all arrived at the same conclusion: defence companies must now operate in a changed framework. The collapse of the Soviet Union was an important part of that change. Recalling the defence debates of a few years ago, we may note that the whole object of Conservative defence expenditure was directed at the Soviet Union. I had hoped that the Conservative Members who used that argument would plan for the future. It seems that they now recognise that the Soviet Union has collapsed and that the framework has changed.
  Putting aside all petty party political points, the Minister told us—he does not appear to have got the point across to his own Back Benchers—that the Government plan to cut defence expenditure by 9 per cent. in the next three years. Speakers from all parties have agreed on that changed framework.
  What do the Government believe they should do in these circumstances? We all recognise the importance of the defence companies, skills and R and D. The crisis encompasses not only our defence capacity but our whole industrial base. The Government's answer is, "Don't bother us; don't ring us; leave it all to the marketplace." We know what happens in the marketplace. The market has been deliberately shrunk by Government action. Our Government and other Governments have reduced their defence budgets.
  If we leave the defence industries to the marketplace, it will be a case of Swan Hunter today, other companies tomorrow. The list will continue to grow. The Government are washing their hands of their responsibility. Typically, Conservative Members blame the Government, but will do nothing about the problem.
  Defence-related companies have not in any case operated in a free market. They have depended on Government action in all sorts of ways. They have depended on the Government for domestic defence procurement. They have enjoyed what one might term an agreed market, owing to Government action. They have had significant Government funding for research and development and significant Government help with exports. The Government have clearly been involved in the overseas orders won by Britain's defence companies.
  The market is not free, because there is direct Government intervention. The Government propose to wash their hands of companies whose success and viability depended on Government intervention, and they are doing that just when those companies need their help.
  Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Chelmsford were absolutely right when they said that we should take a strategic view. But we all know that markets cannot take a strategic view: they cannot plan ahead. The Government are abdicating their responsibilities and again looking for an opt-out clause. One day it is Maastricht and the social chapter, the next day they opt out of their responsibility for our industrial base.
  334
  Other Governments and countries recognise the problems. In opening the debate for the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke about the French, the Germans and the Americans. Those Governments are taking action and recognising the problem. Ours is the only Government who feel that they can abdicate all their responsibilities for those matters.
  We are not debating just defence expenditure but the need to protect Britain's industrial base. That is why Labour has demanded intervention and is arguing for a defence diversification agency. The Government must play a role in partnership with companies and employees so that Britain's industrial base can be rebuilt and maintained. No other country would abdicate its responsibility for companies of such importance.
  When asked to choose between action to protect our industrial base or inaction, on every occasion the Government and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement choose inaction. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to vote for our motion, because only the Labour party has a strategy for the future and is concerned about our defence industry and our industrial strategy.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I welcome this debate, and also welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) back to it. I am sorry that he missed so many of the contributions.
  The debate has brought out some of the positive aspects of changes in the defence market, as well as some of the inevitable disadvantages. Not for the first time, the incoherence of Labour policy on defence has been revealed.
  We all know that the end of the cold war means that the United Kingdom's defence spending can decline by about 3 per cent. a year for the next three or four years. The effect of that on companies in the defence industry and on the areas in which they are located will vary. On the positive side, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said, competitive procurement has helped our defence industrial base to become one of the most efficient and successful in the world. It would be nice to have that recognised more fully by the Opposition.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my right hon. Friend rather surprised that throughout the debate, the thrust of which has been about policy to help Tyneside, no one has mentioned the fact that the defence diversification agency, which was suggested by the Opposition, was rejected by the Select Committee on Employment which looked at that issue? The three measures that the Government have announced were those that the Select Committee report advocated in the context of the Government and enterprise agencies.
  Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an effective point; I shall speak later about the concept of a defence conversion agency.
  Our defence industrial base is, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said, proving its competitiveness in the international markets. The success of our exports, which have increased two and a half times since the mid-1980s, is evidence or that, as is the fact that we are now the second-largest exporter, having overtaken France in the past few years. Defence is a net contributor to the balance of payments and sustains about

  335
  120,000 jobs through exports. Last year, the total value of export contracts signed was about £5 billion, a record level for our defence industry.
  During the debate, a number of ideas have been put forward and a number of schemes have been mentioned, and I want to say something about some of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) drew attention to a scheme called KONVER, which is the latest in a series of Community structural fund initiatives, prepared by the EC Commission with the intention of addressing the problems of a specific industry.
  The Government object strongly to such schemes in general, since they take such a partial approach to industrial adjustment. We object to KONVER in particular because of the mismatch between the areas where there are or may be job losses in the defence industry and the objective 2 and 5b areas which may be the only areas eligible for support.
  Another serious deficiency in the scheme is the level of our allocation. It fails to reflect the importance of our defence manufacturing. We are making a forceful representation to the Commission about the way in which the funds are apparently being allocated. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that, if there is to be a scheme, it would be foolish not to take advantage of it. I hope that member states' KONVER programmes will be approved by September and we shall obviouly proceed if we get that approval.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: No, there is no time to give way.
  I come now to the important matter of Swan Hunter. The past achievements and the present plight of Swan Hunter were described most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). I shall say something first about claims which it has been suggested are a problem. It has been said that the Ministry of Defence owes Swan Hunter money. The Ministry of Defence has been scrupulous in making timely payments to the company, both on the AOR and on the type 23 frigate contracts, in full accordance with the terms of those contracts. The Ministry of Defence does not accept that it owes the company money.
  Swan Hunter has made a claim for losses that it says it incurred on the replenishment vessel AOR2. That is a complex matter which the Ministry of Defence has been assessing as quickly as possible. It has been unable to accept some of the claim, but has made interim payments totallirt no less than £8 million. I remind the House that the Ministry of Defence has obligations under the Insolvency Act 1986 and it could not responsibly have paid any more at this time. I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth that the best and final offer date was, as he said, 22 April 1993.
  Let me say something briefly in the time available about our response to what we are well aware to be serious consequences for Tyneside of the receivership of Swan Hunter. We recognise that this is a blow to those employed in the yard, their families, the local suppliers and the whole community, particularly in view of the yard's long and distinguished history as a warship builder.
  My Department is keeping in close touch with the receiver to see that prospects for maintaining some engineering or shipbuilding-related activities are fully explored. We shall also be doing all we can to see that new
  336
  jobs are brought to the area. I announced last week a package of additional measures to help attract new investment and new jobs. In the time available, I shall not rehearse them this evening, but attracting new inward investment will be important. It is lucky that the region has a good record on that. Some good inward investment projects are in prospect, and my Department and the Northern Development Company are pursuing them energetically for the north-east.
  Opposition Members were dismissive of a package of measures such as that which I describe. Enterprise zones and other special regional initiatives have been most successful in helping to attract new investment in the wake of closures—[HON. MEMBERS: "In Sunderland?"] I will come to Sunderland in a moment, if members of the Opposition Front Bench will refrain from sedentary interventions.
  Corby is an excellent example. There, 3,500 steel jobs were lost, but since then 13,000 jobs have been created. The Gateshead zone attracted substantial private sector investment and 2·75 million sq ft of new space—mainly industrial—has been produced. At Consett, 3,500 jobs were lost, but 4,000 replacement jobs were created.
  As to Sunderland, the Government's special package of measures announced in 1988 resulted in the creation of 3,750 jobs. It can be done—and, I am happy to say, all concerned will be pulling together to see that it is done. Local partnerships are vital. There is an excellent record of co-operation in the north-east on which to build.
  We heard a lot about defence conversion. We should talk not about conversion but about diversification, because that is a more realistic and useful objective. We are talking about firms building on their enormous technological skills and know-how, to increase their penetration of civilian markets. Related diversification has succeeded in reducing many firms' dependency on defence, from something like 100 per cent. to nearer 70 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford gave examples of achievements by Marconi—an important company in his constituency.
  I remind the House of the measures that we take to help companies. We encourage innovation. We have the enterprise initiative and training and enterprise councils are giving particularly useful help to firms with counselling, information and advice, training and business skills. More specifically, my Department supports company efforts to diversify through the series of "Changing Tack" regional seminars held over the past year to highlight diversification possibilities.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement asked pertinent questions about the Opposition's proposal for a defence conversion agency. What would it do? What is it meant to do? How would it undertake its task? If subsidies were to be involved, how compatible would they be with the level playing field that the Opposition always seek? From where would the money come? I share the scepticism expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Norwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
  At the end of this debate, we are no wiser as to what that agency would do. I am reminded of King Lear's words:
  "I will do such things—
  What they are yet, I know not."
  We are in the same position in respect of the defence conversion agency.

  337
  The debate exposed the absurdity of Labour's proposal for such an agency—son of the National Enterprise Board, if ever there was one. It reveals once again the depth of Labour's lack of understanding of how to help British industry become more competitive and better able to create sustained employment. It has exposed something more—the hypocrisy of a party that consistently voted for massive reductions in defence spending, but then cynically complains about potential job losses in the very defence industries that Labour's policies would decimate.
  That is a typical example of political expediency from a party that does not have the courage to face the facts and tell its supporters the truth. The motion was put before the House tonight for one purpose only—to get the Labour party off the hook.
  Nor do we need reminders about the shamefaced shambles that characterises Liberal Democrat policy. Or should I say policies, because that party has as many policies as it has members—and a different lot for tomorrow. It puts me in mind of Kipling's couplet:
  "There are nine and sixty ways
  Of constructing tribal lays,
  And every single one of them is right."
  The trouble with Liberal policies is that most of them are left and all of them are wrong.
  I commend the amendment to the motion to the House. The Labour party has had 14 years of irresponsibility over defence policy. It has not learnt. It still sees phantom orders for phantom ships pursuing phantom enemies.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 304.

  Division No. 276]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Allen, Graham

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Alton, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Connarty, Michael

  Beckett Rt Hon Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benton, Joe

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Cryer, Bob

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blunkett, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Boyes, Roland

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bradley, Keith

  Darling, Alistair

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

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

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Burden, Richard

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

  Byers, Stephen

  Denharn, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dewar, Donald

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dixon, Don

  338

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lewis, Terry

  Dowd, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Enright, Derek

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  McAllion, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McCartney, Ian

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Faulds, Andrew

  McKelvey, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McLeish, Henry

  Fisher, Mark

  McMaster, Gordon

  Flynn, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mahon, Alice

  Foulkes, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fraser, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gapes, Mike

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Garrett, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  George, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maxton, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meacher, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Meale, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michael, Alun

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gould, Bryan

  Milburn, Alan

  Graham, Thomas

  Miller, Andrew

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morley, Elliot

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hall, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Hara, Edward

  Henderson, Doug

  Olner, William

  Heppell, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hinchliffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hoey, Kate

  Patchett, Terry

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pendry, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hutton, John

  Radice, Giles

  Illsley, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Ingram, Adam

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Janner, Greville

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Keen, Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Short, Clare

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Simpson, Alan

  Leighton, Ron

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  339

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

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watson, Mike

  Snape, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soley, Clive

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Stevenson, George

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Wise, Audrey

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Wray, Jimmy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tyler, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. John D. Taylor and

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Alexander, Richard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Couchman, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

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

  Ancram, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bates, Michael

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bellingham, Henry

  Eggar, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Elletson, Harold

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forman, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bright, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Freeman, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  French, Douglas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gallie, Phil

  Butcher, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butler, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butterfill, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gorst, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clappison, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Colvin, Michael

  Hague, William

  Congdon, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  340

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Sykes, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thomason, Roy

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mills, Iain

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Sir Roger

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

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tracey, Richard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  341

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Willetts, David

  Walden, George

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Wood, Timothy

  Waterson, Nigel

  Yeo, Tim

  Watts, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitney, Ray

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  `That this House recognises with gratitude the efforts and skills over the years of all workers in the defence industries who have ensured that the United Kingdom's security has been maintained with the best of equipment and weapons; notes that the policy of competition for defence orders adopted by Her Majesty's Government has resulted in an efficient United Kingdom defence industry with world-class export performance; condemns the 25 per cent. defence cuts demanded by the Labour Party Conference which would cripple Britain's armed forces and her defence industry; rejects the idea of a Defence Diversification Agency to second-guess business decisions that should more properly be taken by companies; but welcomes the assistance provided by Her Majesty's Government to help regions to adjust more effectively to major industrial change by creating opportunities for new industries, as exemplified by the wide-ranging package of measures announced last week for Tyneside.'.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Orders on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  INSURANCE
  That the draft Insurance Companies (Cancellation) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 19th April, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Question agreed to.

  Petrol Stations (Leakage)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to some of the problems relating to petrol leakage from storage tanks in garages throughout the country. I apologise to the Minister for keeping him late, but I am sure that he will find the matter of some interest.
  In my constituency, there have been three serious leakages of petrol from garage storage tanks, involving many hundreds of gallons of fuel, in the past 12 months. In one case, on County road in Ormskirk, the problem, although serious, was tackled efficiently because a large company—Esso—was the owner. I am informed that, where large companies such as Esso or Shell are involved, the lines of responsibility are clear, the pollution is tackled correctly and the polluter pays. However, in the case of the other two leakages, the garages were small companies and the problems were more acute.
  In one case, on the A59 in Rufford village, the petrol leaked through the drains under the trunk road and into the cellars of the Hesketh Arms on the opposite side of the road. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is not petrol that one wants to find in the cellars of a pub. The potential tragedy in such a situation is not hard to imagine. In that case, the local authorities moved rapidly to neutralise the danger.
  The third incident encapsulates all the problems that I want to bring to the Government's attention. Almost 12 months ago, a severe leakage of petrol was detected from Church garage on the A570 in Scarisbrick. The pollution from that leakage covered 20,000 sq m. It contaminated 2,000 cu m of soil and 500 cu m of water. The leakage passed into and under adjacent houses and, through the drains under the trunk road, to houses opposite. The cellar of an old vicarage nearby was filled with a mixture of petrol and water, and I believe that about 150 gallons of petrol were taken from the cellar. The owners of the old vicarage, the Kennedy family, who have spent everything they have on refurbishing the building, are now devastated to find that their property is virtually worthless. The same applies to several other home owners in the vicinity.
  I am indebted to David Pirret, the general manager of Shell UK retail division, who made a clear analysis of such problems in a speech on 29 April. He said:
  "The fragmentation that now exists at local and regional level; and the widely differing levels of technical understanding; make any meaningful dialogue extremely difficult."
  In the Scarisbrick case, the garage owner, faced with tremendous costs, put his business into liquidation. For any business of that size, the identification of statutory nuisance and the threat of the serving of an abatement order, are almost bound to lead to liquidation. That means that there is no company on which to serve the abatement order.
  We then move into the question of responsibility. That is shared between several bodies. The first is the district council—in this case, West Lancashire district council—as the environment health authority. West Lancashire has already spent about £60,000 on monitoring and testing, which is a substantial slice of its total capped budget of £9·2 million.

  343
  The county council is responsible for licensing through the petroleum officer—in this case, the fire brigade—and it is also responsible as agent for the trunk road under which the petrol leaked through the drains. The Department of Transport is ultimately responsible for the trunk road itself, and the National Rivers Authority became partly responsible, because the petrol leaked for a while into a small watercourse. In other cases, I believe that the water board and local planning authorities have also had responsibilities.
  The garage's insurance policy appears to cover only unexpected immediate leakages. The Scarisbrick leak seems to have been going on for some time. Some petrol was found to be fresh, while other petrol had broken down. It may therefore prove impossible to establish insurance liability.
  To dig out the affected land would cost up to £250,000, according to the district council. Clearly, the district council cannot afford that. It becomes an awkward question of judgment for the authorities which must assess the risk involved in such pollution with cost very much in mind.
  Lancashire county council and West Lancashire district council assess the risk now as small. However, only three or four weeks ago, vapour levels again rose dramatically, probably due to the petrol underground rising on the surface of water. The land there lies on a clay layer, which is virtually impervious.
  While both local authorities are doing their job properly, they cannot tack le the problem faced by the neighbouring householders who have seen the value of their houses reduced to nothing. Yesterday, Mrs. Kennedy informed me that her insurance company had informed her that it now refused cover for her house. I am sure that the other people who have been affected, including Mr. and Mrs. Chisnall next door but two and the Reverend Mr. Goode who inhabits the new rectory, have identical problems.
  That is the immediate personal crisis for several of my constituents that I would like the Minister to consider. They are ordinary citizens who, through absolutely no fault of their own, find themselves possibly ruined. Although they are personally protected from danger by the local authorities—at least, I hope so—they are unable at the moment to seek compensation from a company which has gone into liquidation. They also face insufficient insurance cover.
  In those cases, the polluter does not and cannot pay. that is just one example. A Salford university student, David "Watson, recently produced a study which showed that there were more than 280 cases of leakages from storage tanks across the country, although over an unspecified period of years. Petroleum officers informed our local authorities of 216 cases in the past 12 months in just 29 local authorities, and 54 cases were assessed as fire hazards. In Warrington, there was a case in which 17,000 gallons were spilled in that manner. The worst case was in the constituency of the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and involved between 20,000 and 25,000 gallons.
  The Minister will appreciate that the country is threaded by pipes, culverts and underground watercourses which can transport petrol or vapour in unforeseen and even undetected directions. In the Scarisbrick case, it was found that petrol had been leaking through an old culvert under a nearby church, the church of St. Mark, and close
  344
  to a nearby primary school. It makes me shudder to think that only a couple of miles up the road is Martin Mere, the country's second largest wetland bird sanctuary. If petrol had got into that area, there would have been a different disaster.
  David Pirret from Shell reports that between 30 and 40 per cent. of United Kingdom petrol filling stations have problems and that those problems centre on suction lines—that accounts for 90 per cent. of the total—the flexipipes on the pumps, single-skin tanks—the one at County road turned out to have quite a hole in it when it was dug out—and the absence of a proper monitoring system of tank space, overfill prevention and vapour recovery systems. He also makes a point that I wish to emphasise; the problem is more likely to arise in rural sites, which tend to be older. The Minister's constituency, which I know extremely well, contains many garages which might present a hazard at some point in future.
  In the case of Shell, a renovation programme is in process—replacing single-skin with double-skin tanks, replacing metal suction lines with plastic suction lines, putting check valves on pumps and, perhaps most important, installing sensitive tank monitoring systems which he says could detect a teacup of oil disappearing. In the cases that I am talking about, several hundred, if not thousands, of gallons have disappeared undetected for a long time. The costs of all that for Shell are vast, and could be undertaken only by large companies. It is not a solution for a small company.
  I hope that the problems are clear, and I shall conclude by putting the key points to the Minister. Is it possible to legislate for unambiguous insurance policies which cover the total cost of pollution from leaks? Is it possible to have tighter monitoring, more frequent monitoring and inspection? Is it possible to tighten up the licensing process?
  At present, there is only annual relicensing. The local authority can require inventory checks, but it is not obliged to, and after the first installation of storage tanks, the next inspection does not have to be undertaken for 20 years. Is it possible to simplify the range of responsible authorities? How can help be given to small local authorities in particular when they face crises that they cannot fund?
  Am I pessimistic in my assumption that, if proper and sufficient regulations are fully implemented, the logical conclusion will be that small garages become completely non-viable and only the big chains will have the resources to protect the environment, as Shell is trying to do? Of course, most important, how can my constituents who face appalling domestic calamity be helped out of the hole into which they have undeservedly been thrust? The Minister will appreciate that, because of the time, I have not ventured into the decommissioning of sites and the existence of abandoned storage tanks, but enough problems have been aired for one evening, and I am grateful for his attention.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Mike Hall rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall)?
  Mr. Pickthall: Yes.
  Mr. Hall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) for initiating this important debate. I am grateful also to the Minister for allowing me a couple of minutes of his precious time to add to some of the points that my hon. Friend has made.
  My hon. Friend referred to the work of David Watson, who works for the environmental health department of Warrington borough council. I commend it to the Minister, as it encapsulates all the problems that my hon. Friend outlined. One problem is that, when petrol leaks from petrol station tanks, it spoils the environment in several ways. It gets into the soil and into the local environment; it can get into water courses and end up in sewers. The problem is that, if 1 per cent. of the natural atmosphere is affected, it is then a flammable atmosphere, while if up to 8 per cent. is affected, the atmosphere becomes explosive. The report refers to a number of such incidents; I shall refer briefly to three.
  The report—a statement of qualification experience prepared for Warrington borough council—mentions, for instance, an incident in Lincolnshire in which a petrol station leak put 5,000 litres of petrol into the surrounding area. It threatened the water supply of a local hospital. In another instance, vapour levels in the basement of an adjoining cottage reached explosive levels. In Warwickshire, in the west midlands, after a long-term leak from a petrol station, a number of adjacent properties were affected. That is just a small sample.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West has mentioned two major issues involving Warrington, part of which I represent. The principal problem is the number of agencies involved in trying to clean up after the leaks. First, there is the petroleum officer, who registers petrol stations and retains responsibility while they are still operating. If a station goes out of business, the petroleum officer's role ends, as he has no off-site monitoring powers. An officer can be appointed by the fire brigade; he can also be a member of the trading standards authority. In Scotland, he may even be a member of the local authority. Three agencies are thus involved.
  Secondly, the local authority—under the Environmental Protection Act 1990—has a responsibility for off-site contamination from petrol station sites. Its responsibility is first to investigate complaints put to the local authority; it must then decide whether to take action on the basis of the following test: is what is happening prejudicial to public health, or is it a nuisance? If the leakage fails to meet those criteria, the local authority is not obliged to act.
  The National Rivers Authority also has some power. It is obliged to act under the Water Resources Act 1991, but only when controlled waters are affected. The Health and Safety Executive is involved in the storage of petrol at petrol stations, but has no remit when pollution extends beyond them. Then there are the water companies, which can take action if their water supply is threatened. Having acted, they then bill those who have caused the problem; but if—as in the case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West—the petrol company has gone out of business and lost its third party liability insurance, there will be no one for the water authority to take action against.
  In the majority of cases, effective action takes place. There are 20,800 petrol stations registered in the United Kingdom. When there is co-operation between the petrol companies and the authorities, there will be few problems,
  346
  but when companies have gone out of business, there will be a serious problem, which my hon. Friend has highlighted.
  The Warrington example has already been mentioned. As a result of a long-term leak from a petrol station, 17,000 gallons of pollution ended up in a local environment. All credit must go to Shell UK. Investigating the site, it discovered the level of pollution and brought in the local authority. It pumped off 17,000 gallons of petrol. The local authority then found petrol in the drain next to the station, and got the fire brigade to flush out the drain. That process pushed petrol into the water course. The National Rivers Authority was notified, but took no action; the local authority had to go back to its drainage section to trace the problems that had led to the original leak. The land is now being decontaminated. The whole thing worked quite well.
  We see a different side of the story, however, in Braintree, in Essex. Over a long period, between 20,000 and 25,000 gallons of petrol ended up in the subsoil around a petrol station there as a result of a leak. The county and district councils were faced with the cost of clearing up, because the petrol station had gone out of business and the third party liability insurance had disappeared. Over four and a half years, the two local authorities spent a great deal of money trying to solve the problem. That is okay, but what happens when a small district authority cannot afford what could be £250,000? It is a real problem.
  I shall conclude now because I have used my two examples. We want stringent guidelines for petrol station storage; we want more frequent and effective inspection and we want a unitary authority that will deal with the problem from top to bottom—it should not be left to a multi-agency. We need help for local authorities so that, when they recognise their responsibilities, they have the resources available to tackle the pollution problem.
  If local authorities are given the power to inspect off-site pollution from petrol stations—the Minister may agree to this—the onus will not fall on small petrol stations and force them out of business simply to avoid their responsibilities. I commend the recommendations in the report to the Minister, which I shall certainly let him have. I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to participate in this debate.
  10.35 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and thank him for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is in one way a local matter, but it also raises issues of general importance to which the House should rightly turn from tiime to tme.
  The cases to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention illustrate the problems faced by local authorities and other public bodies in dealing with contamination. I am conscious of those problems and their complexity. The issues I will address include the powers and duties of public authorities to control or remedy contamination, preventive measures, methods for treating land once pollution has taken place and assessing the risks that attach to particular types of operation with polluting potential. The first point is that more than one public authority can get

  347
  involved in a case of this sort to prevent it from happening in the first place, to put the burden of remedial action where it belongs—on the polluter—or to take action when
  As the hon. Members for Lancashire, West and for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) may know, the Government have decided to review the powers and duties of public authorities which bear on contaminated land, including their powers to recover costs. That review has a considerable bearing on the issues raised tonight by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West, and I shall refer to it several times.
  First, we wish to see cases of contamination such as the ones described by the hon. Gentleman tackled on a sensible basis. That is, action should be taken where the hazards to health or the environment are real and the means for tackling them are appropriate to both the problem and the continuing or intended use of the site. "Appropriate" also includes the matter of costs. We do not want to see environmental improvement or restoration carried out whatever the cost—the benefits must exceed the costs.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether small companies can survive proper regulation. That is another way of matching improvements to resources. I can assure him that we will not impose unnecessary or costly regulations on any company, large or small. He is right to draw attention to the fact that, while Shell and other large companies can take great measures to improve the potential for no leakage from their tanks—especially as they operate bigger sites—in rural areas and many smaller stations we could make the petrol tanks water tight. As the hon. Member for Warrington, South said, we could have stringent regulations to ensure that there would never be the slightest leak, but that would result in no smaller petrol stations at all—the cost would be astronomical.
  Secondly, we wish to see the polluter pay. A company, large or small, should bear the cost of putting right any damage that it has done. But, in these cases, the "polluter" has gone away. Under such circumstances, there is no ready answer to the problem of who should pay. It can be unfair if the cost falls to others—notably, as the hon. Member for Lancashire, West pointed out, people like his constituents, who are on the receiving end of the damage. That is why our review includes the issue of liabilities for past pollution. I am afraid that I cannot promise that the outcome will please the hon. Gentleman, but the issue of fairness is one that we are addressing. In the meantime, his constituents have the usual rights of landowners to seek legal redress against others.
  Thirdly, our review is focusing on the role of the pollution control authorities. It is intended to remove any doubts and inconsistencies in the way in which their powers operate. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that we will reduce the number of the appropriate players in this.
  After all, the situation that has been described has many dimensions—health and safety at work, the threat to public health and homes, the threat to groundwater and threats of air pollution. The Health and Safety Executive, the National Rivers Authority and the local authority all have legitimate roles at present.
  I should be worried about trying to create the all-singing all-dancing agency that the hon. Gentleman suggested, because it might not have the appropriate expertise to deal with all aspects. What we must do is ensure that, where two, three or four agencies are involved,
  348
  they clearly understand their responsibilities and there are no gaps or unnecessary bureaucratic overlaps between them. Therefore, we want to ensure that the right structure is in place.
  The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the scope for clarifying the terms of insurance cover for petrol filling stations. Compulsory insurance to cover the costs of remedial work is among the issues raised in a Green Paper from the Commission of the European Communities about paying for environmental damage. We are, of course, considering our response to the Green Paper. Once again, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are therefore addressing the problem he has raised.
  But I should point out that insurance must be paid for. It is a form of contract between the insurers and the insured. I understand that the Association of British Insurers looked at the question of the terms of cover for environmental pollution. I also know that individual brokers are developing policies to meet needs for cover in this area. I am not sure that we should interfere in that process. Nor is it likely that there is, for the moment at least, the ambiguity to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  I know that it is no comfort to the hon. Gentleman and to his constituents to know that the future should bring a more widely accepted solution to problems of past pollution. The problems of the hon. Gentleman's constituents are here and now. They are rightly exercised about why the problem developed and what will now be done to sort it out.
  In the first instance, this is a matter for the West Lancashire district council. It has long-standing powers to tackle what are called "statutory nuisances". I understand that the council has done that to the extent of serving notices on the filling station owners who have now gone out of business.
  As I said, we understand that West Lancashire district council has served abatement notices. That is, it has decided that these are problems within the scope of the legal powers conferred upon it by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. But it has found that the notices have not had the desired effect of getting the pollution cleared up by the persons responsible for it.
  At this point, it is again for the council to decide whether the problem is in need of urgent action. It has the powers to take action itself to remedy the problems it described in the notices it served. It is for the council to explain why it has chosen not to act—if that is, indeed, its decision.
  There are controls over petrol station operations. Prevention is obviously better than cure. All storage of petroleum has been controlled by licensing for many years. The Health and Safety Executive has issued guidance on appropriate conditions for licensing, including the testing of tanks. However, it has always been the policy that, in addition to physical testing of tanks, operators should have systems of continuous inventory control to show when petrol was being lost. I think that the short word for that is a dipstick. Most authorities make continuous inventory control a condition of licensing.
  The hon. Gentleman has asked whether those controls can be tightened. I am aware that the Health and Safety Executive wrote in July 1990 to petroleum licensing authorities with interim guidance on tank testing and supply line testing. Tanks and lines are out of sight and, like all systems, deteriorate with age. That makes testing necessary but difficult. In particular, methods using water

  349
  tests proved costly and raised the problems of disposing of the contaminated water once the tank had been filled with it.
  The interim guidance will be included in draft guidance and will be the subject of extensive public consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond to that public consultation, bearing in mind the points made about the costs to smaller operators if we go for a Rolls-Royce approach with knobs and bells on. That process should give rise to a system which will balance the costs of better testing and regulation against the benefits of greater confidence and control over pollution.
  Therefore, there is a framework for action and a framework for prevention. But it is not for us to interfere with the way in which the council acts in such cases. The Government's job is to channel resources and advice. The hon. Gentleman asked about the resources available to small councils. We are doing a great deal to help the handling of such cases.
  First, we have made resources available in the form of supplementary credit approvals to local authorities, whether large or small, to tackle contamination where there is a threat to human health. A local authority can apply to my Department for SCAs to fund the investigation of a case or for clean-up work where the private sector polluter cannot pay. It is open to West Lancashire council to make such an application, which will be considered fairly, on its merits, along with the others.
  The council may be concerned about precisely how to tackle a particular problem. To that end, we prepare advice. There are several methods for the remediation of land contaminated by petrol and related substances. Such methods are of little use unless potential users like the council know about them. My Department is carrying out
  350
  research to provide guidance on dealing with contamination of soil by a range of contaminants, including hydrocarbons such as petrol and diesel. We have already published some guidance.
  In addition, the Institute of Petroleum has recently issued a useful "Code of Practice for the Investigation and Mitigation of Possible Petroleum-Based Land Contamination". My Department contributed comments during drafting, and the National Rivers Authority was represented on the editorial committee. Those are part of a broader programme of research into general contamination problems being carried out by the Department. Some other relevant research carried out by my Department includes a project to produce a framework for assessing the impact of contaminated land on groundwater and surface water, preparation of a screening protocol for contaminated land and participation in a major programme of research to produce guidance on remedial treatments sponsored by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association.
  I have covered a lot of ground—I hope that the petrol has not—and I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman. We are aware of the pollution control problems which pose challenges at all levels—organisational, technical and scientific. We are trying to ensure that we get all of them in balance. We would not claim to have got all the answers, which is why we are conducting the wide-ranging review. But, for to-night, I hope that I have shown the hon. Members for Lancashire, West and for Warrington, South that West Lancashire district council has the means, if it wishes, to take care of the interests of the residents of Scarisbrick. The same would be true of incidents in Warrington. I hope that the council will contribute to the review that we are conducting.
  Question put and agreed to.
  The motion having been made after 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 thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Biodiversity
  Ms Short
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments have been and continue to be involved in discussions over the negotiation, ratification and implementation of the convention on biological diversity.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government Departments mainly involved include the Department of the Environment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—including the Overseas Development Administration—Her Majesty's Treasury, the Northern Ireland Office, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Law Officers' Department, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Decisions on these matters are taken collectively.

  Economic Recovery
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister from what month or quarter he estimates the economic recovery began; and if he will set out the evidence from output and trade statistics underlying his estimate.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: It is always difficult to pinpoint economic turning points accurately until some time after they have occurred. But total output has been rising since last summer, and there have been encouraging signs—in figures for gross domestic product, manufacturing output, retail sales and exports —that recovery is under way across a broad front.

TRANSPORT

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that will be created by the Birmingham northern relief road during construction in toll operation and in motorway service areas.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The concessionaire, Midland Expressway Ltd., estimates that the road will generate well over 500 on-site jobs during each year of construction; 220 to 270 full-time jobs when the road is operating at capacity; and the equivalent of a further 200 to 250 full-time jobs when the motorway service area opens.

  Emissions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many copies of his Department's joint report with the Department of the Environment on reducing transport emissions through planning, published this year, have been published; at what cost; and to whom it has been distributed.
  156
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The report for this research, "Reducing Transport Emissions through Planning", was published on 20 April by HMSO, price £12 (ISBN 0–11–752785–8). HMSO printed 1,300 copies. The Departments of the Environment and of Transport have bought copies for their own use and a limited number of complimentary copies have been sent to key bodies, such as the local authority associations. Members of the public can buy the report directly from HMSO, through their agents or through good booksellers.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has recently received regarding the hazards posed by the transport of plutonium.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  During this year, my Department has received a variety of letters from hon. Members and others, together with parliamentary questions from both Houses, about the transport of plutonium.

  M3
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the status of the M3 extension through Twyford Down, and the planned timetable; if the extension is currently on schedule; and if contracts include penalty clauses for a time delay.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The main works for the construction of the Bar End to Compton section of the M3 have been in progress since October 1992 and are due for completion in autumn 1994. A three-week extension of time has been granted to the contractor in respect of difficulties with the appointment of a steel work subcontractor for the Shawford railway bridge. The contract includes the normal provision for liquidated damages if the works are completed later than the contract completion date.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect his recent circular 2/93 on transport policies and programme submissions has on(a) the threshold for highway schemes to qualify for TSG, (b) from minor schemes costing under £2 million and (c) from road safety schemes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The circular explains that from 1994–95 the threshold for construction and improvement schemes to be accepted for TSG will be £2 million. Schemes costing under £2 million, including road safety measures, will be supported with credit approvals only.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mediation Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he has given to the potential for cost-saving advantages of funding more community mediation services as an alternative to litigation or, when the offence has arisen from an interpersonal dispute, to prosecution.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is in favour of disputants resorting to mediation or other private
  157
  dispute resolution processes where they do not need the compulsion, certainty or finality that only the court can provide. We are currently reviewing the ways in which the tangible benefits of alternative dispute resolution might be harnessed to contribute to our programme of reducing delay, cost and complexity in civil litigation.

  The potential of schemes involving mediation between offenders and victims to contribute to the process of cautioning as an alternative to prosecution is being considered by the Home Office.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement outlining the basis on which the Lord Chancellor visited northern Cyprus; and whom he met.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor visited Cyprus from 1 to 8 May where he was attending the 10th Commonwealth law conference and on 6 May attended a function at the British high commission in northern Nicosia to which the high commissioner had invited lawyers from northern Cyprus. While in northern Cyprus, the Lord Chancellor had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Denktash, leader of the Turkish Cypriots, and to put to him the British Government's serious concern about the arrival of Mr. Asil Nadir in northern Cyprus.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  British Antarctic Survey
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to complete the restructuring of the British Antarctic Survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  As part of the allocations of the science budget announced on 10 February, some £4 million over three years up to 1995–96 has been allocated to the Natural Environment Research Council towards the completion of the restructuring of the British Antarctic Survey's facilities in Antarctica. This will increase the opportunities for visiting scientists from our higher education institutions and will facilitate international collaboration.

  Over the past decade, the survey has undertaken a major capital replacement programme. It has rebuilt the Halley station as a centre for geospace and atmospheric research, including ozone destruction. It has replaced one of its two ships by a purpose-built dual research and logistics vessel, the RRS James Clark Ross, and it has greatly enhanced the air facilities at its Rothera station by the construction of a hard airstrip, the purchase of two further Twin Otters and a longer range DHC7 aircraft, which will improve access at the start of the Antarctic season.

  It will now consolidate its marine biology work from the RRS James Clark Ross and at Rothera, where new facilities will be built for biological research. Automated data collection systems will be developed and introduced to Faraday, which will remain as an unmanned station from 1995–96, and to the Signy station, where the present outdated accommodation will be replaced with modern facilities to support biological research during the austral summer.
  158
  A proportion of the funds will also be used to clean up abandoned former British bases in Antarctica, a requirement under the 1991 environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Witness Protection
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce a witness protection scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  Arrangements for the safety and protection of Crown witnesses, in selected cases, are operational matters for the Chief Constable of the RUC. The RUC has had a witness protection scheme since the early 1980s.

  Playgroups
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of the amount of financial support granted by(a) each education and library board and (b) each health and social services board in Northern Ireland to pre-school playgroups in their respective areas; and what is the value of this funding expressed as an amount per pupil enrolled per session provided for a year.

  Mr. Hanley
  Education and library boards do not provide financial support for pre-school playgroups. In 1991–92, the latest financial year for which figures are available, the amount of grant aid provided by each health and social services board to registered playgroups in their respective areas was as follows:

  Board

  Amount of grant £

  Northern

  64,387

  Southern

  209,177

  Eastern

  822,140

  Western

  142,488

  Total

  1,238,192

  It is not possible to express the value of this funding as an amount per child enrolled.

  Medical Inquiries
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many NHS hospital doctors and consultants are currently under suspension pending inquiries and disciplinary action.

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about his Department since April 1989; and how many of them have been accepted.

  Mr. Mates
  I refer the hon. Member to the "Sessional Information Digest", a copy of which is held in the Library.
  159

  School Tests
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on future testing and assessment of pupils in Northern Ireland schools.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Northern Ireland Schools Examination and Assessment Council (NISEAC) is currently undertaking an evaluation of the pilot key stage 2 and key stage 3 assessments which took place recently. I have asked the council to let me have, by the end of May, preliminary advice on the main changes which will need to be made to the assessment arrangements next year. I have already given a firm commitment to respond to the findings of the evaluation and to make whatever changes
  I consider are necessary to make the arrangements workable and manageable. An announcement about the arrangements for next year will be made before the end of June.

  Jubilee Maternity Hospital
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what discussions he has had on the plans for the closure of the Jubilee maternity hospital with(a) the Royal College of Midwives, (b) Belfast city council, (c) the National Childbirth Trust, (d) the Christian Churches in Northern Ireland, (e) the medical, nursing and ancillary staff of the hospital, (f) local Members of Parliament, (g) pregnant mothers and (h) representatives of the welfare organisations serving police and military personnel;

  (2) what recent meetings he has held with representatives of the Jubilee Action Group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  None at this time. The Eastern health and social services board, in whose area the Jubilee maternity hospital is located, is currently engaged in the process of determining its strategy for acute services within the framework set in the Department of Health and Social Services' regional strategy. That process has involved the board in widespread consultation on its "Statement of Intent for general (Acute) Hospital Services within the Eastern Board Area". The consultation period ended on 14 May 1993 and the board, having regard to the comment and representations made during the consultative exercise, is expected to reach its decisions by September 1993. These decisions will, of course, be subject to ministerial endorsement.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many babies are currently delivered annually in the Jubilee maternity hospital; and what percentage of all hospital deliveries in Northen Ireland is represented by this figure.

  Mr. Hanley
  Of the 25,960 hospital deliveries in Northern Ireland in 1991–92—including live and still births—2,869 were at the Jubilee maternity hospital, representing 11 per cent. of the total.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration was given to issues of(a) security of access and (b) public transport accessibility by the Eastern health board in assessing the future of the Jubilee maternity hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The board has recently concluded a consultation process on its plans for acute hospital services 160
  and has not yet completed its deliberations. It will be some time before it is in a position to submit its conclusions to my noble Friend the Earl of Arran for endorsement.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many letters he has so far received concerning the future of the Jubliee maternity hospital; and how many of those letters supported(a) retention and (b) closure of this facility.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend has so far received 138 letters concerning the future of the Jubilee maternity hospital, most of which supported the retention of the hospital.

  Eastern Health Board
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the members of the Eastern health board.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current members of the Eastern health and social services board are as follows:

  Chairman

  N. G. D. Ferguson

  Non-Executive Members

  J. C. Morton

  D. J. McGuinness

  Mrs. G. Loughran

  Mrs. J. Ferguson

  Prof. R. W. Stout

  P. J. McLachlan

  Executive Members

  P. Kinder—Chief Executive

  Miss A. Paisley—Director of Finance

  Ms A. Lynch—Director of Planning

  E. McCullough—Director of Operations

  B. Moore—Director of Social Services.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is responsible for the provision and maintenance of radio hearing aids for(a) pre-school children, (b) children at school and (c) students in further and higher education in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The education and library boards.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect since 13 January 1987 in terms of the retail prices index of (i) privatisation, (ii) intervention by Government to raise the rate of return on sales and capital in the public sector and (iii) increases in indirect taxation excluding rates etc., and (iv) reduction of subsidies.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is not possible properly to isolate such effects.

  Foreign Holidays
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely change in the price of foreign holidays in 1993 and 1994 as
  161
  a result of the fall in nominal exchange rates since September 1992; and if he will exclude such changes from the retail prices index.

  Mr. Nelson
  An assessment of the effects of depreciation on all prices was built into my right hon. Friend's Budget forecast for underlying inflation. Changes in the price of foreign holidays have been included in the retail prices index from January this year, as recommended by the RPI Advisory Committee.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1970 and this year to date(a) the nominal and real rate of interest and (b) the change in the nominal and real rate of exchange based on relative unit values for manufactures based on the second half of 1973 = 100.

  Mr. Nelson
  Nominal rates of interest are published in the Central Statistical Office's "Economic Trends", table 41. There is no unique definition of real interest rates. For example, calculations based on yields on index-linked gilts are published montly in CSO's "Financial Statistics", table 13.4; alternative measures of real interest rates may be derived from nominal interest rates and the various price indices published in, for example, "Economic Trends". The sterling—nominal—exchange rate index is published in "Financial Statistics", table 13.1. Finally, calculations of United Kingdom relative manufacturers' exports prices, based on unit value indices, are published in "Economic Trends", table 25.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether domestic holidays are included under other recreations in the retail price index in table 18.2 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics"; and if he will publish separate figures for the increase in the price of domestic holidays to enable a comparison to be drawn with the newly published figures for foreign holidays.

  Mr. Nelson
  At present, no index measuring price changes in domestic holidays is compiled. However, the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee has recommended—Cm 2142, paragraph 122—that such an index, be developed as soon as practicable.

  Illegal Weapons
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many illegal weapons purchased through mail order catalogues have been seized by HM Customs and Excise in each of the last 10 years.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs records of total seizures do not specify those which relate to items purchased through mail order catalogues.

  European Parliament Pensions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision is being made for the payment of improved death gratuities and dependants' benefits to beneficiaries under the European Parliament (United Kingdom Representatives) Pension Scheme.

  Mr. Portillo
  Parliamentary approval will be sought later this year in an order under the European Parliament 162
  (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 to changes to the European Parliament (United Kingdom Representatives) Pension Scheme. These changes will bring the scheme's provisions for death gratuities and dependants' benefits into line with those introduced for the parliamentary contributory pension fund by the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1991. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,100 will be met from repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. Once the order has been approved, the Contingencies Fund will be repaid upon approval of the Contingencies Fund repayment vote in 1994–95.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made by Her Majesty's Government to the Croat Government following the attack by Croat forces on UN-protected Serbian positions in Krajina in January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 9 February,Official Report, column 545.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the President of Croatia in relation to reports of forcible detention of Muslim civilians by Croat forces near Mostar.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), on 17 May,Official Report, column 43.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's ambassador to Zagreb has been instructed to draw to the attention of the President of Croatia the establishment of a war crimes tribunal; and if Her Majesty's Government will make similar representations to the leader of the Bosnian Croats, Mr. Mate Boban.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No such instructions have been given. We welcome the UN Secretary-General's draft for the statute of such an international tribunal.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requirements will be imposed on the(a) Serbian, (b) Montenegrin and (c) Yugoslav Governments as a requirement for the removal of economic sanctions.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The sanctions imposed under United Nations Security Council resolutions 757, 30 May 1992; 787, 16 November 1992; and 820, 17 April 1993, apply to Serbia and Montenegro which together constitute the so-called "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia".

  The measures adopted in these resolutions will apply until the UN Security Council decides that the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro have taken effective measures to fulfil the requirements laid down in UNSCR 752, which was adopted on 15 May 1992.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had
  163
  with the German Foreign Minister, Herr Klaus Kinkel, about Croatian aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Croat/Muslim clashes in central Bosnia were discussed at the meeting of EC Foreign Ministers on 10 May. All partners expressed their concern over the renewed fighting between Bosnian Croats and Muslims in Mostar and agreed that the EC presidency should send a firm protest to President Tudjman of Croatia. Mr. Kinkel undertook to reinforce this message when he met President Tudjman on 14 May.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now urge his counterparts at the United Nations to consider a full range of economic and diplomatic sanctions against the Republic of Croatia in the event that Croat aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina continues.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The EC presidency sent a message to President Tudjman on 12 May making clear that unless Croatia used all its influence to stop the fighting between Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia, stronger measures would be considered.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals for military intervention in the former Yugoslavia have been discussed with the United States State Department since 8 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are in regular contact with the United States Government on developments within the former Yugoslavia. We are agreed that the first objective must be to induce the parties to accept a lasting ceasefire and a negotiated settlement. We have taken a number of measures in the United Nations to maximise pressure on the parties, without excluding the possibility of stronger measures. No decision has been taken on the steps which might be taken if the Serbs continue to reject the will of the international community.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Croatian Government regarding the disruption of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees effort following Muslim-Croat fighting around the British Army base at Vitez.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham, to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on 17 May,Official Report, column 43.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place at the last meeting of EC Foreign Ministers of the official visit to the Republic of Croatia on 14 May by the German Foreign Minister, Herr Klaus Kinkel.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Mr. Kinkel made it clear at the meeting of EC Foreign Ministers on 10 May that he would use his visit to Zagreb to press President Tudjman to use his influence to end the fighting between Croats and Muslims in Mostar and to reinforce the message to be sent by the EC presidency on this.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's164
  Government's representative to the United Nations Security Council will propose the establishment of safe havens in areas populated by the indigenous Serb community in the Republic of Croatia, following Croat Army attacks against these areas in January.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There have been four United Nations protected areas (UNPAs) in Croatia since February 1992. There are no plans to designate safe areas in Croatia like those established in Bosnia by United Nations Security Council resolution 824. The co-chairmen of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia have brokered negotiations to establish a ceasefire following the Croatian army attacks in January, but the Krajina Serbs have so far failed to ratify the resulting agreement.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Croatian President following reports by the EC special envoy Jose Maria Mendiluce on the forecast of future numbers of Muslims who would be forced to move as a result of Croatian aggression; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham, on 17 May,Official Report, column 43. We have made no specific representations on the comments by UNHCR special representative Mr. Mendiluce.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate has been made of the numbers of regular Croatian troops currently within the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Although there have been numerous reports of regular Croatian troops in Bosnia, we have no specific information on their numbers.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Croatia to dismantle the self-appointed Croat state of Herceg-Bosnia in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The London conference made it clear in its statement of principles that we upheld the fundamental obligation to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states in the region. The Vance-Owen peace plan—which the Croats have accepted—insists that Croat areas in Bosnia should remain part of the sovereign Bosnian state. We reflect this in all our contacts with the Croatian Government.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the illegal supply of arms to the Bosnian Croats from the Republic of Croatia; and if he will put forward proposals to seal the border between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are aware of numerous reports of arms supplies to the Bosnian Croats from the Republic of Croatia. We have pressed the Croatian Government to cease military support for the Bosnian Croats and to exert their influence to bring the fighting to an end.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what pressure Her Majesty's
  165
  Government have put on the Croat Government to withdraw their forces from Bosnia-Herzegovina; what efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to persuade the Croat Government to stop supplying the republic they have declared there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham, on 17 May,Official Report, column 43.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to recall Her Majesty's ambassador to Zagreb in the light of Croat aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have no such plans.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list visa requirements for Croat citizens entering the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to review them in the event of changes in United Kingdom-Croat relations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Nationals of Croatia are not subject to a United Kingdom visa requirement, and there are no present plans to impose such a requirement.

  CSCE
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a comprehensive list of all the names and nationalities of the top officials of all the bodies, committees, ad hoc groups and structures of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The CSCE internal address list which I have placed in the Library of the House lists on pages 57 to 80 the names of the officials who staff the CSCE institutions. Meetings of participating states, whether of the Council of Ministers, Committee of Senior Officials or ad hoc groups formed to deal with a specific task, are chaired by the Chairman-in-Office, currently Sweden.

  The Council of Ministers has appointed a Secretary-General, Mr. Wilhelm Hoynck. He will take office in Vienna in June.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates of establishment, and of winding up if applicable, of all the bodies, committees, ad hoc groups and structures of the institutions of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Details have been placed in the Library of the House giving the dates of establishment of CSCE institutions, secretariats, steering and ad hoc groups.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a complete list of addresses of all the offices of the various structures of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the CSCE internal address list. Pages 57 to 80 include a full list of addresses of CSCE institutions and offices.
  166

  Human Rights
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will assign a member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights department to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular section to monitor the abuse of human rights outside the United Kingdom in consular and legal matters.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The consular department consults the human rights policy department as a matter of course for advice on cases where the human rights of British individuals are in question.

  Raymond Bickley
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the French authorities concerning the absence of access to legal representation for Raymond Bickley since his imprisonment in December.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  After learning that Mr. Bickley's court-appointed lawyer did not attend with him the examining magistrate's hearing on 30 March, Her Majesty's consul-general in Paris wrote to the batonnier, equivalent to the president of the local bar, expressing concern. The batonnier asked the lawyer to visit Mr. Bickley immediately, and undertook to act on any complaint from Mr. Bickley that his defence had suffered as a result of the lawyer's non-attendance at the hearing. The batonnier will report again to the consul-general.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Waller
  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 10 to 11 May.

  Mr. Hurd
  I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 10 May with the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), represented the United Kingdom on 11 May.

  The Council approved the EC/United States agreement on Government procurement reached on 19 April. The Council also agreed a resolution on trade and the environment proposed by the Danish presidency in advance of the OECD ministerial meeting on 2 June.

  Lord Owen briefed Ministers on recent developments in the former Yugoslavia. They agreed on the importance of continued support for the Vance-Owen peace plan. The Twelve should maintain pressure for the closure of the Serb/Bosnia border and be ready to contribute to international monitoring of it. Other options should not be excluded. Ministers also agreed on the crucial importance of rigorous implementation of the sanctions regime.

  The Council agreed that the presidency should discuss with the European Parliament arrangements for an inter-institutional meeting on 7 June, with the aim of concluding an inter-institutional agreement on subsidiarity and of agreeing arrangements for the European parliamentary ombudsman. The Council also agreed that a paper presented by the Commission on access to

  167
  information held by the Community institutions was a good basis for further work. It asked the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) to take this forward.

  Over lunch, Ministers discussed progress in the enlargement negotiations with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden.

  The Commission reported on the latest round of negotiations, held in St. Petersburg on 6 and 7 May, for a partnership and co-operation agreement with Russia.

  The Council discussed the Commission's paper for the Copenhagen European Council on strengthening relations with the central European associate countries. There will be further discussion at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 June.

  An EC/GCC ministerial meeting was held in the margins of the Council on 11 May.

  No formal votes were taken at the Council.

EDUCATION

  Testing
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his statement of 11 May,Official Report, column 651, what investigations were carried out into the abortive costs involved in the changes to the system of testing announced in his statement; what is the total cost; and what are the projected costs of external marking by external examiners of the tests of 11 and 14-year-olds.

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of developing and distributing the non-mandatory tests for seven-year-olds in technology, history and geography is estimated at £1·7 million. The cost to date of development of history and geography tests for 14-year-olds is estimated at some £300,000. This expenditure has not been wasted. There will be a continuing obligation on schools to teach technology, history and geography at key stage I and to teach history and geography at key stage 3. It will continue to be good practice for teachers to assess pupils' progress against the national targets in these subjects.

  The non-mandatory tests in technology, history and geography which have already been delivered to primary schools are explicitly designed to support and inform teachers' own assessments. The work to date on history and geography tests for 14-year-olds will inform guidance to teachers on making their own assessments of pupils' progress and may contribute to the work of devising new tests in future. Lessons learnt from experience gained will be taken into account in Sir Ron Dearing's review of the curriculum and assessment framework.

  My right hon. Friend has asked Sir Ron Dearing to advise on the merits of external marking of tests for 11 and 14-year-olds, including the costs.

  Radio Hearing Aids
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education who is responsible for the provision and maintenance of radio hearing aids for(a) pre-school children, (b) children at school and (c) students in further and higher education.

  Mr. Forth
  Where a radio hearing aid is specified as special educational provision in the statement of special educational need of a pre-school child or a child attending 168
  a school, it is the duty of the responsible local education authority to arrange for the provision and maintenance of such aids.

  The Further Education Funding Council and local education authorities are under duties to secure further education provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. These duties require them to take account of students' additional learning support needs.

  Within higher education, it is for individual higher education institutions to consider the arrangements necessary to meet the additional learning support needs of such students. Eligible students in higher education may be entitled to three disabled students allowances as part of their mandatory award, including up to £3,325 for specialist equipment.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what progress he is making in developing national vocational qualifications for those working within the field of education;

  (2) if he will publish the report of the task group of Department for Education officials and representatives of employer and employee interests within education, which met last year to recommend an education lead body for teacher training; and if he will publish his response;

  (3) what lead bodies he has set up to look at the adoption of NVQs within education.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are considering developing NVQs in the education sector and relevant lead body arrangements. They will shortly be consulting and taking into account recent developments in further education and training.

  Schools Inspection
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list the criteria used to assess and select candidates to become school inspectors under the new schools inspection regime; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many people from non-educational backgrounds have been selected to go forward as lay inspectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The selection of candidates for training as school inspectors under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 is a matter for the Office for Standards in Education.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to my hon. Friend.

  "Testing: The Facts"
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost per pack of the information pack "Testing: The Facts"; how many have been circulated and to whom; and what was the total cost of production and distribution.

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of each pack was £1. About 3,600 have been distributed to date to the following:

  all Members of Parliament for England;

  the 1,000 top companies;

  Church leaders;

  training and enterprise councils;

  regional chairmen of the CBI and Institute of Directors;

  chambers of commerce;

  169

  regional directors of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Employment Department;

  trade unions;

  the national press;

  Vice Chancellors; and

  heads of information of Government Departments.

  The total cost of production and distribution is
  estimated at £9,100.

WALES

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what qualifications the hon. Robin Gibson Watt has which are relevant to his recent appointment to the board of the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I give full consideration to all relevant factors in determining appointments for which I have responsibility.

  I have every confidence that the hon. Robin Gibson Watt will make a valuable contribution to the work of the board during his term of office.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many names he has on the list of potential nominees for places on non-departmental public bodies in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish the list of potential nominees for appointment to non-departmental public bodies in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There are currently 2,851 names on the Department's register of candidates for public appointment, which is confidential.

  Drugs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total number of registered drug addicts in each local authority area in Wales in each year from 1987 onwards.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers of drug addicts notified by medical practitioners to the chief medical officer at the Home Office are given in "Statistics of Drug Addicts Notified to the Home Office, UK, 1991" which is
  held in the Library of the House. Figures for each district health authority in Wales from 1987 to 1991 are found in table A8 of the "Area Tables" supplement.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has concerning the use of designer drugs within schools in each local education authority area in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts are currently made by his Department to collect information on the numbers of unregistered drug addicts in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh drug misuse database was set up in 1991 to provide regular national and local profiles on those drug users in contact with various services. Some of those drug users will be registered on the addicts index while others will be unregistered.
  170

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much has been spent by the national health service in Wales in meeting claims for medical negligence in each year from 1987;

  (2) how much has been spent by each district health authority in Wales on litigation cases in each year from 1987; and how much was paid by each district health authority in litigation during claims for compensation on the grounds of medical negligence affecting children born with disabilities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  A494
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current position on plans for the improvement of the A494 Bala to Corwen road, between Merlyn Gwyn and Glanrafon; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A topographical survey has been completed and route improvement options identified; the environmental impact of each option will be investigated. Construction work could start before April 1996 subject to the satisfactory completion of engineering design, statutory procedures and the availability of resources.

  Radio Hearing Aids
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who is responsible for the provision and maintenance of radio hearing aids for(a) pre-school children, (b) children at school and (c) students in further and higher education in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local education authorities have a duty to arrange for the provision and maintenance of radio hearing aids for children in school or pre-school who have statements of special educational needs which specify such an aid as educational provision.

  The Further Education Funding Council and local education authorities are under duties to secure further education provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. These duties require them to take account of students' additional learning support needs.

  It is for individual higher education institutions to consider the arrangements necessary to meet the additional learning support needs of students in higher education. Eligible students in higher education may be entitled to three disabled students allowances as part of their mandatory award, including up to £3,325 for specialist equipment.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Heart of England Wood Carvers
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Heart of England Wood Carvers to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 14 to 18 June.
  171

  Fire Regulations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what(a) building, (b) fire and (c) health and safety regulations apply to the Palace of Westminster; which regulations in each category would apply to the Palace of Westminster if not for Crown immunity; and which officials are responsible for enforcement of each category of regulation.

  Mr. Beith
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is the policy of the Commission, notwithstanding immunities and exemptions provided for in legislation, to apply the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and all other relevant statutory provisions throughout the parliamentary estate, whether part of the Palace of Westminster or not. With regard to:

  (a) Building Regulations. Administrative procedures are in place in the parliamentary works directorate to ensure that all the technical requirements of the regulations are met.

  (b) Fire Regulations. The Home Office fire services' inspectorate is responsible in consultation with the parliamentary works directorate for ensuring the appropriate standards in the Fire Precautions Act 1971 are met.

  (c) Health and Safety Regulations. The statement of policy and organisation is set out in appendix C of the "House of Commons Staff Handbook". I have asked that a copy of the appendix referred to above to be sent to the hon. Lady.

  Heads of House departments are responsible for the operation of these policies in their areas of responsibility.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration
  Committee if he will estimate in relation to the Palace of Westminster how many (i) employees and (ii) members of the public are in the Palace of Westminster on weekdays when the House is sitting.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture,
  Fisheries and Food to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection
  principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Curry
  In August 1989, the registrar investigated a complaint which alleged improper use of agricultural census information to compile a list of growers required to pay the Horticultural Development Council levy. The registrar was satisfied that no census material or computerised information had been disclosed to the Horticultural Development Council and no remedial action was necessary.

  There have been no other complaints.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Farm Commissioner to secure that the 172
  proposals set out by the Commission on potato production include a definition of new potatoes which will be applicable to potato producers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  The definition of new potatoes contained in the Commission proposal will apply to potato producers throughout the European Community.

  Subsidised Meat (West Africa)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made, or has been made by the relevant Commissioner or director general within the European Community, of the effects of export of subsidised meat to west Africa on pastural agriculture there.

  Mr. Curry
  I am aware of the concern the effect of Community beef exports on local cattle production in certain west African countries. The agricultural directorate-general of the European Commission is at present carrying out an assessment of this. We will seek an early indication of its findings.

  Captive-bred Birds (Tanzania)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many licences were issued for the import into the United Kingdom of captive-bred birds from Tanzania in each year since 1989;

  (2) how many (a) captive-bred birds and (b) consignments of captive-bred birds were imported into the United Kingdom from Tanzania in each year since 1989;

  (3) how many applications for licences to import captive-bred birds from Tanzania have been received by his Department since March 1991; and how many are currently pending.

  Mr. Soames
  Information on the importation into the United Kingdom of captive birds from Tanzania is as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Number of import licences issued

  29

  30

  5

  Number of consignments imported

  21

  24

  5

  Number of birds imported

  38,472

  36,426

  14,439

  Notes:

  1. MAFF statistics do not differentiate between captive bred and wild caught birds.

  2. The issue of licences for import of captive birds from Tanzania was suspended in March 1991. It was subsequently agreed that licences could be issued with effect from 5 May 1993.

  Since March 1991 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has received three applications for import licences for captive birds from Tanzania. No import licences were issued.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture,
  Fisheries and Food how many IACS forms were received by 15 May; and what proportions of those were from(a) mostly arable and (b) mostly livestock farms.

  Mr. Gummer
  We received about 155,000 IACS application forms in the United Kingdom by 15 May. We are not able to provide a breakdown between arable and livestock farms.
  173
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proportion of IACS forms received were fully acceptable and will not involve any penalty for the farmer in whose name they were completed;

  (2) what proportion of forms completed by (a) mostly arable farmers and (b) livestock farmers will be liable to incur penalties.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have not yet carried out the detailed checking of IACS that will determine whether the applications are fully acceptable, or whether penalties will have to be applied.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what period of time arable and livestock farmers had to complete their IACS forms.

  Mr. Gummer
  Most farmers had a minimum of about six weeks between receiving the IACS documentation and the 15 May deadline for receipt of the completed applications.

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to establishing new planning guidelines for waste-to-energy incineration plants to give due weight to their environmental and economic value.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" the Government clearly stated that it would "promote the recycling of as much waste as possible, including the recovery of materials and energy".

  The environmental and economic implications of energy from waste, through incineration and other methods, are considered in waste management paper 1 "A Review of Options" and waste management paper 28 "Recycling". Guidance on the development control implications of various waste disposal options, including energy from waste incineration, will also be provided through a new planning policy guidance note on "Planning and Pollution Control" which is due for publication soon.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the likely impact on United Kingdom waste disposal activity of reductions in existing incineration capacity, due to new EC emissions standards, after 1996.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department has been in close contact with local authorities which operate municipal waste incinerators about the action needed to meet the requirements of directive 89/429/EEC. Some incinerators will have to close because it will not be cost-effective for them to be upgraded in order to achieve the necessary standards, others are to be upgraded and new plants are to be built. The directive itself is not thought likely to have a significant effect on the proportion of waste disposed of by incineration.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from waste regulation authorities as a result of his recent announcement of an indefinite postponement in the introduction of a waste management licensing system.
  174
  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a joint representation on behalf of the Institute of Wastes Management, the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors and certain bodies representative of waste regulators. I understand that the local authority associations concerned also wish to be associated with that. I hope to meet them soon. Officials have already commenced discussions on the matter with representatives of the local authority associations. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) of 29 April,Official Report, column 470, I shall give a revised date for waste management licensing as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to his Department on the proposals for a possible landfill levy; and what assessment he has made of its effect on the environmental standards at waste management facilities.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The organisations listed below have commented on the report by consultants Coopers and Lybrand for my Department on "Landfill Costs and Prices: Correcting Possible Market Distortions", published in February 1993. We are still considering the report and responses to it.

  The new waste management licensing system which we are introducing under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will ensure that high environmental standards are maintained at waste management facilities.

  The organisations who responded to the report are:

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

  Aluminium Federation Ltd.

  Associated Energy Products plc

  Biffa Waste Services Ltd.

  Black Country Development Corporation

  British Paper and Board Industry Federation

  British Plastics Federation

  Building Employers Confederation

  CAIRD Environment Ltd.

  Cambridge City Council

  Cardiff City Council

  Combined Heat and Power Association

  Community Recycling

  Confederation of British Industry

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Cory Environmental Ltd.

  Council of Welsh Districts

  County Planning Officers' Society

  Cumbria County Council

  Erewash Borough Council

  Food and Drink Federation

  Friends of the Earth

  Gillingham Borough Council

  Hales Waste Control

  Haul—Waste Ltd.

  ICI

  Incpen

  Institute of Wastes Management

  Leigh Environmental Ltd.

  London Borough of Croydon

  London Waste Regulation Authority

  McKenna and Co.

  National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors

  National Association of Waste Disposal Officers

  National Association of Waste Regulation Officers

  Newspaper Society

  North Wales Waste Management Group

  Nottingham City Council

  Organic Reclamation and Composting Association

  Resource International Ltd.

  Rhone—Poulenc Limited

  Richards Engineering Ltd.

  Sand and Gravel Association Ltd

  Shanks and McEwan Group plc

  175

  South East London Combined Heat and Power

  Terry Adams Ltd.

  Tioxide Europe

  Waste Management International

  Waste Management International

  Waste Watch

  Yorwaste Ltd.

  Environmental Protection Act 1990
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what prosecutions have taken place to date of companies failing to apply for authorisations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, in the fields of(a) incineration, (b) glass and ceramic manufacture, (c) timber processing and (d) dye production.

  Mr. Maclean
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has prosecuted one company for operating a timber treatment process without being authorised to do so under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Information about prosecutions by local authorities under part I of the Act broken down by category of process regulated is not routinely collected and could be obtained now only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the level of awareness by companies of the duty of care requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government conducted a substantial publicity campaign on the duty of care on its introduction in April 1992. This was well received and more than a million copies of a free explanatory leaflet, which is still available, were distributed to trade associations and companies. The Department employed MORI to review the effectiveness of this and other publicity campaigns. The results of its survey, carried out in December 1992, showed overall high levels of awareness of information on the duty of care. It was clear that awareness was greater among waste disposers than among waste producers. Subsequently, companies have become more aware of the requirements on inquiry from their waste disposal contractors and local authorities.

  EC Environment Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he plans to put forward at the EC Environment Council meeting in Aarhus on 14 to 16 May.

  Mr. Maclean
  The meeting in Aarhus, at which I represented the United Kingdom, was an informal Council. Ministers discussed three topics proposed by the Danish presidency: transport and the environment, the review of the structural funds regulations, and employment and the environment. No formal conclusions were adopted nor decisions taken.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department's Building Research Establishment published the report "An Interim Evaluation of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme" prepared by N. A. Oseland and D. D. Ward; and what are its principal conclusions.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report was placed in the Library of the House on 29 April 1993. The report concluded that 176
  improvements under the home energy efficiency scheme in 1991–92 gave mean potential fuel bill savings of £39 per annum, although 77 per cent. of the potential energy saving was taken as improved warmth. CO2 levels were potentially reduced by an average of 0·7 tonnes per household per annum, although the actual saving was 0·14 tonnes.

  The study also found significant improvements in warmth and comfort, and a significant reduction in condensation problems. Two thirds of those interviewed would not have carried out the work without the HEES grant. Half paid no client contribution, 14 per cent. thought the work had been funded by their local authority. The quality of work was rated as "good", and 75 per cent. of recipients were positive about the scheme overall.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information the United Kingdom gave the European Commission in its preparation- of COM(93)88 Final on the third report from the Commission on the present situation and prospects for radioactive waste management in the European Community; and if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Kingdom management of radioactive waste of the Commission report.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report updates and supplements the information presented in similar previous reports forwarded to the Council in 1983 and 1987. All the data relating to the United Kingdom were supplied by the relevant United Kingdom authorities.

  UV-B Radiation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to publish the results of the predictive modelling exercise of ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation in the United Kingdom conducted by his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  First results from the Department's prediction of stratospheric change project at the university of Cambridge are expected during 1994. Publication in the scientific literature will be encouraged, as it is for all the Department's research programmes. In addition, results will be available to the Department's stratospheric ozone review group and to the international scientific assessment of ozone depletion under the Montreal protocol.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the United Kingdom Government's policy on changing the EC standard of 50 mg/l for lead in drinking water to 10 mg/1.

  Mr. Maclean
  We expect that the European Commission will wish to consider proposing a change to the current standard for lead in the drinking water directive of 50 micrograms per litre (µg/l) in the light of the revised guideline for lead of 10µg/l announced by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The United Kingdom will play its full part in discussion of proposals for a revised directive.
  177

  Bottlenose Dolphins
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to undertake a census and research programme into the bottlenose dolphin population in United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are financing several research projects intended to provide information on what further measures may be needed to conserve populations of small cetacean species present in the United Kingdom coastal waters, including bottlenose dolphins. But much of the fundamental work—including population surveys—needs to be undertaken on a European scale.

  On 6 November 1992, my colleague, Lord Strathclyde, announced that the Government would contribute £110,000 over two years towards the costs of an international survey of the populations of small cetaceans in the North sea. This will establish authoritative baseline information upon which further research and conservation efforts can be built.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the draft EC proposal for a regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has received a number of representations about the draft proposal from the European Commission for a regulation, including ones from green groups and from industry. We have not yet received the draft proposal.

  Radioactive Inventory
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the joint DOE/Nirex United Kingdom radioactive inventory will be published; whether it will include full details of radioactive waste generated by the military nuclear programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The 1991 United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory was published on 7 May 1993. It gives full details of radioactive waste arising in the United Kingdom, including Ministry of Defence sites. A copy of the inventory is in the House Library.

  Fanfare for a New World Concert
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 348, on the Fanfare for a New World concert, when the Merseyside development corporation met Janet and Nic Corke, representing creditors; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A meeting was held with Merseyside development corporation on Tuesday 17 November 1992. This meeting was at the request of Mr. Corke, who asked for an informal discussion. Mrs. Corke informed the MDC of her concern with regard to the financial situation of the promoter of the Fanfare event and Mr. Corke explained the large financial losses incurred by himself which had affected his business adversely. While expressing sympathy, MDC stressed that it had no legal 178
  power to intervene in the situation. Neither Mr. Corke nor Mrs. Corke indicated they were representing the creditor as a body.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 384, on the Fanfare for a New World concert, what was known about the proven track-record of Rod Gunner, associate producer of Fanfare for a New World; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  MDC was aware at an early stage that Mr. Gunner had been the director of a company which had previously suffered financial difficulties. In relation to the Fanfare event, however, Mr. Gunner was to act as technical producer only and without involvement in the financial affairs of Carroll Promotions Ltd. Inquiries had revealed that Mr. Gunner had a successful track record in technical matters and it was known that he had successfully produced the Symphony for a Spire attended by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales as well as a number of other complex outdoor events.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the scope and predicted magnitude of the additional administrative costs that will be incurred in implementing the European Commission proposal for a monitoring mechanism for Community carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, COM(93)125 as set out in the paragraph on financial implications of his departmental memorandum 5705/93 of 23 April on the Commission proposal.

  Mr. Maclean
  Once adopted, the proposed Council decision would require member states to submit periodically to the Commission details of their greenhouse gas emissions and programmes for limiting these. Since the framework convention on climate change already contains similar requirements, this should not represent a significant additional administrative burden for the United Kingdom.

  United Nations Commission on Human Settlements
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom proposals to the matters discussed and decisions taken at the 14th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Settlements in Nairobi, 26 April to 5 May; and if he will place a copy of the conclusions in the Library.

  Mr. Maclean
  The 14th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Settlements identified the issues to be taken up by the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) to be held in June 1996 and provided guidance for member states to follow in their preparations for the Conference.

  The Commission adopted a resolution that recommended that Habitat II should focus on two major themes:

  (a) Sustainable Human Settlements in an Urbanising World

  (b) Adequate Shelter for All.

  The United Kingdom supported this resolution and played a leading role in its drafting. The United Kingdom delegation also contributed to debate on the two special themes discussed at the session on appropriate,

  179
  intermediate, cost-effective building materials. technologies and transfer mechanisms for housing delivery, and the improvement of municipal management.

  A set of the resolutions adopted by the Commission will be placed in the Library when printed.

  Water Systems, Germany
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance United Kingdom experts have given the eastern Lander in Germany to improve the environmental standards of water systems in their region.

  Mr. Maclean
  United Kingdom water companies and environmental consulting engineers are making major efforts to increase their business in the new Lander. To publicise this country's experience in the water industry and the role of private capital, the British Water Industries Group has held seminars in Halle, Dresden and Berlin. I found the interest in the British water industry very encouraging when I attended the Berlin seminar and in meetings with German Environment Ministers I have drawn their attention to the wide-ranging expertise the industry has to offer.

  Environmental Legislation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the methods adopted by the European Commission to assess compliance with EC environmental legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the European Commission to decide, within the framework of the relevant regulation or directive, how best to assess compliance with EC legislation. During our presidency the Commission agreed to present an annual report on implementation and enforcement to the Council of Environment Ministers; the first such report was produced in December. We continue to wish to see the European Environment Agency established as soon as possible and to press for the establishment of an audit inspectorate.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which European Community member states have a formal provision for consultation with other EC member states on trans-border impacts of environmental pollution.

  Mr. Maclean
  Certain multilateral treaties and some Community directives on environmental issues contain provisions requiring formal consultation between the parties concerned where there are potential trans-border impacts. We do not hold records of bilateral arrangements between other member states.

  Bromley
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has received from the district auditor concerning financial irregularities by the London borough of Bromley between 1988 and 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. District auditors are independent of central Government; they make their 180
  reports to the bodies which they audit, and to the Audit Commission. I understand that the district auditor for Bromley is working closely with the police who are currently investigating an alleged fraud within the borough. He will decide what action he should take, if any, when the investigation is complete.

  Biological Diversity Convention
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Her Majesty's Government's current timetable for the United Kingdom ratification of the biological diversity convention agreed in Rio.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are aiming to establish the basis for the ratification of the convention on biological diversity by the end of this year.

  International Oceanographic Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the ecological results of the 1992 International Oceanographic Council cruise in the Gulf.

  Mr. Maclean
  The results of the cruise are summarised in the report of the United Nations Environmental Programme executive director to the governing council on 10 to 21 May 1993 (UNEP/GC 17/1/9: 26 April 1993).

  Homelessness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for homelessness in(a) the west midlands area and (b) the Coventry area.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities in England report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 in their quarterly PI return.

  The latest estimate for the west midlands appears in table 1 of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act 1985: England. Statistics for the fourth quarter 1992"; the latest reported figure for Coventry appears in the supplementary table of the same publication, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the(a) causes and (b) level of homelessness within ethnic minority communities.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 26 April 1993,Official Report, columns 317–18. Two current research projects—one on single homelessness and one on the causes of homelessness among ethnic minorities.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how far the review of the system of standard spending assessments calculation has progressed; and when the review of SSAs will be completed.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have so far received replies from 112 local authorities responding to our invitation to make
  181
  representations on the review of standard spending assessments and to provide evidence to support any proposed changes.

  There have been three meetings between my officials and representatives of the local authority associations to discuss technical issues.

  The review of SSAs will be completed in time for any changes to be incorporated in the revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95.

  Stock Transfers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he took to satisfy himself that each authority to which he gave his approval on 20 April to proceed with stock transfer proposals could demonstrate that ultimately its proposal would be likely to be acceptable to the tenants affected.

  Sir George Young
  In deciding on the likely acceptability of an authority's transfer proposals to tenants, I considered the evidence given by the authority in its application for the programme and also its record in tenant involvement and consultation. Where tenants of particular local authorities had written to express their views on the proposals, these were also taken into account. Stock transfers will, of course, only go ahead where the ballot shows the majority of tenants to be in support of the idea.

  Housing Management Contracts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have recently let, or propose to let, contracts for the management of part or all of their housing; and if he has been asked to give his consent as required by section 27 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Sir George Young
  Apart from cases of delegation of housing management to tenant management organisations, there is no reason why the Department should be informed that a local authority is working towards letting a management agreement or contract. Before an authority enters into a management agreement, the Secretary of State's approval is required under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985. Wandsworth borough council has recently asked the Secretary of State to give his approval to a management agreement.

  Housing Corporation
  Sir James Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Housing Corporation's latest estimate of the output from its approved development programme in 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing Corporation estimates that in the last financial year its approved development programme will have funded the provision of at least 60,000 new homes. Final figures will be available next month. Together with the 6,000 homes which the corporation estimates have been provided by local authority housing association grants, this means that 182
  public funds enabled housing associations to make an estimated 66,000 extra homes available to new tenants last year.

  I regret that in recent answers to the House and in the Adjournment debate on 26 April, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I said that the Housing Corporation's estimate was 80,000 homes. The corporation has since informed me that in making this estimate it miscalculated the output from its programme. I am grateful for the opportunity to inform the House of this correction. I have written separately to the hon. Members concerned.

  Liverpool Projects
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the Project Rosemary in Liverpool.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: Much has been achieved since the project began in 1990. The new women's hospital and Renshaw's factory expansion are the biggest developments of their type in inner Liverpool. Family housing for sale and rent is being built on four different sites, with local people closely involved in their layout and design. Eyesores are being removed and roads improved. The park at Crown street is soon to be extended and improved.

  As well as transforming the appearance of the area, new investment is being used to provide training opportunities, full-time jobs, and subcontracting work for local people and businesses. More will follow as the project proceeds.

  I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Dean of Liverpool on his enterprising role in initiating this considerable success story alongside the other agencies involved, especially Liverpool city council, the Liverpool area health authority and the Housing Corporation.

  Dogs
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to widen the scope of byelaws for the control of dogs in public places.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: There are currently three main types of dog control byelaw—removal of dog mess, dogs on leads and dog bans—which local authorities can seek to apply to most types of public area, using a variety of enabling powers.

  Byelaws cannot be used to regulate matters which are addressed in primary legislation. Powers to control ferocious and dangerous dogs are already the subject of a number of statutes, including the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to establish pilot schemes for the licensing of dogs.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: None.
  183

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Self-employed People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Social Security what are the total number of self-employed people in Wales; and what estimate he has of the number claiming(a) sickness benefit, (b) invalidity benefit, (c) severe disablement allowance, (d) income support, (e) attendance allowance, (f) mobility allowance, (g) invalid care allowance, (h) maternity allowance, (i) child benefit, (j) one-parent benefit, (k) widow's payment, (l) basic pension, (m) family credit and (n) housing benefit.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, dated 18 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking what are the total number of self-employed people in Wales; and what estimate he has of the number claiming (a) Sickness Benefit, (b) Invalidity Benefit, (c) Severe Disablement Allowance, (d) Income Support, (e) Attendance Allowance, (f) Mobility Allowance, (g) Invalid Care Allowance, (h) Maternity Allowance, (i) Child Benefit, (j) One Parent Benefit,
  (k) Widow's payment, (l) Basic Pension, (m) Family Credit and (n) Housing Benefit.

  It is not possible to give a valid estimate for the complete range of information requested. For several of these benefits self-employed status is not relevant to the determination of entitlement. Nor are relevant statistics routinely collected from which estimates of other benefits claimed by self-employed people in Wales could be devised.

  However, estimates are available for Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Family Credit. These were based on a sample collected from the Social Security Management Information Statistics. The sample also included Housing Benefit, but the figures obtained do not provide a basis for a reasonable estimate. The available estimates are appended.

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

  Estimated number of self-employed recipients in Wales

  Benefit

  Estimated number

  Sickness benefit

  13,700

  Invalidity benefit

  19,300

  Severe disability allowance

  1300

  Family credit

  24,000

  1 1 per cent, sample taken on 30 March 1991.

  2 5 per cent, sample taken on 31 October 1992.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efforts have been undertaken by his Department to conduct publicity campaigns aimed at the self-employed in Wales to publicise(a) their obligation to pay national insurance contributions and (b) their social security benefit entitlements.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The provision of publicity and information on social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  184
  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, dated 18 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what efforts have been undertaken by his Department to conduct publicity campaigns aimed at the self-employed in Wales to (a) publicise their obligation to pay National Insurance contributions and (b) publicise their social security benefit entitlements.

  I have consulted with my colleague Ann Chant, Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, for the details on the National Insurance contribution aspect of your question and include this aspect in my reply.

  The Benefits Agency, in line with the Department of Social Security's bilingual policy for Wales, has set up a Welsh Language Unit which has responsibility for implementing the policy.

  All the leaflets giving information on social security benefits and NI contributions are available in Wales and there is a continuing programme to produce them in bilingual versions. Many of the most widely used leaflets (such as Which benefit?) are already in bilingual form and there are a number of widely used claim forms in Welsh. A bilingual poster advising customers of the new Quarterly Billing system for payment of NI contributions has been displayed recently in district offices.

  Evidently, the process of producing further bilingual material is a gradual one and we are committed to making continued progress in this work. One of the leaflets currently in bilingual production is FB 30 Self Employed? Also, there will shortly be bilingual material available on the Contributions Agency's charter and the service they provide.

  In addition, there is the Welsh Freeline telephone number —providing general information on benefits in Welsh to all customers, including the self employed.

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

  Immigrants and Refugees
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social
  Security how much has been spent on providing benefits to immigrants and refugees arriving in the United Kingdom without means of support in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Burt
  This information is not available. No separate departmental records are kept of benefit payments to immigrants, refugees or asylum seekers.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the monthly budget for staffing of the Benefits Agency for each month since April 1992; and how much of this budget was spent in each month.

  Mr. Burt
  The management of the Benefits Agency budget is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Richard Burden, dated 18 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what was the monthly budget for staffing of the Benefits Agency for each month since April 1992; and how much of this budget was spent in each month.

  The Agency has to manage within a total allocation and it allows its managers the flexibility to move resources between

  185
  staff and other running costs in order to achieve their objectives in the most cost effective way. The attached table compares provisional expenditure on staff with managers' own plans. When accounts close, we expect to have spent about £6 million less than managers' plans over the year (0·6 per cent.). Individual monthly figures are significantly affected by factors such as the dates of pay awards and the processing of pay adjustments.

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

  £ million

  Salaries

  Managers' monthly plans

  Monthly spend

  Monthly variance

  April

  72·136

  72·136

  0·000

  May

  69·210

  70·350

  1·140

  June

  78·003

  77·894

  -0·109

  July

  73·049

  75·624

  2·575

  August

  81·657

  77·719

  -3·938

  September

  79·770

  78·286

  -1·484

  October

  81·135

  79·469

  -1·666

  November

  95·264

  88·570

  -6·694

  December

  83·108

  83·455

  0·347

  January

  85·307

  82·645

  -2·662

  February

  90·521

  88·060

  -2·461

  March

  94·039

  102·725

  8·686

  Total

  983·199

  976·933

  -6·266

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Number issued (million)

  32·056

  30·884

  34·484

  34·470

  36·190

  Value of issues (£ million)

  2,184

  2,366

  2,752

  3,083

  3,432

  Number reported missing/stolen

  104,854

  84,901

  89,176

  83,849

  86,004

  Percentage

  0.327

  0·275

  0·259

  0·243

  0·238

  Value of missing/stolen girocheques based on an average of

  (a) Issues each year (£ million)

  7·144

  6·504

  7·117

  7·499

  8·156

  (b) 1987–88 issue value (£ million)

  7·144

  5·783

  6·075

  5·712

  5·859

  The figures of missing or stolen girocheques are collated nationally; it is not possible to supply the information in a form relating to individual Benefit Offices or Benefit Groups. Additionally, the Employment Agency acts as our agent in the provision of girocheques to those who are unemployed and claiming Income Support. Data relevant to those issues cannot be separately identified and are, therefore, not included in the tables above.

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

  Benefits (Automatic Credit Transfer)
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the proposal to cease to pay pensions at post offices, and pay them instead into bank accounts or building society accounts; and what account he has taken of the effect of his proposal on the viability of smaller post offices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have made no such proposal.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social
  Security which geographical areas are covered by the trial currently being undertaken on payment of benefits and pensions by automatic credit transfer; how many
  186

  Missing Giro Cheques
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many giro cheques were issued by his Department in each year since 1987; how many and what percentage were reported stolen or missing in each of those years; what was the value of the stolen or missing giro cheques in cash terms and at constant prices; and if he will publish a breakdown of those figures for each of his Department's offices.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. David Marshall, dated 18 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many girocheques were issued by his Department in each year since 1987; how many and what percentage were reported stolen or missing in each of those years; what was the value of the stolen or missing girocheques in cash terms and at constant prices; and if he will publish a breakdown of those figures for each of his Department's offices.

  The number of girocheques reported missing or stolen, after being issued by the Department of Social Security, in the years since 1987 are:

  payments have so far been made by ACT; how many of these payments were for retirement pensions; what is the expected cost of the exercise; and what consultations he has had with the chief executive of the Post Office about this project.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The payment of social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Peter Hain, dated 18 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking which geographical areas are covered by the trial currently being undertaken on payments of benefits and pensions by automated credit transfer (ACT); how many payments have so far been made by ACT; how many of these payments were for retirement pensions; what is the expected cost of the exercise; and what consultations he has had with the Chief Executive of the Post Office about this project.

  Trial versions of the Retirement Pension claim form were issued between 1 and 11 March 1993. These forms were issued to people throughout the United Kingdom. The cost of the

  187
  claim form trial is expected to be around £22,000. No payments have been made to customers completing trial forms, as Retirement Pension claim forms are issued four months before retirement age.

  Details of consultations with the Post Office are contained in the Official Report, volume 224, columns 445–446.

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

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations underlie his policy to encourage recipients of specific benefits to receive their benefits by way of bank accounts; which benefits are involved; what steps he has taken, and at what cost, to further this policy; and what assessment he has made of
  the advantages and disadvantages of effects of the success of such a policy.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since automated credit transfer was introduced in 1982, our policy has always been to encourage people to take up the option of payment by this method, which is a more cost-effective, safer and easier way for them to receive their benefits.

  The benefits for which ACT is currently available are:

  Attendance Allowance

  Disability Living Allowance

  Disability Working Allowance

  Pensions/Widows Benefit

  Child Benefit

  One Parent Benefit

  Family Credit

  War Pensions

  The facility will be available to pay income support by ACT from October 1993; unemployment benefit through a rolling programme between May 1993 and October 1994; and sickness benefit, invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance through a rolling programme between May 1993 and January 1994.

  For the steps taken, and the costs incurred, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) on 26 April at columns 313–14.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social
  Security what information he has on(a) those EC countries, besides the United Kingdom, that have contributory state retirement pension schemes and (b) those which place a geographical restriction on the payment of full retirement pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  State retirement pensions are contributory in every other EC member state apart from Denmark and the Netherlands, where pension entitlement is linked to residence rather than employment record. Information on pensions in EC countries can be found in the MISSOC tables, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Information on geographical restrictions on payment of retirement pensions is not available.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy concerning the provision of smoke alarms to recipients of income support and other benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Social security benefits do not include any specific sum in respect of the provision of smoke alarms.
  188

  Industrial Injuries
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the report by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on bringing the self-employed in construction and agriculture into the industrial injuries scheme will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The council's report was published today (Cm 2177) and copies are available in the Library. The report recommends that the industrial injuries scheme should be extended to include self-employed earners in the construction and agriculture industries. We have considered the report, which the council submitted to us last November, very carefully, but have not accepted the council's recommendation. Implementing IIAC's recommendation would represent a significant expansion of the scope of the scheme, which we do not consider would be justified in principle, or workable in practice.

  The industrial injuries scheme has always been intended for workers employed under a contract of service to an employer. In 1978, the Pearson commission recommended the inclusion of the self-employed in the scheme, but the Government rejected the recommendation on principle and because of the substantial operational difficulties involved. IIAC recently decided to reconsider the position of self-employed workers in the light of the increase in self-employment during the 1980s. The present recommendation to include self-employed construction and agricultural workers in the industrial injuries scheme is seen by the council as a possible first step towards extending the scheme to the self-employed generally.

  Those who undertake self-employment do so in the knowledge that provision against industrial injury will be their own responsibility, and that private insurance is available to them. The Government consider that this is right in principle and do not accept the need to alter the present well-established position. We also remain of the view that extending the industrial injuries scheme to self-employed workers would raise significant practical difficulties.

  Fraud
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 214, how many of the cases of social security investigations in (a) England and (b) Yorkshire and Humberside resulted in identified overpayments (i) inclusive of prosecutions for fraud and (ii) exclusive of prosecutions for fraud.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 18 May 1993:

  I wrote to you on 20 April 1993 about your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1993, Official Report, column 214, how many of the cases of social security investigations in (a) England and (b) Yorkshire and Humberside resulted in identified overpayments (i) inclusive of prosecutions for fraud and (ii) exclusive of prosecutions for fraud.
  189
  In that letter I gave you the figures for the year ending 31 March 1992 but indicated that I would send you the figures for the year ending 31 March 1993 when they became available. I am pleased to inform you that these figures are now to hand.

  In the year ending 31 March 1993 a total of 62,193 investigations in England resulted in an identified overpayment. Included in this figure are 8,443 identified overpayments in the Yorkshire and Humberside area.

  I hope you will find this information helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with
  the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Privacy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  National Heritage what proposals he is considering for protection in the media of the personal privacy of prominent persons.

  Mr. Brooke
  We intend to introduce legislation, on the lines recommended by Sir David Calcutt, to criminalise certain acts of physical intrusion into personal privacy with intent to obtain information or other material with a
  view to publication. We have also accepted Sir David's recommendations for further consideration to be given to four other measures bearing on privacy. We will set out our views on his recommendation for a statutory press complaints tribunal in responding to the National Heritage Select Committee's report on privacy and media intrusion.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to encourage the development of museums and galleries in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Key
  The Department seeks to encourage the development of those national museums and galleries for which it has direct funding responsibility in a number of ways designed to increase public access to collections, encourage greater efficiency in the provision of services and to bring about the refurbishment of the buildings in which the national museums and galleries are housed.

  The Department also funds the Museums and Galleries Commission, a royal charter body. The aims of the commission include the development and maintenance of higher standards in museums and galleries and the commission also gives financial assistance for this purpose.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has for meeting the repair and refurbishment needs of museums and galleries.
  190
  Mr. Key
  The museums and galleries sponsored by the Department of National Heritage have submitted their corporate plans to the Department. The information contained in these plans, including information on proposed repair and refurbishment, will be considered in the course of the current public expenditure round. Spending plans will be announced in due course.

  Gambling
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if moneys spent on the national lottery will be classified as gambling.

  Mr. Key
  I refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 28 October 1992,Official Report, columns 687–88.

  National Lottery
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much per head of population he estimates will be spent on the national lottery in each year from 1994 to 1998.

  Mr. Key
  It is not possible to make such estimates, which depend upon the degree of success of the national lottery.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what specific guarantees were obtained from the GAH group of consultants that information contained in the report on the national lottery commissioned by his Department would not be sold to third parties by the group;

  (2) if he will publish the text of the contract agreed between his Department and the GAH group of consultants regarding his commissioned research on the national lottery, minus financial details which are regarded as commercial in confidence;

  (3) what was the length and word count of the report of the national lottery commissioned by his Department from the GAH group;

  (4) if he will list the subject and chapter headings contained in the report on the national lottery commissioned by his Department from the GAH group;

  (5) what guarantees were obtained from the GAH groups of consultants that, following their completion of the commissioned research from his Department, the company would not subsequently offer consultancy advice in respect of the national lottery to private individuals or companies;

  (6) which parts of the (a) text, (b) subject headings, (c) chapters and (d) tables contained in the report on the national lottery recently published by the GAH group are similar or identical to the (i) text, (ii) subject headings, (iii) chapters and (iv) tables contained in the report on the national lottery commissioned by his Department from the GAH group; and if he will list them;

  (7) what inquiries he has made with the GAH group of consultants regarding subsequent consultancy and advice work in respect of the national lottery which the group has given to private individuals and/or companies; and if he will publish a list of all such work subsequently undertaken by the GAH group;

  (8) on what date he was first made aware by the GAH group of consultants that they intended to publish a

  191
  commercial report on the national lottery; and what steps he took to obtain a copy of the report in advance of publication.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: The Department of National Heritage contract with the GAH consultancy is commercially confidential and I do not intend to publish it. The recent report "The UK National Lottery Report" published by the GAH group on 10 May 1993 is a different document from the report produced from the Government, and appears to be based on a synthesis of published sources and new and separate research. The publication of this report does not appear to constitute a breach of the contract between my Department and the GAH group. The GAH group did not inform the Department beforehand of its intention to publish such a report.

  Government contracts do not normally place restrictions on the future clients a contractor may take on—either particularly or generally. However, the GAH group has given a firm undertaking in honour not to work for potential bidders for the national lottery licence.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will enable denominations to dispose of redundant places of worship to the Historic Chapel Trust for less than full consideration.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have today made a direction to this effect under section 4(11) of the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on(a) remuneration and (b) other expenses incurred by national health service trust board chairmen and members for each of the last two years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The summarised accounts of national health service trusts in England for 1991–92 record the total remuneration and emoluments of chairmen and members of NHS trust boards as some 15·5 million. This figure includes all fees, emoluments and pension contributions, but excludes travelling, subsistence and similar expenses which are not separately identifiable. Equivalent information for 1992–93 will be available later this year.

  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much her Department has spent on the Wellcome manufactured whooping cough vaccine; what were the other vaccines on the market at the time that vaccine began to be used by the NHS; what has been the safety record of each of these vaccines; when it first came to the attention of her Department that there were suspected brain damage cases; when the Wellcome vaccine was withdrawn from prescription in England; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  For most of the period since whooping cough vaccine first became available, the vaccine has been 192
  ordered direct from the suppliers by district health authorities and by general practitioners. Details of total expenditure on the Wellcome product are therefore not available centrally. Other whooping cough vaccines, from Glaxo Laboratories and the Lister Institute, were available in the United Kingdom when immunisation began in 1957, but their manufacturers subsequently discontinued production. Information on the safety of these products is not available without considerable historical research, at disproportionate cost.

  Suggestions in the 1970s that serious complications following immunisation were occurring more frequently than previously thought led to the joint review by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The joint review reported in 1981. Its main conclusion was that the connection between permanent brain damage and whooping cough vaccine had not been established. More recently, an extensive study by the United States Institute of Medicine concluded that there is insufficient evidence to indicate a causal relationship between diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine and chronic neurological damage and other specified disorders.

  All vaccines are examined carefully before release for safety and efficacy and only vaccines which match exacting specifications are used. All adverse reactions to vaccines are carefully monitored both by the CSM and the JCVI which advise the United Kingdom health departments.

  The Wellcome whooping cough vaccine has not been withdrawn. It is now supplied by Evans Medical as a combined vaccine with diphtheria and tetanus, known as DTP, and supplied for the United Kingdom's childhood immunisation programme. More than 90 per cent. of infants receive DTP and reported cases of whooping cough in this country have fallen to exceptionally low levels, with only one death since 1990.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the budget of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The provision for advances to and payments on behalf of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for 1993–94 is:

  £

  Current expenditure

  1,068,000

  Capital expenditure

  18,000

  The authority is required to recover 50 per cent. of its running costs through fees paid by licensed centres.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to ensure enforcement of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in every laboratory capable of doing such work in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  All research projects using human embryos must be licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Applications for a licence must have prior approval from a local research ethics committee and are subject to peer review before being considered by an HFEA licence committee. Research projects are monitored and the premises where the work is carried out are regularly inspected by the HFEA.
  193

  Human Cloning
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has that human cloning experiments have already taken place in the United Kingdom using techniques routinely used for cloning farm animals.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will extend the national survey of mental illness to be carried out on behalf of the Department by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to cover mental illness among people over the age of 65 years; and on what grounds it has been decided to limit the national survey on mental illness to the 16 to 64 age group.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. Establishing levels of mental illness in children and young adolescents and in people aged 65 and over requires a different methodology.

  Considerable data are already available on the prevalence of mental disorders in elderly people. These will shortly be supplemented by a study currently in progress by the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Cervical Cancer
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date departmental representatives will visit the Galton research laboratory at the university of London to see a demonstration of the HDA test for cervical cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials have already spoken to the founder of QUEST—developers of the hydrolised DNA assay test—to discuss the arrangements.

  Public Toilets
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she has commissioned of the public health consequences of a reduction in the numbers of public toilets and an increase in the incidence of sleeping rough.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about allowing voluntary residential schools to provide secure accommodation; what plans she has to amend the Secure Accommodation Regulations under the Children Act 1989; and if she will make a statement.

  Estimated numbers of children resident in England and Wales, 1977–91.

  (Thousands)

  Ages (years):—

  Mid-year (30 June)

  Total children aged under 18

  0

  1–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–17

  1977

  13,272

  559

  2,492

  3,801

  4,091

  2,329

  1978

  13,093

  568

  2,371

  3,691

  4,071

  2,392

  1979

  12,936

  617

  2,309

  3,536

  4,023

  2,451

  1980

  12,776

  639

  2,317

  3,386

  3,941

  2,493

  1981

  12,591

  634

  2,371

  3,196

  3,889

  2,501

  194
  Mr. Yeo
  A number of organisations have recently made inquiries about the prospect of providing secure accommodation. On 2 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced our intention to amend regulations to enable private and voluntary providers to provide secure accommodation. We intend to issue a consultation document shortly.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has plans to amend the list of the items of data that comprise the contract minimum data set in view of the comments made in a recent report from the Data Protection Registrar; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The content of the contract minimum data sets is not in question, apart from one or two items of data. The need for these items is being reviewed by officials who will meet shortly with the registrar to agree how best to address his concerns.

  Pensioners (Discharge from Hospital)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning early discharge of pensioners from hospital because of the reduction in their pensions after six weeks if they reside in a nursing or residential home.

  Mr. Yeo
  Decisions about the discharge of patients from hospital and the type of care most appropriate to meet their individual care needs are for the professional staff involved and must be made on clinical grounds.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims were made for compensation in instances of medical negligence affecting children born with a disability in each year since 1987; how many(a) were settled or withdrawn prior to court hearings and (b) resulted in successful court hearings; and what was the average amount paid out in compensation.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Children
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children there were at the most convenient date in each year since 1977; and how many of them were aged on those dates(a) under one year, (b) between one and four years, (c) between five and nine years, (d) between 10 and 14 years and (e) between 15 and 17 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  195

  Ages (years):—

  Mid-year (30 June)

  Total children aged under 18

  0

  1–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–17

  1982

  12,369

  620

  2,443

  3,032

  3,791

  2,483

  1983

  12,148

  623

  2,496

  2,923

  3,680

  2,426

  1984

  11,954

  623

  2,510

  2,916

  3,528

  2,377

  1985

  11,823

  649

  2,502

  2,960

  3,388

  2,324

  1986

  11,730

  655

  2,528

  3,025

  3,214

  2,308

  1987

  11,635

  664

  2,562

  3,099

  3,060

  2,250

  1988

  11,581

  686

  2,602

  3,164

  2,957

  2,172

  1989

  11,512

  680

  2,666

  3,178

  2,951

  2,037

  1990

  11,496

  686

  2,694

  3,194

  2,993

  1,929

  19911

  11,552

  702

  2,725

  3,219

  3,057

  1,849

  1 The estimates for 1991 are provisional. Final 1991 population estimates (taking account of later 1991 Census results) will be published in June 1993, and estimates for the period 1982–90 will be revised slightly thereafter to make them fully consistent with these final 1991 figures.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken by her Department into the feasibility of developing a non-fault compensation scheme to deal with claims of medical negligence affecting children born with a disability.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will announce the new chairman of West Midlands regional health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have appointed Mr. Bryan Baker, the former deputy chairman of Tarmac plc, as chairman of West Midlands regional health authority with effect from 16 July.

  Mr. Baker will succeed Sir Donald Wilson, who has been temporarily chairing the authority since January. Mr. Baker will carry forward the work begun by Sir Donald in implementing important management changes in the region.

  Sir Donald will return to his former role as chairman of Mersey regional health authority. Professor Alasdair Breckenridge, the present Mersey chairman, will resume his role as the university member on the Mersey regional health authority board.

  Mental Health
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to lay before Parliament a revised code of practice under section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have today laid the revised code of practice and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Laboratory Technicians
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 356–57, on medical laboratory scientific officers, if the national health service employs laboratory technicians who are not required to have the MLSO qualification.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service employs technicians to perform a range of functions in hospital departments with laboratories and the qualifications required depend upon the nature of the post.
  196

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated by the Mid Essex hospital trust at(a) Broomfield hospital and (b) St. John's hospital in its first year as a trust; and what were the numbers treated in those hospitals each of the two previous years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The figures, which relate to finished consultant episodes in the general and acute specialities, are as follows:

  Number

  1990–91

  31,661

  1991–92

  32,567

  1992–93

  32,538

  All figures are aggregates relating to the same grouping of hospitals in the trust; it is not possible to give separate figures for Broomfield and St. John's because data on the individual hospitals are not available centrally.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Citizenship
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the principal rights conferred on British citizens by virtue of their citizenship.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  British nationality legislation does not itself confer rights directly upon British citizens; and there is no definitive list of such rights.

  Relate
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the annual grant to Relate in each year since 1979 expressed in(a) cash terms and (b) 1993 values.

  Mr. Jack
  The Home Office grant in aid to Relate for each year from 1980–81 is set out below in cash terms and real terms using 1993–94 as the base year.

  Cash terms £

  Real terms £

  1980–81

  555,000

  1,152,887

  1981–82

  704,000

  1,333,611

  1982–83

  750,000

  1,326,275

  1983–84

  788,000

  1,331,839

  1984–85

  827,460

  1,331,010

  197

  Cash terms £

  Real terms £

  1985–86

  864,570

  1,318,717

  1986–87

  890,500

  1,315,933

  1987–88

  912,870

  1,278,715

  1988–89

  935,910

  1,222,010

  1989–90

  958,890

  1,174,790

  1990–91

  1,006,840

  1,142,092

  1991–92

  1,107,500

  1,177,782

  1992–93

  1,511,400

  1,552,960

  1993–94

  1,530,500

  1,530,500

  In real terms there has been an increase of 32·75 per cent. in the grant over the period in question.

  Gambling
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent per head of the population on gambling in each year since 1988; and what is his estimate for each year to 1996.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No estimate is readily available for the financial year 1988–89, and we have no forecasts for future years.

  Estimated figures for net consumer expenditure on gambling—amount staked less winnings—per head per annum in the four years from 1989–90 to 1992–93 inclusive are £58, £52, £54 and £55.

  Seized Assets
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by name, location and amount the projects which have shared in the £2·2 million distributed by the seized assets fund.

  Mr. Jack
  The projects which received a share of the £2·2 million in the seized assets fund during 1992–93 are listed in the table.

  Bids selected for funding from seized assets fund 1992–93

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  £

  1. Integrated intelligence system trials (trials for enhancements of HMCE's CEDRIC intelligence system)

  100,000

  2. Semi-inflatable boat and trailer (for use in patrolling and gathering intelligence on west coast of Scotland)

  29,000

  3. Links to traders' computers at Dover (giving Customs access to information on channel ferry operators' passenger and freight computers)

  50,000

  4. Links to traders' computers at London airports (giving access to principal airline computers at four London airports)

  43,000

  5. Links to traders' computers at East Anglian ports (giving access to computers of 11 shipping lines)

  37,000

  6. Links with DTI and traders' computers at Liverpool

  9,900

  7. Links with traders' computers at various ferry ports

  40,000

  8. Computer intelligence enhancement system

  125,000

  198

  £

  9. Computer links with Cavewood Hauliers

  15,000

  10. Publicity campaign to encourage use of drugs freephone facility

  150,000

  11. Computer links with Containerbase

  15,000

  Department for Education

  £

  1. National Association of Boys Clubs: publication and dissemination of report on three-year drugs programme

  15,000

  2. TACADE: four pilot "Caravan About Drugs" projects, enabling young people to make short anti-drug films for use with other groups of young people

  35,000

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  £

  1. Fast inshore patrol boat for Gibraltar Customs

  40,000

  2. Customs patrol boat for Thailand

  54,000

  Department of Health

  £

  1. Fire safety work at Clarendon project, north Bedfordshire

  3,000

  2. Refurbishment of counselling rooms. Drugs Concern, Barnet

  1,500

  3. Switchboard for new officers of substance misuse team, North Hertfordshire

  2,000

  4. Computer equipment for Gatehouse clinic, Ealing H. A.

  2,000

  5. Furniture and word processor for Tower Hamlets community drugs team

  13,200

  6. Harm reduction initiative, Bromley H. A.

  2,000

  7. Publicity materials for Milestones and HIV prevention programme, Bexley H. A.

  3,157

  8. Factline projects and prison outreach expenses, Brighton

  3,326

  9. Database for Croydon community health team

  3,805

  10. Mobile telephone for north-west Surrey needle exchange

  400

  11. Drug publicity for north-west Surrey

  300

  12. Kitchen extension to residential rehabilitation unit, Holy Cross, Haslemere

  6,800

  13. Staff training, Liverpool drug dependency clinic

  3,800

  14. Capital costs to establish New Start day centre, Manchester city council

  15,890

  15. Extension to needle exchange scheme, Newcastle FHSA

  6,000

  16. Development of minimal intervention/treatment package for primary health-care workers, North Tyneside

  5,500

  199

  £

  17. Purchases of clinical equipment, Bradford CDAS

  15,000

  18. Portable substance misuse health shop, Bassetlaw HA

  2,500

  19. Facilities for children and portable gym (to encourage drug misusers with children into services), Sheffield H. A.

  1,424

  20. Youth outreach Worker, Nottingham Drug Dependents Anonymous

  13,500

  21. Renovation of clinical room, North Staffordshire Substance Misuse unit

  12,980

  22. Drop-in cafe project, Birmingham

  25,000

  23. Regional solvent misuse seminar, East Gloucestershire

  2,000

  24. GP research project on drug misuse, Avon

  2,500

  25. Computer equipment, NACRO south-west regional drug training unit

  2,650

  26. Training material and courses in 1992, Coke Hole, Andover

  1,000

  27. Publicity for meedle exchange scheme, Salisbury

  1,100

  28. HIV prevention project among intravenous drug users, Cambridgeshire Health Authority

  20,500

  29. Portable office building, Ley community, Oxon

  25,000

  30. Research into reliability of on-site drug testing kits, Charing Cross and Westminster medical school

  9,000

  31. Counselling and treatment services expansion, Open road, Colchester

  8,300

  32. Prison education, Brighton

  1,150

  33. Refurbishment of therapy area, west Lambeth

  2,950

  34. Mobile phones, St. George's drug dependency unit

  1,500

  35. Database for drugs and AIDS counselling and advisory services, South West Thames regional health authority

  7,500

  36. Training package for voluntary sector staff, Bury

  1,200

  37. HIV needle exchange worker, Freshfield, Truro

  10,751

  38. Publicity materials, West Essex

  700

  39. Children's facilities, Phoenix house, Sheffield

  4,110

  40. Leicester Action for Youth Trust: Furnishing for new services for HIV-positive misusers

  8,000

  41. Hull and East Yorkshire community drug project: Needle disposal project

  3,600

  42. Furness Drug Concern: Training for volunteer counsellors

  1,500

  43. Eastbourne community drug team: Computers

  2,814

  44. Cambridgeshire LEA: Booklet for school children

  1,000

  45. Yeldall Manor Readin: Upgrading residential rehabilitation building

  9,571

  200

  £

  46. South-west Durham: Establishment of needle exchange scheme

  1,250

  47. Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster FHSA: training primary healthcare team

  1,000

  48. Pegasus, NE Thames: new residential facility

  20,000

  49. CADA (Campaign Against Drug Abuse) Old Kent Road: furniture and equipment

  5,000

  50. SW Thames Family Support Drugline: furniture and improvement to office

  4,390

  51. Association for Prevention of Addiction, Hastings; refurbishment

  2,000

  52. Harringay: needle exchange equipment

  6,500

  53. SHADO, Liverpool: telephone system

  2,621

  54. Manchester Mainline: volunteer training and development

  6,000

  55. Basingstoke Drug Service: information, education and training

  15,400

  56. Birmingham: Allens Croft project

  24,000

  57. Central Notts HA: syringe dispensing machine

  3,345

  58. NW Durham: needs assessment in Stanley area

  1,250

  59. Oxford Drug Dependency Team: extension to centre

  27,000

  60. Airedale voluntary drug and alcohol agency: staff training

  1,185

  61. Bridge project, Cambridge: extension to drop-in project

  30,000

  62. Brighton and Hove drug prevention team: Tabloid project

  22,172

  63. Blackburn solvent abuse group: training, capital, adminstration

  4,000

  64. Riverside community drug team, west London: methadone services

  30,000

  65. Lewisham Drugline: computer

  2,800

  66. Family support drugline, Wallington: computer

  2,950

  67. North Liverpool community drug team: creche, leisure equipment, Land Rover

  30,000

  68. Manchester FHSA: drug misuser support group

  15,000

  69. South Warwickshire drug advisory service: education and training resources

  1,995

  70. Durham HA: establishment of needle exchange

  4,000

  71. West Yorkshire Probation: drug education/ training for offenders

  3,000

  72. Northampton Council on Addictions: resources for young offenders

  9,000

  73. West Suffolk drug advisory service: mobile phones

  3,500

  74. Nottingham drug dependants anonymous: refurbishment

  10,000

  201

  £

  75. Portsmouth drug dependency service: refurbishment of interview rooms

  7,000

  76. Exeter drug project: residential development worker

  26,205

  77. Mid-Downs health authority: computers

  15,000

  78. Druglink, Hemel Hempstead: staff training

  2,195

  79. Kent Council on Addictions: prison outreach

  2,250

  80. Barking and Brentwood: resources to develop Havering base

  20,000

  81. St. Helens and Knowsley community drug team: expansion

  6,987

  82. Darlington health authority: publicity for needle exchange

  427

  83. Wakefield FHSA: training equipment for primary healthcare workers

  4,000

  84. Aylesbury Drugstop: phonelines

  744

  85. North Birmingham health authority: computer equipment, Slade Road centre

  1,992

  86. MIND, Barnsley: rental of premises

  10,000

  87. West Norfolk and Wishbech health authority: establishment of needle exchange

  16,500

  88. Lifeline Manchester: Women's magazine on drugs

  4,500

  89. Drug concern Watford: To establish training courses

  2,500

  90. Seaside centre, Eastbourne: Refurbishment

  500

  91. West Surrey and North-East Hants health authority: Portakabin extension for community drug team

  10,000

  92. South Sefton Advisory Committee on Drug and Solvent Abuse: drugs helpline service for families of drug misusers

  745

  93. Darlington health authority: training course for local GPs

  300

  94. Bromsgrove and Redditch health authority: additional facilities for tranquilliser withdrawal project

  3,130

  95. Scunthorpe health authority: needle exchange

  18,400

  Home Office

  £

  1. CLUE computer terminals for three sites (to retrieve operational data from collated information during operations), No. 9 regional crime squad

  78,000

  2. Computer software for drug profit confiscation, executive co-ordinator, regional crime squads

  3,500

  Encrypted radios for the following police forces:

  3. Greater Manchester police

  41,830

  4. Merseyside police

  50,000

  5. No. 5 regional crime squad

  25,000

  202

  £

  6. Northumbria police

  11,500

  7. Kent police

  30,000

  8. South Wales police

  29,000

  9. Derbyshire police

  31,000

  10. Nottinghamshire police

  45,041

  11. South Yorkshire police

  42,253

  12. West Midlands police

  9,930

  13. Hampshire police

  18,000

  14. Lancashire constabulary

  32,000

  15. Sussex police

  29,000

  16. Leicestershire constabulary

  30,000

  17. Holloway prison: drug/alcohol rehabilitation courses

  15,200

  Overseas Development Administration

  £

  1. Construction of carpentry workshop and provision of tools for children at risk from cocaine, Cochabamba, Bolivia

  27,000

  Scottish Office

  £

  1. Vehicle tracking equipment for Scottish crime squad (for use in operations against drug traffickers)

  16,000

  2. Surveillance vehicle for Scottish crime squad

  25,000

  3. Ferguslie Park partnership Paisley: one-year drug worker

  20,000

  4. Wester Hailes partnership Edinburgh: development of drug misuse educational project, Wester Hailes, Edinburgh

  6,000

  5. Equipment for drug reduction programme, Saughton prison, Edinburgh

  25,000

  6. Association of Nurses Against Substance Abuse: four-day summer school

  6,000

  7. Castlemilk partnership Glasgow; development of training course for Castlemilk families support group

  23,000

  8. Whitfield partnership Dundee: outreach worker for drugs project

  23,000

  9. Computer equipment for a drugs project to assist in the evaluation of effectiveness of drugs services

  6,000

  Welsh Office

  £

  1. Training courses for drug workers, Gwent DHA

  7,000

  2. Drug training for teachers, social workers, Dyfed

  3,000

  203

  £

  3. Training for generic and volunteer workers, Powys

  6,830

  4. Clwyd drug prevention services training programme

  6,000

  5. Enhanced facilities at Rhoserchan project (residential rehabilitation)

  5,000

  6. Ty Glyn Housing Society: accommodation and rehabilitation of ex-misusers

  10,000

  7. Gwynedd Drug Quarterly Newsletter

  1,500

  8. Prevalence study on amphetamine use in South Glamorgan

  8,000

  9. South Glamorgan small projects fund (to meet one-off bids from local voluntary groups)

  4,000

  10. Gwent Association of Voluntary Organisations community and self-help development fund (to meet one-off bids from local voluntary groups)

  3,000

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the £1 million allocated to the police from the seized assets fund was spent.

  Mr. Jack
  The moneys allocated in 1992–93 to the central drugs fund from the seized assets fund were used to meet some of the additional costs of international drugs investigations by the police and HM Customs and Excise; and to make reward payments to individuals who had assisted the enforcement agencies in their investigations.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department last evaluated the merits of introducing universal photo identity cards in the United Kingdom; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Jack
  The introduction of a compulsory identity card was last considered in depth in 1988–89, when the Government concluded that the benefits of issuing identification cards did not outweigh the disadvantages and costs of doing so. The Government's views were given to the House by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), on 10 February 1989,Official Report, columns 1299–309.

  Although the matter is kept under review, the position remains as stated then.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the results of his Department's examination of the present experience of the operation in(a) Belgium, (b) Greece, (c) Germany, (d) Spain and (e) France of their national identity card schemes.

  Mr. Jack
  Earlier reviews have studied overseas practice in respect of identity cards in detail. These showed that possession of a national identity card was mandatory in Belgium, Greece, Germany and Spain. It was mandatory to carry an identity card in Belgium and Greece. Identity cards were voluntary in France but very widely used. This remains the position.

  In all these countries the police are empowered to require citizens to identify themselves, a process which
  204
  possession of an identity card obviously simplifies. No such general power exists in this country, where the police may only demand identification on reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.

  Emergency Warning System
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation's national emergency warning system is still operational; and on what date he intends to have a new system fully operational.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation siren-based national air raid warning system was closed towards the end of last year. Alternative arrangements which are based on radio and
  television broadcasts exist. Studies are being carried out to see whether any enhancement of these facilities is required.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home department what study has been made of the efficacy of the emergency national warning system in the Netherlands; and what plans he has to introduce a similar system in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are aware of the Netherlands system but have no plans to introduce similar arrangements here.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home department if he will make a statement in relation to progress being made towards agreement on the proposed European Commission directive on data protection; and if he will outline the areas where there is still disagreement between member states.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question from him on 31 March,Official Report, column 220.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the United Kingdom's position to exclude manual files containing personal information is impeding harmonisation of the United Kingdom data protection legislation with that of other member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The exclusion of manual files from the Data Protection Act 1984 is no impediment to harmonisation of data protection legislation across the European Community at the level of the Council of Europe convention. With regard to the draft EC data protection directive, the position of manual data is only one of a range of issues needing to be resolved before a common position can be reached. While it would not be appropriate for me to disclose the negotiating position of individual member states, a number of other countries share the United Kingdom's concern about the proposed application of the directive to manual files.

  Ecstasy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many seizures of the drug Ecstasy have occurred within the year from 1989; and what information he has on the percentage of seized Ecstasy which is domestically manufactured within the United Kingdom.
  205
  Mr. Jack
  Information on the number of seizures of MDA (Ecstasy) is given in the table.

  Number

  1989

  769

  1990

  399

  1991

  1,735

  None of the seized drugs are thought to have been manufactured in the United Kingdom.

  Witness Support Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been undertaken by his Department into the adoption of witness support schemes in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  In association with a number of children's organisations in the voluntary sector, the Home Office and other Government Departments have helped to develop a "Child Witness Pack". This was published earlier this month. The pack builds on the major legislative reforms concerning the giving of evidence by children which were introduced by the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991. The pack is intended to help children who may have to give evidence in court and their parents or carers.

  The child evidence reforms are being independently monitored over two years to assess their effectiveness. We are considering whether additional monitoring may be required specifically in relation to the "Child Witness Pack".

  A copy of the "Child Witness Pack" is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  In addition, the courts charter sets out service standards for the way all victims and witnesses are to be treated before and during any trial.

  Bail Support Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been allocated to each local authority in Wales for bail support schemes for young people in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 4 February to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), columns 297–98. No further bail support schemes have become operational in Wales under Home Office funding arrangements. An application from West Glamorgan social services is under consideration.

  Escorted Prisoners
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have died while being transported under Prison Service escort for each of the last five years.

  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. Tony Blair, dated 17 May 1993:

  Deaths of prisoners under prison service escort

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you directly
  206
  in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of prisoners who have died while being transported under Prison Service escort in each of the last five years.

  I am glad to say that in fact no prisoners have died since 1988 while under escort provided by the Prison Service. This excludes any cases in which prisoners who were already very seriously ill or injured (for example, due to an attempted suicide in the prison) may have died in an ambulance or other escort vehicle on the way to an outside hospital. Checking precisely how many deaths have occurred in these circumstances would require an extensive search of records and would be at disproportionate cost.

  You will of course be aware of the case of Mr. Ernest Hogg who was found unconscious in a cellular van while under escort by Group Four Escort Services and who later died in hospital. We in the Prison Service deeply regret Mr. Hogg's tragic death and I have ordered a full inquiry into the circumstances. Of course a full public inquiry will also take place in due course in the form of the Coroner's inquest.

  Mr. Ernest Hogg
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the journey leading up to the death of Ernest Hogg while in Group 4 custody, including details of the route taken and the time when he was first discovered in an inebriated state.

  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. Tony Blair, dated 17 May 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply directly to your Parliamentary Question about the death of Ernest Hogg.

  Since a police investigation is underway into the circumstances of Mr. Hogg's death, and I understand that an inquest is to be held, it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.

  Safer City Projects
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the criteria that will be used to decide the location of the 20 new safer city projects announced on 7 January.

  Mr. Jack
  The new safer cities project will, as before, be based on London borough, metropolitan district or district council areas.

  For the first six projects, the criteria for selection include:

  high crime rates—normally a chosen area would be expected to have significantly higher crime rates than the average for England and Wales:

  the willingness of local agencies to participate in the programme;

  the area should be an urban priority area—excluding areas which have existing safer cities projects;

  the area should be targeted for other Government action.

  Account will also be taken of points made by local authorities and others who have written in support of their areas becoming safer cities.

  Consideration is also being given to including a candidate for Wales.

  For later projects, further appraisal will be given to the selection criteria.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total sum of money available(a) in this financial year and (b) in a full

  207
  financial year to the 20 safer city projects announced on 7 January; and what is the highest and lowest level of aid given to any individual project.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: It is not possible to give precise figures until the tendering process for the second phase of the safer cities programme referred to in the statement which I placed in the Library of the House on 11 January, Official Report, columns 601–2, is
  complete.

  Cardiff Prison
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the non-teaching functions which will be paid for in respect of Cardiff prison in a full year under the contract awarded to Bristol university and the number of staff hours under each heading in a full year, together with the total number of non-teaching hours allowed for;

  (2) if he will list the non-teaching functions paid for in respect of Cardiff prison in each of the past five years and the number of staff hours under each heading in each year, together with the total number of non-teaching hours in each year;

  (3) if he will list the subjects taught by the prison education service at Cardiff prison in each of the past five years and the total number of teacher hours provided in each subject in each year and the total number of teaching hours provided in each year at the prison;

  (4) if he will list the subjects that will be taught at Cardiff prison under the contract awarded to Bristol university, the number of teaching hours he estimates will be provided in respect of each subject in a full year and the total number of teaching hours that will be available at the prison in a full year;

  (5) what is the total cost of the prison education system for Cardiff prison under the contract awarded to Bristol university, and the proportion that will go to direct payment for teaching hours;

  (6) if he will give for each of the last five years the total cost of the prison education service at Cardiff prison, and the proportion in each year of direct teaching hours.

  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. Alun Michael, dated May 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the provision of education services at HM Prison Cardiff. Not all of the information which you have sought is held by the Prison Service in the form requested. The information that is available is set out below and in the enclosed tables.

  Table A provides an outline of the non-teaching duties previously required at the prison and which will initially be required of the new contractor. These are only indicative since requirements change, depending on the needs of the prison population. The Prison Service requires that these duties are undertaken but does not specify the number of hours allocated to them.

  Previously Local Education Authorities were reimbursed for the actual cost of providing teachers together with an additional 5 per cent. towards the cost of administration. The new contract prices will be based on teaching time (teacher contract hours). This unit of price includes all other costs.
  208
  Details of proportional costs are not held but it is estimated that over the past five years some 25 per cent. of the cost of providing teachers has been for non-teaching duties.

  An indication of the subjects required at HM Prison Cardiff in 1993–94 year is set out in Table B, together with the teaching hours for each subject. The details may be subject to change during the course of the year dependent upon the on-going requirements of the prison. Subjects provided in the last five years are shown at Table C together with average teaching hours. The cost of that provision and annual teaching hours in each year are shown in Table D. The cost for 1993–94 under the new contract will be the product of the total number of teaching hours required (estimated to be 6,776) and the teacher contract hour price agreed with the contractor. The contract price will be determined in negotiations with the successful tenderer, in the light of the outcome of the appeal against the High Court judgment of 24 March in the case of Kenny and Woodroffe v. South Manchester College.

  Table A

  Non-teaching duties undertaken by education staff

  Library management

  Conducting inmate interviews

  Preparing inmate records and reports

  Curriculum development

  Organising external courses

  Examination administration

  Marketing education

  Administering education competitions—Koestler awards, etc

  Maintaining up-to-date inmate class lists

  Attending establishment management meetings

  Maintaining staff attendance records and preparing payment sheets

  Equipment purchase

  Preparing inmate earnings

  Undertaking extra curriculum activities

  Table B Subjects to be taught at Cardiff prison—financial year 1993–94

  Subject

  Teaching hours

  Basic Education and Social Life Skills

  1,472

  Computers

  460

  Health Education

  644

  Cookery

  368

  First Aid

  152

  Art

  1,104

  Chess

  92

  Craft

  460

  Drama

  184

  Music

  368

  Photography

  92

  Woodwork

  184

  Welsh

  92

  General Education

  920

  Pottery

  184

  Total

  6,776

  Table C Subjects taught at Cardiff prison during last five years

  Subjects

  Years taught

  Average teaching hours

  1. Basic education and social life skills

  1988—present

  1,472

  2. Art

  1988—present

  825

  3. Basketry

  1988–1991

  92

  4. Calligraphy

  1988–1990

  92

  5. Chess

  1991—present

  92

  6. Computers

  1988—present

  552

  7. Cookery

  1990—present

  460

  8. Craft

  1988—present

  460

  9. Current affairs

  1988–1991

  92

  10. Drama

  1988—present

  92

  209

  Subjects

  Years taught

  Average teaching hours

  11. First aid

  1988—present

  184

  12. General education

  1988—present

  552

  13. Geography

  1988–1990

  184

  14. Health education

  1988—present

  368

  15. History

  1988–1990

  92

  16. Music appreciation

  1988–1990

  92

  17. Music practical

  1988—present

  368

  18. Photography

  1988—present

  92

  19. Plastering theory

  1988–1990

  92

  20. Pottery

  1988—present

  184

  21. Religious education

  1988–1991

  184

  22. Welsh

  1988—present

  92

  23. Woodwork

  1988—present

  276

  Table D Cost of education at Cardiff prison during last five years

  Financial Year

  £

  1988–89

  127,179

  1989–90

  144,189

  1990–91

  151,000

  1991–92

  164,400

  1992–93

  166,700

  Teaching hours provided in each of the last five years

  Academic Year

  Hours

  1988–89

  6,437

  1989–90

  6,196

  1990–91

  14,303

  1991–92

  6,449

  1992–93

  6,544

  1 Disturbances at the prison resulted in a temporary reduction in population and a resulting reduction in teaching hours required.

  Tenders (Employment Protection)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if future invitations to companies to tender for Home Office businesses will make it clear whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. Invitations to tender will invite companies to make their own assessment of whether the regulations apply. The nature of their bid will determine whether they apply, and this cannot be determined in advance.

  Unit Fines
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for the failure of the unit fines system as implemented by his Department in England and Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend concluded that it would be right to abolish the current unit fine system on the basis of experience of its working since its implementation on 1 October 1992. He took the view that under the maximum fine levels for magistrates courts approved by Parliament in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the mechanistic application of the rules for fixing unit fines was producing results which were anomalous and disproportionate in certain cases and that the constraints 210
  of a statutory scheme had unacceptably limited the discretion of magistrates to impose fines which properly reflected all the circumstances of the particular case.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for the success of the unit fines system as implemented in the four pilot schemes.

  Mr. Jack
  I would refer the hon. Member to Home Office research and planning unit paper 59, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, which described and analysed the working of the four pilot schemes.

  Forensic Science Service
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reviewing the future of the Home Office Forensic Science Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Home Office Forensic Science Service is now in its third year as an executive agency. During this period it has become more commercial, customer-focused and cost conscious and has improved its service to the criminal justice system as a whole. We are now undertaking a review on how best to build on this progress. The review will concentrate in particular on how to ensure the continuing independence and impartiality of the organisation and the high standards, scientific excellence and professionalism required of forensic science for criminal casework, while enabling it to operate in an increasingly business like way. It will also need to take account of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal justice on the future development of forensic science.

  I hope to be able to report to the House on our conclusions before the summer recess.

  Police Duties (Private Contractors)
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to permit police duties to be carried out by private contractors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: There is no intention to contract out or place in private hands fundamental police duties which require the powers of a constable.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received a letter from Mr. Geoffrey F. Dowsett concerning the governorship of Hong Kong; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]: No trace can be found in either Home Office or Foreign and Commonwealth Office records of the letter referred to by the hon. Member. However, questions relating to the governorship of Hong Kong would normally be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
  211

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the withdrawal of central funding on those voluntary organisations from which his Department has withdrawn such funding.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 29 April 1993]: The considerations taken into account when a voluntary organisation applies for continued funding include: the needs of the organisation; its ability to attract funds from other sources; the basis on which existing funding was provided; and the extent to which its work contributes to the Department's strategic objectives and priorities and gives value for money.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is(a) the amount of Home Office grant aid received by each voluntary organisation in (i) 1991–92, (ii) 1992–93 and (iii) the amount offered to each in the current financial year and (b) the total amount of Home Office funding for voluntary organisations in each of these years;

  (2) if he will list the voluntary organisations to which his Department has agreed to give grant aid in the current financial year;

  (3) if he will list the voluntary organisations to which his Department has given grant aid in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17–18 May 1993]: The information requested in respect of 1991–92 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Information for 1992–93 and the current financial year is not yet available centrally and could be obtained only ad hoc and at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Water Charges, Strathclyde
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the metered water charges imposed by Strathclyde regional council for each year from 1989–90 to 1993–94.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The metered water charges applied by Strathclyde regional council for each year from 1989–90 to 1992–94 are given in the table.

  Year

  Pence per cubic metre

  1989–90

  27·84

  1990–91

  30·19

  1991–92

  34·40

  1992–93

  33·20

  1993–94

  1 33·50

  1 Excluding standing charges which, if incorporated, would give an equivalent charge of 34·96 pence per cubic metre.

  Education Capital Grants
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the criteria for funding under the Scottish Office Education Department capital grants scheme.
  212
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The conditions applying to funding under the Department's capital grants scheme are set out in departmental circular No. 21/1990, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much on average was contributed by sources other than rent and the private sector to the management, repair, improvement and development of each dwelling unit in Renfrew district owned and managed by(a) Scottish Homes and (b) Renfrew district council in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Individual sources of revenue or capital income to Scottish Homes and Renfrew district council are not allocated to particular items of housing expenditure.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the oustanding capital debt attributable to the housing accounts of Renfrew district council; how much the repayments on this debt amount to in the current financial year; what percentage of the average annual dwelling-based rental charge made on council-owned houses is spent on these repayments; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The capital debt associated with the houses, buildings and land to which Renfrew district council's housing revenue account applies is estimated at 128·3 million on 1 April 1993. The council has budgeted for expenditure of some £1·8 million on the redemption of debt in 1993–94, which represents 4·6 per cent. of estimated total housing revenue account expenditure. Individual sources of revenue income to the council are not allocated to particular items of housing expenditure.

  Carpet Manufacturing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new measures he intends to introduce to ensure the continued survival and development of the carpet manufacture industry in west and central Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The carpet industry in west and central Scotland already has access to a wide range of advice and assistance from the Scottish Office, Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce any additional measures.

  Crown Office Building, Edinburgh
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much it costs to maintain and upkeep the Crown Office building, the old royal high school, in Edinburgh per annum;

  (2) how many times, in each of the last five years, the Crown Office building, the old royal high school, in Edinburgh has been used; by whom; and for what purpose;

  (3) how many staff are employed and at what cost to maintain and keep secure the Crown Office building, the old royal high school, in Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The old royal high school buildings presently house the office of my noble and
  213
  learned Friend the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office. The buildings are in daily use as the functioning headquarters of the public prosecution system in Scotland. Included in the complex is the debating chamber used for sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee and occasionally hired by outside agencies as listed in the table. Expenditure on maintenance and upkeep of the whole Crown Office complex in 1992–93 amounted to £76,000. A permanent security presence is maintained at an annual cost of £77,000. Separate figures for the cost of the debating chamber, which is in use on fewer than six days each year, are not kept.

  Use of the Debating Chamber:

  1990

  Royal Institute of Public Administration—meeting

  1991

  SALVO, Scottish Arts Lobby—conference

  Law Society of Scotland, European Lawyers Union—annual congress

  Oxford University Press—filming educational video

  Bank of Scotland—debate

  1992

  Energy Design Advisory Service—Scottish launch of Design Advice Scheme

  Lothian Regional Council—European Youth Summit

  Chambers Publishers—launch of new books

  1993

  BMA—meeting of General Medical Services Committee

  UK in Conference Ltd.—Franco-British Lawyers Society meeting

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of the sites of special scientific interest within(a) Renfrew district and (b) the Paisley, South constituency.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There are no sites of special scientific interest within the Paisley, South constituency. For Renfrew district the information is set out in the table. Some of these sites also lie within other districts as indicated.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest within Renfrew District

  Site

  Other districts containing part of site

  Barmufflock Dam

  Boylestone Quarry

  Castle Semple and Barr Lochs

  Clochodrick Stone

  Dargavel Burn

  Inverclyde

  Erskine Langbank

  Inverclyde

  Formakin

  Glen Moss

  Inverclyde

  Lock Libo

  Shovelboard

  Waulkmill Glen

  Glasgow and Eastwood

  Playgrounds
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in place to ensure the supervision and safety of children in playgrounds in(a) nursery, (b) primary and (c) secondary schools in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Education authorities have a common law duty to care for all pupils when under their charge. In addition, the Schools (Safety and Supervision of Pupils) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 impose 214
  a specific statutory duty on education authorities to take reasonable care for the safety of pupils when under their charge. In primary schools with 50 or more pupils in attendance, and in special schools, the regulations require education authorities to ensure that pupils are supervised by at least one adult when in a playground during any break time.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Scotland if he will publish a list of listed buildings of all categories within(a) Renfrew district and (b) Paisley, South constituency.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The issue raised has been delegated to the chief executive of Historic Scotland and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graeme Munro to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 19 May 1993:

  I refer to your recent written question to Sir Hector Monro, for answer on 12 May, regarding lists of listed buildings within (a) Renfrew District and (b) Paisley South constituency..

  Lists of listed buildings together with catergories are available for public inspection at all planning authority offices. Similarly, copies of the lists are kept for public inspection at Historic Scotland's headquarters in Edinburgh.

  I have enclosed copies of the lists for Paisley Burgh and the remainder of Renfrew District for your information. In addition, I have deposited copies of the lists in the House of Commons Library.

  Security, Renfrew
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the application for grant for the introduction of closed circuit television on the streets of central Renfrew district; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The only approach made concerning the matter has been from the hon. Member for Paisley, South in a letter to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Local Government, which was answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in a letter dated 21 August 1992.

  Edinburgh Dental School
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the text of the letter of 4 May from the principal and vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university concerning the closure of Edinburgh dental school and his reply to it.

  Mr. Lang
  It is for Sir David Smith to decide whether he wishes to publicise his correspondence. I will reply to his letter of 4 May shortly.

  Youth Centre, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the application for grant for a proposed development of a youth drop-in centre in the Glenburn area of Paisley.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am unable to make a statement because no application has, as yet, been received by the Scottish Office Education Department.
  215

  Council Tax
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will exclude people who were exempt from paying poll tax because of severe mental impairment from being part of the calculation in determining the number of persons in a house for council tax payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  This is provided for at paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The qualifying conditions are prescribed at article 4 of the Council Tax (Discounts) (Scotland) Order 1992 which was laid before Parliament on 24 June 1992.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account was taken of the position and needs of maternity services in Scotland in the preparation of Cm 2018 on maternity services.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: None. Cm 2018 was the Government's response to the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Health, which did not cover Scotland.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the future development of maternity services in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The Scottish Office Home and Health Department has recently completed a policy review of maternity service provision in Scotland and I shall be considering its findings shortly. In addition, a "Framework for Action" working group on maternity services was set up in April 1992 to develop strategies for raising standards in maternity services with particular emphasis on identifying good practice and developing networks.

  Buses
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) which bus stations which were not sold as part of the Scottish Bus Group privatisation have subsequently been disposed of; on what terms; and to whom;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the ownership of St. Andrew's square bus station, Edinburgh and Buchanan street bus station, Glasgow, subsequent to the passing of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: Three bus stations were retained by the Scottish Transport Group and present positions on each is as follows:
  St. Andrew's Square Bus Station, Edinburgh—Negotiations are progressing with a prospective buyer.
  Buchanan Bus Station, Glasgow—The lease of this property held by STG was recently sold to Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive.
  Berwick-upon-Tweed Bus Station—STG has separately marketed for sale its half interest in the property which is jointly owned with Northumbria Buses.
  216

  Environmental Protection Act 1990
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implementation in Scotland of notification of proscribed processes under part B block 1 authorisations of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: Part IV of schedule 3 of the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991 SI 1991 No. 472, prescribes for "part B" processes in Scotland by reference to blocks of process descriptions, the dates from which application may be made for authorisation to carry on an existing process. Applications were to be submitted for the first block no earlier than 1 April 1992 and not later than 31 July 1992. Therefore, to carry out a block 1 process after 31 July 1992 without applying for an authorisation under section 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is an offence under the Act.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in full-time employment and unemployment in numbers and percentage terms since she assumed her present office; and what estimate she has made of the consequential effect on the Government's finances.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Employment estimates are produced quarterly for the months of March, June, September and December. Between March 1992 and December 1992 there was a fall of 735,000, or 4 per cent., in full-time employment in Great Britain.

  In the period April 1992 to March 1993 seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom increased by 251,000 or 9 per cent.

  There has been no assessment of the effects of the changes in full-time employment and unemployment on Government finances.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed people in March 1990; and what is it now.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In March 1990, on the seasonally adjusted basis, there were 1,597,800 claimant unemployed in the United Kingdom compared with 2,940,800 in March 1993.

  Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in rank order, the unemployment rates within travel-to-work areas in the United Kingdom during each of the last three quarters.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested can he obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications to add human genes to animals have been made to the Health and Safety Executive since 1987; from whom these applications were made; and whether permission was granted.
  217
  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. Some work of this type has undoubtedly taken place but has not fallen into categories which are specifically notifiable in advance or which require consent.

  COSHH Regulations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 the number of informations laid, the number of progress notices and the number of improvement notices served by the local authorities under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive co-ordinates voluntary returns on health and safety enforcement action from local authorities. The number of informations laid by local authorities under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations was none in 1990–91 and 18 in the year 1991–92. The returns provide the total number of improvement and prohibition notices, but do not distinguish the topic of the notice.

  Career Development Loans
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information she has derived from the sample of trainees who have taken out career development loans on the proportion of them who secured employment within(a) three months and (b) six months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Career development loan follow-up questionnaires are sent out to a 20 per cent. random sample of trainees three months after completing their training. Results from this follow-up show that, over the 1992–93 financial year, 69 per cent. had obtained jobs immediately following training. A further 4 per cent. went on to take further training.

  As no further questionnaires are sent out, it is not possible to provide information on those obtaining jobs after six months.

  Staff Regrading
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to regrade her Department's staff with resultant staff surpluses at certain grades; if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the light of experience, certain aspects of advisory work in the Employment Service are being regraded. As a consequence, there will be a temporary surplus of some executive officer personnel. Pending their redeployment such staff that are surplus will undertake work of more junior grade on a temporary basis, albeit at their existing salary.

  Training Schemes
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were participating in(a) employment training, (b) employment action, (c) the
  218
  enterprise allowance scheme and (d) youth training in each region and for Great Britain as a whole in each month since December 1991; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As the information is contained within a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of employment training participants in March 1990 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In March 1990 there were 210,000 people on employment training in Great Britain and 135,000 in March 1993.

  Training Credits
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research has been undertaken by her Department into the feasibility of offering Government-funded training credits to all persons aged 16 years to meet the learning costs of approved courses.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Youth credits are already available in 20 areas of Britain and the Government's aim is that in 1996 every 16 and 17-year-old leaving full-time education will have the offer of a credit. The Department has a programme of research to evaluate youth credits schemes, to help identify good practice emerging from operational experience, encourage continuous improvement, and inform consideration of any proposals to use a credits funding mechanism in other circumstances.

  Radiation ETmergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations she has received in regard to the implementation of SI, 1992, No. 2997, Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not received any representations recently on this matter.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what investigations her Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if she will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by her Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the Employment Department Group 16 cases of suspected breach of a data protection principle have been investigated by the Data Protection Registrar since November 1987 when rules on "subject access" came into force. The following table consists of a summary of the 16 cases giving details of dates, nature of complaint and remedial action taken.
  219

  Summary of investigations by the Data Protection Registrar

  Date and Part of EDG

  Nature of complaint

  Remedial action taken

  November 1987 (ED HQ)

  Subject access request answer not received within the 40 days time (Principle 7)

  New circular issued to staff placing more emphasis on time limit. Re-issue of instructions to staff to improve communications.

  9 February 1989 (ES)

  A client was visited at home by ES staff. Later he was handed a printout found by a neighbour which had on it his benefit record and written information of a sensitive nature, ie, he had been in prison (Principle 8)

  Case was upheld and an ex gratia payment was made to the client. Two internal investigations were carried out and the recommendations were accepted.

  (a) ES appointed a central DP co-ordinator with sole responsibility for DP issues;

  (b) A personal message on staff responsibilities under DP was sent to all staff by the Permanent Secretary;

  (c) Personal copies of a DP pamphlet were sent to all ES staff.

  6 April 1989 (ED HQ)

  Caller supplied telephone number to office so that officer could return her call. The number is ex-directory, but she received a call from another Department. Concerned that the number was being held on computer by departments as personal data (Principle 8)

  DE Data Protection Officer confirmed with offices concerned that no automated/paper means was used to keep information given. Written confirmation was sent to the Registrar's office to reply to the person making the complaint.

  1 February 1990 (ES)

  A client complained that ES did not respond to a subject access request within 40 days (Principle 7)

  Investigation showed that no request had been received. Arrangements were made to send details. No action required.

  3 May 1990 (ES)

  A client complained that the inclusion of his NINO in the details shown in the window of his Giro envelope warranted an unauthorised disclosure of personal information (Principle 8)

  The NINO information was removed from the windows of the envelopes.

  8 June 1990 (ES)

  A client complained that he did not receive an answer to a subject access request (Principle 7)

  Investigations showed that a reply had been sent within the required time. Further information was sent. No action required.

  23 November 1990 (HSE)

  A request for personal data was not immediately identified as a subject access request, and a breakdown in the administrative procedures within the personnel section delayed a response within the time limits (Principle 7)

  Apology and copy of personal data sent to complainant. System managers reminded of action and time scale for dealing with subject access requests. Personnel system instructed to make changes to their administrative procedures.

  24 January 1991 (ES)

  A client claimed that:

  Investigations showed that ES had responded to his requests within required limits and given him all information that was needed. No action required.

  (a) He did not receive a response to a subject access request;

  (b) The printout received after a "second" request was not within the 40 days;

  (c) He was not given all his personal information; and

  (d) Said that the printout was not accompanied by an explanatory note. (Principle 7)

  28 January 1991 (ES)

  (Same client as 24 January 1991) After another complaint the Register asked:

  Further investigations showed that ES had complied the Act. The Registrar was informed of details. No action required.

  (a) Are ES holding information for a specific period for the client?

  (b) Was this data sent to the client on request?

  (c) Why was the client given the information shown on the attached printout? (Principle 7)

  5 June 1991 (ES)

  A client complained that his benefit details had been disclosed to the tutor at his "Restart" course (Principle 8)

  No action required. ES were authorised to make this type of disclosure.

  12 September 1991 (ES)

  A client complained that an ES application form said that information would be given to "relevant organisations". This is vague. What is "relevant" and how do ES decide? (Principle 8)

  No action required. "Relevant organisations' were listed in registrations. ES decided on "relevance" by giving info to companies who notified them of vacancies.

  27 November 1991 (ES)

  A client complained that an ES employee had found his address through unauthorised use of the ES computer system (Principle 8)

  Complaint upheld - ES staff member given three-year disciplinary penalty. No action required as investigation showed that this was an isolated incident and staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

  220 221

  Date and Part of EDG

  Nature of complaint

  Remedial action taken

  18 December 1991 (ES)

  That ES was asking on the subject access request form for the DP registration number. The Registrar thought that this could give the impression that ES were trying to "frustrate" rather than "facilitate" those making requests (Principle 7)

  Although it was on the form we did not require the information to process a request. If the client could say where the contact was with ES that was sufficient. The form has now been amended.

  6 February 1992 (ES)

  A client made a subject access request and then wrote to the Registrar claiming inaccuracies in the printout. The Registrar asked for details of the client so that the claims could be checked (Principle 7)

  ES sent the Registrar the requested details. Client's claims were unfounded. No action required.

  5 June 1992 (ES)

  A client alleged that the ES never replied to a subject access request although he was verbally told that it was being dealt with (Principle 7)

  Investigations showed that no request had been received. The Registrar and ES followed up with the client, but he never responded to the letters. No action required.

  23 December 1992 (ES)

  A client was dissatisfied with the information given on the data protection printout. He claimed that it was incorrect, ie, it showed he was paid benefit when he was not (Principle 7)

  Printout was correct. The dates concerned showed periods of signing on and not payment. No action required.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Textiles and Clothing
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to meet representatives of the British textile and clothing industries to discuss the state of the industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no immediate plans to do so. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade met representatives of the Apparel, Knitting and Textile Alliance yesterday.

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress with the one-stop shops initiative.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Six areas have been chosen to run the
  first pilots. The areas are Birmingham, Halton—north Cheshire—Hertfordshire, Manchester, south and east Cheshire and Tyneside. There are a further nine areas where plans are in an advanced stage. This will bring the number of one-stop shops to around 50.

  I am determined that we should build on the momentum which has already been achieved and move as quickly as possible towards a full one-stop shop network.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his Department's plans for the development of the enterprise initiative.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My officials are working with the training and enterprise councils and pilot one-stop shops to develop and trial a range of new services which will build on and ultimately succeed the consultancy scheme element of the enterprise initiative package.

  Heavy Electrical Goods
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the United Kingdom's principal export markets for heavy electrical goods.
  222
  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom's principal markets for such goods in recent years have been the USA, Germany and other countries within the European Community. I understand that several large contracts have also been concluded recently with countries in the Pacific rim area.

  Design Council
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the regional offices of the Design Council.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Design Council's regional network plays an important part in ensuring that both its services to industry and its educational activities are made more accessible to firms and institutions. The one-stop shops initiative recognises the need to simplify industry's access to a variety of services, including those offered by the council.

  Exports
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of his Department in promoting the exports of British goods and services to particular markets.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of Trade and Industry, working jointly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is wholly committed to helping more United Kingdom companies to win in world markets. The changes announced last week by my right hon. Friend will reinforce our efforts, and provide a clearer focus to our export promotion work. The DTI is gearing up to provide its best ever service to exporters.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when financial assistance to offset the consequences of colliery closures will be available in Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of the regeneration measures proposed for the Nottinghamshire coalfield areas were announced by the relevant Departments and agencies concerned on Thursday 13 May. The Secretary of State for
  223
  Transport also announced on 6 May support of £6·5 million from coal regeneration funds for the Robin Hood line.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the effects of pit closures.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and I meet the chairman of British Coal as necessary to discuss a wide range of issues concerning the coal industry.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding pit closures.

  Mr. Eggar
  Decisions on pit closures are a matter for British Coal, after consultation with the unions.

  British Coal Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am meeting the trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme tomorrow, Thursday 20 May.

  EC Product Safety Directive
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is taking to implement the EC general product safety directive in full.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department intends to publish a consultation document on the implementation of this directive in the early autumn. The document will contain, and seek comments on, the draft implementing regulations. It will also contain guidance notes on the interpretation of the legislation. The timing of the next steps will depend on the outcome of the consultation, but I am confident that the United Kingdom will implement the legislation by the date laid down in the directive.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in the level of imports over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1992, the volume of imports increased by 5·9 per cent.

  With the completion of the single market at the end of 1992, routine border requirements and formalities were abolished for trade within the European Community. Customs declarations—the source of trade statistics until December 1992—are no longer required. A new system is being introduced but, at present, it is not possible to provide figures for trade with the European Community for January 1993 onwards.

  In the 12 months to March 1993, the volume of imports from non-EC countries increased by 8·9 per cent.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet his American counterpart to discuss further action to bring the current GATT round to a conclusion.
  224
  Mr. Heseltine
  I currently have no firm plans for a further meeting with United States trade representative Kantor whom I met on 31 March.

  Shareholders (Disclosure of Information)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has any plans to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the current regulations relating to disclosure of information to shareholders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department has regular contact with the Confederation of British Industry on company law matters.

  Small Businesses (Banks' Policies)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet representatives of the clearing banks to discuss their policies towards small businesses.

  Mr. Leigh
  Ministers in this Department have frequent meetings with representatives of the clearing banks to discuss their policies towards small businesses and we will continue to do so.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he plans to meet representatives of the clearing banks in order to discuss support for small businesses.

  Mr. Leigh
  Ministers in this Department have frequent meetings with representatives of the clearing banks to discuss their support for small businesses and we will continue to do so.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest balance of trade in manufactured goods.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1992, the United Kingdom deficit in manufactured goods was £7·6 billion.

  With the completion of the single market at the end of 1992, routine border requirements and formalities were abolished for trade within the European Community. Customs declarations—the source of trade statistics until December 1992—are no longer required. A new system is being introduced but, at present, it is not possible to provide figures for trade with the European Community for January 1993 onwards.

  In the 12 months to March 1993, the United Kingdom had a deficit in manufactured goods of £5·3 billion with non-EC countries.

  Non-United Kingdom Corporations
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many non-United Kingdom corporations operating branch plants in this country also operate major research and development establishments in this country.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau is aware of 139 research and development facilities set up by overseas-owned companies in the United Kingdom. This figure is based on information provided by the
  225
  companies at the time of the announcement to invest. There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figure includes only those projects where the Department's Invest in Britain Bureau and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. It takes no account of subsequent developments.

  Company Directors (Honours)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are taken to give recognition to the contributions to public life of chairmen and managing directors of companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department is among those which make recommendations to the Prime Minister for honours to be awarded to a wide range of individuals whose contributions in their main occupations and in voluntary service are particularly meritorious.

  EC Trade Deficit
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the EC's total deficit in trade with the rest of the world in 1992; and by what percentage this figure has increased or decreased over the previous five and 10 years.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The latest annual data are for 1991. For 1991, the EC had a trade deficit of £49·4 billion with exports of £296·9 million and imports of £346·3 million. This compares with a surplus of £4·9 billion in 1986 and a deficit of £29·3 billion in 1981. As the trade balance moves between deficit and surplus it is inappropriate to show percentage changes.

  Liverpool Airport
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet officials of the Liverpool airport to discuss developments at Speke.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The President of the Board of Trade has no current plans to meet officials of Liverpool airport. Nor has any such meeting been sought.

  Environmental Damage (Civil Liability)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Council of Europe proposal for a convention on civil liabilities for environmental damage to be opened for signature in June.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply. We are currently considering this convention and will announce our policy towards it in due course.

  THORP
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is Government policy to await the establishment of an international plutonium store before the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield is granted a licence to operate.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. Strict controls operate over the shipment of plutonium from United Kingdom reprocessing plants. These arrangements are quite separate from the 226
  nuclear site licence and discharge authorisations that may be required by any nuclear site. No plutonium will be shipped from Sellafield unless the Government are satisfied that it will not be misused.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries his Department has undertaken into financial irregularities within British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

  Mr. Eggar
  BNFL has recently passed a file of evidence about individuals benefiting from certain BNFL maintenance contracts to the Cheshire constabulary. Any further investigation is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and the police.

  DEMOS
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total sum paid to businesses under the DTI's environmental management options scheme since its introduction; and what plans he has for its continuance.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since the introduction of DEMOS in October 1990, a total of £2,677,125 has been committed to businesses for projects approved under the scheme.

  The scheme was designed to run for three years and is due to end formally on 30 September 1993. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment are currently considering what future support might be appropriate to encourage innovation in environmental technology. However, at present it is too early to say what the outcome of these discussions will be.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses have succeeded in their applications for funding under DEMOS 491; and how many have been refused grant.

  Mr. Eggar
  The DTI's environmental management options scheme (DEMOS) has attracted 602 initial first stage applications, of which 180 have been rejected, 184 withdrew their applications, eight transferred to other schemes and 28 were asked to provide further information, but did not reply.

  Two hundred and two projects have been invited to submit more detailed second stage proposals under DEMOS. Of the 66 that have submitted these proposals, 16 projects have been funded, with grants being committed to 31 businesses. In addition, some of these projects will involve the collaboration of organisations that will not receive DEMOS funding, such as local authorities. Forty-three of the projects which submitted second stage proposals were rejected.

  The remainder of those invited to the second stage have either withdrawn or transferred to other schemes.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names of businesses funded under DEMOS 491 showing the amount of grant paid.

  Mr. Eggar
  Two hundred and two projects have been invited to submit a more detailed second stage proposal under DEMOS. Of those that have submitted these proposals, 13 projects have been funded, with grants being committed to the following business:
  227

  Companies awarded DEMOS gram

  Grant £

  British Textile Technology Group

  40,000

  Zinc Development Association

  7,250

  Textile Finishers Association

  10,686

  PW Greenhaulgh and Co. Ltd.

  33,578

  Tack Lea Works Ltd.

  33,578

  CV Woven Fabrics Ltd.

  33,578

  CV Home Furnishings Ltd.

  33,578

  Expitaxial Products International Ltd.

  42,476

  Edwards High Vacuum International Ltd.

  79,389

  Repak Ltd.

  258,281

  Yorkshire Electricity

  8,100

  Fosse Ltd.

  264,000

  T and D Ltd.

  15,000

  Bridgewater Paper Company Ltd.

  2,500

  Metal Finishers Association

  5,000

  Tame Valley Alloys Ltd.

  309,256

  Air Products plc

  28,570

  Environmental Air Filtration Ltd.

  16,835

  Drinkwater Sabey Ltd.

  283,000

  WS Atkins Consultants Ltd.

  245,300

  Motherwell Bridge Envirotec Ltd.

  141,786

  Environmental Energy Ltd.

  15,730

  South West Water plc

  409,000

  TOTAL

  2,325,471

  There are an additional three projects consisting of eight businesses which have also been offered grants amounting to £351,654. However, as the applicants have not yet formally accepted the offers, information on these companies is currently commercially confidential.

  National Consumer Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the National Consumer Council to discuss its proposals relating to international trade.

  Mr. Needham
  I will be arranging a meeting with the National Consumer Council to discuss its proposals on international trade.

  Genetic. Engineering
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many patent applications have been received since 1985 for new microbes, plants and animals containing altered genes; what they were for; and which ones were approved.

  Mr. Leigh
  Patent applications in the field of genetic engineering invariably involve modification of the host. Microbes are, by far, the most common form of host, and it would be disproportionately expensive to ascertain the

  £ million

  Outturn

  Estimate

  Provision

  Plans

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  21995–96

  Technology Transfer

  DTI1

  96·4

  90·2

  103·4

  92·5

  94·2

  92·3

  85·9

  —

  Former DEn

  9·6

  9·0

  12·3

  10·5

  12·5

  14·3

  15·4

  —

  106·0

  99·2

  115·7

  103·0

  106·7

  106·6

  101·3

  —

  Industrial Innovation1

  94·3

  74·5

  67·6

  82·0

  85·9

  92·3

  104·5

  —

  1 Figures relate to DTI expenditure plans prior to April 1992 before the (partial) merger with the former Department of Energy.

  2 Figures for 1995–96 will be published in the 1993 annual review shortly.

  228
  precise number. The number of applications relating to plants and animals is far fewer. There have been six published applications relating to plants, on which patent have been granted for five. These relate to the introduction of self-pollinating characteristics, herbicide resistance, disease resistance and male sterility. There have been seven published applications relating to animals, patents having been granted on three. These relate to sheep which produce stronger wool, genetically identical cattle and the introduction of genes to produce therapeutic proteins. This investigation has been restricted to those applications filed under the Patents Act 1977 which have proceeded at least to publication.

  Benefits (Automatic Transfer)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post offices his Department expects to close if DSS payments, including pensions, are changed to automatic credit transfer; and if he will make a statement on the trial currently being undertaken.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: Government policy is to encourage the take-up of ACT on a voluntary basis. We do not expect that this policy will lead to post office closures. Three different versions of the retirement pension claim form were piloted by the Benefits Agency and the results of their trial are being assessed at present.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the chief executive of the Post Office concerning future plans for payment of social security benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I meet the chief executive of the Post Office from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Technology and Innovation
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide figures for expenditure for his Department for(a) technology transfer and (b) industrial innovation (i) for the past five years and (ii) as projected for the next three years.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]: Details of expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry in the categories requested are available from the Cabinet Office's annual review of Government-funded research and development 1991 and 1992. The figures are:
  229

  Vista UDM
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions have taken place between British Coal's head of mine service centres and Vista UDM regarding maintenance contracts for proposed recycling plants at Silverhill and Cotgrave collieries.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: This is a matter for the parties concerned.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on the proposed takeover of British Coal collieries by Vista UDM;

  (2) how his Department has been involved in discussions with Vista UDM or British Coal on the future of the mine service centres at Shafton, Bestwood, Tursdale and Ashington.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: This is a matter for British Coal. I welcome any serious proposals to take over collieries which British Coal no longer wishes to operate. I know that Vista UDM is in discussions with British Coal over the proposals and I have also met Vista UDM to hear about its proposals.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions have taken place between William Hayes, the head of British Coal's mine service centres, and Vista UDM regarding work for Bestwood and Tursdale mine service centres.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: This is a matter for the parties concerned.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive a copy of the report commissioned by British Coal on the future of the four mine service centres.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: This is a matter for British Coal.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the future of British Coal's mine service centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: The Government have received a number of representations concerning the future of mine service centres.

DEFENCE

  Jungle Training
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to the British Army of jungle training in(a) Belize and (b) Borneo in the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Costs of jungle training in Belize are not separately identifiable from the overall costs of the garrison without disproportionate cost. No jungle training takes place in Borneo, but the costs of jungle training in Brunei, not including travel, were £2,300,000 in 1989–90, £1,900,000 in 1990–91 and £2,300,000 in 1991–92.
  230

  Armaments Orders
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has placed with SPEL and EXPRA in Portugal for armaments since 1979.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has no records of placing any contracts with either of these companies in the last three years. Records for previous years could be checked only at disproportionate cost.

  Consar
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has placed with Consar of Italy since 1979.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has no records of placing any contracts with this company in the last three years. Records for previous years could be checked only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to publish information relating to emergency contingency plans in the event of a nuclear weapons transport accident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Such information was provided in December 1992 in a document entitled "Local Authority and Emergency Service Information on Nuclear Weapon Transport Contingency Plans" which has been distributed to all civil emergency services and local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who his representatives are at the New York preparatory conference on 10 to 14 May for the 1993 international review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department was represented at the preparatory committee for the 1995 conference of the parties to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons by two officials from the defence arms control unit.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are to be made to enable all holders of the Atlantic Star to participate in the march past being held in Liverpool to commemorate the battle of the Atlantic.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Arrangements for the battle of the Atlantic march past in Liverpool have been co-ordinated by the Royal Naval Association—in conjunction with Army and RAF veterans' associations —in the case of ex-service personnel, and by the Chamber of Shipping, in the case of merchant seamen. Any veterans who have not been contacted by these or other veterans' organisations and who wish to join the march past may, either as individuals or as representatives of groups, apply to the "drop-in centre" at Cunard building, Liverpool during the mornings of 16 to 28 May. Places will be allocated on a first-come first-served basis after fitness to march has been assessed.
  231

  Empty Properties, Biggin Hill
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, columns 457–58, on residential properties at Biggin Hill, what is the total housing stock belonging to his Department at Biggin Hill; and if those being sold have been offered to housing associations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department owns a total of 145 residential properties at Biggin Hill. A one-year lease on the 73 surplus properties was offered to housing associations but was not taken up. The properties are now being marketed and housing associations will be invited to bid for them.
  232

  Helicopters Landing Platform
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects work to start on the recently ordered landing platform for helicopters; and when he expects the vessel to be in operation with the Royal Navy.

  Mr Aitken
  Design work on the LPH commenced with the award of contract. Fabrication of the vessel is due to begin in the middle of next year with acceptance from the shipbuilder due in 1997. The ship will become operational in early 1998 following a period of trials.

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

EC Draft General Budget 1993
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, before giving their approval to Section 1, Volume 2 of the EC Draft General Budget for 1993, relating to the European Parliament, they queried the projected expenditures under Articles 3705, 3706, 3708 and 3709 and Chapter 101, and whether they were satisfied with the explanations provided.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we examine all expenditure contained in the Community budget. We did not raise any concerns on the expenditure to which the Question refers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that expenditure here for 1993 amounts to something like £30 million to be expended on political groups within the European Parliament? That sum is not at all connected with the salaries and expenses of Members of Parliament, which are already running at a very high level. This is a matter for political groups under headings so wide that the money could be spent on almost anything. Is the noble Earl aware that the accounts are not audited by the Court of Auditors, which has no powers of interrogation, but that they are audited by accountants appointed by the groups themselves? Is the Minister aware that there is wide evidence to suggest that that amounts not to value for money, but money for the boys?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will know more about this subject than I because he was a beneficiary of these budget lines when he was in the assembly in the 1970s. Then he would have been able to interrogate the budget in detail. Yes, the sum is something over £20 million, but of course the parliament's budget is subject to the same constraints which apply to all Community spending in general.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the Government undertake, after ratification of Maastricht, to ensure that the newly beefed up Court of Auditors examines the cases of fraud in the headquarters of the European Commission itself, about which there have been many rumours?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I look forward to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, when we come to discussion on the Maastricht Treaty. As he will know, that treaty, when ratified, will strengthen the role and powers of the Court of Auditors. As regards fraud, I know that your
1738
Lordships have discussed that subject in great detail in the recent past and I know of the Government's commitment to try to eradicate it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who were members of the European Parliament, elected by the other place to serve there, received nothing of what the Minister said we did receive? Therefore, will he withdraw the last part of his statement to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington? Will he also examine the case submitted by my noble friend?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly would not impugn the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that he is a friend of mine and that we have had many discussions on this and other issues. I was making the point that he would know more about this matter because these were budget lines which were agreed before we joined the European Community and would have been discussed during the time when the noble Lord was in the assembly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, we are members of the Community. Does not my noble friend agree that it is pretty easy knowledge that the money referred to by the noble Lord is rather loosely distributed and that it is very difficult indeed, even for those of us who are members of that Community, to know exactly how it is spent and why it was given in the first place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that raises the wider and important point which' is that the Parliament, like the Council, is responsible for its own budgets unless it exceeds the agreements that were entered into in 1970 and the guidelines laid down in the treaty.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that £20 million is an inordinate amount of money? Can the Minister tell the House how much is expended in the so-called "Short money" —assistance to political parties in both Houses of Parliament? That would be an interesting figure to have. Can he also say whether that amount is included in the £390 million a year which is expended on the European Parliament compared with only £125 million for both Houses of this Parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the nearest figure that I could find that is comparable to the budget lines raised in the Question by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is the £1.3 million in the 1993–94 budget provided by the taxpayer to the opposition parties.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm one or two points so that the House can put this matter into perspective? As I understand it, the budget lines are not new. They have been in the budget for a long time. Will he confirm that every time a budget is proposed it is subjected to the most rigorous negotiations between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers? Finally, will he confirm that if one actually looks at the figures, comparing 1992 with 1993, one sees that the increase amounts to something

1739
like 3 per cent.—does it not—in the proposed budget for 1993 as compared with that for 1992? I hope that the House will forgive me if my question was rather long, but it seemed to me to be important to put this matter into some perspective.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. He confirms what I said earlier and I am grateful to him for that. These were budget lines that existed before we joined the Community. The overall increase in the Parliament's budget in 1993 was 6.9 per cent., which was below the maximum rate provided for in the treaty.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl take it from me that the European Parliament does not subject the budget to the most rigorous scrutiny to which he referred? Indeed, he can verify that himself by reading through the proceedings of the European Parliament over the six months following the issue of the preliminary draft budget, which I have taken the precaution of doing. Will he give the House an undertaking that when it comes to the preliminary draft budget for 1994, which should by now be issued and in the hands of the Council, he will ensure that at least the British members of ECOFIN will subject that and other items to the utmost scrutiny?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is well acknowledged for doing an immense amount of research before asking questions in this House and I would not contradict him across the Floor on that point. However, it is for the Parliament to decide how best to meet the responsibilities placed upon it and to determine its own budget. As far as the 1994 preliminary draft budget is concerned, I can confirm from experience that those of us who have had the honour and privilege of serving on ECOFIN do, indeed, subject everything to the closest scrutiny.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Earl take the trouble to read the Treaty of Maastricht? He will see that there are new powers for the Court of Auditors and that it will be able to examine cases of fraud in the EC headquarters. Will he ensure that it does?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly do not disagree with the noble Lord. In fact, I confirm to him that there will be powers in the Maastricht Bill for strengthening the Court of Auditors, and I look forward to his support.

Insurance Intermediaries
2.45 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford Viscount Chelmsford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the EC recommendation on insurance intermediaries, they will now require all non-life intermediaries to be registered and subject to the Insurance Brokers Registration Act 1977.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are considering carefully all the
1740
responses to our consultative document on the European Commission Recommendation on Insurance Intermediaries. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will wish to meet some of the main interests, including the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, to discuss further the issues raised by the recommendation. We remain to be persuaded that the extension of statutory regulation to all non-life intermediaries is required.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unexpected Answer. However, will he ensure that in their continuing deliberations the Government take full account of the somewhat curious fact that currently an intermediary, acting as an independent and as an agent for a buyer of an insurance policy, finds himself conforming to a code of conduct which has been set up by representatives of the sellers of that policy? Is that not curious? Would it not be better for the intermediary to be regulated rather than supervised, and be regulated by a body unconnected with either the buying or the selling of the insurance policy?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Association of British Insurers, which represents the insurers themselves, covers about 88 per cent. of the non-life policies sold. The Government are well aware of their responsibility for consumer protection, but are also aware that over-regulation would not be in the long-term interests of the insurance industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Consumers' Association has carried out very strict monitoring of what has been going on and that it has come to the conclusion that the job of supervision is not being undertaken properly in an area which is of very great moment to consumers—indeed, it could be one of the most important transactions in an individual's life? Consequently, does the Minister agree that it is vitally important that this sector requires very much tighter regulation than is currently the position? Is there not a great deal of room for improvement in the performance of supervision by the ABI and by the Insurance Brokers Registration Council?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, there is always room for improvement, but I should point out to your Lordships that in 1991, the last year for which we have the complete records analysed, 50 million non-life policies were sold. That occasioned 700 complaints to the ABI and something under 2,000 to the Insurance Ombudsman. We are, of course, aware of the study that has been carried out by the Consumers' Association as part of its response to our consultative document on the recommendation. The results of what is, admittedly, a small sample show that there is room for improvement. We know that the ABI and the IBRC have a copy of the Consumers' Association's response to our document. We are sure that they are taking it seriously. We shall consider carefully what the CA has said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister was asked an unambiguous Question by his noble friend Lord Chelmsford. He was asked how it could be right that intermediaries, who are supposed to act between sellers and buyers of insurance policies, could be controlled by a code of conduct devised by the sellers, and how they could maintain their independence under those circumstances. Would the Minister care to answer that Question, because he did not answer it in his first Answer?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, a considerable number of intermediaries are covered by a regulatory body. We are discussing only those who are not members of the IBRC.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the unfairnesses in the insurance industry is that insurance companies on the Continent will not allow British interests to purchase them whereas our partners in the European Community can buy insurance companies here? Surely it would be better if we could achieve some continuity and consistency.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am not aware of the problem my noble friend raised, but I shall look into the matter.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his various responses. Perhaps I may follow up with one other point. Will he be so kind as to ensure that the Government take into account what has been a running sore for many years so far as concerns the insurance broking industry? It is that every time one of its members is found wanting by the registration council and is banned from being a broker, that person may, by dropping the term "broker" from his name, continue trading under the title of "intermediary". That does not seem to help to improve standards, so will he ask the Government to take account of that matter?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, there are a number of reasons why one cannot be a member of the IBRC. For example, if one becomes a tied broker in the sale of life assurance policies, one is prohibited from becoming a member. One can lose one's registration merely through forgetting to pay the fees due. I shall ensure that my honourable friend looks further into the matter.

Works Councils: EC Draft Directive
2.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in the light of the proposed EC directive imposing works councils on certain British industries.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are strongly opposed to the draft directive which would require many transnational companies to establish European works councils. We have made our position clear in negotiations, and will continue to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will be take it a little further and indicate that Her Majesty's Government will use all possible means to resist the proposal? Will he also identify the British industries which are directly affected?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government believe that there is no proven need for the proposals. Many companies already operate across borders and successfully involve their workers within the framework of existing and differing employee involvement practices. The industries that would be affected are those with transnational interests.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is this a matter to be decided by qualified majority voting, or do the Government have a veto?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at the moment the Government have a veto.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in his replies he has not even hinted that we have the power to stop the directive being used. If that is the case, how does he square it with the social chapter of Maastricht which was supposed to make this type of thing impossible? It seems to me to be a pyrrhic victory if we have to implement it under the Treaty of Rome although it is suggested that we might be protected under the Maastricht Treaty?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my previous answer set out the situation as it is at present. The Government opted out of the social chapter to protect British employers and employees from laws and regulations which would add to costs, reduce competitiveness, and destroy jobs.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, would not a more constructive response to the draft directive be for the Government to introduce legislation, as we on these Benches have long advocated, requiring all companies employing more than a certain number of people in the United Kingdom to have bodies of a kind that would enable employers to inform and consult employee representatives on matters of concern to them as employees and affecting the business?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are firmly committed to the principle of employers informing and, where appropriate, consulting their employees about matters which affect them. However, we believe that in the UK companies should be free to develop employee involvement arrangements which are appropriate to their own circumstances and the needs of their employees.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is this not a clear case in which the principle of subsidiarity should apply?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have set out the situation which currently applies and also that which will apply given the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that by opting out of the social protocol the UK will lose all opportunity to influence the European works directive and that the 11 may well go ahead without the UK's involvement? How then will it be possible for multinationals, which will have to comply with the directive, to exclude UK employees from it? Obviously they will be unable to do so. In any event, what is wrong with workers' participation? We had works councils during the war, and Germany has had them for a very long time. What are the Government afraid of?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, if the matter were to be pursued by the 11, companies based in the UK would be under no obligation to implement the terms of the directive in the UK merely because such requirements existed elsewhere in Europe. The directive's proposals take no account of the UK's own successful employment practices, which are based on a voluntary approach.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I feel like Trevor Macdonald saying, "and finally"? Has the Minister noticed the growing practice used by trans-European companies of playing off one workforce against another? For example, the Hoover company deliberately played off the workforce in Dijon against the workforce in Cambuslang; the Nestle Company played off its workforce, again in Dijon, against the Nestlé workers in Glasgow; and, finally, it closed one of its factories and left the workforce in the factory that remained open with much lower wages and fewer employment protection rights. Is that something that the Government now defend?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, a measure agreed by the 11 would not require the Government to legislate for European works councils. UK-based companies would not have to introduce councils for UK employees.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the probability is that few Members on either side of the House have ever served on a works council? I did for some 10 years. Many powerful trade unions and employers' organisations were not fond of works councils because they were able to reach an amicable agreement with employers. The experience of my 10 years was that works councils almost abolished the strike weapon voluntarily. Let not the Government condemn something which has done employers and employees a world of good. They must admit to themselves that they know very, very little about works councils. They should examine them and they would find that they are a good example of sensible behaviour by trade unions and employers.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government continue to promote and endorse best practice. For
1744
example, our joint campaign with the CBI demonstrating the importance to key aspects of business performance of employee involvement has proved most successful. Many British companies have set an excellent example by devising effective and imaginative ways of involving their employees.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, do not the Government at last begin to recognise that nothing has led to a greater mixture of farce, squalor and embarrassment for themselves than the alleged triumph of the exclusion of Britain from the social chapter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I totally reject that.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in Germany, where works councils are the norm, labour productivity in industry is roughly 40 per cent. higher—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the noble Lord is not standing in the appropriate place within the rules of the House.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his advice. Will the Minister confirm that in Germany, where works councils are the norm, labour productivity in industry is roughly 40 per cent. higher than it is in Britain?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot supply that exact figure. However, a statutory obligation to have works councils would damage company decision-making. The European works council would have the right to be informed and consulted about any management proposal likely to have serious conse-quences for the interests of employees or the group of undertakings as a whole.

The Security Service: Parliamentary Control
3.1 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to bring MI5 and MI6 under parliamentary control and, if so, by what means.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, both services have close oversight by Ministers who are responsible to Parliament. Parliament passed the Security Service Act 1989 providing a framework for that service's work, safeguards against abuse and an avenue for complaints. Legislation to place the secret intelligence service and GCHQ on a statutory basis will give Parliament an opportunity to debate such matters as accountability and oversight.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving me a modicum of justification for my existence on this earth—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, that has occurred because I have asked a Question on this matter which has at least received a positive Answer from the Government. Is not the Minister aware that, although she is talking in terms of ministerial responsibility, these important services, which render great service to the Crown and to the country, have walked into severe criticism during the past months? Would it not be in their interests to ensure that there is proper democratic control? Furthermore, will the Minister confirm that the Government are completely satisfied that the two services are obeying the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Service Act 1989?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that the noble Lord has made many good and valuable contributions to our debates—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the view expressed recently in another place by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Lord President that ridiculous allegations have been made against the security services. There has been a great deal of media hype which has absolutely no foundation whatever.
The noble Lord was right about the importance of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Service Act 1989. Both services are obeying those provisions. I refer the noble Lord and the House to the two reports on the services published at the end of March, which are in the Library of the House.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the dilemma that the only democratic control which is worth tuppence involves publicity and that any full publicity relating to the services would destroy their secret character?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that when the Bill comes before Parliament we shall find a way of providing an increased amount of supervision, which is what your Lordships' House seeks. However, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble and learned friend that the publicity which the media are so keen to give to any bit of tittle-tattle and to lay that at the door of services which work in the interests of the security of the country is shocking and undermines the services.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the light of important responsibilities which have been given to MI5 in dealing with Irish terrorists it is not unreasonable that Parliament should be provided with information in order to judge whether the service is executing those responsibilities
1746
with efficiency and at what cost? I believe that to be a reasonable parliamentary demand and one to which I hope the Government will accede.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I wish to refer the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to the two reports to which I referred. I commend what was said by Sir Thomas Bingham, the Master of the Rolls, in the annual report published on 31st March. He concluded:
"From time to time stories are published in newspapers describing interception said to have been carried out by GCHQ or by what are usually called MI5 and MI6. Such stories are, in my experience without exception, false".
That is an important point always to remember. The noble Lord asked for greater information and referred only to Irish terrorism. I must point out that a great deal of potential terrorism and weapons proliferation threaten us which do not come only from Irish terrorists. The noble Lord should know that the 1993–94 published provision on the Cabinet Office's main estimate for the security and intelligence services is £197 million.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for several years it has been possible for members of the public to buy sophisticated eavesdropping devices and that the transgressors in recent incidents are probably private persons eager to make money from the newspapers? Does she agree that it is facile, therefore, to assume that MI5, MI6 or GCHQ must be involved and that deliberate bugging should be made unlawful?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have much sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said. It is true that eavesdropping devices are widely available and can be found in many main street stores in this country, let alone abroad. The most important point is that when the Bill comes before Parliament it will have the opportunity to discuss those services for which the Government are responsible. As regards making eavesdropping and other devices illegal, a great deal of policing will be required; it is not merely a question of passing a law. We must think about the matter most carefully while realising the limitations upon being able to stop such incidents. Our job is to ensure that the security services obey the law as it is written.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, takes a modest view about his earthly contribution? Aafter all, some years ago he appointed me as an articled clerk. Why are not the Government prepared to consider the issue on a basis far wider than that which the Minister has been contemplating; one which is comparable with that enjoyed in the United States and in a number of EC countries, where there is much greater accountability than that projected by the Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will make such comments in detail during the debate which will follow. We are a very different country from the United States of America.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should like to say a word about today's debates, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, the Front Bench spokesmen at least 10 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes and in that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, 12 minutes. I should remind your Lordships that, if any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate and that the hour is one minute beyond that which shows on the digital annunciator.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that the Procedure Committee recently passed through your Lordships' House an arrangement whereby the Opposition wind-up speakers should have a few more minutes and that, in relation to today's debates, the speakers on the Opposition Front Benches will have 10 minutes each?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, yes.

A Democratic Socialist Society
3.10 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington rose to call attention to the case for the progressive establishment of a democratic socialist society within the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is my purpose this afternoon within the limited time at my disposal to obtain a cross-party consensus from all quarters of the House as regards the steps that I shall venture to suggest to your Lordships should be taken if we are to avoid some disastrous events which in my view lie on the horizon unless something is done.
Forty-nine years ago, some weeks before the invasion of France in the last great war, which many of your Lordships may recall, there was issued by the coalition government of that time a unique document. It was an all-party document and in point of fact it is the first document, so far as my researches indicate, in which a socialist policy was enunciated by a government composed of all parties and predominant-ly composed of members of the Conservative Party. Of course, I refer to the coalition White Paper on employment policy which is Cmd. No. 6527 of 26th May 1944. That is one of the most remarkable documents that has ever been issued because there, for
1748
the first time, an all-party government accepted full responsibility for the maintenance of full employment and made that the cardinal aspect of their policy.
Indeed, it went much further than that. It set out the various steps which a democratically elected and accountable government would have to take in order to achieve and maintain full employment. Among other things it included the adjustment of public expenditure from time to time, particularly when consumer demand was depressed, and it sought also by the manipulative powers lying within it—for example, by the buying and selling of our own currency and by the establishment of interest rates at varying levels as necessary—to maintain a reasonably stable foreign exchange rate.
One of the most important powers which it proposed to take was that relating to investment. The White Paper states:
"It should be possible for the Government to maintain the stability of public investment when private investment is beginning to fall off at the onset of a depression. But this may not be enough: for the purpose of maintaining general employment it is desirable that public investment should actually expand when private investment is declining and should contract in periods of boom".
Those are the policies that were put forward. They were put forward prior to the invasion and, indeed, they supplemented the earlier proposals concerned with social security of which your Lordships are aware under the Beveridge proposals. Therefore our troops in the field and the people at home were given some vista of the direction which the government would take immediately following the war when the battle for freedom was won.
The people were conscious no doubt of the promises which were given during the First World War that we would establish a land fit for heroes to live in. Very properly, in 1942 and in 1944 the coalition government thought it wise that the efforts of our people in the battle for freedom, whether in the forces or at home, should receive that extra fillip by a firm assurance of what kind of world and what kind of country they were fighting for; and there can be no doubt that those assurances and proposals, together with others coming from a government composed of all parties, stimulated powerfully the endeavours of our people during the war.
Your Lordships will be well aware that so well was the country administered during the war owing to a very fair system of rationing based on fair shares for all that for many of the poorer people in our country, who were fairly and justly treated under the war-time regime, it became the first time that they had decent and balanced meals, which they could not possibly have had before.
Therefore, when I speak this afternoon of steps taken towards the establishment of a democratic socialist society, I am talking about matters within our perception and in continuation of the proposals which were made under different but very urgent circumstan-ces at this country's time of peril. It will be part of my purpose to suggest this afternoon that, for entirely different reasons, we are in peril today in an entirely different way but, nevertheless, in an extremely ominous way with which we must deal.
It is common knowledge that following the war the policies of the first socialist government were regarded as relatively non-contentious. I well recall a statement by the late Lord Butler, when we called him Rab Butler, in which he said, "We are all socialists now". That did not seem to raise any particular argument. Indeed, the various steps which were taken by the Labour Government in 1945 to 1951, when I had the honour to be a Member of another place, were not very much disturbed by the following Conservative Government who operated very much on the basis of the maintenance of the welfare state, the maintenance of conditions of full employment, and so on. Indeed, I can well recall Mr. Harold Macmillan, the late Lord Stockton, when at a Tory Party conference he made a bid for the building of 300,000 houses. He was bid up in the course of the conference. It was well established and agreed that there was a broad consensus; namely, that the policies followed for the maintenance of full employment during the war should be continued.
As time passed the sense of unity began to wear off a little, which is not surprising. Most reforming governments who base their policies on the removal of grievances find eventually that the more grievances that are removed, the more conservative people become. Moreover, to some extent that process is accentuated by the very division of labour itself, the division of labour in industry. which splits into various compartments and sections— whole lines of production—which has resulted in the terrific increase in wealth in the country, mainly, I must say, at the hands of private enterprise. But what happens? In the process of becoming specialist in a particular sphere and in narrowing one's mind to cover the performance of a particular function, so, too, one's mind becomes narrower. Unless we are postmen, we take the postman for granted and unless we are milkmen, we take the milkman for granted. We tend to narrow and restrict our views. But the time must come when we will all have to take a far broader view of what is happening among us.
I repeat, during the years following the war, the enthusiasm for further social regulation, whether by change of ownership or otherwise by the Government in the broad interest, diminished. Indeed, that is exemplified in one way by the conflict which emerged between corporate capital and the trade unions in the 1970s, where the orderly progress which had proceeded hitherto was disrupted by a quadrupling in the price of oil. We then had a conflict and a choice. The incomes policy that was necessary at the time to maintain full employment was, to some extent, enshrined in the then Mrs. Barbara Castle's, In place of Strife. I believe that we made a very great mistake there in not taking the opportunity then offered to us of a co-operative procedure between capital and labour in order to ensure stability.
I return now to unemployment. The maintenance of a welfare state is the other part of the employment equation. Unless full employment is maintained, the strain on the social services will be considerable. In fact, it is estimated that 3 million unemployed cost about £21 billion, which represents a very considerable strain. Therefore, it is in our interests that full
1750
employment should be maintained. There is also the loss of production by idle factors in terms of human labour. At the same time we are missing out on being able to satisfy human needs. Therefore, unless we take constructive steps by governmental intervention on the lines originally proposed, we shall not produce all the wealth that is vitally necessary.
In consequence of the failure of those policies due to the fact that they were not continued, and precisely because the policy of free market forces was adopted thereafter, the result has been absolutely disastrous. The whole social fabric of the country has been put under strain: unemployment is running at 3 million; homelessness is running at a very high level; and there are very wide disparities of income. Society has created an underclass—that is, an underclass which is bitter and which is becoming more and more restive and separated from the rest of society.
That position has to be corrected. We must establish a fairer and more just society so that those festering sores within our own living community can be eliminated. Although we may not always be able to establish absolute equality, as some may infer from my use of socialist terminology, nevertheless, we shall be in a position where we can, once again and as we did during the war and immediately thereafter, march ahead together. That is what we have to do. If we fail to do it, we shall live bitterly to regret it. There will be a spread of what many already term "the sick society". My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. The noble Lord is always pointful, forceful and indeed original. Today he has chose a subject which to my mind is of great importance but which may come as a slight shock to some members of the party who had thought that socialism was dead; I am afraid that it is not dead. But the democratic method is suffering from its failure to deliver the ideals of Lincoln; namely, to ensure:
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people".
On the contrary, it has been smothered by bureaucracy and by a certain greed in the ruling classes of the country.
Bureaucratic methods are not confined to bureaucracy itself, but to the general running of the country. With that has gone the great strengthening of capital against labour. Now it is control of capital which determines the power basis of the country. Surely what is needed is to assert the democratic principle and, above all, individualism and effective individual ownership and control of capital.
If democratic socialism means "distributism" as it used to be called, then Liberals and Social Democrats are at one. Further, the driving force both, I think, of social democracy and of Adam Smith's liberalism was a moral force. It rested not so much upon economic measures as upon a moral, ethical or political view of society.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question?
Lord Grimond: No, I am sorry, my Lords; there will be ample time to do so in seven minutes.
Adam Smith placed very great importance upon the beneficial effects of the "hidden hand". But he was under no illusion that that hidden hand needed to be controlled and guided, especially by law. All ethics must surely be individual and must not only be concerned with the individual but with the individual's place and his responsibilities towards the community.
Today the idea of responsibility to the community and the idea of a common good is not popular; indeed, it is roundly spewed upon by those who say that the business of mankind is to make money for himself and his friends. But, in my view, the market run simply for profit-making by comparatively few people, who happen to gain control of capital largely through luck, is bound to end in a most amoral and inefficient society. Moreover, too many aspects of our life which cannot be subject to the market are contaminated by the attempt to import into them the ethics and the outlook of the market. For example, surely you cannot run the criminal courts and criminal law by the market; and you cannot run education and, to my mind, health in that way.
Attempts are made to force all those matters into the straitjacket of the market. Much as I admire the market, it must be confined to areas where it is relevant and proper. Even within that relevant and proper sphere, as has been understood since Adam Smith, it requires the regulation of a framework of law and also of society, which on the whole have certain aims in common, and certain lines of behaviour must be enforced.
If by the market we simply mean that each large corporation in the market pursues what is now, I think, called "the bottom line"—that is, the maximum value for the shareholders—then we are bound to have an inefficient and unsatisfactory society. I am afraid that that is what we have. One only has to look at recent events to see that. One only has to look at the handling of our affairs by the Treasury; at the history of Lloyd's insurance; at the use of computers in the Stock Exchange; and at the muddle in all aspects of government from local taxation to the Common Market. One only has to look at our economy, which is one of the most lagging in Europe, to appreciate what a sad state our society is in. Above all, one only has to look at the lack of honesty in society. One firm of accountants has estimated that £25 million of fraud is perpetrated in the City every day. That cannot be a satisfactory or efficient state of affairs.
What then should we do? First of all, we must distinguish between what can be subject to the market and what cannot. We have to decide where profit may properly be made and where it may not, and try to establish other motivations in those areas which should not be subject solely to the market.
We also need to enforce some form of common good, or, if not enforce it, at least encourage it. If that is to have any relevance to most people, with it must go certain common rewards, the opportunity to make one's way in the world, and to benefit from the immense wealth-creating advantages of the present century.
1752
I do not believe that the present Government have any clear idea about the kind of society they want to create. I am not suggesting that governments should create societies but they should have some idea of the kind of society for which they are prepared to do the ground work. The majority of the people in this country do not understand what is in the Government's mind. Unless the people understand what is in the Government's mind, it is impossible to conduct a sensible programme of legislation.
The term "social engineering" has been used but one cannot have social engineering unless one has some idea of the engine one is trying to construct or repair. I see some hope at the moment. The Newbury by-election was a sign of hope, not only because a Liberal Democrat was elected but because it showed that the people of this country are fed up with aimless government. The statement made by the Governor of the Bank of England yesterday was hopeful because he emphasised that top people have an obligation to set an example. He said they are part of the community and they share its aims. If inflation in this country is to be stopped, it must be stopped at the top. If efficiency is to be promoted, it must be promoted from the top. Perhaps the ideals, if not the actual methods suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, may yet prevail. If they do that would be a good thing. However, I cannot endorse all the methods he suggested.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for calling this debate. It may be rather theoretical—I think it is—but theory has consequences. Theory consists of seeds which do not, perhaps unfortunately, always fall on stony ground.
I suspect that democratic socialism is a contradiction in terms, but, rather than get bogged down in defining terms, I am taking the expression to mean social democracy, which is that hybrid between socialism and capitalism under which we have been living ever since the days of Churchill and Attlee. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, implied that that is what he is yearning to restore.
I believe we are still under that system. It is a system that very much reflects the nature of the Labour Party which engineered it, for the Labour Party as a whole has rarely been fervent in its pursuit of that socialism, which is in fact incompatible with democracy partly because its instincts are democratic but mainly because it is a syndicalist party linked to the trade unions. Trade unions, of their essence, need employers to wrestle with. Abolish employers and trade unions lose their function. If they fight nationalised industries, they tangle with the public. Under the system of complete state socialism of Stalin, the trade unions had to become government poodles. As regards fighting workers' co-operatives, they would have absolutely no function at all because a workers' co-operative and a trade union is in theory identical.
But if the social democratic settlement after 1945 reflects the nature of the British Labour Party, it also reflects more profoundly the propensities of the

1753
British people as a whole. During the early decades of this century there was a radical shift in what may be called the national sensibility; that is, the extent to which British people of all classes would put up with intolerable conditions for the masses that in Queen Victoria's reign were accepted with a shrug. If it was the Labour Party which gave effect to social democracy, it built on foundations laid before and during the Second World War, largely by nonsocialists—the liberals Keynes and Beveridge (the document quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, reeked of Keynes) and the Conservative R. A. Butler. Despite the privatisations and the tax changes of the 1980s and despite the holes that are appearing in the welfare state, the essential features of that settlement remain. Much of what your Lordships will hear this afternoon will amount to little more than the repainting of that familiar facade, the replacement perhaps of the odd cornice and the clearing of the gutter. By that I mean that whatever government are in power must concern themselves with the under-class, though not in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
So what shall we do? In seven minutes I cannot, of course, suggest much but clearly we shall not discard the capitalist economy, which is the only possible engine for the good life. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the adoption of free enterprise by the Chinese it would be perverse to adopt the system which has brought those countries to penury. However, I would also like to remind the House of something much more controversial—a principle passed over in silence by most modern Conservatives who are in fact Victorian liberals, followers not of Burke but of Cobden. It is put more succinctly than I could manage by a French correspondent of Keynes. I owe it to the book written by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on the life of Keynes which states:
"Stable fortunes, the hereditary permanence of families, and sets of families of various social standings are an invisible social asset on which every kind of culture is more or less dependent".
Keynes replied:
"I fully agree with this … But I must not allow you to make me too conservative".
Is not this almost girlish distaste of conservatism strange among intellectuals of that vintage? For this is a perception more profound than mere elitism. It is not only peers and not only Tories who have contributed to our society precisely because they were shaped by their families and by the history of their families. Without such influences could we have been edified by the writings of Paul Foot, or charmed by the stage performances of Vanessa Redgrave?
3.38 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on his unusually restrained and statesmanlike opening to the debate, which I fear I cannot hope to emulate. He certainly produced a Motion that we can all accept, even those of us on the Cross-Benches. After all, he does not state in the Motion that he "recommends" but only that he "calls
1754
attention" to the case. He calls attention to "the case" for his panacea, not to "a strong" or an "irresistible" case.
If he had dared to use the words "urge the case" in the Motion, he would have had to move for rather more than Papers. I would have thought it prudent at least to move for help or to move, like the noble Lord, Lord Healey, in 1975, for an early invitation to the IMF. We should be grateful to the noble Lord because he has raised an intriguing question which no one, apart from Fidel Castro and some ageing Chinese communists, has mentioned recently.
Growing up as a young man in High Cross, Tottenham, I was not unmoved by the strength of the emotional case for socialism. I was never at all troubled by what is called inequality. I have resolved that the reason is that I could look around me and see within the working classes wide inequalities. I could detect that those frequently sprang from differential habits, training, perseverance and even sobriety—what economists call differential contributions to the national product justifying differing rewards.
However, like most people I was then and am still moved by poverty. I once tried unsuccessfully to persuade Lady Gaitskell that my heart was in the right place, which was left of centre. The trouble was that, having gone to Cambridge just before the Keynesian iron curtain came down, I had the idea that on important matters my head might frequently overrule my heart. On poverty both head and heart cry out for a better way than the present all-party socialist method of indiscriminate subsidies to ensure a decent minimum for people who cannot help themselves in my own preferred market economy.
I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Plant, but unfortunately there is no time to do justice to the great philosophical issues. With due apologies for appearing dogmatic, I offer my view, for what it is worth, that both in theory and especially in practice the apparent delights of socialism—which Lord Robbins used to call the "mystic joys of tribal unity"—are but a snare and a delusion.
I shall not rehearse the superior case for the market on grounds of incentives to efficiency, technical progress and wealth creation to resolve problems of poverty, and so on. Instead, I shall reject socialism in four minutes flat by reference to the single issue of individual liberty.
I found it interesting that one of the great advocates of socialism, Professor Richard Titmuss, always cast his mind back to the example of the war and urged that we should wear the socialist badge as "a badge of citizenship". Even liberals as far gone as myself accept that some form of socialism is indispensable in a state of siege. Indeed, in wartime socialism is inescapable. It does not function very well, but it cannot be avoided. However, it involves—as Professor Titmuss seemed to be unaware—severe suppression of individual freedom of movement, of spending, of consumption, choice of job and the rest.
Briefly recalling another socialist saint—Aneurin Bevan—I would point out that socialism is concerned not only with deciding priorities but above all with imposing priorities. The dilemma is this. First, the

1755
waging of war offers a single overriding criterion by reference to which priorities can be set. Secondly, war brings a shared sense of danger which makes central enforcement more tolerable. Except to serious social engineers, neither of those two crucial simplicities applies in the diverse world of a free society in time of peace.
Despite all equivocations, democratic socialism means a continuing, progressive extension of coercive government far beyond the necessary role of supplying what economists debate as public goods. Democratic socialism means the pervasive spread of politicisation to more and more aspects of our daily lives. I recall a book by a former Labour Minister, now I believe sheltering somewhere in this place, entitled Politics is for People. To that I say "Bah!" and "Humbug!". Normal people have been fed up with politics and politicians for years. My colleague Arthur Seldon quipped that a truer title would have been: "Politics is for political people".
Politicians are, of course, personally often very nice. We would all agree that they are even better when they reach the eminence of the Back-Benches in this House. Mixed up with vanity, histrionics, zest for power or the illusion of power, they mostly have good intentions. Socialism is the means of converting those golden intentions into dross. We have seen that the progressive aggrandisement of the state has been a total failure. The further it has been pushed in Eastern Europe and throughout Africa the greater the failure and the less individual liberty there is left.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for drawing our attention to the case for democratic socialism. He appears in rude health, but I suggest that he should take up a less strenuous and taxing hobby than advocating socialism. I suggest that instead of withdrawing his call for Papers he asks for a copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there is no one who is easier to listen to or more thought provoking than the noble Lord. The only thing that puzzles me is why he sits on the Cross-Benches. The noble Lord took a certain pride in his perch there just now, but why is he not among the Conservatives? I suppose that he thinks that they are a lot of softies and crypto-socialists. The noble Lord is so far to the right that he does not recognise that they have anything in common with him. He will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely.
My noble friend Lord Bruce is a fine and vigorous friend of mine. If I was in real trouble I would go to him. He would not ask me whether I was guilty; he would just make sure that the other man did not show his face in public for a long time. He is that sort of friend.
One question which arises is whether these labels are of any importance. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for interrupting. It is a rather absurd convention of this House that we do not have interruptions. Otherwise, we have addresses to tied
1756
audiences all afternoon. It would be so much more fun if we could interrupt. However, the noble Lord was within his rights and I apologise.
However, I want to raise the issue of phraseology with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and other Liberals and with my former pupil the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is not here today because I understand that he is the leader of the Liberals and in that sense the noble Lords, Lord Grimond and Lord Mayhew, are his underlings. When he spoke the other day in a debate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said:
"although I may have belonged nominally to three parties, it is my firm view that I have remained exactly where I am and that other people have changed. I have held exactly the same moderately social democratic views for at least the past 25 years".—[Official Report, 24/2/93; col. 322.]
I do not know whether that applies to the other Liberal champions today, but that is why I question whether democratic socialism and social democracy are the same thing. However, in my few minutes I cannot pursue the subject.
I have often said here that I am a socialist because I am a Christian. When I say that I realise that there are better Christians than I who are Conservatives and members of other parties. One of the most notable on these Benches is my noble friend Lord Soper. When we debated the Education Reform Bill two or three years ago who was it who took the initiative in introducing the word "Christianity" into the Bill? It was the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is a strong Conservative. One might almost call her a Right-wing Conservative. Therefore I realise that it is possible to be a Conservative and a Christian. I understand why because I was once a Conservative myself, 100 years ago.
It is possible to believe that capitalism pursued along very unequal lines in the end is the way that enriches everyone, including the poorest. Therefore we have many good Christians. I speak as a socialist because I am a Christian. I realise that there are other traditions in the Labour Party. I do not refer to Marxism. In my view, Marxism contributed nothing to the Labour Party.
In 1947, before most of the Members on the Front Bench were born, I was Minister of Civil Aviation. I went to a dinner at the Russian Embassy and sat between Mr. Molotov and Mr. Ernest Bevin. Mr. Molotov asked me, "Have you studied Karl Marx, Lord Pakenham?", as I called myself at the time. I said, "I have studied Karl Marx". I had lectured on him; I had lectured to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on him. I said, "I am afraid that I have not become a marxist". Speaking through the interpreter, he said, "I quite understand, Lord Pakenham, that one would not expect to find a good marxist in the House of Lords". Mr. Bevin then said—I shall not try to copy his voice—"That's where you're wrong, Mr. Molotov. Members of the House of Lords are the only people who have time to read Karl Marx". Still courteous, Mr. Molotov replied: "Mr. Bevin should study the works of Marx in the commentary of Hilfiding". Bevin was not to be defeated. He said, "I have studied Hilfiding and have found him tedious". That finished the discussion for the moment.

1757
Marx has had nothing to do with the development of the Labour Party, although marxists have been included in it. Secularism, taking the Fabians as an example, has had a great deal to do with it. One has had the Christian and the secular tradition. So far as I am concerned, society is grossly unjust and became more unjust throughout the Thatcherite and Conservative years when the inequality of wealth was increased. It had been decreased under various governments, including Conservative governments. It has been increased until now. I cannot understand how any Christian can justify that.
For me at least there is no doubt about the conclusion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. We must find a way in which enterprise is rewarded and at the same time justice done to those who are called in the Gospel the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind—in other words, the disadvantaged in this country and other countries. That must be the direction in which we move. No human society can be perfect. No motivation among politicians or others will be perfect. In my eyes—I can speak only for myself—the Labour Party will follow the banner that floats nearest the sky.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I wish to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I wish to do so by concentrating on one issue: the idea of social justice. I believe that it is absolutely fundamental to socialism, whether in its marxist, democratic socialist or social democratic form. It is a point which Hayek (one of the gurus of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross) has emphasised; namely, that social justice is in many ways the core value of socialism. Yet that concept of social justice has been considerably undermined by the intellectual prominence of economic liberal and new Right thinking over the past 15 years.
It is important, not to set the record straight, but to say something to balance the other side and to rehabilitate the idea of social justice. It is an appeal to the moral value of social justice that underpins the political attempt to allocate resources as opposed to a market attempt to allocate resources. It is central to the economic liberal's case that markets do not serve social justice. To use the words of Hayek, they are in principle unprincipled. That is to say, their outcomes do not embody any particular moral outcome. Markets are neither just nor unjust. The category of justice does not apply to them. It is important therefore for people on the Left to respond to the criticisms of economic liberals. In the few moments available to me, I wish to refer to some of the criticisms.
One of the central criticisms from the economic liberal front of the idea of social justice is that freedom has nothing to do with the possession or lack of possession of resources. In particular, it has nothing to do with ability. To be free to do something is quite different from being able to do it. To be free to do something is not to be prevented from doing
1758
something by the intentional action of someone else. Freedom is the absence of coercion not ability, and the associated resources and opportunities.
The logic of that position led the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in his book on equality, published in the 1970s, to argue in one of his chapter headings that poverty is not "unfreedom". Poverty is not unfreedom because the possession of abilities and the associated resources and opportunities has nothing to do with liberty.
To argue that there is a categorical distinction between being free to do something on the one hand and being able to do it on the other is a fundamental error for three reasons. First, if I asked the noble Lord, Lord Joseph—I wish that he were present today—"What is so great about being free from coercion? Why should I wish to be free from coercion? What is valuable about negative liberty in that sense?", surely the answer that he would give is that if one is free from coercion, if one is not prevented from doing things, one can live a life shaped by one's own purposes and values. One is enabled to do various things that one would not be able to do if one were coerced. The value of liberty rests upon what one is then able to do with it. Therefore a categorical distinction cannot be drawn between being free to do something and being able to do it.
The second reason I believe that there is no categorical distinction is that for most people, whether someone is free or "unfree" to do something depends on whether there is a generalised ability to do it. If I asked noble Lords, "Were people free or unfree to fly aeroplanes in the last century?", your Lordships would consider it a silly question because no one was able to fly aeroplanes in the last century. What makes people free or unfree to fly now is that there is a general ability to fly. If that is so, the ability to do something is a necessary condition of being free to do it. Therefore there cannot be, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and economic liberals argue, a categorical distinction between being free to do something and being able to do it.
The third reason I believe that the attempt to drive a wedge between liberty and resources will not work is this. If one said that freedom is the absence of coercion, how would one figure out whether one society is more or less free than another? It would have to be a purely quantitative judgement. How many coercive rules are there in one society compared with another society? That would lead to a very paradoxical conclusion: that a simple society with few transactions, with little complexity in its life and therefore few rules, might be a freer society than a society such as ours. For example, before the recent changes in Albania there were few cars and virtually no financial transactions. There were therefore few rules governing those activities. Yet if freedom is the absence of coercive rules, one would be in the paradoxical position of saying that Albania is a freer society than Britain because there are fewer rules in Albania than in our own country. No one will accept that statement for the good reason that in Albania the people were not able to do things that we were able to do such as to emigrate, to criticise the government, to

1759
invest and so forth. It follows from that argument that freedom cannot be categorically different from ability because what makes Albania a less free society than Britain is a reference to what we are able to do and what they are not able to do.
That may sound very arcane and philosophical. However, it is central to the economic liberal's case that freedom is the absence of coercion and not the possession of abilities and the associated resources and opportunities which go with it. If freedom and ability are linked, and if therefore resources and opportunities are also linked, then the defence of individual liberty also means the securing to individuals, by political action where markets fail, those resources and opportunities, and level of income, which will enable those individuals to do things which, if matters were left to the operation of the market, they would not be able to do. Therefore, I think that social justice has a close and indispensable link with the idea of liberty and thus the defence of individual freedom and the defence of distributive politics, it seems to me, go together. That is a central insight into the socialist tradition.
4 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I believe that we should not use the word "democracy" without first considering what it means. That is particularly important with so many nations at the moment seeking a democratic solution. At one extreme there are people who think that everyone should have access to instant voting on any issue, whether or not they have studied the matters at stake. At the other extreme, democracy is simply equated with our existing system in England.
Whichever view one may take, it must now be clear that election on the basis of "first past the post" or delegation of responsibility to so-called "duly elected representatives" does not always constitute true democracy. A philosophic definition of democracy is hard to find, yet if it is to represent government by all the people it must be the antithesis of complete autocracy. More specifically, therefore, there should be a genuine attempt to consider the public's wishes, and for that reliance on the ballot box is insufficient because the issues at election times are generally very narrow. Maybe reliance on stereotyped election propaganda is the prime cause of the present Government's notable failure to keep in touch with the electorate.
For example, they have received absolutely no mandate or recorded public wish to privatise the railways. Nor, I think, has any other important reason for doing so been canvassed, and that applies to much else.
A government must, of course, be prepared to take unpopular measures where the national interest really demands it. But they should not pretend that party dogma which is not generally acceptable comes under that category. The present Government's extreme attitude to privatisation and the so-called market
1760
place, with their short-term thinking, is a blatant example of dogma. I would castigate the Government for almost everything they have done recently.
They seem not to realise that what the public wants and has a right to demand is gradual change—I say again, gradual change—where it seems generally desirable. What is wholly unacceptable is the introduction of new philosophies and excursions into the unknown without adequate thought. Surely, the Government might even now realise that there is no merit in change for change's sake. They are perhaps following the ridiculous idea that in order to survive, all governments—new or old—have to show their vigour and virility by making dramatic and irrelevant changes. It is certainly not democratic to do so in the teeth of the public's wishes to follow a more sensible road.
One wonders how far party interest, coupled with the need for the advancement of Ministers, is now the predominant motivation of so much unfortunate parliamentary thinking. I would go even further—to question whether the existing parliamentary system ought not to be improved to serve the national interest better than it seems to today.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, 25 years ago I was reporting a Conservative party conference for my newspaper. At the bar, an obvious former empire builder mistook me for one of the Tory faithful. He said, "I didn't return to this country to see it led by a ruddy communist". I told him that I knew Harold Wilson well and I could assure the man that he was no communist. "I am not talking about him", he said, "I mean Rab Butler"—and he was not being funny.
Many of us rejoiced in the days of what was called "Butskellism" in which the Tories accepted the achievements of the Labour Government of 1945, with full employment, the welfare state and nationalisation of the utilities and the Labour party had discarded its dream of a total socialist society. Indeed, Gaitskell wished to get rid of Clause 4 in its constitution, and my noble friend Lord Jay wanted to change the name to the Labour and Radical Party.
However, beneath the unwritten consensus at Westminster there was a profound middle class disquiet and often bitterness in the country at the failure of Tory Governments to lower taxation and to restore the privileges and differentials which the middle classes had once enjoyed. Indeed, Mr. Heath started with the intention of appeasing them. But it was Mrs. Thatcher who gave them what they wanted and turned consensus into bitter confrontation. The consequence after 14 years is the plight that Britain is in today: a land of unemployment, bankruptcies, personal debt, with great institutions at war with the Government and the Government at war with themselves.
So I heartily endorse my noble friend's case for the progressive establishment of a democratic socialist society, though I wish he had not confined it to this country. There are things which Europe has to show us about the treatment of workers.

1761
I am a cradle socialist. I was brought up in the IOP, the shop assistants' union, the co-operative movement with its splendid women's guild, over which my noble friend Lady Fisher once presided. Just as a cradle Catholic may speak candidly about the Church, so I may from time to time speak candidly about the Labour Party. Mine was one of those many homes which were more Methodist than Marxist; and the conception of socialism was a moral creed of a collective society of brotherly love under the fatherhood of God. It was also concerned about social and political inequality and about a fairer distribution of goods. Only when we came to the application of the creed in order to obtain those good things were we at odds with one another.
Now it will not be easy to preach that full socialism which some people have preached for many years. For a long time most socialists have been disturbed by the Soviet Union and its satellites; but their collapse revealed an even greater cruelty, corruption and chaos than we had suspected, and also the awful inefficiency of a command economy.
However, despite our long-standing contempt for the Soviet Union—the fact that it claimed to be socialist makes it no easier for us—we share a part of its history, and at one time we shared part of its creed. Nevertheless, if we were to see a Labour government, I think we should find a government who would be faced with appalling difficulties, as the President of the United States is now finding.
The Political Quarterly, in a striking editorial, argues that this Conservative Government have no longer the remotest idea of where they are going. They still cling to odd bits of Thatcherite projects of the 1980s, of further irrelevant privatisation here and another mean-minded swipe at the welfare state there, but with diminishing conviction. Not even Ministers today imagine that selling off British Rail or the Post Office will make the British economy more efficient or more productive.
I find some sympathy with the argument that all of us—Liberal Democrats, Labour Left and Labour modernisers—are still trapped in the intellectual categories of an era dominated by the century-long contest between capitalism and socialism. It is certainly a different world now. It is one in which few people can expect to have a job that will last until retirement, in which people are anchored by houses they cannot afford to sell, in which one child in three is in a single-parent family and in which 60 per cent. of housewives go out to work. That is the kind of society we have. It is a fractured society which government have to work in and try to put right.
Fortunately, the Conservatives, if their Financial Secretary is to be heeded, believe that the market is no longer "the thing". He denounced it yesterday. He said that it had never been part of real Conservative philosophy, and that they must be concerned with the kind of thing with which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was concerned in his opening speech.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. We have already seen an excellent debate in which the philosophical, economic and political foundations of democratic socialism have been examined. I value democratic socialism. Such democracy as we have today in advanced capitalist countries has been fought for by socialists. If trade unions had not fought for basic freedoms and extension of the franchise—from the Chartists onward to the trade union movement in the 1850s and 1860s—universal adult franchise would not have been seen. Let us not forget the contribution that socialists have made.
Also, socialists have in a sense humanised capitalism. Every shortening of working hours, every health and safety measure at work and every little comfort were fought tooth and nail by the capitalists, who said that if one shortened working hours, profits would disappear. They said that if any freedom was given, such as the right to strike or making factories safer, profits would disappear. Despite that, profits grew and capitalism became possible, and civilised, thanks to socialism.
In the 1920s and early 1930s, when capitalism was going through its worst crisis of mass unemployment and deep depression, it was (for all practical purposes) the New Deal in America—the sort of ideal of democratic socialism that Lord Bruce has put forward—and later on its full incorporation in western Europe through full employment and the welfare state, which saved capitalism for posterity. Indeed, I would argue that the success of that experiment maintained full employment for the first time in the history of capitalism for a period of 25-years. No previous 25-year period in the history of capitalism had seen full employment, sustained economic growth and high mass consumption. Yet those very victories caused the problem for socialism. Once they had been won, it began to threaten profitability. That threat took the form of inflation; and it was the reaction against inflation that undermined the case for socialism.
I am not at all despondent. I take democratic socialism to be the twin of capitalism; the one twin that is needed to civilise the other. As we have already seen, and as my noble friend has emphasised, if we are to avoid an underclass in a two-thirds rich and one-third poor society; if we are to guard the stability of the system against financial speculation and the fragility of financial institutions; if we are to guard the system from running into an ecological crisis; if we are to achieve true democracy, in which everyone has the ability—as my noble friend Lord Plant pointed out in his excellent speech—to fulfil his or her potential as a citizen—if all those things are to come about, capitalism always needs socialism. It would be a false idea for those who are against socialism to believe that somehow they have seen the last of socialism. Such delusions have been entertained for a long time. Alternatively, people say: "We are all socialists now". Fifty years ago Rab Butler said it, and Sir William Harcourt said it in 1896. People occasionally become socialists when it suits them. Socialism is indeed necessary for capitalism.

1763
I believe that when finally mature capitalism runs to its limits—as one of my favourite authors, Karl Marx, predicted—when mature capitalism finally cannot solve problems and cannot grow any further, it will be out of mature capitalism that proper socialism will come to this country. At that stage we shall have prosperity and liberty. It is only when fully utilising the human potential, which capitalism frequently forgets or neglects, that we shall have a proper free society. I commend to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, not just the Wealth of Nations, but also the Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is probably a better book.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I have always been fascinated by socialism. Therefore, when the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, put down his Motion, I was quite unable to resist the temptation to take part in this short debate.
Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I became hooked on socialism rather earlier in my life. I was first seduced by the gentle charms of William Morris in News from Nowhere. In preparation for this debate, I have been looking at it again. It is a book I strongly recommend to those who have not read it. As an undergraduate at Cambridge in the 1950s, I was fortunate enough to be taught by Maurice Dobb and Eric Hobsbawm and was once described by Joan Robinson as a revolutionary youth. It was only a little later, when I realised how nasty human nature really is, that I realised socialism was not such a practical proposition. I believe that it was Juvenal who said that a statesman who assumes that the world is populated with angels will be sorely disappointed.
I much enjoyed the trip down memory lane which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, gave us. I certainly do not dissent—it would be presumptuous of me to do so—from his account of history. It is true that there was a central direction of the economy by the wartime coalition. It is true that this was continued after the war by the 1945–51 Labour Government. That government had two great triumphs of enduring value, for which I continue to salute it. One was the introduction of the welfare state; the other was the introduction of planning laws, which have enabled our country to retain its rural beauty to a far greater extent than most countries in Europe.
I would agree also that the socialist consensus continued after the defeat of that government, although some of the controls which had been continued after the war were dismantled by the Churchill government and succeeding Conservative governments. But there was indeed a socialist consensus between 1951 and 1964. It was then revitalised to some extent by Mr. Wilson (now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson) in his Government of 1964. In 1970 the socialist consensus was cheerfully accepted by Mr. Heath. Then the mantle became rather more sinister. It became a corporatist mantle. I personally found that so-called tripartite government profoundly undemocratic. It was based on power sharing between industry, the trade unions and government, with remarkably little look-in for Parliament. Indeed, it
1764
was at about that time that the Liberal Party produced an election poster in which they showed Mr. Heath and the then Mr. Wilson under the slogan: "Which twin is the Tory?"
The socialist government that succeeded Mr. Heath continued along much the same lines, although there were rather charming and enlightening moments when one wondered whether they had had second thoughts. I remember a passage from Tony Benn's diaries when he tried to persuade the Cabinet to go for the socialist solution—I believe it was during the IMF crisis of 1976. He said that if one was in a lifeboat and had one loaf of bread one could either ration it or auction it. Jim Callaghan (now the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan) chimed in, "You could always eat it."
But it was only after the departure of that government that the socialist consensus was challenged. It was challenged originally by the thoughts of my noble friend Lord Joseph. Then history itself was challenged by my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I believe that she has produced an irreversible shift of power from unions, bureaucrats and tax collectors at home. She ushered in the decay of socialism in Europe and beyond.
I fear that the Labour Party of today has still not learnt the lessons of its own history. It has suffered from the rather unsuccessful first year of the present Conservative Government and has been enabled to continue with its same traditions. It is not much further forward than it was in April last year when it could be said that it was socialism which caused the defeat and in particular issues such as Mr. John Smith's tax policies. When he put forward the proposal for increasing the rate of tax from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent., many people in the Labour Party believed that it was a very low rate compared with taxes in the old post-war days. In fact, people were looking at 40 per cent. No matter how much general support there was for the idea that higher taxation is fair and desirable, in the privacy of the polling booth people tend to vote on the self-interest ticket.
I doubt whether a political party will ever again win power in this country under the socialist banner, whether it is democratic or otherwise. I do not believe that democratic socialism is much more appetising. That is what I believe it was called in East Germany. Democratic centralism is another horrible use of the word "democracy", and was, I believe, a form of Leninism.
There will come a time when a change of government in this country is desirable. I hope when that time comes that the Labour Party has cast aside the nostalgia of its own history and arrived at the moment when it can join with the Liberal Party and can march to the polls under the banner of liberalism. But that is some time off. So the present Administration has much more time and much more to do during its tenure of office.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I risk being accused of living in the past by opening with a quotation from a Dr. P.H. Holland, who investigated a suburb of Manchester in 1844. I hope to explain why I go that far back. Dr. Holland said:
"When we find the rate of mortality four times as high in some streets as in others … invariably high in those streets which are in had condition, and almost invariably low in those whose condition is good, we cannot resist the conclusion that multitudes of our fellow creatures, hundreds of our immediate neighbours, are annually destroyed for want of the most evident precautions".
We have come a long way since then. The health of all social classes has improved vastly. But the differences in health between social classes are still evident. Professor Douglas Black's report on inequalities in health, published in 1980, showed that infant mortality in Social Class 5 (unskilled workers) was 2.5 times as high as that in Social Class 1 in 1932. In 1972 it was 2.6 times as high. Across the board the same kind of social class differences in almost all causes of serious illness or death was demonstrated. Later work shows that the trend has continued and, despite overall improvement, social class differences are as wide as ever.
In his introduction to Professor Black's report the then right honourable Patrick Jenkin said:
"It will be seen that the Group"—
the working group that produced the report—
"has reached the view that the causes of health inequalities are so deep-rooted that only a major and wide-ranging programme of public expenditure is capable of altering the pattern. I must make it clear that additional expenditure on the scale which could result from the report's recommendations—the amount involved could be upwards of £2 billion a year—is quite unrealistic in present or any foreseeable economic circumstances … I am making the report available for discussion, but without any commitment by the government to its proposals".
In fact the findings were so awkward for the Government that he only issued a few cyclostyled copies. Publication was delayed for two years until Penguin Books published a report to a worldwide audience which appreciated its scholarship and profound implications. However, it is true that even the worst off in Britain have far better health than the average person in the South, the developing world. The infant mortality and other health indices are still in many countries as bad as they were in Victorian or Edwardian Britain. In the same way it is the workers and poor farmers of the South who are now being exploited—that is, when they are working at all, for wages at subsistence level—by capital, much of which comes from the North.
The working classes in the North in comparison have achieved wage levels and a social security system which protect them from deprivation, starvation or destitution even when out of work or unable to work. As many noble Lords have said, that is far too high a proportion of the workforce. When in work, a majority in the North are now sufficiently highly paid to buy houses, cars and other products of a consumer society. They have been hooked into the system. They are therefore not too keen to rock the boat, a phenomenon which is very well described by the veteran economist J.K. Galbraith in his latest
1766
monograph, The Culture of Contentment. But while the increasingly skilled working class—when in work, as I said—is relatively affluent, the really rich in this country have become even richer, especially during the sojourn of this Government.
My noble friend focused on democratic socialism in Britain. But I suggest that he should look beyond these shores also. A democratic socialist government worth their salt would be doing just that. At present not only are wages abysmally low in the third world but there is in fact a net transfer of wealth from the South to the North because of very low commodity prices and international debt, aided by the structural readjustment programmes imposed by the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank. For those reasons, many of the poorest countries in the world, especially Africa, cannot get economic lift-off.
One of the first priorities of a democratic socialist administration should be to cancel or buy up the debts of the poorest countries. They would then be more able to buy much needed capital goods or machinery to restart their development, which has been at a standstill for the past decade. Our development aid budget should rapidly be raised to the 0.7 per cent. of GNP recommended by the United Nations, or more. That would still, at around £4 billion, be only a fraction of our defence budget but it could bring the long-term dividend for this country of being able to trade with more active and well disposed economies. That would help us who live in the capitalist world to ameliorate perhaps the inevitable recessions and booms that afflict us at the moment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, in seven minutes I do not believe it is possible to add more than a footnote to the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Bruce. It is not possible because he struck at the fundamental roots of the subject that we are discussing.
We are discussing the kind of society we want, not only in the economic sense in that we want to make a profit, but also in the sense of relationships between people within our society. Unless we talk of that it is no use talking at all. That is the most important point.
One lesson we must learn in that regard is that there is no such thing as "human nature". One may think that human nature is something that is created and then stays always the same; that it is the attitude of standing to one side, seeing people suffer and doing nothing to help them. I do not accept that that is the character of the human nature. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said that he changed his mind because he began to realise what human nature was all about. Fundamentally he was saying that we are greedy and want it all. I do not accept that as a reason for changing one's mind about politics.
The danger about politics and power, as has been said so often, is that power corrupts. When one has absolute power within society—never mind what the original intentions were; for example, the original intentions of 1944 as outlined by my noble friend Lord Bruce—it will corrupt that society. The practice of the power will corrupt it still further.
That is one reason why the good aims of the revolution in the Soviet Union went so badly awry. No socialist worth his salt was unaware, way back in the 1920s and before, that the trouble was that the powers in Russia had been corrupted by the very power they sought—on a false pretence. Ultimately that led to its breakdown.
Let me bring your Lordships up to date. The battle between the trade union movement and capitalism in this country will shortly lead to a situation where both will collapse unless a solution is found to the terrible social problems that are being suffered.
Last week we debated the creation of wealth. In opening the debate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that one of the joys of the last century was that the subject of the economy rarely raised its ugly head. Of course it was a joy to the capitalists. But what caused socialism—the desire for a better way of life—to rear its head? Did it have something to do with the terrible privations being suffered by the labour in the coal-mines and mills of this country, from which capitalism had originally made so much of its money? Did it have something to do with the fact that children in Lancashire in the last century were being taken out of warm beds and put straight into the bobbin-mills and those already in the mills were being taken back and put into the same beds? Did it have something to do with the fact that we were conducting society, in a free capitalist society, in such a way that Liverpool, as a local authority, was compelled to introduce the first medical officer of health because of the scandalous conditions of the working class? Of course it did.
It was the power of capitalism that finally created the trade union and Labour movement as a protest and as a means of finding some way out of the dilemma the country was facing. Those are the fundamental facts of society. Today, when we see somebody standing on one side and boasting that he has taken £200,000 in salary but is going to freeze the amount for five years and at the same time we see a wage freeze of 1.5 per cent. for other people, it is obscene.
One of the leading building societies has conducted a campaign of cutting staff numbers, reducing wages and increasing hours, yet the managing director received an increase in salary of something like £100,000. That is an obscenity. I make no apologies for the fact that I believe that a moral issue arises in all this. What kind of society led the Church of England, having an investment income in the City of London of about £400,000, to appeal for funds for the poor third world? That is accepted as normal.
The truth is that the capitalist society perverts everything that it touches. The desire for money seems to give the people who want that money a belief that they have a right to take it, without any responsibility. Until we tackle the moral aspect of our society and talk of the right thing to do rather than the profitable thing to do, we will never advance.
Let me say this in regard to the under-class mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. We must find some way of giving them a fair share. Mrs. Thatcher, as she was, said that there
1768
is no society; there are only individuals; that this is a society where the individual counts. In other words, devil take the hindmost. Unless we get rid of the under-class, unless we give all the people a fair share of the things that they produce rather than the money men in London, that devil will kill us all.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as they say, follow that! I will, with great difficulty. First, I must thank my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington for introducing the debate. I apologise for not being here to listen to him. It is a reflection on our society that the train on which I travelled to London was late because of lack of investment in British Rail, and yet almost every other day I receive letters from banks wanting to lend me money. If the banks are so awash with money that they want to lend it to somebody like me, and presumably to lots of other people, there must be money available to invest in British Rail to keep the trains running on time.
The debate concerns the case for people. To my mind socialism is about empowering people, in contradiction to the power of money. That can be described as capitalism, market forces or what you will. Basically, that is the fundamental conflict that we are discussing—the conflict between people on the one hand and money on the other.
What are the reasons that we argue for socialism? They are all around us but can be summed up in one word—unemployment. It is the ultimate expression of the devaluation of people. We have mass unemployment of over 3 million at the moment; less than 15 years ago we had 3 million unemployed. We have gone through two periods of mass unemployment with a hit of a dip in the middle. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on the Conservative Benches, who said in a debate a few months ago that no society could be successful that had mass unemployment on the one hand and a continuing demand for goods and services on the other.
Socialism is a concept of common sense. One of its ideas is to match the resources to the needs of society. One only needs to look around to see the enormous degree of unmet need. But socialism is also extremely British. It is about fairness, which is an essentially British trait. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me. We British have an almost instinctive concept of fair play. Of course we can all succumb to greed and the idea that it is justifiable to hang on to that which we earn. But is it fair for individuals in this country to earn £1 million a year or more and for the vast under-class to live on £2,000 a year or less? That is a fundamental unfairness which really strikes at the heart and attacks the fabric of our society.
When we talk about the valuation of people it is not just in terms of them having an economic contribution or a job through which to contribute to society. It does not mean simply a monetary value in terms of a fairer distribution of income. It is also meant in terms of democracy. This is where I fall out with some of my comrades. I always think of democratic socialism as being tautologous. We do not need "democratic"

1769
because socialism is democratic. If we had a truly democratic society we would not need to talk about socialism because that would be the net result.
There is the concept of valuing people and democracy. Democracy is about people being in control of their destiny. It relates to the individual and the individual's ability to control his destiny by having the same kind of capabilities, educational standards, physical health, housing, nutrition and all those kinds of things and the same kind of income as other people. Given those circumstances, that person can have the same kind of power as other people.
But when we look at the matter collectively we come to the process of what is normally described as democracy with the business of voting, representation and Parliament. In that regard we can see that our society has come a long way. About 1,000 years ago there was Magna Carta when the barons wrested some power from the King. About 160 years ago we had the Reform Act which gave some representation to householders. Just before the Great War there were female suffragettes. In the 1960s suffrage was extended to 18 year-olds. So we now value 18 year-olds and over, whether male or female, fairly equally. They are still not completely equal because there are some fairly small constituencies which send a Member of Parliament to Westminster and others which are fairly large. So there is a disproportionate valuation of people in that respect.
There is also the lack of power of our democratic representatives themselves which denies the value of the people. One considers the power of the City, the judiciary and of big business. They all operate independently—especially international business—of what our House of Commons says or does, because we have a canker right at the heart of our body politic. Part of that canker is ourselves. The fact is that this undemocratic Chamber contributes to the operation of Parliament and that means that the British people are distracted from what their representatives are doing. Governments which operate almost separately from the House of Commons get away with things. If they were held properly accountable, and if people recognised their own essential value in the process, I suggest that in the past 15 years those governments would not have got away with the terrible depredations which they have imposed on the British people.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I felt a keen personal interest in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I was the founder and first chairman of an organisation of Labour Party members known as the Democratic Socialist Group. We propagated political views indistinguishable from those given us today by the noble Lord in his nbtable speech. But that was 55 years ago. My question to the noble Lord is: Are there no lessons to be learnt from the events of the past 55 years which might lead us to modify our previous beliefs in democratic socialism?
The noble Lord called for party consensus. He quoted as his annus mirabilis 1944, when, it is true, all three parties agreed on an historic paper on
1770
employment and welfare. But on what was that paper based? It was based on the thought of two great liberals, Keynes and Beveridge. At the time it was not called democratic socialism. I assure the noble Lord that had it been called by that title the Tory Party would not have looked at it for a moment. If he means that there should be a future consensus of parties based on liberal democratic ideas, such as those propagated by Keynes and Beveridge, that is a very promising line of thought.
But so much has happened since then. He and I took part in nationalising five great industries after the war. The results were disappointing. That should be kept in mind because in those days socialism was very much identified with nationalisation. Nationalisation was socialism. I cannot remember what Lenin said, but, whatever it was, it indicated that nationalisation of industry was a key feature.
But the noble Lord's party has tried its best to adapt to the changes over the years. We welcome the changes on these Benches. Each change brings the Labour Party closer to the basic political philosophy of the Liberal Democrats. The Labour Party has carried out a number of notable and important reforms in recent years. Under the leadership of Mr. Kinnock it more or less crushed the lunatic Left. Although Clause 4 still stays, I believe that no one in the Labour Party takes it seriously. I believe that it has abandoned its commitment to public ownership.
Another great development since the annus mirabilis of 1944 has been the enormous growth of the economic interdependence of this country on other countries and especially on Western Europe. Here again, the Labour Party, painfully and slowly, has adjusted itself to the new reality. There was a time when it strongly opposed British membership of the European Community, arguing that the Community was inimical to its Left-wing aspirations. But it has come round now. However, the noble Lord has not quite shown the flexibility of his party on that point. We hope that one day he, like his party, will be converted to the reality that Britain has no future outside the Community. There are many noble Lords who will hope that that conversion comes before the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill.
There is a further development in the Labour Party which is welcome to us and which follows the lines advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. The Labour Party is seriously considering introducing an element of democracy into our electoral system. We could not help feeling a slight disappointment in one respect about the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plant, in that we wished to hear from him the latest news of whether or not the Labour Party believes in a democratic electoral system. He thinks that the Labour Party should change and that it should support such a system, but I read on the tape that the party leader is against it. Nevertheless, it is a sign of hope for future consensus and these Benches welcome the fact that those moves are going on inside the Labour Party.
However, I must warn the noble Lord that there is one major issue on which the Labour Party has not adapted at all, on which it distances itself not only

1771
from the Liberal Democrats but from the electorate of Great Britain. It is still the creature of the trade unions. The unions finance it and dominate all its major decisions, its party conferences, the leadership and other matters. Political democracy is advancing in many parts of the world: in the former Soviet empire and in parts of Latin America. But that civilising trend stops short of the constitution of the British Labour Party, which stands out against democratic reform. It is true that the leader, Mr. Smith, is well aware of this and has spoken openly about the lack of democracy in the Labour Party. He has urged certain reforms, in particular OMOV—that is, one member, one vote. Mr. Smith is urging his party to adopt that absolutely elementary and basic form of democracy and to follow the steps so recently exemplified by the Yemenis and the Cambodians. Let the Labour Party follow their lead and institute the principle of one member, one vote.
However, the party leader may fail in that. In October at the Labour Party Conference we may well be treated to the entertaining spectacle of the block vote being saved by the block vote. It may happen because even Mr. Smith is not willing to propose the abolition of the block vote, but only to modify it by allowing it 70 per cent. instead of 90 per cent. of the total voting power of the Labour Party Conference.
The truth is that there are obstacles to what the noble Lord was saying about party consensus based on the record of the wartime government. There is, we know, tremendous need for such consensus. Noble Lords have spoken about the underclass. One of the outrageous features of our society today is the way in which those who are already too rich are determined to get richer and richer and to spend their money worse and worse. That is the kind of thing which a proper consensus government might join forces to tackle. There are obstacles to face in the future, and although we must take note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, may not have a large number of allies now, his basic thesis will command a great echo in this country and should be taken seriously by the Government.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, like others in this debate, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington for his imaginative Motion and thoughtful speech. During a long political career, my noble friend has been an outspoken advocate of Labour policies and of his own genuinely held views, and he is respected for that. He served as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Aneurin Bevan and reflects many of the views of that great man.
My noble friend has summarised his political testament and none of us would quarrel with the basic argument of his speech that democracy is the essential element in the British constitution. The two great wars of this century were fought in large part to preserve it, but it is a fragile plant which needs constant care. We want to see real democracy established in Russia and other former Soviet countries after the collapse of Soviet communism. They called their political
1772
doctrine "socialism", but it was not the socialism which my noble friend has in mind, as he made clear. Surely one of the central objectives of our foreign policy, and that of our allies, must be to do all that we can and all that is in our power to see that democracy survives and grows in Eastern Europe because the return of Russia to the old dispensation would be a major tragedy and a disaster to mankind. We should remember that in this debate.
We value our parliamentary democracy; it is the oldest and probably the most steadfast in the world. But we must never take it for granted. No Gibbon has yet emerged to write The Decline and Fall of the British Empire; the title would be a mistake anyway. The British empire was dismantled. I remember Harold Macmillan saying that "a wind of change" was blowing across Africa.
As to our own Parliament, there are moments in history when reforms are needed, not least in this House, and we must have the sense and the courage to grapple with them, as otherwise our parliamentary system itself will suffer. For example, Edward Gibbon in his great work wrote:
"The principles of a free constitution are irrecoverably lost, when the legislative power is nominated by the executive".
In our own time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, warned some 15 years ago that,
"an elective dictatorship could arise by a government taking advantage of the virtual absolute sovereignty of the House of Commons to behave in a manner which is undeniably anti-democratic".
Time does not allow me to pursue this theme, but I say again that we must face up to the need for reform and I believe we would be wise to set up a commission along the lines of the admirable Bryce Commission of 1917.
Over a century ago, our predecessors in this Parliament had the imagination and drive to extend the boundaries of democracy by creating county and district councils with powers to govern well-defined communities. But they were elected authorities and they have been one of the great successes of the century in this country. I deeply regret to have to say that over the past 14 years, successive Conservative Governments have eroded the powers and undermined the confidence of local authorities without adequate cause and without proper consultation. They have dealt democracy a cruel blow at its grass roots. After all, the elected council is the most effective counterweight to central government, which acts as the alternative channel for democratic participation. The truth is that the powers of local government over this period have been transferred to Ministers, to Whitehall, to the Executive and not least to quangos to an extent that is unprecedented in peacetime. It has been a questionable process. I was glad to see that this week's House Magazine has a number of interesting articles on the problems posed by quangos.
Consider what has taken place: in the past 14 years there has been a flood of local government Bills, over 14,000 pages of local government legislation and several major changes in local government finance.

1773
This treatment has dealt a blow to conscientious men and women of all political parties and of none who have served their communities as councillors.
What is dangerous is the shift away from democratic accountability, and this has taken place across a wide range of our national life. Those who criticise my noble friend's aspirations choose to overlook that. Huge sections of our lives in Britain are sliding from well-established democratic practices into a dangerous web of quangos.
Let us get this straight—I know that noble Lords opposite will be as concerned about it as I am—unelected people who are not known to the general public are running a vast range of our public services. I understand that last year there were 1,846 quangos, with 114,400 board members and staff, and that they spent over £14 billion, of which £10.5 billion was taxpayers' money. Forty thousand of the posts were directly in the gift of Ministers. I must point out that the NHS, with its £37 billion budget, is additional to that. Where is the democracy in all this?
What is equally serious is that there is more political patronage in those appointments than there has ever been in modern times. There is a deep feeling in Wales about the political influence exercised in making appointments to nominated bodies, of which there are 81 with an overall expenditure of £1.4 billion. It is a dangerous trend. The time is approaching, and it will come very soon, when the public will demand a major examination and inquiry into those developments and their implications for the democratic system in Britain. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to whom I listened with interest, that it is this Government, not the Labour Government, who have lessons to learn at this time.
In his speech, however, my noble friend Lord Bruce advocated a democratic socialist society, and he did so with sincerity and conviction. A good deal of what he said was sensible, but I know that he will agree that the word "socialist" has been damaged and polluted by a generation of twisted dictators who were responsible for the deaths of millions of people. But their so-called socialism was as far distant from that of my noble friend as the policies of Adenauer and Willy Brandt were from those of Hitler. Christianity itself has, over the centuries, produced sects which bear no relationship whatsoever to the teachings of the New Testament.
The late Alexander Dubcek, who suffered in the cauldron of post-war communism in Eastern Europe, said in 1968:
"We wish to meet people's longing for a society in which they can feel human among human beings. This active, humane, integrating quality of socialism, a society without antagonisms, is what we want to realise systematically and gradually".
It is hard to quarrel with that. My noble friend referred to the Government of 1945, and those, I believe, were the objectives of the Attlee Government, one of the great reforming governments of our history—something that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who was a member of that government, failed to mention in his speech when he was criticising the Labour Party.
1774
In this country we have our own concepts of socialism. We must concede that they vary, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Let me remind the noble Lords, Lord Moyne and Lord Harris of High Cross, whose speeches I enjoyed, that it has been said that the Labour Party, as my noble friend Lord Ardwick reminded us, owes more to Methodism than to marxism. Of course we have always had our Christian socialists whose influence upon the Labour movement has been profound. They have outstanding representatives in the House who are respected throughout the country. I hope that I may be allowed to mention two of them; namely, my noble friend Lord Longford, whose speech we much enjoyed, and, as he said, my noble friend Lord Soper. Their aspirations rise above party politics. As for myself, I still believe in a mixed economy sensibly achieved. I take the view that most of the current privatisation programme is against the real public interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said of nationalisation, privatisation is "a real disappointment".
People are led to believe that they must choose between a command economy and a market economy and that there is no other option. As my noble friend Lord Plant said, that is misleading. We should know that the one can lead to disaster and collapse and the other, at its worst, to gerrymandering, the Fraud Squad and to what Edward Heath called,
"the unacceptable face of capitalism".
We know that there is a better way. It must be the objective, struggle and hope of political parties to find that better way.
We believe in a democratic government, which implies consultation with people at all levels, accountability to elected Parliaments and councils which carry out policies which have been approved by the electorate. I fear that we are drifting away from that. We need, above all, leadership with strength and total integrity which can retain the confidence of the people of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, rightly pointed out that people are disillusioned with the Government, as the Newbury by-election revealed so dramatically.
Above all, we need a compassionate Government who give priority to the urgent needs of all the people: the priorities are housing, health, education, the needs of the elderly and the provision of work; 3 million unemployed people are no foundation for a fair society. The under-class; to which several noble Lords have referred, must go. We need a Government whose objective is to raise not just material but moral standards in a free society and to tackle the breakdown of civic order, the family and other institutions which make up a civilised community. Let us work together to achieve that and to make Britain great in things that really matter.
5.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I enjoyed the debate more than I expected. I appreciated especially the elegant and eloquent settling of rather elderly scores on the Benches opposite and the posing of what appeared to

1775
me to be some rather ancient questions. I was particularly enthralled by the account the noble Earl, Lord Longford, gave of sparring with Molotov at a time when the height of my vaulting conservative ambition was to get out of my playpen. That is a fitting metaphor for what it seems to me the Motion calls for: it was not to leave me as a child in a playpen but to leave me as an adult within it as well.
What struck me as somewhat of a surprise with the Motion was that I was unaware that there was a case,
"for the progressive establishment of a democratic socialist society within the United Kingdom".
Nor, frankly, was I aware that there were any socialists left. The peripatetic Leader of the Opposition in another place has made what I understand he describes as a raft of keynote speeches since taking up office last July. One would need to go through the speeches with a fine-toothed comb to find the word "socialist". Many years ago, Aneurin Bevan said that the Labour Party was a crusade or it was nothing. When the Leader of the Labour Party shies away from the use of the word I can only conclude that it may be nothing.
Within recent days and weeks the only occasion upon which one has seen the word "socialist" used was on a banner in Dundee marching towards Timex. The words "socialist" and "worker" were used together. What is astonishing about the way that matters have developed there is that no respectable member of the Labour Party would have anything to do with those seeking to march behind that banner. The definition of what is socialism has now become so elusive as to be essentially meaningless. If the Labour Party ever espoused a socialist philosophy, what now appears to be espoused is a philosophy of "soundbites" and the politics of a press release.
Outside the Soviet Union, if the expression "socialism" means anything it was used in its grossest form in Germany when the word "national" was put in front of it. However, the noble Lord in his Motion prefers to put in front the word "democratic". That particular variety has not faired too brilliantly, either. The people of France have the dubious distinction of possibly being the last major country to have a socialist Government, which was recently comprehensively swept from office. Surely it is now time for socialism to face up to its failures. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister recently observed:
"Socialism has been discredited by experience. Conservatism has been validated by history".
The trouble with socialism is that it goes against the grain of human nature. As the estimable author, Michael Oakeshott, observed, human beings are impelled by an acquired love of making choices for themselves. Choice is anathema to socialism; it is, on the other hand, at the centre of Conservative philosophy.
I like the description given by my noble friend Lord Moyne. He said that from time to time those who would have described themselves as liberals or socialists came close to accepting some of the tenets of conservatism but at the last minute swerved away. My
1776
noble friend described it as "girlish". In these modern times I am not allowed to follow him down that path but I certainly understand what he meant.
In the past 14 years the Government have sought to extend choice at every turn. And, frankly, at every turn socialists have sought to stop that choice. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, rather than allowing choice, socialism imposed priorities.
Thirled still to the view that the state can manage economic and personal relations between people better than businesses or families, if socialism ever held the emotional or moral high ground mentioned today it has sadly degenerated into little more than a busybodies' charter founded on the premise that people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for themselves.
The world is filled with monuments to the failure of socialism. Africanised socialism is little more than a password for a Swiss bank account. My noble friend Lord Marlesford had the generosity to say that he applauded parts of our public life which have been introduced by the Labour Party. He made reference in particular to the welfare state. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, correctly spoke of the moral ground which the Labour Party claim to have held. I hope that it is not heretical to my noble friends if I say that I too can think of occasions when a high moral ground was held by the Labour Party, in particular during the time of the Founding Fathers. Anyone who comes from a Scottish background cannot but acknowledge the correctness of the appalling evils which Wheatley discerned when he looked at housing in the west of Scotland during the first decades of this century—and rightly so.
However, one has only to contemplate the consequence of the socialist solution to those evils; the vast municipal housing estates. They are totally without humanity, totally without a sense of community and are frequently a centre of what is least attractive in our public life. What is right and what ought to have been appreciated is that those solutions, which were at once idealistically engaged upon, were not the right way forward. Our techniques of extending home ownership and strengthening the rights of tenants is a far preferable way to move forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, adopted the terminology of "bottom line", which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, so dislikes. I shall read his speech carefully; but he appeared to say that socialism was "where markets fail". If that is correct, I am intrigued by the definition because it is implicit within it that the primacy of the market must first be acknowledged.
It appears that socialism has now degenerated into little more than a confusion of free market revisionism where, according to the Leader of the Opposition in another place, ownership of industry—an astonishing idea when one contemplates the period of time to which we have referred—is largely irrelevant. If ownership of industry is largely irrelevant so too, one must assume, is Clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution. I sometimes wonder which particular

1777
Morrisonian model the Labour Party would hold to be appropriate with regard to the ownership of industry or any public assets.
One becomes confused when, again according to the Leader of the Labour Party, socialism is now about putting power back into the hands of the citizen. That may be a fine phrase fashioned in the dulce suburbs of Morningside in Edinburgh but one wonders how vigorously the Member of Parliament for Bolsover will adopt it as a style of campaigning when he is in his native Derbyshire.
Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, homed in on the use of the word "empowering". I suppose that one of the more intriguing political battles of the late 1980s and the early 1990s was that of the differing political persuasions seeking to arrest that word from one another. I loved the noble Lord's remarks about fair play. It sounded like a lovely passage from Trollope. However, there is a yawning gap between rhetoric and reality when it comes to the Labour Party. Its claim to be the party of power to the citizen, individual freedom and accountability is at odds with its opposition to the greater role of parents in education, or the extension of trusts and GP fundholding in the health service, or the reform of local government which has the extension of accountability at its heart.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred in passing to my noble friend Lord Joseph, who regrettably cannot be here today. Some of us will never forget my noble friend's great speech at a party conference in which he said that our task was not merely to put a ratchet on the advance of socialism but to reverse it. I must say that there were those with faint hearts who listened hopefully but with some scepticism. I agree with my noble friend Lord Marlesford that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in seeing a way forward to the progressive introduction of democratic socialism, might better have reflected on and appreciated the fact that things have changed. The opportunity to move forward relentlessly, which appeared to be the option available until my noble friend Lady Thatcher became Prime Minister, has well and truly gone.
I accept that the British Labour Party has a distinctive British character. However, it must begin to understand the changing role of government and to become open-minded and realistic. The party claims to have a fellow feeling for the Democrats in the United States of America. In spite of the desire progressively to move forward it has failed to understand as yet that, in the words of Mario Cuomo, the Democratic Governor of New York, it is not necessarily the Government's obligations to provide the services but to see that they are provided. If that is understood, a wealth of different opportunities then opens up as regards the way in which the country might be governed. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, do not like some of our privatisation proposals. But if that approach is accepted, it is in no sense wrong or unthinking to see how best the market might provide for those services that it is the duty of government to see are provided.
1778
In winding up the debate, the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite referred to local government. As I understand it, he felt that if there is one place that socialism and democracy is still satisfactorily to be found in place, it is in local authorities in various parts of the country. I should like the noble Lord to think long and hard about the local authority of Monklands in Scotland. There are hugely undemocratic procedures in place there: there are jobs for the boys; there is bias in the distribution of resources. If you seek to obtain a job in Monklands, there are different colours of forms which will indicate where you come from, whom you know and—perhaps worst of all—what your religion might be. There are green forms and other coloured forms. I should have thought that anyone describing himself as democratic or socialist would believe that to be utterly reprehensible. It is the feeblest plea in mitigation that I have ever heard to say that those coloured forms are of no importance because by the time the forms appear before a committee they have been through a photocopier and are all reduced to white.
Those allegations do not emanate from the Conservative Party, the Scottish Nationalists or the Liberal Democrats in Scotland. Those allegations are made by Labour regional councils, Labour district councils, constituency party chairmen and Labour party members. In spite of those exhortations on behalf of his constituency association, both the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland have been deafening in their silence as regards offering any condemnation of those practices on the part of that district council, where both have their seats. As was said recently, the present Leader of the Labour Party threatens to go down in history as the only Member of Parliament to be picketed outside his surgery by his own constituency party, as happened recently. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
At one point during the debate when no very clear explanation was being given to us as to how we might advance democratic socialism within the United Kingdom, I sat up when the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that it was wrong—and he criticised his own party—not to look beyond our own shores. I am sure that a number of noble Lords sat up wondering on what trip to which exotic land we were to be taken. Were we to be taken to Ghana, to Cuba, to Chile, to Mozambique, Cambodia or where? We subsided in our seats when it became clear that no promised land was to be offered to us as an example because, quite simply, there is no promised land to look to.
Such is the unwillingness of those who espouse the socialist cause to show any intellectual vigour that they have not put forward any new model for us to consider. There is at best a Trabant motor car which has had a change of its external colour but little else. It remains smelly, inefficient, uncomfortable and the people do not want it.
The socialist perspective, and add to it what you will in terms of the democratic or otherwise, is still wrong because it feeds the presumption lying not in favour of the individual but in favour of the state. Edmund Burke said:

1779
"I am not one of those who think that the people are never in the wrong. They have been so, frequently and outrageously, both in other centuries and in this. But I do say that, in all disputes between them and their rulers, the presumption is at least on a par in favour of the people".
I did not deny the early moral beginnings of the Labour Party, and I do not deny that many are so motivated. What some fail to appreciate is that the presumption which lies behind the course which they run is one which the people do not want. For my part, I hope that the progressive movement which the noble Lord seeks will stop. I believe that it was stopped in the 1980s and I hope that its progress will never be resumed.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he has read the report published yesterday—and I have not yet had the opportunity to see it—on Monklands District Council. That report indicates that there was no undue interference in the democratic process in the Monklands area any more than in any other place in Scotland. The report makes certain recommendations. Obviously, one must look at the report. However, the noble and learned Lord has made certain assertions about what is happening there which have not been borne out by the report.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my response to that is that, as I indicated, the allegations are not made by me nor are they made by other political parties in Scotland but are made by members of the Monklands District Council and Labour Party members there. I should be interested to hear their response to the report. I hope that sooner or later the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland might give us the benefit of their views on what is clearly a matter of considerable anxiety.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. I am grateful also for the fact that quite a large number stayed to listen to it. Noble Lords who have participated will forgive me if I do not refer to them individually.
The debate was extremely friendly and until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, made his speech, there was a remarkable consensus. I could not help but feel that the standard to which the noble and learned Lord dragged the debate was rather lower than one would have expected of a person replying to a debate of this kind. In view of the fact that he made certain allegations about individual members of my party that are not the subject of the debate—and I attacked no one—I give him notice that next time he rises to his feet in a debate such as this I shall be less merciful than I propose to be today.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was a former colleague of mine in another place. He made some extremely interesting observations which I thought were in the nature of trailing his coat for me to reply. He paid some tribute to my regard for Keynes. My
1780
regard for Keynes, like his own, was largely derived from his general theory, contained in a book which I acquired early on. It said:
"I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment".
It said also:
"Moreover, the necessary measures of socialisation can be introduced gradually and without a break in the general traditions of society".
I can hardly be blamed for admiring Keynes when he set forth views which are almost identical to my own.
The noble Lord did chide me about my attitude towards the Maastricht Treaty. I shall respond briefly because I cannot anticipate my Maastricht statement. When he makes his strictures in the future, I invite the noble Lord to bear in mind that my principal objection to Maastricht is its lack of democracy and the growth of a bureaucracy without any accountability to anyone. No doubt we shall hear his tributes to democracy in due course.
When one intends to make a reference to a Member of the House, I know that it is customary to give that noble Lord notice in advance. However, I was not able to give the noble Lord in question the notice that is normally required, mainly because I do not intend to do anything other than support him. However, I should like your Lordships to pay attention to the remarks made by a very distinguished member of the Conservative Party in the debate last week on wealth creation. I think that they probably more nearly reflect the views of most Members of the House of any party than those reflected in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. Therefore, in complete endorsement, I refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, no less, in that debate. He concluded with the following words that I commend to your Lordships:
"I do not want to wander into theology or to be carried away by my own enthusiasm. But I believe that the context in which we look at the generation of wealth will be entirely lopsided if we do not recognise that…wealth has to be put to a purpose which serves the whole of the nation and the whole of mankind and that we shall not be fit to discharge that function if we do not again recognise those values on which we stood in two world wars and which are fit for an eternity of peace".—[Official Report, 12/5/93; col. 1302.]
Those are my sentiments and, I venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord, those of the majority of the people in this House. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The "Salisbury Doctrine"
5.32 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale rose to call attention to the "Salisbury doctrine" and other practices which qualify the House of Lords' parliamentary role; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships have just debated the momentous issues.of socialism and democracy. I am asking your Lordships to focus more narrowly on the various practices which inhibit noble Lords from playing their full parliamentary role. There are about half a dozen issues of great

1781
constitutional importance which are calling urgently for the consideration of a Royal Commission. Among them, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, just said, is that of the powers and composition of your Lordships' House.
However, I propose to focus today's Motion on the present powers and composition. That inevitably means that there must be less than full deployment of the legal powers at your Lordships' disposal. That is because political society at large has not yet really worked out the place of an elite in a democratic society. Unquestionably, a House which is partly hereditary and partly nominated is an elite. As a result, an elected House seems to have a sort of democratic magic. Whether it has such magic and whether it is truly democratic depends upon two factors: first, how it is elected, as I expect the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will want to remind us in due course; and, secondly, to what extent an elected House transmutes itself into an elite. It has the famous words of Burke as an encouragement to do so when he said to the electors of Bristol:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion".
One must consider that the other place is not entirely democratic at all times. Nevertheless, there is no question that public opinion views your Lordships' House as having less than complete political credibility. That must affect how your Lordships proceed. I shall therefore be urging not only some extension in the deployment of your Lordships' powers, but also some caution.
I wish to say at the outset how grateful I am that the Motion has attracted the attention of so many eminent students of the constitution. I am especially grateful that two former Leaders of your Lordships' House have put down their names to speak. I am greatly honoured that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord the Chief Whip are to speak at the conclusion of the debate.
The first question is to determine the proper role, or roles, of your Lordships' House. I would put very high, but not really entirely relevant to the subject matter of the debate, your Lordships' role as a great council of state. If one considers the wealth of experience, knowledge and authority that your Lordships bring to bear on finance, economics, defence, foreign affairs, justice and education—indeed, it is hardly possible to come to the end of the list—no other deliberative assembly in the world can match that experience and authority in those respects.
However, what is more to the moment is your Lordships' role as a constitutional watchdog. Again, I need not expatiate on that because it has just been admirably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Finally, the most of moment question is your Lordships' role as a revising Chamber. I believe that that is universally conceded. All too often, I fear, it means merely registering the Government's tinkering with the drafting of a Bill. But there is no question now that your Lordships on occasion, and not infrequently, carry amendments against the Government. That is sometimes put euphemistically—and, I think, very misleadingly—as asking the
1782
House of Commons to think again. That implies that it is the Members of the other place who do the thinking, and that the thinking is about the issue implicit in the amendment. But in point of fact neither of those things is true. Your Lordships have only to think of the Further and Higher Education Bill at the end of the last Session when this Chamber, in the teeth of fierce government opposition, wrote an important amendment into the legislation in vindication of academic freedom. The Government accepted that amendment; but they accepted it because a prorogation was pending and if they had resisted it the whole Bill would almost certainly have been lost.
Moreover they did not concede the issue; because in the Education Bill at the moment before your Lordships the Government returned in Clause 1—however, at the moment they are in retreat—to the issue on which they were defeated at the end of the previous Session. That is the important role that is most relevant to what I wanted to submit to your Lordships.
It is most important in respect of delegated legislation. The highly respected chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, Mr. Cryer, has recently drawn attention to the extent and importance of delegated legislation. He did that in evidence before the Hansard Committee and he made a valuable appearance on television. To realise the extent of that legislation, one has only to consider the last year—oddly enough that was as long ago as 1989—for which all the statutory instruments have been published. There are seven massive volumes of them as against three volumes of statutes and ecclesiastical measures, plus one index.
Your Lordships will appreciate the vast extent of the legislation that affects the citizens of this country. As for the importance of that legislation, the Child Support Bill, which is now the Child Support Act, was virtually only a skeleton measure. Everything effective was to be done by subordinate legislation. Only last Monday your Lordships considered subordinate legislation relating to such important matters as marine pollution and the rights or the duties of citizens—or the burden on them—to be wheel-clamped. One could go on almost indefinitely.
The reason, of course, why government departments like to proceed by subordinate legislation is that it avoids the gauntlet of statutory procedures; it is unamendable; and, if there is a negative procedure, the House of Commons is frequently bypassed. Above all, if the legislation is wrong and causes injustice or hardship, the statutory instrument can simply be withdrawn and a new one laid. If some people in the meantime have suffered hardship and injustice, there is the homely and rather heartless phrase about having to break eggs in order to make omelettes.
I place very high in the duties of your Lordships' House the increasing scrutiny of subordinate legislation. I need not go in detail into your Lordships' powers and inhibitions because a most valuable memorandum has been produced by the Clerk of the Parliaments. It is dated last February and I understand it is freely available. At any rate I have been told I can refer to it. The inhibitions of your

1783
Lordships' House are largely the following. Your Lordships do not as a matter of practice vote down a statutory instrument. The last occasion when that was done was in 1968 on the Southern Rhodesia order.
In addition, as I have said, your Lordships cannot amend a statutory instrument. I urge your Lordships to do two things. The first is to adopt what has been done by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on several occasions, and that is to move and support a resolution recommending amendments in a statutory instrument. That has been to a great degree successful. The other course is to adjourn consideration of the measure. That almost always evokes government action.
I pass shortly and quickly to the Salisbury doctrine; namely, that your Lordships do not vote against the Second Reading of a Bill which is foreshadowed in the election manifesto. I do not think any of your Lordships would have doubted that measure at the time it was propounded, when there was a Labour Government with a strong majority in the other place and a reforming programme and an overwhelming Conservative majority in your Lordships' House. I think your Lordships would readily agree that that was a very sensible proposal.
Of course it is arguable that now your Lordships' House is differently constituted your Lordships can abandon that course. I myself would venture to counsel against that. There are several circumstances in which your Lordships can undoubtedly vote against a Second Reading—for example, on a Private Member's Bill, on a free vote of the other place and on other such occasions. I only want to mention two circumstances where it would involve a breach of the Salisbury doctrine to do so. One is where a Bill is quite outrageous constitutionally. I have mentioned the Child Support Act. Not only was it a skeleton Act but it committed practically every constitutional enormity in the book.
The other circumstance where your Lordships can properly refuse a Second Reading is when your Lordships are given insufficient time to discuss a measure of great importance. I think, on reflection, we ought to have voted against the Education Bill on the ground that prolonging discussion until the early hours of the morning was an abuse of your Lordships' House. I beg to move for Papers.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships, regardless of the views they hold, are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for instituting this debate on a subject on which he is of course an acknowledged authority. I am sure that it is a most useful debate following the one which we have just participated in.
This debate is concerned with the effective working of your Lordships' House. This is of very great importance both to the general constitutional situation in the country and to your Lordships' House itself. On the first matter, as has already been mentioned, there are people who contemplate, and indeed advocate, very considerable changes in your
1784
Lordships' House, or indeed its abolition. To them the only answer can be the effective working of the House. Is it doing a good job, and can it do an even better one? Its procedure certainly is of very great relevance from this point of view.
Therefore, I say both to those of your Lordships who favour radical or revolutionary reform and to those who, like myself, believe that the present structure of our parliamentary system is about right that in both cases we must surely be concerned to see that the system works well. If it is to work well it has to be looked at from time to time.
The Motion refers to the "Salisbury doctrine" and the splendid job of work which the late Lord Salisbury did on that occasion. That was undoubtedly right at the time. However, events have moved on. The pressures on your Lordships' House in terms of the pressure of legislation, the pressure of work and the pressure of the demands of public opinion have all greatly increased. Therefore, it is singularly appropriate that we should now examine the situation to see whether our rules, principles and practices are appropriate for the current situation. That has a bearing, first, on our being able to do a good job, and, secondly, on what public opinion may or may not feel is the proper future and shape of this House. Therefore, I propose to touch on one or two specific points where it seems to me that there are matters which your Lordships may wish very carefully to consider.
First, I should like to contest the view which has recently been expressed by the Select Committee on Procedure that if an issue has not been debated for many years then it should not be debated at all. That seems a very restrictive and out-of-date approach. First, it eliminates the possibility that our predecessors had been wrong not to debate it. The doctrine of the infallibility of our predecessors is not really sustainable. Secondly, circumstances change. As I ventured to say a moment ago, circumstances have changed since the Salisbury advice was given. We may feel that it is necessary to modify views, such as the one I quoted, which date back to that period.
The question which then. arises is which matters should be debated. I accept, as I believe most of your Lordships accept, the general provisions of the Parliament Act that we cannot and should not amend a money Bill and, as my noble and learned friend said, that we certainly should not reject a Bill which is an election manifesto Bill. However, beyond that there are difficult questions as to the extent to which your Lordships' House should be prepared to reject legislation coming from another place.
A classic example, to which my noble and learned friend did not refer, was the Bill dealing with war crimes, which your Lordships' House rejected emphatically and which nonetheless another place, by a rather unusual use of its powers under the Parliament Act, eventually passed over our heads. The fact that since then many millions of pounds of public money have been spent without, so far as I know, a single person being brought to trial, and it has been

1785
condemned as an unfair and unsound legal procedure by most of the leading legal figures in this country, shows that we were right.
It is perhaps ironic that after spending millions of pounds not only have proceedings not even been started against anybody, but I see from the press that in Australia the other day somebody was brought to trial and was acquitted. The jury said that it was absurd to try a man for offences alleged to have been committed such a long time ago and, therefore, was not prepared to convict him. It is quite possible that if anybody was ever brought to trial here an English jury would take the same view.
There is also the question, which we have already discussed on a number of occasions, of our treatment of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Here again the attitude of the Procedure Committee has shown excessive concern for the well-being and comfort of the usual channels and rather less for the legislative role of this House. The Consolidated Fund Bill is of enormous importance. Although, being a money Bill, it is not one which your Lordships can or should attempt to reject, with the enormous volume of experience of economics and public and private finance which we have in this House, your Lordships could contribute usefully to discussion of the Bill.
Here again I must be critical of the Procedure Committee because one of its reasons for rejecting the proposal that the Bill should be debated was that it came to us at very short notice. I ventured to inquire of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees whether inquiries had been made as to whether there was any procedural or practical necessity for the shortness of notice. I was informed that no such inquiry had been made. It does not seem to me that there could be the slightest difficulty in arranging for information that that Bill was on its way to be given in due time.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships' House will feel that it is wrong to debar debate on such issues, whether or not we can vote on them or defeat them, because your Lordships' House can contribute so much by way of knowledge and experience. This House can contribute so much more to discussion of such matters than is available in another place or anywhere else in this country. Even if that discussion does not result in the immediate amendment of the measure, it puts into circulation ideas, criticisms and thoughts about the matter which will be of the greatest use in the future. Therefore, I suggest with great respect that your Lordships' House should be given the maximum opportunity to debate such measures, even though they may be measures which for one reason or another your Lordships' House cannot reject.
I shall raise a question which perhaps my noble friend the Chief Whip can answer. Your Lordships' House very properly debated the Disability (Grants) Bill, which is a very interesting and important social measure. In the course of the Second Reading debate a most moving and effective speech was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. However, for some reason all the remaining stages of that Bill were
1786
not taken. Again, that curtails the debating opportunities of this House totally unnecessarily. It is the greatest pity.
Finally, I am very glad that my noble friend the Chief Whip is on the Front Bench because our great problem is the increasing shortage of Ministers in this House. During the 20 or so years that I have been a Member of this House the number of senior Ministers in the House has been steadily reduced. We now have only two members of the Cabinet, of which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is one. In the nature of things, being on the Woolsack most of the time, he has some difficulty in taking part in debates except on wholly legal matters. We are also very short of senior Ministers of State.
I am full of admiration for the way in which our young junior Ministers participate, sometimes not even being in the department involved. They are exposed to unnecessary strain; and it is no criticism of them that they are unable to contribute to our debates quite as effectively as perhaps one might hope. Therefore I leave with my noble friend the Chief Whip the thought that Her Majesty's Government should be advised that if your Lordships' House is to work as it should we must have more Ministers, more senior Ministers and representation of all the government departments, including the Treasury.
6 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the reason that I wished to take part in the debate is because I am one of the few Members who knew Lord Salisbury. I arrived in the House conscious that Lord Salisbury was a great figure, a very reactionary figure and one to be ignored. I was not here long before I realised that he taught us one of the great qualities of your Lordships: good manners. I received a letter from him when I was about to make a speech. He apologised that he could not be present for it. His contribution to your Lordships' House in terms of manners as well as procedure was profound. I hope that that will be remembered. There will not be many of us—my noble friend Lord Longford is one—who served when Lord Salisbury was Leader of the House.
I was Leader of the House at one time when we had to apply our procedures in difficult circumstances. We managed well largely because we contrived to speak in a friendly way to our opponents. There was a degree of understanding in another place which is not so strong now as it was when we were there. That is a fundamental point in the working and procedure of the House. It is very satisfactory that so many noble Lords are at present listening to the debate.
Lord Salisbury produced a solution that made it possible for this House to function and to do its duty as well as it could under difficult circumstances. That has not been entirely honoured by all parties. Indeed, I would hesitate to say that the Salisbury doctrine is a valid doctrine: it certainly is not recorded officially anywhere. I believe therefore that the consideration of our procedures, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is necessary. At one time it was suggested that there should be consideration by the Procedure Committee. That consideration never took

1787
place, I believe probably rightly, because the system was narrow and it was difficult to weigh matters fully in the atmosphere at the time. However, I believe that it will be necessary to carry out some procedure. We have to live with certain anomalies, in particular with regard to the statutory instruments, which are unsatisfactory. We are rather dishonest about it. We had better recognise that and give some further thought to tackling the problem.
However, a major change will mean a major constitutional change. I do not believe that we are ready for that yet. I hope that the Labour Party is producing a good and useful system which will contribute to an understanding of the right constitutional role of the Second Chamber. However, I doubt whether it will come into much powerful effect in my lifetime. Therefore I believe that it is worthwhile to ask the Procedure Committee to consider what is said in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, certainly opened my eyes to certain subjects, as did the noble and learned Lord who initiated the debate, much to our advantage. There is no simple solution. Ours is a procedure which is difficult to understand and in which not many Peers take an interest. We want to foster interest in procedure. More Peers ought to take an interest. The debates arising from the reports of the Procedure Committee are rather perfunctory.
Much can be done by example. In that respect I believe that the responsibility of the Leader of the House and the Tory Chief Whip is fundamental to carrying improvements in the House. Advised by the excellent Clerks who give us ideas, I hope that they will give some attention to the issue, bearing in mind that the fundamental nature of the Salisbury reforms was based on the good manners and good understanding which existed in your Lordships' House.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful for the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has introduced the debate, and I thank him for raising what we all understand are important constitutional issues. I would accept that the main role of the House is to improve and amend Bills either by vote or by persuasion. What I would not accept in 1993 is the doctrine of the mandate in quite the simplistic terms expressed by Lord Salisbury in his statement in 1964 which is reported in Hansard, 4th November 1964, col. 66, which indicated that the decision of the House should be taken merely by reference to an election manifesto.
In modern times election manifestos, as I know, have become increasingly long and turgid and are rarely read even by candidates themselves. Moreover, the Bills that are subsequently produced in alleged furtherance of a manifesto pledge often bear little or no relation to the one or two lines or paragraphs presented notionally to the electors. I believe that there is therefore much merit in the suggestion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale,
1788
that one might consider that there is a right to delay if insufficient time has been provided to anybody inside or outside Parliament to consider measures of great importance, even if they are briefly referred to in an election manifesto.
The doctrine of the mandate should apply only where (as, perhaps, I may suggest, in the case of the Maastricht Bill) a party has made its policy perfectly clear at a general election; or where (again as in the case of the Maastricht Bill) there has been a full discussion of the issue in another place. If the power to delay a Bill is one to be used only rarely, I do not believe that any such inhibition should necessarily apply to amendments, in particular those designed to limit the power of the Executive. In that connection I hope that the House may be helped from time to time by the work of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The growth in the volume of delegation in recent years has been enormous. Last year the total number of statutory instruments exceeded 3,000 for the first time. The total was 3,359. The first four months of this year show an even higher rate of output—1,192 to the end of April.
We are always talking about the bureaucracy in Brussels. We ought to take more notice of what goes on in Whitehall. I am told that Counsel to the Speaker and Counsel to the Chairman of Committees in this House, and their staff, are absolutely overwhelmed by the volume of instruments that they are asked to consider, working even at weekends and sometimes on holidays.
In certain circumstances, it seems that this House may decide that there should be no delegation. But, where they agree that delegation is perfectly proper, it is not, in my judgment, sufficient to say, "Oh, well, is it to be negative or is it to be affirmative?" when there is no vote in either case. In practice, the affirmative procedure amounts to "Take it or leave it", and the negative to "Take it and be damned". I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said—that we should at least be prepared from time to time to move a recommendation for amendment or to move adjournment for further consideration. I believe that I am right in saying that power has occasionally been given to both Houses of Parliament to approve a draft order in Council or draft departmental order with modifications. In such cases, orders could only be made with such modifications as have been agreed by both Houses, as was done, for example, under the Ministry of Health Act 1919 and the Government of India Act 1919. I am afraid that I cannot find any more recent examples, but there may be future occasions when such a procedure might be considered by the authorities.
However, the mischief in modern legislation, it seems to me, goes deeper. I do not wish to dwell today upon the increase in quantity and the decline in quality of legislation. We have debated that on other occasions and we shall no doubt do so again. I hope that in due course the report of the Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process, which I had the honour to chair and on which served representatives from both Houses of Parliament, a former Permanent Secretary, a former Chief Parliamentary

1789
Counsel, and others of distinction, will be found to contain some recommendations that will commend themselves to your Lordships.
However, what certainly deserves study is the evidence presented to the commission which is annexed to the report—and it can be read in the Library—which comes from a whole variety of responsible bodies. Virtually without exception, they complain about lack of consultation before Bills are introduced, although some departments—including the Inland Revenue—do better than others. They complain of lack of time between the stages of Bills to consider amendments and deal with the practicalities of understanding implementation and enforcement. Reference has been made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter to the Disability (Grants) Bill. Time and again, we are simply not getting the legislation right.
Thus, the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales told the commission how, in the recent past, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1991 provide examples of legislation in which there was little time given for in-depth consideration. There was no consultation or inadequate consultation about the 1989 Act on public order relating to gypsies and travellers and the Road Traffic Act 1991. In all cases, the police were asked to be responsible for matters for which they quite clearly did not even have the resources. They would have advised about the difficulties if they had had time to consider the legislation. Again, they are concerned, like other bodies, about the lack of consultation which takes place if, in the course of the passage of a Bill through Parliament, clauses are added or other amendments made which considerably alter the Bill's effect. We know from our recent experience that time and again government amendments alone far exceed in length Bills which themselves run into hundreds of pages.
Apart from the particular examples given by bodies such as the police, there is the more general mischief that all too frequently no sooner has a statute been enacted than it may be subject to massive amendment, as in the case of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and, of course, as we know, there is another one coming along soon.
We are sometimes told that correctness and certainty must be sacrificed to speed. The programme must be got through by the end of the Session at all costs, regardless of all considerations. There is therefore one particular recommendation in the Hansard Society Commission's report which I commend to your Lordships. It is that we should move towards the adoption of a two-year legislation programme. If our parliamentary sweatshop is to perform the proper function of amending and improving Bills, I believe that there must be an adequate interval between the stages of important Bills.
The present one-year legislative programme both delays and compresses the drafting stage in some cases and leads to under-prepared Bills being presented to Parliament. If there were a rolling programme, that
1790
would not necessarily prevent the Government bringing forward urgent legislation. In fact, it could not do that. The Government must be responsible for their programme. But if we plan a more thorough examination of the Bills that come before us—and a rolling programme is one way of doing that—we would at least allay some of the very serious concerns that are now being expressed right across the board by one organisation or another outside Parliament.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing the debate, which I believe is especially important at this time.
Perhaps the root cause of our problem goes back to the bruising battles which culminated in the Parliament Act 1911 which marked the political supremacy of the Commons. Since then, the other place has got us in a psychological half-nelson. We have been told repeatedly that we should not really be here, so we tend to tiptoe about, afraid to make too much noise in case we are noticed and given our marching orders.
A factor which undoubtedly inhibits us is the acceptance of the conventional wisdom that election rather than nomination is a superior form of selection. That may seem sound in theory; in practice it is not. An elected second Chamber would result at this moment in the Members of both Houses of Parliament being fettered by party politics. One of the most valuable side effects of the present composition of this House is that party politics are muffled. The country likes it that way.
It is certainly instructive in this context that, in a recent Gallup poll in which people were asked to state whether they had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in 10 of our leading institutions with which they came into contact, the results were as follows. The Army came top with 82 per cent. closely followed by the police with 74 per cent. Parliament trailed third from bottom with a modest 24 per cent.; only the trade unions and the press scored less.
Another poll which compared people's evaluation of politicians in general and their own MPs in particular came up with an interesting fact. Politicians as a group scored very badly, individual MPs, surprisingly well. Both of those polls were aimed at the Commons and suggest that a major problem is party politics and the party politician playing "party games". People can accept this in moderation but the continual din of party politics turns them off. This House is perceived to be largely above all that.
However, back to that psychological half-nelson which inhibits us. The position has changed and changed dramatically. First, in 1968 the Government of the day, with our co-operation, proposed a radical overhaul of this House. They failed to get it through the Commons. That established that we were not against reform as such. Secondly, and of far more significance was the introduction of the first Life Peers 10 years previously. It has been noted that this House has steadily shown more confidence during the past decade and that is clearly the result of the increasing

1791
impact made by successive waves of Life Peers who now play the major role in our activities. The result of that influx of talent has been to give the House a massive blood transfusion. It has also been an important way of ensuring a voice for groups in our society who are not adequately represented in the Commons. In this context, it is certainly no accident that there are so many able and articulate women on all sides of the House and that they play such a prominent role on the Front Benches.
We are in the middle of a gradual evolution of an institution with a 600 year-old history and very deep roots in our society. It is worth remembering that the hereditary principle was considered quite normal for most of this period and that the transition to Life Peerages only started in 1958.
In this evolutionary process several issues deserve our attention. First, the privilege of voting should be separated from the right to attend and the right to speak. A shrewd comment has been made that those who attend are effective; those who are disinterested stay at home. A low threshold of, say, 10 visits during the previous Session of Parliament would give an entitlement to vote. It would certainly weed out the true backwoodsmen. Raised to 15, the threshold would involve a visit only once every two weeks.
Secondly, the representation of women in this House must reflect their increasing role and status in our society. The obvious imbalance is that at present no more than 3 per cent. of hereditary peerages are open to women. A variation on the Hereditary Peerages Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would start that particular ball rolling by creating an option that, if a Peer had no sons, his title could be passed to his eldest daughter. I believe that all Peers who are sympathetic to an hereditary element being retained in this House would come to accept that such a reform is not only essential but highly desirable.
Thirdly, on the Salisbury convention, I accept the words of caution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on this subject. But I remember him saying a few weeks ago that conventions, if they are not really necessary, can be discarded. I believe that the Salisbury convention no longer applies and its continued usage masks an important function of this House. A Peer's Writ of Summons includes the phrase, "to give your counsel". In other words, we have an advising as well as a revising role. That can take the form of our right to send any Bill back to the Commons, which is in effect asking them to think again. We are fulfilling our duty as a watchdog. Sending a Bill back is merely a bark to alert both the Commons and the public that all is not well. This six months' pause is only a modest gesture. But we shall have made our point, and it will have been noticed outside the Palace of Westminster. It does not have to become a great constitutional issue. The weakness of the present system is that under the umbrella of the manifesto, the Government can claim that they have a mandate to push through whatever tickles their fancy.
Fourthly, on the selection of Life Peers, the present system puts too much patronage in the hands of the
1792
Prime Minister. A solution would be to extend the powers of the Honours Scrutiny Committee and give it a more formal structure. It could advise on the balance of party membership in the House and the range of expertise available and lacking. The system has worked very well in the past few years, but in the 1980s it was not as impartial as it should have been.
Fifthly, I refer to the role of the Cross-Benchers. Apparently we are very unusual. There is no group quite like us in any other parliamentary system. Among our Members are people of exceptional ability. As independents we soften party politics and act as a jury. Our numbers have grown. In the past 19 years that the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, has been our convenor they have nearly tripled from just under 100 to nearly 300.
I believe that new hereditary Peers, unless they have strong political affiliations, should be encouraged to sit on these Benches—to start with anyway. They will get a more detached view of our proceedings and may discover that genuine independence is not a prize to be given up lightly. A shift in that direction would be healthy because the built-in advantage that the Conservatives have because of the hereditary Peers does not make for balance or harmony.
All institutions, like species, have to change to survive. It must be a continuous process. The challenge for us is how to preserve the best of the past and adapt to the needs of the future. If we do not have sufficient resolve to change, the job will be done for us, and will probably be done badly.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was very interested in what the noble Earl said about the composition and character of your Lordships' House. I had to help the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, when he was Home Secretary, pilot the Life Peerages Bill 1958 through another place. I must confess that it has wonderfully transformed this House without creating, so far as I am aware, any disadvantage to it. It has widened and enriched the composition of the House, as I believe the noble Earl indicated. I was glad to hear him say that he feels that we are now, as a result, a more confident Chamber. In addition to the experience that we obtain from former Cabinet Ministers and other more humble people like myself coming from another place, the hereditary peerage gives us the advantage of youth to a greater extent than the other place has. So we have the benefit of both youth and experience. That should not make us complacent about our composition and our powers, but we are entitled to have it acknowledged.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has, I suggest, done more in the past 20 years than anyone else to try to improve our ways in constitutional, legislative and procedural matters.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Renton: The members of the Committee on Preparation of Legislation, of which I had the honour to be chairman, are especially grateful to him for his constant support in trying to improve the quality of

1793
primary legislation in accordance with our recommendations. Not enough of the important ones have been accepted, alas. But I hope that the Hansard Society Commission's report, of which my noble friend Lord Rippon was the chairman, will have a better fate. It certainly implements a great deal of what we said.
Primary legislation has for many years become more detailed, more complicated, longer and more obscure. The basic intentions of Parliament contained in it are less ascertainable. That is a pity because, if we are to have that great mass of detail, we should have some broad idea of what Parliament intends to be the result of imposing it.
In this matter, parliamentary draftsmen are in my opinion more sinned against than sinning. They have to follow the instructions given to them by civil servants. In my experience, Ministers have come into the matter at too late a stage; and I believe that that is so now. But the great mass of detailed and complicated legislation has added to the importance of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber.
My noble friend Lord Rippon gave us good examples of legislation which was badly digested before it received Royal Assent. One of the causes is that Members of another place have become so much involved in the important work of departmentally related Select Committees and in other time-consuming and unavoidable activities that they have not always had the time, even if they had the inclination—which they do not always have—to scrutinise legislation as it should be done. So your Lordships' work in doing so is vital.
As a result of what we do, in every Session for some years thousands of amendments have been made to legislation by your Lordships. Sometimes that has meant, as has been mentioned, reversing decisions of another place. But I am glad to say that more often than not our contrary view has been accepted.
There is only one point which I would dare to dispute with the noble and learned Lord; that is when he poured scorn on the expression "asking the House of Commons to think again". I do not know any better way of expressing it. If he could tell me of one, I should be very glad. I believe that the most important power we have is to ask the House of Commons to think again, while it must have the last word, however great the quality of this Chamber compared with another place, because it is elected by the people.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hesketh will reply to the debate. In doing so, if he were able to give us any facts and figures about the extent to which our advice to another place on legislation has been accepted or rejected, it would be helpful and indeed valuable.
So much for primary legislation. I turn now, as other noble Lords have done, to our attitude toward secondary legislation. In doing so, I should like to acknowledge the joint efforts of the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Rippon in persuading the Government to make more restrained use of Henry VIII clauses, the extensive use of which for amending legislation has been quite unjustified for many years—although in minor ways it has been
1794
accepted and should be accepted as inevitable. For example, in fiscal legislation when a particular amount in terms of money has been inserted in a Bill, even though it is only in a schedule, inflation may cause that sum to be revised without bringing the matter before Parliament and troubling Parliament with a Bill. Indeed, it may be a mistake to wait too long before such amendment is made. Therefore to that minor extent a Henry VIII clause is necessary.
But one has to accept that when legislation goes into the masses of detail that I mentioned, Bills would be even longer than they are if secondary legislation, including Henry VIII clauses, were not used to some extent. What is important is that the delegated power to use it should not be abused. The report of the Jellicoe Committee was extremely valuable because it recommended the appointment of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee—again, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Rippon—which has already produced its first report; namely, on the Education Bill.
But when we find that a piece of secondary legislation is for some reason unsatisfactory, we should use the power, which constitutionally we have, to vote against it. It is only an outworn convention that prevents us from doing so. Is it not a ridiculous paradox that we ask the House of Commons to think again dozens of times in every Session but do not do so with regard to secondary legislation? I hope that the usual channels will get together and try to reach some agreement on this outworn convention and that we shall hear more about it in quite a positive way. I strongly support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on this issue.
Those are the matters that I wish to mention. I conclude by saying that it is becoming increasingly understood by the public that your Lordships' House has a very valuable part to play. I find in perhaps casual conversation but conversation with a good many people of various kinds that there is no great clamour for revision of the composition of your Lordships' House. People accept that the House of Commons should have the last word but they increasingly recognise and welcome the value of the work done by your Lordships. We must take the fullest advantage of that.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, paid a well justified tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his work in this House over the past 20 years. I gladly join in that tribute. I pay a similar compliment in slightly different terms to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Some of us who have been in this House for a long time occasionally find ourselves giving advice to young Members on how to proceed. The advice is not always asked for and certainly not always taken but sometimes it is given. In recent times the advice I have given to young Members is to model themselves on the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hope that if there are some novices present—I look round and see one or two—they will have listened to his speech today with the usual benefit.

1795
I hope that the House will allow me to interpret the phrase the "Salisbury doctrine" in slightly different terms so that it enables me to supplement what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I hope that it will not be mere repetition. His performance as Leader of the House filled me with undisguised envy. The noble Lord referred to Lord Salisbury in his contribution. I should like to dwell a little more fully on that time because I came to the House in 1945 when I saw him acting as Leader of the Opposition and before that he had been Leader of the House. His contribution was twofold: one was what one might call social and the other political.
Socially he made us all feel equally welcome. That may sound fairly obvious now but when I came to this House in 1945 there were only a handful of Labour Members. The place was overflowing with Conservatives. The Independents, apart from the Bishops and the Law Lords, hardly existed and the Liberals were not very numerous. Today I consulted Vacher's to see the figures for the distribution of the House but it did not even bother to give them. It was just assumed that overall it was Conservative. I suppose that one cannot find those figures. That was the situation. It might have been a very hard time for the little handful of Labour Members. Lord Salisbury made us all feel at home and realise that we were Members of a friendly society. Lord Addison also played a very big part in the formation of the post-war House with the Leader of the Labour Party. But Lord Salisbury, inevitably here at least among the serried ranks of the Conservatives, as the fourth member of his family in succession to be Leader of the House, had a unique position and he used that influence entirely for the good.
So this House became then and it has remained since the least snobbish society in the world. I say that with confidence. It may be thought that that is only what one might expect from civilised gentlemen but it might not have been so. We owe a great debt to Lord Salisbury. That is one part of what I call the "Salisbury doctrine".
The other part is, in a way, rather more interesting. I shall tell one story to illustrate what I mean. There was a much respected Labour Peer who took it on himself as his duty on one occasion to criticise Conservative Members for failing to disclose their interests in Rhodesia in the debate in which they had spoken. Lord Salisbury was one of those concerned. He was not in the House when the criticism was made. There then occurred something that I have never seen before or since in this House. A number of noble Lords stood up and walked out. If I may say so—making a party point—it was not a dignified operation. I was the Leader of the House at the time and was informed that my noble colleague had had a bad time. However, it all finished honourably, otherwise I would not be telling the story.
Lord Salisbury met my Labour friend in the corridor. He went up to him and said, "I gather that our fellows were angry with you for something you said the other day. If you thought that what you said
1796
was the truth and right, it was your duty to say it. This is not a club"—though in a sense it may be a better club than any other—"It is a House of Parliament".
That was the double contribution of Lord Salisbury to this House. Though I realise that there are many other aspects of the matter that have been and will be raised today, I felt that that anecdote should be told and be on the record because that is the spirit that has animated this House ever since.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords we must all be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—not for the first time—for directing our attention to our own proceedings and what governs them. It is a well-known maxim of constitutional historians that the constitution, by and large, emerges in the interstices of procedure. It is procedure and changes in procedure over centuries which have made our Parliament what it is.
One can also have revolution. Everything we discuss today in relation to the Salisbury doctrine, in relation to our rights as a revising Chamber, whether in regard to primary or secondary legislation, is relevant to a House of Lords composed as it is today; that is, of hereditary and nominated persons. However, if, as a result of implementing what I understand to be the policy of the party opposite—the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, will no doubt confirm that when he speaks—that were to be replaced by an elected Chamber, all this would fall away.
In every country in which there is a bicameral legislature with two Chambers, most attention is paid to conflicts between them. Those conflicts are inevitable since both can refer to the ultimate sovereignty of the people that elected them. Therefore we exist at a moment in time when we accept the sovereignty of the people in the sense that the House of Commons must have the last word and has it, in fact, in most cases—if it requires it—under the Parliament Act.
But we must think of how things change even within a House so constituted. It seems to me that in the light of that doctrine we must re-examine the Salisbury doctrine in regard to not opposing what is in a manifesto. As has been pointed out, manifestos are not only documents unknown to the constitution; they are also documents unknown to most voters and, indeed, to many candidates.
What the doctrine meant was not that something appeared in print in a manifesto, but that the country, in the course of a general election, had clearly decided on the issues raised. That is to say, were a Labour Government to be elected next time on a programme of renationalising utilities and, after a hard fought election in which that policy was central to their position, they succeeded in obtaining a majority, clearly an unelected Chamber would have reservations about opposing such a programme.
But that does not always happen. I find myself obliged to disagree with my noble friend Lord Rippon that the Salisbury doctrine could possibly apply to the Bill to implement the unfortunate Treaty of

1797
Maastricht. Although that appeared in the manifesto of a governing party, it appeared also in the manifestos of the two opposing parties. To my recollection it was never debated or discussed during the election. The country gave no verdict on it one way or another. The question was whether Mr. Smith's taxation policy was correct and whether the Government had done this or that in relation to one of the public services. Maastricht was a non-issue. Therefore to claim the protection of the Salisbury doctrine for something which the people have not had the opportunity of debating on the hustings, seems to make that doctrine a laughing stock.
Furthermore, although my noble friend Lord Rippon was right to say that it has been exhaustively—or at any rate exhaustingly—discussed in another place, we know, as the presence of the Government spokesman, our own Chief Whip, reminds us, that its success in its various stages in another place was due to whipping of unimagined intensity and indeed ferocity. No one seriously believes that an unwhipped House of Commons would have returned the majority which that Bill received.
Therefore when it comes before us, in my view, we start with a clear field. I am not suggesting—because it would be a constitutional innovation which has nothing to do with the Salisbury doctrine—that we vote against it on Second Reading, tempted though I would be to make my disgust for the Bill clear from the beginning. But it must affect the degree to which we feel able to amend it. Much of the problem that we face, not only in relation to that Bill but also in relation to other Bills, is the question of when the amendment of a government Bill becomes obstruction.
The Government feel totally free to use the amending process. We all know that the absurd Clause I of the Education Bill, to which we will return on Report, was inserted at a late stage in the other place so as to avoid it being debated there. But we gentlemen, unlike Ministers, have more inhibitions in regard to using the amending process. Some people take the view that it should be extremely limited.
My noble friend Lady Blatch (whom I informed that I would be raising this point) wrote to me and said that she regretted she could not be present but had no objection to my raising the matter because she has a reply. The other day in this House, in reference to an amendment which she had described as a "wrecking" amendment, she said,
"My definition of a wrecking amendment is: this is something the Government want to do; it is something the Opposition do not want to do".—[Official Report, 29/4/93; col. 458.]
That makes it a wrecking amendment. If that were taken literally, there would be no role at all for your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber.
Subsequently in a letter to me—I gather that my noble friend will be repeating this in some form when we come to debate that unfortunate Bill—she said that that was not really correct. "I withdraw it". Her definition would be that if the House of Lords has passed a Bill on Second Reading, it must be assumed
1798
—correctly—to have assented to its principle. Amendments which clearly violate the principle of the Bill then would become wrecking amendments.
It is a difficult area. These words and phrases come into use in the course of debate in which one is more concerned with the actuality of the issue than with the precise constitutional niceties. Having listened to other noble Lords on both sides of the House, there seems to be at least a consensus that this House is a genuine revising Chamber. Clearly, it cannot obstruct or endlessly oppose government measures for which there are majorities in the other place. But particularly at a time of appallingly badly drafted legislation—we owe much to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for pointing out those deficiencies—a revising Chamber is essential. One of the difficulties which I see about changing the composition of the House, as I mentioned at the beginning, is that an elected Chamber might find it more difficult to act as a revising Chamber because the element of constitutional competition between the two houses might make it much more difficult.
It is also the case that it is only by insisting on and exercising our right to amend such legislation—for example, getting rid of Section 1 of the Education Bill—that we can persuade Ministers to overcome the primary reason for the weakness of so much legislation. As has been pointed out by more than one speaker in this debate, that is their failure to consult the people who can explain to them how the legislation can be made to work. There would have been none of the problems which has occupied myself and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who follows me, as regards the Government and the universities, which have dogged their career in relation to higher education over the past few years, if they had been willing to sit down and consult those who can tell them how universities work and what the universities feel should be the ambit of their responsibilities. I fear that that is probably true concerning legislation and matters about which I know less.
I do not know why the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, cannot be here this afternoon. I understand that Ministers are all very busy. I assume that she is in a school trying to do the testing for herself since the department finds itself unable to get anyone else to do it. A kind of DIY in the DFE would be a valuable contribution to government in this country. I believe that this is a useful occasion for us to point out both what are the responsibilities and the limits of our powers. I hope that noble Lords who have still to speak will follow along that line.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak very briefly in the gap in the list of speakers. I promise that I shall not speak about Maastricht or the Education Bill. I wish to raise a point of view which touches on matters which previous speakers have raised, but from a slightly different angle. That may be of use to your Lordships in deliberation on this very important procedural matter.

1799
I see the Salisbury doctrine as an exercise in self-preservation in the sense that if we have the House of Commons dominated by one particular party and the House of Lords dominated by another, there is a very great risk that with a popular mandate the other place may take the view that either the powers of this Chamber or its very existence, should be done away with. I suspect that that is part of the reason for the emergence of the Salisbury doctrine. It effectively gave an incoming government, which was not of the persuasion of the House of Lords, the opportunity to get through its major pieces of legislation. Therefore they would not need to do anything drastic about this place.
One of my anxieties is what has come out of that process. It is the emergence and development of what is generally described as enabling legislation. Effectively, the government of the day puts through a Bill which gives them powers which they wield through secondary legislation, and statutory instruments which are not very well debated in Parliament and are incapable of amendment. This evening we have had references to the enormous raft of statutory instruments which come before us.
In our deliberations and suggestions for changes in the future, we must be very careful to protect the democracy of this country. One of my anxieties is the way in which legislation goes through the other place first and then comes to this House. Quite often it is then extensively amended. That is the reason for the enabling legislation concept and the statutory instruments because in that process of extensive revision and amendment the Bill may be changed out of all recognition.
The essential factor is that the House of Commons should be seen to be the power in the land. I suggest that our great strength in the House of Lords is as an advisory Chamber. We are in a very strong position because of the membership of this House. It is seen to be fairly independent and comprised of experts in a whole range of subjects. We have tremendous authority and our advice should carry weight. I fear a situation where we are seen to be almost superior to the other place. That situation may arise where the other place passes a Bill and then we are seen to revise it extensively. We shall be seen to be in some way superior. That will do no good for democracy and the good government of this country.
6.58 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if you should grow useless, you will soon grow burdensome. That warning was delivered to this House by the first Earl of Shaftesbury in 1675. If it is not immediately topical today the credit for that is in no small measure due to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I should like to thank him for introducing this extremely valuable debate.
Before we can take Shaftesbury's advice, most of us have to answer some questions about our legitimacy. I believe that that is a very simple question. If one looks at the Parliament Act of 1911 and of 1949, one
1800
will find that in taking away certain powers which we then enjoyed, the other place chose to leave us others. Since they chose to do that, it means that we enjoy those powers now by grant from another place until such time as it chooses to take them away again. So in the meantime we need have no moral or constitutional compunction about using them. The question is normally about the political wisdom of doing so.
Like another place early in the 17th century, we enjoy our title to power from those we are supposed to check. That is a difficult, ambiguous and troublesome tightrope, but it is of the nature of tightropes that one can fall off them on one side or the other, so I think that we should take care on both sides.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said about the Salisbury doctrine. My own instinct in approaching that is to say that, like other rules, it should be construed to contain the word "normally". During the debate on the Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill, I recall saying that I could not at present imagine circumstances in which I would vote against the Second Reading of a Whipped Government Bill. It is, I think, without contradicting that statement, that I say that were we to have before us a Bill to alter the judges' tenure—to make it, again, during pleasure—even if that Bill had been in a manifesto, I would be very sorely tempted to vote against it.
It may not surprise your Lordships, however, to hear that in the main I want to concentrate on the issue of delegated legislation and to say how much we owe to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, and to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The Secretary of State for Education, in his Swinton Lecture of 1991, claimed that Parliament controls the Executive, but how far does the conduct of the Secretary of State's own department illustrate that principle? I have checked this against a matter of current controversy, the tests under the national curriculum which are now so much in dispute. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, by saying that I do not intend to deal with the substance of that issue, but only with the form.
I decided in that context, and remembering that we are sometimes told that we have approved these tests, to look back at our debates of 5th May 1988 to see how far that is the case. In fact, what we approved was a simple statement that there should be assessment, the form of which was to be specified by order by the Secretary of State not subject to any parliamentary proceedings. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady David:
"No details are contained in the Bill, which leaves the form of implementation to ministerial orders.
Yet the assessment arrangements are central to the direction of the national curriculum. Without at least a broad indication of the Government's thinking, it is impossible for Parliament to judge the practical effect of the legislation". [Official Report, 5/5/88; col. 690.]
As the debate progressed, it became clear that all parties were willing to support testing; but, apart from a firm assurance that we were not going to have league tables, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, speaking for the Government, was unable to tell us what form of

1801
testing the Government envisaged because she did not know. When asked her intentions, she replied (at col. 706 of Hansard):
"in certain respects it is not possible to know them yet because we are still waiting for further reports and further decisions".
My noble friend Lady Seear asked whether the teachers would have a share in formulating the tests, and said (at col. 708):
"We would then feel a great deal more comfortable about it"
She received no answer.
Nowhere in the debate was there a syllable about the "accountability" of schools, which in recent weeks we have been told is the most important requirement in the whole affair. It is no wonder that the late Lord Stewart of Fulham said towards the end of that debate (at col. 709):
"we are no wiser … now at the end of the debate than we were at the beginning".
When pressed further, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, had said (at col. 707):
"it was never the Government's intention to put this sort of detail into the Bill. It is a framework Bill".
It is interesting to put that remark beside the memorandum of the Hansard Society to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House:
"We emphasize that statutory delegation should never leave an Act bare of everything except a framework of ministerial powers, with all the real substances being left to ministerial regulations, etc. This has been done (see the legislation on student loans in the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, for example); it should not be repeated. The main principles of the legislation and its central provisions should appear in the Act itself."
When these principles are ignored, as they were in the provisions of Clause 4 of the Education Reform Act 1988, there is force in the argument then made by my noble friend Lord Grimond (at col. 711) that,
"our legislative process is being made a mockery of".
The principle that there should be testing, which was all that the 1988 Act laid down, was uncontentious. All the contentious points were in the nature and content of the tests; and on those points, which were embodied in non-parliamentary orders, this House had no opportunity to give or withhold its assent. It was therefore denied the opportunity to carry out its normal—and in this case very necessary—duties as a revising chamber. It is true that when there is a parliamentary order, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said (at col. 707), there is,
"scope for people to make their views known at that stage".
But that is a little like the residual right of resistance in Hobbes' Leviathan, defined by Christopher Hill as,
"the right to kick on the way to the scaffold".
It may relieve our feelings, but it does not change anything.
In introducing all the key provisions for testing by order, it is hard to resist the suspicion that the Secretary of State's department has refuted the central argument of his Swinton Lecture, that Parliament controls the Executive. When this House is faced by framework provisions such as were put before in 1988, it has only two options. One is to reject the clause in the Bill conferring delegated powers, even if in order to do so it has to vote against a principle which it accepts. It is easy to understand why the House gave the Government the benefit of the doubt on that point in 1988. The other option, and the one more relevant
1802
to this debate, is to accept the advice given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—either the advice that he gave on 23rd April 1990 (at col. 352) that this House should depart from what he called the "weak convention" that it does not vote against regulations, or to accept the milder advice that he gave today.
Restraint shown on the other side of the House and the success of the milder procedures may influence what decision we take on which of those procedures is appropriate. The noble and learned Lord is, indeed, right that it is a "weak convention". Since 1968, it has been departed from in 20 Divisions on affirmative instruments, and three on negative instruments. To take just a few examples which are within the memory of many Members of the present House, on 6th August 1980 there was a Division on the Motion to approve the affirmative resolution on the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Regulations. On 30th July 1982, there was a Division on an affirmative resolution on the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations—always a contentious matter. On 22nd July 1982, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, divided the House on a Prayer for an Address to annul the Town and Country Planning (Vauxhall Cross) Special Development Order. I will take one final and rather ironic example. On 24th November 1983, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, moved a Prayer for an Address to annul the Milk-Based Drinks (Hygiene and Heat Treatment) Regulations, and the Motion was negatived. Whoever was responsible for negativing that Motion thereby conceded the propriety of having a Division on it.
The power exists, and the only question is about the wisdom of our using it on a particular occasion. On that subject, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I shall listen with great care to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Earl will have to listen to me between those two speeches. I shall do my best not to disappoint him. Perhaps I may say at the outset how grateful we are to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing the debate and for introducing it in the way that he did. I am bound to say that it has been a fascinating debate.
Two things have been notable. First, there is the genuine affection that everyone who has spoken feels for your Lordships' House and for the role in the British constitution that it discharges. Secondly, I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. May I say that that was not for the first time. He stimulated my thought processes. He will forgive me if I do not intervene in the private fight that seems to be going on between himself and his Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and the absent noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. His was a speech of great interest.
I am grateful also for the expertise that has been shown in the course of the debate by so many constitutional experts. I do not mean that in any pejorative way. I mean it genuinely. During the past

1803
few hours, your Lordships have heard from some noble Lords with an experience of the way in which the House functions and runs, and how it fits into the British constitution as a whole, which is unique. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, I do not believe that it could be equalled in any other deliberative Chamber.
I have heard a great deal about Lord Salisbury himself. I did not have the privilege or pleasure of knowing him. There is no doubt about one thing, and that is that the mark he left upon the House is one that has been both enduring and, so far as I can tell—the consensus of views expressed here tonight leads in that direction—is wholly beneficial to the way in which your Lordships' House operates.
Obviously the Salisbury doctrine—to use that somewhat imprecise shorthand term—was designed to answer a problem which needed to be solved at a particular time; namely, the relationship between this House and another place at a moment when there was a massive Conservative majority here—I interpose merely to observe that there is still a massive Conservative majority here—while there was a Labour Government who naturally wanted to get their legislation through. Therefore the simple proposition, which it seemed to be at the time, was that if the matter was in the manifesto, then this House could not oppose it. That proposition, as a proposition then, was indeed probably right. As a general proposition now, that proposition is probably right; but, although the doctrine has, by and large, worked reasonably well since it was introduced, it may be that the processes of parliamentary life, and the way in which governments feel that they have to legislate, are now perhaps so complicated that I am not sure whether the Salisbury doctrine, pure and simple, can any longer be wholly sufficient to cover the position in this day and age.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for example, takes the view that, in relation to Private Members' Bills, Bills upon which a free vote was allowed in the other place, Bills which are constitutionally objectionable—I feel sure the proposition as to what was or was not constitutionally objectionable would command a fair degree of dissension in the House, but I leave that aside for a moment—and, finally, Bills upon which there is no manifesto commitment, the House should consider seriously and calmly whether the existing Salisbury doctrine covers the present position.
The doctrine clearly helped to lead in the past to the identification of a relatively clear role for the Second Chamber; namely, the revision of Commons' Bills; the initiation of non-controversial legislation; and the limited use of delay to permit detailed consideration of Bills and full debate on general issues of policies. There still seems to be a consensus in the House on the desirability of what, I suppose, I can call the general practice of self-restraint when it comes to legislative matters. But it is important to acknowledge that as the House has become busier, questions will increasingly be raised, and have been raised, about the viability of its former role. Perhaps it is time for the House to
1804
examine its workload, the question of its powers, and its relation to the other place. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Shackleton for his suggestion that perhaps the attention of the Procedure Committee should be drawn specifically to the deliberations that have been taking place here this afternoon.
There has clearly been an unplanned and large growth in the work of your Lordships' House. The average length of a daily sitting, for example, has increased from five hours in 1967 to 1970 to seven hours in 1985 to 1986. In 1946, at the height of the Labour Government's post-war legislative drive I am told that this House agreed 1,027 amendments to 23 Bills. That was all. In the 1987-88 Session, 1,257 amendments were agreed, not to 23 Bills but to only 3. So the amount of work that is being done by the House has increased enormously over that period of time. That is not just because more legislation is being put onto the statute book; it is because mistakes in drafting now seem to be almost routine and have to be corrected in this House when the mistakes have been made in another one, as was pointed out in the excellent Hansard Society Report Making the Law, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ripon.
I read that report, if I may say so humbly, with great interest. I found it stimulating, and many of the ideas contained in it were ones that I could accept. If the problem of drafting is one of the reasons why the scale of work undertaken by the House has increased, it is doubly true (is it not?) in relation to our role as scrutineers of primary and secondary legislation.
The function of the House, though, has changed, as I see it, from being primarily a revising Chamber. One of the main functions the House now has in relation to the other place, is that it is effectively the only place in which the legislature can curb the power of the executive. If this House is the place in which detailed scrutiny of legislation is taking place, it is because legislation is being guillotined or rushed through in the other place. One aim that we could perhaps push for collectively is less legislation, more elegantly and precisely drafted, which is less likely therefore to need widespread redrafting when it arrives in the House. I know from experience that that is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would give his wholehearted approval, especially so far as concerns drafting.
I am sure, for example, that none of us on these Benches particularly wants to examine and resume work on an Act such as the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which is now to be altered fundamentally only seven months after it first came into effect. But there it is. No doubt the House will do its duty in that respect as it does in others.
Perhaps I may return to the question of the workload of the House. The House sits the second longest hours of any legislative Chamber in the world; the longest are being endured by another place down the Corridor. As this is a non-professional Chamber, many Members of which have to earn a living outside the House, that is a pressure which needs to be considered and considered seriously. When and if certain recommendations of the Jopling Report into the sitting hours of the other place are implemented,

1805
the pressure here could become even worse and graver. It would be paradoxical if the hours of the other place (the democratic Chamber) were lightened to the extent that this non-professional, undemocratic Chamber would then be sitting the longest hours of any legislative Chamber in the world.
It might well mean, if there were no equivalent lessening of the hours here, that we were effectively having to take on part of the workload previously covered by the other place. It is therefore of the utmost importance that any change to the sitting hours of the other place is co-ordinated with changes here.
In the meantime, perhaps we should think about ways of taking some of the pressure off this House. One way of achieving that, which was covered in the excellent report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, might be to send more Bills up to Public Bill Committees, which would function something like Standing Committees in the other place. The House takes the view that only non-controversial Bills should be dealt with in that way. However, perhaps I may place on record my belief that this is an avenue which we ought to explore for more Bills if we are to cope with the pressures on the parliamentary timetable and effectively to carry out our role as a revising Chamber.
I wish to express the anxiety of those on these Benches, as has been expressed elsewhere, at the emergence of what has become almost a culture of delegated legislation. I profoundly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this flood of delegated legislation undermines the principle of parliamentary scrutiny. I would not want to see our workload reduced at the cost of less scrutiny of controversial measures.
In the light of that argument the House might want to examine the possibility, which was recommended in the first report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, that this House should be able to delay secondary legislation by one month so as to permit proper scrutiny which otherwise could not take place. That is particularly important if it is true, as I believe it is, that this House is where the most detailed scrutiny of delegated legislation now takes place.
I was invited by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to make a speech about the reform of the House of Lords and what my party may wish to see happen. I wish to make only a few comments, if the House will permit. I believe that three points must be considered in any reform. The first is that our constitution requires a second Chamber which works effectively and efficiently, in particular in the role of revising legislation. The second point is that somehow it ought to be possible to preserve the unique contribution in experience which the Cross-Benchers now bring to our House. The third point, although I do not demand such generous accord, is that in the view of the Labour Party we must do something about the hereditary principle and the mass of hereditary peers who sit on the other side of the House.
I have spoken for one minute beyond my allotted time. Therefore, perhaps the House will forgive me for merely stating principles and not going into the nuts and bolts of the details of their implementation. It is
1806
up to the House to decide whether it wants to change the procedures within which it works or even to consider a more wide-ranging reform of its role. It could actually do both if it so wished. However, it is obvious to all that this debate is a timely reminder—and I repeat my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—of the need for all institutions to consider their own role from time to time and to explore possibilities for change. This has been an interesting and important debate in that respect.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the House will once again be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for affording us the opportunity to debate the parliamentary role of the House of Lords. It is perhaps particularly opportune that we should have such a debate to examine our working practices at a time when the House is at its busiest, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out. I think that that is a consideration which should colour our thinking about what, as a House, we should do and how to achieve it.
First, however, I fear that I owe the House an apology. Your Lordships may feel that in view of the rigours of the past few weeks that is entirely called for. However, my apology today is more personal. It is that I should present myself, inexpert though I am in comparison with those who have preceded me in this debate, to respond to the points which your Lordships have made. I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House would have liked to respond to the debate but he had an unbreakable commitment elsewhere. However, his miraculous reappearance, having reduced the commitment in order to be with your Lordships, will I hope make my contribution that much better and not disappoint your Lordships. I can only pray your Lordships' customary indulgence.
The Motion which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has placed before your Lordships this afternoon refers to conventions and practices which limit the constitutional role of this House. The noble and learned Lord, along with my noble friends Lord Rippon, Lord Renton and Lord Strafford, has in addition drawn attention to issues of wider constitutional significance. If noble Lords will forgive me, I do not propose to follow them down that road today in the context of what is a time-limited debate. Suffice to say that I acknowledge that such matters are well worthy of full debate on a separate occasion. Nor do I intend to discuss the composition of the House; this seems to me to raise equally far-reaching questions and propositions.
I take the Motion—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, explicitly confirmed this—to start from a position of acceptance of the existing powers, as well as composition, of the House. The main formal limits on such powers are set, as noble Lords have already pointed out, by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and by the financial privilege of the House of Commons. I might also remind your Lordships of one vital constitutional power which your Lordships have

1807
under the 1911 Act; namely, the power to veto any Bill to extend the lifetime of a Parliament beyond five years.
To these limits we must add other constraints which the House has agreed to apply to its own activities, principally those laid down by the standing orders of the House, and the interpretation which the House has given to those standing orders contained in the Companion, the bible given to every young Whip on his first day in the House. This class of rules, if I may so term them, is of course flexible. The House is master of its own procedures and when it deems it appropriate it is free to depart from them; for example, it may agree to dispense with standing orders to enable some uncontentious or urgent piece of legislation to be disposed of quickly. That such flexibility should exist—and that your Lordships apply a pragmatic approach to applying your own procedures—is I think a great strength of your Lordships' House. It enables us to concentrate our time and effort on those issues which are of most importance while providing a valuable safeguard against abuse.
Thirdly, there are the conventions—neither procedural nor enshrined in statute—which govern the way in which your Lordships' House chooses to exercise its powers. In discussing these conventions I suggest that we need, first, to set them against the background of what we understand our role to be as a second Chamber within the constitutional arrangements which we now have. Here I agreed with much of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, had to say. Our prime role lies in the examination and revision of Bills. That is, of course, borne out by the statistics. We spend well over 50 per cent. of our time in discussing legislation, most particularly in Committee (30 per cent. of sitting time) and on Report (14 per cent. of sitting time). Secondly, we act as a forum—and a particularly well-informed and constructive forum—for the discussion of general questions of policy. General debates account for about 16 per cent. of the time of the House, but to this we must add the many hours of work which are performed by Select Committees, whose sometimes rather narrow scrutiny remit is frequently belied by the breadth of their inquiries. I know that that second role is highly valued, and rightly so, by many of your Lordships, by many outside the House and by the Government. One of the great strengths of the House is that there are comparatively frequent opportunities for general debates, particularly in the earlier part of each parliamentary session.
Perhaps I may pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Even when the House may be restricted in the close scrutiny which it can profitably bring to economic and financial legislation—a matter which predates the Salisbury doctrine—it may still make known its views in more general debates on such issues. For example, in this Session alone we have already had substantial debates on a range of economic issues, from the broad economic issues facing the country to more narrow questions such as the role and function of the Bank of England.
1808
However, as I have suggested, it is in scrutiny of legislation that the House derives its prime importance. I should stress at the outset that the Government in no way underestimate the importance of the views of this House on the legislation which they place before it. If I have sometimes had particular reason to regret the strength and resolution with which your Lordships have pressed your views against the Government, that is not to say that your Lordships do not have the right to press those views or that they are not considered most seriously both in government and in the other place. It is your Lordships' constitutional right to ask the other place to think again.
That seems to me central to the role of a second Chamber in our system and it is a right which both I and my noble friend the Leader of the House take very seriously indeed. If, on occasion, my colleagues and I complain about that, I hope that your Lordships will recognise that we cannot always be expected to welcome being told we are wrong. Maturer reflection often shows us perhaps that we were not entirely right.
My noble friend Lord Renton asked me a question of which he gave me notice. I have done some speedy research on it without a great deal of success. He asked me about the number of amendments that were carried in this House and the number of amendments that were accepted in another place. It has been difficult to obtain that information because sometimes part of an amendment has been accepted or a government amendment is tabled in lieu. However, it was an extremely worthwhile question to ask and I shall continue my research to see whether a representative and accurate reply can be given to your Lordships.
In exercising those functions of revision and scrutiny the House has, in theory, broad powers only circumscribed by the Parliament Acts. But the manner in which the House chooses to use these powers is the critical issue, as indeed it is to almost all facets of the way the House operates. As I recognise perhaps more frequently than some of your Lordships, this place functions on the basis of agreement. I do not think that the House could operate as effectively as it does without the existence of a consensus about what is or is not an appropriate course of action for your Lordships to pursue—that is, without the general agreement of the House to observe conventions which regulate its activities. That involves in all of us the exercise of self-restraint—from the length of our speeches to the more fundamental recognition of the limits of what is practically or constitutionally appropriate.
Of course, it is always open to your Lordships to change your habitual way of proceeding, and noble Lords have suggested today that change is indeed needed in some areas. I believe that we should be very cautious about that. The conventions and practices of the House have evolved over a long period of time and in response to many political and constitutional considerations. There is much accumulated wisdom inherent in them. Tempting though it may be for your Lordships to seek to depart from such practices—perhaps in response to specific anxieties which your

1809
Lordships may have—I think that your Lordships would want to consider the consequences carefully, both for the House internally and in respect of the wider perception of the House.
Perhaps I may take, first, the Salisbury doctrine. That is the convention that the House will not oppose legislation for which a government with a majority in another place have a mandate; that means in practice that the House does not seek to vote down a manifesto Bill at Second or Third Reading. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I am an unashamed supporter of the doctrine. It is not merely true that it has served the House well. It has, I think, become essential to our parliamentary system. I remind the House that the doctrine had—and, as this debate has shown, still has—support from all sides of the House. Its first supporter was the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Addison who was then Leader of the House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, sought to make a case for departing from the Salisbury doctrine in circumstances where the legislation in question is constitutionally objectionable in form. The Child Support Act was cited as a case in point. I repeat that it is of course for the House to determine whether the doctrine should continue to apply and, if not, why not. But I believe that it is difficult to distinguish categories of Bills to which the doctrine should not apply. Not only would the House set itself against the express will of the other place, but it would involve also the development of new constitutional doctrine. I do not know what a constitutionally objectionable Bill might be, and nor would it be easy to define one. The phrase would be likely to be used in respect of a large number of pieces of legislation which might not find favour in some parts of your Lordships' House.
The noble and learned Lord referred in particular to the concept of a skeleton Bill and his anxieties about the powers of delegated legislation. That is a matter about which he has the respect of the whole House. But for other noble Lords it may well be the policy for which the delegated powers are to be used that provokes objection rather than the form of the legislation. I suggest that agreement on those issues would be unlikely to be forthcoming.
My noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred to the Education Bill. The noble and learned Lord suggested that there should be a departure from the Salisbury doctrine in cases where insufficient time was given to consider legislation. I do not see that noble Lords can object to a Bill on Second Reading on the grounds that it will be considered at a late hour in Committee. That would put us in an extremely difficult position. I remind your Lordships that in my brief span in this House—in the happy days of 1988 and 1989—I remember very well my noble friend Lady Young moving an amendment at 5.30 in the morning on the Education Reform Bill. I see the noble Baroness, Lady David, is present in the Chamber and I am sure that she too remembers that well. For all of the crimes that I have committed of late, we have not yet reached five o'clock in the morning.
Baroness David: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness moved the amendment at about 8.30 in the morning when some noble Lords were beginning to return to the House.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I fear that I may have told the Chief Whip at the time that I was off sick and thus I was not present at that moment. I have now been vilely exposed.
It is only a short skip from the question of delegated powers in Bills to the issue of scrutiny of delegated legislation by the House. That was discussed not only by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, but also by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friends Lord Rippon of Hexham and Lord Renton and the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Shackleton. It is the convention of the House that it does not seek to divide against delegated legislation. No such Division has taken place since 1982; and, as was pointed out earlier in the debate, in recent times the House has only once, in 1968, voted down a piece of delegated legislation. Instead, a number of devices have been developed which enable the House to express its opinion on a piece of delegated legislation without challenging it outright.
That does not in any way mean that the views which your Lordships express on delegated legislation can in any way be ignored. As a Minister with some experience of debate on such issues, I can bear witness to that fact in my previous incarnation. My colleagues and I are fully aware of the strength of feeling in the House about the growth, amount and scope of delegated legislation. It is only right that your Lordships should be vigilant about those matters. Indeed, I believe that the knowledge that your Lordships are rigorous in scrutinising delegated legislation is a significant factor in the Government's considerations.
The House, with the support of the Government, has recently taken a significant step to meet those concerns through the establishment of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham. That committee does not look at delegated legislation itself, but it has a perhaps more fundamental remit to report to the House on the appropriateness or otherwise of Ministers taking powers to make such legislation in the first place. The committee has, of course, been established on an experimental basis only, and the Procedure Committee and the House will wish to evaluate that role. Although I am a member of the Procedure Committee, I, luckily, carry no remit from it and thus will restrict myself in trying to provide answers to some of the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter as regards the direction of the committee. However I think that noble Lords will have been impressed by the committee's first two reports, which, if I may say so, appear to steer a judicious course through difficult waters.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred specifically to the powers taken in the Education Reform Act 1988. I know that the noble Earl will wish to develop his theme in more detail when his Unstarred Question on the subject is debated after Whitsun. But I wish to

1811
stress that the point to which the noble Earl referred is one which would now fall within the remit of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, so I think that some action has been taken.
I should also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that all affirmative instruments are taken on the Floor in this House and that time is invariably found to debate Motions relating to, or prayers against, negative instruments; in each respect, your Lordships have more opportunity to debate delegated legislation than is available, for example, in another place.
Nevertheless, some noble Lords have questioned the continuing validity of the convention against voting on Motions to approve or annul delegated legislation. The power to do so certainly exists. It would be open to your Lordships to use that power. However, I think that we should again be very wary of that. It would sit uneasily with the revising aspect of the work of the House. Indeed, it would run directly contrary to it. The House has the right to ask the other place to reconsider its decisions. But delegated legislation, almost all of which has been debated in another place before it comes to your Lordships, cannot be amended. There is no mechanism available whereby the other place can be asked to think again. Were the House to reject a piece of delegated legislation, it would fall. That would be a step which your Lordships would wish to consider most carefully. I think that it could lead us into some considerable difficulty.
My noble friend Lord Rippon referred to the recent report of the Hansard Society. The report raises a number of issues which the House may well wish to debate on a later occasion. However, I should like to pick up the point that my noble friend stressed; namely, that we should move to a two-year parliamentary Session. That may well have some attractions, but it would also have certain political implications. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, drew attention to the fact that the end of the Session may well provoke concessions from the Government if they wish to get their legislation through. I think that it is an important check for our constitution. It is a check which would be eroded if we had a two-year Session.
Finally, perhaps I may place this debate in the wider perspective of the way the House discharges its business. In a way, I apologise for bringing the House to my more parochial concerns. But the House is now more active than it has been for the last few Sessions. The number of your Lordships who attend the House with some regularity is now 750. Daily attendances of over 400 are now commonplace. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, provided us with a number of other statistics which add to those figures in terms of the actual volume of work that is passing through the House, both in terms of legislation and as regards noble Lords. That represents a large increase, and those figures and statistics are continuing to rise.
As each of your Lordships has an unfettered right to participate in our debates, and many of your Lordships are assiduous in exercising that right, the pressure on our procedures grows apace. We have to
1812
regulate our own procedure; but that becomes daily more difficult. We consider virtually all legislation on the Floor of the House, with no Standing Committees as in another place to ease the pressure on the time of the House. We have no guillotine; and few restrictions on the ability of noble Lords to speak or to table amendments and have them debated.
Yet we are an amateur House. Your Lordships' dedication and assiduity is widely admired; but even those of us present during the days in Committee on the Education Bill, for example, had cause to wonder whether we had got the balance quite right and whether self-regulation, which has always been so prized a part of your Lordships' procedures, was working. Our procedures would inevitably appear more difficult if the other place were to agree to reforms in its sitting hours in response to the Jopling Report.
Against that background, noble Lords today have proposed extending into new areas the way we conduct our business. They have, of course, made their case with the moderation and persuasiveness for which your Lordships' House is known; but the effect of that would be to add to, rather than relieve, the pressures which we face.
As I have already stressed, our procedures work only because we all agree to abide by conventions and to exercise general restraint. I should like to float two ideas for your Lordships' consideration. The first is the desirability of committing some Bills—it would not need to be many to make a substantial difference—to Public Bill Committees. That would clearly depend on securing agreement on appropriate Bills to commit. It might also depend on an agreement, as proposed by the Jellicoe Committee, to defer decisions on particularly contentious issues to the Report stage.
That is one idea. The other is to look again at our procedures on the Floor of the House; and at the nature of the Committee and Report stages in particular. I think that there is at least an argument to be made that Committee-proceedings have increasingly moved from being based on a presumption of elucidating the purposes and effect of legislation, of probing the consequences, and inviting the Government to respond to something which is of a rather more adversarial nature. Matters are now frequently put to the House for a decision at the Committee stage which might formerly have been deferred to Report. I make no complaint about that. But it does seem to me to be questionable whether the House is making the best use of its time when, as sometimes happens, debates on issues decided in Committee are replicated on Report—perfectly proper procedurally though that may be. Unless there has been some material change in circumstances, or in the information available to the House, I see only limited value in that exercise.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made a very simple statement, but a very true one: we need less legislation and better drafting. I can assure him that he has the entire support of the Whips' Office on both points. There is a malicious falsehood sometimes put about that the Whips are enemies of debate. I do not know how that impression can have arisen, let alone gained

1813
credence. But, in any event, debates such as this today would convince even the most dedicated member of the freemasonry of Whips of the value, at least on occasion, of listening to the argument. In conclusion, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for initiating the debate and for the stimulating contributions to which I have attempted to reply. I am grateful for the opportunity to return to the Dispatch Box and for the courtesy with which your Lordships have heard me.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the speeches that have been made on the Motion which have so illuminated us. It would be invidious and impertinent if I mentioned other than very few of those speeches. I shall only do so in passing.
I respectfully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said about the War Crimes Bill and the odd invocation of the Parliament Act which I am bound to say owed more to maintaining a reputation for iron government than constitutional propriety. I also agreed with what the noble Lord said about the importance of ministerial representation in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, expressed a tribute to the hereditary element in your Lordships' House. I venture to agree with that. In any change in the composition of your Lordships' House I would hope there would be a continuity of the hereditary principle, perhaps by vote of the hereditary peers, rather on the lines of the old Scottish and Irish representative peers. I think that would meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about the likelihood of collision between two Houses with equal democratic credentials. I do not believe that that would run counter to the ideas expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
I second the tribute paid by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, as regards the Hansard Society document on the legislative process which should really become a textbook in any course of constitutional law. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, for his chairmanship of the Scrutiny Committee both as regards the way he framed its general approach and for the immense tact and clarity of the report on the Education Bill. I note that my Motion includes a prayer for Papers. However, as I am too old for filing, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Agri-Environmental Measures: EC Regulation
7.51 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne The Earl of Selborne rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what stage has been reached in the consultations on the implementation of the Agri-Environmental Measures (EC Council Regulation
1814
2078/92) in the United Kingdom, which was the subject of the 14th Report of the European Communities Committee. [HL Paper 45].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when the common agricultural policy was reformed last year many of us felt it was something of a wasted opportunity in that once again a large amount of money was spent on guaranteeing commodity prices and area payments and on many provisions that many people clearly disliked. However, there was one small element in that package which many people looked on with favour and that was the agri-environmental measures on which I am delighted to base my Unstarred Question today.
I am pleased that we have a list of such distinguished and knowledgeable speakers who are to speak on this matter. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to hear the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield. The reform package of June was important in one respect in that for the first time it was compulsory for member states to put forward environmental proposals as part of a common agricultural policy. We must give credit to the United Kingdom Government for having been the trail blazer in many respects; for example, as regards environmentally sensitive areas and the country stewardship scheme. Many of those pilot schemes, which are now recognised as having been precedents in Europe, were clearly in the minds of the members of the Council of Ministers when they decided to accept the proposals for agri-environmental measures.
When we in Sub-Committee D considered the reform of the CAP in the report of July last year, we quoted with approval the verdict of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the measures. The RSPB stated:
"These measures are an exciting and positive aspect of the reform. However, we are concerned that these measures have been marginalised in the common agricultural policy. It is not a central measure. Its funding is insecure and it is not integrated with other measures such as set-aside".
We in Sub-Committee D decided to take a further look at these proposals. We produced a short report in December 1992 entitled The Environmental Aspects of the Reform of the CAP. We took evidence from nature conservation agencies, non-governmental organisations, farming unions, the Country Landowners' Association and others. The consensus of view from all those organisations was that the concept was widely welcomed. However, there was concern on the funding base which was clearly extremely narrow. There was hope that there would be an opportunity to have a consultation process which would not work from the top down but rather from the bottom up. In our report we made a number of proposals as to how those measures might be implemented.
Our overall view was that these proposals represented a much better use of money than guaranteeing commodity prices, as the latter course was likely to perpetuate a feeling among taxpayers that the common agricultural policy was a waste of money and was delivering some unsound land use policies. We agreed on the need for local and regional planning and we emphasised what so many other people have told us; namely, that there was a need to

1815
integrate the existing often excellent schemes such as the environmentally sensitive area schemes, the stewardship scheme, schemes for nitrogen sensitive areas and the set-aside proposals, both old and new. I am afraid we had to wait until March to receive MAFF's proposals, but we understand that MAFF was preoccupied with other aspects of the reform. We have now just completed the consultation period. We must all recognise that the proposals which will be presented to the Commission by the end of July contain many welcome provisions.
The 20-year set-aside measure now reappears as the habitat improvement scheme. I believe that measure will be widely welcomed. However, it would be more welcome, in so far as arable areas are eligible for that scheme—I hasten to add it does not just apply to arable areas but can also apply to other farming land—if that land could be set against the set-aside requirement for the area payments. I hope the Minister will still challenge that point in Europe.
I am sure that other speakers in this debate will wish to refer in more detail to some of the other aspects of the package; for example, the moorland scheme which is designed to reduce the intensity of farm stock, particularly in conservation sensitive areas. Other speakers may mention the provisions for access to certain non-rotational set-aside land or the provision for helping organic farming. We were pleased to note that a condition of that support was that the farming should contain a conservation element. I believe we all welcome the more flexible approach to managing set-aside which suggests that certain exemptions can be made as regards regulations which might not always be in the interests of conservation.
Our original concern was that there should be an opportunity to develop what are truly local, regional programmes. It was for member states to decide what the zonal programme should comprise. Understandably we have four zonal programmes in this country which comprise England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The respective agriculture departments for those countries have published their proposals. However, that does not of course exclude establishing regional or even parochial plans within those zones. Because of the need to submit the plans by 30th July, I must immediately accept that it would be unrealistic to engage in a debate at what one might call a parochial level. Nevertheless, I hope that that point has not been lost sight of and that it is accepted that a genuine ownership of these schemes at a local level would be highly desirable. That will only be achieved if there is local consultation.
Our other anxiety—I am sure this will be expressed by many other speakers tonight—concerns the level of funding. I understand that 50 per cent. of the funds will come from the common agricultural policy but it would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could tell us just how much he thinks will be allotted to each zonal programme in Britain; that is to each country in the United Kingdom. There have already been many
1816
requests for a simplification of the scheme. The Countryside Commission gave evidence to us. The commission stated:
"Opportunities for redesigning the existing plethora of schemes and presenting them in genuinely regionally differentiated packages should be taken".
Clearly there is some way to go on that. The precedent I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister on what is an extremely far-sighted and helpful scheme for stewardship is that of the Countryside Council for Wales entitled Tir Cymen. It is a whole farm scheme. It operates in only three counties at present. It is a pilot scheme but one which gives an opportunity to any farmer to make a contribution, whether or not he is in an environmentally sensitive area. The farmer draws up a voluntary plan and submits it to any agency which might be prepared to pick up part of the bill. As a result, there is a much more integrated approach.
Again, it is clear that in view of the sums of money available in this package, it would be asking too much to expect that approach to be adopted throughout the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it is an objective which we should have in mind in the long term.
Time precludes me from dealing with more than a very small number of aspects. In relation to the non-rotational set-aside scheme, which was widely welcomed by the Committee, it is important that the percentage of non-rotational set-aside which is required should be as little above 15 per cent. as possible in order to make it more attractive. It is also important that there should be a degree of flexibility in the management of that non-rotational set-aside. The instance of fraud within the common agricultural policy is of concern to many; but to graze non-rotational land in order to establish the type of meadowland which many conservation agencies wish to see would clearly be desirable.
I end by saying that these measures are to be welcomed. They are to be seen as an evolutionary process. They must be meshed in with European directives and other aspects of the common agricultural policy which are perhaps not as green as they might be. Someone recently described the common agricultural policy and these agri-environmental measures as being like a penny-farthing. There is the main cost of the common agricultural policy of £3 billion and then a small wheel of £30 million at the end. I hope that we shall end up with a rather more conventional bicycle.
8.1 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I read the excellent report of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and his Committee with a great deal of interest and the feeling that considerable thought has been given to the problems of the countryside and the best ways forward.
One aspect which has been lightly covered is the question of public access, almost as though when the time comes there will be no great problem in accommodating any more of the public who wish to come, wherever they wish to come. I feel that that is not the case and that there are pitfalls ahead if we do not consider the issue now. First, there is the

1817
relationship between town and country. The public tend to think that they are "green": we know that they do not understand the countryside, yet they come out and tell us how to do our job.
In this excellent report there is one small item that I would question; it is relating to educating farmers. I should like to think that that term should be changed to retraining for the future. I believe that we are sufficiently educated to do the job we are doing. I do not feel that the public are sufficiently educated to come out into the countryside. They cause damage, and much of that is as a result of lack of understanding.
There are a large number of very good wildlife programmes on television. It would be very interesting to learn from the BBC the viewing figures for those programmes. I expect that they are rather low. That would demonstrate that townspeople were not taking an interest in acquiring information and knowledge about the countryside. Without that knowledge, they will come out into the countryside without understanding it and cause damage.
With any luck, if the framework suggested in the report is successful there will be less pressure on the countryside from farmers and fewer pressures on farmers themselves. In addition, land will be freed from agriculture. For this purpose agriculture is the growing of crops and the rearing of animals as opposed to forestry, for which we should be seeking more land and the production of more timber, particularly as it disappears in vast quantities down the throat of Brussels, which churns out enormous amounts of paper which we could well do without. We would hope to see improvements in the landscape and in the quantities and quality of wildlife.
With the extensification of farming, there will be a need to create jobs in the countryside for those whose jobs will disappear as a result of the reduction in food production. With the increase in protection of wildlife it is worth making the point that wildlife is already protected in law. Disturbance is against the law. The public do not know that. If one points out that it is illegal to go near certain areas because that would disturb nesting birds, one is met by a blank face.
At this point I should like to thank the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for its hard work in the reintroduction of red kites. That example demonstrates that if the public are allowed uncontrolled access and are untrained, we shall not have the red kites. In the Chilterns we lost buzzards some 10 years ago when we were inundated by a camp of diddicoys. It took a long time to remove them. We now have set-aside travellers, and it is almost as difficult to move them with the incompetent legislation which we have. I believe that that is fair comment. We have the kites and I am very grateful for what I see in the skies. The public can still see the birds without having to trample over large tracts of land. If they cannot see the birds in the sky, I do not want the public hunting them because that would only disturb the birds and we should lose the kites as a result. There are certain species on this planet which breed regardless of interference. We are one, and rabbits are another. I am not entirely sure what that says, but that certainly does
1818
not apply to the red kite and other birds of prey. They require peace and quiet during the breeding season, as do most species.
There is one problem in respect of access to the countryside; namely, which areas should be open, how farmers should be paid to open the countryside and how they should be paid to close areas of the countryside in order to protect wildlife during the breeding season. The major problem is that the breeding season occurs in the summer when everybody wants to be out in the countryside. It is also the time when big feet do most damage. For example, today is almost the first day of pheasant hatching. Pheasants have already been incubating for three weeks and started laying some three weeks earlier. There is talk of a six weeks' closed season. That is a joke. It would cover the bulk of the summer period. It will still be two months before a family of chicks is able to move out of the way and will not mind interference. There is no point in encouraging wildlife if we are not to have some form of controlled access to the countryside.
So far as I can see, no consideration has been given to what the public would like by way of increased access to the countryside. There is a question of what they should pay and how they should pay. With any luck, as a result, we could reduce the burden of the CAP. In my opinion, and in the opinion of fellow countrymen, the public should pay for the use of the countryside. I accept that we cannot charge them by the mile for the use of footpaths, but the cost of upkeep is borne by those in the countryside. That is not appreciated by those who use those paths.
Again, parking is free in the countryside. Parking is not free when I catch a train to come to London. I do not think that it should be free for people who visit the countryside. In a way that is a subsidy. Like a number of other subsidies, we are better off without it if the public do not appreciate its value. Cheap bread was not a good idea if it meant that people could afford to waste it. It is not a good principle. By the same token, the public might see the countryside in a different light if they were asked to pay to enjoy it. Next door to where I live there is a Forestry Commission area where parking is open. Therefore, the public's day in the countryside is paid for by the central exchequer through the Forestry Commission. That does not seem right.
There are many problems in relation to what use might be made of the countryside. There is probably scope for more riding and for livery stables. However, it is one thing to convert redundant farm buildings for use as livery stables. That does not exercise the horse. If there are to be more people in the countryside, that means more cars, and therefore we do not want horses on the roads. It would be much better if they were not on the roads, anyway: the number of accidents is minimal, but it is still worrying when one drives on country roads, particularly as there will still be large cattle lorries on minor roads. There are problems.
It would be a good idea if we could reduce the problems that exist today. If a farmer could take his land out of farming and use it—if it is the right acreage and so on—for such an enterprise, it might be possible

1819
to arrange that the farm was no longer a burden on the CAP. If the farm was self-financing that would be fine. So far as concerns this country, such a change of use requires planning consent. That is not easily forthcoming. However, the concept of yesterday was simply that the farmer would have a livery stable and horses would have access to the road. It might be possible to generate a riding and livery stable, thus ensuring that horses were on land and not roads. That would take land out of farming and at the same time take the cost of the subsidies of that land away from the CAP while the public paid for the facilities that they enjoyed.
There is presumably a need for general picnic and recreational areas of one kind or another for those who do not wish to park on the motor routes to the seaside on bank holidays. Large areas are required in order to allow people to spread out and enjoy themselves. Let us consider the 15 per cent. set-aside concept. Fifteen per cent. of half a dozen small farms does not produce very much for anyone. If it were possible to trade in set-aside, it would be possible to collect together a unit which could be used for the purpose of recreation. It might be possible for that unit to be self-financing. The farmer would run facilities for the public. As legislation exists at present, that would require a change of use and there would be problems. Perhaps even more acreage could partially be taken out of the CAP; it would be another use for the countryside. It would also allow access to areas and at the same time protect the wildlife. If left in peace and quiet I believe that wildlife would happily move to such a large tract of land. The problems arise when people turn up who do not have a clue about what is going on.
At present everyone seems to want to open a golf course. The demand is unclear. It is a long-term project. I have never seen reference to a traffic survey on existing golf courses in planning applications or local reports in the press and so on. Such a survey might well demonstrate whether or not there are traffic problems within the locality which objectors foresee if planning permission were granted. Such a report might well make it easier to make planning consent to go ahead. It might be easier to knock the project on the head because it would attract traffic. However, if we have the public in the countryside, we shall have cars. That cannot be denied. If there are other ideas for the use of the countryside I am sure everyone will welcome hearing them.
I refer to the right to roam. I became involved in access to the countryside in the autumn of 1990. I stayed in the Chilterns. Ramblers designated that area for attack. It was considered that everyone should have the right to roam over non-agricultural land whenever and wherever. I have demonstrated a number of reasons why such access could give rise to a great deal of harm. In October 1990 the Field devoted most of the paper to the subject. I was supported by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, the noble Earl, Lord Peel—he will speak in due course—and my redoubtable noble and learned
1820
friend Lord Denning. Noble Lords will note that my noble and learned friend has put a Question down for Written Answer on a countryside matter.
There are a number of other reasons why it is necessary to control the public. The word "control" comes into all our lives most of the time. There is no good reason why it should not apply to the public in the countryside. Uncontrolled public behaviour in all ways, shape and form has done immense damage to the planet. People work in the countryside. Would the Health and Safety Executive be happy that a man working with a chain saw could have his concentration disturbed by an onlooker turning up unexpectedly? The onlooker would not stand in the line where the tree was supposed to fall; but trees do not always fall where they are supposed to fall. Who will clear up the mess when matters go wrong? It is obvious to those of us living in the countryside that people should be left in peace and quiet to do their jobs. It is also true that most of us in the countryside take home less pay than people in towns. A quid pro quo is that most of us are able to do our jobs in peace and quiet without large numbers of people around us. It is arguable that if one lets the public loose in the countryside, one alters the terms of employment. That is not fair to those in the countryside even if it is legal.
The flora and fauna are protected in law from illegal disturbance. The chances of the public doing more damage in that respect, albeit unwittingly, would obviously increase. If people damage designated areas, the wildlife flora and fauna will successfully thrive in undesignated areas.
The right to roam would not allow the people in the countryside to take note of those faces they did not expect to see. Many houses in the countryside would be more vulnerable to theft than they now are. I refer to the country house burglary syndrome. It would be far easier for someone to case the joint if he can wander around the woods behind the house. That applies to the Chilterns area. There would be greater unrest in the countryside than exists today; and unfortunately there is more unrest today than existed 25 years ago. We have an increased number of people in the countryside. We have increased car park areas. They seem to attract the petty thieves. We do not have the police; and the police do not have the resources to sort out the problems that arise today. With the proposed increased access for the public in the countryside—assuming that the public takes advantage of what one hopes will exist in the future—will presumably come increased crime and numbers of criminals. Thieves seem to find easy pickings of a relatively minor nature. They break the windows of cars in the car parks with simple tools and take what property is there. It would be nice to think that there would be proper protection for the countryside as and when increased public access occurs.
Finally, there appears to be a need to encourage farmers to accept the new ideas. With the new schemes will come forms. Forms are not popular with country people. They are exceedingly unpopular at present. IACS and CIDs spring to mind. With the mental approach of farmers at present, the Government would be well advised to consider carefully what

1821
forms they inflict on the farmers, and the need for consultation. In the last debate there was reference to consultation before legislation was published. In this situation, farmers are confronted with documents which they are expected to complete in no time. The documents have mistakes in them. They are unclear. I draw your Lordships' attention to the new numbering which has been brought into effect by the Minister of Agriculture, perhaps from his hotline:
"12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 15, 18, 19, 20".
Those figures are on the field data sheet of the IACS form. It would have been nice for farming to have received an apology from someone for that, which might well have taken the heat out of the unfortunate notices that appear to be circulating round Ministries suggesting that a rude and angry farmer is coming. Do you blame them, with that mistake in the form?
In conclusion, if the Government want the wholehearted co-operation of farmers in the reform of the CAP, they can achieve most from them by ensuring that all the forms which we receive are examined by a small group of farmers, perhaps from your Lordships' House, before the forms arrive on the breakfast table. Let us face it, there is only one envelope that I like to see arriving and I can recognise it—the one with the cheque. I am grateful for your Lordships' kind attention.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first, on behalf of the whole House perhaps I may congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, on his maiden speech. It was a wide and interesting contribution to the debate for which we are grateful and we look forward to hearing from him on many other occasions. Perhaps I may also thank my noble friend Lord Selborne for introducing the debate and dealing with the excellent report, which covers an interesting and important aspect of the future of our rural areas.
It was inevitable that when changes were brought about and confirmed in the reform of the CAP, we should have considerably to reduce the amount of food that we needed to produce on our own land. There were then opportunities which we did not previously have for the use of the land. I have always believed that that opportunity should bring benefit to the whole nation—to use the asset and resource of land to benefit everyone and not to be too limited in what we were able to do with it.
It is interesting that in recent months, even recent weeks, in this House we have debated some of the priorities with which the nation is confronted. We have debated and shown the need to reduce food imports and increase food exports. The Government have confirmed their priority of wealth creation and growth and have shown that they are against regulation. They wish to reduce the amount of regulation with which everyone in the country is faced. We want greater freedom of choice and believe that market demands should decide much of what we do. All sides of the House have shown support for many of those issues in recent debates. We have also shown
1822
that we are not happy with central planning and unnecessary central control in many aspects of society and that they are not to everyone's benefit.
The Government have made it clear that they believe that change should be brought about by non-regulatory means and using fiscal policy as much as possible to encourage people and business, or whatever it may be, to change from one direction to another. I particularly wish to refer to the proposals on the agri-environmental measures which the Government have put forward and on which consultation has just come to an end. However, there will be an opportunity for them to take note of the views expressed tonight. I accept that we have an opportunity considerably to improve the environmental aspects of our countryside and to bring more pleasure to people. I suggest that in finalising various schemes the Government should bear certain points in mind.
First, please keep it simple. As the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, said, we should make sure that farmers and landowners are not inundated with unnecessary forms and regulations. Please make it apply to everyone. I do not believe that it is in the interests either of the schemes or the environment for us to divide the country into areas which make it difficult to decide what should be done in one bit and what should be done in another. It is interesting that many areas of high scientific interest which are dealt with in the regulations are not near towns. Yet one of the areas where people most want to make use of the countryside is near the towns. I should like to see much more support for and proposals to help environmental attitudes and open land to the people near urban areas.
I was interested, and agreed, when the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, said that there was an opportunity to charge people. I cannot understand the concept that wherever we go we have to pay but that access to the countryside should be free, at the taxpayers' expense. There is a great opportunity in the scheme to allow farmers to charge for certain amenities which they make available to the public and we could look again at the schemes which we had before the CAP applied to the country, such as direct grant schemes. We could allow grants for capital expenditure which may be needed for setting up car parks, toilets and other facilities that people need and then farmers could charge those who visit them. That could make a difference. In opening the countryside to more people, that aspect could be given much more consideration.
I should like to see a more detailed cost assessment of some of the schemes. Is there a real cost benefit for the public who wish to visit and see the land and make use of the countryside? Under the proposals, is that the most cost-effective way to do it? It seems to me that the application of some of the rules and regulations will be unnecessarily expensive.
I should also like to see a more agricultural or rural economic assessment of some of the proposed measures. As we all realise, the agricultural economy is an important aspect of our whole economy and we must be careful that we do not bring in environmental controls and regulations which might appear good but

1823
which have an important down-side in their impact on the people who live and wish to earn a living in rural economies.
I wish to make sure that the schemes avoid unnecessary central planning and management. That is not the most effective way to run anything. The failure of the CAP and criticisms of it have been that it works on the basis of bureaucratic central planning which at the end of the day is to the detriment of everyone. We need to make sure that the money spent on the schemes benefits the landowners and the public who will have access to the land and that it will not go on unnecessary administration.
Finally, I should like an assurance from the Minister that in finalising the various schemes the Government will consider the overall needs of the rural economy in which all those activities take place. The public who wish to use the land should benefit in trying to achieve the various schemes rather than the small numbers of pressure groups which have narrow aims. I emphasise again that the benefits we now have within our rural communities should be used for the advantage of the whole nation, ensuring that our resources and assets in land benefit all of us. We should not be too localised and rigid in the way we apply the various initiatives.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was glad that my noble friend Lord Macclesfield, in his interesting maiden speech, raised the question of access to the countryside—a complex question that merits full consideration on another occasion. He clearly brings to us a deep knowledge of farming which will be of real value to us.
I was a member of the Agriculture Sub-committee under the admirable chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, which produced the report which is under consideration tonight. I welcome the agrienvironmental regulation as an important first step under which, for the first time, European farmers can be paid for conducting their farming operations in an environmentally friendly way. That is progress and I greatly hope that in the period ahead we shall build on, extend and perhaps simplify the new procedures. I am glad to see the efforts which the Ministry of Agriculture is putting into it and I applaud the way in which it is now working increasingly with environmental non-governmental organisations.
We have, sadly, not yet put the environment at the heart of agricultural policy, as a paper published on 4th May on behalf of its agriculture group by Wildlife and Countryside Link, of which I have the honour to be chairman, pointed out. The paper said that the green regulation had been bolted on to the CAP and that over the next three years we in the United Kingdom would be spending just £31 million on the agri-environmental measures, £168 million on environmentally sensitive areas, but £7,630 million on our share of the CAP. Spending on the agrienvironmental measures and ESA together will, the paper shows, amount to only 2.5 per cent. of agricultural spending.
1824
The Link paper argues that priorities should be established and implementation overseen by a panel representing government departments, statutory conservation and landscape agencies, environmental, recreational and farming organisations. That recommendation was also made to our committee by the RSPB, which we endorsed in paragraph 41 of the committee's opinion.
The paper also called for effective monitoring in the Community and the United Kingdom, for good, free environmental advice to farmers and for the measures to be related to the United Kingdom biodiversity and sustainable development plans and the Communities species and habitats directive. It pointed out that existing habitats and landscapes were of greatest environmental value, that a return to mixed farming should be encouraged and that farmers should be encouraged to maintain traditional orchards, cereal and fruit varieties and local breeds of livestock.
The sad fact is, however, that those measures come very late and are long overdue. A huge amount of damage has been done, largely by intensive industrial farming methods, since the Second World War. Wild flowers, insects and birds such as partridges, lapwings, skylarks and several buntings are still declining despite steps taken in recent years. Those noble Lords who live in the country will know of the dramatic decline of the grey partridge in recent years.
A key feature of the new measures is set-aside. I should like to say a word about that, especially as I understand it will be discussed by Community Agriculture Ministers next Monday, 24th May.
I have never been an enthusiast for set-aside. As Dr. Potts of the Game Conservancy said in his thoughtful Massey Ferguson lecture, which is reproduced on pages 86 to 104 of our report,
"Set-aside assumes that land is the surplus commodity. With the problems of intensification that is, in my opinion, a wholly false assumption".
What is needed is more natural, less chemically-based farming methods. But the Community has plumped for set-aside, so we need to try to make it as environmentally beneficial as possible.
The one-year rotational scheme is clearly valuable. Until 1st May, the Game Conservancy says, an abundance of wild life was found on it—partridges being three or four times as numerous as on surrounding land. The RSPB argues that farmers should be allowed to include more than 15 per cent. of their land if they wish, be allowed a mixture of rotational and non-rotational set-aside on the same farm, which seems to me highly desirable, and be allowed to leave the natural regeneration uncut throughout the year.
The Game Conservancy is concerned at MAFF's failure to respond to its fears about the likely catastrophic effects on wildlife, especially on ground-nesting birds, of early cutting of set-aside. Our committee too was worried about that, as it said on page 48 of its opinion. But in the proposed management conditions for rotational set-aside MAFF appears to have proposed making the situation worse by suggesting,

1825
"replacing the natural regeneration flora with a planted green cover; destroying the cover by cultivation or non-residual herbicides between 1st May and 30th June, and cutting in June".
The RSPB shares the Game Conservancy's concern over the rules for controlling set-aside land and is concerned at the popularity since May of the ploughing option, which according to the Game Conservancy is often preceded by heavy rolling, swiping or spraying and has, it fears, destroyed a great deal of wildlife.
I raised that issue last March with Mr. David Maclean, who took it up with Mr. Gummer. But the only mitigating measures are that farmers can apply for an exemption from the cutting requirement for environmental reasons. I doubt whether many farm managers and farm management companies will so apply. At any rate, the DoE seems alive to what Mr. Maclean described as the,
"potentially damaging effects of the cutting requirement".
There are different views about the value of long-term non-rotational set-aside, the details of which are, I believe, to be settled at Monday's meeting. The RSPB hopes that that can be extended to 10 years to maximise wildlife benefits and that land coming out of the five-year scheme should be encouraged to enter. It is worried that too many farmers may return that land to arable on 1st October, when the scheme closes, despite the valuable wildlife habitats that have been created on some of it.
However, the Game Conservancy's research shows that permanent set-aside cannot begin to restore numbers of the declining wildlife. It probably does more monitoring of that than any other body. MAFF should take its views very seriously and seek its advice, which I am sure would be constructive. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, who is to speak shortly, is of course a pillar of the Game Conservancy and can speak for it with much more authority than I can.
On specifics, the conservancy has suggested a shift of the date of destruction of the crop from 1st July to 15th July, the use on appropriate parts of set-aside of selected herbicides, ploughing of natural regeneration restricted to derogation and grazing with appropriate safeguards.
The question of grazing is of central importance. I recognise that there must be safeguards against farmers using what is grown on set-aside to provide income, but at present grazing is, for example, strictly prohibited on some of the options under the potentially very valuable 20-year habitat improvement scheme. But the RSPB points out that it is, for example, almost impossible for wet grassland to be managed under set-aside without some form of grazing; and that grazing is also important to help encourage the development of species-rich grassland and to prevent heathlands becoming rank. There is no reason why such grazing should increase surpluses of beef or damage the livelihood of hill sheep farmers. It could be done by not allowing breeding stock onto set-aside, which would then not attract ewe premia or HLCA payments or increase the Community budget. I greatly hope that we can argue that case for the permitting of some grazing at next Monday's meeting. I believe that our view might well prevail.
1826
I should like to make one other point about the habitat improvement scheme. I understand that the Commission may have just concluded that land which is put in the scheme will not count towards the farmers' set-aside quota. That may force farmers away from beneficial options. Those who want to create chalk grasslands, wet grasslands and heathland—for example, to help conserve stone curlews—may be disadvantaged and discouraged from entering the scheme. I hope, therefore, that at Monday's meeting the Minister will, with his colleagues, seek to overrule the Commission so that land put into the habitat improvement scheme can count towards a farmer's set-aside quota.
It is important that in the interests of all forms of our wildlife we should try to get all this right. I very much hope that to that end MAFF will continue to work closely with the non-governmental organisations whose views I have quoted.
8.38 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Selborne for introducing this timely debate and to congratulate the Select Committee which he chaired, which took copious evidence in making its report, including written submissions from Mr. Raven of the SAFE Alliance representing some 26 groups, including the Soil Association and the British Organic Farmers. I should say that I am a patron of the Soil Association. I should like at this point to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, on his excellent maiden speech. No doubt we shall be hearing more from him in the future.
It is a historic moment for the British organic situation that MAFF and the EC have recognised organic farming officially. This is the first time in 50 years. I shall, if noble Lords will permit me, confine myself to the subject of organic farming, to which the report gives some space but to which as yet no confirmed sum of money has been allotted by the ministry. Council Regulation 2078, which was discussed, particularly emphasises and recommends organic farming as a basic method of implementing its recommendation. Indeed, twice the preamble mentioned organic farming and there is an implied reference in Article 1 describing the purpose of the scheme. It is specifically in Article 2.1[a] dealing with the provision of aid, which is very close to the heart of the matter. That is especially so with organic farmers who, from what I am sure are the purest motives, have sacrificed their time and money in the cause of the environment over many years.
The question of the environmental benefits of organic agriculture is crucial to the discussion. The certification standard of the SYMBOL scheme administered by the Soil Association delivers all those requirements and many more. I am a fervent supporter of subsidiarity and its implementation by the Government, but in this instance it appears that the organic farmers are certainly getting the worst end of the case. I am not sure that I am quite so keen as I was in the past.

1827
I understand from the ministry that £42 million is to be spent on ESAs but from the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I heard that the figure may be £146 million, which I welcome. Indeed, I welcomed every word of his speech. So £42 million is to be spent on ESA and related projects this year. They do not necessarily do a great deal more for extensification farming than organic farming does and indeed mainly less so. The Stewardship campaign has been nominated for £3.5 million. I welcome that generosity, especially in view of the fact that it is quite clear that organic farming is at least twice as efficient in delivering the reforms. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether he can tell us that organic farming will be funded in proportion.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, also said, the set-aside figure is between £700 million and £800 million. Those are very large sums of money which are being spent everywhere. But none of those activities espouses and combines the principles and discipline of organic farmers, who are already delivering the required 15 per cent. and more in extensifying farm production. Organic farming delivers the CAP requirements, as the regulation clearly states. The Commission believes it and I suggest that we should also do so.
But to enable our farmers to live and thrive in the market-place with organic produce from UK farms, the industry needs to achieve a basic and critical mass. It cannot compete while its farms are isolated and disparate against competition from our EC partners, with up to £100 per acre in subsidy. We need a cohesive and compact industry. At the moment there are some 86,000 acres currently in hand but widely spread. The regulatory system is there. MAFF recognises the UK registered organic farmers scheme and the Soil Association, as well as the Soil Association SYMBOL scheme, which is recognised by all organic farmers as the key system which would deliver the controls necessary to put in place organic farming. The organic farmers need positive help to implement the CAP proposals. They are there, willing and able to deliver that requirement without any further bureaucracy.
There is also an additional and important point to be made about the size of eligible organic farms. Many are of smaller size than the minimum proposed by the Ministry. It is important that all farms which are UK registered in the organic scheme should be eligible for support from the ministry. Organic farmers must have support at least at the level granted to schemes by our EC competitors. I believe that that is virtually acknowledged by MAFF and indeed by my noble friend on the Front Bench. Perhaps I may pay a small tribute to him for the help and generosity that he has displayed to me and other members of the organic operation, with which I believe he has some considerable sympathy.
But the recognition has not yet been translated into support. We know that German support is at least £206 a hectare. Over three years the total conversion to organic farming in Germany is 234,000 hectares—over half a million acres—while the plan for 1993 is for a total of 274,000 hectares; that is, 677,000 acres,
1828
which is, incidentally, exactly one third of the land proposed to be set aside in the UK. Organic farming in Germany is one third of our total set-aside.
As a result of the subsidies, the German and Danish organic farmers account for most of the EC slice of the UK market, accounting for 60 per cent. of organic produce sold in the UK. The resulting deficit in the balance of payments may be relatively small in the overall context but it is growing at an alarming rate. With the present growth rate it is expected that the value of the organic produce in the UK will be something in the region of £1 billion by the end of the century.
We believe that it is realistic to convert 350,000 hectares, or over 800,000 acres, over some five years at a cost of £35 million and a saving to the Treasury in reduced support prices of £5.25 million. At the same time they will deliver the positive achievement of CAP reforms needed on a permanent basis. If the Germans can do it, so can we. The CAP suggests that we can do it and so we should.
I am largely quoting from the paper submitted to MAFF by the British Organic Farmers and the Soil Association. In it they show that the Treasury stands to gain from organic farmers at the rate of £15 an acre through reduced claims for set-aside, reduced claims for arable compensation and reduced claims for cereal intervention, storage and export refunds. Is it a coincidence that the proposed figure of £1.2 million which has been bruited about the corridors over the present organic acreage of 86,000 is just £14 an acre? The Treasury seems to have done its sums very well and is making a quiet £1 an acre on the deal.
Organic farmers deserve better than that. I believe that noble Lords will agree with me on that. I am sure that it was not the intention of MAFF to allow such a situation to arise. But to prove that, it must put its money where, to put it politely, its best intentions are.
In respect of the certifying agencies, those carrying out the statutorily required function, as it is to be, have received no remuneration for their work so far. Indeed, the SYMBOL scheme has been financed by charity. To carry out a statutory function without payment, or indeed to finance it by charity, is most unusual. I believe that arrangements are in hand but I should be glad to hear the intentions of the Minister from my noble friend. Included in that is the important question of training newly enrolled organic farmers.
I look forward with keen interests to the remarks of my noble friend in commenting on what I have said. In the meantime if any noble Lord wants to have a copy of the Soil Association's submission, I should be very glad to let him have it.
8.47 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend for tabling this Question. Nobody is better qualified than he, both as a practical farmer and as the chairman of JNCC, to discuss such matters. We are very grateful to him. I also want to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, on his maiden speech. I confess that when I first saw his name I was not quite sure who he was. But when I came into the

1829
Chamber and looked across, I recognised him because the last time I saw him was on television when he and I had been involved in a rather controversial programme on public access. I am delighted that this evening's debate has not so far been as controversial. It was quite obvious from the contents of his speech that he feels very passionately on the subject. As other noble Lords have said, I hope that we shall hear from him again, not just on this subject but on other matters as well.
First, I very much welcome this package. It is very positive and the Government deserve our congratulations. But it is another scheme and part of the plethora of schemes that we all have to contend with in the countryside. I hope and pray that one day we will be able to get things a little bit tighter, a little closer together; with not quite so many organisations and schemes so that the landowner, farmer and, indeed, the public at large can understand a little more of what is going on.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Wade, who made that point. He said that the scheme should be more simple and open in the countryside. Having said that, of course money is scarce; we have to have our priorities. It is right that more money should be spent on areas such as sites of special scientific interest and so forth, which perhaps deserve more attention than the countryside at large. But my noble friend's point is well made and, in principle, I certainly agree with him.
I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. As vice-chairman of the Game Conservancy and chairman of the Research Planning Committee, I spend most of my life going round praising Dr. Potts. It is very nice to have someone else say it for me. I shall not have to mention Game Conservancy, therefore, as the noble Lord has done it for me, and I can concentrate my remarks this evening principally on one aspect of the agri-environment package; that is, the uplands.
I see the moorland scheme as a further step by the Government in attempting to redress the balance between sheep grazing and the extensive loss of habitat that we have seen principally since the war and, of course, since the introduction of the subsidy system. As has already been pointed out, there is a considerable amount of money attached to the overall environment package. But like other noble Lords I wonder, after the six ESAs have been funded from it, what will remain for all the various schemes and for the wider countryside. Whereas I welcome it enormously, I wonder whether it will have the impact that we are led to believe it should have.
I am bound to say—I know that it is easy to be wise in retrospect—that if environmental conditions had been imposed from the word go on those in receipt of subsidies, we should probably not be in this position today and should not have to spend this level of money. But that is past. I hope that, if new farming production subsidies are introduced in the future, the Government will pay careful attention to the fact that they must ensure that the environment is looked after and that environmental considerations are part and parcel of any such subsidies.
1830
We have seen considerable changes in the hills. I welcome the new definition of "overgrazing". I welcome also the additional powers which MAFF regional officers have to tackle on an individual farm basis or on common land, either through the common as a whole or on a regional common basis, the problem of overgrazing. At the moment it is being tackled under the HLCA system. I believe I am right in saying that my right honourable friend the Minister is attempting to have it extended to include the ewe premiums as well. I sincerely hope that he succeeds.
There is one major new initiative on which I should like to touch. It suffers under the rather unpleasant term of "de-coupling". But its intention is good. It is a scheme which has been largely thought up by the NFU in conjunction with the Moorlands Association. It is simple in concept. It takes some of the headage payments and substitutes or translates them into an area payment, all on a voluntary basis. In other words, the farmer would have the choice to keep x per cent. of his ewe stock on the headage basis and convert the remaining percentage into an area payment. His gross margins would increase. His profit at the end of the day would certainly remain the same and might indeed be greater. The environment would benefit and, perhaps most important of all, it would not cost the Exchequer a single penny. I hope that that is something that my noble friend and his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture will take seriously when they come to consider it.
Returning specifically to the moorland scheme, I am pleased to see that the Government recognise that there is a problem of overgrazing on common land. I hope that the moorland scheme within the agrienvironment package will not be sold short regarding the commons. There is a real opportunity, even if only a few members of a common participate in the scheme, to see a real recovery in heather. I have done it myself. I have seen it done in other areas. It would be a great shame if it was the Government's view that all commoners had to participate in the scheme before it would work. That simply is not the case. It can work and I can show it.
There is one further point on that. Some say that before such a scheme could work we would need legislation on common land in order to create statutory management committees. But the scheme would be voluntary anyway. Therefore it would not change regardless of whether we had statutory committees. I urge my noble friend to ignore the plea for legislation on common land before the moorland scheme comes into effect under the package. I can assure him that it can work if it is given the opportunity to do so.
Another point is the question of temporary fencing. I know that a number of individuals and organisations are against fencing on common land. I see my noble friend Lord Barber, ex-chairman of the Countryside Commission, sitting across the Chamber. I know that his ex-organisation—if I may call it that—was not in favour of fencing. But it is a cheap and effective tool in helping heather regeneration. Provided stiles are put in at the appropriate places where fences cross footpaths, I do not see why they should not be used.

1831
Another point concerns cattle. Cattle do an immense amount of damage to the uplands. I would hope that any scheme that applied to sheep would also incorporate cattle. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, touched on another important point; that is, grazing on set-aside. It seems to me highly desirable to link the uplands with the lowlands to ensure that sheep that are being removed temporarily from the uplands to allow heather regeneration, are allowed to graze on set-aside land—set-aside land where the green crop at the moment is being cut, which is doing damage to quite a lot of ground nesting birds; sometimes it is rolled; later it is ploughed, thus disturbing the insect life. If we could marry the two, uplands and lowlands, in this way, as I am sure must be possible even under the EC regulations, it would be of enormous benefit. I ask my noble friend to consider that.
On the question of stocking rates—I do not want to go into them in detail because it is a tricky problem as they can vary enormously between the various types of moorland, whether it be heath or blanket bog—having seen the recommendations in the package, I believe that the rates are a little too high as they stand. The existing ESA proposals and the recommendations put forward by English Nature both indicate that the Government would have to be a little more generous with their money for the package to work as effectively as they would like.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Selborne mentioned the whole farm system. That is something which we must look at much more readily and seriously than we do at the moment. It is not very sensible to look at habitats in isolation; they must be looked at in a holistic way. Certainly, considering the matter from an ornithological point of view, birds do not stay in one place. They move and change according to nesting and feeding habitat and so forth. That is something which we should perhaps try to incorporate more satisfactorily than we do at the moment.
I hope that my noble friend will excuse the number of points that I have made. I hope that he will recognise the intention, which is to be constructive and helpful. I look forward very much to hearing what he has to say.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we have had a quiet debate. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, will be a little disappointed that he has not aroused the fire that he did on Monday night. Nevertheless, he has produced a most admirable report on an extraordinarily difficult, diffuse subject. Everybody is interested; everybody wants to improve the environment and just about everybody knows how to do it, with the result that the objective is not clear.
I liked the report, the things it said and I appreciated the difficulties which were pointed out. I particularly liked paragraph 54 which states:
"In the context of long-term planning the Committee would also like to stress the need for payments for long-term schemes to be indexed linked, or otherwise guaranteed."
That is because we have already seen the damage done by changes in taxation policy and in forestry in this
1832
country. It is very important that any scheme to improve the environment is long-term because it is an extremely long-term job.
I would also like to comment about the objectives which are set out very nicely in the report, particularly the one which refers to reducing the polluting effects of agriculture. With enormous respect to organic farming and to extensification, we must realise that intensive farming and modern farming are absolutely vital if we are to feed the world. If we went organic, we might have a good deal of good food, but we would not have enough to feed the world. We would certainly have no problem with surpluses. I am not against organic farming; I am very interested in it. I was a member of the Soil Association for years. It is right and proper to produce organic food if the public want it, but we must realise that intensive farming is here to stay and that to reduce pollution needs a great deal of long-term research of a scientific character to produce sprays which do not pollute; and machines which use less chemicals to achieve the same result. There will have to be research into the biological methods which do the same thing without ill-effect.
The other danger we face from diversity is the number of people who are interested. The RSPB is a most admirable body. It does a great deal of good work. It is also extremely rich, which is also a very useful thing to be. Its activities range over a wide field which sometimes I feel might lead to grave trouble if applied fully by the Government. I have picked out a couple of items from its admirable paper:
"No goats should be allowed where shrubs and other vegetation have survived grazing on cliff ledges and steep stream banks".
The inspector of goats will have a great deal to do as he chases around. It is an important point.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, will be pleased to note that the RSPB says:
"Away-wintering of sheep should be granted on a discretionary basis and the sheep should not be transferred to land susceptible to environmental damage".
I dare say that that is true, but all these factors would require a great deal of policing. The Minister would be chasing round with his civil servants doing too much. Therefore, I believe that we have to be fairly practical, particularly as the sum of money is fairly small and has to be spread in the direction where it can he most effective.
Another factor is the grants for forestry. Because farmers all over the country are taking up the planting grants, that is very hopeful, and that the continuation of the grants would be quite reasonable. I can see that being quite profitable and, if not profitable, no money will be lost and great pleasure will be gained out of planting considerable areas of farmland.
But that situation does not apply to the whole countryside. If we are to have only odd patches planted by different farmers, we shall not achieve the kind of effect found on the great estates of the past or indeed of the present. Nothing is more enjoyable to me just now than going around the countryside of Angus, particularly around Glamis, where areas have been well planted with beautiful trees which are now mature. It is absolutely wonderful. For people to say that the countryside is ruined is absolute rubbish.

1833
However, in the main, those areas are concentrated around the house. They are called the "policies". Very often there is very little afforestation in the rest of the countryside.
We need to look at local schemes. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, mentioned that the regional schemes are very important regional plans and that the efforts of different farmers and estate owners should be co-ordinated in producing rides which the public can enjoy in a continuous line over many people's land. Such a proposal would need to be looked at because it would involve a great deal of work.
I have not gone into any detail because I do not know the detail. It is up to the Minister to tell us how he is going to proceed. However, I think that we must guard against the enormous multiplication of forms. We have already seen the forms for the reduction of set-aside, which have been a great trouble to many people. The Minister kindly wrote to me, detailing the number that we would have to deal with. It horrified me, as no doubt it horrified him. I hope that simplification will come. The idea is good, but the future looks fogged with good intentions and not enough money. I look now for a little direction from the Minister.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and to congratulate his committee on producing an excellent report. After the skirmishes that we had on Monday on potatoes, it is nice to see that the House has returned to the sweetness and light with which we usually discuss Select Committee reports. I join other noble Lords also in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, on his maiden speech. He made some thought-provoking remarks about access, jobs and wildlife, each of which is a subject that needs a debate on its own.
Discussion of the report also enables us to consider the agricultural environment a little more widely. There is, I fear, something of a tendency when discussing agriculture and the environment sometimes to leave the impression that farming, farmers, farm workers and food production are somehow incidental to the apparent prime aim of preserving wildlife habitats and producing a wide range of environmental benefits. The background to all our discussions of environmental matters should be the realisation that farmers, farm workers and the industries ancillary to agriculture are producing some 70 per cent. or more of our temperate food requirements. There would be little point in having the very best agricultural environment if we thereby substantially reduced our food production capability. Almost all our environmental policies in agriculture should be ranked according to their reversibilty because, as we are reminded by Mr. John Gummer, there is always the possibility that seven lean years will follow seven good years.
Having said that, I have felt for a long time that we have not given enough attention to ways of developing less intensive and more environmentally friendly methods of farming, certainly as an alternative to
1834
set-aside. I refer to the "greening" of the CAP as mentioned in paragraph 40 of the report. Suggestions for such an approach were referred to in the evidence that was given to the committee. I certainly hope that over time the package of agri-enviromental measures can be adapted to allow farmers to farm in a less intensive way if they wish to do so. The Labour Party, for example, produced proposals for a "green premium" before the last election to grant-aid farmers who decide to farm less intensively. I know that many other organisations have produced similar proposals.
In paragraph 44 of its report the committee supports the principle of aids to convert to or to continue with low input farming, provided that nature conservation requirements are included. When the Minister replies he might be able to tell the House what view the Government take generally of the encouragement of low input farming.
The departmental view has certainly changed in recent years. It was not so very long ago that I tried to arrange a seminar on low input farming. When I invited ADAS, the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, to take part, it refused to do so unless I changed the title to "lower input" farming—that is a connoisseur's distinction, but one which was very important to ADAS at the time. Also, I think that it is correct that up to comparatively recently there was no research anywhere on organic farming which was sponsored by the Government. However, that has now changed to some extent.
There is clearly a change of view now regarding environmentally friendly farming, but the amount of money to be devoted to it compared with the total cost of the CAP shows how far we have still to go before it becomes a substantial feature of agricultural policy. That point was made by a number of witnesses to the committee.
One of the most welcome features of the CAP reform package as it finally emerged was the removal of the discrimination against larger farms which was in the original proposals. I am the first to congratulate the Government on their negotiating skills in achieving that—and that is the first time that I have said that. If the original proposals had been implemented, the chances of getting a real environmental input in this country would have been much reduced because we have so many larger farms compared to the rest of the EC. If we had put them at a substantial, if not a ruinous, financial disadvantage, we would have certainly reduced their enthusiasm for environmentally friendly farming.
There is a theme which runs right through agri-environmental policy and it is reflected in the evidence to the committee and in its report. It is the acceptance of environmental protection as a public good which must be paid for. But the problem then is, despite what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, that the "public" cannot really be the customer as such and the governments of member states must become the surrogate customer and use taxpayers' money to pay for the perceived public good. That is a very important principle. Free market economists would say, "Let the market sort it out", but this is an area where the

1835
market cannot sort it out. As I say, the Government have to act as a surrogate customer and use the taxpayers' money.
It is unlikely that payments for public goods will replace the loss of farm income resulting from attempts to control the cost of the CAP. That is a point mentioned in paragraph 58 of the report.
The agri-environmental measures have to be viewed in that light. They are not substantial enough in absolute terms to have a marked effect on farm incomes in total. The crucial question is: do they tend to point in the right direction so that they can be developed and strengthened over time? The committee seemed to give the measures two cheers at least, although there are clearly many detailed questions still to be answered. We can all agree that the simplification of the current plethora of schemes is overdue. I agree with the recommendation in paragraph 41 of the report that a panel should be established to draw up and oversee the proposed zonal programmes. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate at least the direction of the Government's thinking regarding the more localised zones which have been mentioned and how they might be defined.
I agree with the committee that the forestry proposals are too broad and must be made more specific. That subject needs a debate of its own. We know that Regulation 2078/92 and the committee report referred to the importance of training. It is a shame that there is to be the change in the status of the Agricultural Training Board. That seems to conflict a little with the emphasis on training in the agri-environmental measures and the committee's report. It is still not clear how the Government propose to develop the rotational and 20-year set-aside programmes to obtain the maximum environmental benefit. I agree with the committee's recommendations regarding the 20-year set-aside set out in paragraph 47. We should regard this as an ideal opportunity to maintain the properly managed environmental benefit that it is hard to perceive resulting from rotational set-aside.
There is an important point about rotational set-aside which could affect considerably the possibility of developing environmental benefits from the programme; that is, the possibility of penalty set-aside for 1994 and subsequent harvests. I do not believe that that point was mentioned in the committee's report. I put down a Question for Written Answer on the subject. In fact I received the Answer today. I emphasise to the Minister that it is important that farmers know as quickly as possible whether they have to set aside more than 15 per cent. of their arable land next year for penalty set-aside. The Question I asked was:
"when the Government expect to announce whether or not there will be penalty set-aside … so that farmers can take this into account when preparing their cropping plans".
The Answer I received was that the Government:
"will make an announcement as soon as we have received all this year's claims for arable area payments and established whether any of the United Kingdom's regional base areas have been exceeded".—[Official Report, 18/5/93; col. WA 84.]
1836
I understand that, but can the Minister give us an indication—I shall not hold him to it—of when the ministry thinks it might be able to tell farmers? If there is a substantial set-aside next year, that may have an effect on the take-up of the 20-year set-aside, and I am not sure that that point has been picked up. As I say, the Minister might like to comment upon that when he replies.
To conclude, perhaps I may return to the important point of simplification. Most farmers are now pretty confused by the plethora of schemes which are available or which will become available as the measures are implemented. There is a strong case for the requirement, as phrased by the NFU, that all schemes offered by the Government to improve the environment should be delivered as a strategic whole.
In today's post I received some information about its farming from Sweden. I received two excellent and beautifully produced documents. One is called Environmental Goals of Swedish Agriculture: A Cleaner Future. It summarises what it regards as the contribution of society. It is worth considering. It states:
"Agriculture is an integrated part of society. A stable agricultural policy and a biological, ecological and economic responsibility from society is thus a fundamental condition for achieving positive developments in the environment. In order to achieve the targets, a condition is that society participates in, foremost, the following sectors".
There is then a list of sectors, but I shall quote only one or two:
"Increased inputs on research aimed at developing ecologically suitable cultivation systems with regard to production level, environmental influence and economy of natural resources".
The last point is:
"That the State will, foremost, consider the improvement of knowledge, information and extension before restrictions are introduced in the shape of laws and regulations".
The other document is a statement by the farmers called The Swedish Farmers' Revolt. I believe it is intended for schools and the public generally. The Swedish farmers then make this statement:
"We, the farmers of Sweden, shall create the purest form of farming in the world. We are halving the use of chemical pesticides. We are reducing the use of fertilisers. We are refraining from giving animals hormones or antibiotics to increase their growth. We shall respect each animal's needs and behaviour when raising it. We shall improve the handling of farmyard manure so that nitrogen leakage will be drastically reduced. We are directing our research towards environmentally-friendly agriculture which is in harmony with the cycle of nature itself".
I am well aware of the differences between Swedish agriculture and our own, but those statements include some interesting ideas of the way those farmers are approaching the whole problem of environmentally friendly farming.
We know that there is a great deal to be done by government, non-governmental organisations, farmers and others if we are to obtain the full benefit of the agri-environmental measures. The report has examined the subject thoroughly. The committee and its chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, are to be congratulated on producing an excellent report.
9.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I believe this has been a useful and informed debate. It has focused on many of the issues raised during the public consultation on our proposals. Many contributions tonight have also referred to the conclusions of the report prepared by the Select Committee on the European Communities chaired by my noble friend Lord Selborne. I join other noble Lords in welcoming that report and in thanking my noble friend for initiating the debate.
Before I reply to points raised by noble Lords, I should like to say a little about the Government's thinking in developing the proposals which we have put forward. Our starting point has been warmly to welcome the Agri-Environment regulation. The Government actively encouraged and supported the adoption of the regulation and it was, as many noble Lords mentioned, a major step forward in the development of the Community's policy in bringing environmental considerations to the heart of the CAP. We have sought to grasp the opportunity afforded by the Agri-Environment regulation in a positive and imaginative way.
Secondly, we are mindful that this measure cannot be seen in isolation from the rest of the CAP. Our proposals will be most effective in securing environmental benefits if farm support generally is adjusted to take greater account of environmental considerations. It is for this reason that the Government remain committed to further changes to "green" the CAP. We have already made progress with the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances scheme, in which environmentally damaging overgrazing is discouraged. We have also incorporated environmental safeguards into the set-aside management rules. We plan to carry forward this initiative and are continuing to press for the integration of appropriate measures of environmental protection into other support payments.
Thirdly, in implementing the agri-environment measure, we have taken the view that wherever possible we should build on the proven success of existing schemes. Central to our proposals is therefore a further expansion of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme to new areas, bringing the total to 44 throughout the UK. ESAs have been widely acclaimed by both farmers and environmentalists and their expansion has also been welcomed. The proposed new schemes have been tailored to reflect the environmental character of each area.
In England we are also proposing to designate up to 30 new Nitrate Sensitive Areas which will build on and extend the approach pioneered in the pilot NSA scheme. These are areas where the National Rivers Authority advises that changes in farming practice will help protect groundwater sources affected by rising nitrate levels.
We have indicated that we wish to introduce some entirely new environmental schemes as well. Our proposals for a moorland scheme and a habitat improvement scheme are both targeted on specific environmental gains; enhancement of the nature
1838
conservation value of moorland in one case and creation and extension of wildlife resources such as saltmarsh and water fringe habitats in the other. My noble friend Lord Peel concentrated his speech on the moorland scheme and I shall deal with the points which he raised in a moment.
Environmental requirements are also included in our proposed organic aid scheme, which fulfils an outstanding government commitment. My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam welcomed that. Our proposals to create new opportunities for public access on land in ESAs and in set-aside offer an important new element in agricultural schemes which will encourage public enjoyment of the countryside. The noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, directed his remarks to that area. The proposals will build on experience gained with pilot schemes operated by the Countryside Commission.
The consultation period on the main package of proposals has now ended. We have received a large number of replies; the proposals have been widely welcomed and their objectives commanded broad support. We have also received a great many detailed comments on specific aspects of our proposals, and on the relationship between them, and we are considering all of these carefully. Today's debate has provided further food for thought before we finalise our plans.
Although not part of the agri-environment programme as such, we have also been consulting on set-aside. Many noble Lords directed their remarks to that subject. The large number of comments we have received reflects the public's interest in set-aside. It is far from being our idea of an ideal policy but we have to make the most of it and I am therefore very gratified by the strong endorsement we have received for our proposals for exploiting its environmental potential. How we now proceed will depend on EC decisions on non-rotational set-aside. We have received support for our negotiating objectives and we will continue to press for EC rules which enable us to make the most of set-aside environmentally.
Finally, before I turn to points raised today, I should say a word about funding. All the schemes which form part of our programme will attract a financial contribution from the EC but I must underline that EC part-funding is not a pot of gold: the UK is a significant contributor to the EC budget, so the greater part of the funding of these schemes is provided from our national resources.
Against that background, it reflects the importance that the Government attach to the agricultural environment that we are sharply increasing expenditure on it. UK expenditure on the ESA scheme is planned to rise from £14 million in 1992-93 to £64 million in 1995-96. In addition, UK expenditure on the other proposed new schemes is planned to rise to £31.5 million in 1995-96. Moreover, to this has to be added expenditure on the countryside stewardship scheme, planned to be some £10 million in 1995-96, and other schemes which form an important part of the Government's policy and which are funded by it. In all, the Government have made a major

1839
commitment which I think all noble Lords will agree is good news for the countryside and good news for farmers.
My noble friend Lord Selborne, asked about the funding of the measures in each of the four territories. For the £64 million ESA budget, the breakdown is: England, £43.5 million; Scotland, £8 million; Wales, £8 million; and Northern Ireland, £4.5 million. For the £31.5 million that we have allocated to the new agri-environmental measures, the breakdown is: England, £19 million; Scotland, £6 million; Wales, £5 million; and Northern Ireland, £1.5 million. That excludes the cost of administering the scheme by agriculture departments. Fifty per cent. of eligible expenditure on all agri-environmental schemes will be reimbursed by the EAGGF in Great Britain and 75 per cent. will be reimbursed in Northern Ireland, which qualifies for special help from the EC budget.
There are differences between the proposals for the four territories; for example, different options are proposed under the habitat improvement scheme, reflecting varying environmental circumstances in different parts of the United Kingdom. And of course, each ESA is unique, reflecting the environmental character of the area. However, the basic structures of the schemes are on similar lines.
My noble friend pointed to the need for local consultation and for local ownership of schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the idea of a panel to oversee such programmes. We have consulted widely on our proposals, drawing comments from a range of voluntary, professional and local bodies. We have received much advice from individual local authorities and bodies such as county wildlife trusts and parish councils. All their views are being carefully considered. We are already setting up local liaison groups for each of the ESAs which will meet as often as necessary to ensure that local anxieties are taken into account. I assure my noble friend and the noble Lord that the point has not been lost sight of.
My noble friend Lord Selborne asked why the country could not be divided up into various bio-geographic zones. We take the view that that is not necessary. All the individual schemes, except the organic scheme, will be targeted on the areas where they will be most environmentally beneficial. For that reason, we see no grounds for limiting the organic scheme geographically. To cover a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, we shall be monitoring all schemes, as we do now with ESAs, to ensure that the environmental benefits targeted are being produced.
My noble friend Lord Selborne directed some of his remarks towards set-aside, and in particular the percentage that the Commission may propose for non-rotational set-aside. The Commission has now produced its proposal for the percentage requirement for non-rotational set-aside. The proposed rate is 20 per cent. As my right honourable friend the Minister made clear at the April Agriculture Council, our view is that the percentage requirement should be set at a level consistent with the technical evidence on the
1840
effects of non-rotational set-aside, but no higher. My right honourable friend will continue to negotiate to achieve a fair rate for UK farmers.
The noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, in a wideranging and stimulating maiden speech made the point that we should make the most of set-aside land. I agree with that objective. That is why we issued such a substantial document containing proposals for increasing the environmental benefits of set-aside. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about land which is due to come out of the five-year set-aside scheme and how it would be treated. We are pressing for producers to be able to set aside more than the minimum percentage requirement under the arable area payments scheme. That should be especially helpful to those coming out of the five-year set-aside scheme. The Commission appears to be open to that idea and we shall continue to argue for it.
My noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Selborne asked about grazing on set-aside land. I recognise that grazing may, in many cases, be the optimum method of managing grassland; but there is no prospect of the EC Commission accepting grazing on set-aside. There are good reasons for that decision. Without the introduction of arable quotas, grazing at commercial levels would undermine the purpose of set-aside. The idea of low-level environmental grazing is an attractive one in theory, but it would be virtually impossible to control both here and elsewhere in the Community and could lead to widespread abuse.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, mentioned particularly the effect on wildlife of the cutting requirement in set-aside. We are sensitive to the concerns about the effects of set-aside cutting requirements. We received many comments on them. But we have to strike a balance between control measures to prevent fraud and the interests of wildlife. Of course, we are very ready to consider requests for permission to delay cutting where there is a particular risk to wildlife on the land. As respondents have acknowledged, in our proposals for set-aside management next year, we have sought to give as much flexibility as possible; for example, it may not be necessary to cut sown covers; the use of non-residual herbicide will be permitted instead of cutting or cultivating and derogations from the rules will continue to be available. But, at the end of the day, we must ensure that the scheme is not open to abuse.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked when we would be announcing whether or not there would be penalty set-aside. As I indicated in my recent Written Answer to the noble Lord, we shall make an announcement once we have received all this year's claims for arable area payments and established whether any of the United Kingdom's regional base areas have been exceeded. It will obviously take a little time to process all the relevant information, but we shall inform farmers of the position as soon as possible. I cannot, unfortunately, be more specific than that at this stage—much as I would like to be.
My noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, spoke about the habitat improvement scheme. They asked, in particular, whether arable land set aside under that scheme could count against the 15

1841
per cent. set-aside requirement. We shall continue to press the EC Commission to allow arable land withdrawn from production under the habitat improvement scheme, and the farm woodland premium scheme, to count against a farmer's non-rotational set-aside obligation. In the consultation there was full support expressed for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed to the benefits of grazing on land within the habitat improvement scheme. We recognise that grazing is desirable in many circumstances from an environmental point of view. Grazing at commercial levels will not be allowed; but where it is compatible with environmental objectives, some, as it were, lawnmower grazing at low stocking levels may be possible subject to EC agreement and appropriate controls. In this matter, as so often, we seek the advice of the Game Conservancy and other bodies.
The noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, as I have said, directed his remarks chiefly to the public's enjoyment of the countryside and emphasised the desirability of increasing public access. I can assure him that we are conscious of the need for new public access not to conflict with the needs of wildlife. We would not expect to encourage access where that is likely to arise. However, we believe that where public money is being used to encourage the conservation of the countryside, it is also right to encourage opportunities for responsible access to that countryside.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam spoke particularly about organic farming, of which he is a knowledgeable enthusiast. I hope he will forgive me for not covering all his questions. He referred in particular to our proposal for a minimum hectarage requirement. Many respondents to the consultation wished to see the proposed minimum hectarage of 10 hectares, and 50 in less favoured areas, dropped on the grounds that it would disadvantage the many small producers who currently farm hectarages below those limits. We shall be considering carefully how we can respond to that suggestion. My noble friend also mentioned the current German scheme to encourage organic farming. I understand that that scheme is available to producers of certain agricultural produce who undertake to reduce output by at least 20 per cent. That can be achieved either by taking land out of production or by introducing less intensive ways of farming, including conversion of the total farm to organic production.
Our own information suggests that payments vary according to the Lander involved and that the maximum amount payable would be a little less than the £215 that is sometimes talked of. The German scheme ends this year but will be replaced by one based on the European Community regulation for agriculture and the environment. Our own level of support for organic agriculture will be determined in the light of the current consultation exercise on our environmental schemes and of course taking account of expenditure priorities and the need to control public expenditure. It will not involve the commitment to reduce output which features in the current German scheme.
1842
As my noble friend will recognise, the UK was one of the prime movers in securing the inclusion of organic agriculture within the agri-environment regulation. Having done this, we have consulted on a conversion scheme that would be available throughout the UK, and we have also sought views on the possibility of payments to those producers who have already converted. These are major initiatives. I fully understand that the organic movement would like rather more but my noble friend should not overlook the big steps that we have already taken.
Moving one step away from organic farming, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the Government's attitude to low input farming. Several of the agri-environment schemes we are proposing encourage different forms of reduced input farming. We in any case encourage farmers to minimise input use to the economic optimum. Where we expect farmers to reduce inputs beyond that in order to achieve specific environmental benefits, we offer financial incentives. We spend nearly £50 million a year on environmental R&D, much of it related to minimising the use of inputs.
Turning to the moorland scheme, my noble friend Lord Peel asked what provision will be made for common land to be included in that scheme. Much agricultural land in the LFA is common land. Our consultation document on the moorland scheme therefore sought to ensure that there would be scope for commoners to participate. We proposed that they should be permitted to enter the scheme at the discretion of the MAFF regional director, subject to certain conditions. In particular, we felt that it would be necessary for all right-holders who exercise their rights to enter the scheme and for any others who maintain an active interest—for example, by membership of a commons association—to undertake not to graze livestock on the moor during the life of the agreement. Those conditions mirror those in place for the environmentally sensitive areas scheme.
I recognise that some organisations would like them to be drawn more loosely. My noble friend shares that view. We shall of course reflect carefully on the responses to the consultation. However, I am sure that my noble friend will recognise that the scheme will need to avoid the situation where one or more graziers could frustrate its objectives by declining to enter an agreement and increasing their own stocking numbers.
My noble friend also asked whether the moorland scheme rules would allow temporary fencing. We have received a number of comments about erecting temporary fences on land covered by the scheme. Some organisations were in favour of their use as a tool to encourage heather regeneration. Others felt that fencing should be prohibited because it would detract from the open character of the land. We shall need to consider all those responses very carefully before final decisions are made, but I take particular note of my noble friend's remarks.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Returning briefly to the question of commons, does my noble friend agree that on most common land the numbers of stock are

1843
registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965, and therefore the possibility of farmers increasing those numbers and filling in the areas that have been vacated as part of the moorland scheme should be prevented if the MAFF regional officer is doing his job properly?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a telling point. I am grateful to him. We shall take note of that point.
My noble friend also asked why only sheep were to be included in the scheme. I appreciate the point that he made about the inclusion of cattle. However, targeting the scheme on sheep maximises the potential for environmental benefit given that the deterioration of semi-natural vegetation from heavy stocking levels is most commonly associated with grazing by sheep.
My noble friend made some pertinent observations on the greening of CAP support. It is important to be clear, as I know he already is, that our moorland environment was created by traditional livestock farming and cannot be maintained without continued grazing by sheep. If it were not for HLCAs the upland LFA environment would undoubtedly suffer. I accept, however, that in some places heavy stocking levels have caused deterioration of heather and other typical moorland vegetation. Where serious over-grazing causing serious damage to the vegetation is involved we already have powers, as my noble friend mentioned, to reduce or withhold hill livestock compensatory allowances. Of course, those allowances constitute only one element of the support available to hill farmers. My right honourable friend seeks to extend the powers we already have to the ewe premium.
My noble friend spoke about the concept of voluntary de-coupling, in other words providing for a proportion of CAP livestock headage payments to be paid on an area basis. I can see the environmental attractions of that idea, but it would represent a major restructuring. I do not believe that it is likely to be negotiable in Brussels at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Wade pointed to the need to take account of the requirements of the rural economy. The fundamental point here is that environmental schemes offer an alternative source of income for farmers and landowners. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his acknowledgement that those schemes are a worthwhile step in the right direction.
The noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, bemoaned what he saw as the unnecessary imposition of forms on
1844
farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, echoed that sentiment. We are well aware of the need to minimise the burdens that we impose on farmers. We spend a great deal of energy trying to keep the forms as simple and understandable as possible. I am gratified that farmers' representatives have acknowledged that. However, ultimately farmers are receiving large amounts of public money and that money must be properly accounted for. We have a duty to safeguard the public purse against fraud.
All the points that have been made in today's debate will be taken into account as we now proceed to take decisions on the final shape of these new agri-environment schemes. Those schemes form part of the trinity of measures available to the Government in influencing our farmers and landowners to take good care of the countryside: guidance, protection and reward. We spend nearly £50 million a year on R&D which forms the basis for the guidance that we give to farmers through codes of practice, through direct advice and through demonstrations and example. To ensure that basic standards of environmental protection are met, we set out the requirements in statutory form, for example to prevent pollution and to ensure that farmers who benefit from taxpayers' support do not degrade the countryside, as I have already explained. But there is a limit to what can be achieved by advice and protection measures. So, we reward farmers for stewardship of the countryside that goes beyond normal good agricultural practice.
In this we have led the way in Europe. We were the first to introduce ESAs in 1987 and the scheme has attracted the admiration of many other member states. Now, thanks to our pioneering efforts, all EC countries have to offer a range of environmental schemes to their farmers. In the 10 years from 1986, our expenditure on environmental management schemes will have increased from zero to over £100 million. On any assessment, that is a substantial amount to devote to conservation and enhancement of our countryside. We expect our farmers and landowners to show that it is an investment well made.

Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  IRAQ: ATTACKS ON AWENA VILLAGE
  IRAQ: ATTACKS ON AWENA VILLAGE
  ERITREA: INDEPENDENCE
  ERITREA: INDEPENDENCE
  ERITREA: BRITISH COUNCIL PROGRAMME
  ERITREA: BRITISH COUNCIL PROGRAMME
  IRAQ: CURRENCY CHANGES AND THE KURDISH POPULATION
  IRAQ: CURRENCY CHANGES AND THE KURDISH POPULATION
  FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE: FUTURE
  FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE: FUTURE
  MR. JAMES HOGG
  MR. JAMES HOGG
  GENERAL PRACTITIONERS: SCHOOL HEALTH SURVEILLANCE
  GENERAL PRACTITIONERS: SCHOOL HEALTH SURVEILLANCE
  BIRTHS IN THE NHS: AVERAGE COSTS
  BIRTHS IN THE NHS: AVERAGE COSTS
  RUSSIAN COMMEMORATIVE MEDAL
  RUSSIAN COMMEMORATIVE MEDAL
  AGENCIES: PENALTIES FOR UNMET TARGETS
  AGENCIES: PENALTIES FOR UNMET TARGETS
  FINES: RECEIPTS
  FINES: RECEIPTS