Sitting of 18 October 1993

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

    Medical Tests
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had concerning the institution of objective medical tests in relation to the payment of benefits.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley):In the course of my review of invalidity benefit I am considering introducing an objective medical test. My officials have undertaken a number of informal discussions with medical experts. No decisions have yet been made, but I am encouraged by the progress made so far.
    When we have firm proposals I will publish them and consult formally and fully.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on tackling the necessary and rigorous review of the social security system, the operation of which is perceived by many to be subject to abuse at the expense of the most vulnerable in society?
    Is it not ridiculous that, at a time when the nation's health is improving steadily, the number of people claiming invalidity benefit has risen by one third over the past five years? May I welcome my right hon. Friend's
    2
    statement that he is considering an objective medical test, which would not only avoid difficulties in the doctor-patient relationship, but, most importantly, would ensure that benefit is drawn only by those who are incapable of work?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the long-term review of public expenditure, and social security expenditure in particular. If we are to ensure that the system guarantees the position of the most vulnerable, we must make sure that money is not wasted or abused. That lies behind much of our thinking.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend also for pointing out that we are to review the unsatisfactory procedures by which medical checks are operated to test whether a person is incapable of working. Doctors will welcome the proposals to bring in an objective test which will remove them from their present invidious position.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that his use of the word "objective" in that fashion is both pejorative and offensive to the medical profession as it implies that those who give accurate clinical judgments on medical conditions are influenced not by medical conditions but by personal attributes, or by some aspect of the doctor's relationship with the patient? Is that not unacceptable, ignorant and a poor excuse for the Government's attempts to cut the money available to the most vulnerable?
    Mr. Lilley: I do not agree with the hon. Lady at all. There have been many criticisms of the present arrangements, particularly from doctors, since the previous uprating statement.
    I received 300 letters from doctors, more than 290 of which supported the changes that we have made. I have never criticised doctors for the way in which they operate the present system. It is up to us to provide a system that does not put doctors in an invidious position and results in an objective test of medical capacity to work. The present system has changed over the years due to legal rulings, and has been difficult for doctors to operate. It is up to us to produce a better system, and that is what I am trying to do.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under this Government, spending on the long-term sick and disabled—of whom there are many in my constituency —has more than trebled in real terms to around £15 billion a year? Is that not a powerful commitment by the Government to helping the most vulnerable?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct. There has been a particularly rapid growth in the number of people on invalidity benefit. The number has nearly trebled over the past 15 years, and expenditure on invalidity benefit has more than trebled during that period in real terms.
    We have deliberately improved the benefits for disabled people through the disability working allowance and the disability living allowance. The allowances are targeted on those who have disabilities and who need help with mobility and care. That is a gauge of our determination to help those in need. We are determined to persist with that, but that requires us to make sure that other money is not misspent.
    Mr. Dewar: Does not the Minister recognise that, with unemployment remaining stubbornly high at around 3 million, the impact on the cost of invalidity benefit is bound to be severe, as his own permanent secretary pointed out in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee a couple of years ago? Should not the right hon. Gentleman's anger and concern be concentrated on the Government's economic failure, rather than on those who have been forced on to benefit by ill health? Has the right hon. Gentleman read the remarks—reported in the press on Sunday—of Archbishop Winning, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Glasgow, who commented on the hypocrisy of targeting single parents, the unemployed and the disadvantaged in the name of a moral crusade? Is it not time that the Ministers gave up scapegoat politics and tried to face some of the real issues?
    Mr. Lilley: The only anger that I feel and the only anger that I ever express is at the Opposition, for their scaremongering tactics—for deliberately causing concern among the sick, the elderly and the frailest in our society. Our policies and reforms are intended to help those people, and it is monstrous that they should be used as shock troops for the Labour party, as a substitute for its lack of policy. I entirely agree with the archbishop that no one should target the frail and the vulnerable, single mothers or otherwise, and I have no intention of doing so. We want a better system that will help those who need the help of those better off than themselves.

    Pensioners (Incomes)
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average income of a pensioner with savings in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): Converted to 1991 prices, the average income of a pensioner with savings was £90.10 a week in 1979. That had increased by more than half as much again—to £141.20 per week—by 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Streeter: I thank my hon. Friend for his impressive reply. Does he agree that the present Government have perhaps helped pensioners most of all by getting inflation
    4
    down and keeping it down so that the real value of those pensioners' hard-earned savings is not constantly eaten away by ever-spiralling prices as it was in the late-1970s?
    Mr.Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his compliment and agree with his statements. It is only under this Government that pensioners and future pensioners have had the opportunity and incentive to save on any significant scale. Some 76 per cent. of pensioners now have savings income, and that income, on average, is more than twice pensioners' savings income in 1979. That is a far cry from the days of 1974–79, when the value of pensioner savings income actually fell.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister confirm that a report on households with below average income published by his Department last July revealed that there are nearly 3 million pensioners in this country whose income has either been frozen or cut since 1979? Is not that a national disgrace in a country as wealthy as Britain? Will he also confirm that the average incomes to which he referred excluded housing costs and, above all, the costs of heating houses once the Government have imposed VAT on domestic fuel at the next Budget? Will he now tell the House what protection he offers to those pensioners on income support and to those who get by on incomes slightly above benefit level? That is the burning issue facing the country and the House at the next Budget.
    Mr. Hague: The households below average income figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are available both including and excluding housing costs. Both sets of statistics are freely available. In considering those figures, however, the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that the proportion of pensioners in the bottom quintile—the bottom 20 per cent.—of income distribution is 24 per cent., whereas in 1979 it was 38 per cent. That is a measure of the extent to which pensioners' living standards have improved over that period.
    Mr. David Shaw: Can my hon. Friend confirm that one reason why the average pensioner income has been increasing so dramatically under the Conservative Government is that some 16 million people now save through life insurance schemes and towards second and even third and fourth pensions, and that in the next 20 to 30 years the prosperity of pensioners will constantly increase and improve as a result of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Hague: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says: 61 per cent. of all pensioners and 69 per cent. of recently retired pensioners receive income from an occupational pension. That compares with 43 and 55 per cent. respectively in 1979. A great many more of the pensioners of the future now also have personal pensions as well as occupational pensions and a great many more of them are able to save. That bodes well for pensioners' living standards in the future.
    Mrs. Golding: The Minister will be aware that that still leaves one in seven pensioners relying on state benefits and, as at present calculated, it looks as though a single pensioner's uprating next April may be little more than £1 a week, given the Government's failure to provide an adequate state pension. Will the Minister answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East

    5
    (Mr. McAllion) has just asked him? Will he guarantee pensioners full compensation for the devastating effect that VAT on fuel will have on their household budgets?
    Mr. Hague: All parts of the hon. Lady's question are about the uprating statement, which has still to be made. I am afraid that she and the rest of the House will have to wait for the uprating statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Government have already made it clear, however, that there will be extra help far less well-off pensioners and that that help will be available at the same time as the higher fuel bills arise.

    Income Support
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current take-up of income support.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The latest available estimates of take-up of income support for 1989 show that almost £9 out of every £10 of available income-related benefit was being claimed and almost four out of every five people eligible do claim.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: In what ways has the Benefits Agency responded to the impact of the recession? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the quality of information available to the public?
    Mr. Burt: The Benefits Agency has indeed responded to the need for greater information about benefits. It is now responsible for a wide range of initiatives to increase awareness of entitlement. Exhibitions, talks, liaison with citizens advice bureaux, the operation of multi-lingual telephone freelines and participation in local radio phone-ins all provide information about benefits. We hope that the one-stop shopping initiative will increase the availability of information still further.
    Mrs. Mahon: What does the Minister intend to do about the discrimination in income support against young people under the age of 25? Is he aware that young people in my constituency who live independently are left with about £36 a fortnight to live on and are reduced to going to the Salvation Army with chitties for food?
    Mr. Burt: The majority of young people under 25 who are in receipt of benefit are living with other people, which is why they are on a lower rate than those aged over 25. A continual provision is made by the Government to consider young people in hardship. In particular, a special hardship claim has been increasingly used during the past couple of years because we have increasingly made information about it available.

    Pension Age
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the equalisation of pension ages for males and females; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hague: We have received more than 4,000 representations about the equalisation of state pension ages.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that several other countries are moving towards a common retirement
    6
    age of 66, or even 67? Does he agree that those people who want a common retirement age of 60 should face the fact that that would cost more than £4 billion? Should not the Opposition get off their backsides and go and see the reality of what is happening in, for instance, Sweden and Denmark?
    Mr. Hague: I am aware of the developments in the countries to which my hon. Friend refers. They are subject to many of the same demographic pressures as we are. In this country equalisation at 65 would mean that there would be 2.7 working people to every retired person in the year 2030, but equalisation at 60 would mean a similar support ratio of 1.8 working people to each retired person in that year. So there would be major implications for future expenditure if an age as low as 60 were to be chosen, but that is one of the available options. The Government will announce their decision in due course.
    Dr. Godman: Is the Minister in a position to estimate the effects of equalisation of the payment of pensions to men and women on women aged 60 to 65 who are in receipt of invalidity benefit? Is it his Department's intention to continue with its appeal to the English Court of Appeal concerning Commissioner Skinner's decision to restore invalidity benefit to women aged 60 to 65? Will the Minister answer the question himself?
    Mr. Hague: There has been no change in the Department attitude on that question. Obviously, there are implications for expenditure between the ages of 60 to 65 when we come to consider the equalisation of state pension age, but there is no change in the Government's policy on that matter to announce now.

    Unemployed People
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount is spent from his Department's budget on benefits for unemployed people.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The estimated cost of paying unemployment benefit, income support, housing benefit and social fund payments to the unemployed in the year ending March 1993 was £9·3 billion, representing 12·5 percent. of total benefit expenditure.
    Mrs. Prentice: Does the Minister agree that with 3 million people unemployed at a cost of £9,000 per person —some £27 billion a year—the best way that he and his team could serve the unemployed would be to argue their case forcefully with the Treasury and put the responsibility for unemployment fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those members of the Government responsible for the economic mess that we are in?
    Mr. Scott: The level of unemployment since the end of the second world war has depended on a range of factors, including international conditions, demographic change, technological change—[Interruption.] If the Opposition do not believe that, one of them should stand up and say why unemployment doubled during the period of office of the last Labour Government. A range of other factors affect unemployment. Against the background of some of those factors, we are determined to ensure that we reduce unemployment as quickly as possible. Over the past six months, we have been rather successful in doing so.
    Mr. John Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend estimated the cost of benefits to the unemployed if we were to introduce a national minimum wage or sign up to the social chapter? Would not both of those increase unemployment and spending on the unemployed?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to two factors that would add to unemployment and increase the range of other factors that tend to increase rather than decrease unemployment at any particular point.
    Ms Lynne: Does the Minister accept that more money will have to be found for unemployment benefit if so-called "absent fathers", assessed by the Child Support Agency, find that they cannot stay in work because maintenance payments are so high? Does he accept that the legislation will have to be looked at to ensure that fathers who are already paying are not penalised and that real absent fathers do not get away scot free?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will answer a question precisely on that issue in a moment. I am not anxious to increase the amount of money spent on meeting the needs of unemployed people, except in so far as it encourages them to accept and benefit from training, and to find their way back into work.

    Low-income Families
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra help, over and above normal upratings, has been made available to help low-income families since 1987.
    Mr. Burt: Since 1988, extra help has been made available to low-income families with children, worth around £1 billion a year from April 1993.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and congratulate him and his Department on the extra resources for low-income families. They show the Government's commitment to the family. However, will my hon. Friend look carefully in the ongoing benefits review to ensure that the Government have targeted the most vulnerable and those with young children in real need? Does he agree that we must ensure that taxpayers' money is spent effectively and efficiently?
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend's remarks and hope that I can reassure him that both the social security system and the Government's commitment are designed to target resources in the manner that he would like. In addition to the £1 billion for low-income families, which I mentioned a moment ago, we have also been able to direct an extra £1 billion towards pensioners since 1988 and, over the Government's lifetime, we have been able to orientate an extra £5 billion towards the disabled. We agree with the premises that my hon. Friend stated.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister agree that the effect of the targeting that he has pursued has been to create extremely deep poverty traps for low-income households, particularly those in work, so that at present a low-income family getting help from family credit and housing benefit will lose 97p of every extra pound that it earns? When will the Government act to reverse those absurd poverty traps, which are an appalling disincentive for people in that position?
    Mr. Burt: The particular statistic that the hon. Gentleman quotes applies to a tiny minority of people. The reform of the social security system in 1988, and subsequent changes to the tax and national insurance systems, have virtually eliminated the worst effects of the poverty trap. It is now virtually impossible to be worse off as a result of an increase in gross earnings. The hon. Gentleman knows that he refers to a tiny number of people.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total value of extra help which has been directed to less well-off pensioners since 1989.
    Mr. Hague: The total value of extra help given to pensioners on low incomes since 1989 is now around £1 billion a year.
    Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for stating the large amount of resources that have been given to less well-off pensioners. Does he agree that the Government are right to target help to less well-off pensioners rather than spreading the money more thinly? Does he further agree that successive generations of pensioners are likely to be better off through their own resources? Is that not better than the weasel words of the Opposition, who say that they care about pensioners, but, at the same time, do all that they can to discourage people from taking out personal pensions?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. The Government policy on pensions over the past three years has had three main strands: first, to maintain the value of the basic state pension; secondly, to encourage increased provision from other sources; thirdly, to use the additional resources made available to help those pensioners who have not shared in the increased provision of resources from elsewhere. That policy has had the effect of raising pensioners' average living standards over the period, and will produce greater benefits in future.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister realise the disgust that pensioners feel for the £1 increase in pension that they are to get next year? How will that miserable, miserly sum help those pensioners who will be faced with the imposition of VAT on gas and electricity, many of whom are unlikely to receive any compensation from the Government? Pensioners are being crucified by this Government. The Minister should recognise the disgust and loathing that the elderly feel towards him and his colleagues.
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman anticipates the uprating statement. I wish that he and others of his hon. Friends understood that low inflation is the friend of pensioners and not their enemy. [Interruption.] Although interest rates are low at the moment, they are positive for those who have savings income. In the 1970s, the rate of inflation grew to be 14 per cent. higher than the level of interest rates available to pensioners. What sort of compensation was given by the then Labour Government to pensioners in that position?
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the average income that pensioners have received from savings since 1979 has more than doubled as a result of the policies pursued by the Government? Will he assure the

    9
    House that, in the current review of social security benefits, he will do everything in his power to ensure that we continue to provide the most where the need is greatest?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is quite right: the average savings income of pensioners has more than doubled since 1979. He is also right about the importance of concentrating social security resources on the neediest, and that is what the Government have done.
    Mr. Bradley: Is the Minister aware of the fear among pensioners about the forthcoming imposition of VAT on fuel? Will the Minister confirm today that the help that will be given to pensioners will be additional to the 1.8 per cent., or £1, rise in pensions? Will he further confirm that the help will be given to all pensioners in addition to the £1 a week? Will he ensure that the announcement about the uprating of those benefits is made on the same day as the Budget to allay pensioners' fears even further?
    Mr. Hague: That question is the same as several that have already been asked and I must therefore give the same answer. The Government have already made it clear that less well-off pensioners will be given additional help; the details of that help will be announced at the time of the uprating statement.
    Mr. Knapman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that basic pensions were increased by 3.6 per cent. last April, when the inflation rate was 1.3 per cent? Does that mean that the average pensioner couple is £2 per week better off and does it mean that low inflation benefits pensioner couples?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend has illustrated very well the way in which falling inflation benefited pensioners over the last financial year; their increase was based on the higher rate of inflation that prevailed at the time. The general point has been put very forcefully by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members: low inflation helps pensioners. That is what Opposition Members still do not understand.

    Family Poverty
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of child support legislation on family poverty.
    Mr. Burt: The Child Support Act 1991 laid the foundation for a new system of child support maintenance in order to achieve more maintenance, more regularly, for more children. We expect the proportion of lone parents receiving maintenance nearly to double in the long run. Regular receipt of maintenance will mean that many parents with care no longer have to depend on income support and will have a real choice to work if they are able to do so, thus increasing the family's income.
    Mr. Wicks: Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of lone mothers —and, most important, their children—will not benefit from child support by one extra penny? The 70 per cent. of lone mothers who receive income support will have every pound of child support deducted from their income support, pound for pound. Is not child support now turning into a piece of a taxation? Is not the Child Support Act, in practice, an Exchequer Support Act? Does not this mean-minded practice risk undermining the important principle of parental responsibility?
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman has spoken before about his support for the principles. I accept and am grateful for that: I think that he speaks for everyone.
    This is the position relating to the increasing availability of maintenance. Improving a situation in which maintenance had been in decline, and giving more women the opportunity to receive a portable income, will improve those women's circumstances in the short, medium and long term. As their children become older, the regular payment of maintenance will be a major advantage to them when they seek choices. Even if some are floated off income support in the first place—which is always a possibility when income is increased—the regular availability of more maintenance will be a genuine advantage to them in the years to come. That is the purpose of increasing maintenance and the point of the principle behind the Child Support Act, which the whole House has supported.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank my hon. Friend for his clear enunciation of the purposes behind the Child Support Agency. It is not something for which we should apologise. Are not we right to try to prevent the state from undermining the responsibility of parents and promoting illegitimacy and irresponsibility? Is not it also true, however, that the system must not simply be fair, but must be seen to be fair? Is my hon. Friend entirely satisfied that it is as fair as it can possibly be? Are there mechanisms that we should review and will the Department consider reviewing and monitoring the way in which the legislation is operating?
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, any new piece of legislation must be kept under constant review when it is introduced; that is being done with the Child Support Act, but no changes are contemplated at present.
    I must state clearly that, contrary to some items in the press, the Child Support Agency is indeed chasing fathers who have not been paying, as well as examining cases in which those who have been paying maintenance have not necessarily been paying a realistic amount and in which separation agreements have been largely based on support by the taxpayer. It must be right for us to ask parents to assume responsibility for their children, rather than placing a burden on low-income taxpayers with families of their own. Parents must support their own children wherever possible: that is the principle behind the Child Support Act.
    Mr. Dewar: The Minister will know that the Labour party has a strong belief that every parent must contribute to the maintenance of his or her child. Is not he concerned that the inflexibility of the financial system means that some highly relevant circumstances cannot be taken into account, for example, the cost of exercising access, or major property settlements made at the time of divorce or separation? Does not that—at least in some cases on the face of it—lead to hardship?
    On the important point of helping families, despite what the Minister has said, and while accepting the legitimate interests of the Department to recoup expenses, is not it true that a vast number of children will get no benefit out of that? If we are interested in the children and if that is what the system is about, is not there a strong case that there should be a disregard and some way of giving an advantage from maintenance collected to those who need it most?
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman's continued support for the principles and was pleased to see that this year the Labour party conference reversed its decision of last year to oppose the principles of the Child Support Act. In relation to the two particular points that he mentioned, I reiterate that the regular payment of maintenance for more children will be a long-term benefit for them even if, in the short term, some families are floated off benefit. It must be better that families are not dependent on benefits and that maintenance comes in as a regular source of income, which will increase the opportunities and choices to the family in the future.
    As to the payment of maintenance to the child as a matter of priority, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the formula places the payment of maintenance to the child as the greatest item of priority after an individual absent parent has looked after his own housing costs, his own immediate physical needs and the needs of any natural children in a second family. We believe that it is right to maintain the priority of that payment to the child. Any concession on that principle runs the risk of once again making the payment of maintenance to the child a matter of discretion. That was one of the problems of the previous system which we were anxious to avoid.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the light of experience, it is almost inevitable that some fine tuning will be desirable when a major new agency such as the Child Support Agency is established? Therefore, will he take a detailed look at the rules and not hesitate to change them if he finds that in practice justice is not perfectly being done between the competing interests of the taxpayer, the first family and subsequent families?
    Mr. Burt: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. I shall repeat what I said previously. New legislation is looked after carefully and kept under review. We have no proposals to change the rules, but often the silent voice in the debate over the past few weeks has been that of mothers who previously had not been receiving adequate maintenance regularly. Many of the cases in the papers have shown what low sums of maintenance were previously paid and the need to provide increased maintenance that not only suits mothers with children but relieves the taxpayers who, in many cases, have been an unwitting party to separation agreements and have been asked to provide money that they can ill afford.

    Pensions
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department is planning to encourage personal choice in pensions.
    Mr. Lilley: The Government are committed to encouraging wider choice in pension provision.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is a fact that, since 1988, when it was possible to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, 5 million pensioners have chosen to contract out and have personal pensions? Does not that show and amplify the Government's commitment to personal choice and personal pension schemes and should not we encourage everybody to think more about their future and provide for their twilight years?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. The measures that we took to widen choice for private pension provision have been extremely successful—5 million, or 10 times as many as were initially forecast, have taken out personal pensions following that measure. That is on top of the 10 million or more people who have occupational pensions. We want to build on that success and enable people to build up pension provision for retirement, to give them additional resources over and above those provided by the basic state pension
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is one thing for business executives who have had a 20 per cent. increase in their salaries in the past 13 months and for those who have had tax cuts during the past 14 years to be able to have a personal choice in pensions? But for the great majority of pensioners who will have to put up with a miserly £1 increase as a result of the measures taken by the Government, it will be a scandal. They have not got two ha'pennies to rub together, never mind talking about a personal pension scheme, while it cost £4,000 to bring the Secretary of State back from France to vote in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member may want to see higher inflation so that, by money illusion, people appear to get more, but I remind him that most people do not have, in addition to their basic state pension, the index-linked pension to which he can look forward when he retires from the House. They are jolly glad that we have got inflation down because inflation undermines the value of their savings and robs them. He may be proud of being a supporter of the Government who robbed pensioners of a quarter of their savings in a single year, but we are determined that that should never recur.

    Pensioners (Mortgages)
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the number of pensioners who own their own homes and have repaid their mortgage.
    Mr. Hague: Our latest estimates are for 1990–91 and show that 3.3 million pensioner units owned their own homes and had paid off their mortgages in full.
    Mrs. Roe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that more than 75 per cent. of pensioner homes now have central heating, compared with less than 50 per cent. in 1979, and that almost 90 per cent. of pensioner homes have a telephone, compared with only 50 per cent. in 1979? Does not that show an increase in the standard of living of pensioners under this Government?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend points to some important statistics, which are evidence of the way in which pensioners' living standards have improved, on average, over the past 14 years. She could similarly have pointed to the large increase in the proportion of pensioner households that own a car. All that evidence points in the same way.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases he has referred to the Court of Appeal in the last three months on the ground of unduly lenient sentence.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): In the three months to 30 September 1993, leave was sought to refer eight cases to the Court of Appeal. One of those eight has so far been determined by the Court of Appeal and has resulted in an increase in sentence.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, disappointing though it was. Does he agree that, as the result is so low, to concentrate his mind it might be a good idea if his pay were linked to referrals? Is he also aware that, with judges talking about prosecuting people who have been burgled, we now have mad judge disease? How will he control it, because we know that the lot opposite are crackers and any minute they will catch it?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend will remember that the judiciary is independent. I do not think that my hon Friend completely understood my answer to his question. Of the eight cases that have been referred in the past three months, one has been decided by the court and that resulted in an increase in sentence. In my hon. Friend's terms, that is 100 per cent. and I doubt whether I could do any better.
    Mr. Fraser: Could the Attorney-General tell us, from his unique position, whether the Home Secretary or the judges are correct about the use of prison as a deterrent to crime?
    The Attorney-General: I have taken the trouble, which not many people outside the debate have, to react quite carefully what most of the proponents have said. What is striking, when one reads carefully what has been said by both my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and those who have entered the debate, is that the amount of agreement overwhelmingly outweighs any disagree-ment.
    Mr. Shersby: Is not the most effective deterrent and punishment of offenders arrest, conviction and, in many cases, custody? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the views of the mass of the British public who believe in that and draw it to the attention of Her Majesty's judges?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right: by far the most effective deterrent is the likelihood of being arrested, brought to trial and convicted.I do not think that Her Majesty's judges, or anyone else, need me to draw that to their attention.

    Matrix Churchill
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in the last month on the Matrix Churchill affair.
    The Attorney-General: None.
    Mr. O'Brien: If the Scott inquiry discovered in the course of the evidence that it is taking that there was unlawful conduct or behaviour on the part either of
    14
    Ministers or civil servants, would the Attorney-General, in his position, feel it appropriate to influence in any way the decision whether any prosecutions might take place?
    The Attorney-General: I repeat what I said earlier: if conduct in any circumstances arising out of that inquiry or from anywhere else gives rise to a sufficiency of evidence for a realistic prospect of criminal conviction, such a matter will be brought before the courts without fear, favour, affection or ill will.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) of 21 June, Official Report, column 41, in what proportion of cases the CPS does not consult the police before a case is discontinued.
    The Attorney-General: That information is not centrally recorded, but the Crown Prosecution Service policy is to consult the police in all cases unless it is impracticable to do so.
    Mrs. Knight: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his answer. He will be aware that, too often, both the victim and the investigating officer are not informed of why a case has been discontinued. Will he make it his policy to review the practice so that the victims of crime are not left in the dark, which happens too often at the moment?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In my discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service, it has made it clear to me and I shall make it clear to the House that its policy is to consult the police before discontinuing any case on every occasion where it is practicable. I emphasise that it is not just a question of consulting the administrative support unit or the crime support unit of the police, but that the different agencies such as the police, prosecutors and others in the criminal justice system, while performing their different functions, need to work as a team. It is essential that the information gets back from the CPS to the police, whom it consults, and back to the officer on the case or the officer on the beat so that he or she can refer to the victim and each person involved can understand what is going on, therefore ensuring a better appreciation of the decision in the case.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Attorney-General investigate the concern of the police that, under what I understand are called the criteria for consistent quality, if the papers of a case are out of order in any respect when they reach the CPS, it does not proceed with the prosecution? If that is the case, will he ensure as a matter of urgency that the criteria are reviewed and that all well-founded cases are prosecuted?
    The Attorney-General: I will certainly look into that matter, which I have not heard described under that nomenclature or in such jargon. It ties in closely with what I have been saying. If there is some apparent lacuna in the evidence or in the handling of the case, the Crown Prosecution Service should go back to the police to see whether it can fill the gap and so that the police have the opportunity to go back to the officer on the case so that the gap can be filled.
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Attorney-General what is the complement of the Crown Prosecution Service; and what is the number of staff in post.
    The Attorney-General: The CPS has a current total manpower requirement of 2,281 lawyers, of whom 2,181 were in post on 30 September this year, and 4,386 administrative staff, of whom 4,335 were in post on the same date.
    Mr. Butler: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which should be reassuring in that the figures show nearly a full complement of staff. Does he believe, however, that the CPS is as effective as it might be, even if it is as well staffed as it might be? I draw his attention to the disturbing rise in the number of discontinued cases revealed in the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the summer. Will my right hon. and learned Friend draw that concern, which I know is widely shared in the House and among the public, to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions before next year's report is prepared so that some explanations may be given?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who highlights a point that causes much public concern and which the Director and I have considered very closely. The Crown Prosecution Service is a great deal more effective than it is given credit for. The statistics are often looked at extremely crudely. They represent in part the fact that the CPS is now up to strength and is performing the function of weeding out cases that should not go before the courts, either on evidential grounds or because it is not in the public interest to pursue them, much more effectively than it was able to do in its early days. Equally, I have looked personally at a significant number of cases. I invite hon. Members to look in detail at such cases and, indeed, invite me to do so, because although mistakes are sometimes made—it is a good thing if they are discovered—there is often a good explanation for them which satisfies people. That is why the good liaison, about which I spoke before, is so important.
    Mr. Rooker: Given the large number of legal and administrative staff in the Crown Prosecution Service, why is it necessary to ask a police officer to explain to a victim why a case has been discontinued, when in many cases the officer also has to tell the victim that he does not agree with the case being discontinued? Why cannot the Crown Prosecution Service contact victims direct in such circumstances so that a proper explanation can be given?
    The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the numbers involved, the answer will become clear. Police officers investigate a case and meet the victim in the first place. There are 128,000 police officers, backed by 49,000 civilians in the service. There are 2,000 prosecutors, who handle 100,000 cases in the Crown courts and 1.5 million cases overall. The police obviously should liaise with the victim, but we need good feedback between the prosecutor and officer in the case. That is how we shall achieve what the hon. Gentleman and I want.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Known-how fund
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the work of the know-how fund.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth, Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The purpose of the know-how fund is to support economic and political reform in central and eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states. A list of projects funded under the scheme has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Marshall: Although I thank my hon. Friend for the speed with which the know-how fund makes decisions, does he agree that it is essential for the future development of eastern and central Europe that we should be more willing to trade with such countries? Otherwise, the risk is that some will follow the path of Lithuania and Poland and re-elect a communist Government.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. An improvement in world trade is enormously important to countries throughout the world, including those in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, but the know-how fund is a terrific success and we must sing its praises. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that President Walesa described the know-how fund in these terms:
    "the British do not say much but they do a lot"
    —not words but action.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister explain what use it is for countries that have recently experienced political upheaval to be given money and progaganda on the so-called benefits of extreme Thatcherite policies when what they need is help to recover and develop a reasonable political system?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In referring to extreme Thatcherite policies, the hon. Lady is referring to policies that are enormously popular in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In former Czechoslovakia, for example, the mass voucher privatisation programme has been a terrific technical success as a result of British merchant banks' advice. It was described as
    "the largest and most successful corporate sell-off in the world"
    by the Wall Street Journal. I could give legion examples to the hon. Lady

    British Economy
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the benefits to the British economy from the aid programme.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: British companies benefit substan-tially from contracts financed through the aid programme and from spending by the multinational aid agencies.
    Mr. Butler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, although I had hoped for some figures; perhaps they will appear next time. Does he agree that the benefit is twofold: first, to small and medium-sized British firms; and, secondly, to the intended recipient as it takes control of

    17
    expenditure of the funds given by hard-pressed British taxpayers out of the hands of the corrupt regimes that often cause the problems that we are trying to deal with and leaves it more firmly in the hands of our Overseas Development Administration?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right. Small enterprises such as consultancies and other training providers benefit greatly from delivering services under the overseas aid programme.
    Mr. Meacher: Since British aid is 84 per cent. tied aid —the highest in the European Community—and since the Overseas Development Administration states that every £1 of Britain's multilateral aid produces an extra £1·40 in British exports, are not the Government shooting themselves in the foot with their aid cuts? Will the Minister confirm that, as a result of the Government's two-year freeze in aid, by the year 1995 the aid budget will have fallen to its lowest recorded level of 0.26 per cent.of gross national product—precisely half the figure for 1979? Even if the Government do not care a hoot about aid cuts to the third world, does the Foreign Secretary care about kicking British exports in the teeth, which is what the Government will be doing by making additional cuts in aid in next month's Budget?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There were two factual inac-curacies in what the hon. Gentleman said. He described tied aid as 80 per cent., but it is not. He got his facts wrong —it is 70 per cent. He talked about aid cuts; there have not been aid cuts. The aid programme has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms in the past four years and this year increased in real terms by 1 per cent., so he was wrong again.
    Sir David Steel: No one doubts that the aid programme benefits British industry in the way that the questions on the Order Paper suggest. However, is the Minister concerned that, while the commitment made in the Conservative election manifesto and by the Prime Minister in Rio last year was that we would move towards the United Nations target of the gross national product aid programme, we are moving away from that target even before the present round of spending cuts is completed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we reaffirmed our commitment to meet the target as soon as possible at Rio de Janerio. We have a substantial aid programme which includes all sorts of aid amounting to more than £2 billion a year. That is a significant programme which is deeply respected throughout the world.

    Exports
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the way in which overseas aid contributes to British exports.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Overall export levels depend on many factors, but we estimate that aid-financed visible exports are worth about £1·6 billion a year.
    Mr. Bates: Does my hon. Friend agree that, wherever possible, the British aid budget should be given in the form of British goods and British services? If we do so, we not only target the money that we provide to those people most
    18
    in need, for whom it is designed, but help to strengthen the British economy, which, in turn, will help to maintain and increase our aid budget in future years.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Aid does benefit British investment and British exports considerably. The aid and trade provision currently costs about £100 million a year, finances 35 per cent. of the British cost of the bid and generates three times as much in exports as it costs.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that the questions and answers confirm the concern felt by many in the country that we are using the dictum that charity begins at home and that the issue is not to provide aid to those in need, but how to benefit ourselves?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that everyone knows that charity begins at home, but there is—as the hon. Gentleman and many others recognise—a large part for the aid programme to play.

    Aid Programme
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the British aid programme on British industry.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: British aid benefits British industry, both directly through aid-financed contracts and by helping developing countries become more prosperous trading partners in future.
    Mr. Spring: Bearing in mind the importance of developing the private sector to achieve sustained economic growth in developing economies, what encouragement in our overseas aid programme is given to private direct capital flows?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The aid programme benefits British industry enormously. Our bilateral programme gives about £1.5 billion worth of business to British industry each year. I am glad that there is a terrific amount of British direct private investment in developing countries. Of the European Community countries we make half the direct private investment in developing countries—about £1·7 billion in 1992.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that British industry relies greatly upon peace in the world and on the opening up of new markets? In the circumstances, will he accept that it must be the wish of all hon. Members that aid be now extended to the PLO to assist it to build up viable economies in Gaza and Jericho?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that the British Government wish to give support to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians in every possible way. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman's question will be given careful consideration.

    Aid Balance
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to change the balance of expenditure between bilateral and multilateral aid.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The balance of our aid spending is reviewed every year.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that, generally speaking, bilateral aid is more efficient than multilateral aid and should be protected?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's implication that our bilateral aid is extremely well spent on well-targeted and designed programmes. He makes the point that he would like it to be a higher proportion of the overall aid commitment, but he should bear in mind the fact that in some cases multilateral aid is a useful lever. For example, we have managed to persuade the European Community to adopt a family planning resolution; we therefore affected the whole of European Community policy in an important area and we are bringing to fruition policies that we believe in by persuading other member states to adopt them as part of the multilateral effort.
    Mr. Battle: Does the Minister agree, as there has been a shift towards multilateral aid, that Government bilateral aid is falling further behind each year? If the aid programme is so beneficial to the British economy, why on earth does the Minister propose that it be cut in the Budget?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions on the level of multilateral aid in the European Community are taken by the EC, not by the British Government. That is a fact of life which we respect, but we also have a high regard for the quality of our own programme which, I think, is often even better directed.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Not yet.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement about revised business for Wednesday 20 October.
The business for that day will now be: consideration of Lords amendments to the National Lottery etc.Bill.
Business for the remainder of the week will remain as announced.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Before the House begins questions, I remind all hon. Members that this is a very narrow statement, relating only to the change of business for one day. Questions should therefore be related to the change of Wednesday's business and to seeking clarification about that.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House clarify whether it is the intention to reschedule Wednesday's business in the near future? Given the debate taking place in the country and in the press on issues such as the level of crime and the consequences of the Government's lack of an energy policy, I hope that he can find time for that.
Madam Speaker: Order. I gave hon. Members a good indication of what the question was about, and I hope that they will heed that.
Mr. Newton: As the day in question is an Opposition Day, the right hon. Lady may have been suggesting the subjects for it that she has in mind, and I am duly grateful for that. As for whether she will get an Opposition day before too long, I would not expect her to wait beyond next week.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Having rearranged the business for next Wednesday, can my right hon. Friend squeeze into that day a debate on the decision on women priests, in view of the concern in the country about this subject?
Mr. Newton: I do not know whether I can "squeeze in" that matter on Wednesday, but I do hope to be able to find time for it before too long.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Leader of the House has been kind enough to say that he has pulled Opposition business for this week. He is usually keen to let us know with as much notice as possible when debates will take place, so can he tell us now when Opposition business will be discussed before the end of term—and all other dates that will be helpful to planning?
Mr. Newton: That was a good try. The hon. Gentleman is kind to say how helpful I try to be. I can give him a little help: I do not expect him to have to wait much longer than the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for the day that he wants.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the rearrangement of Wednesday's business gives us an opportunity to consider the national lottery, can the Leader of the House say whether the Secretary of State will be able to tell us whether the lottery will still be viable, given the additional
22
social chapter regulations which the Government agreed on Tuesday—regulations which we were told during the Maastricht debate and at the party conference would add enormously to the costs of industry?
Will the Secretary of State be able to say what the additional costs for British industry and the lottery of these astonishing proposals will be? We had understood that the Government were going to block or endeavour to veto them; instead, with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), they let them through without a fight.
Mr. Newton: Collectively, the House had obviously come back in what can only be described as an ingenious frame of mind. I am not sure whether the Minister will have a great report to make on that matter, but I shall draw to his attention the fact that my hon. Friend will expect one.
Mr. Boby Cryer: Will Wednesday's business go on after 10 o'clock, and will there be a resolution to permit that? There is no doubt that the National Lottery etc. Bill was unsatisfactorily drafted and has given rise to a great deal of debate and argument about the allocation of the moneys. For example, there has been no explanation about the allocation to the film industry, and members of that industry and the British Film Institute are highly dissatisfied about allocation through the Arts Council.
In view of that, we should have a good amount of time to debate the legislation and, even though we shall be debating Lords amendments, there should be no attempt to get it through by 10 o'clock. The House should have sufficient time to go into the matter in some detail.
Mr. Newton: I anticipate that the arrangements for this matter will provide adequate time. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage the fact that, if he can provide a satisfactory answer for the hon. Gentleman, the time will be shorter than would otherwise be required.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when there is an Opposition debate, it would be a good idea to have it about housing, in view of the latest local government—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. That is a good question for Thursday's business, but it is not a question for today.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Could the Leader of the House explain why he has selected that business for Wednesday in view of all the problems in the country, such as those in the coal industry?
Mr. Newton: The obvious reason for choosing that business for Wednesday is that we wish to get the National Lottery etc. Bill through so that it can provide assistance to a wide range of good causes.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As the National Lottery etc. Bill is designed to benefit the arts and sport, may we be assured that, on Wednesday, it will be universally supported in the House so that the legislation will be quickly dispatched and money can be given to the arts and sport?
Mr. Newton: I take that as an exhortation to those such as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), and I hope that they will heed my hon. Friend's wise words.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Could Wednesday's business be delayed, if only for a few minutes, to allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the report of the inquiry—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is a good try, and if the hon. Gentleman catches my eye on Thursday I might allow him to put it then. However, it is not in order today.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the alteration of Wednesday's business mean that this Session will end any sooner? We have been back for just over an hour and people would like to know when the Session is to end.
Mr. Newton: I dare say they would. I shall be in a better position to answer that question when we have judged the mood in which the House has returned for the spillover.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recognise that the coal industry has been the subject of a lottery for the past 12 months?
Madam Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a clear indication of the statement's limit. He knows the rules of the House, and I am sure that he will come to the point right away.
Mr. Skinner: Will he agree to a special clause in the National Lottery etc. Bill so that we can argue the coal industry's case? That case went by default because the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was more concerned about saving his job than the jobs of the 30,000 miners.
Mr. Newton: If I have understood the question aright, the answer is no.

Coal Industry
3.39 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, mine safety.
My interests in that matter have been frequently declared. My argument today is not related to legalities, but concerns the role and relevance of this House. The matter is serious, because it relates to peril of death and risk of injury in mining operations today. It is both specific and urgent, because there should be immediate concern about the order slickly laid by Ministers immediately after the House rose for the summer recess, which allowed British Coal to act with alacrity and announce that the new arrangements would take effect before the House had an opportunity to consider the matter, and before British Coal had published the relevant codes of practice.
The kernel of the case may lie in a debate on mine safety that took place in the House on 25 April 1989. During that debate, I referred to comments by the senior responsible board member, whom I quoted as saying:
"My managers will not slavishly follow the code of practice … I will send out instructions that will supersede these codes."—[Official Report, 25 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 915.]
That statement appeared to make it quite clear that British Coal, not Parliament, would determine the rules of safe practice in the industry.
The next day, British Coal issued a statement which, I recall, did not exactly deny my quotation, but which appeared to make it clear that British Coal would not act in a manner contemptuous of this House. However, it has done so in support of new rules that go far beyond its suggestion to the Select Committee that it simply wanted the removal of the 1908 Act.
Since then, Ministers have publicly suggested that the new arrangements are an improvement, and that they followed protracted consultation. However, those Ministers were aware, and should have acknowledged, that those consultations created great uncertainty, deep anxiety and extensive doubt, and that they received downright rejection from large sections of the industry.
Given the assurances on mine safety offered to this House by the President of the Board of Trade in March, we are entitled to suggest that Ministers, as well as British Coal, have acted unworthily. Things have been done that are at worst deplorable and at best suspect. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I believe that my request is entirely justified.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said, but I must give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.42 pm
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to supply a Member of Parliament with inaccurate information? I refer specifically to the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) and the fact that a former civil servant—Mr. Mark Higson, an Iraq desk officer—stated that a draft reply to my letter of 3 May 1989 was misleading because the truth was untenable.
Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman not to come to the House to make a statement on that matter? Is it in order for him to ignore the facts and mislead hon. Members in such a way?
Madam Speaker: I cannot hear points of order involving allegations of inaccurate answers or statements. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the House has been deliberately misled, he must deal with the matter by way of substantive motion—as I think he knows—and not by a point of order to me at this stage.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I recently received representations from a constituent who had been too ill to make them previously —and, as you know, I have also been ill and therefore unable to raise the matter earlier. In the light of those circumstances and the detailed arguments set out in a letter that I delivered to your office today, will you now consider the contents of that letter and then return to the House and rule as follows?
First, will you rule that the motion carried on 23 July 1993—
"That this House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy"—
was invalid in so far as it related to the question of adopting the social protocol, because a motion on that matter had been defeated only the previous day? It is contrary to the long-established rules and procedures of Parliament to attempt to reinstate a negatived resolution or decision within the same Session. I refer the House to the chapter of "Erskine May" that deals with the process of debate.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, will you rule that the motion carried on 23 July was invalid because insufficient notice—only a matter of hours—was given; and, thirdly,
26
that the motion carried on 23 July, being null and void for the reasons I have given, did not comply with the terms of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which is accordingly not yet in force?
This is a very detailed matter, and I believe that you, Madam Speaker, will require some time to consider the letter carefully. I do not expect any decision today.
Madam Speaker: That is most kind of the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I have not yet even seen his letter. However, I will read it carefully. If the need arises, I will make a statement—but only if the need arises.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to access to the House. In keeping with many of my colleagues in Norman Shaw South, I am horrified by the new barriers that have been placed between us and the House. Eight minutes is not long, and if someone has a faulty card, that could lead to such a delay that some right hon. and hon. Members may not be able to reach the Lobbies in time.
Furthermore, when I passed through those monstrosities this morning, I was told by a police officer, "It really isn't suitable sir, for you to bring luggage through here." Is it seriously suggested that right hon. and hon. Members emerging from the underground station carrying luggage will have to walk to the New Palace Yard entrance? Will you, Madam Speaker, please order the removal of those gates and revert to the use of the police officers?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand the feeling of the House on this matter, and I want no further points of order on it.
I have examined the matter over many months. I do not like the reason for the gates, but I believe that it is appropriate to have them. There is a gate at the side that does not require card access, if the hon. Gentleman wants to use it. I do not discuss security matters across the Floor of the House. I will consider the matter further if the hon. Gentleman wants me to do so and, if I think it necessary, will refer the question of Division time to the appropriate Committee. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that security matters should not be discussed across the Floor of the House.

Statement on the Defence Estimates
[Relevant documents: The Ninth Report from the Defence Committee on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993, HC 869 of Session 1992–93; Eighth Report from the Defence Committee on Royal Navy: Commitments and Resources, HC 637.]
Madam Speaker: Despite the fact that this is a two-day debate, I have to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches made between 6 pm and 8 pm.
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that you selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which had to be tabled before the House rose in July if it were to be debated. Today, I tabled an amendment having the support of several other hon. Members, which I hope you will study and consider for debate tomorrow, so that my amendment also may be voted on tomorrow evening.
Madam Speaker: I am always willing to consider motions that right hon. and hon. Members put on the Order Paper. I spend a good deal of my time each morning doing precisely that.
3.48 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993 contained in Cm. 2270.
I welcome the opportunity today to talk about the issues raised by the White Paper, "Defending our Future", which was published earlier this year. As the House will be aware, the three months since that White Paper was published have seen momentous events in many parts of the world —events that are of direct concern to the security of this country. It is therefore right and proper that, on this, the first day on which the House is sitting following the Recess, we should be addressing defence, which is the fundamental concern of any Government.
"Defending our Future" makes clear in a way that we have never done before how we go about defence planning. It sets out the results of a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, and the tasks that those forces are likely to be asked to carry out. It reflects internal work that shows, through the detailed identification and listing of various military tasks, that we have at present the right balance of forces to undertake those tasks.
"Defending our Future" shows also the adjustments that we have made over the past 12 months to bring our forces into line with changes in the international situation. The increase in infantry, the ordering of the helicopter carrier and the confirmation of the Eurofighter are all improvements in capability that will be required in the future, which will enable us to balance our capabilities with our commitments.
This is not just an intellectual exercise. It is fundamental to our confidence in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force that we know that we have the resources to enable them to carry out the tasks expected of them, to carry them out not only adequately but to the high standard of effectiveness and success that this nation has come to expect.
28
The armed forces are, of course, in the middle of the biggest reorganisation of their structure and size since 1945. It is a formidable task, and it applies with equal significance to the Ministry of Defence itself. There have been suggestions recently that we have more civil servants in the Ministry of Defence than fighting men in the armed forces. That is incorrect. Current plans envisage armed forces of some 240,000 while the number of civil servants will fall to 135,000 and keep falling as efficiency improves and other reforms are implemented. I shall set out a number of areas in which our policy has been developed since the White Paper was published, but I shall first say something about recent developments in Russia and the continuing crisis in the former Yugoslavia.
We shall never forget the scenes that we have recently witnessed in Moscow. I was in Moscow when President Yeltsin brought to a head his long-running confrontation with the Russian Parliament. Since then, he has been forced to take action against those who were using violence to exploit Russia's fragile democracy for thoroughly dangerous and non-democratic ends. No one in this House would welcome the sight of a Parliament building under fire and ablaze, but let there be no doubt about what was at stake. The Russian Parliament was a discredited and undemocratic body, and its leaders were preventing progress towards full and free elections of the kind that we understand.
Russia is now at a vital stage in the development of its democratic institutions. That is why the Government have been steadfast in their support for President Yeltsin as he guides that country through its historic transition from Soviet-style institutions to a new modern constitution. That is the process of democratic reform, and we are committed to it.
Mr. Corbyn: Before the Secretary of State gets carried away with his own propaganda, should he not be aware that the Russian Parliament was elected in a free election, exactly as President Yeltsin was elected, and that the Parliament worked with him to defend the country against the attempted coup in 1991? Is it not the case that what is happening in Russia is the destruction of parliamentary democracy, an end to freedom of the press and the wholesale arrests of people who dare to speak out against the market policies of President Yeltsin? Should there not be a slightly more even-handed approach by western Governments towards what is happening in Russia?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should be well aware that the Russian Parliament was elected under the old Soviet constitution. I should be astonished if anyone, including him, were to describe that as a democratic electoral process. President Yeltsin, however, was elected on a one man, one vote, basis by the Russian electorate, and submitted his policies to a referendum of the Russian people. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that fact.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Russian Parliament, however it was elected, is more democratic than the House of Lords up the road?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not certain that I want to make such a comparison, but the other place in this country is subject to the democratic wishes of the elected Chamber; I do not believe that the Russian Parliament could claim such a status.

29
At the same time, the events to which I referred remind us that we are in a period of unprecedented uncertainty, and that the progress that Russia has made is based on fragile foundations. Russia risked a reversal of the positive steps that she has made down the democratic path. Had it happened, the people of Russia would have lost the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of a free and democratic society.
Such a development would have brought into power an unstable and profoundly undemocratic Government, by no means sympathetic to the West, and with controls of formidable arsenals of nuclear and conventional weapons. Even worse would have been the implications if the Russian armed forces had divided their loyalties between President Yeltsin and Vice-President Rutskoi, with the danger of Russia slipping into civil war.
It is therefore vital that we underpin our support for the democratic process by continuing with our programme of defence co-operation with Russia, and with central and eastern Europe. We have taken a number of initiatives, including the offer of assistance to Russia with military resettlement, a key element in trying to minimise disaffection among the large numbers of military personnel who will need to find employment in the civil economy. While in Moscow, I signed a protocol with the Defence Minister, General Grachev, on co-operation in that area. The United Kingdom will also provide assistance to Russia on the safe transportation of surplus nuclear warheads.
More widely, we have signed memoranda on extensive programmes of defence contracts with the Czech Republic, with Hungary, with Poland, with Slovakia and, most recently, with Ukraine, where, during my visit to Kiev, I also signed an agreement on co-operation. We are also developing a defence relationship with Albania, with the Baltic states, with Bulgaria and with Romania.
It cannot be stressed too much to the House that, in the past, during the period of the Warsaw pact, although there were occasional contracts at the political level, very few of the military of any of the Warsaw pact powers had any personal contact with their western military colleagues. At one stage, I asked General Grachev how many NATO Ministers he had met before the end of the cold war, during his whole career; he said, "None." That emphasises the huge work that needs to be done to show the Russian military—a very powerful force in the contemporary affairs of that country—co-operation with the west and the proper role of the armed forces in a free and democratic society.
Mr. George Walden: Obviously, I approve of everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the Soviet Union, and especially about helping the Russian army to run itself down. However, I hope that he will say something later in his speech about the inevitable need to help people in the defence industries in this country, which will, inevitably and rightly, be run down, to transfer their skills—sometimes very high-grade skills—to the civilian sector.
Mr. Rifkind: That is, of course, already happening in a substantial way. I do not for a moment believe that we can direct the private sector companies on how they go about the process of adjustment. However, we can pay tribute to the way in which defence industries, even at this time, have identified substantial export opportunities. Many have diversified in a variety of ways. It is for them to take on
30
board the responsibility of adjusting their companies to the new international situation and to the likely demand for their products.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Does the Secretary of State realise that no one is asking him to direct the defence-related industries when he is asked to safeguard, in the national interest, the long-term capacity of the British defence-related industries to be able to supply Her Majesty's forces, in exactly the way that he would want, for whatever tasks they are called to fulfil? With that in mind, does he not think that it is necessary to renew the five-year explosives, propellants and related products—EPREP—procurement arrangements? Does he not think that it is necessary to establish a proper strategy for defence diversification in partnership with Royal Ordnance?
Does not the Secretary of State accept that the European Community's KONVER programme is applicable to defence-related industries in Britain? They could use that programme profitably and productively to national advantage, they could save jobs and they could sustain the level of dependable production in the way that the forces would want, if only the Government would willingly participate in such arrangements.
Mr. Rifkind: I have two points for the right hon. Gentleman. First, the main way in which defence industries' interests can be safeguarded is by rejecting the £6 billion cuts in our defence expenditure for which the Labour party conference called. That would so devastate defence industries throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman condemns such a policy.
The second area on which I must respond to the right hon. Gentleman is that it must be for the defence industries themselves, as private sector companies, to develop their strategy for dealing with the interests of their companies and of their shareholders. The idea that the Government can somehow take the lead in such a matter goes quite against the whole philosophy that this country has experienced over the years. Any alternative approach would be disastrous for the interests of those companies, suggesting a degree of interference that is quite incompatible with their private sector status. The right hon. Gentleman should take that into account.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Rifkind: No. I must continue my remarks.
Assistance to Russia is not driven by altruism alone. It is squarely in our national security interest that we foster friendly defence links with our former adversaries in the east. It is simply not enough to wish them well: we must be ready with practical help.
There is also much talk of expansion of NATO itself. The issue will undoubtedly be discussed at the forthcoming NATO summit, which will provide an excellent opportunity to reaffirm at the highest level that NATO, and the transatlantic link that it embodies, is indispensable to European security. The alliance remains the focus for stability across Europe. When we come to consider the future size and shape of the alliance, we must not be tempted into hasty or ill-thought-out decisions but must consider carefully all the ramifications of such a step.
Our overriding concern should be to ensure that, whatever steps we take, they do not unintentionally create

31
new divisions within Europe. Above all, we must strive to find ways of enhancing the security of all European nations —the alliance's existing members, the countries of central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, including Russia itself. Russia as a democratic, peaceful, open society is the great prize to be won. If that is achieved, it will enhance the security of Europe as a whole.
I shall now turn to developments in the former Yugoslavia. While the search for peace continues, we remain committed to playing a major part in the humanitarian effort. Our battalion group in Bosnia has continued with its task in difficult and often dangerous conditions. Since the operation started last year, it has escorted 1,541 convoys, delivering a total of 70,000 tonnes of aid, despite the fierce fighting which has raged between Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia around Vitez and Gorni Vakuf, where our troops are based.
There have been several incidents in which the warring factions have fired at or near British troops and installations, but only one recent incident has resulted in a relatively serious injury to a British soldier, who is now recovering in the United Kingdom. I can reassure the House once again that British forces are entitled to use all the considerable firepower at their disposal should they come under fire—as they have had to do several times in recent weeks.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I have recently visited British forces in the area. My hon. Friend will, I know, give the House an account of that visit later in the debate. I can only say for myself that what we are achieving in Bosnia—securing the delivery of aid against all the odds, often through the exercise of improvised street diplomacy in very threatening circumstances—ranks among the highest achievements of the British armed forces in recent years.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does the Secretary of State accept that survival rations for the people of Bosnia are not getting through in sufficient amounts? My hon. Friends the Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), and for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) and I spent three days in Sarajevo last week. We were told by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees officials that although the survival—I emphasise "survival"—rations per day were 600 g per person, with the onset of winter people are receiving only between 200 g and 300 g.
May I suggest that the policy is not working? The idea that Sarajevo is a safe haven is a cruel joke against the people of Bosnia. Shells are falling. We visited the hospitals. People are killed and wounded. With respect, the policy is a failure.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will want to reflect on the conclusion that he reached. The reality is that, but for the aid programme that has been implemented, hundreds of thousands of people who are alive today would be dead. That is the simple fact.
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that of course perfection has not been achieved. In the middle of a civil war, it would be remarkable if all the aid got through to every person who would benefit from it. The hon. Gentleman may be right to say that, in certain localities, some of the aid has been prevented from reaching its
32
destination. But to suggest that therefore the policy has failed is a wicked misrepresentation of all that has been achieved in the past year.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Sarajevo is supposed to be a UN-protected safe area. How is it, then, that the UN can stand aside and watch 500 shells fall on Sarajevo in a single day, and that, even in a quiet period, about 150 shells can land on a supposed UN-protected safe area? Is that not a failure?
Mr. Rifkind: The United Nations can operate only under its present mandate. At present, it is there in a humanitarian role. It has shown remarkable skill and persistence and has achieved success in getting a vast amount of aid through to those who need it. In each area where there have been problems, they have required patient diplomacy, considerable personal courage and great persistence. In the vast majority of cases, that aid has got through, as the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) would be the first to confirm.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman maintain that argument were he a citizen of Sarajevo?
Mr. Rifkind: If I were a citizen of Sarajevo, I would be conscious not only of the huge amount of aid that had arrived in the city, but of that which had not yet arrived. I would quite properly refer to both.
I take no exception to hon. Members commenting that not all the aid has got through, but I part company with the conclusion that the policy has failed because only between 70 and 80 per cent of the aid has reached those for whom it was intended, rather than 100 per cent.
One must take into account the fact that, in a civil war, that is a pretty remarkable achievement. One need only compare what the UN has achieved in Bosnia in humanitarian terms with what has not been achieved—hardly even attempted—in Angola, where just as vicious and nasty a civil war is going on, to appreciate what a remarkable amount has been achieved.
With the onset of winter, the UN's humanitarian task in Bosnia will become all the more important: and this winter threatens to be more difficult than last for the victims of the fighting. The mildness of last winter's weather is unlikely to be repeated, the position on indigenous supplies is much worse, and people's health is poorer.
We shall continue our humanitarian work this winter. The Government will replace the current battalion group when its tour of duty ends in November. The Prince of Wales Own Regiment of Yorkshire will be replaced by the 1st battalion of the Coldstream Guards. The squadron of Light Dragoons will be replaced by another squadron from the same regiment, and the Engineer squadron will be replaced by a similar unit from 38 Engineer Regiment. All the units which will be returning have served with great distinction, and the House will want to join me in congratulating them.
All the new units will serve for six months. I should also add that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force continue to support embargo operations and to police the skies over the Adriatic and Bosnia, and that RAF and naval aircraft and helicopters play a key role in delivering humanitarian aid and in casualty evacuation.
I will now discuss wider defence policy matters, starting with nuclear issues. "Defending our Future" confirms the

33
Government's belief, in common with our allies.in NATO, that nuclear forces will continue to play an indispensable part in preserving peace. We would be foolhardy in the extreme to ignore the continued existence of the large arsenal of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, or the possibility of proliferation in the future.
The Trident programme remains on course: I am pleased to announce that the first submarine, HMS Vanguard, was accepted into Royal Navy service on 14 September, and Victorious was rolled out on 29 September. Construction of the other two submarines is proceeding well.
I hope that, when the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) opens the debate on behalf of the Opposition, he will condemn, in the most unambiguous and unequivocal terms, the policy of his party at its recent conference when it called for the immediate cancellation of Trident and the ending of our nuclear capability.
Dr. David Clark indicated assent.
Mr. Rifkind: I note that the hon. Gentleman confirms that that is what he intends to do, and we look forward to judging how unequivocal and unambiguous his statement is, particularly given his own part in the work of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, an organisation that he has never yet confirmed that he has left.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said that we need Trident and other nuclear capabilities in case there is a threat from Russia and the former Soviet Union. Would he care to educate the House about how he seeks to deter a threat from a country with which, as he boasted just a few minutes ago, he has signed a defence co-operation agreement?
Mr. Rifkind: I would not suggest that there is any threat from the current Russian Government—of course not. We have extremely friendly relations with a democratic Russia. The right hon. Gentleman should just imagine, however, what might have happened if President Yeltsin had not won his recent confrontation. Imagine if Russia was today ruled by Mr. Khasbulatov and 11,000 strategic nuclear warheads were under his control. Imagine if such a Government sought to reassert their control and authority over the newly independent republics of the old Soviet Union, sought to threaten the Baltic states and to undertake other acts of adventurism.
The reality is that Russia remains a huge military nuclear super-power. At the moment, it has 11,000 strategic nuclear warheads; even if, in 10 years' time, it fully complies with all its obligations—which we are sure, under President Yeltsin, it would wish to do—it will still have more than 3,000 strategic warheads. Therefore, unless the right hon. Gentleman can predict with confidence the future of Russia, his remarks cannot be taken in the way that he would wish.
Mr. Winston Churchill: My right hon. and learned Friend has stated the potential threat with which the former Soviet Union could confront us under different leadership.
The Conservative party, like Conservative Governments, traditionally has regarded its prime raison d'etre as the defence of the realm. Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain how, after 14 years of Conservative government, national security expenditure has increased
34
by £1 billion while social security expenditure has increased in real terms by £29 billion? That is more than the entire defence budget.
If the Chancellor must look for areas in which to cut expenditure, should not he look first at the abuse of social security?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not wish to comment on what the appropriate level of social security expenditure should be. One can point to the effective way in which the Government have been responsible for the defence of the realm during the past 14 years. Conservative Governments have never treated defence lightly, and I believe that they never will.
The White Paper has also confirmed our commitment to maintaining an effective long-term sub-strategic nuclear capability. I told the House some months ago that we were considering how best to provide this once the WE177 free-fall bomb is withdrawn from service. Our considerations were completed during the recess, and I am able to announce our conclusions today.
A sub-strategic capability remains necessary, because a potential adversary might gamble, under certain circumstances, on our reluctance to launch an all-out strategic nuclear strike in response to his aggression. It is vital, therefore, that we possess the ability to undertake more limited nuclear action, to be able to deliver an unequivocal message to an aggressor that he must cease his aggression and withdraw or face the risk of even greater damage. A sub-strategic capability forms an essential link between conventional and strategic forces, as part of our clear demonstration that aggression of any kind is not a rational option.
The United Kingdom's sub-strategic capability is currently provided by the WE177 bomb carried on Tornado dual-capable aircraft. In the mid to late 1980s, we saw the need to enter into the early development of a sophisticated stand-off weapon which would be able to penetrate the increasingly effective Warsaw pact defences, and which would replace the current bomb. The type of system we began to examine is known as a tactical air-to-surface missile, or TASM.
The security circumstances have changed fundamentally since then. As a consequence, we have concluded that our previous requirement for a new stand-off nuclear weapon capability is not a sufficiently high priority to justify the procurement of a new nuclear system in the current circumstances. Instead, we will plan, after the WE177 eventually leaves service in the long term, on exploiting the flexibility and capability of the Trident system to provide the vehicle for the delivery of our sub-strategic deterrent.
The Trident system is undetectable, reliable, and accurate in its delivery and can carry our sub-strategic as well as strategic capacity at little additional cost. That is set against what would be the high cost of developing a new system. We have no doubt that it will be admirably suited to the additional role.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend is announcing an exceedingly important decision, which will effectively end the historic role of the Royal Air Force as the primary instrument of at least sub-strategic deterrence.
Why have the Government come to a different conclusion from the defence strategists of France, the

35
United States and Russia, as those countries have an air-launched capability that they wish to retain? Why are we doing so at a time when nuclear proliferation is a manifest threat, and when all sorts of tinpot dictators can get their hands on nuclear weapons? Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that the threat of Trident is the appropriate response to them? Is not the right response a flexible and visible dual-capable system such as an air-launched weapon?
Mr. Rifkind: The present capability of the Royal Air Force can continue, under present plans, into the next century. I am not announcing a proposal that is about to be implemented. The WE177 carried by the Tornado aircraft is due, under current plans, to continue in operation, with the Royal Air Force responsible for its sub-strategic capability, into the first few years of the next century. I am referring to what is likely to be the sensible and desirable way of dealing with our long-term requirements over a much longer period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) also referred to the circumstances of other countries. He will be aware that in France, which for a number of years has had its nuclear weapons provided by land, sea and air, serious consideration is being given to reducing nuclear potential by one whole category.
We must take into account the fact that it is right and proper that we should adapt our nuclear policy to the very changed circumstances that exist in the post-cold war world. We must get the balance right. We must recognise that there continues to be a potential serious threat from other nuclear powers, and that we must therefore retain our nuclear weapons and our capability to respond both at the strategic and at the sub-strategic level, but to say that we can do so only using the same type and range of weapons that were necessary during the worst years of the cold war would not be justified—nor would that be a proper use of the resources that we have in terms of our other priorities.
Mr. Bill Walker: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's comments about nuclear weapons, but is he saying that the Royal Air Force will not be in receipt of a stand-off weapon capability for conventional delivery? I hope that he is not, but if he is, let me just remind him of the Fairey Battles that had to attack bridges in 1940 because then, too, we had the wrong equipment and the wrong aircraft.
Mr. Rifkind: I can assure my hon. Friend that my remarks refer to nuclear weapons, not conventional weapons: I am not announcing any change of policy with regard to future plans for the conventional capability of the Royal Air Force. I am referring purely to its nuclear capability.
Dr. John Reid: May I welcome the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) back after his illness?
It seems to me that there is a little confusion here. As most of us in the House understood it, the tactical air-to-surface missile was to be the same missile, irrespective of whether it carried a conventional or a nuclear warhead. Is the Secretary of State telling us today that that missile has been cancelled, and therefore that the conventional system that would have accompanied the
36
missile for the RAF has also been cancelled? I cannot interpret his remarks in any other way, and clearly the hon. Member for Tayside, North has made the same interpretation.
Mr. Rifkind: What I am saying is quite clear. In the 1980s, we had been considering meeting our future sub-strategic nuclear requirements by means of the tactical air-to-surface missile system. We are no longer planning on that basis. The matter has been reviewed over the past year, and my announcement today is limited to our sub-strategic nuclear capability. I do not think that I can make it any clearer than that.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned balanced forces. Does he not agree that, having implemented "Options for Change", which produced a considerable cut in our conventional forces—in some cases going further than was perhaps strictly practicable—it would be fatal at this stage to make a further cut, of the order of £1 billion, in those conventional forces?
Mr. Rifkind: The White Paper published some months ago clearly stated the kind of commitments that we have and the way in which we are meeting them. Clearly, in any deliberation concerning future policy, we must examine responsibily and comprehensively both our armed forces' commitments and the best way in which we can meet them. Those are matters on which it is quite proper that there should be an on-going debate.
Dr. Reid: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rifkind: I will later.
Dr. Reid: On this point—
Mr. Rifkind: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Reid: I am not attacking the Secretary of State, but this is one of the most important announcements that he will be making today. It seems to me that he is confusing the warhead and the missile. TASM was a tactical air-to-surface missile. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that he proposes to cancel the sub-strategic nuclear warhead. Is he cancelling the missile —yes or no?
Mr. Rifkind: I am making no announcement today other than with regard to our nuclear capability. If I wished to make further announcements, or if we had reached further conclusions, I would be happy to report them to the House, but I have nothing else to tell the hon. Gentleman about that subject.
Although we shall not proceed as previously planned with a new stand-off weapon to replace the WE177, we remain committed to safeguarding our national capability to design, develop and produce nuclear weapons in the future. It is important to recognise that judgments made now about circumstances in the next century must inevitably be provisional. We shall therefore continue to keep our sub-strategic requirements under review, in close consultation with our allies in NATO, so that we can respond, if necessary, to future changes in the international situation.
I should mention the underground nuclear test conducted by China on 5 October. Given the background

37
of restraint in testing by the other nuclear powers, we find the Chinese action regrettable. A ban on nuclear underground tests that is not observed by all nuclear powers is of little value. We are committed to working constructively for a comprehensive test ban treaty, which will make a genuine contribution to non-proliferation.
The prospect of an effective test ban treaty in the not too distant future is one aspect of the new environment into which we are moving. Indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty in 1995 would be another very positive development. Regrettably, there are also new risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including the possibility of the illegal production of chemical and biological weapons, and we must ensure that our plans, along with those of our allies, are effective in countering them.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Rifkind: No. I must continue.
The development of our forces to respond to the changing international situation concerns not just our regular forces but also our reserves. "Defending Our Future" makes it clear that we regard the reserves as providing an invaluable contribution to our defence capability, and that we have been involved in a series of detailed studies. I am sure that the House will welcome a report on what has happened since the publication of the White Paper.
We have decided that the time has come to make arrangements to deploy reserves much more widely in operational roles in peacetime. Last week we published a consultative document, "Britain's Reserve Forces: A Framework for the Future", setting out our concept in more detail. The proposals in it provide a basis for consultation, and comments and views from all those with an interest will be welcomed. I will mention three important areas covered by that document.
First, the reserves will have, under our proposals, the opportunity to signify their willingness to be deployed on or in support of operations, in circumstances where compulsory call-out is not justified. That will be managed through a ready reserve list. Such reserves might be used in peacekeeping or humanitarian operations. It will be entirely voluntary, and responds to a long-expressed wish by the reserves for more frequent use of their skills.
Secondly, we propose two new categories of reserve: a high readiness reserve, consisting of individuals who would voluntarily assume an increased call-out liability and who would receive an extra bounty; and a sponsored reserve, consisting of civilians working in defence support areas such as industry, who might agree to take on a volunteer reserve liability.
Thirdly, and particularly important, the document looks at the impact of those proposals on the tripartite relationship between the Government, the reservist and his or her employer, and puts forward some ideas for change.
The proposals in the new document form a policy framework for the use of reserves. Their implementation would require primary legislation, for which we hope to be ready to seek parliamentary time in the 1994–1995 Session.
Our work on the operational requirement for the Army's reserves, and hence the size and shape of the Territorial Army, is continuing. I am conscious of the uncertainty that that causes the Territorial Army, and I assure the House
38
that an announcement will be made as soon as our proposals are ready. I am ensuring that those conducting the review include persons with current experience of the TA, in order that its conclusions will be sound and sensible.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Obviously, many Conservative Members welcome the involvement—albeit limited—of small numbers of reservists with our regular forces. However, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the review that he mentions will not carry credibility if it is led by regular officers simply going through the same process of nominal consultation—as has been the case in the past? Does he agree that the only way in which recommendations on the future size and shape of the reserve forces will carry any credibility in those forces will be if the review is seen to include at the highest level at least one outsider with direct reserve experience?
Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says, and am taking special care to ensure that those involved in conducting the review include persons with the experience to which he refers. It is also important that the views of those active in the TA should be known not simply after the recommendations are announced or conclusions drawn, but at this early stage. I am, in a number of ways, inviting comments to be fed in at an early stage to ensure that it is not simply a review of reserves by regulars, because I am conscious of the need to ensure that the final proposals emanating from the review are seen to have looked at those matters in the full knowledge of the important work that the reserves do and their capability of achieving much more in the future.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those proposals can be part of a cohesive defence strategy only if there is no arbitrary cut of £1 billion on 30 November? Will he assure us that he will resist, knowing that he has the support of his Back Benchers in doing so, any such fatuous proposals?
Mr. Rifkind: Making arbitrary cuts would never be a sound and responsible way to conduct defence policy. It is important to ensure that any proposals for defence resources take full account of the armed forces' responsibilities and their ability to carry out those responsibilities effectively.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We should like an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend today that he will make it clear to the Treasury that, in welcoming the proposals to enhance the role of the reserve forces, it will not use it as an excuse to degrade the quality of equipment and training of the regular forces.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. Clearly, it is important to see that the reserves have a role consistent with the skills that they have acquired over the years. They have been anxious to ensure that those skills are used. My hon. Friend will remember that, during the Gulf war, there was considerable frustration that reservists who had undergone a great deal of training, devoting a lot of time to it, were not being fully utilised. The current legislative framework makes that difficult, and it is therefore desirable to change that.
Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the serious deterioration in security in Northern Ireland after the announcement about the agreement with the Sinn Fein

39
leader, Gerry Adams, is the Secretary of State aware of the terrible atrocities carried out in both sections of the community by terrorists operating from both sections of the community and the vilest murders going on in the streets of Belfast? Will he assure the people of Northern Ireland that the part-time category of the Royal Irish Regiment will not be run down at this time?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the appalling behaviour of sections of both communities in carrying out terrorist activities. Both full-time and part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment have a viable and continually crucial role to play in enhancing the security of the Province, and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that.
In June, I set out our plans for the future of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The proposals were explained in detail in two consultative documents which we issued to interested parties. We received a good number of responses with both favourable and critical comments.
I am able to announce today that the proposals have been confirmed, and will now be implemented. There was considerable support for the broad thrust of our proposals, which points the way to a move to closer integration with regular forces and to abandoning roles that are no longer relevant.
Sadly, we shall need to disband next year the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service, and No. 1339 wing and No. 2623 squadron of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force regiment, as no relevant new use can be found for them. I pay tribute to what they have achieved in the past. There will be a properly managed rundown of all the units concerned, a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in his capacity as honorary inspector general of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
Those proposals, taken together, will eventually put the reserves in a position where they have the right organisation, the right equipment and the right legislative framework to make a better contribution than ever before to the defence of the country. That will be our aim in the months ahead.
The search for economy and efficiency in the use of public resources concerns us all. The Government believe that work should be done in the public sector only where it can clearly be shown to be more cost-effective, or where proven operational reasons rule out transfer to the private sector. The defence programme is certainly not exempt from that.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Rifkind: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
One particular example of working with the private sector where we have also had significant success has been the introduction of commercial management at the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth. The current private-sector management arrangements were introduced in April 1987. The Government established these arrangements because, in order to improve value for money, increase efficiency and maintain the effectiveness of the fleet while improving the performance of the dockyards, three main areas had to be addressed.
40
First, a clear customer-supplier relationship had to be established between the fleet and the dockyards; secondly, the dockyard accounting system had to be reorganised along commercial lines to improve cost analysis; and, thirdly, dockyard management had to be released from civil service constraints and given the freedom and authority to conduct dockyard business in a commercial environment.
We are satisfied that those initial objectives have now largely been achieved. The National Audit Office and the Select Committee on Public Accounts have noted that the dockyard operators have cut costs and improved efficiency. At the same time, both dockyard contractors have achieved some success in diversifying into other markets.
The contracts under which the dockyards are currently operated apply until 1996 at the latest. The Government acknowledge and endorse the view of the Select Committee on Defence on the desirability of making early progress on arrangements to succeed the contracts. Now that the refitting proposals that I announced to the House on 24 June have been confirmed, progress can be made on the future arrangements.
In the light of advances made under commercial management since 1987, we are proposing to seek competitive tenders from the private sector for the sale of both dockyards as separate and independent commercial entities. Such a move would be a logical progression from the current arrangements and would make possible further benefits for the Royal Navy, the taxpayer and the yards. In particular, it would allow much greater freedom and flexibility for the dockyard businesses to be conducted in a truly commercial environment, would encourage private-sector investment in the dockyard infrastructure, and would allow greater scope for a major diversification into other markets.
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is in all our interests that Rosyth dockyard becomes competitive, and my right hon. and learned Friend has already pledged that the refit work for all Sandown class minehunters will go to that yard. Does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that, to ensure that the prices that Rosyth tenders are competitive, Vosper Thornycroft—which actually built both Sandown and Hunt class ships —should be allowed to quote for a proportion of the work?
Mr. Rifkind: Consideration is being given to who might be allowed to tender for the Sandown class work. Perhaps, if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to expand on that in due course.
Our aim is to provide a reliable refitting capability for the Royal Navy, which maximises competition and achieves best value for money for the taxpayer, while ensuring that our strategic requirements will be safeguarded. We expect to invite offers from industry early next year, in order to achieve timely implementation of appropriate follow-on arrangements to the current management arrangements. We believe that there will be a substantial response to such an invitation.
I can also confirm the Government's commitment to a substantial programme of allocated surface refit work for Rosyth. The Government have not ruled out the possibility that some form of contractual commitment relating to future refitting work could be included as one of the matters for negotiation with tenderers for the future management of Rosyth.

41
At the same time, we will be seeking the greatest possible improvements in productivity and efficiency at both dockyards, to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer and the Royal Navy, and to achieve an effective and competitive structure for non-nuclear refitting. Naturally, to ensure competition, it would not be the Government's intention to permit both dockyards to be sold to the same bidder.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the possibility of contractual arrangements for the work to be allocated to Rosyth will be received with great enthusiasm in Rosyth—and, indeed, in Scotland. Has any thought been given to how these contractual arrangements might be enshrined in the new arrangements for the management of the dockyard?
Mr. Rifkind: Anyone responding to the Government's invitation to tender for the dockyards will wish to discuss with the Government the allocated programme, which .is for the nuclear submarines to be refitted at Devonport and the surface ships at Rosyth. The sale of the yards will be an opportunity for these matters to be discussed. The precise details of any contractual arrangements will be the subject of future negotiations.
All the important issues, of deployment or equipment or the management of defence, would count for nothing if it were not for the continued excellence of the men and women who serve in the armed forces.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Rifkind: No, not at the moment.
It is that quality that underpins everything we do. I should like today to say something about the way we recognise the achievements of our service personnel through the honours system.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced earlier this year certain changes to the honours system, which has been approved by Her Majesty the Queen, he said that it had been decided to end the distinction between those gallantry awards given to officers and those to non-commissioned ranks. We have now completed our review of how that principle might be reflected in practice, and I am now able to announce the new arrangements.
The current system recognises different degrees of danger and risk to life and limb by considering four standards, or "levels", of gallantry in the field. They are headed by the supreme award for valour—the Victoria Cross—and reach downward to the mention in dispatches. I propose to deal with the four levels in that order.
The Victoria Cross, which is available for award in recognition of truly exceptional gallantry and the greatest heroism, may be awarded to all ranks of Her Majesty's forces. It requires no change, and will remain our highest award, exactly as now.
The second level, for conspicuous gallantry and great heroism, is currently represented by the Distinguished Service Order for officers, and by the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal, the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (Flying) for non-commissioned ranks. In future, conspicuous gallantry and great heroism will be recognised by a new award, with a
42
new title that has yet to be decided. It will apply to all three services and, like the Victoria Cross, will be open to service men and women of any rank.
The DSO will continue in being, but its purpose will be the recognition of exceptional service in positions of substantial responsibility for command and leadership during active operations.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I ask the Secretary of State, as the son of a man who was awarded the military medal for bravery in the field: is it the case that other ranks will be denied the DSO?
Mr. Rifkind: What I have said is that there will be a new award for gallantry and .heroism, and it will be available to officers and non-commissioned ranks. So far as the DSO is concerned, it will continue in being, but its purpose will be the recognition of exceptional service in positions of substantial responsibility for command and leadership during active operation. In the vast majority of cases, it is clearly an award for command and leadership, and will apply to persons who are officers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I should like to complete the point.
The DSO has always been recognised as an award that recognises leadership qualities. That has been taken into account in the past, and it is right and proper that such an award should continue.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to know that everyone in the services with whom I have spoken will welcome the statement about the DSO. There has never been any doubt that it was an award for leadership, usually in difficult and trying battle conditions. Quite properly, it should remain that way.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is right.
Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Rifkind: No.
At the third level—currently represented by six separate awards—it has been decided that the most suitable means of recognising gallantry and bravery at sea, on land and in the air, would be by award to all ranks of the decorations which at present are restricted to commissioned and warrant officers only—the Distinguished Service Cross, the Military Cross and the Distinguished Flying Cross.
Finally, the award "mention in dispatches" is currently available to all ranks in all three services. That award will be retained, but will be reserved as an expression of commendation for gallant conduct on active operations. A new award, to be called the "Queen's Commendation for Valuable Services" will be introduced to cover the large number of cases where mention in dispatches has hitherto been awarded for reasons other than gallantry in the field —for example, service in technical and administrative posts within an operational theatre. Awards of the revised mention in dispatches and the new Queen's Commendation will be announced in the London Gazette and accompanied, as now, by a certificate and an emblem to be worn on the ribbon of the appropriate campaign or service medal.
The changes will come into effect at once, and will not be subject to retrospective action. I am sure that the House will join me in welcoming the changes, which will ensure

43
that the way that we recognise gallantry from the men and women of our armed forces takes into account only the nature of the service that they have rendered, and not the rank of the person involved.
Discussion of gallantry awards makes us all recognise what is fundamental to all considerations of defence.
Mr. Foulkes: I do not want to diminish the importance of medals for gallantry, but will the Secretary of State answer a question about jobs? On 2 September, I wrote on behalf of my Ayrshire colleagues to ask for a meeting with a Minister about the situation of Jetstream in Prestwick, because announcements about redundancies were imminent. Not only did the Secretary of State refuse to do anything, but the Minister of State refused to meet us. Some 630 job losses were announced at Prestwick.
Will the Secretary of State ask the Minister to meet Ayrshire Members of Parliament so that we can discuss possible ways to save jobs at Prestwick? Some possibilities are available. For example, the Ministry of Defence should be using British aircraft—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
Mr. Foulkes: I am just finishing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No, this intervention is too long.
Mr. Rifkind: I am aware of the Jetstream aircraft. I remember, some years ago, visiting the factory at Prestwick and I pay tribute to the quality of the aircraft. However, there is no Ministry of Defence requirement for such an aircraft at the moment. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement would be happy to meet Ayrshire Members of Parliament, but I would not want to give rise to false expectations.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend earlier paid tribute to the civil servants who do such a marvellous job for the forces. Will he comment on press speculation that the north Bristol Procurement Executive building is about to be cancelled, because my constituents have been told about three times that they will definitely be moved? They would be only too pleased to save defence money by staying where they are.
Mr. Rifkind: The project to which my hon. Friend refers will, once it has been implemented, save substantial sums of money for the defence budget. That is why the project was approved not only by the Treasury but by the National Audit Office, which went into the matter in great detail.
My hon. Friend was quoted in a newspaper as referring to what he claimed to be 150 empty Ministry of Defence properties. I know that he will be as pleased as I am to learn that that is incorrect. We have looked at his list and only six—not 150—of the properties on it are in the possession of the Minister of Defence. All of them, if they are empty, are up for disposal. If my hon. Friend knows of anyone who would like to buy them, I would be only too happy to take that matter forward.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I wish to raise a matter that is of great importance to 500 people who work for the Royal Ordnance factory in my constituency—the explosive propellants and related products agreement,
44
known as EPREP, which was announced to the House by the Minister of State in January for a second five-year period.
I understand that that went out for competitive tender in July, and that the Royal Ordnance factory won the competitive tender at a lower price than was originally envisaged; but that the second, five-year agreement, with the security and continuity of supply that it would involve, has not yet been signed by the Ministry of Defence. My constituents wish to know whether it will be signed, and they would be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could enlighten us.
Mr. Rifkind: It is, of course, important that the armed forces have the ammunition supplies that they require. We are close to coming to a conclusion on that matter. I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed, and hope that we shall be able to go forward with the project at an early date.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion, because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
We rely on the actions of the men and women who serve, and who sometimes have to suffer, in order that our freedom can be guaranteed. Those of us responsible for the management of defence have a duty to those men and women. We must ensure that they are required to perform only tasks for which they have sufficient manpower, good modern equipment and a clear and realistic statement of their aims. It is our intention to ensure that we continue to meet those needs.
4.44 pm
Dr. David Clark: I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'believes that the Government' s plans, set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, Cm. 2270, do not effectively address the long term security needs of the United Kingdom; congratulates local authorities, trade unions and progressive defence companies for their work on defence diversification; calls for the immediate establishment of a Defence Diversification Agency; welcomes President Clinton's decision to continue the moratorium on nuclear testing; calls for the early signature of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty after 1995; and demands that the United Kingdom fully participates in moves to enhance international peace and security, in particular by strengthening the United Nations.'.
It has not gone unnoticed that we are debating the 1993 defence estimates within five parliamentary weeks of having debated those for 1992. Having heard the Secretary of State's speech, which I thought was somewhat lacking in content, I feel that he has not made the best use of his time.
It does not take a genius to work out why the Government are in such haste. They are rushing through the debate because they know that, in the Budget next month, the Chancellor will announce further defence cuts. I emphasise that it will be the Chancellor making the announcement and not the Secretary of State for Defence. The cuts to be announced in November are Treasury-led and the Secretary of State knows that he cannot justify them in defence terms. By the tawdry measure of

45
scheduling an early debate, he is hoping to avoid a properly informed parliamentary debate. We shall not let that happen.
The Opposition accept that, with the changes in the world scene, notably the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, there is a case for a reduction in defence spending, but any reduction must be justified only on defence criteria and not on the passing whim of the Treasury. The defence criteria must be determined only after a full-scale defence review and in consultation with our NATO allies. That is the sensible way forward and I regret that the Government will not accept it.
I have a few remarks that I trust will find consensus across the House. In the early 1980s, when I was a deputy defence spokesman for my party, I came to know and appreciate the skill and work of the men and women who contribute to our defences—the members of the armed forces, those involved in administration and research and those who work in our defence industries. Collectively, they play their part admirably in ensuring our security. If anything, my admiration of those people is even stronger now. My experience over recent years has served to reinforce my impressions. We are well served by them all.
I specifically included the defence industry workers, for they are often forgotten. Their skills produce the wherewithal by which our armed forces carry out their jobs and duties so well. In recent years, more than 100,000 have lost their jobs and it is a scandal that the Government have done practically nothing to stop them being thrown on the dole queue. We argue not only that it is morally wrong for the Government to do so little to find alternative employment for the men and women who have served Britain so well over the years but that, as a nation, we cannot afford to lose those skills. They will be essential if we are to rebuild our shattered industrial base. That is why our amendment places so much emphasis on the call for a defence diversification agency.
Over the next 12 months, I hope to arrange a series of meetings across the country on defence diversification, building on the new consensus that is emerging not only in trade union circles and local government but in the defence industry. It is a matter of deep regret that the Government have washed their hands completely of any planning, or any assistance, to help the defence industry to diversify. They call it free market enterprise, it is not enterprise; it is dogma.
Across the Atlantic, the Americans, with their defence conversion commission, show us how to give help and ease some defence workers into civilian occupation. It is a matter of deep regret that our Government will not help. Governments are helping also in Europe and the EC has made money available under KONVER. Regrettably, the Government will not play a full part in that effort.
On this point, let me press the Secretary of State again on the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)—the EPREP order. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say simply that he expects to announce a decision soon. As I understood it, he announced the decision some time ago.
That is how I understood it. That is how the House understood it and that is how the industry understood it. Why has there been the delay? The Secretary of State must have seen the letters that I have seen, in which British Aerospace says that unless that order is forthcoming soon, it will have to implement redundancies and possible factory closures. When are we to get that announcement
46
—or must we wait for the Treasury again? When we get the answer, will the order be for five years or not'? I would willingly give way.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the tender has not yet run out, so the anger that he is voicing is perhaps a little overdone. We regret that there has been a delay. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable, in the present public expenditure climate, for there to be extra scrutiny of an important order. No one is suggesting that the armed forces will not have the ammunition that they require when the order has been settled.
Dr. Clark: As the Minister knows, in February the Minister announced the projected five-years buy for the various ammunition projects. It was understood by Royal Ordnance that an order was to be forthcoming. Does not the Minister understand that if those firms and factories close, we might not be able to meet the demands for ammunition of our armed forces? I do not need to remind the Minister of the Gulf war, when we were almost forced to rely on the Belgians to supply shells, and the fact that they refused to supply them to us.
We cannot and should not be dependent on overseas companies for such vital things as ammunitions. It is critical that the announcement is made soon so that any fear or concern that may be felt by British Aerospace and its workers can be allayed as soon as possible.
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to our service personnel and especially to those serving in conditions which can he best described as theatres of war, such as the streets of Northern Ireland, the skies of Iraq or the mountains of Bosnia. We should never forget that they risk their lives daily in our name. I get angry with those uninformed armchair pundits who question the efforts of our troops in Bosnia. Let there be no doubt about the dedication of those troops. Many more civilians would have lost their lives in that troubled land. I accept that all the aid is not getting through—we all accept that—but that is no reason not to continue to try.
The troops of all nations struggling against the odds to get humanitarian aid through deserve the praise of us all. The skill of the Royal Engineers in building a 50-mile road across the mountains over one summer, which will be the sole route into central Bosnia this winter, is simply staggering. The Sea King helicopter pilots who fly mercy missions and who risk being shot at from all three sides show amazing fortitude and courage. Their colleagues who fly the Sea Harriers demonstrate similar skills and daring as they fly missions over treacherous mountain terrain.
On the ground, in that inhospitable environment, the troops show incredible discipline as their daily tasks involve risking their lives. Already Corporal Edwards has lost his life and, in other incidents, other soldiers have been wounded, sometimes seriously. On my second visit to Bosnia at the end of September, I had a vivid reminder of the danger. I was in Vitez when Private Paul John Jones of the Prince of Wales Regiment was hit in the throat by shrapnel. We was within a centimetre of death and it was only the skills of the Army medical staff in Vitez that saved him. He is now in hospital in Woolwich, and I know that I speak for the whole House in wishing him a full recovery.

47
Such incidents bring home the dangers facing our troops as they serve with honour and distinction under the blue hats of the United Nations.
Let us not forget, however, that Bosnia is only one of the many conflicts that are being waged throughout the world. I have witnessed comparable tragic events in Nagorno Karabakh, and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) reported a similar situation in Georgia. Having such highly professional and experienced forces, as well as being members of the United Nations Security Council, means that we are likely to face increasing demands to contribute more to future United Nations operations.
The collapse of the Soviet Union may have reduced the nuclear threat to the west, but it has not left the world without conflict. We have witnessed the outbreak of scores of local wars, many civil and all especially nasty, in which thousands of innocent civilians have died. Clearly, if all warfare is to be avoided, it is incumbent on us as politicians to seek all ways in which to do it. Indeed, it could be argued that that it is the nature of our profession. In a sense, war occurs only when politics has failed. We ought to remember that war can resolve little in the end and usually it is politics that resolve the problem.
In the past few years, there has been welcome progress in reducing the number of weapons of mass destruction, notably chemical weapons. However, there is still a long way to go, especially in efforts to achieve a nuclear-free world. I was delighted to speak at the recent annual meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly in Copenhagen in support of a resolution to seek ways in which to achieve the objective of a nuclear-free world. The resolution concluded with the aim:
"To study ways in which an international deterrent regime could be brought about which would allow the reduction of nuclear weapons in a co-ordinated fashion so that national arsenals can be reduced to a minimum level or even totally abolished"—
[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but I was pleased that that resolution was passed unanimously and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on moving it so effectively. I was also pleased that every Conservative Member voted for that resolution, which demonstrates support for negotiated nuclear disarmament, is not confined to Labour Members.
At the last general election, Labour argued for a battery of measures which would help us on the road towards the elimination of nuclear weaponry. That, we emphasised, would be done through multilateral negotiations and until
"elimination of those (nuclear) stocks is achieved, Labour will retain Britain's nuclear capability, with the number of warheads no greater than the present total."
That was in our manifesto in 1992. It was our position at the last election and it is our position today, as was reaffirmed at the party conference in Brighton when a resolution was passed declaring:
"Conference reconfirms the Labour Party's commitment to the ongoing negotiations on strategic nuclear forces with the view to their eventual world wide elimination"
That is the position of the Labour party. The Secretary of State asked me about it and I hope that he understands it.
Mr. Rifkind: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain to a rather incredulous House and an even more incredulous country how he reconciles that motion with another passed by the same conference—which he has
48
not yet mentioned—calling for an immediate abolition of Trident nuclear weapons. Why is he so reluctant to comment on that?
Dr. Clark: I thought that I had made it clear that at the last election we said that we would retain Britain's nuclear capability—which is Trident—with a number of warheads no greater than the present total. The motion at the party conference attracted no more votes than it did last year or the year before. The reality is that we will keep Trident.
Our vision of a nuclear world is enshrined in article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty and in UN resolutions that were passed as long ago as 1946, which were signed and supported by Conservative Administrations. We all know that a world of general and complete disarmament is a difficult goal, but it is a goal which we must not abandon. In recent years, we have advanced more rapidly towards our commonly held desire. One welcome sign of our advance is the chemical weapons convention that commits Britain and many other states to rid the world of chemical weapons. Surely, if that can be achieved for chemical weapons, it can eventually be achieved for nuclear weapons.
Another welcome development has been the decision of the new United States Administration to maintain the moratorium on nuclear testing. We hope, and we urge, that, despite the recent Chinese nuclear test, which we deplore, the United States will continue the moratorium. The House should applaud the recent agreement between Russia and the Ukraine to get rid of all nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil, in line with the recent strategic arms reduction talks treaty.
Mr. Frank Cook: The United States is continuing the moratorium, the Chinese want to continue testing and the British Government want to resume testing. Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State what the difference is between China's nuclear policy and ours?
Dr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I shall pass it on.
Much has been done in recent years to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament—mostly, I am afraid to say, by other states, but there are steps that the Government could be taking to speed up the advance. They could, for example, begin by freezing the number of nuclear warheads on Trident. Why are they increasing the number from 192 on Polaris to 512 on Trident? Why not freeze it at the same level as Polaris, as we would? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, what is the difference between our policy and that of the Chinese?
The Government have been dragged along by the United States and have put pressure on the Americans to resume nuclear testing, yet we know that testing is not necessary for our Trident weapon and, as the Secretary of State announced today, the nuclear warhead of TASM will not be proceeded with, so there is no need to test that. I hope that the Secretary of State will join the Labour party in supporting a moratorium on testing.
Mr. Rifkind: May I clarify the point, because I know that Labour Members are very concerned about it? TASM is a nuclear system which is no longer being proceeded with. The continuing references to conventional stand-off missiles do not refer to TASM, which is a quite separate system that will continue in the RAF's programme.
Dr. Clark: I am grateful for that clarification. As I understand it, the Secretary of State is saying that the complete TASM system, which he claims is purely nuclear and has no dual capacity, will not be proceeded with. That means, therefore, that there will be no stand-off facility for the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there is a quite separate proposal that continues as part of the Royal Air Force's programme for a conventional stand-off missile. That is nothing to do with TASM, which is purely nuclear-related.
Dr. Clark: So the Secretary of State is saying that a conventional air-to-surface missile will still be available to the Royal Air Force. I thank him for that clarification, and we shall see whether it is repeated in later debates.
Will the Secretary of State take the argument a stage further? Will he adopt, for example, the objective of signing the comprehensive test ban treaty by 30 September 1996, as the United States Government have? Will he propose that the French and Chinese Governments agree to mutual transparency arrangements for nuclear forces similar to those due to be adopted by the United States and Russian Governments under the START verification agreements?
Finally, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman hold serious discussions with all five nuclear states about an agreement to end the production of fissile material for military purposes? If we could get movement on those three points, it would take the argument a long way forward.
The House knows Labour's historic commitment to the United Nations, which is enshrined in clause IV of the Labour party's constitution. We have always had our concerns and criticisms of the United Nations, but they have always been used to support our calls for reform. In the past few years, our belief in the United Nations has grown stronger and our position was set out recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), when he said:
"Our commitment to a strong United Nations must be the foundation stone of our foreign policy."
Our defence and disarmament policies should be seen as one method of achieving a more secure world and a safer future for Britain, but we should recognise that there are many others. We need to overcome the gross economic imbalances and the environmental degradation that the world currently suffers, because they also threaten Britain's long-term security. No amount of military might can overcome those challenges. We need a comprehensive approach to the problems that recognises that the use of force should always be the last resort.
For decades, the world was scarred by the cold war. The war is over and there has been no victor. In our debate in the next two days, we should reflect on that fact and on the new situation. Confrontation between the east and west has gone: it must not be replaced by conflict between the north and south.
The world is faced with a new set of diverse opportunities and challenges to strengthen peace and security. The time has come for fundamental changes at the United Nations if it is to respond effectively to those challenges. We need to recognise that the role of the military in United Nations operations has increased and that it is likely to go on increasing.
50
All those factors should cause us to reconsider the deployment of British forces in support of UN operations. The great importance of our membership of NATO means we must go back to Brussels and Mons to discuss with our allies the role of NATO in a strengthened UN. Clearly, we need further discussion on this issue. I hope that at the January 1994 NATO summit, which the Secretary of State mentioned, a detailed and comprehensive redefinition of NATO's relationship to the United Nations can be agreed. This is a matter of growing urgency. Many hon. Members have heard critics say that NATO goes either out of area or out of business. I hope that, in three months' time, all NATO members will, in the words of the preamble to the north Atlantic treaty,
"reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
NATO needs to re-examine its proposed force structure to make it more relevant to United Nations requirements, and we may need to reconsider the role of the rapid reaction corps, in which we take such a lead.
But it cannot be left to NATO: Britain must put forward its own views. The House will know that I, on behalf of the Labour party, made a number of proposals to strengthen the UN. The establishment of a military planning group and a modern communications group were both ideas which I proposed in the House on 21 January 1993. In July, I repeated the proposals and I was pleased to see that the Government, in a letter to the Secretary-General 11 days later, supported some of the ideas.
Much progress is still to be made on this front. We need to consider what Britain can do short of providing fully formed units. I believe that we could do much more through the deployment of small numbers of staff officers and monitors for the United Nations at headquarters and operational level. In this way, our experience of peacekeeping, which is unique in the world, could be made more widely available to United Nations commanders in the field.
The House knows that Labour fully supports the deployment of British troops in Bosnia. We said in June that if additional British troops were required for the implementation of United Nations plans for safe havens, they should be provided. In the event, they have not been requested, but let me make it clear that I do not accept the view that the use of military force is the only way to solve the conflict in Bosnia. Britain has a role to play, but no one apart from the people of Bosnia can bring lasting peace to the area. We know that, once a final peace settlement is achieved, its implementation will require additional British troops. The Secretary of State will recall that as long ago as 20 April I indicated that we should meet that new commitment, while fully recognising the financial and human needs involved.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Labour Members, such as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who advocate sending in troops immediately are wrong?
Dr. Clark: I am not saying that at all. I should have thought that, on this issue, the hon. Gentleman would be wise not to try to introduce party politics as hon. Members from both sides of the House share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks). I made the Labour party's position clear. We have always argued that British troops should have been sent to help to get humanitarian aid through. We argued that for a full six

51
weeks before the Government were persuaded. We also argued at the appropriate time that some of the Serbian positions should have been bombed.
We have also argued that, if requested, British troops should go to the safe havens. Together with my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, North and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), I visited one safe haven this summer. Thankfully, it was being effectively managed by 10 United Nations troops, who were doing a superb job. Troops are not always needed. However, if they were needed in that capacity, they should have been sent.
We shall probably need about an extra 5,000 British troops if a peace agreement is signed. We should not hesitate to send troops to try to bring some peace to that troubled country. As those troops are all volunteer forces, we must pay particular attention to the human cost involved. If we increase our United Nations commitments, that will increase the number of unaccompanied tours and put further pressure on service families. I hope that, at some stage in the debate, the Secretary of State will reaffirm his commitment to achieving an average 24-month gap between emergency tours of duty. I also hope that he will join me in telling service personnel and their families that military operations in support of the United Nations are not simply about helping the international community. Our forces are working with the United Nations and are doing a great deal to strengthen Britain's long-term security.
The Prince of Wales Regiment has been transferred from Germany straight to Bosnia, and I find it strange that the troops serving in Bosnia—a theatre of war where they are constantly shot at—receive less pay than they did when in Germany. Their families are still in Germany, where they have family commitments. It is absolutely outrageous that the troops in Bosnia get less pay than when they were in Germany. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that issue and take action on it. I must make some progress as I have spoken for too long; I think that the House is unanimous on that issue.
There is still much to be done. We need more multinational training for UN-type operations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We need to train with our new friends in eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States as it is likely that they will be increasingly involved together in United Nations operations. We should remember the valuable work being carried out by other regional security organisations in other parts of the world, such as Liberia.
There are many lessons to be learned. One lesson to be learnt from Bosnia is that we must increasingly bring together civil agencies and the military. They have different objectives and different ways of achieving them, and difficulties sometimes occur because of misunderstandings. It is important that we try to do what we can to minimise such misunderstandings.
Labour welcomed the establishment of the United Nations arms transfer register. However, we believe that it must be improved as quickly as possible. The incorporation of new types of weapons as well as some types of dual-use technology should be agreed at next year's review of the register. Talks with our EC and NATO partners about agreed restrictions on defence exports are also vital. I understand that the Government have some
52
difficulties on that issue and know that they will resist the proposals because of their concern to try to cover up the export of arms to Iraq.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) has recently been back on the rack. His attempts to blame civil servants for his mistakes have caused justified outrage. He and I both know that it was not the fault of his officials or the intelligence service, but his fault and his alone.
Mr. Corbyn: In September 1988 my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I, together with a number of peace organisations, met the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) in the Foreign Office to discuss the gas attacks on Halabja and Kurdish people in Iraq. We pleaded with him for a total arms embargo on Iraq because of the destruction of human rights and Kurdish people in Iraq. He was well warned by experts in our delegation, including people who had suffered in Iraq at the hands of Saddam Hussein. The right hon. Member chose to ignore that advice and apparently went ahead with arms sales to that country.
Dr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has a long record of interest and involvement in such issues in Iraq and throughout the world. I think that the House will note the issues that he has raised, which supplement the argument that I was trying to advance. I do not want to personalise the issue, as it did not involve only the right hon. Member for Bristol, West.
Mr. Kaufman: Is not the position worse because, at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and others were urging the Government to impose a total arms ban on Iraq in 1988, the Government were secretly relaxing the guidelines and deceiving the House of Commons by failing to tell it what they had done—as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster admitted to the Scott inquiry a few days ago?
Dr. Clark: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Over recent years, he has consistently argued and tried to raise the issue at the Dispatch Box in order to reveal the Government's position. I am sure that his stance will be vindicated by the Scott inquiry when it reports. The Secretary of State for Defence also bears responsibility. He is a qualified lawyer and is supposed to respect the principles of justice. What justice did he have in mind when, on 22 November 1992, he signed the public interest immunity certificate that could have jailed three innocent men who risked their lives trying to serve this country? That was unforgivable and the Secretary of State should try to explain his position.
Our constitutional arrangements are based on the fact the Ministers are supposed to be responsible for Government policy. In practice, today's Ministers never accept responsibility. They blame foreigners, trade unions and a Labour Government who lost office 14 years ago. Now they even blame their own civil servants. Next they will be blaming the fairies at the bottom of the garden. The Government and Ministers do not have the principles of those such as Lord Carrington and Sir Thomas Dugdale who resigned as a matter of honour.
One of the great myths of British politics is that Conservatives are sound on financial planning—nothing could be further from the truth. In defence, as elsewhere, their figures never really add up. The funds budgeted for in

53
the reports were never sufficient to meet the Government's post-"Options for Change" plans. Originally, the Government had envisaged an increase in defence expenditure in coming years rising from £24.2 billion in 1992–93 to approximately £25 billion in 1995–96.
However, the 1992 autumn statement last November provided for a decrease to £23.2 billion in 1995–96, which was widely recognised as an optimistic figure. In reality, the figure will be less. Without a full defence review, the Government will find themselves in increasing difficulty with their crisis management approach, so aptly described on 17 June 1993 by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) as "butchery behind closed doors."
Of course, we have been here before. We were here in the 1980s when, by managing and massaging our activities, we got by. It was achieved by flying fewer hours, spending less time at sea and generally training less. That penny-pinching approach meant that two thirds of our forces in Germany had to be stripped of equipment to provide enough support for the one third of the British Army of the Rhine that fought in the Gulf war.
Now, the situation is different, with postings to areas such as Bosnia becoming much more regular occurrences. Men's and women's lives are at stake, and we cannot afford any slackness on this occasion. We must not allow what happened in the 1980s—although we got away with it then—to happen again in the 1990s.
The answer is blatantly obvious, as the Secretary of State admitted in coded remarks in his speech to the Tory party conference at Blackpool. We cannot continue to perform every defence function. Some specialisation is essential. We need a full-scale defence review so that we can work out which areas of activity we do not need to undertake ourselves.
We are a member of NATO and it is essential that we work alongside our NATO partners in determining what specialisation Britain should adopt and what can reliably be left to our allies. I know that there will be difficult decisions ahead, but I welcome the challenges that we will face.
The debate has quickened of late as it is becoming more and more apparent that the Chancellor is demanding ever more cuts—even greater than the Secretary of State had envisaged. The cuts are deemed essential by the Chancellor to help to offset the massive financial deficit which the Government have created through their mismanagement and incompetence. In a sense, the fact that the Treasury has landed Britain in such a mess only adds to our case that it should not be the determining voice in the shape of Britain's security. Having made such a mess of the management of the economy, the Treasury cannot be trusted with our defences—one hates to think of the long-term damage that it could do.
Almost every country in the west is cutting its defence spending following the collapse of the Soviet Union—understandably so. What is needed in Britain is a full defence review, for which we have been calling for years. Only with such a review can we assess the threats to Britain's security, and only then can we shape our defences accordingly.
5.21 pm
Mr. Archie Hamilton: I begin by declaring an interest; I have a consultancy with W. S. Atkins, which does a certain amount of work for the
54
Ministry of Defence. I have no doubt that I shall be working with other defence contractors in the future as well.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his latest White Paper, which spells out much more clearly than before what our forces are doing. That means that, when it comes to negotiations with the Treasury, we shall be able to ask what commitments should be dropped if there are to be further reductions in defence expenditure.
As one who devoutly believes that public expenditure should be cut, I find it difficult to stand here and say that cuts should be made everywhere but in defence. Those of us who want the public sector borrowing requirement to be reduced without raising taxation surely have to accept that the Treasury has a hard task ahead of it at the moment.
I should like briefly to deal with the effect that reductions in defence expenditure will have on our defence industries. The fact is that our exports are running at record levels. We broke the 1992 level, itself a record, early in 1993. Adding defence export figures to MOD spending figures—I admit that this is not a direct like-with-like comparison—shows that demand, in terms of orders for defence equipment from British manufacturers, is at a record level. It is important to bear that in mind when we recall that there certainly have been redundancies in some defence industries. Of course, certain British defence manufacturers are not benefiting from the record levels of demand, but it is important to remember that, including MOD spending and defence exports, demand is higher than ever before. Before we start getting too agitated about diversification, we should always recall those facts.
I wish to talk today about our commitments. In real terms, the defence budget has been declining ever since 1984, with the probable exception of the blip to cater for the Gulf war. We must therefore be careful about continuing to load our armed services with more and more commitments. Since "Options for Change" was announced in July 1990, two more roulement battalions have gone to Northern Ireland, there has been the commitment to Bosnia, and there was the commitment to the Rapid Reaction Corps as part of our commitment to Germany. We have thus been committing our troops fairly heavily around the world, leaving ourselves with little flexibility.
If reports in the papers are to be believed, this view appears to be shared by the Foreign Secretary and by the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Northern Ireland, who seem to think that there should be no further reductions in defence expenditure. I am sure, however, that they would be the first to accept that the PSBR needs reducing, so perhaps they will volunteer compensatory reductions in their own budgets so that defence can be left untouched. As a realist, I must say that I consider that unlikely.
We must therefore seriously consider asking the Treasury to look into public expenditure survey transfers which reflect the services being received by the Foreign Office and the Northern Ireland Office, to the value of the troops that they are using. We have no defence interest in our UN commitments—having large numbers of men tied up on the green line in Cyprus or in monitoring in the Sinai desert does nothing for the defence of this country. If the burden of expenditure were transferred to the Foreign Office budget, that Department would be given some incentive to reduce our commitments around the world. As

55
we know from bitter experience, it is easy to get involved in UN commitments and extremely difficult to get out of them.
If we believe in delegated financial responsibility, it is quite logical to talk in terms of Departments paying for the troops they use and having a financial incentive to reduce their numbers or to find other ways of paying for them. Many jobs in Northern Ireland, for instance, currently carried out by soldiers could be performed by others. If the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had to pay a per capita sum for his troops, he might look differently at the most economical way, say, to guard the Maze prison—a job that could easily be done by locally recruited Ulstermen, and far more cheaply. That would also reduce unemployment in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend's suggestion is extremely interesting. Does he agree that, if that happened, the strategic needs that Britain faced in the future would be driven as much by the Departments that he has mentioned, among others, as by the Ministry of Defence?
Mr. Hamilton: I am coming to that. The prime job of the Ministry of Defence, a job for which it is well qualified, is the defence of the United Kingdom. I should be very worried if the Foreign Office were given even more input into strategic decisions than it has today—
Mr. Garel-Jones: Surely my right hon. Friend will accept—although no one disputes the ability and commitment of our armed forces to defend the kingdom and its interests—that one of the weaknesses of the past has been that Governments have never had the mechanisms to make strategic decisions about what and whom we are defending ourselves against. Surely my right hon. Friend accepts that not just the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but other political elements in the kingdom could make a valuable input to strategic decisions, which have to be taken before we can decide on troop and equipment requirements.
Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this interesting topic. We would be in some danger if we had to identify enemies all the time. As an insurance policy, it is wise to keep a wide range of technologies and defence capabilities. We never know where the next threat to our national or overseas interests and the security of these islands might come from. Before the Gulf war, some people might have said that there was no longer any need for so much armour, but in that war we fought the first armoured battles since 1945 defending our interests. We must also look carefully at commitments that overstretch us in areas where our direct interests are not so well served.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that during the Falklands war some people questioned the use of the Harrier aircraft and its function? Does he agree that if we had not had that aircraft we could not have fought the Falklands war?
Mr. Hamilton: That is right, and the Nott review, which took place shortly before that conflict, had ambitions radically to reduce the Navy. If those proposals had been implemented we might not have been able to fight that campaign.
56
It is not possible distinctly to analyse future problems and say where the next threat will come from. That is why, in broad terms, it must be right to keep a range of capabilities. I disagree with the Opposition, who say that we should think about specialisation. The broad range that I propose will inevitably narrow under financial pressures, but it is nonsense to talk about a review because that could not predict any clearly identifiable future threat. We must maintain the insurance policy of a defence industry and maintain the technologies that are needed in sophisticated warfare.
If we do not look hard at the commitments in which we are becoming engaged, we shall be in danger of having more and more people playing a role in a peacekeeping army, which would be to the detriment of many of our high-technology defence capabilities elsewhere.
I wholeheartedly congratulate the Government—and President Clinton—on not being drawn more closely into the conflict in Bosnia. I do not understand reports that President Clinton is blaming the British Government for somehow thwarting his ambitions in Bosnia. He should learn a lesson from what is happening to his troops in Somalia, where the enemy is much less sophisticated and is fighting in less favourable territory than the factions in Bosnia. I am glad to see Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen nodding at that, although they have just said that we should bomb the Serb positions in Bosnia. That would lead to us being drawn into military conflict throughout Bosnia, and in a very short time we should be fighting not just the Serbs but the Croats and the Muslims. The carnage that we would suffer would be nobody's business.
Dr. David Clark: I should like to correct a misunderstanding. I said that there was a time when bombing Serb positions might have been effective. That time is probably past, but the threat of bombing had a major effect on the Serbs and played a large part in getting them to agree to the ceasefire in late July, which lasted until recently.
Mr. Hamilton: I shall follow that through. If we had taken the Opposition's advice about bombing Serbian artillery positions earlier this year, we would have needed a United Nations mandate to carry it out. It is highly likely that, during the time that it took to get the mandate, the Serbs would have removed the artillery. Even if they did not, bombing would not have destroyed it all. Even if all that artillery could have been bombed out of existence—and that would have required a degree of precision bombing that I do not think anyone possesses—what would have happened? The Serbs would have resorted to guerrilla warfare of the type taught by Tito.
Yugoslavia always thought that the main threat was from the Soviet Union, and the Yugoslav national army knew that it had no chance of fighting it out on the plains of Yugoslavia. Therefore, on the day that Yugoslavia was invaded, that army was to take to the mountains and fight a guerrilla war. Bombing would have led to us being drawn into a horrific guerrilla war and, irrespective of the number of troops sent in to try to pacify Bosnia, they would all become bogged down and would suffer appalling casualties.

57
We must think carefully before increasing our commitment to Bosnia. The British battalion group there is to be congratulated on its fantastic operation and minimal casualties. It is a miracle that we have not suffered more.
I regret that we have been drawn into the war to the extent that we have. What interests do we have in a civil war in Bosnia anyway? Bosnia has been given saturation coverage on television, to the exclusion of many other civil wars. I concede that, the conflict there is much nearer to home than any other, but television seems to include news from there in every bulletin. That is done to the exclusion of the civil war in Angola, about which we hear almost nothing, and where casualties are much higher. We hear almost nothing about Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia or Azerbaijan. If there were more balanced reporting of civil wars in other parts of the world, there would be less of a desire to do something about Bosnia.
Despite the magnificent efforts of our troops, we must face the agonising and difficult issue that, throughout the conflict, we have been feeding the warring factions in Bosnia. United Nations commentators are rather reluctant to accept that massive stores of United Nations foodstuffs in Bosnia are held by the militia. Therefore, we have removed from the people who want to do the fighting in Bosnia the boring logistic problem of feeding their troops, because that has been done with United Nations food. The aid that we have given to Bosnia may have prolonged the conflict and more people may have died than would have done so if we had had nothing whatever to do with it.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says. He was a Minister until recently. Is he suggesting that we withdraw British troops from Bosnia?
Mr. Hamilton: No, I am not. This is not the time to do that, but we must keep the matter under review. The hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was about to say. I am worried that there is still the possibility that our commitment to Bosnia may increase and additional troops may be drafted in. Even if that is just to police a peace settlement, its effect on our other commitments is a matter of great concern. We could not put in a large force for more than six months without drastically increasing the burden on our already overstretched troops.
The Secretary of State will say that, if that ever happens, he will try to get a guarantee that our troops would not be there for more than six months. As we know from bitter experience, it is easier to send troops in under a United Nations mandate than it is to get them out.
The real difficulty with our troop commitments, especially with the Army and with RAF support helicopters, arises from our commitment in Northern Ireland, where 19,000 troops are tied up in a massive peacekeeping operation. Of course, I fully accept that that is not under the auspices of the United Nations. While I was the responsible Minister, I found no problem with single soldiers being prepared to undertake that task, but it is hard on married soldiers who have done repeated roulement tours in Northern Ireland. We must never forget that we have six Army battalions in Northern Ireland at the moment and that there is a debate about the support needed there. That gives us an idea of the impact on an Army that now has 40 battalions.
I should be happier if there were a direct relationship between the number of terrorist incidents and the number
58
of troops in Northern Ireland, but I can find no such correlation, so we must think hard about whether the number of troops is absolutely necessary and whether, to give ourselves more flexibility, we should consider a withdrawal programme for some of the roulement battalions. I am talking not about peremptory action but perhaps withdrawing one battalion every six or 12 months. That would give us more flexibility if we wanted to undertake peacekeeping operations elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not just a question of relating the number of terrorist incidents to the number of security forces in Northern Ireland, but of ensuring that more terrorist incidents lack success? It we contemplate withdrawing some of the armed forces from Northern Ireland, we shall place those who remain in greater jeopardy.
Mr. Hamilton: There is no evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's view. The number of casualties among the armed forces in Northern Ireland has reduced recently. When we last withdrew troops from Northern Ireland, after the hunger strikes, there was no evidence of any rise in the number of casualties among the armed forces. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many other factors contribute to incidents of violence in Northern Ireland, not least intelligence and the capability of the security forces to disrupt terrorist action.
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the talks that have been dragging on for such a long time have created great uncertainty, and the very fact that they are inconclusive makes the position worse. The longer we continue to talk to Dublin, the more we give the IRA the impression that with one more push we will leave altogether. At the same time, we unnerve the extremists among the Protestant paramilitaries, because they think that they are about to be taken over by Dublin. While the indecision in the talks continues, we are feeding terrorism. I would be much happier if the whole process could be brought to a conclusion one way or the other. At least that would remove the uncertainty about the future.
As I have said, the number of terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland cannot be attributed solely to troop levels. Many other factors come into play—
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I am interested in many of my right hon. Friend's theories, but I have some difficulty with what I perceive to be contradictory arguments in the context of Northern Ireland. If he is suggesting that there should be a phased withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland, what sort of message would give to the IRA and other combatant units? I cannot reconcile that with his suggestion that with one more push the IRA might misinterpret our motives. Will my right hon. Friend clarify his argument?
Mr. Hamilton: I am happy to do that, and I will start from the beginning. Northern Ireland is our biggest peacekeeping operation, and it has led to massive overstretch in the armed forces. It leaves us little flexibility to do anything else, yet the demands to become involved in peacekeeping activities elsewhere are insatiable. Therefore, we must think hard about the area in which our commitments are heaviest—and that is Northern Ireland —if we are to have the flexibility to do anything anywhere else.

59
I take my hon. Friend's point that, if we were to withdraw one battalion, IRA propaganda would claim that as a victory. However, when we put two additional battalions into Northern Ireland that did not make the slightest difference—it did not persuade the IRA that our commitment was so total that it should give up its activities. I have doubts about signals and their effects. Anything that is done in Northern Ireland is claimed as a victory by one side or the other. We must be convinced that the troops there are useful, and some correlation between the number of terrorist incidents and the number of troops might help in that process.
It could be said that, if we had flooded Ulster with 100,000 British troops a long time ago, that would have sorted out the problem. However, we all know that whether the number of troops is 100,000 or 19,000 there will continue to be terrorist incidents—and there are many reasons for that. We must be quite clear that there is not a free option to continue to increase our commitment to Northern Ireland because that simply reduces our capability to do anything else.
Mr. Maginnis: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but the message that he should be sending out from this House is that, while contemplating the possibility of reducing the number of armed forces in Northern Ireland, he does not expect that to be done unless there is some compensatory activity. For example, the courts must be more stringent in the way they deal with terrorist crimes. We need to dismantle the command and control structures, and we may have to accept internment to do so. If the right hon. Gentleman makes those points clear, the message going out from this House will be better understood.
Mr. Hamilton: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the last time the number of troops in Northern Ireland was radically reduced, after the hunger strikes, none of those commitments was written in as compensation for that reduction. One point that worries me is that, if anything goes dramatically wrong in Northern Ireland—such as riots on the streets and the security position getting out of hand—we increase the number of troops there. That adds to our current difficulties.
We appear to be operating a ratchet system. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. King) was Defence Secretary in 1987, he sent two battalions to Northern Ireland on a temporary basis. They are still there. Those of us who have observed the position dispassionately have come to realise that it is very easy to put more troops into Northern Ireland, but extremely difficult to get them out again.
We must bear in mind the prime objective of defence expenditure, which is to keep a wide range of capabilities to deal with a threat that we cannot clearly identify. It may be a threat to our interests—such as the Gulf war, which demanded the most sophisticated defence equipment and the highest capability that the world could possibly imagine. We do not know where a threat to the security of these islands or to our interests elsewhere will come from, so it is vital that we maintain our capability.
One question that is constantly raised is our continued membership of the permanent five—the United Nations
60
Security Council. Indeed, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised it during a radio interview at lunchtime today. It is nonsense to talk about Britain leaving the permanent five. The only way to do so would be to vote ourselves off.
The greatest risk we run is that the permanent five will be diluted by becoming the permanent seven or, eventually, even the permanent 10 by the addition of other members. There is no way that we can come off the permanent five unless we ask to do so.
The Foreign Office has gently fed the paranoia that our international standing will deteriorate unless we become involved in endless peacekeeping activities throughout the world. We must nail that complete load of nonsense. From our present involvement in Cyprus and in other places, it is clear that we play a major role in peacekeeping operations. We have nothing to be ashamed of, and I wish that people would stop talking about our membership of the permanent five being under threat if we do not become involved, because that is unutterable nonsense.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The theme of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that we must inevitably reduce costs. There is a cost—a price tag—attached to being a member of the Security Council's permanent five. Part of that cost is our involvement around the globe. Would it not make sense to cease being a member of the permanent five and to save the cost of our involvement in those operations?
Mr. Hamilton: That is also a load of nonsense. Another member of the permanent five is China, which has never been involved in any peacekeeping operation anywhere in the world, at any time. It is nonsense to say that there is a price to pay, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to say so, by raising that point in his intervention. If we wanted, we could remain a member of the permanent five and do nothing anywhere in the world other than in the United Kingdom, and remain a member until we voted ourselves off.
There is also some suggestion that our membership of NATO might be threatened. I find that particularly remarkable so shortly after the Gulf war, when we defended the interests of many European members of NATO—which were much more directly threatened than our own, in that they all depend on imported oil. Any suggestion that our membership of NATO is under threat is also complete nonsense.
Mr. Brazier: Surely the logic of my right hon. Friend's excellent points is that we need a strategic review of the possible dangers facing this country because the lack of such a review led to our defence agenda consisting largely of peacekeeping and other peacetime operations.
Mr. Hamilton: If we had undertaken such a review, intelligence could not have told us that, only days after my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced "Options for Change", we would be involved in the first major armoured war since 1945, with an armoured division being sent to liberate Kuwait. We were not in a position to forecast that, and we do not know the direction from which the next threat will come. That is why all talk of a review is absolute nonsense. Our intelligence is not good enough to see into a crystal ball and recognise the next threat.
5.52 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: If popularity were any measure, the merits of a defence review would appear to be unassailable—if not in the mind of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). In recent weeks, the notion of a defence review has acquired the support of a phalanx of recently retired generals and of a parcel of Conservative Back Benchers, who produced a pamphlet published in the summer—and such a review has for some time had the support of Opposition parties.
A culture has grown up in which, faced with any difficult defence decision, there is apparently an irresistible urge to call for a defence review. We must place that demand in a proper context. A review will not provide answers to difficult questions. If anything, it will only highlight and identify questions that require to be answered.
The point was made during an intervention in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that a defence review in isolation is meaningless, because defence policies are not a political end in themselves but the means by which political objectives are sought to be achieved. Therefore, any such review must necessarily embrace the foreign policy objectives of the United Kingdom as a medium-ranking power.
The proper way to proceed is to establish our political objectives, assess the military resources necessary to meet those objectives and then allocate the financial resources necessary to provide the military means of achieving our political objectives.
The United Kingdom cannot escape a debate on the financial priority that is to be accorded to defence spending. In the aftermath of the cold war, it is right that we should consider how much we are willing to spend on defence. We must do so against the background of a fairly firm understanding of the proper approach.
Defence expenditure cannot be immune from scrutiny in a period of retrenchment in public spending. Nor is it sensible to approach a reduction in defence expenditure according to a mechanistic formula. It is sensible to make maximum use of existing political and military alliances in helping us to reach conclusions.
In that regard, I have considerable sympathy for the notion of common procurement and force specialisation, which we could most easily achieve through NATO. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell sets himself against force specialisation, but when he acknowledged that financial pressures will continue, he rather undercut his own position. If one accepts that those pressures will continue, surely a point will be reached at which it will not be possible for us to provide the full range of capability.
We should explore also nuclear co-operation through a much closer political relationship with France. That appears to be occurring, because there are hints from time to time in the technical press of discussions between the British and French Governments. That is a way in which we might achieve a substantial reduction in that large component of defence expenditure accounted for by the provision of an independent nuclear deterrent.
We must use alliances to help us to manage the peace as we intended to use them if we had ever had to go to war. The right hon. Gentleman has done us all a service in recent days by showing a willingness, freed of the shackles of office, to think in radical terms. He has allowed his mind to range widely. I was not present for his lecture at the
62
Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, but I am told that the heat was considerable—and that not all of it was generated by the right hon. Gentleman.
We all have an obligation to suggest ways in which we believe that it may be possible to achieve a reduction in expenditure without prejudicing the United Kingdom's interests and security. I mentioned the notion of closer nuclear co-operation with France.
We should accept that minimum nuclear deterrence—which is the doctrine that now drives our nuclear provision —can be provided at levels far below those for which the Government have apparently planned. If 192 warheads on Polaris provide an effective minimum deterrent, surely we do not need 512 warheads on the Trident system that is to replace Polaris. There is a substantial opportunity for a reduction in warheads, which must carry through to a reduction in costs.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good point about co-operating with France, which I am sure would be an excellent way of saving a great deal of expenditure. However, the French might not be so willing to share in that expenditure. After all, they opted out of NATO many years ago and have yet to opt back in to the command structure.
Mr. Campbell: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman stays closely in touch with such matters, but there have been extremely encouraging signs recently of a willingness on the part of the French once again to become part of the integrated military command. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who is in his place on the Treasury Bench, can tell the hon. Gentleman that discussions have begun between the French and British Governments on the possibility of nuclear co-operation.
The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the fact that, when General Morillon was sent to Yugoslavia, he was supported by the northern army group headquarters of NATO. Although this is only anecdotal evidence, General Morillon was heard going around paying considerable tribute to his NATO headquarters. It would be wrong to minimise the difficulties, but the signs are now more positive.
The Secretary of State received a rather less generous welcome than he deserved for his announcement about the tactical air-to-surface missile. The decision that he announced is entirely sensible, and one which has been argued for with considerable force by my colleagues, and also, from time to time, by some Conservatives.
The Secretary of State assisted the debate considerably in confirming that a conventional stand-off capability is to be maintained for the Royal Air Force. Some of us remember the controversy that surrounded the low-level bombing using the Tornado GR1 in the Gulf war. The need for a stand-off capability was acutely identified at that time. The House will largely be relieved to know that the Government have not abandoned something which many of us regard as extremely important.
We must ask ourselves about the political justification for continuing to station in Germany the present number of United Kingdom troops. We fought very hard for the political advantage within NATO of the command of the allied Rapid Reaction Corps, which was thought to be a reflection of the important part played by the United

63
Kingdom in NATO. In this period of financial retrenchment, however, can the political advantage that we derive be justified against the expenditure?
Like the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, we must ask what is the correct level of deployment in Northern Ireland, without in any way prejudicing overall security. It is surely right to ask what task presently carried out by the military could not just as effectively be carried out by the civilian authorities.
Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that we should question how many tank regiments the United Kingdom is likely to need in the future.
Only a few weeks ago we finally passed the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. I think that it will be not Calais but Maastricht that will be engraved on your heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Title V of the Maastricht treaty contains the proposal for a common foreign and security policy. In a period of substantial financial retrenchment, it is right to consider the extent to which acceptance of some of the principles contained in that part of the treaty would assist us to maintain the security of the United Kingdom.
What we need, above all, is a rational debate, and the present rather febrile atmosphere is singularly unhelpful. The heated atmosphere of a public expenditure round is hardly the best means of arriving at sensible and systematic decisions about the United Kingdom's long-term defence needs.
As we know, nuclear weapons occupy a substantial proportion of our budget. It is right to question that expenditure, for financial reasons. Does it place an undue burden on the budget? Some people have a superficial attraction to the argument that by renouncing nuclear weapons we could solve the problems of the defence budget at a stroke. I reject that argument, because it takes no account of committed expenditure.
We should also question nuclear weapons for more fundamental reasons. They have no intrinsic merit. The theory of their deterrence is, if I may be forgiven for putting it this way, exploded if they are ever used; their worth lies only in what they prevent.
An independent nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom is justifiable only as an assurance policy against the possibility of any withdrawal or dilution of the United States' guarantee for Europe. The level of insurance commonly depends on the level of risk. The risk is very much diminished, so minimum deterrence is achievable at lower levels than seemed possible in the past. However, the risk has not been eliminated and, until then—if that time ever comes—we shall need to retain the insurance.
Surely we should also actively endeavour to reduce the risk through support for the non-proliferation treaty, for a comprehensive test ban treaty and even for START 3, involving the five permanent members of the Security Council. In a practical sense, we should perhaps encourage Ukraine to implement START 1 and offer as our contribution to reducing the risk an undertaking not to deploy any more warheads on Trident than those on Polaris, which it is to replace.
It is clear that those of us who support the maintenance of the independent deterrent have something of a job on our hands to make a positive and persuasive case for its retention because public opinion is rather different from
64
even three, four or five years ago. We shall not win that important argument merely by mouthing the outdated slogans of the cold war.
We should take account of the fact that the United States' attitude towards us, at a fairly high level, is not always entirely favourable. In Congress on 28 September, Senator Dale Bumpers, a Democrat from Arkansas, said that he did not think that the United States should keep footing the bill to keep the line open for the D5 missiles, which American does not need, merely in order to accommodate the British. We must acknowledge that the United States' willingness to provide us with such weapons, which goes back to Harold Macmillan's agreement with President Kennedy, may not necessarily continue.
I deal now with British forces in United Nations operations. NATO should operate as a subcontractor to the United Nations, so that command and control remain with NATO, using established systems which have been tested by exercises and, as was recently pointed out, in the Gulf.
It is necessary to establish some principles if British forces are to be involved. Clear political objectives must be laid down by the United Nations, and agreed by NATO. There must be clear and appropriate rules of engagement laid down by NATO and agreed by the United Nations, and there must also be unambiguous exit criteria, so that one knows when one has succeeded and when it is time to go, but one also knows when one has failed and it is time to go.
Such operations should command domestic political support, which will depend on the public's perception that the cause is just. I should not like to have to stand here at the moment to try to persuade British domestic opinion that it would be right to send United Kingdom forces to Somalia.
Time is short, but I wish to mention procurement. The onus of showing why the EH101 utility helicopter should not be purchased for the support role has now passed to the Ministry of Defence. It is six years since Lord Younger announced the intention to buy 25 of them, and the intention has never been withdrawn. It is surely a matter of sadness to the House that the Dutch have recently decided to purchase the Cougar, a decision which, in the minds of some, may have been influenced by our Minstry of Defence's lack of enthusiasm for the EH101.
In relation to the Army in particular, I am left with the strong feeling that the tasks that it is most likely to face will be of low or medium intensity, whereas the balance of arms that we still propose reflects a requirement to fight a high-intensity war. Given the lack of any direct threat to the United Kingdom mainland and our inability to move large numbers of tanks and artillery because of our lack of strategic transport, we must ask whether the balance is justified.
It is clear that the decisions we take now will have irreversible consequences for a long time to come. I doubt very much whether, in defence terms, a watershed quite as acute as that which we are now experiencing has been experienced in the past. If given up now, some capabilities would never be recovered, because the pace of advance in technology is so swift. If we have a reduction here or a postponement there, the coherence of our policy will be destroyed. That is likely to be more damaging than a set of coherent, related decisions about what we believe we require. That is one reason why we need a review of the kind to which I have already referred, but there is another reason.

65
We owe it to the men and women of the armed forces —to whom I, along with others, pay my tribute this evening—whose lives are at risk rather more than our own, to see that they have set for them clear political objectives, that they are provided with the means to which to achieve that objectives and that they are not asked to meet commitments for which the resources that they are given prove to be inadequate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Madam Speaker has ruled that speeches hereafter, between 6 pm and 8 pm, should last 10 minutes and no more.
6.9 pm
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I declare an interest as non-executive chairman of GEC-Marconi.
I claim that the present security situation is as dangerous as it has been at any time this century. I say that despite 1914 and 1940, because our country was heading into world wars in those years and, however uncertain the outcome, everyone knew what they had to do and who the enemy was. Now, no one can be sure who the enemy is or will be. We have had the certainty of being opposed for 40 years by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. With their collapse, we now have uncertainty and new conflicts breaking out.
Before I turn to the United Kingdom and the problems and implications of that situation for us, I will say a word or two about central and eastern Europe. I have had several contacts recently with political leaders in the so-called "Visigrad Four" countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. They are all concerned about their lack of security; they have no cover. We should all agree that the present vacuum is unsatisfactory. I must ask whether the answer is to extend membership of NATO. I am not so sure.
First, the new entrants would have to be clear about and accept the mutual support concept of NATO. Unless that concept was watered down, which would nullify the strength of the alliance, Polish forces, for example, might be called into action because of a NATO-related problem in, for example, Portugal or Norway. There is a tendency to view NATO as a guarantor or as a protector without taking into account the broad mutual nature of the relationship.
Secondly, NATO must consider Russia's attitude. Any action that weakens moderate opinion in Moscow by fanning the anxieties of the military cannot be good news. Perhaps it is better to encourage the Visigrad countries to develop regional security arrangements which can be linked both to NATO and to Russia and which recognise that future conflicts are likely to be ethnically based border squabbles rather than the classic cold war frontal assault. In any event, the Visigrad countries need to rethink their defence doctrine away from their role as junior partners in the Warsaw pact towards an entirely new, perhaps citizen army, philosophy.
I now turn to the United Kingdom. My most fundamental concern is that after 40 years of NATO certainty, with widespread political support, there is an urgent need for the Ministry of Defence to sell the case and to present the arguments that will enable that support to continue. Public regard for the armed forces is higher than that for any comparable institution in our country. Their dedication and professionalism are much admired. That
66
has been linked to an acceptance of their role and is reflected in the majority support in the country for the retention of nuclear weapons, for example.
Now that the threat to our territorial integrity is less obvious and immediate, it is necessary to emphasise that the threats to our economy and to our way of life could be mounted several thousand miles away and would not necessarily involve assaults by tanks and by aircraft on the United Kingdom. If the challenge is to prepare to make important contributions to UN forces or to NATO out-of-area forces, the challenge must be taken up and answered in full.
Our forces must be well enough balanced and trained to be able to contribute to international operations, but they must also be capable of responding in circumstances in which only the United Kingdom is involved. Clearly, such occasions will decrease as we relinquish the remnants of empire. However, I have today the gravest doubts about whether the United Kingdom is capable of mounting such an independent operation. The current overstretch is far too great and there is the usual problem of politicians failing to grasp nettles.
The present position is the biggest change of scenario since NATO began. Now, if ever, there is an unanswerable case for a review. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), I refer not to a review within the Ministry of Defence, but to an overall review of exactly what the Government's strategic targets are. If such a review had taken place, a different view would have emerged about, for example, ballistic missile defence.
We have the curious paradox, that although the Soviet Union is no longer seen, understandably and correctly, as a direct threat to us, there is the possibility—nay, certainty —of the acquisition of such weapons by many extra countries that will not need to deliver them in the numbers or with the accuracy on which the Soviet Union used to call. At the very time that the threat could, in a sense, be said to be increasing, we are deciding to reduce our capability.
Any review would need to take a look at the widespread use that can be made of reserve forces. I am sure that there will be widespread interest in and approval of the announcement today by the Secretary of State about new roles for the reserves and about new legislation to come. However, the underlying position gives cause for serious concern.
There is a real fear that the Army board, to pay for the welcome addback of two Regular battalions, will recommend cutting several Territorial Army battalions. If that is so, it will be a mistake and extremely short-sighted. The volunteer reserves are an outstanding example of a highly motivated and professional group of people. They are extremely cost effective and can and should be used in a variety of home emergency relief roles. For every £1 million spent on defence, the country gets about six and a half times as many trained volunteer reserves as it gets regulars.
The Ministry of Defence still places undue reliance on the ex-regular reservists, many of whom are out of date, unfit, unco-operative and resistant to recall for anything less than world war. In contrast, the volunteer reserve is highly motivated and brings many relevant skills and qualifications from civilian life. To put it into context, savage cuts in the TA would be equivalent to the cost of five or six tanks. We are talking about minute sums in the

67
overall context of the defence budget—a tiny proportion. If the signal goes out from the House during this debate or during the next few weeks that volunteers are not welcome, they will drift away and the nation will lose a priceless asset.
All armed forces need to be properly equipped and supported if they are to do their job properly. The British armed forces buy a large proportion of their equipment from United Kingdom companies. Equally important are the working relationships and understandings between industry and Government Departments, never better exemplified than in the combined campaign on Eurofighter, the essential project which occurred at this time last year. However, as the budget pressures continue, I urge that the need for co-operation and the level of co-operation are, if anything, intensified.
One other area causes industry great concern—the reduction in military support for export sales. The United Kingdom has 20 per cent. of world markets in military sales, which is very important for the Ministry of Defence and very important in the United Kingdom balance of payments. The breadth and experience of British operations over many years has given our forces a high reputation for excellence and training and has meant that they have tested and operated equipment in a variety of climates.
Logistic support and training packages run by the Government are essential tools to aid in the winning of contracts. They are now in jeopardy because of budget cuts. The availability of military escorts was down at the recent exhibition and the cost of exhibiting was higher. The opportunities to demonstrate British equipment during Royal Naval deployments were reduced by about 70 per cent. last year. The 1992 task group, for example, deployed in the far east, will not be repeated this year or next year. The dedicated Army sales teams have been cut by 30 per cent. in the past two years. Military training places for foreign customers have been reduced and the numbers of service attaches and overseas advisers are being reduced.
The only people who rejoice at that are our competitors. To them will go the contracts, the jobs and the balance of payments advantages. That cannot be right for UK plc. What is needed is a Government-wide directive to the Ministry of Defence to provide for that essential dimension of activity. The Government should make due allowance in the MOD budget to make that possible.
The support and esteem enjoyed by the armed forces in Britain depend on a full understanding and consensus about their mission. The Government must have a full review in the light of the greatest change of circumstances in 40 years. They must consider ballistic missile defence, the correct use of the reserves, full-scale industrial co-operation and support for exports. Above all, if the Government believe that the United Kingdom can no longer sustain a Falklands-type operation on our own, the British people should be told loud and clear.
6.19 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their good wishes during my illness and on my return.
I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) in his call for a review,
68
for this is a debate about the defence of the realm, the security of the country, and the men and women who both rely on and provide that security. In the time available, I shall concentrate on arguing that the Government's policy is creating not security but insecurity—the insecurity of a maritime nation with its Navy cut close to the limit, and the insecurity caused by the Government's treatment of service personnel, civilian employees and the half a million people employed in the defence industry.
The House will not be surprised to learn that I shall make particular mention of Rosyth naval base and royal dockyard. In his speech to the House on 24 June this year, which, unfortunately, I missed, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said:
"there is no connection between jobs in the royal dockyard and in the naval base at Rosyth."—[Official Report, 24 June 1993; Vol. 227. c. 546.]
I have news for the Minister. If there are no ships, there will be no naval base, no dockyard and no jobs. I give right hon. and hon. Members four examples of the way in which the Government are aparently failing to recognise those connections.
First, the defence estimates show that the number of destroyers and frigates has fallen from 44 in 1990 to "about 35" in current plans. The number of mine counter-measure vessels has fallen from 38 in 1990 to 25 in current plans, with a note saying that it will fall below even that figure for a period. Now we hear rumours of a further £1 billion of defence cuts. It is no wonder that the people of Britain are worried about their security. It is no wonder that the work force of Rosyth dockyard do not believe the promise of allocated surface ship work.
My second example is the work of fisheries protection. In paragraph 318 of the defence estimates, the Ministers stated that the Government had examined the possibility of contracting out fisheries protection, but had decided to continue it with the Royal Navy in 1993–94. That is hardly a secure future for the service personnel and civilians involved in fisheries protection work at Rosyth. What security is there for anyone in a contract which has less than a year to go? As the Select Committee says, the fisheries protection service should remain with the Royal Navy. The estimates say that the training and experience that it provides is invaluable, especially for young commanders.
My third example of the insecurity created by the Government's defence policy is the proposed disbandment of the Royal Naval Auxiliary Reserve. I listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton had to say about the reserves. I recently went out on a training exercise with the Royal Naval Auxiliary Reserve at Rosyth. I was impressed by the skill, enthusiasm and commitment of those men and women volunteers. The Government should foster such qualities in the civilian community, not repay such loyalty with disbandment.
My fourth example of the insecurity which surrounds so much of the Government's defence policy is the announcement today about the complete privatisation of Rosyth and Devonport dockyards. While I welcome the early announcement of the future of the dockyards by the Minister and his assurance that they will not be sold to the same bidder, I certainly do not welcome the decision to privatise rather than to renew the present agency management arrangement. Privatisation will cause more insecurity. It will disrupt the combination of Ministry of

69
Defence control and commercial management. Why change it? What benefit will there be to the nation and to the defence of the realm? Privatisation will not bring jobs or value for money. It will not advance opportunities in competition and it will not improve defence or freedom.
The privatisation of the dockyards makes it even more important that they are treated equally and that they both receive contractual guarantees of work. For the Government to talk about allocation of ships to Rosyth is not enough, because the only place in the list of forced restructuring where they use the word "about" and create uncertainty is in the references to the number of frigates and destroyers. It is not enough, because, after the broken promises on submarine refitting, neither the Rosyth work force nor the Select Committee believe any promises. It is not enough because, if the Government are serious about healthy competition and avoiding a monopoly, they must give binding guarantees of 12 years' work to Rosyth dockyard to attract commercial interest from bidders.
The insecurity of the dockyard is reflected throughout the defence industry. Where there are ships, naval bases and dockyards, there is a concentration of defence industry. So, in Fife, we have 160 companies employing 14,000 people and more than another 7,000 people who are either service personnel or Ministry of Defence civilians. Since the Government's announcement about the dockyards in June, Rosyth and Devonport have lost more jobs between them than the Government said that they would lose by the end of the century. That makes it even more vital that there is a defence diversification policy.
I welcome the commitment which Ministers gave lo the trade unions to enter into a dialogue with trade unions, employers and other interested parties and discuss an industrial policy. That is a crucial recognition of the need for such a policy. Again, I cite Rosyth royal dockyard, which previously had the largest training base in Scotland. It trained half of Scotland's manufacturing apprentices. This year, it has taken in a mere 25. That speaks loudly of the need for proper defence diversification, especially in institutions and organisations of which the Ministry of Defence has been the main employer for so long.
I see from the time that, although I wish to say a great deal more, I must conclude. As it is a matter of considerable public concern, I mention the presence of the decommissioned submarines at Rosyth. We want to know just what will be done with those submarines, especially if the yard is to be privatised and have a nuclear facility available. The people of the area feel strongly that, if they are not to receive the nuclear refitting work, they do not wish the decommissioned submarines to remain there.
The people of Fife, of Scotland and of Britain are concerned that the Government's defence policy consists of a ship captained by an insecure Prime Minister, steered by a questionable Chancellor and supported, below decks, by a motley collection of Treasury pen pushers and bean counters. What a crew.
The debate offers the Government the chance to make some decisions—the right ones. Instead of closures, allocations and privatisation, we want guarantees. We need a secure future for the dockyards. Instead of unemployment, we want productive work. We need a planned Navy and a full-scale defence review.
6.30 pm
Mr. David Martin: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), whom we all respect for her courageous fight back to health. We welcome her wholeheartedly back to her place in the Chamber. She displayed her usual eloquence, although I would not agree with everything that she said.
I am tempted to range more widely in a debate on defence than in one relating to a single service. Given the time available, however, and the risk of straying into matters that have serious implications for the conduct of foreign policy, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) have ably demonstrated, it is prudent for me to confine my remarks to matters concerning the Royal Navy and my constituency.
For centuries, Portsmouth has been at the sharp end of decisions relating to our national defence forces. While every citizen has an interest in keeping our defences at a level that properly preserves our security and protects vital British interests, many people in Portsmouth live with the immediate consequences that any changes in defence spending has on their jobs, livelihood and the prosperity of the area.
People have grown to look, with good reason, on Conservative Governments as the most trustworthy to provide the money and political support required to maintain our forces at responsible levels. They are right to distrust the Labour party which, despite the postures of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), voted at its conference to cut £7.5 billion from the defence budget. That cut is worth more than the amount spent on any particular service.
When the Liberals dare to debate defence at their conference—and it is not often—or when they happen to be present in the Chamber, they are no better than the Opposition. They have never reversed the 1990 policy commitment—it was not merely an objective, as they have since attempted to argue—to reduce our defence spending by 50 per cent. It is hard to believe that they had made such a commitment when one hears them speak about jobs and prosperity in Portsmouth, Yeovil or Devonport, but that is the nature of the beast: as many heads as a hydra.
Reasonable savings must always be made wherever possible and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State identified some today. He exploded a few myths as well. In this Parliament, however, the Government must stand against any further cuts to the defence budget which are judged as an easy option compared with confronting sensitive and overblown expenditure in other areas.
I do not believe that there is any room for further cuts in the number of frigates and destroyers. That cannot be envisaged either immediately or within a reasonable time scale when we consider their sea-going duties. I am rather worried about the new term "extended readiness". In practice it seems to mean extended unpreparedness—short of mothballs, but hung in the wardrobe all the same. I do not want to see more and more ships entering that state, but that seems to be the risk in the future.
We cannot reasonably stretch either crews or ships any further than currently envisaged and still expect to meet our commitments and keep morale as high as it should be at all times in any fighting service whether at war or in

71
peace. Morale is the crucial ingredient, because it is much more difficult to keep morale high in times of relative peace, as at present, while ensuring that forces are constantly prepared, whenever duty calls, to fight.
Anything that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces can say to reassure me that a destroyer and frigate capability of about 35 ships will be properly backed up with real orders, particularly to replace the type 21 frigates as they go out of service, will be welcome to me and to my constituents. I hope that the next batch of type 23s will soon go out to tender. I agree with the findings of the Select Committee report that that will be a crucial test of the Government's intention to maintain a proper frigate force for the foreseeable future.
I also want definite advances to be made on the replacement of Fearless and Intrepid, the latter still in Portsmouth in preservation by operation—another of those terms which mean out of service—after several years. I also believe that Vosper Thornycroft has a good case in pointing out the need for further orders of Sandown class minehunters to be placed as soon as possible. I should not need to remind the House that the minehunting capability is vital to protect our Trident strategic nuclear deterrent —we have been told today that it will also have a tactical role—to guard against terrorist threats and in terms of overseas deployment. It is sensible to keep abreast of technology and to have a sufficient number of vessels to meet requirements.
In common with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West I also want fishery protection to be retained as a service supplied by the Royal Navy. That represents a sensible use of men and ships. I seek an assurance as soon as possible that that vital service will be retained beyond the guaranteed period of 1993–94. I hope that those responsible for our affairs agree with me about the importance of that.
The future of the Royal Marine band and the training facilities for bands may not seem an important matter in comparison with some of the great issues that have been aired today, but it is not unimportant to those concerned. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spoke about the good use to which redundant MOD buildings are put if they are not put up for sale. The Royal Naval detention quarters at the naval base in Portsmouth will soon be closing. That building will be difficult to sell for civilian purposes because of its site. The Royal Marine school at Deal is likely to close on I April 1995 and I believe that the RNDQ building at Portsmouth could be an ideal substitute. People may ask why: the largest Royal Marine band, a 102-piece band, is based in Portsmouth, as is the Royal Marine command.
That proposal is food for thought and should be added to the other issues that I have raised—as briefly as possible in order to set a good example, if nothing else—and that food for thought should feed action on the several issues that I have raised.
6.37 pm
Mr. Bruce George: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) spent one minute rubbishing the Labour party and nine minutes rubbishing his own Conservative party, which makes the balance just
72
about right. I should point out to him, and to those foolish constituents who voted for him, that I studied the statement on the defence estimates made by the Labour Government in 1978 and at that time there were almost 70 frigates and destroyers. We now have 36, which, according to me, is equivalent to "about 30" rather than "about 40". Perhaps the record of the old despised Labour Government was not quite so bad as the hon. Gentleman and his many colleagues have argued.
I am sick of being taunted by Conservatives. Over the years they have attacked the Labour Government for being soft on defence. Now that they have been in government for a while, they attack the Labour party by citing various conference decisions. Defence expenditure is set to fall to 3.2 per cent. of gross domestic product, which is below the average expenditure of 4.9 per cent. under the Labour Government of 1974–79. If the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South would like to tell me what type of Navy he will be able to get for 3.2 per cent. of GDP, his constituents and many people in the Chamber will be delighted to know.
We have heard from two former Defence Ministers who have now entered the ready reserve. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), can lick his lips in the knowledge that there is life after the death of dismissal or resignation. No doubt a nice little consultancy or directorship is awaiting him; perhaps he should get his bid in early.
The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) went off at a gallop, as one would expect bearing in mind the constituency he represents. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said that he had made some good points in the final two minutes of his speech; considering it lasted 15 minutes, that is about par for the course. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell set an example that other Ministers of Defence should follow. They should all have a truth sabbatical; in other words, they should disappear to the Back Benches and tell the House what they manifestly failed to do when at the Dispatch Box.
If the right hon. Gentleman had had the gall to tell the people of Northern Ireland that he wanted to reduce the Army in the province by one infantry battalion per six months, he might not have been welcome in Northern Ireland. He did not seem to know what he wanted British forces for. Like Frederick the Great, he has a wonderful Army but he does not want it to serve out of the area. He does not want it to serve on behalf of the United Nations, and he does not want it to serve in the United Kingdom. Why have armed forces at all? Let us hire them all out to Group 4 and dispense completely with the Army, the RAF and the Navy.
When the right hon. Gentleman talked about overstretch, I thought, "What an asset Archie would have been on the Defence Committee when we were arguing about that subject." He was the Minister who regularly gave the Committee one bland statement after another about how it would be all right on the night. We would have adequate forces, he said; the Committee was exaggerating the threat to British forces and we could certainly mount another operation such as the Gulf. The right hon. Gentleman should re-read those statements; he may be rather amused.
Politics is about myth, and myths rarely correspond to reality. We have seen many myths bite the dust: the Conservative party was the party of economic efficiency,

73
of financial planning, of the family, the party in whose hands the national health service is safe, the party of law and order. The final myth to bite the dust is that the Conservative party is the party of defence.
The Government are to reduce defence expenditure to 3·2 per cent. of GDP and that has been approved by Conservative Members. The cuts of £I billion that are apparently to be announced above the "Options for Change" reductions—those were bad enough—do not reach the figure of 3·2 per cent. Conservative Members who are bleating now about a reduction from 4 per cent. to perhaps 3.7 per cent. will experience more heartache before the Government achieve their target of 3.2 per cent.
I have always wondered how the party of appeasement, of Munich, of Suez, of Duncan Sandys and of Blue Streak and Blue Steel has managed to retain its reputation as the party of defence. Perhaps the reductions that they are about to make will finally nail that lie. It is amazing how the Conservatives are always reluctant to use the "defence review" term. There have been defence reviews before; in 1957 under Duncan Sandys, that was a total disaster, and in 1981 under Sir John Nott. "Options for Change" was another total disaster.
Perhaps the Government, as many Conservative Members have said, should have a defence review. It would not result in people being turned into stone or into salt. It is a sensible thing to do. Let us recognise that resources are limited, that threats and risks are changing, and let us bring a degree of congruence so that the resources available and the forces at our disposal are matched with the risks and responsibilities. A defence review should not be done by stealth. "Options for Change" was obsessively secretive, and experience has shown it to be ludicrous anyway.
I am impressed by what has taken place in Scandinavia on defence matters. The parties in what is called the defence agreement participate in a study commission consisting of Members of Parliament, Ministers, shadow Ministers and outside experts. They produce a report that is adhered to by all parties. We should bring some consensus back into security matters and try to dispense with some of the rhetoric and the obnoxious politics which I myself have been temporarily a party to.
I have been an hon. Member for 20 years, and, throughout that time, I have been taunted by Conservative Members on defence matters. However, if we look back to the Labour Government in 1979, we see that Britain had a merchant marine. We had 70 frigates and destroyers, and almost 30 submarines. The latter total is now to go down to 12, and the Ministry is unashamedly hawking around four Upholder submarines. How does one hawk around four submarines? Does one stand on a street corner, whispering, "Do you want to buy a cheap submarine?"
In this turbulent world, we require more than 12 submarines, and that was recommended by the Defence Committee. I would urge hon. Members to read the Committee report carefully, and with more seriousness than they would read any Government defence statement. The report will give a greater understanding of the Committee Members' agreement that the way in which the Ministry of Defence has operated is subject to criticism.
Ministers lectured Committee Members, and we trained our guns on the Secretary of State in two reports that have been produced today. Like some Nintendo character, the Secretary of State jumped over us. Far from being in front
74
of us, he was standing behind us. He was hiding behind us, hoping that the Defence Committee would do the dirty work with his chums in the Treasury.
Clearly, defence expenditure is going down. We are living in a different world, from that of four or five years ago. But it is still a dangerous world, and if defence expenditures are to be cut, they should be cut rationally. The cuts should not be sporadic, or episodic responses to external economic pressures. That is the way that Governments—and not just the present Government—have operated. The results are disjointed politics which mean that our forces cannot do the job with which we entrust them. How close we were during the Gulf war to having that salami-slicing tactic ruthlessly exposed.
If defence expenditure is to be cut, let it be done honestly. Let it be done to ensure that our forces retain adequate weaponry to meet their commitments. I hope that there will be agreement on the matter. Perhaps some of the dissent that has manifested itself in House of Commons politics during the past 10 years will be reversed. We must have full faith in our armed forces and give them the resources that they require. I believe that they are not getting those resources under the present Government.
6.47 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: It seemed that a consensus was emerging in the House until the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) addressed hon. Members.
In his recollections of 1978, the hon. Gentleman seems to have completely forgotten what has happened since 1978. Since then, the Conservative Government have taken the decision—against the wishes of the Opposition—to deploy cruise. The Government have also taken the decision to deploy Trident. The combination of those facts and the determination of the other western countries to see of the Communist threat has led to the changes that have come about in the former Soviet Union and in eastern Europe. If that is not a great defence success—it was achieved without a single shot being fired—I do not know what is.
Credit for those achievements must be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the present Government. The Conservative party, and not the Labour party, has the reputation of being ready to defend the country and ready to spend whatever money is necessary to do so.
I welcome the fact that we live in a different world and that we can now act more flexibly and look to divert money into other areas of expenditure. I must congratulate my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence on ensuring that the Treasury's demand for a £3 billion cut in Royal Navy expenditure has been kept to £1 billion.
During the past year, I have spent time with the Royal Navy as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) was unable to join me, as she was also involved in much of the scheme. I learned a great deal from that experience and I wish to share some of that with the House tonight. We have heard in the debate and elsewhere much about the overstretch now being faced by the Army. The Royal Navy is also facing a significant overstretch in its resources.
I welcome the emphasis on mobility and flexibility in the White Paper, but that does not seem to be reflected in what is presently happening to the Navy.

75
The Royal Navy is a unique service: it can poise and loiter in international waters; it does not require overflight or basing rights; and it can pose a real and effective threat of blockading, policing or direct intervention, as dictated by its political masters. In particular, the aircraft carriers represent a wholly self-contained fighting capability, with their own fuel, ammunition, stores and equipment. They have demonstrated that most capably in the Adriatic, where they were able to deploy north or south as required. In August and September, the Sea Harriers embarked on Invincible met every single one of nearly 200 operational sorties with which they were tasked.
The carriers can be augmented with additional aircraft from the United Kingdom in a matter of hours—again, without the need to negotiate overflights, which can be particularly difficult for armed aircraft. The RAF apparently found overflight approval hard to come by even in the Adriatic—even in NATO's backyard.
I warmly welcome the logic of Options 2. I welcome the order for the new helicopter ship—although my worries in that regard were not helped by my reading of the brief prepared for Conservative Members, which refers to the new helicopter carrier as a replacement for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. I hope that that is an inaccuracy. Having been on an exercise on Intrepid recently, I know just how old the ship is, but just how effective a weapon it can be. It would be even more effective if we could build a brand new one in the north of England or in Scotland. We should then have a unique facility, giving us flexibility to augment our new role in the air mobile brigade as and when that was necessary.
The role of the royal naval forces in various conflicts from the Falklands to the Gulf war is relatively well known. Less well known is the 365-days-a-year role that they play as a British presence providing stability and influence, including commercial and trade influence, in areas of the world determined by the Government. The Royal Navy has had a presence in the Persian gulf for the past 13 years, which today comprises two destroyers or frigates assigned to the Armilla patrol throughout the year. The Navy has had a destroyer or frigate plus tanker continuously on station in the south Atlantic since 1982 and in the West Indies for at least the past 20 years.
I recently had the privilege of spending a week on HMS Cumberland in the West Indies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lucky you"]—during which time, I assure my hon. Friends, there was a tropical storm and no sunshine whatever. That ship fulfils not only its traditional role of providing gunfire support to Belize but other roles in close co-operation with the Americans, from which we gain valuable operational experience for use against drug runners, and valuable information. I should very much like that role to be enhanced, possibly with a second ship.
Ships have also been assigned to the standing NATO forces in the Atlantic and the channel for at least the past 20 years, and in the past 12 months that commitment has been increased to full 365-days-a-year coverage. Since January this year, a carrier and two escorts have been in the Adriatic and a further ship has been assigned to the new standing naval force in the Mediterranean.
In the past four years, the number of ships has fallen from more than 50 to about 35, as announced in March this year. Under Options I, we would perhaps have gone down
76
to 38 ships, although with 10 out of service at any one time we should in fact have had around 28. Of the 35 ships that we are now discussing, one is permanently at extended readiness and approximately a further 10 are in refit, emerging from refit or undergoing development or new build trials. That means that, to meet the latest level of tasking, the operationally available ships are deployed to directed tasks for up to three cycles in succession.
Allowing for passage time to and from the area of deployment, that means that more than 50 per cent. of individual ship and people time is now committed. The Royal Navy is now therefore being stretched to the elastic limit and separation and turbulence are at abnormally high levels. That compares with the Army—about which we have heard so much—complaining about one deployment of six months every two years.
If we are to search for economies, there are two areas in which I think that we could make them within the defence budget. First, why does the RAF continue to fly half-empty VC10s to various parts of the globe, the service personnel on board mixing with a large collection of what appear to be cardboard boxes? All those passengers and all that freight could be shifted much more inexpensively as commercial traffic. I recently flew back from Washington on a VC10. Apparently the Navy budget picked up the tab for the journey from Belize to Miami and from Miami to Washington, even though it would have been much cheaper to fly us direct from Belize to Miami and from Miami home on a commercial airline.
It struck me as odd that the forces were paying for service personnel from Belize to fly from Miami to Washington and then to stay overnight in Washington when that personnel could simply have met the direct Virgin Atlantic flight from Miami. Why cannot we privatise the facility completely and get Thomas Cook to secure us a large block booking to take all our troops, sailors and freight all over the world?
Secondly, may I ask about our difficulties in providing spares? Spares insufficiency is now resulting in our ships having to go out of the line for extended periods, which cuts into the training programme. We have a large number of half-trained pilots waiting for helicopter spares to be available so that they can continue and finish their training.
There is no slack whatever in the Navy's programme. The dockyard refit extensions have had a domino effect on the whole Navy's programme, which has further aggravated the regime. Furthermore, although warfare skills pertinent to the area of deployment are finely honed, some warfare disciplines now cannot be sustained to the required standards if ships and other machinery are not available for training.
The Royal Navy is operationally lean and mean. It has led the way in the civilianisation and contractorisation of large sections of business in the support areas. There is, however, one respect in which it has not been pruned back, and that is among the higher levels of staff. The entire naval staff at the marine Ministry in France is about the same size as that of the Flag Officer (Naval Aviation) in this country. Why are so many people working in Whitehall when cuts are being sent down the line to facilities such as mine in Eaglescliffe?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
6.56 pm
Mr. John Spellar: My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) described the speech of the Secretary of State as lacking in content. It was also breathtakingly lacking in any analysis of our strategic and therefore of our defence needs.
I had hoped that when the Secretary of State referred to Russia and Bosnia he would broaden the debate to consider the interdependence of political and defence issues. I had also hoped that some consideration would be given to the interlocking relationship between military requirements and their supplier industries. Yet all that we had was the standard response that we should leave it to the companies —with not even an inkling of an understanding of the role of Government in managing the transition. The Government are fond of bringing supermarket expertise into their affairs. I think that it is fair to say that Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury's have a much deeper understanding of the need to maintain their supplier base than the Government have shown in defence matters.
I realise that the Government may feel to some extent constrained by ideology from taking the position that we might want them to with regard to their suppliers. But what ideological bar is it that constrains them from addressing the wider global issues? The nearest the Minister came to doing that was when he talked about the Labour party conference. One gets the impression that the Government take our conference far more seriously than they take the Tory party conference—and who can blame them?
Instead of moving to an overview, therefore, we moved to a housekeeping report that sounded like a rerun of the debates that the Secretary of State has been having with the Treasury. Frankly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be addressing the Chief Secretary to the Treasury rather than the House. "There has been a cut here and a cut there, a small change here and a small change there," he said. Given the dramatic changes that have been taking place around the world, it is quite incredible that we did not hear of some wider vision—perhaps even going back to the basic Clausewitz dictum that war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means.
Our defence configuration is or should be dependent on our assessment of our strategic means. Let me give an example. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the shadow spokesman on defence, quoted Senator Lugar's dictum that
"NATO is either out of area or out of business."
With all the implications that that has for our defence configuration and our material requirements, I should have thought that the Secretary of State would, at the very least, have mentioned that. There was no mention at all. Nor did he mention the implications of our continuing commitments in Northern Ireland, the Falkland Islands or even the uncertain situation in Belize, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), where we may have to rethink our withdrawal because of the attitude of the Guatemalan Government. There was no mention of that.
Nor indeed was there any mention of our role in the United Nations—whether we can sustain our position in the Security Council. It would have been interesting to know how the Government envisage the future organisation of United Nations peacekeeping forces. What commitment is Britain prepared to make in respect of those forces? Do we, for example, envisage a permanent
78
structure, or are we considering ad hoc arrangements, sometimes through NATO, sometimes through temporary arrangements, even possibly with NATO-dedicated forces being temporarily detached, separated from their NATO commitment, and in that instance not under NATO jurisdiction?
Those issues are being discussed in the international defence community, but they were not discussed here this evening. All those questions have considerable implications for our armed forces, but the Secretary of State did not see fit to discuss them. Equally, there is considerable discussion of the future structure of NATO—other speakers have mentioned that. Should membership be widened to include countries in central Europe? What will the reaction of Russia be to that, and why do we seem to be going much more slowly than we were?
We must also reconsider the resource implications. What troops are we prepared to commit to such a realignment? How do our current proposals fit into that? What effective operational role do the Government envisage for the Western European Union, and what are the resource implications? Those matters are being discussed, but they have not been discussed here this evening.
What about the current attitude towards NATO of the new Administration in Washington? Frankly, I am astonished that, on a day when Secretary of State Christopher says that the special relationship is dead and Asia is more important than western Europe, and when President Clinton has been criticising our role in Bosnia, we do not even have a sign whether the Government have considered the question that is certainly being posed in Washington in respect of Bosnia, "You may not care about Bosnia, but do you care about NATO?"
I do not support military intervention in Bosnia—I have made that clear in previous interventions in the House—but I should have liked to see some sign from the Secretary of State that he had given that matter some thought and was prepared to lay out the options which could be considered by the House in our debate. But that has, after all, characterised his approach throughout.
I think that we should be fair and say that we do not underestimate the difficulties that the Defence Secretary is experiencing as he attempts to get out of the problems that have been created by the crisis at the Treasury. Any Secretary of State for Defence would be facing those. However, he is compounding his problems, I believe, by not being more open about them.
The House would be far more sympathetic to a Minister who said, "We recognise that resources do not match up to our current commitments, but until we have the budget deficit under control we have to take calculated risks". That is not an especially happy position to be in. It is certainly not a happy position for our armed forces, potentially facing very difficult circumstances. It would, however, be a far more honest approach to the House and it would enable us to have a proper debate.
By contrast, an element of party political argument kept creeping into the Secretary of State's speech. That may all have been good stuff in the 1983 and 1987 elections and in that period, but given the serious difficulties that we face now, in a rapidly changing world, frankly I think that it is an outdated approach. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that.
Let us consider where we spend the money that the Treasury will make available. With equipment, there have always been trade-offs on sourcing, location of expertise

79
and manufacturing. My hon. Friend dealt with the Government's deficiencies on defence diversification very adequately. However, 1 shall move away from the bangs and whistles of high-tech equipment and consider whether the MOD is looking after British interests elsewhere.
The experience with the new MOD office at Bristol, which has been mentioned in the debate, would suggest not. There the MOD ignored British companies and gave the £14 million cladding contract to a Swiss firm. Indeed, the job was tendered without a single British contractor being allowed on the list. I shall not discuss whether, with all the cuts facing the military, we need that new procurement office in Bristol. It is an extraordinary situation.
Peter Rogers, construction director of Stanhope, said —I think it sums up the views of many people in the building industry—
"Ii is a huge pity—no other country would do it".
Can hon. Members imagine the French, German, Italian or any other European Governments taking such a position with regard to their own suppliers? It is no wonder that the Jubilee line seems to be going the same way.
When the Minister replies I hope that we get something better than the MOD statement to the press on the subject —that they followed all the procedures correctly. What a firm defence of British interests! I hope that the Minister will not rely on misrepresenting some of the reports on that industry. It may seem only a small contract, but it is symptomatic of an approach that needs to be rooted out of the Ministry.
We must recognise that morale among defence contractors, suppliers and much of the military has been severely weakened by the uncertainty that has been facing them and by the cuts that have affected them. Both groups have served this country magnificently and, frankly, they deserve better. They deserve what has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House; a proper review of our defence priorities; a proper review of our commitments; a review of what we can pay for; and the needs that those will bring about. Not only did the Secretary of State not know the answer; frankly, he did not even understand the question, as the statement demonstrated.
7.5 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I think it fair to say that some consensus has evolved on both sides of the Chamber about several issues that have been discussed since the Secretary of State made his statement.
Nevertheless, I should like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for a number of meetings that he held with myself and other colleagues about several defence topics that concern us. He has spent a great deal of time trying to explain the strategy and the difficulties that he faces. However, I wish to put it on record that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who spelt out in no uncertain terms his belief that the defence of the realm was the most important obligation of any Government. Furthermore, that obligation is central to Conservative philosophy and the Conservative party takes it seriously. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, there is little point in having social security if one cannot ensure national security.
80
There comes a time, therefore, when those Conservative Members who have concerns about defence have to tell my right hon. and learned Friend that he is in danger of losing credibility when he suggests that further cuts can be made in a piecemeal fashion from the defence budget—especially if those cuts amount to yet another £1 billion.
Further, no Conservative Member and few Opposition Members would deny that when "Options for Change" was devised there was an agreement, by and large, among many people that times had changed and that we needed a new strategy for defence in the next decade. It was realistic, therefore, to consider what we could do to change the balance, and perhaps the size, of our forces if there was no longer a threat from the Soviet Union.
Since "Options for Change" was announced, however, the commitments and the threats that we face have patently changed. Far from being safer, it is, if anything, a more dangerous and complicated world for which we have to devise a defence strategy. Therefore, Conservative Members would argue that our defence commitments are likely to increase, not to decrease. When some of us called for a review of defence and foreign policy commitments, it was with the idea of recognising that defence commitments were likely to increase with those increased and more complicated threats; and that more defence involvement would probably come with increasingly active foreign policy commitments.
For example, troops may need to be deployed in a number of different spheres which were not planned, and for which no contingent supplies or plans were made during "Options for Change". Indeed I would go further. It is my view that the chiefs of staff who discussed "Options for Change" with the Secretary of State at the time were given a firm undertaking that, if there were further commitments than those that were obvious at the time, "Options for Change" would be reviewed.
However, were the Secretary of State, even now, to look carefully again at those commitments, he could only agree that the position has become more complicated, there are further commitments and therefore there will have to be a further review of "Options for Change". Whether those further commitments are in Bosnia, the Gulf, on the safe-havens policy, in Cambodia or even Northern Ireland in the future, they have led and are leading to serious overstretch and the damaging of morale both within the forces—not only in the Army but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said, in the Navy —and, as we run down our procurement programme, within the defence industry.
A number of my colleagues share my concern that the White Paper simply does not address those increased commitments. We must recognise that defence spending cannot be reduced further. Indeed, we might have to recognise that, in certain circumstances in the future, it will have to increase and, with that in mind—I should not like it to happen at present—we must also recognise that France has decided that that time has come. France is increasing its defence budget by 3.6 per cent. and its equipment budget by 5 per cent.
How does my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State justify Britain's continuous decrease in the defence budget as against France's recognition—by the increase in its defence budget—of a more complicated world and a variation in threats posed to western nations'?
The Government's strategy does not add up, and the White Paper that they have produced does not address the

81
problem. I look forward to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench persuading Conservative Members with these concerns that there will be a more co-ordinated attempt to match equipment and men within the forces as well as the amount of money allocated to the defence budget with the likely commitments made for those forces in the foreseeable future. We cannot foresee everything, but we can plan appropriately and wisely. Recent planning has not been correct and insufficient emphasis has been placed on it within the White Paper. I look forward to listening to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to see whether they can persuade me that the matter will be dealt with in the weeks ahead and further changes made.
7.12 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: As a former defence Whip who, with his Government counterpart, regularly had to march Members into the Lobby almost at bayonet point to participate in defence debates, I greet the imposition of the ten-minute rule with mixed feelings. It is nice to know that more Members are taking an active interest in defence, but it is galling to be restricted by the ten-minute rule, so I must make progress quickly.
First, may I register with the Minister my pleasure at learning today—I have not yet been informed officially but have, as ever in this place, learnt from the press—that the contract for electronic aerial warfare training has been awarded to the company that has said that it will operate from Teesside international airport. I am pleased, because it will bring a number of jobs to Cleveland and the north-east generally. I only hope that it will go some way towards removing the resentment caused by the non-delivery of the jobs promised with the quality assurance facility that was due to move from Woolwich. If the company goes on to win the contracts for in-flight refuelling, training and target towing, it may remove even more resentment in the future. Anyway, I shall present such a case.
It will surprise no one to learn that, as a member of the North Atlantic Assembly and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe's parliamentary body, I ensure that our fellow delegates from the emerging nations of eastern Europe know that I am an unrepentant socialist. Furthermore, I am an unreconstructed unilateral nuclear disarmer and a lifelong peace campaigner.
When I first heard the term "peace dividend", my heart leapt with great joy because I thought that it was a wonderful phrase and concept and that we would have a lot of fun with it. Frankly, we have had a little too much fun. I should now like to get my hands on the individual who first coined the phrase, because, male or female, young or old, black or white, I should like to strangle that person.
There was a great burst of enthusiasm at the time, but, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and others have said, the world and the nature of the threat have changed. The threat is much less in degree but much more pressing in terms of deployment and distribution. We do not know from which direction it will come or what form its manifestations will take.
If we put ourselves forward as leaders of a rapid reaction force within or outside the alliance, we must have rapid reaction provision not only in equipment and planning but in rapid reaction politicians. The 1993 estimates do not have that stamp of rapid reaction authority
82
or thinking. They are totally imprisoned in old-fashioned concepts and out-of-date forms of preparation. We must forget about Trident.
I was astounded to discover today that the tactical air-to-surface missile is now the sole nuclear vehicle. I do not know how one explains that. To talk about replacing it, in a sub-strategic role, with a single warhead on a Trident missile seems to be an expensive way of delivering a knock-out blow. If the submarines are not at sea at the time, where will we fire it from? Devonport, Rosyth or Faslane? We shall give Devonport the privilege in the hope that it will reach the target.
The Treasury is exploiting the tacky phrase "peace dividend" and jumping on the bandwagon, hoping that no one will notice when it talks about reducing the defence budget by billions of pounds in the future. The whole concept is patently mad.
If we are to be the leaders within Europe and the alliance in terms of peacekeeping, may I point out that our military personnel have a good training ground in Northern Ireland, where they are trained not only for high-intensity exchange but for more sophisticated forms of political assessment. Sir John Walters, SACEUR No. 2, calls it the corporals' war. By that he means that a young man in charge of a section of eight or 10 men in a rural or urban area and faced with a real threat has no opportunity to refer back to the brigadier or colonel and ask for instruction, but must make an assessment there and then within seconds, deploy his lads and tell them exactly what to do.
It is a corporals' war. Such experience is precious and has stood our lads—and women—in good stead in Bosnia. Sadly, our allies do not have such experience. It is sad in one sense but fortunate in another. Perhaps we can defray to some extent our defence expenditure by offering that experience and training to some of our allies, at least within NATO. I do not suggest that we send the Bundeswehr to Belfast, but we could give it some in-tandem tranining with some of our unites that have worked there.
Year after year, Opposition Members have called for a defence review based on an assessment of foreign policy, commitment and liability. Now, in view of the £1 billion year-on-year cut that is in offing, and our projected role as leader of the rapid reaction cops within the alliance, we must be honest with ourselves and say that we cannot carry out that task without such a review. Either we undertake a review that starts with a full assessment by the Foreign Secretary, followed up by an analysis by the Defence Secretary, or we forget about the pretence that we have a leading role to play. We cannot have it both ways. Let us start again and be honest with one another.
7.20 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) in his seat below the Gangway. Would that he had been sitting above the Gangway as a shadow Minister these many years. He is one of the very few Opposition Members whose claim to be a champion of the defence of the realm stands up to examination. The Labour party talks as though it is the party of defence; that is about as convincing as its claim to be the party of law and order.
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the record, let met point out that the Labour party sends its sons and daughters to fight for this country just like any other party.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
Mr. Couchman: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will add that time to my allotted 10 minutes.
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's comments about our troops in Bosnia, and pay tribute to the enormous courage and skilful professionalism that they have applied to their tasks. Members of the Corps of Royal Engineers have been continuously among the troops in Bosnia, and a new squadron from 38 Regiment will be sent to replace the existing squadron shortly.
Those Royal Engineers will be trained, and continue to be trained, in my constituency. I was delighted to receive a letter on 21 July from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces informing me that the only centre for training Royal Engineers in the future will be at Brompton barracks in Chatham in my constituency. It is as well that we in the Medway towns continue to take pride in the Royal Engineers towns because, sadly, the forces for which those towns have been a base for many years are getting fewer and fewer.
When I made my maiden speech in the House 10 years ago, it was to make a valedictory statement about the closure of Her Majesty's Royal Navy base and dockyard at Chatham; it was with great dismay that I heard my right hon. and learned Friend tell me today that the proposals contained in the consultation paper "The Future of Britain's Naval Reserve Forces", which he issued in June, were to be implemented and firmed up. He said that he had received much support for his proposals in that paper; I must tell him that there has been no support whatsoever in the Medway towns that I represent.
As a result of that implementation, with great sadness we shall see the closure of HMS Wildfire, which is the remaining link of the Medway towns with the Royal Navy. We had hoped that my right hon. and learned Friend would tell us that he had given consideration to the consultation exercise and had changed his mind about which units would close and which units would continue as Royal Naval Reserve centres, and that HMS Wildfire would be spared.
That is not to be, and it is therefore beyond any words of mine to persuade my right hon. and learned Friend to change his mind and convince him that he would get a very much better geographical balance by retaining RNR Northwood and RNR HMS Wildfire as the two centres for the Royal Naval Reserve in the south-east.
The Royal Naval Reserve has a very fine and active unit in Gillingham, based in what was the old apprentices' school for the Navy, HMS Collingwood. That building will not really become available for disposal, because it is situated between married quarters for the Royal School of Military Engineering, and no savings will be possible there.
Recruiting for the RNR unit HMS Wildfire has always been good. The jobs and training that it carries out are to continue for the Royal Navy Reserve, and I bitterly regret the decision that has been taken: it will mean the closure of that unit and the Royal Naval Auxiliary unit which also occupies Collingwood.
We in the Medway towns shall continue to support and cherish the Royal Navy. I fear however, that the volunteers now based at HMS Wildfire will not find it easy to transfer their training to HMS President in London. HMS President
84
occupies property on the north side of the river, and it will be difficult for people from my area to get there for training evenings or weekends.
The Medway towns depend for much of their employment not only on direct military personnel: they also have a substantial interest in the employment provided by our defence industries—including GEC-Marconi Avionics, which is the biggest employer in the towns, notwithstanding the substantial cuts of the past few years. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be able tomorrow to outline some hopeful procurement decisions that have been reached.
We have received very little reassurance from my right hon. and learned Friend's opening remarks about the helicopter programme or the replacement for the Hercules. I urge my hon. Friend to give some assurances tomorrow that the long overdue decision on the EH101 support helicopter is about to be taken, and that he is looking with greater urgency at the replacement of the Hercules with, perhaps, the C- 130J Hercules aircraft. I hope that the attack helicopter for the Army, which is long overdue, will be speeded up and orders placed in the near future.
I was pleased to read reports in the press over the weekend that suggested that the Bell-GEC Cobra Venom is becoming a more attractive option than the Apache, because it is a great deal cheaper. I am sure that that will be taken into account during these difficult days.
It is always tempting to shy at almost every issue of defence. There can be few times when more issues have needed to be discussed.
A lady constituent of mine has suffered a marriage breakdown; I should like my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to assure me that the Ministry of Defence will take more cognisance of the incidence of marital breakdowns within the services than has been shown in the case of my constituent.
The difficulties have arisen as a result of the over-strict and inflexible rules regarding, for instance, baggage that is sent to foreign postings and comes back, and the schooling of children of service personnel who are stationed overseas. I hope that, in the near future, those matters will be considered by the Ministry of Defence, as it has caused a great deal of disquiet and discomfort to my constituent. I believe that the time has long since passed for the Ministry of Defence to cease to look at ladies who marry service personnel as camp followers, which still seems to be in vogue.
With that, I should like to hand over to someone else, because we all have a lot to say on many issues.
7.31 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Like many others who have spoken so far in the debate, I too, deplore the obvious hysteria and panic that is surrounding Government decisions on an issue as vital as defence. I deplore it because of the impact on the defence of the realm, but also because of the impact that it has on many of our constituents who now face uncertainty and a great deal of worry about their futures—nowhere more so than in my constituency, where a question mark hangs over the Royal Artillery testing and training range at Balivanich.
I know that the Minister for Defence Procurement visited the range recently and has not yet reached a decision about the review of the valuation ranges.

85
However, if a decision has been reached to downgrade the range or wind it down, it will be bitterly received by my constituents and throughout Scotland. Nowhere is more dependent economically on the work and the income that the base provides, not only in terms of direct, or even indirect, employment, but also in terms of sustaining the communications, ferries and the air networks that service those southern isles.
The Minister may further be aware that, when the range was introduced in the 1950s, it caused great social dislocation, as he might well imagine, given the nature of the community there at that time. There was much resistance there at the time to the installation of a major military base. However, once the base was installed, the local community began to work with it willingly and harmoniously. After having gone through that process, the local community is now faced with another prospect of major economic and social dislocation. I hope that that is something that the Minister will not contemplate.
I also agree with what was said earlier about the need for a proper defence review. I particularly agreed with what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said about the need to conduct the review in a European perspective.
It is absurd that the member states of the European Community should conduct unilateral cuts in the defence forces, and try to salami-cut their existing forces to fit budget restraints, when they could much more sensibly sit around a table and try to work out how best to pool their resources to achieve a much more effective defence outcome. After all, the challenges that we shall face in the future are challenges that we shall share together, right across the Community, particularly after the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. That should be taken into account in our defence planning.
I agreed with the Secretary of State that defence forces have an important role in future, and that now is perhaps a more dangerous period than any since the 1950s. He was right about the consequences had the attempted fascist putsch in Moscow of a couple of weeks ago succeeded. It would have meant the rearming of many states now bordering Russia—Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states, and probably Romania as well. It would quite probably have led to war before the end of the century.
The fact that that putsch came so close to success shows us the importance of maintaining our defence forces, not just in the United Kingdom but in Europe as well. The dangers are not only potential. War is already taking place in Europe, in the Balkans. I disagree strongly with the claim by the Secretary of State that the policy of the United Nations and the European Community is a success. On the contrary. I regard it as almost a complete failure, and in many respects a sham.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said during the Secretary of State's speech, he and I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), visited Sarajevo for three days last week. We were immensely disturbed by what we found there. Far from humanitarian aid getting through to the people of Sarajevo, they are getting only 200 to 300 g of food per person per day, which is only half of what the United Nations considers the minimum survival ration. Other enclaves such as Maglaj have received no aid whatever for three months. The first day that we were there, 150 shells fell on Sarajevo, killing two people and wounding seven.
86
I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to consider what it would be like if 150 IRA bombs were going off in the centre of London every day, and whether he would have the temerity to call it a United Nations-protected safe area. This weekend, 500 shells fell in one day, and 10 civilians were killed. An important point is that each one of the shells is counted coming out of the Serbian gun barrels by United Nations monitors attached to Serbian forces for that purpose. They are counted out, they land in Sarajevo, they kill civilians; yet nothing is done to prevent it.
I believe that it is possible for the United Nations to do much more to help Sarajevo and Bosnia. It is not a question of resources; it is a question of will. The Government rightly consider it worth while to spend £.1.5 billion a year and station 18,500 soldiers in Northern Ireland to ensure that terrorism does not succeed there. A similar commitment by the Governments of the EC and the United States, acting together through NATO, would immediately transform the situation in Bosnia and would be fully justified.
It is as important for Europe that violence and terror do not succeed in the Balkans as it is for Britain in Northern Ireland. Nor can I any longer accept the excuse from Ministers that the military advice has been uniformly against any such intervention. I have it on reliable authority that two successive chairmen of the military committee of NATO have recommended and urged a military intervention by NATO in Bosnia. General Eyde, who was chairman of NATO's military committee, before the present incumbent, General Vincent, recommended early last year that 40,000 troops be put into Bosnia to prevent the situation from exploding.
A major upgrade in the airlift to Sarajevo is urgently required. Again, there is no question of capacity to do that, only of willingness. A comparison with the Berlin airlift of 1949 makes the point. To relieve Berlin at the height of the cold war, the west made 227,000 flights and delivered more than 2 million tonnes of aid over 462 days. The Sarajevo airlift has already lasted longer than the airlift into Berlin—more than 470 days—but in contrast has resulted in fewer than 6,000 flights, delivering only 63,000 tonnes of aid. Nothing could more clearly testify to the failure of will, and the consequent lack of effort to make a genuine attempt to break the siege of Sarajevo and the other Bosnian enclaves.
If we are to break out of the impasse in Bosnia and Croatia, and in the whole of the Balkans, we must do two things. First, we must initiate negotiations that deal not with Bosnia and Croatia separately but with the whole of the Balkans. Secondly, we must redress the balance of force between the various sides. If we do not do that by intervening directly, we should do it, as President Clinton has urged, by lifting the arms embargo. The problem will not go away.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
7.40 pm
Sir Jerry Wiggin: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the Front Bench because, as he will recall, on practically the last occasion that the House sat before the recess, he was good enough to come here in the early hours of the morning to answer a debate on the EH101 utility version support helicopter. It seems as though

87
virtually nothing has happened, although nearly three months have passed. It is time that the decision was made. I am happy to see that one or two of my hon. Friends who were present for that debate are here again now.
My hon. Friend the Minister gave the impression that the internal dispute in the Ministry of Defence had been resolved and that the financiers had allocated the appropriate sums of money. Although I was sad to hear that the decision was to buy Chinooks, all was on course and we were expecting an announcement at the Army and Navy equipment exhibition, which would not only have given much pleasure to the west country but would have secured for the RAF the essential provision of support facilities for the Army, and probably also resulted in a substantial order for the helicopter from the Dutch.
I am sorry to say that the Dutch have now ordered a French helicopter and I am sorry to learn that, within the Ministry of Defence, old arguments are being deployed. We all know the financial difficulties that the Ministry is likely to face, as every other Government Department is likely to face, in the near future. My hon. Friend the Minister must be strong, and be sustained. Can we please have an early and positive decision? This has been going on since 1987. It is shameful that our forces should be deprived of that essential facility.
Not for the first time in these debates, I shall speak about the reserve forces. Since we saw the consultative documents on the naval reserve forces and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, both marked, in heavy type, "Consultative" on the front, those of us who have been through anything like this before knew that the documents spelled out the fate of the two reserves. I was sad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State confirm that he proposes to proceed as planned—that is, as planned by the regular officers of the services concerned.
I bemoan the fact that so few of our admirals, generals and air marshals have understood not only the professional capacity of the reservists but the important part that they play in the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) spoke of the essential contacts between the people of Kent and the Royal Navy through the Royal Naval Reserve. The ships have been taken away, the drill halls are being shut and the RNR as we have known it—I played a part in helping it to expand —is gone.
Furthermore, the Navy proposes to recruit some 500 part-timers to serve on ships at sea. I have no doubt that they will have a good time and earn good money while at sea, but they are not true reservists: they are substitutes, and there is a big difference. I detect here the use of willing people by the Royal Navy as cheap manpower. We must watch any such development extremely carefully.
I have heard an ugly rumour about the Royal Marine Reserve. I hope that it is not true. That is an exceptional part of our reserve forces. The men train virtually to the same standards as the regular Royal Marines and they are well recruited. In many cases, there is a waiting list. The reserve is exceptionally good value for money. I do not know whether it is possible to have any confirmation about its future, but I sincerely hope that the Navy is not tempted to tinker with that reserve force.
The reserves for the RAF were used in airfield defence. It may be argued that that threat is somewhat lessened, but
88
a locally recruited modest army on site who could get to know the area, the people and the ground concerned was always a cheap way to defend airfields. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), whom I had the honour to appoint to a post as honorary chair or something like that—[HON MEMBERS: "Inspector general"?] Not quite that high in those days—the position was more modest.
I shall deal now with the Territorial Army. It must be particularly crazy to change that at a time when, as we have heard from Ministers and from many Back-Bench speakers, the regular Army is greatly stretched. We know that the Army has been forced, by sheer necessity of its duties, to restore two regular battalions. What nobody said at the time was that this would be done within the agreed budget, so the Army is looking around for finances and its eye has settled on the Territorial Army. Options for cuts of 5, 10 or 15 per cent. in its strength are being mooted.
It is astonishing how well morale in the TA holds up. However, in a volunteer army, morale is a fragile flower, easily affected. Among both officers and men there is great worry. Decisions are not being made when advertised and I thoroughly deplore that any economy in our reserves should be looked for at all, but more particularly that it should be looked for in the TA.
I have another point about manpower in the Royal Navy—or should I say womanpower in the Royal Navy? I have been told that a problem is beginning to arise with women serving at sea. We who are sceptical, and perhaps rather old-fashioned, always saw the decision to send women to sea as strange. The Royal Navy contract for serving Wrens did not require them to go to sea. However, now when a girl signs on with the Royal Navy, her contract requires her to go to sea if ordered to do so. As a net result, the ladies at sea are very young and have no rank structure or organisation to look after them. I understand that there was recently a frigate at sea with no fewer than 30 young ladies on board, the senior one of whom was a leading cook. If that is not a recipe for trouble, then I do not know much about morale.
I share the dilemma that several of my hon. Friends have expressed. We understand that we have to cut Government expenditure, but we know in our heart of hearts that there is no room for cuts in the defence budget. I have heard today comments from Labour Members that surprised me, because for once they were realistic. We live in a Europe as dangerous as ever and in a world probably more dangerous than ever, but there are people from the Treasury running around with red pens saying that there is such a thing as a peace dividend. I do not believe that.
We have heard talk about defence reviews. What is to be cut out? One hon. Member after another has suggested a defence review. What happens after a defence review—I remember one or two—is that things get cut out, but nobody has said, "Let us stop keeping the peace in Yugoslavia or Cyprus," or, "Let us pull the troops out of Northern Ireland." We all know that that would not be realistic and would not balance the power and need of Britain's position in the world today.
I did not vote for "Options for Change" and I believe that those of us who did not do so have been proved right. Being right does not always make one popular, but at least I had the satisfaction of my own conscience.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that it is no good being threatening and saying that we will not support any cuts. Many of us, especially those who have been in

89
government, understand the difficulties that we are facing. However, I hope that he will send the message from Conservative Members to the Treasury that if, when the Government expenditure round is announced at the end of next month, there are serious and savage cuts in defence that enables us no longer to carry out our main duties, some of us will strongly question that—and probably in the Lobby.
7.25 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall refer to a few of what should be our international defence obligations. The first is the inhumane weapons convention, which we signed in 1981 and which deals with weapons such as napalm. Our troops could be vulnerable to it in Bosnia or elsewhere while they are peacekeeping. We signed that convention in 1981 but have not yet ratified it. That is a scandal and it should be ratified soon. Indeed, there is soon to be a review convention at which we shall not be present unless we ratify it.
A convention on the dumping of radioactive waste at sea will be held in London between 8 and 12 November. Over 20 countries have already said that they favour a permanent ban on dumping radioactive waste at sea. We have three decommissioned submarines at Devonport and another four at Rosyth which must be dealt with, but the Government have refused to rule out the option of disposing nuclear submarines at sea. They should do so in line with the convention, or at least explain their position.
My main point is that the Government are damaging the good relations between Britain and the United States. Of course, I am only touching the surface of that issue. The strained relations over Bosnia deserve a whole speech of their own and I cannot do that on this occasion. The Government are straining the relations by undermining the United States' efforts towards non-proliferation. In President Clinton's speech to the United Nations general assembly on 27 September, he said:
"I have made non-proliferation one of our nation's highest priorities. We intend to weave it more deeply into the fabric of all of our relationships with the world's nations and institutions … We will pursue new steps to control the materials for nuclear weapons. Growing global stockpiles of plutonium and highly enriched uranium arc raising the danger of nuclear terrorism for all nations. We will press for an international agreement that would ban production of these materials for weapons forever.
As we reduce our nuclear stockpiles, the United States has also begun negotiations towards a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing … I renew my call on the nuclear states to abide by that moratorium as we will negotiate to stop nuclear testing for all time."
Our Government are out of line with President Clinton on those issues. On the comprehensive test ban, for example, President Clinton has set a target date of 1995–96. The British Government have refused to endorse that dale and want to continue nuclear testing—they are perpetually lobbying in Washington to use the Nevada site to carry out more nuclear tests. Even in the face of problems with the Chinese, the United States is still trying to achieve that comprehensive test ban treaty. The British Government are trying to undermine those efforts.
The United States also has a policy on the issue of weapons grade fissile material cut-off. Its policy is to try to get a global ban on fissile material production for missile purposes. The British Government openly oppose that—or rather, secretly oppose it, because they will not be accountable for their actions—and want the material for their Trident programme. They should join the United
90
States to get that fissile material cut-off and at least declare their stocks and open them up to International Atomic Energy Agency inspection.
In his speech, President Clinton makes nuclear non-proliferation his top priority. The Government are again moving in the wrong direction. With the THORP scheme, for example, plutonium will be produced on a huge scale into the next century and that could be used by the nuclear terrorists to which President Clinton referred. There have been well-established reports of the United States Administration, the Pentagon and certainly the Congress being extremely concerned at the Government's approach to THORP. They would like to see it killed and it should be. It is a danger in relation to nuclear proliferation.
Trident is a massive proliferation in itself on a number of levels. With Polaris missiles, the United Kingdom had 96 warheads. Trident has a capability of 512 warheads. It has been reported that at the very least the MOD will have around 192 in future after retraining themselves. That is still double the proliferation that occurred with Polaris.
The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), who spoke earlier, told the House on 18 May:
"No decision has been made — Rut 1 suspect that it will be more than those that we are carrying on Polaris".—[Official Report, 18 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 147.]
The capability in numbers of fire power is considerably more than Polaris. That proliferation encourages the spread of nuclear weapons in other states.
One MOD spokesman in Jane's Defence Weekly pre-empted the Minister's decision about Trident becoming a sub-strategic nuclear weapon. It was described as being capable of giving a warning shot. That shot would be the equivalent of 15 Hiroshimas—some warning. Once that sort of power is introduced, one must ask, who is it aimed at and who do the Government think it will be used against? We deserve an answer if that is the potential weaponry that the Government are prepared to contemplate unleashing on the world. It fails to honour the Government's commitment under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty.
Greenpeace has said that about £15 billion or more could be saved over the 13-year life of Trident if it were abandoned now. We should be taking advantage of that element of the peace dividend. The sub-strategic role of Trident is just as much a fraud as the Domesday role envisaged for Trident was disastrous.
We must have a peace dividend. The Treasury is right in that respect—although it is in favour of it for different reasons. We cannot run forces at cold war levels. We were told at that time that the position could not get worse, but that we needed that level of armaments. We no longer face the threat of the cold war and it is ludicrous to say that the position is more dangerous now than it was then. I said in 1989 at the end of cold war that we could save £50 billion within 10 years if we planned it properly. That was a modest target—I was criticised by a number of my hon. Friends for estimating that amount, but it could have been done with a proper defence review and by moving away from a nuclear defence strategy. Instead we have a chaotic, unplanned approach from the Ministry of Defence with almost more admirals than sailors.
The Financial Times of 13 September said:
"the number of Army privates and their equivalents in the navy and airforce fell by more than a quarter between 1980 and 1992. Officer numbers fell by just 1.6 per cent. over the same period.

91
The number of colonels and lieutenant-colonels rose … But nine out of 10 of those were privates; the number of commissioned officers fell by just 630. Over the same period, officers' pay rose by more than 170 per cent., while the pay of privates rose 138 per cent.
A general now typically earns almost nine times the pay of a private, compared with seven times in 1980."
Bad planning has led to the current chaos. We need not only the peace dividend but to meet our international obligations on non-proliferation and peace.
7.59 pm
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I welcome the fact that we are debating the defence estimates rather more punctually that we have in the recent past. What is a great deal less welcome, however, is the background against which the debate takes place, especially the widespread rumours of yet more cuts of frightening proportions in the defence budget.
There is general recognition of the necessity in the present financial climate to examine rigorously all aspects of public expenditure. I have the greatest respect for the ability of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to do so, but at the same time I am much reassured that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his ministerial colleagues are being robust in rejecting any tendency to what I gather has been described as a move towards a hollow force.
The Conservative party has always regarded the defence of the realm as the primary responsibility of Government. That is not jingoistic rhetoric but plain common sense. To that extent, there will always be an element of special pleading for the defence budget, because unless we get that right, the security of the nation's interests is at risk and all other departmental budgets pale into insignificance. It is thus my fervent wish that this two-day debate will send clear messages to the Treasury in the lead-up to the first unified Budget next month.
I would be one of the first to acknowledge that it is the duty of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to challenge all the so-called spending Departments and I know that he will keep matters in proportion. It is probably true that radical examination of the Ministry of Defence's operation and expenditure has been postponed—and thank goodness it has been, or it would have been quite impossible to mount the successful campaigns in the Falklands and the Gulf. Reference has been made to the roles of the Harrier and aircraft carriers in the Falklands and of armoured regiments in the Gulf—east of Suez—of all places where they could have been deployed.
Many of us have never come to terms with some of the so-called logic behind "Options for Change", which was written three years ago in the light of the collapse of the Soviet empire but before the unforeseen Gulf conflict. Its proponents have stuck doggedly to the premise that the world is a safer place, which in many ways it is, but no hon. Member thinks that there is greater stability overall following the disturbance of the equilibrium of the former balance of power.
I should like to use the concept of stability as the theme for my following remarks. As a former regular soldier, I shall concentrate on the Army, but I am well aware that colleagues will speak for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force with much greater expertise. I am convinced that parallel arguments apply in each respect.
92
Ever since "Options for Change" the Army has been preoccupied with the painful process of reorganization—re-roling and relocating; amalgamations and redundancies. We have heard a good deal about such matters in the House in the past few months. But one thing was always apparent —that the objective was clear and the timetable was clear. The new shape was to be in place by 1 April 1995. It now seems that the assurances that were passed on to troops by senior commanders are being thrown into doubt. I find it impossible to convey to the House the catastrophic effect that this is having on morale in the armed forces.
Whatever misgivings there may have been about the policy—the traditional silence of the services is all too often wrongly interpreted as agreement—there was determination to make the reorganisation work. If rumours in circulation are based on fact, the effect of future uncertainty on the most professional Army in the world will be devastating.
There is an awful sense of deja vu about this debate. I make no apologies for raising yet again the basic problem of overstretch. I was most interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), perhaps freed from the shackles of office, put a rather different interpretation on overstretch than when he was in office. I do not mean that disrespectfully, but perhaps that is one of the practicalities of politics. For a long time the existence of the phenomenon of overstretch was denied, but now it is part of the common parlance. It revolves around the matching of capabilities to commitments—
Mr. John Home Robertson: Educating Archie!
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: He may be educating himself.
In every recent defence debate, I have challenged the powers that be to prove their figures to be correct. I have given specific numbers to show a shortfall on existing commitments, let alone any additional and unforeseen ones such as Bosnia. My figures have never been disproved, yet as recently as the last sitting of the other place before the recess the Under-Secretary of State trotted out discredited statistics as achievable even before we withdraw from Hong Kong.
The truth is that a 24-month tour interval, if it were ever obtainable on the "Options" calculations, has been rendered impossible by the necessary increase in troops in Northern Ireland and by our Bosnian commitment. Who can tell what other events will rear their ugly heads in the next four years?
The effect on soldiers and their families is intolerable and I have seen it at first hand. What other occupations that are so rightly respected by the public, such as miners, nurses, firemen and policemen, would put up with the possibility of about seven and a half years' separation from their families in 15 years' workߞand all that, at the risk of lowering the tone of the debate, without overtime. It is all too easy to take the forces for granted, despite the high esteem in which they are held throughout the country. Is it surprising that service wives, who are supportive and tolerant to a fault, are now making their feelings known in no uncertain terms as their marriages and their children suffer?
Even given that worrying human problem, the financial restrictions on the Army are such that it is now apparently

93
impossible to train above unit level, which undermines the concept of a meaningful Army. Smaller will never be better if training cannot be conducted properly.
Mr. Brazier: The Canadian training facility is the most expensive for practising armoured warfare. Is my hon. Friend aware that the first of three extremely expensive exercises that were conducted there degenerated into farce because one had only a small number of infantry arid the others no infantry at all?
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend, who is very sound on these matters, says. I link his remarks with the speech that was made in the Upper House by my noble and gallant Friend Lord Bramall, which I recommend to the House and in which he developed the problem that arises if troops cannot be trained properly.
Even in the Gulf, it was sheer good luck that the 7th Armoured Brigade was able to train in theatre for six months before it went into action. Such luxuries are unlikely to be available again. The defence directory shows that all our units are at least double hatted, if not triple hatted, and the tolerance of our NATO allies may one day itself become overstretched. There comes a point when the position is untenable, both militarily and politically. That problem will be compounded once the recession is over and people with specialised knowledge in the armed forces redeploy their talents in a civilian context.
It would be foolish to pretend that there were not sectors in which economies could be made in the existing budget. I emphasise the phrase "existing budget" as I am not a member of the school which believes that we can talk about increasing budgets in present conditions. Economies can be made on top of the application of market testing and new management strategies that are already proving successful in lowering costs.
I shall now return to an issue which worries me and, I am sure, many other hon. Members. If we are to reduce defence expenditure to the lowest percentage of gross domestic product since about 1935, with all its historical connotations, we must be careful how we use our available resources. Therefore, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State concentrate on specific matters which merit careful study?
I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the scrutiny of civilian manpower in the Ministry of Defence, but I am as yet unconvinced by the figures. Based on a written question that I tabled in the House, I am certain that, on implementation of "Options for Change" the number of civilians in the Ministry of Defence would be reduced by about 20 per cent., in the Army as a whole, by about 30 per cent. and, most critically, in the teeth arms, by 40 per cent. Those statistics make me uncomfortable and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at the figures again.
I suspect that nobody in the House would describe the former Member for Plymouth, Sutton as uninhibited, but Mr. Alan Clark said to me, after he had retired, that one issue he very much regretted never getting to grips with at the Ministry of Defence was the level of civilian manpower. I explicitly exclude highly specialised civilians who perform jobs that release uniformed soldiers to fulfil their jobs in the armed forces.
Mr. Colvin: We need clarification of the figures. This morning I read a report that, since 1979, the number of men and women in civilian clothes paid by the Ministry of
94
Defence had fallen by 45 per cent. and the number of men and women in uniform by only 16 per cent. Those figures may be partly due to privatisation and contractorisation —I do not know. We need clarification of the impact of privatisation and contractorisation on the reduction of civilian personnel.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I suspect that my hon. Friend puts his finger on the important point—the figures are jumbled because of contractorisation. We must make direct comparisons between the bare statistics relating to civilians in the Ministry of Defence and uniformed soldiers. We need further clarification and I should be grateful if the Front Bench team could provide that in the wind-up to the debate.
The second sector in which there is enormous scope for radical examination is that of the defence estate. I do not believe that the defence estate is as well run as it might be. I do not wish to develop that theme tonight, but it is one which extends from the possible rationalisation of headquarters at Northwood and Wilton, through land holdings within the Ministry of Defence, to cosy little functions which are carried out unchallenged, and for which the taxpayer has to pick up the bill.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that no further cuts will be made based on short-term expediency to balance a budget here and a budget there? Any cuts should be made strictly on military criteria. If anyone in the Ministry of Defence says that we have too many armoured regiments, I would immediately respond by saying that we have an inadequate number of armoured reconnaissance regiments. There should be a straight swap between the functions.
As has already been mentioned in the debate, the value of the Territorial Army and the reserve forces has been grossly understated. The cost of this country's reserve forces is about the same as that of running the national health service for three days. That cost is peripheral in the financial context and inconsequential in the wider sweep. To introduce it into the debate undermines the spirit of volunteering in this country, whether military or non-military, which is done for virtually nil personal return.
I welcome the consultation paper on the framework for the reserve forces. I believe that it is to be the subject of a future debate. I want an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve Associations will be involved in the consultation, not presented with a fait accompli.
To quote my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, what is needed is for our armed forces, a priceless national asset, to have a period of stability. They cannot be subjected to continual chipping away so that they no longer provide a credible safety net for this country. Nor should Government policy—in the context of NATO, the United Nations and defence role 3—
"to contribute to promoting the United Kingdom's wider security interests through the maintenance of international peace and stability"—
be prejudiced. Only if the policy changes—I profoundly hope that it will not—can a case be made for a defence review which would not be limited to the Ministry of Defence but would encompass the whole of foreign policy. Only in those conditions could that argument legitimately be advanced.

95
The Conservative party and the Government have reaffirmed their commitment to traditional values. Paper tigers have no role in this country's defences. As long as the United Kingdom has superb fighting forces which set standards for the world and has a permanent place on the United Nations Security Council, the world will be a safer place.
8.16 pm
Mr. John Hutton: Anyone who is listening to our proceedings or who has an opportunity to read the report in Hansard tomorrow cannot but form the conclusion that the Government and Ministers have had a rough time from their Back Benchers—which they entirely deserve. There has been widespread concern, reflected on both sides of the House, about the way in which the Government are conducting defence policy and defence planning.
I have heard all the Back-Bench contributions to the debate, and not one Conservative Member has given unequivocal support to the Government's defence estimates. One reason for the outbreak of unanimity among Back Benchers in condemning Government policies is that a motion will be tabled in the House tomorrow in the name of the Prime Minister asking hon. Members to endorse the defence estimates. The problem is that none of us knows what the defence estimates are, as the figures seem to change from week to week.
It is clear from press reports—the Secretary of State had to concede the fact implicity this afternoon—that the Chancellor wants further unspecified cuts in the defence budget. We know that there are heavy cuts in the pipeline; today, the Secretary of State announced the cancellation of the TASM project, a decision, incidentally, for which he will have the full support of my party.
Underlying the difficulty in which both Conservative and Labour Members find themselves is the fact that there is a consensus that this is not the way to handle defence policy planning at a time of unprecedented change, when all the circumstances that used to shape defence policy and planning have been scrapped overnight with the end of the cold war and the dismantling of the Soviet Union.
These former threats have been replaced by other, equally menacing threats arising from the outbreak of ethnic violence in the states of the former Soviet Union and a worldwide increase in political violence of the sort regularly witnessed in Africa, for instance.
Against this background of unprecedented change and of a complete transformation of the threat facing the national security of the United Kingdom and our international allies, I wonder whether it is right to hand over the whole future direction of defence policy planning, lock, stock and barrel, to the Treasury. Of course, it is true that the Treasury will always have a decisive say, and we know about the Government's financial difficulties arising from the mess that they have made of the public sector finances. We also know about the industrial problems that they have created. All that has led to a diminution of Government resources, but no coherent strategic case is being made by the Government in defence planning—they are not carefully and cautiously scrutinising Britain's defence commitments.
96
I am not alone in suggesting that the opportunity has now arisen to undertake a more coherent and strategic review of our defence configurations. For example, the Select Committee on Defence's report says in its second paragraph:
"careful reading of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 93, which is subtitled 'Defending our Future', produces very little idea of which national interests are to be defended and where, in what order of priorities, and in the face of which anticipated threats or dangers."
Instead, we are offered some saloon bar rhetoric, presented as a coherent "Statement on the Defence Estimates". It is not: it is mere rhetoric, more of which we heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon.
I do not want to embarrass the Conservative Members who recently produced a pamphlet on this issue. Many of them are present tonight, including the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), with whom I find myself, somewhat surprisingly, in complete agreement on this issue. To quote the pamphlet selectively—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I do him and his colleagues an injustice—
"The general public—and the armed services—are in a limbo … morale—is at an historic low point … A comprehensive review should take place—In short, a thorough and coherent strategic review".
That is the view expressed by 12 Conservative Members, many of whom have repeated it tonight. There is thus concern on both sides of the House, motivated perhaps by different sets of priorities, because we do not believe that this is a sensible way in which to develop defence policy in the 1990s.
Where is the strategic analysis behind some of the changes that the Government have announced since "Options for Change"? I think particularly of the decision not to maintain in service beyond 1995 the four Upholder class submarines built by Cammell Laird and by VSEL in my constituency, at a cost of fl billion. In the 1993 defence estimates, the Government simply state that the case for deploying the Upholders has been removed by the changing pattern of Soviet SSN deployments—but that is slightly misleading, to say the least. The Government have themselves identified a whole range of other purposes and functions for this class of submarine besides patrolling the Greenland/Iceland/United Kingdom gap. So much for the Government's justification for scrapping the Upholders.
The taxpayer will lose as much as £900 million because of this decision, and it is transparently obvious to anyone who studies this fiasco that the strategic decision involved was driven solely by financial considerations. That is not the right way to proceed.
I believe that there is a consensus in the House that such events reveal the need for a strategic review of our defence commitments. Such reviews have been undertaken by Labour and Conservative Governments in the past—I think particularly of the outstanding intellectual case contained in the defence review conducted by Lord Healey in 1966. There is an obvious need for a defence review now, but unfortunately the Government show no signs of responding to that need.
If press reports are true, it appears that the Secretary of State for Defence is threatening to conduct a defence review to frighten the Treasury, but that is to put the issue in the wrong perspective. We should be developing a new consensus on defence policy for the 1990s. It would not be

97
very difficult to develop one, revolving around some of the defence roles identified in the estimates—particularly defence role 3, which I wish to discuss later.
We need to reconfigure our forces to face the new security situation of the 1990s. Regrettably, we are instead drifting along; there is a sense of a vacuum at the very heart of defence policy making. The Government are not properly discharging their responsibility to taxpayers, service personnel or those who work in the defence industries. We do not know where we are going from week to week.
There are some hard choices to be made—it would be foolish to pretend otherwise—but we cannot go on maintaining many of the pretences enshrined in the White Paper. We have to make a better job of matching resources to our vital national interests and new international responsibilities.
A recurrent theme of my speeches in previous defence debates has been the absence of any Government policy on secure employment in the defence industries. My constituency offers a vivid example of that. We have lost more than 7,500 jobs in the VSEL shipyard in less than three years—an unsustainable attrition of skills and expertise. If this country wants to maintain and develop a sensible SSN engineering capability it must do better than that.
Thousands of skilled engineering workers in my constituency have been forced out of their trade and are now driving minicabs or stacking shelves. No sensible industrial policy should force them into such a predicament. It is a ruinous waste of skills and expertise. No other western European nation would do this to its own people, yet our Government do not seem to care.
When we have repeatedly made these points in the House, we have been told by Ministers that we cannot develop a policy on diversification, because that would be telling defence companies what to do. We do not say that the Government should tell them what to do, but the Government have a responsibility to support the initiatives of many defence companies that want to preserve their engineering capabilities but recognise that to do so they need to move into new product areas.
There are a range of ways in which the Government can offer such support without the need for central direction —no one is advocating that. The Government can use their power and influence to support diversification initiatives by encouraging research and development, by the tax system and by other intelligent means. The Government are shirking their responsibility to many of the men and women who have contributed to the defence of this country for many years. That is morally unacceptable and economically insane.
There is no reference in the statement on the defence estimates to the problems of the defence industry. At least in the 1992 statement the Government had the courage to admit that there was a problem. They did not specify any solutions, but at least they identified the problems facing defence contractors in these difficult times. The Government do not have a strategy, and they do not seem to care what happens to the affected communities.
I have already referred to the situation in my constituency. It is with great sadness that I must report that last week another 300 workers at the VSEL shipyard were told that they had no future in the yard. That is a disgrace and it undermines the Government's claim that they alone
98
have a coherent strategy for success in employing people in the defence industries. They do not. Record numbers of defence industry workers are losing their employment.
I shall speak briefly about the future of the Royal Navy, not only because of my obvious direct constituency interest —the Barrow shipyard had built some of the finest ships ever to sail under the white ensign—but because it is clear that the Royal Navy has suffered disproportionately from the Government's programme of cuts. There must be some doubt about the effect of the cuts on the Navy's operational effectiveness. That is a particularly important issue given the importance of defence role 3 in the White Paper, especially in the context of the deployment of amphibious forces.
Today's Select Committee report on the future of the Royal Navy is timely, but it hardly amounts to an endorsement of Government policy in this area. Its principal conclusions could not be more critical of Government policy, and I shall refer to five of those conclusions. Paragraph 17 identifies financial constraints that are affecting the fleet's effectiveness. Paragraph 37 is highly critical of the Government's decision on the future, of the Upholder class submarine.
The Select Committee recently reported that the Navy needed six SSKs to maintain a viable diesel electric force in the submarine flotilla, but now there are to be no diesel electric submarines of any kind. I hope that the Government are at least prepared to consider the Select Committee's recommendation that at least one Upholder class submarine should be deployed with the Royal Navy.
Paragraph 59 says that the Royal Navy would be incapable of defending vital sea routes in time of war. We are a maritime nation, and perhaps the most damning criticism that a Select Committee could ever make of the conduct of Government defence policy is that the Royal Navy, the senior service, is incapable of defending this country's vital sea routes. That is a total indictment, if one were needed, of the way that the Government are conducting policy in this area.
Paragraph 48 expresses concern about the future of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and paragraph 11 highlights serious delays in procuring the next batch of type 23 frigates and says that that could threaten the ability of the Navy to maintain a surface fleet of about 35 frigates and destroyers. It is also clear from today's report by the Select Committee that the decision to order the next batch of type 23 frigates is at least two years behind schedule. For the shipbuilding industry, that is a ruinous delay, because skilled workers and design teams cannot be held together for that time without the prospect of orders.
Some Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), spoke about the need to proceed quickly with the decision to order two amphibious assault ships to replace Fearless and Intrepid. If Britain is to have an effective role in contributing to UN peacekeeping forces around the globe, which is important to this country, we must have an effective amphibious configuration. That will include not only the helicopter carrier that has recently been ordered, but the two replacements for Fearless and Intrepid. It would be impossible to deploy our forces effectively around the world, often in difficult areas and situations, without those two vital support ships. Those two ships are needed, and I hope that the Government will confirm, despite all the rumours about defence cuts, that those two orders at least will be sacrosanct.

99
Of direct interest to my constituents is the Government's decision on the future of the batch 2 Trafalgar programme, the replacement SSN fleet for the 21st century. We need at least six of this new class of submarine to maintain the bare bones of an effective SSN fleet, which is 12. There is concern among all hon. Members about whether the role and tasks of the SSN squadron can be carried out by 12 vessels. If there is any slippage in the ordering of the batch 2 Trafalgars or if there is delay—I understand that the Government are delaying the programme—or hesitation in deciding how many of those vessels should be ordered, it will have a negative effect on the operational ability of the SSN fleet.
I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will send a clear signal to my constituents that at least six batch 2 Trafalgars will be ordered and that there will be no further delay in the procurement of this vital new class of SSN submarine.
The future frigate programme is important to maintain the operational effectiveness of the Navy, and I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the Navy will be funded for a full one-to-one replacement of the type 42 destroyers. That will require a minimum order of 12. I should like to deal with other matters, but I shall not do so because other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
Defence policy is in tatters. There is no coherent view, and the Government are drifting from day to day and from week to week. The hon. Member for Canterbury was right to draw attention to the low morale of our armed forces, which is intolerable. Service in the armed forces is public service of the highest order, but that is not fully recognised by the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The winding-up speeches will start in about an hour. May we please have succinct speeches.
8.35 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I shall try to comply with your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I do not spoil the day for the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) when I say that, while I agree with much of what he said about the Royal Navy, I welcome the defence estimates. I also welcome their presentation. One could ask why the matching and balancing of commitments to resources has not been done before. The presentation gives rise to a different set of problems which, perhaps, are not wholly unexpected, and hon. Members are free to criticise the matching of commitments to resources as they feel appropriate.
Such criticism on my part is constructive. For example, the key diagram in the defence estimates showing the four structures in the mid-1990s admirably demonstrates defence roles 1, 2 and 3, which are best described as national, European and global. It also illustrates the huge overlap in commitments, because three carriers are needed in all three roles.
The division into three defence roles is interesting, in that roles 2 and 3 place NATO at the heart of making that commitment. We are right to question the role of NATO. Its key role is the defence of its members, but it has a
100
secondary, perhaps political, role of keeping the United States bound into a treaty with European members. That was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie).
Before widening NATO by admitting other countries, we must ask ourselves and them whether they are prepared to protect all NATO members and whether they guarantee to protect us at the same time. If the answer is no, enlargement must be put on the back burner and NATO must be prepared to refuse such applications.
We live in a troubled world. There are about 27 conflicts worldwide, and we face many threats. As was recognised in 1990 in "Options for Change", those threats are different from those of the past. There is no colossal threat from the Soviet Union and, as the cold war recedes, we need a change of style. We need defence across a broad spectrum and we must deliver diversity. In short, we need flexibility.
Like many others, I am concerned about the strategic future. If we have to make cuts, it is right to make them in the RAF. I have no difficulty with today's decision not to proceed with the air-to-surface missile, which has always been of limited strategic value. The Fleet Air Arm is quite capable of filling the gap, and in the 1990s the RAF looks like an increasingly inflexible service.
In recent years, the Royal Navy has been "dumped on" by both the other services, and such political activity in the Ministry of Defence is wrong. I do not quarrel with the decision to reduce the number of frigates, because the submarine threat that they were constructed to meet no longer exists. In future, we shall need mobility and flexibility, especially if there is to be an overlap between roles 2 and 3, the European and global roles that are set out in the White Paper.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the construction of a helicopter carrier, but I believe that we also need more fixed—wing carriers. Let us consider two scenarios from role 2—the need to attack a difficult Mediterranean country such as Libya or Syria and, perhaps, a maverick east European country. Let us also consider two scenarios from role 3, the global role. Although a big "if" is involved, there is a possibility that we will need to deploy in South Africa at some time during the next few years. Although it is another big "if", we may need to deploy in Hong Kong. The RAF could cope with a strike in the Mediterranean, but not with a strike in South Africa or in the far east.
Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman expound on his theory that we may need a presence in Hong Kong? Is he suggesting that we go to war with China?
Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is wasting time by painting pictures to which I have not alluded. I am illustrating the sort of situation—and I said there was a big "if"—to which the RAF might have to respond. It shows that a flexible response by an aircraft carrier could meet strategic demands in both the Mediterranean and the wider area. The RAF could not meet all those demands.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ottaway: I know that my hon. Friend is a supporter of the RAF, so I suspect that his intervention will not be helpful.
Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friend that I am more than a supporter of the RAF. Does he understand the point

101
that he is making about aircraft carriers? Has he carefully studied the cost of an aircraft carrier of the sort that the United States uses extensively? If not, his argument falls.
Mr. Ottaway: I had the privilege of spending four years at sea on an aircraft carrier—
Mr. Walker: Which one?
Mr. Ottaway: It was HMS Eagle, from 1966 to 1970. The modern aircraft carriers, without steam catapults, are a much cheaper option than the old fixed-wing carriers. Once a production line was under way, the costs would be significantly reduced.
There is resistance inside the Ministry of Defence to any strategic future for aircraft carriers. Certainly, none was deployed in the Gulf war. I read General de la Billiere's book "Storm Command". in which he explained why an aircraft carrier was not deployed. Frankly, I thought that it was a weak excuse. There is clearly in-fighting on the issue, but the Navy must riot be deterred in its wish to have a more flexible and mobile force.
I suggest that the strike capability of the RAF should be reviewed in the light of my remarks. We need greater flexibility in a fast-changing world. We need replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid—not by a helicopter carrier, but in addition to a helicopter carrier.
Many hon. Members have spoken of the folly of cutting our reserve forces. I have a Territorial Army unit in Coulsdon in my constituency and I know the commitment of its members. I have served in the Royal Naval Reserve so I know how valuable that force can be. My right hon. and learned Friend the Defence Secretary's opening speech left me slightly confused about the precise future of the reserve forces, so I would welcome any statement on that. Their greatest asset is their low-cost flexibility. When there is an overstretch in the budget and in requirements, as there is at the moment, the reserve forces are good value. It would be madness and action without any reasonable ground to make cuts in the reserve forces when the savings from doing so would be very modest.
I want to say a word on the deployment of Wrens at sea. A number of rather juicy stories have appeared during the summer. I shall quote one or two—such as the couple who deserted HMS Invincible because they fell in love on board ship. Another story stated:
"The Royal Navy was last night investigating a sex scandal after three Wrens and sailors were caught together on a ship moored off the coast of Britain."
Another said:
"Sailors and Wrens on the aircraft carrier Ark Royal have been disciplined for cuddling."
We can only speculate on what the captain's default list must look like when the regulating petty officer charges people with cuddling.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ottaway: In a moment.
What on earth has happened to Winston Churchill's Royal Navy of rum, bum and baccy? I spent the summer on board HMS Battleaxe. The Wrens on board were competent, hard-working girls who fulfilled their role. However, I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces whether the MOD believes that the operational efficiency of the Royal Navy is impaired by the deployment of Wrens at sea. If so, that deployment should be reviewed, especially as the reason for that deployment
102
was manpower shortage in the late 1980s. That shortage no longer exists and we are now making Royal Navy officers and men redundant.
I believe that the defence estimates are realistic. They very much look to the future and the House should do so as well. I support the estimates.
8.45 pm
Mr. David Jamieson: I, too, shall try to observe your stricture on time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The cold war may have ended, but as a constituent of mine said last week, "I do not feel any safer." At the same time, his job is under threat. Other hon. Members have argued about the changing nature of world security, but I wish to challenge the Government's policy of complacency and drift that is now undermining the vital industries that supply our defence needs.
In Plymouth and throughout the south-west, many people will be following this debate on the Government's spending plans with great interest, because it is the most defence-dependent region in Europe, with 187,000 defence-related jobs. Therefore, any reduction in defence expenditure will have a profound effect in our region.
The House will no doubt remember the recent battle for jobs at Devonport dockyard in my constituency, and at Rosyth dockyard in Scotland. It gave me great pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) tonight vigorously speaking out for her constituents. I was glad to see her in her place after a period of illness.
After losing 10,000 jobs in the past decade, Devonport felt great relief when it was awarded the Trident refit contract, believing that that would secure the majority of current jobs. Only three months after winning the contract, it was announced last week that the dockyard would shed another 500 jobs by April next year. Several hundred casual contractorised jobs will also go—and there is no promise that that will be the end.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will tell the House how the full privatisation that the Secretary of State announced earlier will secure jobs in the Devonport dockyard. Will he tell us how he can keep the undertaking that he made earlier this year to keep a controlling interest in the dockyard that received the nuclear refit contract, when he clearly intends fully to privatise both yards?
In other parts of Plymouth, the Royal Navy armaments depot has been run down, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. Manadon royal naval engineering college is to close in just over two years, with the loss of 200 jobs. The royal naval hospital has closed, with a consequent loss of jobs, and the casualty service that it offered to the local community has disappeared. MOD houses have stood empty for years while the city council struggles to find accommodation for people in the city.
Sadly, that is becoming an all too familiar story. The Tories keep telling us that defence jobs are safe in their hands, yet a few hundred people are laid off here, a naval hospital closes there and buildings are left deserted as the MOD ups camp and moves out with no consultation with the local community.
The truth is that, despite the reassurances from Ministers, thousands of people in the south-west—and hundreds of thousands across the country—have lost their

103
jobs in the defence industries. Jobs will continue to be lost unless we stop the futile arguments about which party would cut more defence jobs.
We must acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. A review of strategy and policy is urgently needed to manage future changes. Nobody now believes the Government when they say that defence jobs are safe with them—not just the 10,000 men and women who lost their jobs at Devonport dockyard in recent years but the thousands of service men and women who have given loyal and often gallant service to their country, and who find that their reward is to be handed a P45 and be given six months' notice of the loss of their accommodation, to enter a world of unemployment.
In the early part of this century, and certainly after the first world war, the south-west saw an increasing military presence. The region geared itself to developing and maintaining the country's defence needs, with a large proportion of its businesses undertaking defence work. In the last few years, the military have beat a hasty retreat from the south-west, leaving a trail of unemployment and desolation in their wake. There is no strategy, coherent plan or consultation with local people and businesses, to ensure that changing defence needs will not automatically bring more redundancies and mass unemployment.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jamieson: Being more gallant than the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman's crocodile tears over so-called cuts in the defence industry ill suit him. How does he equate his claim with the fact that, for the fifth year running, Labour's annual conference passed a 27 per cent. cut in defence spending, which is the equivalent of £6 billion—more than is spent on any one service in any one year?
Mr. Jamieson: I regret giving way to the hon. Lady, because, as I suspected, her intervention proved to be inane. She ought to visit my constituency and remind the tens of thousands of people there who have lost their jobs in the defence industries that for years they have had a Conservative Government, Conservative city council, Conservative county council, Conservative Member of Parliament and even a Conservative MEP. But still thousands of jobs have been lost in my region. The hon. Lady should speak to my constituents about who caused the loss of their jobs. It was not the Labour party but Conservative complacency over the years.
The withdrawal of the military had a devastating effect on the south-west's civilian population. The capacity of our armed forces has been drastically reduced. Unemployment has greatly increased, and the skills base of companies and workers has been seriously eroded. In Plymouth, we have seen all that happen under the Conservatives.
I hope that some of the Tory Members representing constituencies in the south-west who have protested recently and in the past few days about defence cuts will
104
reflect their feelings in the Lobby—or will they, as is so often the case with south-west Tory Members, behave as lions in the south-west and as sheep at Westminster?
The Government are driven by short-term expediency, with no long-term strategy for defence plans and needs. My region has seen Ministry of Defence houses, Manadon college and industrial buildings sold off to make a quick profit—or more often, left to decay—without any consideration of the long-term use to which those properties could be put to the benefit of those left behind when the military pull out. That is why I join the many hon. Members who said tonight that there is a need for a full review of the country's defence requirements and for long-term plans.
We have been reminded tonight that we live in a quickly changing world. The problems and threats that confront us today are different even from those that faced us two or three years ago. Without some strategy, the Government will continue to make Treasury-led cuts in our military and defence industries, to the point where we will no longer have the resources or industrial base to cope with the changes that the future will certainly bring. If we allow our defence industries to continue their dangerous decline, it will not be long before we will be forced to import essential arms from competitors abroad, because our own capacity to produce them had totally disappeared.
There are a number of ways in which the Government could avoid that unthinkable situation and at the same time help safeguard the jobs of those who are still employed on defence work. It is essential that the Government have a diversification strategy, which would undoubtedly help to maintain our defence capability and to secure the development of skills and technology that would otherwise be lost.
It may not cost the Government much to establish such a strategy, but the overall savings to the country and to its economy would be enormous in the long term—and would be much cheaper than permitting the mass unemployment that has plunged our country deeply into debt.
Labour and other Opposition Members have advocated a diversification policy for at least a decade. The Conservatives have often looked to America for policy inspiration, notably in respect of defence and foreign affairs. I hope that they will take note of President Clinton's diversification initiative. The sum of $19 billion has been set aside to pay for retraining programmes, technology investment and economic development incentives to help companies and communities to convert from a defence economy to a civilian economy.
Contrast that with the actions of our own Government. In the defence industrial base debate on 19 May, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that it would not be right for the Government to invent a diversification strategy, and that defence diversification is best left to the companies concerned, not to Government quangos. I hope that that statement will not impede the Minister's progress in Government, because diversification must be the only area of Government not run by a quango.
More worrying is the Minister's complete lack of understanding of the nature of our defence industries. It is sheer lunacy to suggest that market forces should be allowed to decide the fate of thousands of defence workers. The defence industry was artifically created by the Government, and it relies on the Government as its largest customer. The Government control the market, and as such

105
have an absolute responsibility to manage change, avoid mass unemployment and ensure the survival of capacity for future years.
It is ironic that we have a Conservative Government arguing that market forces alone should determine the fate of defence jobs, yet in America—which has the biggest capitalist free market economy in the world—the Government are spending billions of dollars on diversification, to convert defence industries to civilian industries.
It is time that the Conservatives accepted that their calculations or guesses about levels of defence spending are either hopelessly inaccurate or deliberately dishonest. There is an overwhelming need for the Government to adopt an open and honest policy on defence jobs and defence spending so that the people who work in the industry and those in local communities can plan ahead rather than being laid off at short notice with no prospect of finding other work.
Areas that are heavily dependent on defence must be given funding, either from the Government or from European sources. That is essential to ensure that the communities in which our defence industry is based can adapt to the loss of or changes in employment and the possible knock-on effects on the local economy.
For that reason, the Government should be 100 per cent. behind European Community initiatives such as the KONVER programme, which will release much-needed funds for areas affected by defence cuts. Until now, the Government have been rather half-hearted in their support for the scheme, although we could receive a total of £15 million of aid from it. It is therefore essential that the Government adopt a coherent strategy to ensure that we have the capability to react to any threat should the need arise.
If the defence needs of this country continue to be left to market forces, thousands more defence workers will lose their jobs. We need policies that will ensure that the skills, technology and research and development are transferred from defence to the civilian sector instead of being lost. Without planning, co-operation, investment and a coherent strategy from the Government, our defence industry will wither to the point where we shall cease to be able to respond to our military needs. If the future of our defence companies, defence workers and defence-dependent communities matter to the Government, the Government must act to protect them now.
9 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I declare two interests. First, I am a parliamentary adviser to Thorn-EMI and, secondly, as a participant in the parliamentary armed forces scheme, I had the privilege of visiting Belize last week under the auspices of 45 Commando Royal Marines.
The role of our armed forces in Belize is a classic example of how well-equipped British troops can maintain the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a weak and relatively poor Commonwealth country with a powerful neighbour which, although it now has diplomatic relations with Belize and has recognised its sovereignty, does not recognise its boundaries. I hope that the British Government will reconsider their abrogation of the defence commitment to Belize and will not only provide training
106
for our forces as envisaged but, if there were a change in international security in the area, would come to that country's defence.
I listened attentively to my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. If I may say so, I thought that it was rather meagre broth. All his colleagues wish him well, but our optimism would have been greater if he had defined the position beyond which he and his ministerial team would not retreat against a Treasury onslaught. That position was not defined, which makes one anxious about the level of the Government's commitment to defence.
My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of classless gongs among other things, but we need to know which equipment programmes are sacrosanct in the eyes of the Ministry of Defence, the force levels below which there will be no further diminution and the roles which will always be maintained by the Government. I am not against savings in the defence budget—far from it. Like some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I recognise the need for the Government to cut public expenditure, but I believe that greater cuts should be made in social security spending rather than defence spending.
If there are to be cuts in defence spending, two considerations can be identified immediately. The first is the boondoggle of the new Procurement Executive headquarters north of Bristol, which, I am told, is to cost hundreds of millions of pounds.
The second, and more important, is our stationing of 25,000 Soldiers and airmen in Germany. If the Government were to announce their intention to initiate a withdrawal from Germany, it would have a wholly salutary effect. It would eliminate the imbalance in our defence dispositions, and would signal to the Russians our belief in their commitment to withdraw their forces from the eastern parts of Germany by the latter part of, I believe, August 1994.
If the Russians reneged on that or stayed in the Baltic states, our phased withdrawal could be reviewed. However, I believe that we should declare our intention to withdraw, and that we should move to a strategy of "defense a tous azimuts", as General Ailleret, the former French chief of staff, described it—an omnidimensional defence strategy.
What would such a strategy entail? First, it would entail a nuclear element, because deterrence is paramount. For deterrence to be effective, it must be graduated deterrence. One cannot have just the upper component—a strategic delivery system or a quasi-strategic system, which is what the Government propose by replacing the tactical air-to-surface missile with a modified form of Trident. One has to be able to offer an appropriate response at every level of the threat in order to be able to deter.
Secondly, there must be the defence of the United Kingdom base, which will require effective air defence and defence of the sea lanes and contiguous seas, involving anti-submarine warfare, mine counter-measures, and maritime attack and maritime air defence.
Thirdly, we shall need appropriate intervention forces, either to intervene on the continent or to act in support of the United Nations or Western European Union, or, conceivably, further afield. That must mean an effective amphibious contribution with not just a landing platform, helicopters, but two new landing platform dock vessels, air transport—perhaps the C130J in the short term and, in the longer term, the Euroflag strategic freighter—and a sufficiency of helicopters, both utility helicopters and dedicated attack helicopters.

107
Fourthly, we shall need an expansion capability—sufficient reserves. I will not go on about that; other hon. Members have spoken eloquently. However, I believe that those reserves should include a flying element for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
Fifthly, there is the maintenance of a defence industrial base. To expand militarily in this uncertain world, one needs to expand not only manpower, but material, and to have the industrial capability to do so.
I must return to the element in our defence which I believe to be paramount and which has always been paramount for the Conservative party—our nuclear deterrent. The inviolability of our nuclear deterrent was something of which Conservatives were proud. It was the Opposition, both Labour and Liberal, who were unreliable about nuclear deterrence. I believe that, strategically, we Tories are now being unreliable, and I will say why.
First, an air-launched system, such as TASM, is the only one that is truly flexible. If we wish to remain a serious independent nuclear power on a par with France, regardless of any broader strategic or tactical considerations, to rely on Trident alone is unwise. To put all the country's nuclear eggs in one basket is to run the risk of being overtaken by advances in anti-submarine warfare, in mine warfare or in anti-ballistic missile defence, or of being hit by a sudden technical or mechanical failure.
Secondly, there is visibility. The mere deployment of aircraft that are known or thought to be nuclear-capable close to areas where a threat of chemical warfare or of nuclear attack exists is a clearer deterrent and a clearer signal to a potential aggressor than any submarine-launched system could be.
Thirdly, there is survivability. An air-launched stand-off weapon can avoid both anti-ballistic missile defences and anti-aircraft and surface-to-air missiles. Of course, it also constitutes a major insurance against global anti-missile defences.
Fourthly, there is credibility. If we can only threaten the ultimate—the launching of, in essence, a strategic system —it is not as credible a deterrent in any sense as aircraft.
Fifthly, air launched systems must be adaptable. They must be conventionally capable as well as nuclear-capable. The same cannot be said of submarines.
Sixthly, aircraft have the advantage of mobility. They can be deployed rapidly with air-to-air refuelling to the furthest theatre in a way that submarines cannot.
Last but not least, NATO's new strategic concept specifically calls for an up-to-date mix of nuclear weapons. If we rely on Trident alone, we do not have it.
We should realise that the signs are that our American friends are reducing, at least politically, their commitment to western Europe. It is not the time for us to diminish our defences. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will draw the appropriate conclusions.
9.10 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: We are debating this year's defence estimates a short time after debating last year's defence estimates. That is slightly unusual. We are presented with estimates of £23,401,000,000, or 4 per cent. of gross domestic product. That is a small reduction on past years. In future years we
108
expect a much larger reduction, but it has not yet happened. We still spend 4 per cent. of gross domestic product on military expenditure through the estimates every year.
Tomorrow's order paper will include an amendment that I have tabled to this year's estimates. It calls for new estimates to be drawn up which reflect the need for massive reductions in spending and specifically requests that estimates be presented which bring British planned expenditure down to at least the European average, as a prelude to greater cuts in further years. Crucially, it calls for the establishment of an arms conversion agency to convert jobs in the arms industry to more socially useful work, the concellation of Trident, the decommissioning of nuclear weapons, and the ending of nuclear tests.
The whole strategy of the United Kingdom is wrong. There should be a serious defence review to examine the levels of expenditure. Britain is racked with a debate about the future of the social security system and the welfare state. Health service expenditure is constantly under threat as one local hospital after another closes. There is a decline in the standard of the normal infrastructure in Britain, from drainage to the railways and the roads and every other thing because as a country we have become obsessed with a high level of military expenditure and the direction of skills and research into military might that is not necessary.
In managing the changes in the industries of Britain, the Government have done nothing to look to the skills of those who work in the defence industries. Instead, the Government have allowed market forces to let rip. Thousands of highly skilled workers who in the past made aircraft or other forms of military technology, especially in avionics, are being made redundant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said, they are now mostly driving minicabs or queuing at the unemployment exchanges. It is mad. It is an evasion of all responsibility for the Government to say, "Leave it all to market forces; they will sort the problem out." Market forces will not and cannot sort the problem out.
We must have an arms conversion agency which will look seriously at the skills that exist, the investment that is being made, and the potential for making more socially useful products in those shipyards and aircraft and other factories. It is irresponsible to do anything other than that. The Government simply say that market forces will solve the whole problem.
Market forces are driven by the market and the desire of some people to make a great deal of money. If that money is made by selling off land—as in the case of British Aerospace and Royal Ordnance—that is how people will make the money. They do not give a damn about the skills of the people who worked in those industries. That is why the amendment that I have tabled argues strongly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) argued, the case for a serious arms conversion agency that will involve those who work in the industry, local authorities and others. I hope that we shall get that in the future. I must say that, given this Government's approach, I very much doubt it.
Today's debate has revealed that, apparently, it has been decided to cancel the TASM project. If that is so, I wish that the Government at least had the honesty to make that clear. If it has been cancelled, my reaction would be, "So far, so good." The Government should go further, however, and look at the principle behind nuclear weapons.
I object not just to the costs associated with nuclear weapons and their development, but to the principle of

109
having them. Those weapons have been used only twice in war: in 1945, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and 60,000 people were killed in each city. Indeed, people are still dying as a result of those nuclear explosions, which were tiny in comparison with those that would be caused by the nuclear warheads available today.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: They have not been used again because they have kept the peace.
Mr. Corbyn: That is not so. Those weapons have done nothing but create greater and greater dangers and cause many instances of destruction and cancer arising from nuclear testing. I am glad that the United States Administration are now trying to call a halt to nuclear testing, although the British Government want to continue with it. I hope that we shall have a total ban on such testing in the future.
The Government estimate that, so far, the capital costs associated with the Trident nuclear missile programme stand at £10 billion, but Greenpeace estimates that £16 billion has been spent. The Government also estimate that running costs of £5.7 billion have been incurred, while Greenpeace estimates that £15.2 billion has been spent. We are faced with the most incredible potential expenditure of £30 billion on that programme.
I must ask those who are devoted to nuclear weapons and to the Trident system: who is the enemy against whom this enormous firepower will be directed? Answer is there none, because there is no enemy in sight, but those people need to create one. For that reason, many research institutes look around the world for potential enemies against whom those awful weapons can be targeted.
If such a weapon is used at any time, the result is completely useless because it kills the people who fire it in as great numbers as those against whom it is fired. That was revealed at Chernobyl, and that explosion was tiny in comparison with the explosive power of current nuclear warheads.
We must take nuclear proliferation seriously. Trident represents the greatest proliferation and is contrary to the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty. We should call a halt to Trident now so that the money spent can be used for arms conversion while the money saved in the future could be used to rebuild the social infrastructure and industrial base of our society. That is far better than continuing with mass unemployment and the poverty that goes with it.
There is a poison surrounding the nuclear industry. I think of that poor man, Mordechai Vanunu, who is still in prison in Israel, in solitary confinement, because he dared to speak the truth about the Israeli development of nuclear weapons. What is being done to assist him in gaining his freedom?
The Government are poised to make a decision on THORP. I hope that they will decide not to go ahead with that plant, but I believe that its development is linked to nuclear missiles. I hope that we can turn our backs once and for all on the horrors of nuclear weapons and nuclear wars by cancelling Trident, decommissioning Polaris and declaring ourselves a non-nuclear country. That might assist any moral force that we might like to bring to the non-proliferation process. It would certainly do more in that respect than would be gained by developing Trident.
What hypocrisy it is for us to go around the world and say that we do not believe that anyone else should have nuclear weapons when, by the way, we have duplicated
110
fivefold the number of such weapons that we hold. That is nonsense and hypocritical. If we want to put a stop to nuclear proliferation, we should stop our own nuclear arms production.
We have been told many times that arms exports are the foundation for many jobs and potential prosperity. I would question the effect that high levels of expenditure on arms and defence-related research has had on British industry. We are less efficient and less advanced than those countries which have spent far less on arms development. Money invested in socially useful production would lead to better standards of living and a more harmonious society than that offered by the continued obsession with developing the arms trade.
There are those who say that the development of a revised version of Tornado or of the European fighter aircraft will create markets for the future. It is no good calling for expenditure for exports today if tomorrow we condemn Indonesia for bombing East Timor from planes that have been provided by this or any other country. The link between a high level of arms exports and abuses of human rights by the vile regimes which buy the weapons cannot be denied.
There are those who talk of the end-user certificate system. I draw their attention to an article in Defence News, issue dated 27 September to 3 October, by Alessandro Politti. The article describes the present situation in Italy. Following the scandal of illegal arms sales to Iran in 1987, a strict system of end-user certificates for the monitoring of sales was developed. That is apparently now to be cancelled to allow Italy to increase its arms exports. We have seen the effect of arms exports on Iraq. It is time that we called an end to arms exports and started to develop the more peaceful opportunities that are available.
The world is a troubled and divided place. I will conclude with this thought. As we speak, the poorest of the poor countries in the world are getting poorer. There is more unemployment, poverty, homelessness and hunger. Resources are being transferred rapidly from the poor to the rich. Most conflicts stem from poverty and from arguments about resources and power. If one tenth of the money that this country is putting into the defence estimates had gone to the people of Somalia and the other countries that were facing terrible economic strife in the 1970s and 1980s, perhaps there would not be the awful conflicts in that region now.
We should be dedicating ourselves to a peaceful world, rather than arming ourselves for war upon war upon war. We should deal with the basic problems of the planet. I hoped at least that there would be a defence review. The review could look at what is, I believe, the unanswerable case for a large reduction in Britain's military spending to make an example to the rest of the world.
9.23 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is good to hear that the voice of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is still alive and well on the Opposition benches.
A feature of the debate has been the common theme throughout, and if anything that will send a strong message to the Treasury. The theme struck by hon. Members should be welcomed by my right hon. and learned Friend the

111
Secretary of State and by his Ministers. If that unanimity continues, his arm will be strengthened in his dealings with the Treasury.
Although we welcome the new format for this year's White Paper—it was certainly much easier to understand —the House should be concerned that it was so late in publication. That meant that the members of the Select Committee had to get on their running shoes to digest it and produce a report. We have done so, and in time for today's debate.
It seems that a fundamental flaw in the White Paper, which was also the theme of many hon. Members during the debate, was the absence of an overall defence strategy. I would suggest that, when the White Paper on defence is debated in future, the Foreign Secretary should open the debate and not the Secretary of State for Defence. The Secretary of State for Defence should wind up the debate and comment on hon. Members' remarks.
My right hon. and Learned Friend's new proposition is that the defence of this country falls into three distinct roles. Role 1 is the defence of the realm and of our dependent territories. Role 2 is our obligation in a wider sphere to Europe and to NATO. Role 3 is our international commitment. If we accept that proposition, the third role needs to be defined clearly, and the best person to do that is the Foreign Secretary.
I am concerned that that role is not clearly defined at the moment. There have been calls for a full-scale defence review, but I contend that such a review should be taking place day by day and night by night. It should be constant; it should never stop. I also feel that it would reassure the House if, at the beginning of our defence debates, the Foreign Secretary explained in the broadest terms from the Dispatch Box precisely what our security role is in the world at large.
As regards role 3—our obligation to take part in United Nations peacekeeping and peacemaking activities—we, an international trading nation, have as great an interest as any country in world peace. That is why I believe that our commitment to take part in UN peacekeeping and peacemaking operations is very important to us. A study of the figures in the defence White Paper—and particularly in table 5—reveals that the resources in terms of men, materials and money being devoted to role 3 are zero. That means that such commitments can be fulfilled only at the cost of taking men, materials and resources from our commitment to role 1—the defence of the realm—and role 2. That is very dangerous, especially taking into account the fact that, this year alone, regional defence activities —which would come under role 3—are costing £3,700 million. Where are the money and the resources to fulfil that additional role to come from? That question urgently needs answering.
I welcome the rest of the defence White Paper. I certainly applaud its new format. I also welcome the remarks that the Secretary of State was able to make today. I am concerned, though, about the additional strains on our armed forces and on their ability to fulfil roles 1 and 2. If we are to start taking part in international peacekeeping commitments, we must bear in mind the strains that are being felt by service men and their families—especially those on emergency tours in Northern Ireland and Bosnia —and the profound effect on morale.
112
Morale is already low, and the impact of low morale on recruitment will be severe. If nothing is done, it will be not the Treasury but the lack of recruits that ultimately cuts our armed forces. I know from experience and from my postbag just how many families are concerned about the impact on morale.
No one has so far paid tribute to a certain lady called Annie Armstrong, the agony aunt in Soldier magazine, who died in May this year. I think that it is appropriate to do so at this point. Annie did terrific work on behalf of service men's families, and she will be greatly missed. I very much hope that someone with her courage and determination can don her mantle.
I want to say something about procurement. We have heard a lot of talk about the importance of our defence industry and the need to maintain our defence industrial base. I accept all that, and I realise that, as defence contraction takes place, there is a need to ensure that those factories still maintain viability so that they are there to increase defence output should the need arise. However, I totally reject the idea of Government intervention to help that.
In the spring, I visited the United States as a member of the Select Committee on Defence. We heard from the Americans about their plans for conversion, as they call it —in other words, diversification by the defence industries into civilian output. We have heard reference from the Opposition Benches to a figure of $19 billion, which the American President has committed to those proposals. We found no evidence that that was proving effective, and there was much criticism about the waste of resources. We have to think very carefully about that before we are even tempted to take such a path. It can be wasteful and counter-productive.
In conclusion, I shall mention the EH101 helicopter. In the early hours of the morning during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I told my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that I hoped that there would be no more speeches about the EH101 helicopter, yet still no decision has been made.
In Defence Industry Digest, which appeared on the bookstalls a couple of days ago, I saw a report which says:
"SUPPORT HELICOPTERS. The wait may be over. At the time of going to press, reliable sources were claiming that the MoD had finally agreed on the purchase of 25 EH101 utility helicopters for the Royal Air Force and moreover was pressing the Netherlands to order 17 of them."
I know that the Secretary of State has been to Westland; he was there only last Wednesday. I hope that what he saw and heard will enable him to confirm that order. I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in replying to the debate, will be able to confirm that the specification for that aircraft is exactly as required, which will make his job of confirming the order even easier.
9.31 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and I both serve on the Select Committee on Defence. There is a unanimous view in that Committee that all is not well in British defence policy, and the unanimous opinion that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the debate is that United Kingdom defence policy is a shambles and must be put right.

113
We have the amazing situation in which we have the ability to destroy Moscow—and any other centre with anti-ballistic missile protection—in the certain knowledge that such an attack would achieve global destruction, but our armed forces are seriously overstretched in their efforts to keep peace in Northern Ireland and undertake humanitarian or peacemaking duties for the United Nations in Bosnia or elsewhere. Frankly, the notion of our leading role in the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps is now barely credible, and if it is barely credible now it will be even less credible if the Chancellor has his way with further cuts in the defence budget this month.
The idea that an independent British nuclear deterrent was strategically vital always was a bit far-fetched, but, as Russian tanks turn their guns on their own Parliament, it seems unlikely that our Polaris force has much influence on matters in that city today.
The Labour party was right to oppose the acquisition of the Trident system, and I wholeheartedly welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence today that the tactical air-to-surface missile programme is to be abandoned. The global destructive power of the Royal Navy is beyond our wildest nightmares, without any need to double it up with another generation of RAF nuclear weapons.
Some of my hon. Friends may be deluding themselves, however, about the potential savings that could be achieved by cutting the Trident programme at this state in our career. We have the damn thing, whether we want it or not, and we are committed to paying for it, so I urge the Government to save whatever they can by perhaps reducing the number of boats to be built, and by keeping patrols to a minimum.
Indeed, why on earth do we need to patrol under present circumstances? I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that we should explore the scope for sharing a European deterrent with our NATO "colleagues" in France, but I recognise that there is not much money to be saved there—certainly not as much as some people would like to think.
As to the RAF and stand-off missiles, while I do not think that there ever was much justification for a nuclear-capable TASM, manifestly the RAF urgently needs an accurate conventional stand-off capability. We saw the kind of attacks that the RAF had to carry out in the Gulf and we should not expect our airmen to attack well-defended installations from close range in such circumstances.
Therefore, staff requirement 1242 should be a priority. The United Arab Emirates, God bless them, have paid for the development of an ideal family of stand-off weapons by GEC-Marconi to be manufactured in this country, employing not only some of my constituents but also some constituents of the Secretary of State for Defence. So there is a case for considering the acquisition of such weapons urgently, and I hope that the MOD will actively and urgently pursue that option.
I make that point because I am acutely aware of the instability prevailing in Europe and many other parts of the world. I also recognise the proper anxiety of our people that the United Kingdom should fulfil its role within NATO in helping the United Nations to deter and, when necessary, resist aggression and oppression in different parts of the world. We need our conventional forces and defence industrial base, but we are treating them disgracefully. The Select Committee has ample evidence
114
of overstretch in our forces. We have seen it over and again. We also have evidence of the need to sustain and, in some cases, augment our conventional capabilities.
I am concerned about naval ships—destroyers, frigates and particularly minesweepers. We should be looking at that area more. We should also consider the capacity of the RAF. Some hon. Members have referred to the need for a replacement of Hercules transport aircraft and helicopters. I am aware of the problem of the reserves, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) talked about the parlous state of employment in the royal dockyards and other defence industries.
I am particularly concerned about the continuing misery caused by overstretch in the Army. As a Scot, I take this opportunity to reassert the overwhelming case for retaining the Queen's Own Highlanders and the Gordon Highlanders. The addback that took place last year was manifestly insufficient in view of the task that we expect of our forces.
I am appalled by the ill-considered salami slicing being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence on the instructions of the Treasury. The House would not let a Labour Government get away with handling Britain's defence in that way. If the House is to do its duty, it will not let a Conservative Government get away with abusing Britain's defence, either. We have heard from both sides of the House again and again in this debate that we need a proper defence review. We should not restructure our forces purely on Treasury diktat. That is what the House should demand.
9.37 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): In his opening speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence spoke of the force restructuring that is taking place to reflect the end of the cold war and of the difficulty of predicting the future. There are new risks and commitments, but there has beer a further reduction in the risks to the United Kingdom even since we announced the details of our plans for force restructuring in 1991.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the need to balance our capabilities with our commitments, which was a key theme of the White Paper "Defending our Future". May I begin by reviewing in more detail the commitments element of that balance. First, I pay tribute to the 24 hon. Members who have spoken in the first half of this defence debate. In their way they have all spoken with passion, and the country's defence is the stronger for it.
The global chart on pages 12 and 13 of "Defending our Future" gives an idea of the breadth of our commitments across the world: from forces conducting operations in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Iraq to forces deployed in central Europe to provide our insurance against the re-emergence of a major external threat in the long term; from the garrison in the Falkland Islands, all the way to exercises in Norway, from deployments in north America to our presence in Hong Kong. For each commitment there is an explicit policy rationale, which has been set out in chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the document.
However, that does not mean that policies cannot be changed or commitments adjusted. We keep all our commitments and their associated force levels under review. Indeed, in the past year or so we have seen a number of reductions in our force levels and overseas commitments.

115
Let me mention a few examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to Belize, where our military presence is being reduced gradually to take account of the changing security environment in the region. In particular, Guatemala's recognition of Belize as a sovereign state in 1991, which was endorsed by the Guatemalan congress in November last year, has greatly changed the situation.
I can say from personal experience, from my visit to the British garrison last month, that the evolution of our presence in Belize is proceeding extremely well, with tremendous co-operation and good will on both sides. I was able to announce that, in January 1994, the Belize defence forces will assume responsibility for the defence of their own country, and by October 1994 our garrison will have been reduced to a training team of some 100 personnel. We envisage that those personnel will be joined by a company-sized training group of 120 soldiers, who will train on regular detachments throughout the year. That amounts to a total of just over 200 personnel, which is still a sizeable presence.
My visit brought home to me the skill and professionalism shown by our forces there, who are carrying out their tasks of preparing for the changes ahead with enormous dedication and application. That reinforced my experience of the professionalism of British forces elsewhere, a subject to which I will return later.
Our service men are clearly respected and are excellent ambassadors for our country. I hope that the House will join me in expressing our thanks and appreciation for a job very well done. Our service personnel on loan to the Belize defence force are working in a difficult and challenging environment and they are clearly doing an excellent job with great courage and good humour.
The challenge is no less great for the partners and families of British forces in Belize, who cope equally well and for whom I have the greatest admiration. It is a tribute to all their efforts that British forces continue to be made so welcome in Belize.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of Belize, will he tell the House whether the British Government are prepared to guarantee the security of Belize after we have left that ex-colony? My understanding is that our present commitments run out in 1994 and I am sure that the Government of Belize will be pressing Her Majesty's Government—if they have not already done so—to continue to support them in the event of invasion. I would welcome my hon. Friend's reassurance on that.
Mr. Hanley: I know that my hon. Friend will be studying Belize in even more detail early next year. Being prepared to respond to changing circumstances means not only being ready to deploy forces where necessary, but, as in the case of Belize, recognising when the time is right for our forces to be withdrawn.
Our forces were sent to Belize and we took on the responsibility when it gained its independence 12 years ago, and we have carried on that responsibility. We were there because of the Guatemalan threat. Belize has come a long way since independence and is justly proud of its achievements and its hopes and aims for the future.
Mr. Home Robertson: Does that mean no?
Mr. Hanley: I am coming to the answer. I am convinced that Belize will carry forward its responsibilities with maturity and determination.
I believe that the international community—this is a serious point, particularly for the people of Belize—and especially Belize's many friends in north and central America, share our pleasure that the relationship between Belize and Guatemala has improved. I am equally sure that the international community will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that Belize continues to prosper as an independent sovereign state. We will enter into discussions with those interested in the region to ensure that Belize is not let down. We do not let down our friends.
We have decided that we no longer need to retain an armoured reconnaisance squadron within the sovereign base area in Cyprus, and we have been able to reduce our force levels commensurately. That in no way implies a lessening of the importance that we attach to our presence there, but is a sensible reappraisal of what is required in operational and security terms.
Also in Cyprus, we have been able to rationalise our contribution to the United Nations force, reducing our numbers by almost half by the end of this year while maintaining our strong commitment to peace in Cyprus through the United Nations.
The House will be interested to note that our troops will be working alongside an Argentine contingent for the first time, which is a clear example of desirable and improved relationships.
As the House knows, the garrison in Hong Kong will be completely withdrawn by 30 June 1997. In the meantime, British forces are being reduced in stages as local forces assume responsibility for its former operational tasks. To that end we plan to reduce the number of infantry battalions in Hong Kong from the present three to a single battalion by September 1994. Units of all three services will remain there until its handover to China in 1997.
Mr. Frank Cook: As the Minister knows, the Hong Kong garrison supplies a small detachment to South Korea for ceremonial purposes, et cetera—whatever the "et cetera" means. Does the Minister's commitment on withdrawal from Hong Kong by 1997 mean that by then we should have resolved the armistice with North Korea and have signed a peace agreement?
Mr. Hanley: I think that we must solve one problem at a time. As far as the exact answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is concerned, I shall let him know what happens to that particular commitment. I imagine that it would be removed as the commitment to Hong Kong is removed.
We have also carried out overseas United Nations observer mission contributions in Western Sahara, Sinai and Cambodia. We have carried out our work there with great dedication. It is in line with our policy of entering into commitments for a limited time-scale and with the concept that such peacekeeping tasks should be shared between nations.
Other areas continue to make significant demands on our armed forces. In Northern Ireland in particular we continue to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism. We have some 19,000 service men and women currently deployed in the Province, including some 18 units of battalion size in the infantry role. That constitutes the armed forces' largest peacetime commitment.

117
Much has been said in the House before now on the bravery and dedication of personnel serving in Northern Ireland. I believe that that is a subject to which we shall return regularly and keep at the forefront of our minds. I am fairly well placed to pay tribute to the people who risk their lives every day in supporting the RUC to ensure the preservation of law, order and democracy. After all, in 1992, six soldiers were murdered and a further 320 injured while serving there. There were more than 350 awards for gallantry and meritorious conduct. The Army's bomb disposal teams were called out on 1,544 occasions and neutralised some six tonnes of explosives.
In Bosnia, all three services are contributing to the distribution of humanitarian aid and the peace process as a whole. The battalion group in Bosnia has been a familiar sight on our television screens over the past year. Its white painted Warrior armoured vehicles have come to symbolise hope midst despair. Our soldiers have displayed remarkable professionalism and restraint in dealing with all sides of the internecine conflict in the former Yugoslavia. They deserve the unqualified thanks of the British people for what they have done.
Let us not forget the contributions of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in providing support to forces on the ground in Bosnia, in participating in the NATO maritime and air operations in the area and in playing a major part in the humanitarian airlift to Sarajevo. It is no surprise to me to see that, during his recent talk to the Royal United Services, Institute, General Morillon, the former commander-in-chief of the UN forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, paid particular tribute to the support that he received from the UK. contingent. The British forces in the former Yugoslavia are rightly held in the highest regard by all other nations involved. That was rnade abundantly clear to me during my recent visit to the region, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred in his opening speech.
I found my visit immensely valuable. I was able to see for myself the arduous circumstances in which British forces are carrying out their important tasks, assess at first hand the risks that they face, which are greater than I had thought, confirm that they do so willingly—far more willingly than I had thought—and to confirm that they have all they need to do their jobs, and see what they achieve.
My programme for the four days included a visit to the RAF detachment at Ancona and Gioia del Colle in Italy. I joined a Hercules relief flight into Sarajevo, where I had the brief opportunity to see for myself the appalling humanitarian situation. At Gioia, I visited our RAF Tornado F3 and Jaguar detachments and they are both performing excellent tasks. The Tornados fly around the clock in all weathers to retain the integrity of the no-fly zone over Bosnia and the Jaguars fly training and reconnaissance missions over Bosnia in readiness, if required, to carry out close air support operations.
From Italy, I moved to our forces in Bosnia and Croatia. I travelled by Warrior over the 55 km road between Tomislavgrad and Gorni Vakuf, which the Royal Engineers converted from a mountain goat trail. That that road was constructed in less than six months and now supports the vast majority of aid transported between Bosnia and Croatia is an incredible feat, to which the hon. Member for South Shields (I)r. Clark) rightly referred. The Sappers may feel that they are not the most glamorous part of our armed forces, but I can tell the House that, without
118
them, little aid would be getting through to central and eastern Bosnia and countless lives would be lost. They deserve our tributes.
There is no doubt that the task facing our battalion group in Bosnia and those who support it is particularly frustrating. Conditions on the ground vary from day to day and sometimes from hour to hour and there are times when little aid can be got through to those who need it. What was also, sadly, quite apparent to me is that there are hardly any innocent parties among the warring factions in Bosnia. Despite this, and despite the risks that our forces face daily, if not hourly, it was also clear to me that their mission remains viable overall. I am also confident that they have the equipment and support that they need to accomplish it. They want to do that.
I also had the opportunity to visit the men and women on board HMS Invincible, on station in the Adriatic. I was most impressed by the manner in which the task group is undertaking its mission. In Zagreb, I was able to have most useful discussions with Mr. Susak, the Croatian Defence Minister, and with General Cot, the commander of UNPROFOR. I was also pleased to have the chance to call on our British field ambulance unit shortly before its redeployment at the end of September after a total of 15 months in which British units have served in this role, and to thank it for a job well done. Throughout my visit, as with many of my visits in September, I was immensely impressed with, and very proud of, the attitude, professionalism and determination of our forces.
Mr. Macdonald: While he was in Zagreb, did the Minister receive any requests from UNPROFOR representatives for the field ambulance unit to be retained in position in Bosnia and Croatia, and, if so, what was his reaction?
Mr. Hanley: Our field ambulance unit was there for 15 months and the United Nations accepted that it would be exchanged for another unit. The Americans are now there. We have left behind, in a supervisory role, four members of the unit. The unit did tremendous work, but it was time for it to come home. I believe that that was the right policy. If the hon. Gentleman meant to ask whether people wanted us to continue doing the job, the answer to that question is yes, because there is no doubt that the unit achieved a great deal of good in Croatia.
The services, particularly those in Bosnia and Croatia, have tremendous leadership but the individual men and women there are tackling thankless and often frustrating tasks with the patience and stoicism that matches their skill and courage. Many of them are regularly in the public eye, but others in support roles are not. My visit to Yugoslavia made clear to me the tremendous professionalism and ability of our troops. Much is said about morale—in particular that morale in the armed forces is fragile—but when one sees members of the armed forces doing what they joined up to do, and when they know that they are saving lives and doing good, my goodness me, one feels proud of them.
It was also revealing, but not surprising, that the former Yugoslavia was a key preoccupation in Washington when I called in there on my return from Belize for discussions with members of the new Administration. I also had the opportunity to discuss the recent review of the United States armed forces—the "bottom-up" review. We discussed some equipment issues and we gained an

119
important insight into the United States views on NATO. The recent review reaffirmed the commitment of the United States to NATO and to stationing United States forces in Europe. That commitment is vital and it was clear from my talks that it remains a heartfelt commitment.
Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hanley: There is not much time, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a small point, he may do so.
Mr. Martlew: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman said that there have been 24 speeches today. When will he address the issues raised in them?
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) will also know that this debate goes on for a couple of days, so there is lots of time yet. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's more complete contribution tomorrow.
The hon. Gentleman interrupted me just as I was about to mention the special relationship that we have with the United States. The commitment of the United States to basing forces in Europe is vital and it was clear from those talks that it remains a heartfelt commitment. We do not underestimate the importance or value of that special relationship and will continue to work hard to protect it.
Whatever differences there may have been over Bosnia earlier in the year, Britain and the United States have agreed on a policy of trying to secure a negotiated settlement, while sustaining the humanitarian relief effort and working together to promote that. Many nations are trying to help in Yugoslavia and, of course, we should not fall out because we are tackling those difficult tasks together. That special relationship is vital to the security of Europe and is one reason why we have no clear enemy at the moment.
Another part of the armed forces that I was able to see was the west Indian guardship, which is now in the Caribbean. HMS Active is a marvellous frigate and I am grateful for the special welcome that the Americans give our ships when we visit Miami or Key West. I was left in no doubt about the admiration felt by the United States navy and coast guards for the professionalism of the Royal Navy and the quality of the ship and her equipment. Those comments also apply to HMS Cumberland, which has recently returned.
The House will be aware that United Kingdom forces continue to contribute to coalition air operations in the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. The House will also know that while operations in Northern Ireland and Bosnia attract the greatest media attention and are therefore what most people recognise about the armed forces, the forces also carry out a lot of unglamorous work. After all, sometimes the vital functionss that the armed forces are able to perform in the civil community in the United Kingdom are not recognised, but they should be. In
120
the past week, at the request of the Metropolitan police, following severe flooding in the home counties area, the Household Cavalry Regiment, which is stationed near Windsor, provided overnight shelter and breakfast to families who had been evacuated from their homes.
On the following night, at the request of the National Rivers Authority, soldiers from the postal and courier depot at Mill Hill turned out with vehicles provided by the Royal Logistics Corps transport regiment to fill sand bags. There are a lot of roles that we carry out—there are 50 in the White Paper. We carry out those roles with great dedication and use our forces efficiently and effectively.
In the few minutes left, I shall refer to one or two speeches made earlier. I shall, however, refer to some of those speeches tomorrow, should I continue to hold the floor.
One speech that I found especially interesting was that made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). It was unfair of some people to say that his speech was not a typical Labour party policy speech, because exactly what he said and the motion that he has tabled for consideration tomorrow was carried by 79.923 per cent. of the party at its recent conference. Only 15 per cent. of the Labour party opposed his views. It was therefore interesting that the hon. Member for Islington, North spoke of the genuine view of the Labour party.
May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) that the future of the Royal Marines school of music is still under consideration and that the study will take account of the overall review of naval infrastructure and of the changing need for training of military musicians.
Also with respect to my hon. Friend, we have announced the numbers of frigates in the defence estimates. Seven type 23s are currently in service and a further six are on order. Further orders are planned, but no decisions have yet been taken on their size or timing. We hope to be in a position to invite tenders for a further batch of type 23s next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and other hon. Members spoke of our defence commitments. The figures are well known: my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I announced them before we broke for the summer recess. Emergency tours will be 19 months for 1993–94, approximately 20 months for 1994–95 and could go up to 29 months in 1995–96.
We are considering our policy on reserves. My right hon. and learned Friend has issued a consultation paper and we should be grateful for replies from hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) mentioned batch 2 Trafalgar class SSNs. Following the completion of design options, studies are being considered on the way forward. Subject to the outcome, we expect to invite—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

European Economic Area Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question put,
That, in respect of the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.— [Mr. Conway.]
Hon. Members: Object.
Motion made, and Question put,
That, if the European Economic Area Bill[Lords] be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolutions come to by the House on the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] [Money] and [Ways and Means] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.— [Mr. Conway.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Vietnamese Boat People
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
10.1 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: The dramatic fall of Saigon took place 18 years ago, and to this day Americans call it the end of the war. For the south Vietnamese, it was the beginning of a dark age of revenge, repression and fear as the communists took over. It was, therefore, understandable that many of them should seek to escape in any way that they could, especially those who were associated with the previous regime and American forces. The boat people, as they came to be called, captured the hearts of the free world, which then did not hesitate to accept them, and 138,000 came from Hong Kong alone.
In more recent years, new waves of boat people have been landing in Hong Kong, mostly from north Vietnam, seeking a better life. Because of a growing refusal to accept them elsewhere, Hong Kong has had no choice but to house them in special camps and has had no alternative but to reach agreement with the Vietnamese Government on an orderly repatriation programme for those who have not been screened in as refugees. Conditions in those camps and the enforced return of their inmates to a country that remains a one-party communist state which continues to deny human rights caused international outrage, which reached a pitch four years ago. It encouraged many constituents to write to their Members of Parliament.
In a statement to the House on 12 December 1989, the Foreign Secretary emphasised that the criteria for establishing who qualifies as a refugee, and thus who is to be repatriated, were agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The matter was fully debated by the House on 19 December 1989 under supplementary estimates and has been raised since, not least in my questions to Foreign Office Ministers.
Concerns about the situation were expressed in the European Parliament and in the Council of Europe. It was feared that, despite the Vietnamese Government's assurances to the contrary, returnees might be persecuted once they were back in Vietnam. Moreover, human rights non-governmental organisations strongly criticised the screening process operating in Hong Kong, as well as conditions in the camps.
In the Council of Europe, those concerns were referred to its Committee for Refugees, Migration and Demography, which held a hearing last March at which three Vietnamese-in-exile organisations submitted representations to us. In response, the Committee produced a report and appointed our late colleague, Ted Garrett, as rapporteur. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ted, who was a good friend to all of us on the Council of Europe and whose death earlier this year was so untimely.
When Ted retired at the last election, I replaced him as rapporteur and, with the Committee's approval, undertook a fact-finding visit in January to see at first hand the situation in the camps in Hong Kong and conditions for the repatriated boat people in Hanoi and Haiphong, which is where most have returned. I should like to record my thanks and that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), who accompanied me, and to our right hon. Friend, Chris Patten, for all the excellent arrangements that were made for our visit, and to pay tribute to officials concerned with the organisation of the

123
camps and the screening process for the most difficult and sensitive job that they have to do. I particularly wish to mention Brian Bresnahan, the Hong Kong Government's refugee co-ordinator. I should also like to thank our diplomatic staff in Hanoi for arranging my visit there in such an efficient manner.
I shall not take up the time of the House by referring in detail to my visit, which is recorded in the Council of Europe document 6818, which led to the resolution passed by the parliamentary assembly on 14 May this year. Had I embarked upon the report three years ago or even later, my recommendations would almost certainly have been completely different. Perhaps I would have wholly accepted what many still feel strongly to this day—that forced repatriation deliberately violates everything for which our European convention on human rights stands, that instead of returning the migrants to Vietnam we should offer them an internationally controlled haven until Vietnam becomes a democracy and they are no longer at risk, and that the screening process is so unfair and conditions in the camps so inhumane that they should be radically reviewed and drastically improved.
I hope that I shall not compromise myself now by saying that today such conclusions are no longer realistic because of the dramatic change in the position over the past 12 months. Last year, only 12 boat people reached Hong Kong; this year, to date, 39 have done so, compared with more than 20,000 in 1991. More than 30,000 have been returned and fewer than 37,000 remain. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister will refer to the latest figures when he replies.
To seek to stop that process now would not be credible and would be unfair to those who have returned. It is reasonable to say that the Vietnam to which they are returning is not the same Vietnam from which they risked their lives to flee. While it remains a one-party communist state, maintaining many of the hallmarks that we condemned in communist eastern Europe, its commitment to economic reform since the Soviet Union ended its subsidy and the considerable progress that has been made cannot be denied. That progress is encouraging predictions that the country is poised to become the next Asian dragon.
In the light of what I saw and the extensive discussions that I had, I made a number of proposals to the Council of Europe which are realistic and practical, and which will improve the position for the remaining boat people who await the determination of their status as refugees. It is essential that the European Community be persuaded to maintain its assistance programme in Vietnam beyond next year and to encourage European companies to invest in Vietnam.
We must be encouraged that the United States has now partially lifted its embargo. That must be in the interests of a better life for the returnees in their own country. It will help Vietnam to complete its economic reforms in a free market which includes privatisation, and encourage the improvements in infrastructure that are essential for it to develop its vast potential for tourism and to exploit its rich resources.
I urge that there should be better information services for the migrants in the camps so that they may appreciate more fully the opportunities that await them on their return to their country, instead of fearing the worst as most of
124
them do. I want the opportunities arising from the depletion of the camps to be used to improve the conditions for those who remain in them. I want a more sensitive screening process with better legal representation and the establishment of a permanent review body which will being together those who represent the migrants and those responsible for determining their status to avoid injustice.
Can my right hon. Friend the Minister confirm that, to put pressure on the population in the camps to return, the UNHCR is to reduce repatriation grants by one third—from $360 to $240 per head—if they do not volunteer to return by 1 November this year? Can he confirm that adult education and vocational classes in the camps have been cancelled and opportunities to earn money by helping to administer the camps have been cut?
These are not humanitarian gestures for people who live in unacceptable conditions which my right hon. Friend sees for himself regularly—I believe as recently as last week —and we are fearful about their future.
It is clear that no boat person can feel confident about being returned to Vietnam for as long as that country's Government remain associated with its unacceptable past, for as long as it remains a one-party communist state and for as long as it denies democracy and human rights. Thus, we should be calling on the Vietnamese Government to help themselves by putting their guarantees of no persecution to the test of full access by Amnesty International and other non-governmental organisations, to publish their 1992 guarantees to end all censorship, and to close their gulags and release all their prisoners of conscience.
I understand that Catholic and Protestant priests, several of them in their mid-eighties, remain in prison in Vietnam. They include Father Dominic Tran Dinh Thu, sentenced in 1987 to life imprisonment for criticising the regime's attitude to Christian believers. His sentence was later commuted to 20 years. He has refused release until all other priests of his order have been freed as well, and the Government have returned the property confiscated from his order, the Congregation of the Mother Coredemptrix.
We should also urge the Vietnamese Government to enter into genuine dialogue with the Vietnamese exiles to end their mistrust and encourage reconciliation, so that Asia can prosper in the same way as eastern Europe, where people have buried the past and united to build a better future.
Finally, is it not time for the British Council to establish a presence in Vietnam, now that it is coming out of the cold? The council does a great deal of good promoting our heritage and values throughout the world—values in which there is much interest and for which there is much demand. I hope that the Minister will tell the House tonight that the British Council will be established in Hanoi as soon as possible.
10.11 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for raising the important issue of Vietnamese migrants to Hong Kong, a problem with which I have been concerned since it first arose. My hon. Friend plays a distinguished role in the international efforts to reach a solution to it. I join him in paying tribute to the efforts of

125
our late friend and colleague, Ted Garrett, who did much to assist international efforts to alleviate the suffering of the migrants.
The problem has been with us for two decades, during which its nature has changed, just as the situation in Vietnam has changed. There are now just over 37,000 Vietnamese people in Hong Kong camps; much work remains to be done, but there has been remarkable progress over the past few years and I am confident that the end is now in sight.
I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend has afforded the House, first to underline what has been achieved and, secondly, to correct certain misconceptions about the treatment of those who have been screened out and of the returnees. I should also like to give credit where it is due—to the people and Government of Hong Kong who have borne the brunt of the problem for so long by providing a place of temporary refuge.
I also give credit to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and to the International Organisation for Migration. They have worked tirelessly with us over the years to ensure that Vietnamese migrants who qualify as genuine refugees are resettled and that those who do not are returned to Vietnam under conditions that guarantee their safety and give them the best chance of picking up their lives where they left off.
It was quite understandable, with conditions in Vietnam as they were in 1975, that all Vietnamese migrants arriving in countries in the region were accorded refugee status and offered resettlement in the west. There is no such justification for according blanket refugee status to all those leaving Vietnam today.
Since 1986, Vietnam has pursued a programme of economic reform, described as Doi Moi, along market economy lines. Living standards have improved and foreign investment has soared. With the lifting of the United States block on the normalisation of Vietnam's relations with the IMF and other financial institutions in July, the country's economy is expected to boom. The Vietnamese Government have enacted a number of recent reforms aimed at guaranteeing the legal and human rights of their citizens.
More than 195,000 of those fleeing Vietnam since 1975 have taken refuge in Hong Kong. Until the mid-1980s, the Vietnamese refugee population in Hong Kong steadily declined as the resettlement programme took effect. About 15,000 in all have come to the United Kingdom, but from 1986 onwards, the situation started to deteriorate rapidly and dramatically. The rate of new arrivals began to outstrip the number of resettlement places available to them in the west, and it became clear that the majority of those leaving were economic migrants, mostly from the northern part of Vietnam, rather than genuine refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution. The United States closed its doors on those people.
In response to those new circumstances, the Hong Kong Government decided, with the British Government's full support, that from 16 June 1988 all Vietnamese arrivals would be subject to screening, to distinguish between those who were refugees and those who were not.
That procedure, based on internationally accepted criteria, including the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, and the guidelines issued by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, was developed in close consultation with UNHCR to ensure that it was fair and
126
thorough and that genuine refugees would not be returned to Vietnam. The screening in Hong Kong, as well as having the full approval of UNHCR, has also passed the scrutiny of judicial review.
Other places of first asylum in the region adopted similar screening measures in March 1989. The arrangements for screening, resettlement and repatriation were embodied in a comprehensive plan of action, agreed at the second international conference on Indochinese refugees in June 1989, and were reviewed at meetings of the steering committee of the international conference in 1989 and 1990. A further steering committee meeting is expected to be held next year.
The comprehensive action plan offers a humane and durable solution to the problem of what are called the boat people. Hong Kong will continue to be a place of first asylum. All Vietnamese migrants arriving there will be screened. If initially found to be non-refugees, they have the right of appeal to an independent review board. If the board upholds the original decision, UNHCR retains the right to exercise its mandate. That guarantees that no one whom the UNHCR believes to be a genuine refugee will he returned to Vietnam.
Some 33,000 Vietnamese have volunteered for repatriation from Hong Kong since March 1989. However, it became clear that voluntary repatriation alone could not solve the problem. In October 1991, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Vietnam, with the UNHCR's involvement and encouragement, signed a statement of understanding on the principles of an orderly repatriation programme for all non-refugees in Hong Kong.
Under those arrangments, as a first step all Vietnamese arriving in Hong Kong after 29 October 1991 would be screened immediately and those found not to be refugees would be returned to Vietnam without delay. Later, all non-refugees who were in Hong Kong on 29 October 1991 who did not volunteer to return home would also be repatriated. The modalities for that second phase were agreed between the three Governments on 12 May 1992.
The programme is intended to buttress the UNHCR's voluntary return scheme and to show those in the camps in Hong Kong who have been screened out that we have the will and the means to return non-refugees to Vietnam and that there is no alternative but for them to return. It is based firmly on the principle that no one who is returned will suffer persecution. The programme is fully in accordance with the comprehensive plan of action and with normal international practice for the removal of illegal immigrants. It also serves the best interests of those in camps in Hong Kong without hope of resettlement, whose future lies in their own country—Vietnam.
Since the introduction of the orderly repatriation programme in October 1991, there has been an encouraging surge in the rate of non-refugees volunteering to return. More than 12,000 returned from Hong Kong in that way during 1992. More than 7,000 have returned voluntarily so far this year and more than 4,000 more are currently being processed for return. Even more encouraging, as my hon. Friend has said, the outflow from Vietnam has, for the moment, more or less ceased.
The camp population in Hong Kong as at 1 October was as follows: the number awaiting screening, 11,548; those screened out, 23,600; refugees awaiting resettlement, 2,019, making a total of 37,167. As I have said, 4,000 of those screened out have volunteered to return.

127
The Vietnamese authorities have reaffirmed that no one returning to Vietnam will be persecuted. They have agreed to facilitate the monitoring of all those who go back, regardless of their mode of return, to ensure that they are able to resume their lives in safety and dignity.
We recognise that Vietnam's record on human rights still contains room for improvement. We raise our concerns about Vietnam's human rights record at every suitable opportunity. I visited the country about a year ago. We also seek to encourage more accountable government in Vietnam. To that end, we invited the chairman of the Vietnamese National Assembly to visit London later this month, to obtain a better understanding of our own parliamentary system. As my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister of Vietnam was a welcome visitor to this country a few months ago.
I emphasise, however, that the Vietnamese Government have scrupulously respected their undertakings not to persecute returning Vietnamese migrants. Since the voluntary repatriation programme began in 1988, more than 45,000 people have returned to Vietnam. UNHCR representatives and British officials monitoring their return have not found one substantiated case of persecution. I see no reason why the Vietnamese authorities should not allow Amnesty International access to returnees. They have certainly allowed a wide range of other non-governmental organisations and human rights organisations to visit them.
We recognise the importance of tackling the root causes of the exodus from Vietnam. We have contributed £4 million to the European Community's international reintegration programme, in addition to our share—currently approximately 16–5 per cent.—of the Community's population We also increased our bilateral aid to Vietnam. As my hon. Friend said, the EC programme will come to an end in 1994. However, Community developmental assistance is likely to continue to flow once the EC-Vietnam co-operation agreement now being negotiated is finalised.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the question of the British Council, which has been a concern and an enthusiasm of my own since I took on my current responsibilities. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that a British Council representative will begin work in Vietnam within the next month. I hope that that will help further to promote an even better understanding between the United Kingdom and Vietnam.
128
We are still discussing with the UNHCR possible ways of increasing the rate of voluntary returns, including increased information services. There is a natural limit to the number of returnees that the Vietnamese can handle at any one time, but even if only present levels are maintained, the Hong Kong camps could be empty in less than three years. I can confirm that UNHCR reintegration payments have been reduced—the savings made will be used for reintegration projects in Vietnam—and that adult education and vocational classes have been cancelled. With the decline of the camp population, the UNHCR feels that money is better spent in other areas. Essential services such as children's education and medical care have most certainly not been cut.
We hope that the current arrangements, together with improved conditions and prospects in Vietnam, will ensure that the majority of non-refugees remaining in Hong Kong camps will volunteer to go back home. For those who do not, there will need to be further repatriation flights from time to time.
I pay tribute to the people and Government of Hong Kong. One reason why so many Vietnamese decided to make for Hong Kong was that the territory was staunchly maintaining the principle of first asylum, in spite of the refusal of the major resettlement countries to continue to accept economic migrants. The Vietnamese migrant problem has so far cost Hong Kong about £430 million.
It is not generally appreciated that in other countries in the region, the UNHCR meets care and maintenance costs in full, while for Hong Kong those are on a repayment basis. The LTNHCR is able to repay Hong Kong only to the extent that it has funds available and, as a result, Hong Kong is owed some £63 million by the UNHCR. It fully acknowledges its moral obligation to repay, and now includes a reference to that debt in its fund-raising literature.
As a Government, we have firmly reminded the major donors of the debt that the international community owes to Hong Kong for having shouldered the burden of Vietnamese migrants for so long, and we will continue to do so. Since 1989, we ourselves have contributed more than £60 million towards a solution of the problem.
I hope that this debate initiated by my hon. Friend will help to bring wider recognition of Hong Kong's admirable contribution to finding a solution to this long-running problem—and that the solution will be timely and successful.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Information
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the application of the first objective of the draft code of practice on government information on page 72 of his recent publication "Open Government" (Cm 2290) to the proposals contained in the European Union (Public Information) Bill.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The commitments to extend publication and availability of government information in the White Paper on open government, Cm 2290, do not require that information should be sent to every household in the country, which is a central purpose of the European Union (Public Information) Bill.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the commitment to receipt of information in confidence, set out in paragraph XIV of part II of the draft code of practice on government information published in his White Paper on open government (Cm 2290), refers solely to a commitment entered into in writing.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give examples of the kind of information disclosure of which would increase the likelihood of damage to the environment, which would be exempted from disclosure under the draft code of practice on government information, included in his White Paper on open government (Cm 2290).

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There is a similar exemption in the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, which is based in turn on article 3 of EC directive 90/313/EC. Guidance notes issues in December 1992 by the Department of the Environment give the following examples of possible harm:"In some cases the dissemination of environmental information could in fact harm or pollute the environment. For example, information about the location of nesting sites, rare habitats or endangered/protected species should be withheld to avoid the risk of damage. And information about possible Sites of Special Scientific Interest should not be made available until a formal notice is served; making information available prematurely could run the risk of preemptive damage being caused to the site before it was protected. Bodies will need to exercise careful judgement when restricting information in this way."

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the criteria adopted to judge governmental information or records whose sensitivity is such that no date can be put on their potential release, to which reference is made at paragraph 9.23 of his White Paper on open government (Cm 2290).
  2
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The criteria adopted in respect of records whose sensitivity is such that no date can be put on their potential release are, first, that they are required by the Department either because they are in use or are awaiting review and, secondly, that they fall into one or other of the categories listed in paragraph 9.23 of the White Paper on open government (Cm 2290) for which the Lord Chancellor has given "blanket" approval to retain under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. Individual records may also be retained under this section if they meet the first criterion for extended closure under section 5(1)—exceptionally sensitive records containing information, the disclosure of which would not be in the public interest—but the date on which the sensitivity is likely to pass is not known.

  Although no date can be put on their potential release, such records are subject to regular review—at least every 10 years—and they are subject to the test of actual damage caused by release; when the sensitivity has passed, the records will be released.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the exemption of information under section XV of part II of his draft code of practice on government information contained in his White Paper on open government (Cm 2290) will include information which cannot be sought in a parliamentary question arising from precedent created by Ministers to block acceptance of all questions that fall within certain categories; and how members of the public are to be informed as to which information cannot be sought in a parliamentary question.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The code of practice is not intended to make information available to the public which could not normally be obtained by hon. Members. Matters on which Ministers have refused to answer questions will often be covered by a specific exemption, and in some cases difficulties may be avoided by addressing the question correctly—for example, to a public body rather than to a Minister who would not normally answer questions on matters within the day-to-day responsibility of an independent public body. When information is refused under the code of practice, reasons will be given including any exemption considered relevant.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what additional resources will be made available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to carry out the new tasks conferred upon the Office of Parliamentary Ombudsman, as set out at paragraph 1.12 of the White Paper on open government (Cm 2290); and what criteria he has used to judge the likely resource demands upon the parliamentary ombudsman arising from the White Paper.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The resources available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are determined through the public expenditure survey in the usual way. The commissioner puts proposals directly to the Treasury.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Records
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued to Departments by the Public Record Office on the appraisal of personal records.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A copy of the guidance will be placed in the Library. In addition the chief executive of the Public Record Office, the Keeper of Public Records, who is best placed to provide specific information about the guidance, will be writing direct.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what documentation is available about the extent and completeness of records transferred from various sources on any particular topic for keeping at the Public Record Office.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The hon. Member's question concerns a specific matter on which the chief executive of the Public Record Office is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive, the Keeper of Public Records, to reply direct.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place a copy in the Library of the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the documentation of the selection and transfer of records to the office.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have done so today. In addition the chief executive of the Public Record Office, the Keeper of Public Records, will reply direct with comments on the guidelines.

  Letter from S. Tyacke to Dr. John Marek, dated 14 October 1993:
  As part of his reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions, as set out below, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to write to you direct.
  Parliamentary Question: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will place a copy in the Library of the guidance issued by the Public Record Office to departments on the appraisal of personal records.
  Date appeared: 27 July 1993. For written answer: 18 October 1993. PQ Reference No. 132. LCD PQ Reference No. 93/493.
  The guidance issued by the Public Record Office to departments on the appraisal of personal records is included in the Manual of Records Administration, issued to departments, and other organisations covered by the Public Records Acts, by our Government Services Department (paragraphs 3.5.18–3.5.21). I am arranging for a copy of the Manual to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons in response to a later question put down by you.
  Parliamentary Question: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what documentation is available about the extent and completeness of records transferred from various sources on any particular topic for keeping at the Public Record Office.
  Date appeared: 27 July 1993. For written answer: 18 October 1993. PQ Reference No. 133. LCD PQ Reference No. 93/494.
  When records are transferred to the Public Record Office, they are accompanied by lists, describing the contents of the transfer item by item, and these lists are made available in multiple sets in the reading rooms of the Public Record Office, as the records they describe become open to public inspection. Currently each set of lists of records transferred by modern departments, and made available in the reading rooms at Kew, contains upwards of half a million pages.
  The records are arranged in classes, each representing an original series of documents created in relation to a particular
  4
  activity or function of a department of court of law. The items in each class are described in the sets of lists, which are added to if and when further records are transferred and accessioned to a class. Nearly two thousand new pages of lists are added to each set every year.
  The Current Guide to the contents of the Public Record Office forms the central means of reference to its holdings, and describes the individual classes of records in the Office, giving readers the information they need to proceed to the correct class list, so that they can order items described in the lists.
  The class lists describe only those records that have been selected for transfer. The processes of selection involve, in the 35 largest departments alone, the file by file inspection of nearly 35 miles of records each year. As I have commented in an answer to a later question put down by you, it is a major current objective of the Public Record Office to improve the documentation of these processes of selection, in order that our own responsibility to co-ordinate and supervise them may be made more effective.
  Parliamentary Question: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will place a copy in the Library of the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the documentation of the selection and transfer of records to the Office. Date appeared: 27 July 1993. For written answer: 18 October 1993. PQ Reference No. 135. LCD PQ Reference No. 93/496.
  I am arranging for a copy of the Manual of Records Administration, issued to government departments and other organisations covered by the Public Records Acts, by our Government Services Department, to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons. It includes, at paragraph 3.5.18–3.5.21, the guidance on personal records, which is the subject of an earlier question put down by you.
  The intention of the Manual is to give guidance to departments on every aspect of work carried out under the Public Records Acts, and to indicate the division of responsibilities between departments and the Public Record Office. Although in this respect it should be a practical tool, it is not possible for it to cover every eventuality, and the need for day to day consultation between departments and the Public Record Office continues.
  A completely revised edition of the Manual was issued to departments in March 1993, and further amendments and additions were distributed in July this year. Chapter 5, on access to public records transferred to the Public Record Office, has been revised to take account of the new arrangements set out in Chapter 9 of the White Paper on Open Government (Cm. 2290), which covered the handling of public records. The revised text of Chapter 5, which is in the process of being distributed to departments, is included in the copy of the Manual in the Library.
  The Manual contains, in Chapter 3 on Selection and Destruction, in Chapter 6 on Preparation for Transfer and in Part 7.1 on Transfer of Records, guidance from the Public Record Office on the documentation of these activities. It is a major current objective of our Government Services Department to improve the documentation of the processes of appraisal—the determination of the value of records—and of selection.
  If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask me.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guarantees were sought relating to standards to be maintained and professional ability available at the Royal Free NHS trust before it was designated as a place of deposit by the Public Record Office.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The hon. Member's question concerns a specific matter on which the chief executive of the Public Record Office is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive, the Keeper of Public Records, to reply direct.

  Letter from S. Tyacke to Dr. John Marek, dated 14 October 1993:
  As part of his reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, as set out below, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to write to you direct.

  5
  Parliamentary Question: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what guarantees were sought relating to standards to be maintained and professional ability available at the Royal Free NHS Trust before it was designated as a place of deposit by the Public Record Office. Date appeared: 27 July 1993. For written answer: 18 October 1993. PQ Reference No. 134. LCD PQ Reference No. 93/495.
  Places of deposit for public records are appointed under s. 4 (1) of the 1958 Public Records Act by the Keeper of Public Records, acting under powers delegated by the Lord Chancellor. Appointments are effected by an annual Lord Chancellor's (Places of Deposit) Instrument, issued each October, 247 such places of deposit being appointed in 1992.
  When an institution, such as the Royal Free NHS Trust, wishes to hold public records, such as hospital records, which have been selected for permanent preservation, and which are over 30 years old, it must apply to the Public Record Office for appointment as a place of deposit. The Public Record Office Liaison Officer is responsible for discussing with the institution the standards of storage and public access (where appropriate) it is expected to reach and to inspect the facilities that are ultimately provided before an appointment may proceed. As respects storage conditions, places of deposit are expected to house records in premises which follow as nearly as possible the recommendations in BS 5454: 1989 Recommendations for storage and exhibition of archival documents (BSI, 1989). The principal requirements are that:

  1. The storage accommodation should be large enough to take not only the existing archive collection but also future accruals over a considerable number of years.

  2. There must be strict precautions against unauthorised entry, to keep out the potential thief or vandal. The building should, therefore, be protected by an intruder alarm system, any doors should be strongly constructed, with thief proof locks, and ideally there should be no windows in the storage area.

  3. Fire precautions should be of a very high standard, because of the unique nature of archives. At least there must be a smoke detection and alarm system, a suitable number of portable fire extinguishers, and appropriate fire resistances.

  4. There must be no risk of flooding from internal or external sources.

  5. It must be possible to control the atmospheric conditions within the approved ranges of temperature (16 C to 18 C) and relative humidity (55 per cent. to 65 per cent.).

  Places of deposit are expected to provide access, under constant supervision, at reasonable hours depending on the nature of the institution. Furthermore, it is expected that the records in places of deposit should be managed by a qualified archivist.
  The processes which led to the first appointment in 1992 and subsequent monitoring of the Royal Free Hospital are common to all places of deposit. Officials at the hospital were in close contact with the Liaison Officer through the life of the project to set up the hospital archive, and advice was given on the feasibility of conversion of the Hoo (the actual building which was appointed a place of deposit), on the plans and specifications produced for that conversion and on the future management of the records. This enabled the PRO to ensure that appropriate standards were being adhered to throughout the conversion. As soon as the conversion work was completed, the building was inspected and assessed against the standards appropriate to a place of deposit and was formally appointed in the 1992 Lord Chancellor's Places of Deposit Instrument on the recommendations of the Liaison Officer.
  The Instrument is renewed annually and an institution's appointment may be rescinded if standards drop below an acceptable level. The Liaison Officer is responsible for inspecting not only proposed new places of deposit but also existing places of deposit on a regular basis to ensure that standards of professional care for the records are being maintained. Unless circumstances warrant a visit before then, The Hoo will be due for reinspection in 2000.
  If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask me.

  Crown Court Sittings
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in 1993 scheduled individual sittings of separate courts 6
  within the Snaresbrook crown court complex have been unable to sit due to the absence of a judge or recorder; what was the specific reason for each such cancellation; what was the date of the maximum number of cancellations occurring on any single day; and what was the estimated cost to public funds on that day, and the total for the year so far.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not readily available; I will reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what method of funding is used to ensure that posts of judge and recorder for crown courts are filled; and what action is being taken to ensure that scheduled court sittings are not cancelled due to absence of a judge or recorder.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Judges in the crown court are paid direct from the Consolidated Fund and not via the departmental vote ensuring that sufficient funds are available to meet their salaries. The departmental vote includes moneys to pay the fees of recorders and assistant recorders. The budget received by the court service is based on the planned number of sitting days for recorders and assistant recorders. Scheduled sittings are based upon the known availability of judges, recorders and assistant recorders. In the event of a judge, recorder or assistant recorder being unavailable for a scheduled sitting every attempt is made to book a member of the part-time judiciary.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Parliamentary Answers (Cost)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of preparation of his answer to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) of 22 July 1993,Official Report, columns 296–301.

  Mr. Nelson
  Preparation of the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford re the report of the Director General of Fair Trading on the marketing and sale of investment-linked insurance products, made under section 122(4) and (5) of the Financial Services Act 1986, was an integral part of the evaluation carried out by officials. It is not possible to isolate the specific costs of its preparation.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 July 1993,Official Report, columns 227–28, if he will publish details of the proposals for rebalancing the composition of the Securities and Investments Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  An announcement of new appointments will be made shortly.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under which paragraphs of treaty articles and consequential directives obligations are placed on Her Majesty's Government to make VAT charges in respect of(a) building repairs, (b) items of safety equipment hitherto

  7
  exempt and (c) non-domestic building and civil engineering projects; in each case what communications he received from the Commission or the European Court in relation to these or similar obligations; and in what manner the purport of each communication was reported to Parliament.

  Sir John Cope
  Article 99 of the treaty of Rome—treaty establishing the European Economic Community —allows for the EC Council of Ministers to adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning VAT and other indirect taxes. The sixth Council VAT directive (77/388/EEC), which was adopted in accordance with this article, provides the framework for the application of VAT in all EC member states, including the United Kingdom's zero rates.

  The vires for the retention of the United Kingdom's zero rates of VAT are contained in article 28.2 of the EC sixth VAT directive, which refers to article 17, last indent of the EC second VAT directive (67/228/EEC). This states:
  "Such measures may only be taken for clearly defined social reasons and for the benefit of the final consumer".

  The European Commission began infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom in 1981 alleging that some of the United Kingdom's zero rates did not comply with these conditions. The European Court of Justice supported the Commission where the supplies were made to businesses, but rejected the Commission's argument where the supplies were made direct to individuals.

  Item (a) Building repairs have never been subject to the zero rate, and their taxation was not affected by the result of this judgment.

  For items (b) and (c) listed above the correspondence between the Commission/European Court of Justice and the United Kingdom on this matter is as follows:

  19 October 1981:
  the Commission informed the United Kingdom that its zero rates did not in its opinion conform to the provisions of the EC sixth VAT directive under the provisions of article 169 of the treaty of Rome;

  25 February 1982:
  the United Kingdom defended its zero rates in a letter to the Commission;

  4 September 1984:
  the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the United Kingdom;

  2 December 1987:
  the Advocate General's opinion was published on the case; and

  21 June 1988:
  the Court issued its judgment.

  Pleadings in infraction proceedings are strictly confidential to the parties in dispute. This point was discussed by the then Secretary of State for Employment, Lord Young of Graffham, in response to a question from Lord Stoddart of Swindon in October 1986, Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 1986, columns 910–13.

  The content of the judgment itself was communicated to Parliament in a speech made by the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), on the date of the judgment, Official Report, 21 June 1988, columns 969–87.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the guidance which has been given by the Commission of the European Community as to the degree to which current variation in the rate of VAT charged between its member states constitutes an obstruction to the 8
  establishment or functioning of the Common Market together with the findings of the European Court of Justice relating to interpretation of this part of the article.

  Sir John Cope
  The Commission has given no guidance, nor has the European Court of Justice issued any findings about the harmonisation of VAT rates with the Community with regard to the establishment or functioning of the Common Market.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will set out a table showing for each group of commodities for which VAT is, or can be, chargeable by member states of the European Community, the prevailing rates charged by each member state in respect of each group of commodities for a latest practicable date, with footnotes for main variations in the figure or figure range, shown together with a concise statement, with references, of the treaty and consequential directive obligations placed on the United Kingdom to vary, or refrain from varying, such VAT rates(a) until 31 December 1996 and (b) thereafter;

  (2) if he will publish a table for each principal item of commodities for which VAT is charged by any member state of the European Community the amount of which would be raised at rates of (a) 8.5 and (b) 17 per cent.

  Sir John Cope
  Rates of VAT applied in member states of the European Community on a range of commodities are set out in a document produced by the Commission of the European Communities which has been placed in the House of Commons Library. The title of the document is "The Evolution of VAT Rates applicable in the Member States of the Community" and the document number is XXI/158/93-EN. It shows the position at 1 May 1993.

  Article 99 of the treaty of Rome allows for the EC Council of Ministers to adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning VAT and other indirect taxes. EC VAT rates are governed by the sixth VAT directive (77/388/EEC) as amended (91/680/EEC), and the VAT rates and structures directive (92/77/EEC). The directives set out the exemptions from VAT and the rates of VAT which are to apply to taxable goods and services in the EC from 1 January 1993.

  For most goods and services a standard rate of at least 15 per cent. is to be applied. Member states may also apply one or two reduced rates of not less than 5 per cent. to a specified list of goods and services. The United Kingdom's right to maintain its existing zero rates is protected by the sixth VAT directive and reinforced by the more recent VAT rates directive, at least until 31 December 1996 and without prejudice to what happens thereafter. The United Kingdom may apply a reduced rate—or the standard rate—to any goods or services that are currently zero-rated. The rates directive makes no provision for higher—luxury—rates of VAT.

  The scope and coverage of the reduced rate list will be reviewed before the end of 1994. The minimum VAT standard rate is legally binding until 31 December 1996. If by then the Council has not agreed a new minimum rate to apply from 1 January 1997, the minimum standard rate will lapse on that date.

  Table 9 of the tax ready reckoner and tax reliefs published by HM Treasury in July 1993 sets out the cost of applying a zero rather than a standard rate of VAT to the main zero rated items, in 1993–94. These figures can be adjusted pro rata to arrive at a rough estimate of the

  9
  revenue yield from applying a rate of 8.5 per cent. A table showing figures for each principal item for which VAT is charged by any member state of the European Community is not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Marine Search Equipment
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the cost to HM Customs and Excise to charter the Milbrook Surveyor used to attempt to locate bales of cannabis off south Wales;

  (2) if the Customs and Excise intend to repeat the operation to attempt to locate cannabis bales on the sea bed off south Wales;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to improve co-ordination between HM Customs and Excise, HM Coastguard and the Royal Navy over the sharing of marine equipment.

  Sir John Cope
  The cost to HM Customs and Excise of chartering the Milbrook Surveyor in the attempt to locate bales of cannabis off south Wales was £17,375.70.

  Length of time necessary to work1 to pay for selected food commodities

  Minutes

  1971

  1979

  1984

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1 Ib of sugar

  4

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  1 ib of back bacon

  30

  33

  26

  21

  20

  21

  20

  20

  21

  1 Ib of beef sirloin2

  49

  56

  52

  42

  41

  40

  37

  33

  34

  1 Ib of fresh cod fillets

  23

  32

  24

  27

  26

  27

  28

  28

  23

  14 Ib of potatoes

  24

  25

  37

  23

  22

  26

  23

  23

  18

  800 gm sliced loaf (white)

  9

  9

  7

  6

  6

  5

  5

  5

  5

  1 Ib of butter

  19

  23

  15

  12

  13

  12

  10

  10

  11

  1 pint of fresh milk

  5

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  1 dozen eggs (55–60 gramme)

  23

  18

  16

  13

  11

  12

  10

  9

  9

  1 Ib of pork

  34

  32

  24

  18

  19

  19

  20

  17

  15

  1 Married couple with husband only working.

  2 From 1989 this refers to rump steak.

  Tax Repayments
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the sum of tax repaid to(a) pension funds, (b) insurance companies, (c) oil companies and (d) other companies in each year since 1986–87.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Available information is as follows:

  Income tax repayments and tax credits to:

  £ million

  Pension funds

  Insurance companies

  Other companies

  1986–87

  1,187

  553

  270

  1987–88

  1,799

  803

  476

  1988–89

  1,826

  1,021

  336

  1989–90

  2,126

  988

  403

  1990–91

  2,294

  1,417

  437

  1991–92

  2,199

  1,841

  529

  1 1992–93

  2,000

  1,800

  650

  1 Provisional.

  These estimates are based on a sample survey of income tax repayments and payments of tax credits.

  Petroleum revenue tax repayments to oil companies:

  £ million

  11986–87

  19

  1987–88

  253

  1988–89

  666

  10
  A further recovery operation was mounted by Customs over the period 25 September to 1 October 1993 and another is planned.

  Customs is committed to inter-agency co-operation and already works closely with other Government services, including both the Royal Navy and HM Coastguard. Such co-operation includes joint operational activities, together with the use of vessels and other equipment.

  Incomes and Food Prices
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures for 1971, 1979, 1984 and each year since 1988 for a married man with two children earning average male annual earnings, showing the length of time, after taking into account income tax, liability and national insurance contributions, necessary to pay for(a) one lb of sugar, (b) one lb of back bacon, (c) one lb of beef sirloin, (d) one lb of fresh cod fillets, (e) 14 lb of potatoes, (f) 800 gm of sliced loaf, (g) one lb of butter, (h) one pint of fresh milk, (i) one dozen eggs, and (j) one lb of pork.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  £ million

  1989–90

  440

  1990–91

  578

  1991–92

  1,607

  1992–93

  941

  1 Includes repayments of advance petroleum revenue tax.

  Figures for corporation tax repayments were given in my reply of 28 June 1993 at column 372. A breakdown in the form requested is not available centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Investment Income
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been(a) the total investment income of individuals and (b) the tax revenues on investment income in each financial year since 1990–91, together with an estimate for the current year; and what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer in each year of the exemption from tax of the investment income of old people.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Available information is given in the table. Estimates of income are based on information reported to tax offices and collected through the annual survey of personal incomes. It is therefore not possible to provide estimates for all individuals and so the table relates to taxpayers only. Figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are
  11
  based on projections of the 1991–92 survey and are therefore provisional. For 1990–91, the figures are calculated using the taxpayers' marginal rate and are therefore not directly comparable with receipts data which reflect the application of the composite rate on bank and building society interest. There is no general exemption from tax of the investment income of old people but the third row of the table shows the estimated cost to the Exchequer in terms of liabilities if investment income paid to people aged 65 or over were exempt from income tax.

  £ billion

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Total investment income of taxpayers

  41·9

  38·7

  35·0

  29·0

  Tax liability on investment income

  11·0

  10·7

  9·6

  7·9

  Cost of exempting the investment income of the aged

  3·6

  3·2

  2·8

  2·3

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what examinations have been made to check that that first issue premium bonds have been winning in ways consistent with the laws of probability; and what has been the result of such examination.

  Mr. Nelson
  Each month the bond numbers generated by ERNIE, and the results of the prize draw, are subjected to a series of statistical tests by the Government Actuary, who is wholly independent of national savings. These tests have never given any reason to doubt ERNIE's randomness, or that each eligible bond number has an equal chance of being drawn for a prize, regardless of when it was issued.

  Older bond numbers, including those of the earliest issue, do not appear as often as newer numbers in the prize lists simply because there are relatively fewer of them as over the years many of these bonds have been cashed in.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the number of valid premium bonds held by members of the public and (b) the total number of prizes available for premium bonds in each of the years since the establishment of the premium bond scheme.

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of eligible bonds and prizes issued in each year since the start of the premium bond scheme are shown below.

  Number of Eligible Bond Units as at 1 December (millions)

  Number of Prize issued in year (thousands)

  1957

  70·0

  62·5

  1958

  152 9

  149·0

  1959

  214·7

  210·2

  1960

  272·2

  257·1

  1961

  319 6

  372·9

  1962

  359·6

  424·3

  1963

  403·0

  476·2

  1964

  453·4

  532·7

  1965

  500 1

  595·3

  1966

  551 6

  657·8

  1967

  598·3

  710·3

  12

  Number of Eligible Bond Units as at 1 December (millions)

  Number of Prizes issued in year (thousands)

  1968

  646·7

  769·6

  1969

  721·7

  863·9

  1970

  765·7

  932·1

  1971

  845·1

  971·9

  1972

  924·0

  1,033 6

  1973

  987·4

  1,117·4

  1974

  1,016·7

  1,158·5

  1975

  1,070·7

  1,203·5

  1976

  1,145·0

  1,276·9

  1977

  1,210·6

  1,309·7

  1978

  1,294·4

  1,405·3

  1979

  1,374·4

  11,125·8

  1980

  1,404·6

  2890·5

  1981

  1,455·7

  1,142·2

  1982

  1,497·7

  1,221·2

  1983

  1·595 8

  1,229·4

  1984

  1,683·6

  1,337·7

  1985

  1,756·0

  1,884·3

  1986

  1,839·1

  1,962·2

  1987

  1,935·8

  2,059·4

  1988

  2,133·9

  2,232·5

  1989

  2,269·2

  2,418·7

  1990

  2,271·5

  2,483·5

  1991

  2,313·2

  2,491·1

  1992

  2,454·0

  2,599·1

  1993

  32,714·0

  41,847·2

  1 A temporary truncated prize structure was introduced for the September to December 1979 prize draws, to allow speedier recovery from industrial action.

  2 A new prize structure was introduced from 1 January 1980 when the minimum prize was increased from £25 to £50.

  3 As at 1 October.

  4 Up to 1 October.

  Corporation Tax
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the cost to the Exchequer of making the first £50,000 or the first £100,000 of retained profits of small companies free of corporation tax with suitable safeguards to prevent the concession applying to associated companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Exchequer cost of making the first £50,000, or £100,000, of taxable profits free of corporation tax for companies normally liable at the small company rate would be about £½ billion, or £1 billion, respectively per annum. It is assumed that companies' liability to account for advance corporation tax and the rules for setting it against corporation tax are unaffected.

  European Community
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net payment made to the European Community by the United Kingdom for each year since 1979; and in each case what was the net payment to European Economic Community institutions as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Nelson
  Details of the United Kingdom's net contribution to European Community institutions both in absolute terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product are given in the following table:
  13

  Year

  Net contribution to EC institutions £ million

  Net contribution as a percentage of GDP per cent.

  1979–80

  839

  0·40

  1980–81

  168

  0·07

  1981–82

  117

  0·04

  1982–83

  589

  0·21

  1983–84

  834

  0·27

  1984–85

  977

  0·29

  1985–86

  819

  0·22

  1986–87

  1,074

  0·27

  1987–88

  1,661

  0·38

  1988–89

  1,006

  0·21

  1989–90

  2,316

  0·44

  1990–91

  2,027

  0·37

  1991–92

  705

  0·12

  11992–93

  1,769

  0·29

  1 Estimated outturn.

  Sources:

  Figures for net contribution to EC institutions are as in the Government's expenditure plans, and therefore exclude contributions to the EC budget which are attributed to the aid programmme. Figures for 1987–88 to 1992–93 are taken from the departmental report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments (Cm 2217); for earlier years, figures are taken relevant public expenditure plans or departmental reports.

  GDP: CSO Economic Trends.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr.John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the latest estimate of the number of PEPs; and what is the associated cost to the Exchequer;

  (2) how many PEPs were taken out during each of the last five years; and what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the consequential tax relief;

  (3) how many tax exempt special savings accounts have been opened since the scheme was introduced; and what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the consequential tax reliefs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is as follows;Since PEPs began in 1987, 2,880,000 general plans have been taken out, and since 1 January 1992, 250,000 single company plans have been taken out.

  Personal Equity Plans

  Number of plans taken out (thousands)

  Estimated total cost of income tax relief (£ million)

  General

  Single company

  1988

  120

  —

  15

  1989 and first quarter of 1990

  580

  —

  20

  1990–91

  500

  —

  45

  1991–92

  640

  110

  90

  1992–931

  770

  140

  120

  1 Provisional.

  TESSAs

  There were about 3.75 million live TESSA accounts as at 30 June 1993. The estimated cost of tax relief for TESSAs for 1992–93 was £250 million.

  Income Tax Threshold
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of raising the income tax threshold to £100 per week for each person liable to pay income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Compared with statutory indexation of allowances and thresholds by 1.8 per cent, the estimated full year cost of raising the personal allowance to £5,200 at 1994–95 income levels would be about £10 billion.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people had incomes of less than £100 per week at the latest date for which figures are available; how many of these paid income tax; and what proportion of the national average wage is represented by £100 per week.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimates for 1993–94 are that about 23.2 million people aged over 16 have incomes below £100 per week, of whom about 2.5 million are taxpayers. The sum of £100 is about 28 per cent. of average earnings for full-time adult males.

  Unemployment Costs
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to the effect of a reduction in unemployment of 1 million people on local expenditure on(a) free school meals, (b) temporary accommodation for homeless families, (c) the element of benefits payments in respect of rents and council tax borne by local authorities and (d) the element of mandatory education awards borne by local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no such estimate, and to produce one would require so many assumptions as to render the result almost meaningless.

  Ministerial Salary Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial arrangements for further salary payments ensue when a Minister resigns or is sacked.

  Mr. Dorrell
  When a Minister leaves office for whatever reason, he is entitled to a severance payment, the terms of which are governed by the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.

  Long-term Care Insurance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to regulate the development of long-term care insurance and of schemes which use the value of the owner's home to fund long-term care.

  Mr. Nelson
  I am not aware of any such cases. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of particular difficulties with such insurances and schemes, he should bring them to my attention.

  VAT
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what items of manufactured or non-manufactured foodstuff VAT is currently chargeable in the United Kingdom; how much was received in tax for each grouping of such items for the financial year 1992–93; and what is his estimate of income for the year 1993–94.
  15
  Sir John Cope
  Most items of food are relieved from VAT. The exceptions liable to tax at the standard rate include: ice cream and similar frozen products; confectionery; manufactured beverages including alcoholic drinks, soft drinks, fruit juices and bottled waters; potato crisps and similar snack foods. In 1992–93 VAT on these items is estimated to have raised around £1.6 billion and in 1993–94 it is expected to raise around £1.7 billion.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of European Finance Ministers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  European Community Finance Ministers and central bank governors held an informal meeting in Genval, Belgium on 8 to 10 October.

  There was a general discussion of the economic situation in the Community and the White Book on a medium-term strategy for growth, competitiveness and employment that the Copenhagen European Council invited the Commission to prepare in time for its meeting in December. Against this background, there as a preliminary discussion of the broad guidelines for economic policy which will be established under article 103 of the Maastricht treaty. I agreed with a number of other member states that we should avoid an excessively prescriptive approach. The next step will be for the Commission to prepare a draft recommendation which will be discussed by Finance Ministers before being put to the European Council in December.

  Ministers discussed a package of draft Commission proposals designed to ensure that certain treaty provisions relating to stage II of EMU are consistently applied. Discussion will now continue in official working groups before returning to the Council later in the year.

  There was also some discussion of the Community's programme of macro-economic assistance for the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe. There was general agreement on the importance of linking EC support to a full IMF International Monetary Fund stand-by arrangement and of stimulating private finance.

  Finally, Finance Ministers endorsed the political agreement reached in the Foreign Affairs Council the previous week on a new inter-institutional agreement on budget discipline. The European Parliament is still considering whether it can accept the agreement.

  Informal meetings cannot take formal decisions or votes.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of investment in British Rail local services in London for each year from 1990–91 to 1993–94; what is the planned figure for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Figures for BR investment in Network SouthEast are set out in the table. The figures do not include prepayments.
  16

  Investment in Network SouthEast

  £ million

  Year

  Number

  1990–91

  340

  1991–92

  396

  1992–93

  524

  1993–94

  426

  The figure for 1993–94 is subject to revision and should be regarded as indicative only. A figure for 1994–95 has yet to be announced.

  Roads (Greenwich Mean Time)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the net change in road casualties that is associated with the present winter arrangements of using Greenwich mean time.

  Mr. Key
  Based on casualty statistics for 1991, the Transport Research Laboratory estimated that putting the clocks back for 22 weeks in the winter resulted in an increase in road casualties of some 100 fatalities, 400 serious casualties and 1,000 slight casualties.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to issue a warning to the public about road risks following the change of the clocks to Greenwich mean time.

  Mr. Key
  There are no plans to issue a specific warning to the public about road risks following the change of the clocks to Greenwich mean time. The Department does however distribute leaflets on safe winter driving and on pedestrian and cyclist/motor cyclist conspicuity.

  Driving Licences
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ordinary driving licences are revoked each year on the basis that the holder's mental ill health is, or may become, likely to cause that person to be a source of danger to the public if he or she drives, pursuant to section 93(1) and section 93(2) of the Road Traffic Road Act 1988; and how many individuals each year are granted ordinary driving licences for a limited period of time on the basis that the applicant's mental ill health is, or may become, likely to cause that person to be a source of danger to the public if he or she drives, pursuant to section 99(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  Mr. Key
  Each year around 600 ordinary driving licences are revoked and about the same number refused on the basis that the mental health of the holders or applicants was or might become likely to cause that person to be a source of danger to the public. Statistics on the number of restricted period licences issued are not broken down into the type of medical condition/disability that the driver suffers from.

  Fishing (Submarines)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he made to the proposals delivered to him by the Clyde Fishermen's Association concerning communication of submarine movements to the fishing fleet in inshore waters off Scotland.
  17
  Mr. Norris
  Arrangements for the broadcasting of information about submarine movements—Subfacts—are still under discussion with the fishing industry and others.

  Farm Vehicles
  Mr. Salmond
  To' ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the requirement for road tax discs, number plates, lights, and directional indicators to be available and in working order will be applied to all farm vehicles ; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The only mechanically propelled farm vehicles which are exempt from vehicle excise duty are those not used on the public road, or used for distances not exceeding 6 miles in any calendar week when the journey is for travelling between land in the occupation of the registered keeper.

  When used on the road, agricultural machines and trailers are required by the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971—SI 1971/450—to display a registration mark. All agricultural vehicles used on the road must be fitted with front and rear position lamps and rear reflectors. Tractors manufactured since 1 April 1986 must also have dipped headlamps, direction indicators and a hazard warning signal device. Any vehicle with a maximum speed not exceeding 25 mph, including tractors, must also display an amber warning beacon when travelling along an unrestricted dual carriageway. We strongly recommend their use on other roads as well. All lamps and reflectors must be kept clean and in good working order. We have no plans to require additional lighting equipment to be fitted on older vehicles.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to limit the width of farm vehicles using public roads in the same manner as commercial road transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 1979 regulate the dimensions of agricultural vehicles used on public roads. These regulations require notification to be given to the police of the date, time and route of the journey before vehicles over 2.9 m width are used on the road and in the case of vehicles over 3.5 m width an attendant is required to give warning to other road users. Vehicles over 4.3 m width can be used only under individual authorisation and the need for the journey must be justified. I see no need for additional regulation of these vehicles.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of accidents caused as a result of farm vehicles leaving dirt on the road in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not collected by central Government.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken to ensure the enforcement of laws relating to dirt on the road without prejudice; how many farmers have been prosecuted in each of the last five years for leaving dirt on roads; and if he will make a statement.
  18
  Mr. Key
  My Department's highway responsibilities are confined to England. In England, it is for individual highway authorities to take action under the Highways Act 1980, at common law, or under specific local byelaws, to deal with dirt on roads which they consider to be a hazard or obstruction.

  Information on the numbers of such prosecutions could be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend the duties of his Department's roadside inspection of commercial vehicles to farm vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Vehicle Inspectorate's examiners have and use the power to make roadside inspections of farm vehicles and to prohibit their use if they are unroadworthy. We have no plans, however, to make farm vehicles a specific priority for roadside inspection. Farm vehicles are also subject to spot checks by the Health and Safety Executive, which has powers to prohibit the use of vehicles if they are in an unsafe or improperly maintained condition.

  M25
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the proposed widening of the M25; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We have received numerous comments and suggestions in connection with the widening of the M25. These have all been carefully considered and taken into account in reaching our conclusions about the future strategic needs for this motorway. We will of course continue to listen to any further views that are expressed.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what cost-benefit analysis or studies have been made in respect of the M25 duplication or widening schemes(a) already authorised, (b) under active study and (c) currently contemplated; and where such studies are available to the public.

  Mr. Key
  The following cost-benefit analyses or studies have, are being, or will be undertaken in connection with increasing the capacity of the M25:Junctions 30(A13)–3 (M20): no information yet. The future requirements are under review following the opening of the Queen Elizabeth H Bridge.
  Junctions 3–5(M26)—rapid widening: no information yet. It is anticipated that consultants will be appointed to prepare detailed proposals later this year or early next.
  Junctions 5–7(M23)—rapid widening: no information yet. Proposals are being prepared for widening to dual four lanes and information from the cost-benefit analysis, together with studies into air quality, noise, ecology etc will be made available when the environmental statement is published next spring.
  Junctions 7–8 (Reigate)—rapid widening: details of the proposal to widen this section to dual four lanes, including the information on the results of the cost-benefit analysis as well as other information from other studies were included in the environmental statements made available at public exhibitions earlier this year.
  Junctions 8–10(A3)—rapid widening: no information published yet. Proposals are being prepared for widening this section to dual four lanes. Information from the cost-benefit analysis and other studies will be made available when the environmental statement is published in the near future.
  Junctions 10–11(Chertsey)—rapid widening: details of the proposal to widen this section to dual four lanes, including the

  19
  information on results of the cost-benefit analysis and other studies was included in the environmental statements made available at public exhibitions earlier this year.
  Junctions 10–12(M3)—widening beyond four lanes: no information has been published yet. Consultants have been appointed to investigate the options for increasing capacity beyond four lanes. If it is decided to go ahead the results of the cost-benefit analysis and ether studies will be made available at public consultation stage.
  Junctions 12–15(M4)—widening beyond four lanes: information from the cost-benefit analysis and other studies undertaken was available to the public during the public consultation exhibitions held in July 1992. A copy of the technical appraisal report for the scheme, which included information on the cost-benefit analysis was placed in the House of Commons Library last autumn. Further information will be made available in the environmental statement when draft orders are published, probably later this year.
  Junctions 15–16(M40)—rapid widening: details of the proposal to widen this section to dual four lanes, including information on the results of the cost-benefit analysis and other studies were included in the environmental statement made available at public exhibitions in 1991.
  Junctions 15–16—widening beyond four lanes: a public consultation assessment report containing the results of the cost-benefit analysis and other studies, was available at the public exhibitions held in July and September this year.
  Junctions 16–19(Watford)—rapid widening: no information yet. Proposals are being prepared for widening to dual four lanes and information from the cost-benefit analysis and other studies will be made available when the environmental statement is published towards the end of the year.
  Junctions 19–23(A1)—rapid widening: no information yet. Proposals are being prepared for widening to dual four lanes within the existing highway boundary and information from the cost-benefit analysis and other studies will be made available when the environmental statement is published in 1995.
  Junctions 16–21(M1)—widening beyond four lanes: no information yet. It is anticipated that consultations will be appointed later this year or early next.
  Junctions 23–26(Al21)—rapid widening: no information yet. Proposals are being prepared for widening to dual four lanes and information from the cost-benefit analysis and other studies will be made available when the evironmental statement is published towards the end of the year.
  Junctions 26–28(Al2)—rapid widening: no information yet. Proposals are being prepared for widening to dual four lanes within the existing highway boundary and information from the cost-benefit analysis and other studies will be made available when the environmental statement is published in 1995.
  Junctions 28–30(A13)—widening: no information yet. Consultants will be appointed at some future date.

  Traffic, London
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has sought from the City of London Corporation on the changes in traffic speed, congestion and casualties to non-car occupants and to car occupants since 3 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  None, but if the City corporation wishes to make permanent its experimental traffic measures it will need to obtain the approval of the Traffic Director for London and to consult adjacent boroughs and other interests. In doing so, the corporation would need to explain the effects of the experimental measures.

  Barking to Gospel Oak Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received on the future investment programme of the Barking to Gospel Oak line: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail to decide which projects to take forward and what priority it should be 20
  given until our plans for the privatisation of rail services can be implemented. However, I understand that Network SouthEast is looking at ways of improving the service on the north London lines, including that between Gospel Oak and Barking.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who serves on the police committee of the British Transport police; and how often it has met over the past five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The members of the British Transport police committee as at 30 September 1993 are:

  Chairman:

  D. Rayner Esq.

  Members:

  D. Tunnicliffe Esq.

  C. J. D. Driver Esq.

  A. P. Watkinson Esq.

  Sir Lawrence Byford CBE, OBE, MC, DL

  Major-General Lennox Napier CB, OBE, MC, DL

  J. G. Nelson Esq.

  Mrs. Diana Lamplugh OBE

  The committee meets on a quarterly basis.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has reached a decision on the future employer of the British Transport police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have decided that Railtrack should become the employer of the BTP for as long as it remains in the public sector. When Railtrack is transferred to the private sector the British Transport police committee will become the employer. In the interim, until appropriate legislation can be drafted and introduced the BR board will continue as employer of the BTP.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what joint consultation procedure exists between the police committee of the British Transport police, and that force's Police Federation, and the representative bodies of other ranks at which matters relating to police pay and conditions of service are discussed; what is the membership of the joint body; and on how many occasions it has met in the past five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  In common with Home Department forces, the police committee does not meet with staff representative bodies. A joint consultative committee, comprising the chief and deputy chief constable; assistant chief constable (support services); chairman and secretary of the Superintendents Association; and the chairman and secretary of the British Transport Police Federation, meets twice a year, and as necessary, and any concerns are referred to the police committee for consideration.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent Home Office police regulations applied to members of the British Transport police.

  Mr. Freeman
  The chief constable has a statutory duty to control and direct the force, which includes following, wherever possible, any guidance or instructions on police matters given by the Home Secretary and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and their counterparts in Scotland.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a Minister from his Department will meet
  21
  reresentatives of the British Transport Police Federation to discuss the ramifications of (a) the Sheehy report, (b) the White Paper on police and (c) matters of general concern to Police Federation members, which are not operational matters reserved for the chief constable.

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministers regularly meet representatives of the British Transport Police Federation and their parliamentary representative to discuss a wide range of matters. The last such meeting took place on 8 September.

  Skippers' Licences
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to revoke or suspend the master's ticket of skippers of British-registered fishing vessels found guilty of having a secret fish room on board, fishing with undersize mesh nets, landing undersized fish and related offences.

  Mr. Norris
  No. Certificates of competency for officers on fishing vessels remain valid for as long as the individuals holding them can comply with the appropriate standards and conditions of medical fitness and competence. Infringements of fisheries legislation are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Car Parking (Disabled Persons)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimate of car parking spaces currently reserved for orange badge holders.

  Mr. Key
  The provision of parking spaces reserved for orange badge holders is the responsibility of individual local authorities. Information on the number provided by each authority is not held centrally.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received about the inadequacies of car parking facilities for disabled people in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has received representations about the difficulties experienced by orange badge holders where local authorities operate their own local schemes of parking concessions for the disabled and about the fact that the orange badge scheme does not apply in central London. No analysis is available of how many letters mention these points. Of the 2,600 letters on the orange badge scheme received over the last 12 months, most have been requests for general information.

  Cycling
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the total length of cycle routes in Greater London in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Responsibility for the provision of cycle routes in London rests primarily with the 33 London boroughs. The information requested is not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. We are supporting the 1,000 mile cycle network for London now being developed by the London Cycling Forum. Approximately a third of the network is in existence or in preparation.
  22
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many schools in England and Wales have specific instruction on cycle safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No figures are available to show how many schools in England and Wales have specific instruction on cycle safety. There are, however, around 300,000 children who take part in cycle training schemes each year—just over 20 per cent. of children in the eligible age range.

  Car Parking (Pavements)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding parking on pavements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I have received numerous representations on this subject, mainly suggesting that there should be a complete ban on pavement parking.

  Responses to the consultation document "Curbing An Abuse", which we issued in 1987, showed that a complete ban would not be practical. It would create severe difficulties for many local traffic authorities, and the police do not have the resources that would be necessary to enforce it effectively.

  While there is a general ban on parking heavy goods vehicles on the pavement, parking other kinds of vehicles there is illegal only where it is prohibited by a local Act of Parliament, as in London, where it contravenes a traffic order made by the local traffic authority, or if the vehicle is parked in a dangerous or obstructive position. I accept that the current situation is not entirely satisfactory. Last July, I decided to explore with the local authority associations whether the present legislation might be used more effectively and whether it could be improved in any way short of imposing a national ban.

  Motorway Driving
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding instruction for motorway driving; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We have recently issued a consultation paper on measures to reduce accidents involving new drivers. A number of those responding have made representations about motorway instruction. All responses, will be taken into account before any final decisions are reached.

  Buses
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he intends to publish a response to the results of the recent consultation on the operation of local bus services outside London;

  (2) what response he has received to the recent consultation on the operation of local bus services outside London.

  Mr. Freeman
  Some 160 responses were received from bus operators, local authorities and other interested parties. I am considering these and expect to announce the results shortly.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the working party on the promotion of the bus will be reconvened.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have in mind to reconvene the working party in 1994 to take stock of progress.

  Parliamentary Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the locations of the television sets in his Department which can receive the live television feed from the Chamber of the House; and what is the total cost to his Department of this service.
  24
  Mr. Norris
  The Department has 13 television sets capable of receiving live television feed from the Chamber of the House. They are all located in the Department's headquarters building in 2 Marsham street.

  The cost of this service, which is provided by the Central Office of Information, is £14,900 plus VAT for 1993–94.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that drivers of heavy goods vehicles subject to limitation of driving hours by tachograph examination are not employed on duties prior to driving which are likely to impair their health or public safety.

  Mr. Key
  The rules on drivers' hours and tachographs are set by EC regulations which prescribe maximum limits on driving time and minimum limits on breaks and rest periods. The regulations are designed to ensure that drivers have adequate rest provisions in the interest of road safety.

  The current requirement to take a daily rest period of at least 11 hours, combined with the daily driving limit of nine hours, already effectively limits the number of hours available for work.

  The Department's traffic examiners and the police have wide-ranging powers to deal with road haulage companies and drivers who break the law.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the currently expected timetable for the construction of the east London river crossing; what studies he is making of alternatives to that earlier proposal under Oxleas Wood and the construction of new cross Thames railway links east of Wapping.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department will award a commission early next year for a traffic study into a new east London river crossing which will take into account public transport issues. This will be followed later next year by a design commission to work up alternative proposals. The timetable for construction will depend on the form of the proposals and the statutory procedures required. I am considering separately the interaction of this scheme with other road and rail crossings.

  Rail Privatisation (Pricing Policies)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking, as part of his policy for privatisation of the operation of some railway trains, to avoid duplication of pricing on any one route and associated restrictions of choice of passengers using all operators' trains on those routes offering a standard class of vehicle; and if he will instruct the British Railways Board to eliminate any such practice currently operated by it on any route.

  Mr. Freeman
  A balance has to be struck between the benefits to customers of interavailable tickets and common fare levels on the one hand and competitive ticket pricing and product offers on the other hand. This was reflected in the draft guidance from the Secretary of State to the franchising director which was made available to the House in February ; that guidance is being developed and will be finalised when the Bill completes its passage through Parliament and the franchising director is appointed.

  With the introduction this month of shadow running by the InterCity Gatwick Express franchise, Network SouthEast is being allowed to compete over the route. Fares for the slower, NSE stopping service from Victoria to Gatwick will be reduced and the availability of this
  26
  choice of alternative services will be advertised to passengers. Hitherto, only the Gatwick Express service has been promoted by BR. Gatwick Express tickets will be valid on NSE trains; as will NSE tickets on Gatwick Express, subject only to supplementary payment of the difference in price—£1.10 for a single journey.

  I believe that passengers will welcome these changes. They offer greater choice of service without loss of flexibility or convenience, and the opportunity of purchasing a cheaper ticket than was available before.

  Heathrow-Paddington Rail Link
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate has been made of the capital cost, at 1993 prices, of each main element in the construction of the Heathrow-Paddington rail link, and its rolling stock and depot cost; what proportion of the total is being borne by(a) British Rail, (b) other United Kingdom public funds, (c) private capital from the United Kingdom and (d) capital from abroad, respectively; and what are the amounts of and details of each respective source of funds.

  Mr. Freeman
  The overall cost of the project has been estimated at around £300 million at 1993 prices. Details of the cost estimates and of the funding arrangements are a matter for the joint venture partners.

  Roads (Expenditure)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the amount and percentage of his expenditure on roads that are the responsibility of his Department on(a) maintenance, (b) cleansing, (c)improvements to existing routes, including bridge rebuilding, (d) bypasses around urban or residential areas, (e) capital expenditure on new motorways, (f) new construction of other roads and (g) other expenditure.

  Mr. Key
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. The table shows the information that is available.

  Planned expenditure on National Roads, England: 1993–94 (rounded to nearest £ million)

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Renewal of roads

  400

  16 5

  Renewal of bridges

  150

  6·2

  New construction

  1,509

  62·4

  Current maintenance of roads and bridges1

  183

  7·6

  Other

  178

  74

  Total gross expenditure

  2,420

  100

  1 Includes cleansing.

  Further details can be found on pages 7 to 11 of the "Supply Estimates, 1993–94", class VI, Department of Transport, 495-VI—March 1993.

  Heavy Commercial Vehicles
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of staff in his Department, or under contract to them, engaged in the random checking of weights of heavy commercial vehicles(a) at the latest date for which figures are available and (b) 10 years previously.

  Mr. Key
  The Vehicle Inspectorate is responsible for the weighing of heavy commercial vehicles. This work is
  27
  carried out by traffic examiners—TEs—responsibility for whom was transferred to the inspectorate from the Department in April 1991. The inspectorate currently employs 168 full-time TEs; on 1 November 1983 the figure was 157.

  London Crossrail Link
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed London crossrail link on the growth of road traffic in Greater London.

  Mr. Norris
  Our assessment shows that, over a 30-year period, crossrail would generate road decongestion benefits with a present value worth over £500 million in March 1990 prices.

  Derailment, Maidstone East
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information has been made available to his Department by British Rail on the content of the containers on the train involved in the derailment accident at Maidstone East station on 6 September; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the investigation into the accident.

  Mr. Freeman
  The train involved in the accident was formed entirely of air-braked ferry wagons. The first was a bogie van containing chipboard, the following six wagons were carrying metal products. The remaining eight wagons were a mix of four-wheel flats and bogie vans, all of which were empty.

  Her Majesty's railway inspectorate is continuing its investigation into the accident. I understand that the British Transport police has instituted criminal proceedings. The hearing commenced on 15 October at Maidstone magistrates court.

HEALTH

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department has given to general practitioners involved in appointments procedures to draw their attention to their responsibilities under the Race Relations Act 1965, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and her Department's initiatives; and what is being done to require general practitioners involved in such procedures to undergo equal opportunities training in selection and recruitment.

  Mr. Sackville
  General practitioners are independent self-employed contractors to the national health service and are themselves responsible for the appointment of their staff. As with any employers, it is their duty to inform themselves of, and have regard to, their responsibilities under employment law and equal opportunities legislation. Advice on such matters is available to general practitioners through their family health service authority.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is being done to ensure that managers involved in appointments procedures receive the full support of their own management in respect of their obligations towards equal opportunities;
  28
  (2) what is being done to ensure that managers from health authorities and self-governing trusts involved in appointments procedures are aware of their obligations with respect to equal opportunities; what steps are taken to report any refusal by general practitioners to observe their obligations with respect to equal opportunities in appointments procedures (a) to their own manager and (b) to any applicant seeking the reasons for failure to obtain a post sought;

  (3) what guidance has been given to ensure that equal opportunities policies are monitored.

  Mr. Sackville
  All national health service managers are expected to comply with national legislation on sex and race discrimination and to implement their health authority's or trust's equal opportunities policy, which should include appointments procedures.

  General practitioners are independent contractors.

  Current guidance to the NHS on priorities and planning includes a requirement that corporate contracts and business plans specify targets to improve equal opportunities for ethnic minority and disabled staff. Current guidance on monitoring gender issues is contained in "Women in the NHS: an implementation guide to Opportunity 2000", a copy of which is available in the Library. In addition, there is detailed guidance on operating fair recruitment and selection procedures for doctors and dentists in the hospital and community health service.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer, to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) of 21 April 1993,Official Report, column 126, what will be the cost of training the additional medical students; and what will be their impact on national health service costs when they become (i) trainees and (ii) consultants/general practitioner principals.

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom medical student target intake has been increased by 240 places each year in order to meet the forecast service needs of the national health service.

  The first report of the Medical Manpower Standing Advisory Committee (MMSAC), a copy of which is available in the Library, indicated that the total recurrent funding from the Department of Education and the NHS was some £180,000 per medical student over five years at 1992–93 levels. Funding for the new intake targets will be determined by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the NHS as part of their 1994–95 funding allocations in due course. It is unlikely that the marginal cost of increasing medical school intake will be as high as the current average costs of training.

  The subsequent impact of the additional medical graduates on NHS costs will depend on a wide range of factors, including future service development priorities, salary levels and the career choices of the doctors themselves. In the hospital and community health services the demand for doctors depends on the decisions made by purchasers and providers on how best to use the funding allocated to them to meet local health care needs; an increase in the available supply of doctors will not in itself add to costs. In the general medical services, admission to practice reflects decisions of the Medical Practices Committee which will among other things take into

  29
  account the available supply of potential general practitioners, but there is no automatic linkage between additional supply and additional NHS costs.

  Dentistry
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines her Department issued to national health service dentists on the sterilisation of all dental equipment;

  (2) what regulations cover the sterilisation of national health service dental equipment.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has issued guidance to dentists by means of circulars, booklets and letters from the Chief Dental Officer, in 1986, 1988, 1990 and most recently in July 1993, advising them of the need to sterilise equipment adequately. It was made clear in 1988 that dental handpieces should be sterilised in an autoclave. There are no regulations which specifically cover the sterilisation of dental equipment. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Broadmoor Hospital
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report of the inquiry into the death of Orville Blackwood in Broadmoor hospital was delivered to the Special Hospitals Service Authority ; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Bowis
  The report was published on 31 August and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Optical Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year end waiting list for(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient treatment in ophthalmology for each district health authority and for England in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on waiting times for in-patient treatment in ophthalmology for each district health authority in England is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England". This has been published twice yearly since September 1987 and copies are available in the Library. Information on the number of people waiting for out-patient appointments is not available centrally.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average value of help received through NHS vouchers for glasses, by adults requiring new frames and lenses, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The estimated value of the average adult voucher fully paid for by family health services authorities in 1992–93 was £31.901.

  1The average value quoted is based on vouchers paid for by FHSAs in 1992–93, excluding those vouchers paid for in 1992–93 at 1991–92 values. It also excludes supplements in respect of prisms and tints, small frame supplements, and vouchers in respect of repairs to and replacements of optical appliances.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surveys her Department has carried out or commissioned on the amount of contribution which individuals make to supplement the help they receive through NHS vouchers for glasses; and what is the average amount of the customer contribution towards the cost of glasses which is made in addition to the value of the voucher, in each voucher band.
  30
  Mr. Sackville
  None. The average amount of the customer contribution towards the cost of glasses which is made in addition to the value of the voucher band, in each voucher band is not available centrally.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of financial help for glasses including lenses given through the voucher system in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost of national health service vouchers for glasses and lenses, including help with the cost of repairs, was £99.9 million in 1992–93.

  Grading
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many nurses, midwives and health visitors have accepted "buy-outs" for clinical grading appeals by(a) each professional and (b) each region;

  (2) how many nurses, midwives and health visitors have agreed to forgo their clinical grading appeal to date, as a result of the clinical grading "buy-out" scheme;

  (3) what the cost of "buy-outs" for clinical grading appeals has been to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of appeals which has been "bought out" by 30 September 1993 in England is shown in the table.

  Information on the number of appeals bought out by profession and the cost is not available centrally.

  Buy-outs of Nurse Clinical Grading Appeals: Situation as at 30 September 1993

  Region

  Appeals bought out

  North Western

  2,580

  Mersey

  1,708

  West Midlands

  2,032

  Trent

  1,358

  South Western

  505

  North West Thames

  523

  Yorkshire

  855

  North East Thames

  381

  Wessex

  429

  South West Thames

  —

  South East Thames

  600

  Oxford

  —

  East Anglian

  299

  Northern

  1,824

  Total

  13,094

  Source: Regional health authority reports. Data for some regions have still to be validated.

  Psychiatric Care
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many admissions for acute psychiatric treatment were made to hospitals in London during each year since 1989;

  (2) how many acute psychiatric beds were available in London in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table:

  Mental illness—finished consultant episodes and average daily number of available short stay beds (acute psychiatric) in London

  Ordinary admissions

  Day cases

  Average daily number of beds

  1988–89

  37,586

  47

  4,030

  1989–90

  36,401

  25

  4,206

  1990–91

  36,912

  29

  4,047

  31

  Ordinary admissions

  Day cases

  Average daily number of beds

  1991–92

  37,903

  123

  3,983

  1992–93

  39,002

  401

  3,931

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of mental illness specific supplementary credit approvals.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is our intention that both the mental illness specific grant and the supplementary credit approvals will continue, in order to support the improvement of social care services which local authorities provide for mentally ill people in the community.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken by her Department over the last year towards the objectives stated in the Government White Paper "The Health of the Nation" to reduce smoking prevalence among British adults to 20 per cent. by the year 2000 and the level of smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds by 33 per cent. by 1994; and what further action her Department intends taking.

  Mr. Sackville
  Action to reduce smoking prevalence in adults and young people is tackled through a cross governmental approach. Measures taken this year include: a real increase of 4.7 per cent. in the total tax on cigarettes in the March 1993 Budget; the strengthening of laws on the labelling of tobacco products; full implementation of the new legislation on illegal sales of tobacco products to children; the continued development of anti-smoking health education campaigns; continuing progress to be made through voluntary means to encourage the introduction of policies on smoking in public places and workplaces; and the introduction of new arrangements so that all general practitioners wishing to receive payments for health promotion will need to provide advice and support to smokers.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of 11 to 15-year-olds who currently smoke in the United Kingdom are girls.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1992 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey of smoking among secondary schoolchildren shows that for England, Wales and Scotland the following percentages of 11 to 15-year-olds who smoke on a regular basis are girls:

  England—53 per cent.

  Wales—51 per cent.

  Percentage of regular smokers1 aged 11–15 for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland4

  1982

  1984

  1986

  1988

  1990

  1992

  England

  11

  13

  10

  8

  10

  10

  Wales

  2—

  11

  8

  5—

  10

  9

  Scotland

  15

  16

  12

  5—

  12

  11

  Northern Ireland

  5—

  314

  11

  5

  12

  5—

  Notes:

  1 "Regular Smokers" is defined as usually smoking at least one cigarette a week.

  2 Data are only available for England and Wales combined.

  3 Northern Ireland survey first carried out in 1983.

  4 The data are in respect of secondary schoolchildren aged 11 to 15—in the first to fifth form—in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and aged 12 to 15—in the first to fourth form—in Scotland.

  5 not available.

  32
  Scotland—56 per cent.

  A separate survey has been carried out in Northern Ireland entitled "Smoking and Drinking Amongst 11–15 year olds in Northern Ireland". The latest survey, which was carried out in 1990, found that 53 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds who smoke on a regular basis are girls.

  Copies of both reports are available in the Library.

  Notes:

  1. Caution is needed in interpreting these percentages as they are based on a relatively small sample.

  2. "Regular smokers" are defined as usually smoking at least one cigarette a week.

  3. The data are in respect of secondary schoolchildren aged 11 to 15—in the first to fifth form—in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and aged 12 to 15—in the first to fourth form—in Scotland.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women died in the United Kingdom from smoking-related diseases, in each year from 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  The statistics available are those for 1988, published in the Health Education Authority's report "The Smoking Epidemic", a copy of which is available in the Library. This estimated that in the United Kingdom about 79,000 men and 32,000 women died from smoking-related diseases.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of 11 to 15-year-olds in the United Kingdom currently smoke; and what was the percentage of 11 to 15-year-olds who smoked in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1992 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey of smoking among secondary schoolchildren provides the following figures for 11 to 15-year-olds who currently smoke in England, Wales and Scotland:

  England—10 per cent.

  Wales—9 per cent.

  Scotland—11 per cent.

  A separate survey has been carried out in Northern Ireland entitled "Smoking and Drinking Amongst 11–15 year olds in Northern Ireland". The latest survey which was carried out in 1990, found that 12 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds in Northern Ireland were regular smokers.

  Copies of both reports are available in the Library.

  The following data show the percentage of 11 to 15-year-olds who smoke since 1982—when the biennial OPCS survey began. The Northern Ireland survey began in 1983 and a further survey took place three years later. Since 1986 the surveys have been carried out every four years.

  Operation Vacancy Schemes
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities ran media or press advertising schemes for vacant operation slots at the latest date for which figures are available; which ran such schemes(a) six and (b) 12 months previous to that; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. However, Sunderland district health authority is to be congratulated for developing an innovative local scheme to maximise the number of patients treated for minor surgery.

  Counselling Services
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been taken since the publication of "Disasters: Planning for a Caring Society" to improve the counselling service to those affected by large-scale disasters and terrorism.

  Mr. Bowis
  Post-traumatic stress disorder is a recognised psychiatric condition. General practitioner services are increasingly able to respond to this condition and provide counselling or drug therapy as necessary. Cases may also be referred to the specialist psychiatric services. The Department is supporting from central funds the creation of a new unit at the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Group specialising in post-traumatic stress, including research. We are also funding continuing work at the traumatic stress unit at the Middlesex hospital. These centres constitute an additional national source of expertise in this condition. The role of local authorities in providing social and psychological support for disaster victims is addressed in the report "Planning for a Caring Response" and associated "Guidelines for an Action Plan", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Parliamentary Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the locations of the television sets in her Department which can receive the live television feed from the Chamber of the House; and what is the total cost to her Department of this service.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are 12 sets in the Department which can receive live television broadcasts from the Chamber. They are situated in ministerial and press offices in Richmond house, Whitehall and cost approximately £14,000 a year.

  Health Costs (Assistance)
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is her best estimate of the average number of prescription items issued each year to people over state pension age;

  (2) how many people received help with health costs through certificate AG2 in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of these were over state pension age.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table.
  34

  Average number of prescribed items per head of population for women aged 60 and over and men aged 65 or over dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors in England in 1992; number of courses of adult dental treatment obtained free of charge by people entitled to full remission of charges under the national health service low income scheme1, number of free sight tests obtained by people covered by AG2 certificates and numbers of optical vouchers used by people covered by AG2 or AG3 certificates in England in 1992–93.

  Number

  Prescribed items

  218.9

  Courses of adult dental treatment3

  4,356,963

  Sight tests3

  278,000

  Optical vouchers3

  4317,910

  1 People receiving income support or family credit or covered by AG2 certificates.

  2 People over state retirement pension age are exempt from NHS prescription charges. A total of 167.8 million prescribed items were dispensed free of charge to this group by community pharmacists and appliance contractors in 1992.

  3 Includes people over state pension age but data for these age groups are not collected separately.

  4 Figure derived from 2 per cent. sample of all vouchers reimbursed by family health services authorities.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people benefited from the help with health costs scheme for(a) glasses, (b) dentistry and (c) the cost of eye tests, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of people who benefited from help with the costs of glasses, dentistry and eye tests is not available. The number of sight tests and vouchers paid for by family health services authorities in 1992–93 is as follows:

  Number

  Vouchers1

  3,184,970

  National Health Service Sight Tests

  5,527,590

  Domiciliary Visits

  152,260

  Private sight tests where partial help was given

  56,020

  Private Domiciliary Visits where partial help was given

  2,090

  1 It is not possible to distinguish between those who have had partial help towards the cost of glasses and those who have had full help.

  The number of courses of dental treatment for adults provided with full or partial remission of charges in 1992–93 was 4,492,979. This represents approximately 18 per cent. of adult courses of treatment. A further 5 per cent. of courses of treatment were provided to exempt adults.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average value of help received with the cost of glasses including lenses through NHS vouchers, full or partial value, in each voucher band in the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested, since the Department does not hold figures on the number of people who get partial help with spectacle costs, or how much they get. The value of each type of voucher is shown in the table.

  £

  1991–92

  Voucher A

  19 70

  Voucher B

  31·15

  Voucher C

  49·00

  Voucher D

  37·80

  Voucher E

  62·30

  35

  £

  1992–93

  Voucher A

  23·70

  Voucher B

  37·40

  Voucher C

  51·00

  Voucher D

  100·00

  Voucher E

  41·00

  Voucher F

  54·00

  Voucher G

  65·00

  Voucher H

  110·00

  Workplace Health Promotion Programmes
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to promote health promotion programmes in the workplace; and whether there are any particular initiatives aimed specifically at older workers.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have recently embarked on a programme of initiatives in response to the recommendations of a "Health of the Nation" task force, whose report will be placed in the Library. The aim is to build on the great amount of workplace health promotion that already exists, and to encourage it further, by giving advice to employers, by encouraging evaluation to demonstrate the benefits to employers and employees alike, and by promoting contact locally between the various organisations and professions concerned. The programme will be overseen by a small steering group comprising key Departments, agencies, including the Health Education Authority, and organisations at national level.

  In addition, the Department, in consultation with the Department of Social Security, is responsible for the management in the United Kingdom of the European Year of Older People and Solidarity Between Generations which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched last December. Health promotion needs of older people in the workplace and elsewhere has been one of the many themes and issues upon which the year has concentrated.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary for State for Health if she will publish a list of all district health authorities in England indicating which authorities provided for NHS patients(a) in vitro fertilisation treatment and (b) other treatments to assist conception (i) before the introduction of the NHS internal market and (ii) currently.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. It is the responsibility of the purchasers and providers of health services to determine the services to be provided in the light of their knowledge of local needs and the availability of resources.

  Quality Initiatives Guide
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of producing 25,000 copies of "The A-Z of Quality: a Guide to Quality Initiatives in the NHS".

  Mr. Sackville
  The total estimated cost of producing 25,000 copies of "The A-Z of Quality" is £368,000. This cost represents £1 for every £100,000 spent on the national health service.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for health how many schizophrenics have killed during the past five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not held centrally.

  Dreadnought Seamen's Hospital
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to the NHS of maintaining the Dreadnought seamen's hospital in Greenwich for each year since 1986.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are legal constraints on the use of the Dreadnought seamen's hospital site in Greenwich, for which South East Thames regional health authority have responsibility. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Barker, chairman of the South East Thames regional health authority for details.

  Casualty Beds
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the availability of casualty beds, in each London health district for each year since 1990–91; what she expects the figure to be for the current year and planned for 1994–95 and subsequent years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information collected centrally on bed availability is classified according to broad speciality groups. Casualty beds are not identified separately. Each authority or trust decides whether to designate beds as casualty beds in the light of local needs and experience. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the four Thames regional health authorities for detailed information.

  Social Security Medical Reports
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the charter provisions which ensure consultants and other doctors respond to requests for medical reports by DSS agencies for awarding benefits and deciding appeals within a reasonable time.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no provisions in the patients charter relating to the time taken by consultants and doctors to respond to such requests.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out, for each ambulance service in England and Wales for either a one or a three-month period in 1993, the number and percentage of responses to emergency incidents which were made within(a) eight minutes, (b) 14 minutes and (c) more than 25 minutes; what targets were set out under the patients charter; and what steps she is taking to ensure that the terms of the charter are complied with in 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested on the number and percentage of responses to emergency incidents is available only on an annual basis, figures for 1992–93 will be available shortly and these will be placed in the Library. The patients charter requires 95 per cent. of
  37
  emergency calls to be answered within 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas. Within the national health service internal market it is for purchasers of services to set the standards required of service providers and to ensure that the standards are met. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she has had with professional bodies representative of gynaecologists, midwives and health visitors concerning proposals for division of responsibilities between bodies in the health service for pre-natal, maternity and post-natal care.

  Mr. Sackville
  A comprehensive review of national health service maternity care has recently been completed by the Expert Maternity Group. Professional and other organisations were consulted as part of that exercise. All those with an interest, including general practitioners, midwives and obstetricians, have been invited to give written comments on the group's report "Changing Childbirth" by 29 October. Ministers will study carefully all comments received and then decide on future action.

  "Changing Childbirth" is available in the Library.

  Nurses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) district nurses and (b) community midwives were employed in the NHS in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 June 1993, c. 59]: I regret that there was an error in my previous answer. The correct figure for community midwifery staff for England at 30 September 1991—whole-time equivalents —is 4,100.

SCOTLAND

  Smoke Alarms
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received, and from whom, concerning Government financial assistance for hearing-impaired individuals in the purchase of special smoke alarms for the home.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend received one representation from Mr. Colin Collie, Strathblane, Glasgow about the cost of smoke alarms for the deaf and hard of hearing. Several hon. Members also brought the points made by Mr. Collie to my right hon. Friend's attention. The Scottish Office Home and Health Department advised Mr. Collie and the hon. Members concerned that local authority powers in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 could extend to the provision of smoke detection systems subject to assessment being made of an individual's needs, and to the authority determining its own priorities and allocating the resources available as it sees fit.

  Environmental Charters
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish local authorities have adopted environmental charters; if he will list them; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  This information is not held centrally. However, we are aware that a growing number of authorities are publishing charters covering environmental services. I hope that the model local environment charter for Scotland which I launched on 5 October will encourage more authorities to follow suit.

  Salmon Farms
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make representations to the Crown Estate Commissioners to charge similar rents to Scottish salmon farms as are charged.in other producer countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to make representations to the Crown Estate Commissioners on the question of rents for salmon farms. Rentals payable for marine fish farms in Scotland were reviewed with effect from 1 January 1992 by the Valuation Office acting in an independent and impartial capacity. In making its determination, the Valuation Office considered the extensive written and oral representations made on behalf of the fish farming industry. Rental arrangements are a management issue for the Crown Estate and not one where it would be appropriate for Ministers to intervene.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research aimed at improving anti-predator devices and structure of salmon farm cages is being supported by the Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In the past the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department's marine laboratory has been involved in research into anti-predator devices. It is not currently doing research in this area, or into the structure of salmon farm cages, as there is already a wide range of equipment on the market.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of the salmon farming rents charged per annum by the Crown Estate Commissioners for salmon farms producing 500 tonnes annually; and what information he has on annual rent charges for salmon farms with similar production levels in(a) Norway, (b) Ireland, (c) the Faroes, (d) eastern Canada, (e) western Canada and (f) New Zealand.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The rents payable to the crown estate for marine salmon farms are linked annually to salmon price movements at Billingsgate market. The rental payable for salmon farms producing 500 tonnes from 1 January 1993 is £16,500 for mainland Scotland and £14,850 for the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland. These charges will be adjusted to take account of price movements between 1 December 1992 and 1 December 1993 in accordance with the established rent formula.

  The arrangements for charges in other countries are not made in a directly comparable way and they reflect the different constitutional and fiscal circumstances applying in each country.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of household waste in Scotland is recycled; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Returns made by Scottish waste regulation authorities suggest that 2.9 per cent. of reported household waste arisings were collected for recycling in 1991. Recycling plans so far received from Scottish waste collection authorities indicate that it is the intention of many of these authorities to achieve significant increases in the quantities of household waste collected for recycling in their area.

  Authorities

  *Aberdeen

  *East Kilbride

  Moray

  Angus

  *East Lothian

  Motherwell

  Annandale and Eskdale

  Eastwood

  *Nithsdale

  *Argyll and Bute

  *Edinburgh

  *North East Fife

  *Badenoch and Strathspey

  *Ettrick and Lauderdale

  *Orkney Islands

  *Banff and Buchan

  *Falkirk

  *Perth and Kinross

  *Bearsden and Milngavie

  *Glasgow

  *Renfrew

  *Berwickshire

  *Gordon

  *Ross and Cromarty

  Caithness

  *Hamilton

  *Roxburgh

  *Clackmannan

  *Inverclyde

  *Shetland Islands

  *Clydebank

  Inverness

  *Skye and Lochalsh

  *Clydesdale

  *Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  *Stewartry

  *Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  Kincardine and Deeside

  *Stirling

  *Cumnock and Doon Valley

  *Kirkcaldy

  *Strathkelvin

  *Cunninghame

  *Kyle and Carrick

  Sutherland

  *Dumbarton

  Lochaber

  *Tweeddale

  *Dundee

  *Midlothian

  Western Isles

  Dunfermline

  *Monklands

  *West Lothian Wigtown

  Forty-two of the above authorities (*) have completed draft waste recycling plans. These plans give details of recycling initiatives designed to fit the geographic and financial circumstances that apply in particular local authority areas. They provide for either bring systems or kerbside collection systems as appropriate and between them the plans provide for the collection for recycling of newspapers, magazines, packaging paper, office paper, computer paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, glass, aluminium and steel cans, scrap metal, textiles and old clothes, used furniture, chlorofluoro carbons; batteries, used cars, garden waste, vegetable waste from kitchens and vegetable and mineral oils. Authorities are required to make waste recycling plans available for public inspection and to supply a copy to anyone who requests one on payment by that person of a reasonable charge.

  Scottish local authorities were allocated close to £3.6 billion in revenue support grant in 1993–94 to be used to finance the provision of all local services including the collection of waste for recycling.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial provisions have been made in his Department's estimate of the cost of local government reorganisation for staff relocation and additional travel expenses as a result of transfer to one of the new authorities.

  Mr. Stewart
  Costs and travel expenses were both taken into account in the preparation of the costs estimates included in the White Paper "Shaping the Future—The
  40
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Scottish local authorities currently operate recycling schemes; if he will provide details of the kind of recycling programmes in operation in each local authority; how much central funding is available to assist with the financing of these recycling projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The following 55 authorities have reported to the Department that they were participating in public sector recycling operations.

  New Councils". In preparing these estimates the Government had regard to the evidence of the Touche Ross report on the costs and savings of reform and of other commentators on that report. The exact level of these costs will, however, ultimately depend upon decisions taken by individual local authorities.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the names of those respondents who referred to joint arrangements in their submissions to "The Structure of Local Government in Scotland: Shaping the New Councils"(a) in total and (b) who were (i) in favour of them and (ii) opposed to them; and if he will provide a geographical breakdown of this information by regional, district and island authority area;

  (2) if he will list the names of those organisations whose submissions to the consultation paper "The Structure of Local Government in Scotland: Shaping the New Councils" whose preferred local government structure for Scotland as a whole was (a) 15, (b) 24, (c) 35 and (d) 51 units; and if he will provide a breakdown of this information by regional, district and island authority area;

  (3) if he will list the names of those respondents who referred to (a) local loyalties or community links, (b) local authority functions and (c) links with other bodies in their submissions to the consultation paper "The Structure of Local Government in Scotland: Shaping the New Councils"; and if he will provide a geographical breakdown of this information by regional, district and island authority area;

  (4) if he will publish a list of the (a) voluntary organisations, (b) community councils, (c) local authorities, (d) business interests, (e) political associations, (f)

  41
  trade unions and (g) individuals who submitted responses to the consultation paper "The Structure of Local Government in Scotland: Shaping the New Councils":, and if he will provide a geographical breakdown of this information by regional, district and island authority of origin;

  (5) if he will list the names of those respondents to the consultation paper "The Structure of Local Government in Scotland: Shaping the New Councils" who were supportive of the proposal to reorganise Scottish local government into unitary authorities (a) at this time and (b) only in the context of a Scottish parliament; and if he will provide a geographical breakdown of this information by regional, district and island authority area.

  Mr. Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what time scale he envisages for the publication of guidance of local authorities on the requirement by them to devise plans showing how they will devolve responsibility within their organisations as part of the reorganisation of Scottish local government; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to consult (a) local authorities, (b) trade unions, (c) community groups, (d) tenants' organisations and (e) the general public prior to the publication of guidance to local authorities on the requirement by them to devise plans showing how they intend to devolve responsibility within their organisations as a consequence of the reorganisation of Scottish local government.

  Mr. Stewart
  No final decisions have yet been taken on the timetable for the publication of guidance on decentralisation schemes. I propose to consult interested groups prior to issuing such guidance and I intend also that the legislation will require the new councils to consult widely during the preparation of their schemes.

  Inverclyde Enterprise Zone
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his role in regard to the granting of planning consent for the proposed development of the Parklea site in the Inverclyde enterprise zone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The planning application for the proposed development at Parklea has been notified to my

  Ophthalmology—Mean waiting time (Days)

  In-patient/Day cases, discharges1

  Out-patients2

  Health board treatment

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Scotland

  96·7

  93·9

  103·5

  114·7

  101·9

  101·5

  104·2

  110·7

  56·8

  Argyll and Clyde

  111·7

  124·6

  136·2

  148·9

  100·2

  108·0

  114·3

  75·6

  38·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  64·1

  70·2

  68·2

  88·3

  117·7

  162·2

  183·8

  203·3

  58·8

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  159·8

  176·8

  206·5

  136·9

  110·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  93·5

  63·9

  88·2

  87·7

  102·3

  111·6

  151·3

  160· 8

  38·0

  Fife

  67·4

  67·0

  72·1

  42·8

  60·0

  59·9

  73·2

  87·5

  50·2

  Forth Valley

  55·0

  58·8

  59·9

  76·5

  74·1

  54·1

  63·3

  80·5

  51·7

  Grampian

  195·4

  135·7

  138·2

  107·5

  65·3

  58·6

  47·6

  53·3

  45·0

  Greater Glasgow

  91·9

  90·6

  98·8

  120·6

  122·6

  136·7

  123·8

  119· 7

  79·2

  Highland

  106·4

  135·2

  100·7

  91·4

  88·1

  105·3

  86·3

  96·4

  56·7

  Lanarkshire

  59·4

  62·0

  68·5

  83·8

  91·0

  99·0

  110·8

  130·5

  45·3

  Lothian

  101·4

  134·0

  173·0

  193·2

  142·0

  95·2

  101·5

  157·5

  916

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28·0

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83·4

  122·1

  76·0

  42
  right hon. Friend to consider whether he should call it in for his own decision. In view of his possible future involvement, I am unable to comment further.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provision for environmental education in Scottish primary and secondary schools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Education has an essential part to play in ensuring public awareness of the environment and environmental issues which are at stake. The 5–14 programme, which covers primary and early secondary schooling in Scotland, gives specific recognition to environmental education, both as a permeating influence throughout the curriculum and more specifically within the environmental studies area of the curriculum. The national guidelines 5–14 seek to develop informed attitudes and values relating to the care and conservation of the environment.

  In the later years of secondary education, opportunities for environmental education occur in standard grade subjects and there is also a range of SCOTVEC units and modules related to environmental education.

  As with other areas of the curriculum, inspections by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools address the level and quality of environmental education.

  The report "Learning for Life", produced by the Secretary of State's working group on environmental education in Scotland, is being carefully considered, alongside the responses made to the report during the recent public consultation exercise.

  Ophthalmology
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year end waiting list for(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient treatment in ophthalmology for each health board and for Scotland in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is set out in the tables. The mean waiting times information relates to those admitted from both in-patient and day case waiting lists.

  The out-patient waiting times figures shown relate to the nine-month period ending Rine 1993, the first period for which out-patient waiting times information has been collected.
  43

  In-patient/Day cases, discharges1

  Out-patients2

  Health board treatment

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Tayside

  97·5

  69·6

  82·1

  85·9

  93·0

  82·6

  74·1

  68·9

  28·7

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41·3

  Source: SMRO, SMR1.

  1 Admitted from waiting list during calendar years shown.

  2 Based on referrals seen at out-patient clinics during nine months ending June 1993.

  NHSiS—Ophthalmology list1 by health board area of treatment from 31 March 1985 to 31 December 1992 Health Board of Treatment

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  'Old basis' waiting list

  31 March 1985

  4,676

  474

  203

  —

  51

  115

  73

  1,111

  1.142

  154

  85

  826

  —

  —

  442

  —

  31 March 1986

  4,922

  574

  206

  —

  61

  131

  100

  1,084

  1,046

  246

  54

  1,206

  —

  —

  214

  —

  31 March 1987

  5,500

  703

  259

  —

  88

  180

  112

  925

  1,205

  166

  100

  1,419

  —

  —

  343

  —

  In-patients

  31 March 1988

  5,207

  629

  214

  —

  80

  72

  155

  621

  1,527

  172

  104

  1,313

  —

  —

  320

  —

  31 March 1989

  4,745

  360

  446

  —

  116

  155

  204

  267

  1,590

  179

  141

  938

  —

  —

  349

  —

  31 December 1989

  5,796

  471

  609

  202

  145

  159

  102

  349

  1,936

  235

  234

  977

  —

  —

  377

  —

  31 December 1990

  5,949

  577

  671

  301

  220

  210

  87

  244

  1,798

  192

  200

  1,101

  —

  —

  348

  —

  31 December 1991

  6,903

  422

  812

  279

  240

  308

  99

  331

  1,872

  212

  459

  1,552

  —

  —

  317

  —

  31 December 1992

  6,527

  449

  820

  94

  251

  263

  186

  316

  1,386

  276

  489

  1,601

  —

  18

  379

  —

  Day cases

  31 March 1988

  290

  21

  15

  —

  —

  11

  —

  58

  22

  —

  14

  125

  —

  —

  24

  —

  31 March 1989

  390

  28

  30

  —

  4

  8

  18

  52

  86

  —

  38

  111

  —

  —

  15

  —

  31 December 1989

  505

  42

  34

  —

  5

  19

  6

  63

  126

  47

  32

  122

  —

  —

  9

  —

  31 December 1990

  514

  36

  24

  1

  4

  21

  1

  47

  110

  21

  28

  220

  —

  —

  1

  —

  31 December 1991

  548

  98

  73

  2

  14

  22

  18

  61

  83

  41

  36

  99

  —

  —

  1

  —

  31 December 1992

  811

  133

  31

  1

  7

  36

  43

  45

  174

  30

  35

  266

  —

  2

  8

  —

  1 From 1988 figures relate to true waiting list. Waiting list figures prior to 1988 (known as the 'old basis' waiting list) are not strictly comparable with the in-patient true waiting list because of changes in definition and recording practice. Day case waiting lists were not separately identified prior to 1988.

  Source: ISD(S)t, SMR3.

  Historic Gardens
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the Scottish applicants for European Commission financial assistance under this year's awards for the conservation of gardens of historic value and (b) details of the reasons for their failure to secure such funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  A list of Scottish applicants for European Commission financial assistance under the 1993 pilot projects scheme to conserve European architectural heritage, is set out in the table below.

  Decisions as to whether to provide financial support or not are taken by the Commission on the advice of an international panel of experts. Historic Scotland advised the Commission about the merit of each Scottish application for the 1993 competition; it is not the Commission's practice, however, to comment on why any of the applications failed to receive an award.

  Applicant and Garden

  The Earl of Morton—Aberdour Castle Garden

  The Ellar Christie Trust—Cowden Japanese Garden, Dollar

  Ross Associates—Bystone House Garden, Thorntonhall

  Scottish Woodlands Ltd.—Crarae Forest Garden, Inveraray

  National Trust for Scotland—Culross Palace Garden

  Dinanean Estate—Dirnanean Estate Garden, Moulin

  Formakin Estate Trustees—Formakin Estate Garden, Bishopton

  City of Edinburgh District Council—Hopetoun Crescent Gardens, Edinburgh

  Mr. Thomas Christie—Kellas Garden, by Elgin

  A. G. Laing's 1961 Discretionary Settlement—Logie House Gardens, Forres

  The Mellerstain Trust—Mellerstain House Garden, by Gordon

  The Mount Stuart Trust—The policies (Grounds) of Mount Stuart, by Rothesay

  Strathclyde Regional Council—Overtoun Estate Gardens, Dumbarton

  Sir Islay Campbell—Poltalloch Garden, Inveraray

  City of Edinburgh District Council—Princes Street Gardens,
  44
  Edinburgh

  Mr. George Gray—Smeaton-Hepburn Policies and Gardens, Inveresk

  Dunbartonshire Enterprise—Strathleven House Garden, Balloch

  P. A. and J. J. Kidston—Westerton Gardens, Elgin

  Royal Botanic Garden—Younger Botanic Garden, Benmore

  Children's Panels
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by his Department on(a) advertising for members of children's panels or (b) on other aspects of the panels, in each year since 1979; what advertising agencies were involved in each case; and how decisions are arrived at regarding the strategy for advertising.

  Mr. Stewart
  Since 1982 the Scottish Office has commissioned advertising agencies to assist with national campaigns to recruit members for children's panels. Expenditure is as follows:

  Agency

  Year

  Cost (£)

  Hall Advertising

  1982

  24,000

  Hall Advertising

  1983

  22,000

  1984

  2—

  Ogilvie and Mather

  1985

  21,900

  Ogilvie and Mather

  1986

  18,700

  Faulds Advertising

  1987

  26,000

  Faulds Advertising

  1988

  30,000

  Faulds Advertising

  1989

  45,000

  Faulds Advertising

  1990

  46,900

  Faulds Advertising

  1991

  65,800

  Faulds Advertising

  1992

  81,400

  Faulds Advertising

  1993

  181,000

  1 Estimate.

  2 No campaign.

  The agencies were selected by the Scottish Office information directorate on the basis of tendered bids.

  45
  Faulds Agency won the 1993 "Best Recruitment Advertisement" award in the Scottish advertising competition organised by the "Scotmedia" campaign.

  A small planning group comprising representatives of local children's panel advisory committees—who have statutory responsibility for selecting persons suitable to be panel members—advises the agency on the form of advertisement to be used. Decisions about which newspapers and magazines should carry advertisements are taken on the advice of the advisory committees and the agency taking account of the circulation of publications in the various regions.

  The other main expenditure incurred by the Scottish Office on the children's hearings system relates to the training of children's panel members and related agencies. This work is underpinned by tutor-organisers based at four Scottish universities and the Scottish Office has funded their salaries and associated expenses since 1979. Total Scottish Office expenditure on training is as follows:

  Year

  Cost £

  1979–80

  41,000

  1980–81

  48,500

  1981–82

  51,000

  1982–83

  59,000

  1983–84

  81,000

  1984–85

  99,000

  1985–86

  90,000

  1986–87

  109,000

  1987–88

  131,000

  1988–89

  152,000

  1989–90

  178,000

  1990–91

  218,000

  1991–92

  245,000

  Scottish Enterprise

  Salary from

  Name

  Period of appointment

  1 October 1990 £

  1 April 1991 £

  1 April 1992 £

  1 April 1993 £

  Sir David Nickson, KBE, DL,

  Chairman

  1 October 1990–17 January 1993

  43,000

  46,440

  48,483

  —

  Professor Donald MacKay,

  Chairman

  18 January 1993— to date

  —

  —

  47,552

  47,552

  Ronald Garrick,

  Member

  1 October 1990–7 May 1991

  6,000

  6,450

  —

  —

  Deputy Chairman

  8 May 1991—to date

  —

  9,855

  10,250

  10,545

  Crawford Beveridge,

  Chief Executive and ex-officio Member

  7 January 1991— to date

  Paid as Chief Executive (not paid as Board Member)

  Professor Andrew Bain

  11 April 1991—to date

  —

  6,450

  6,833

  7,030

  Tom Farmer, CBE

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,833

  7,030

  Ann Gloag

  1 October 1990–30 October 1990

  6,000

  —

  —

  —

  Charles Gray, JP

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,833

  7,030

  Sir Graham Hills

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,833

  7,030

  Glenda Hogarth-Coull, MBE

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,833

  7,030

  Barbara Kelly, CBE

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,833

  7,030

  Gavin Laird, CBE

  1 October 1990–6 February 1992

  6,000

  6,450

  —

  —

  Cameron McLatchie, OBE

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,833

  7,030

  Professor John C. Shaw, CBE

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,833

  7,030

  46

  Year

  Cost £

  1992–93

  275,000

  1993–94

  1300,000

  1 Estimate

  Development Agencies
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the development agencies in Scotland, together with their directors; and how much has been paid to each director, including expenses in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  The following tables set out the names and periods of appointment of the chairmen and board members of Scottish Enterprise and of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and of their predecessor bodies, the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The salaries payable at 1 April in each of the last five years are set out in the tables. Details of precise payments made including expenses are not readily available.

  There are no other economic development agencies in respect of which my right hon. Friend is responsible for the appointment and remuneration of board members. In particular, the Scottish Office does not keep systematic records of the board membership of local enterprise companies. The board members of local enterprise companies receive no remuneration in respect of their membership. Reimbursement of expenses incurred by board members in connection with their membership is a matter for the companies themselves.
  47

  Salary from

  Name

  Period of appointment

  1 October 1990 £

  1 April 1991 £

  1 April 1992 £

  1 April 1993 £

  Yvonne Strachan

  7 February 1992—to date

  —

  6,450

  6,833

  7,030

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Salary from

  Name

  Period of appointment

  1 October 1990 £

  1 April 1991 £

  1 April 1992 £

  1 April 1993 £

  Sir Robert Cowan

  1 October 1990–31 August 19921

  57,105

  61,390

  65,030

  —

  A. Fraser Morrison, CBE,

  Member

  1 October 1990–31 August 1992

  6,000

  6,430

  6,830

  —

  Chairman

  1 September 1992—to date

  —

  —

  26,012

  26,762

  Iain A. Robertson,

  Chief Executive (ex-officio Member)

  1 October 1990—to date

  50,000

  53,750

  56,940

  58,580

  Philip Hamilton Grierson

  1 October 1990–30 April 19931

  52,650

  56,600

  59,960

  —

  Mrs. Patricia Grant, OBE

  1 October 1990–2 March 19932

  6,000

  6,450

  6,830

  —

  John A. D. Harrison, OBE

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,830

  7,030

  Dr. James Hunter

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,830

  7,030

  Angus S. MacDonald, CBE

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,830

  7,030

  Mrs. Valerie Maclver

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,830

  7,030

  John D. M. Robertson, OBE

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,830

  7,030

  Peter Timms, MBE

  1 October 1990—to date

  6,000

  6,450

  6,830

  7,030

  John Angus Mackay

  1 April 1991—to date

  —

  6,450

  6,830

  7,030

  1 Retired.

  2 Resigned.

  Scottish Development Agency

  Salary from

  Name

  Period of appointment

  1 April 1989 £

  1 April 1990 £

  Sir David Nickson, KBE, DL

  Member

  1 January 1988–31 December 1988

  35,870

  40,602

  Chairman

  1 January 1989–31 March 1991

  Sir Douglas Hardie, CBE, JP

  Member

  15 December 1978–2 February 1981

  18,550

  19,665

  Deputy Chairman

  3 February 1981–31 March 1991

  Iain Robertson,

  Chief Executive and ex-officio Member

  1 September 1987–16 April 1990

  Paid as Chief Executive (not paid as Board Member)

  James Scott, CB, LVO

  Chief Executive and ex-officio Member

  15 April 1990–31 March 1991

  Paid as Chief Executive (not paid as Board Member)

  Sir Graham Hills

  1 January 1988–31 March 1991

  5,065

  5,370

  Gavin Laird, CBE

  1 January 1987–31 March 1991

  5,065

  5,370

  Sir Robert Cowan

  1 February 1982–31 March 1991

  Paid as Chairman of HIDB (not paid as Board Member)

  Sir Peter Main

  1 January 1986–31 March 1991

  5,065

  5,370

  Councillor Jean McFadden

  1 January 1989–31 March 1991

  5,065

  5,370

  48 49

  Salary from

  Name

  Period of appointment

  1 April 1989 £

  1 April 1990 £

  George Robertson, FRICS

  1 January 1987–31 March 1991

  5,065

  5,370

  Ian Wood, CBE

  1 April 1984–30 June 1990

  5,065

  5,370

  James F. Gordon, CBE

  1 January 1981–30 June 1990

  5,065

  5,370

  Note: Individuals who held overlapping appointments on the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Enterprise boards between 1 October 1990 and 1 April 1991 received one salary only in respect of both appointments.

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  Salary from

  Name

  Period of appointment

  1 April 1989 £

  1 April 1990 £

  Full-time Members

  Sir Robert Cowan, Chairman

  1 February 1982—continued as Chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  53,340

  56,540

  Philip Hamilton-Grierson

  1 May 1988—continued as Member of Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  49,180

  52,130

  Robin A. Lingard

  1 January 1988–31 March 1991

  44,054

  46,695

  J. A. MacAskill

  1 January 1990–31 March 1991

  39,149

  41,500

  Part-time Members

  Angus S. MacDonald, CBE

  1 November 1988—continued as a Member of Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  7,663

  8,123

  Calum A. MacLeod

  1 December 1983–31 March 1991

  7,663

  8,123

  Colin D. R. Whittle

  1 January 1988–31 March 1991

  7,663

  8,123

  Note: Individuals who held overlapping appointments on the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise boards between 1 October 1990 and I April 1991 received one salary only in respect of both appointments.

DEFENCE

  Foreign Aircraft (Accidents)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those accidents to foreign military aircraft in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years for which summaries of the official accident report have been released by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Such summaries are not published by the Ministry of Defence. The responsibility for the publication of any such reports or summaries lies with the parent air force or Government.

  Number of Aircraft Sorties by type May 1992 to December 1992

  Aircraft type

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Buccaneer

  118

  130

  197

  171

  177

  116

  118

  74

  1,101

  F4

  67

  184

  187

  66

  63

  29

  1

  0

  597

  Harrier

  803

  723

  936

  355

  501

  611

  514

  389

  4,832

  Hawk

  1,802

  1,515

  1,826

  1,536

  1,443

  1,610

  1,198

  648

  11,578

  Jaguar

  347

  549

  594

  401

  485

  674

  543

  311

  3,904

  Jet Provost

  665

  526

  795

  611

  387

  758

  442

  254

  4,438

  Tornado

  2,215

  2,247

  2,409

  1,849

  1,687

  2,375

  1,676

  1,079

  15,537

  Tucano

  354

  324

  462

  407

  315

  697

  403

  254

  3,216

  A10

  635

  424

  336

  255

  170

  133

  124

  98

  2,175

  F15

  9

  18

  54

  73

  123

  168

  161

  92

  698

  F1ll

  749

  612

  638

  584

  361

  510

  324

  227

  4,005

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of low-flying sorties over the United Kingdom by each type of aircraft in each month since May 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of low-flying sorties by aircraft type carried out in the United Kingdom for the period May 1992 to June 1993, the most recent month for which figures are available, are as follows:
  51

  Aircraft type

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Other aircraft (including helicopters)

  4,512

  4,853

  4,671

  3,695

  5,579

  3,377

  4,180

  2,446

  33,329

  Monthly total sorties

  12,276

  12,105

  13,105

  10,003

  11,291

  11,058

  9,684

  5,872

  85,394

  Number of Aircraft Sorties by type January 1993 to June 1993

  Aircraft type

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  Total

  Buccaneer

  105

  165

  198

  129

  56

  166

  819

  Harrier

  591

  750

  1,114

  255

  533

  649

  3,892

  Hawk

  954

  1,399

  1,364

  916

  1,862

  1,467

  7,962

  Jaguar

  458

  458

  653

  609

  328

  469

  2,975

  Jet Provost

  356

  347

  458

  381

  320

  183

  2,045

  Tornado

  1,850

  1,748

  2,169

  1,458

  1,674

  2,192

  11,091

  Tucano

  430

  428

  714

  508

  625

  876

  3,581

  A10

  155

  46

  0

  0

  0

  0

  201

  F15

  206

  280

  349

  286

  263

  367

  1,751

  F1ll

  283

  338

  332

  342

  294

  321

  1,910

  Other aircraft (including helicopters)

  2,744

  4,162

  5,658

  3,755

  4,639

  5,140

  26,098

  Monthly total sorties

  8,132

  10,121

  13,009

  8,639

  10,594

  11,830

  62,325

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current and projected requirements for night low-flying training by Harrier GR7 aircraft, in terms of numbers of sorties per year; in what months of the year this training will take place; what proportion of this training will take place(a) in Germany, (b) in the United Kingdom and (c) from Goose Bay, Canada; and if he will list the other countries where this training will take place with the proportion in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  Night low-flying is usually conducted between September and April. It is estimated that the Harrier night flight will conduct around 500 night low-flying sorties in 1993–94. The figure is expected to rise to some 750 sorties by the end of the 1995–96 night low-flying season as further squadrons commence training. In 1993–94 it is planned that some 77 per cent. of Harrier GR7 night flying will be conducted in the United Kingdom night low-flying system, and some 16 per cent. in the United States of America and some 7 per cent. in Norway. At present, the Harrier GR7 does not conduct night low-flying training in Germany or Goose Bay.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are taken to ensure that fixed low-flying routes in the United Kingdom low-flying system in use by different units do not follow similar routes or use the same turning points.

  Mr. Hanley
  No specific measures are required as the only fixed low-flying routes flown in the United Kingdom are the small number needed for training units to ensure common training standards. These routes are used as little as possible and replaced at regular intervals in accordance with low-flying regulations.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring is undertaken of the frequency of use, and frequency of alteration or amendment, of fixed low-flying routes in the United Kingdom which are in use by(a) Royal Air Force units and (b) United States air force units.

  Mr. Hanley
  Fixed low-flying routes are not flown by Royal Air Force operational squadrons as aircrew are required to plan their sorties individually. A small number 52
  of fixed low-level routes are however, needed for training units to ensure common training standards. These routes are monitored locally as a normal low-flying management function; they are varied as much as possible and are in any case replaced at regular intervals. United States air force units do not fly fixed routes in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints have been received by each of the Royal Air Force community relations officers responsible for low-flying complaints in each year since their establishment; and what proportion of these complaints have been referred to the Secretariat (Air Staff) in London.

  Mr. Hanley
  Regional community relations officers (RCRO) for Cumbria and the Borders were established in January 1992 and for Wales in August 1993. RCRO Wales received four complaints during that month, three of which were referred to the Secretariat (Air Staff) for further action.

  RCRO Cumbria

  RCRO Borders

  1992

  11993

  1992

  11993

  Number of complaints received

  478

  342

  281

  266

  Number of complaints referred to the Secretariat (Air Staff) for further action

  154

  230

  101

  177

  1 To the end of August 1993, the latest month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the required horizontal avoidance distances by military fast jet aircraft of(a) helicopter lifting operations, (b) helicopter crop spraying operations, (c) fixed-wing crop spraying operations and (d) aerial photo survey work, which have been notified under the civil aircraft notification procedure.

  Mr. Hanley
  Civil pilots notifying these types of low-level aerial activity under the civil aircraft notification procedure must specify the location *and horizontal dimensions of the area in which they will be operating together with the maximum height of their activities. The horizontal dimensions of the temporary avoidance area notified to pilots of military fixed wing aircraft flying in excess of 140 knots coincide with those specified by the civil pilot.
  53
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current minimum altitude flown by United States air force(a) F15E and (b) F111 aircraft in the Highlands restricted area (i) during automatic terrain-following radar flights in instrument meteorological conditions and (ii) during automatic terrain-following radar flights at night.

  Mr. Hanley
  The minimum altitude flown by the F111 in the Highlands restricted area (HRA) at all times is 1,000 ft. The F15E has not flown in the HRA.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of aircraft are currently permitted to use the Highlands restricted area for night or instrument low-flying training.

  Mr. Hanley
  Aircraft fitted with a terrain-following radar suite may be permitted to fly in the Highlands restricted area (HRA). Aircraft that currently use the HRA are Tornado GR1 and USAF F111 and C130s.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of low-flying sorties carried out over the United Kingdom by(a) Dominie aircraft, (b) Hercules aircraft and (c) all types of helicopter in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of low-flying sorties carried out in the United Kingdom by Hercules aircraft and helicopters in each year since 1985 is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Type

  Circumstances

  26 November 1990

  Scotland

  RAF Tornado

  Wirestrike

  1 February 1991

  Northern Ireland

  RAF Wessex

  Wirestrike

  18 February 1991

  Norway

  AAC Lynx

  Blades struck power cables

  25 May 1991

  Northern Ireland

  RAF Puma

  Wirestrike

  28 June 1991

  Northern Ireland

  RAF Puma

  Possible wirestrike

  9 January 1992

  Middle Wallop

  AAC Gazelle

  Tail struck ground during hover

  25 March 1992

  Germany

  AAC Gazelle

  Rotor struck tree foliage while low-flying

  1 June 1992

  Germany

  AAC Lynx

  Tail rotor blades contacted tree foliage

  1 July 1992

  7nm SE of Flambrough Head

  RAF Sea King

  Winch cable struck yacht boom

  8 August 1992

  Salisbury Plain

  AAC Gazelle

  Hover blades struck tree branches

  21 October 1992

  Germany

  AAC Gazelle

  While low-flying, blades struck power cables

  13 November 1992

  Netheravon

  AAC Gazelle

  Hit ground

  8 March 1993

  Canada

  AAC Gazelle

  Strong crosswind caused tail flange to hit ground

  16 March 1993

  Germany

  AAC Gazelle

  Hover blades struck tree branches

  31 March 1993

  Germany

  AAC Gazelle

  Forward aerials struck ground during hover

  7 May 1993

  Salisbury Plain

  AAC Gazelle

  Tail flange struck ground in deceleration

  24 May 1993

  Norfolk

  AAC Lynx

  While hovering near trees, recirculation encountered. No indication of blade strike although blade tips found damaged on landing

  21 June 1993

  Germany

  AAC Gazelle

  Blades struck tree branches

  Note: Records of Royal Navy aircraft incidents are not held and therefore the list only covers Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties are required to maintain the currency of night low-flying qualifications for Tornado GR1 and GR1A aircrew.

  Mr. Hanley
  To maintain currency of night low-flying qualifications Tornado GR1 and GR1A aircrew are required to fly a minimum of eight night low-flying sorties per year.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the minimum requirements in terms of(a) number of flying hours experience on the aircraft type concerned, (b) number of flying hours experience on fast jet aircraft as a whole, (c) length of service and (d) current
  54

  Hercules

  Helicopters

  1985

  3,501

  35,345

  1986

  2,724

  38,847

  1987

  3,106

  40,457

  1988

  2,787

  44,608

  1989

  3,105

  40,353

  1990

  2,052

  38,844

  1991

  1,733

  37,750

  1992

  2,357

  41,859

  Central records are not kept separately of the number of low-flying sorties carried out by Dominie aircraft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) new simulated targets have been added to and (b) existing simulated targets have been withdrawn from, the Strike command list of simulated targets for dive or toss attack, since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  A list of changes is not held. Once a new list is issued, approximately every six months, the old one is destroyed.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, locations, type of aircraft and circumstances of all incidents since November 1990 in which military aircraft have made unintentional contact with the ground or with ground features such as trees or power lines.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  minimum altitude qualifications, for Royal Air Force aircrew to commence training at 100 ft minimum separation distance on (i) the Harrier, (ii) the Jaguar and (iii) the Tornado; and what changes have been made to these requirements since 1979.

  Mr Hanley
  The minimum number of flying hours experience required on fast jet aircraft before RAF aircrew can commence training below 250 ft down to a height of 100 ft minimum separation distance on Harrier, Jaguar and Tornado aircraft is 300 hours of which 250 hours must have been conducted on the aircraft type concerned. In 1979 the minimum requirement was 275 hours on fast jet of which 200 hours had to be flown on the aircraft type concerned. Aircrew must be qualified to fly at 250 ft
  55
  minimum separation distance before they commence training below that height. The criteria for personnel engaged on flying below 250 ft do not include a qualifying length of service.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report on the night low-flying activity survey carried out in the north east of England in 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department is unaware of any such survey and report.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current minimum altitude flown by Royal Air Force Tornados in the Highlands restricted area(a) during automatic terrain-following radar flights in instrument meteorological conditions and (b) during automatic terrain-following radar flights at night.

  Mr. Hanley
  Five hundred feet in both cases.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many night low-flying sorties were carried out over the United Kingdom by USAF F15E aircraft in 1992; and what changes in this activity are projected for 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  Figures for night low-flying sorties by aircraft type are not available. Figures are, however, held for the number of night low-flying movements conducted by aircraft type over the United Kingdom. During 1992 the USAF F15E aircraft, which commenced night low-flying in October of that year, carried out 252 night low-level movements. It is estimated that in 1993 the F15E will conduct around 1,900 night low-level movements. The USAF requirement for night low-flying in 1994 has not yet been determined.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the addresses and telephone numbers of those Royal Air Force community relations officers whose principal role is to act as a local point of contact for complaints about low-flying.

  Mr. Hanley
  The addresses and telephone numbers of the RAF regional community relations officers, who act as a focal point for complaints about low-flying in areas remote from RAF stations, are as follows:

  Ministry of Defence

  RAF Regional Community Relations Officer (Cumbria)

  Inglewood Road

  Penrith

  Cumbria

  CA11 8QN

  Telephone: 0768–891391

  Ministry of Defence

  RAF Regional Community Relations Officer (Borders)

  Tormore House

  Nithbank

  St Michael Street

  Dumfries

  Telephone: 0387–57512

  Ministry of Defence

  RAF Regional Community Relations Officer (Wales)

  New Dolanog House

  Severn Road

  Welshpool

  Powys

  SY21 7DA

  Telephone: 0938–556363

  56
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total number of low-flying movements recorded in the United Kingdom low-flying system in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of movements

  1989

  302,721

  1990

  313,026

  1991

  256,149

  1992

  288,933

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the minimum equipment requirements for aircraft carrying out night or instrument low-flying in the Highlands restricted area.

  Mr. Hanley
  Aircraft conducting manual terrain-following training in the Highlands restricted area must have a fully serviceable terrain-following radar suite which, as a minimum equipment requirement, includes a terrain-following radar, a radar altimeter and a position-fixing aid. For automatic terrain following, the suite must also include a coupled autopilot.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the dates, locations, and type and nationality of aircraft involved in each of the breaches of low-flying regulations detected by Skyguard radar during covert monitoring of the United Kingdom low-flying system since June 1989; and what disciplinary action was taken in respect of each incident.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of the apparent breaches of low-flying regulations detected by Skyguard during covert monitoring of the United Kingdom low-flying system are as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Type

  Aircraft Nationality

  28 June 1989

  Knaresborough

  Jaguar

  RAF

  29 June 1989

  Knaresborough

  Harrier

  RAF

  29 June 1989

  Knaresborough

  Tornado

  RAF

  29 June 1989

  Knaresborough

  Jaguar

  RAF

  2 October 1990

  East Leyton, Richmond

  Tornado

  RAF

  16 July 1991

  Eshott, Northumberland Airfield

  F4

  German Air Force

  16 July 1991

  Eshott, Northumberland Airfield

  F4

  German Air Force

  16 July 1991

  Eshott, Northumberland Airfield

  F4

  German Air Force

  2 July 1992

  Beverly/Linley Hill Aerodrome

  Tornado

  RAF

  These apparent breaches of low-flying regulations were not the subject of court martial or summary disposal proceedings under the service discipline Acts. Any other action lies with the commanding officer of the RAF station concerned. It is not our policy to release details of action taken by commanding officers in such cases.

  Breaches of low-flying regulations by non-United Kingdom-based foreign aircrew are notified to the air attaché of the country concerned for appropriate action.

  RAF Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and type of aircraft involved, and the dates, of Royal Air Force training deployments to(a) Morocco and (b) Egypt, since 1984.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although records are not held centrally to cover the period in question, the following RAF aircraft are known to have been involved in deployments to Morocco and Egypt since 1989:

  (a) Morocco:

  (i) May 1989:

  Four Tornado GRIs and four Chinooks plus Hercules and tanker support.

  (ii) June 1989:

  Two Jaguars.

  (iii) April 1990:

  Two Tornado GRIAs.

  (b) Egypt:

  (i) April 1990:

  Four Tornado F3s and five Buccaneers based at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus flew a number of sorties in Egyptian airspace.

  (ii) October 1991:

  Ten Tornado F3s, six Buccaneers, one Nimrod and one VC10 tanker based at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus flew a number of sorties in Egyptian airspace.

  Dates

  Number and type of aircraft

  Low-level sorties

  Squadrons deployed

  1 May to 14 May

  7 Tornado GR1

  GR1/1A 114

  GR1/1A 27 Squadron

  2GR1A

  F3 115

  43 Squadron

  8 Tornado F3

  Dates

  Number and type of aircraft

  Low level stories

  Squadron deployed

  17 April to 1 May

  7 Tornado GRI

  GRI/1A 99

  GRI/1A 13 Squadron

  2 GRIA

  F3 99

  F3 29 Squadron

  8 Tornado F3

  C-130 18

  C-130 47 Squadron

  1 C-130

  Only crews from the squadrons indicated deployed on these exercises.

  Tornado
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the factors determining whether a Tornado GR1/GR1A squadron deploys to Goose Bay for training for two weeks or for three weeks.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no specific reasons which determine whether a Tornado squadron deploys to Goose Bay for two weeks or three. Two-week deployments are generally the norm, as this is the usual period between the other north American exercises for which the aircraft are working up. If any further weeks become available however, they will be allocated, subject to other commitments, to whichever squadrons are considered likely to derive most benefit from them.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total number of hours flown by Tornado GR1 and GR1A aircraft in each year since 1980.
  58
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for future tactical training developments by Royal Air Force aircraft to Eielson air force base, Alaska; and what effect such training provision will have on the nature and frequency of RAF training deployments to Goose Bay.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to change the nature of the RAF's training deployments to Alaska from the two to three exercises in which they currently participate each year. This commitment has no effect on either the nature or the frequency of deployments to Goose Bay, as the two types of training are complementary.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the dates of the Royal Air Force distant frontier training deployment to Alaska in 1993; how many aircraft, and of what types, took part; how many low-level sorties were flown by each type of aircraft; and how many squadrons sent crews for training on this deployment.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of RAF participation in 1993 distant frontier exercises are as follows:

  In addition, the RAF also took part in exercise Cope Thunder in Alaska. The details are:

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Flying Hours

  1980

  135

  1981

  2,623

  1982

  8,377

  1983

  16,481

  1984

  27,104

  1985

  35,199

  1986

  44,570

  1987

  42,859

  1988

  48,035

  1989

  46,561

  1990

  48,954

  1991

  41,700

  1992

  39,392

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made to the provisions for quick reaction alert of Royal Air Force Tornado GR1 aircraft based in Germany since 1990.
  59
  Mr. Hanley
  The NATO requirement for quick reaction alert of Tornado GR1 in Germany ceased in November 1986.

  Dive/Toss Attack
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those units still using the Strike Command list of simulated targets for dive/toss attack.

  Mr. Hanley
  The units continuing to use this list for training purposes are:

  RNAS Yeovilton

  RAF Alconbury

  RAF Bruggen

  RAF Chivenor

  RAF Coltishall

  RAF Cottesmore

  RAF Finningley

  RAF Honington

  RAF Laarbruch

  RAF Lakenheath

  RAF Lossiemouth

  RAF Marham

  RAF Scampton

  RAF Upper Heyford

  RAF Valley

  RAF Wittering

  RAF Wyton

  T and EE Boscombe Down

  T and EE Farnborough

  Note:

  RNAS—Royal Naval Air Station.

  T and EE—Test and Evaluation Establishment.

  Quick Reaction Forces
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made to the provisions for quick reaction alert air defence forces in the United Kingdom since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1990, as a result of the reduced number of Soviet/Russian aircraft movements, the number of stations involved in quick reaction alert has been reduced from two to one and the number of aircraft reduced from four to two Tornado F3s. In addition, the reaction time has been extended.

  Unidentified Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the average weekly number of interceptions of unidentified or unauthorised aircraft in the United Kingdom air defence region by British military aircraft in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Year

  Weekly average

  1987

  3–4

  1988

  2–3

  1989

  1–2

  1990

  0–1

  1991

  0–1

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  Foreign Air (Accidents)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all accidents to foreign military aircraft on British territory for which a safety investigation committee has been established under the terms of NATO STANAG 3531, paragraph 11.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although NATO STANAG 3531 allows both the operating nation and host nation to participate in the joint investigation of an accident, in practice, if an accident occurred in the United Kingdom, we would normally permit the operating nation to investigate its own accident unless United Kingdom agencies had been involved. If requested by the operating nation, the United Kingdom would provide assistance. As a result, a complete record of such accidents is not maintained by the Ministry of Defence.

  RAF Inspectorate of Flight Safety
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles and names of contractors for all externally commissioned research work on behalf of the Royal Air Force inspectorate of flight safety since 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Contractor and Study Title

  Plessey Avionics

  Feasibility study into retrofitting Accident Data Recorders to certain in-service aircraft.

  Normalair-Garrett

  Feasibility and costing study into the visual display of Accident Data Recorder information.

  British Aerospace RAE Bedford

  Trial of a Ground Proximity Warning System.

  SD-Sicon EASAMS

  Electronic Collision Warning System:

  Study of Technologies

  Proof and Demonstration of Concept

  ICL (TOPIX)

  Study to replace the IFS(RAF) Accident/Incident Statistical and Associated Databases.

  ALFENS
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his current estimated dates for the(a) initial and (b) full operating capability of the automated low-flying flight planning inquiry and notification system; what period of delay these dates represent over the original completion date agreed in the production contract; and what are the causes of the delays.

  Mr. Hanley
  The programme for completion of the ALFENS project is under review. It is likely that there will be some delay beyond the date specified in the production contract. We are not yet in a position to provide a revised completion date.

  RAF East Camp, Hendon
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of the 36 acre site at RAF East Camp in Hendon; what was its estimated value six years ago; and what effect his Department expects further delays in its disposal to have on the return on the sale of the site.
  61
  Mr. Hanley
  This information is commercial in confidence and it would be prejudicial to current and future negotiations for the sale of the site to release it. The effect of further delays in the disposal of the site on the financial return from sale is dependent on the movement of property values in general.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent listed buildings of a national heritage calibre are being vandalised and are falling into disrepair at the 36 acre site at RAF East Camp in Hendon; and when he estimates that work to develop this section set aside for the RAF museum will be started.

  Mr. Hanley
  The listed buildings at the former East Camp of RAF Hendon are being protected against vandalism and the weather as far as possible, but as the buildings are not in use, they can be expected to deteriorate. Negotiations over the area set aside for the RAF museum continue and we aim to conclude them as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long the 36 acre site at RAF East Camp in Hendon has been vacant; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in disposal of the site.

  Mr. Hanley
  The former East Camp of RAF Hendon has been vacant for 5.5 years. A downturn in the property market, inadequate infrastructure for alternative uses, listed building constraints and an inability to reconcile local planning aspirations with developer demand have contributed to the delay in disposal of the site.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to develop the 36 acre site at RAF East Camp in Hendon ; when he estimates that they will be implemented; and if he will give an estimate of the effect on the revenues to his Department of the length of time during which this property has been left vacant.

  Mr. Hanley
  It remains our aim to bring about the development of the former East Camp of RAF Hendon as soon as practicable. Two acres have been sold to the Metropolitan police and an offer for a further five acres of the site including the former officers mess is under consideration. My Department is unable to secure the viable reuse of the majority of East Camp and optimise the potential financial return while wider planning issues remain unresolved.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up a public inquiry to establish the circumstances that have led to a delay in the development of the RAF East Camp in Hendon and to the state of listed buildings on the site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  No such inquiry is planned.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems his Department has encountered relating to planning permission from the borough of Barnet in disposing of the 36 acre site at RAF East Camp in Hendon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Negotiations with the London borough of Barnet have been protracted and there remains a fundamental difference of opinion between the borough council, the Ministry of Defence and our professional 62
  consultants regarding the ways in which the site might be redeveloped. In particular, the borough council's planning brief has not generated any viable commercial interest when tested in the marketplace, given the constraints upon the site and the generally depressed state of the property market. We are, however, maintaining a constructive dialogue to try to resolve the difficulties as quickly as possible.

  Piers
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the location and number of piers previously owned by his Ministry which have been sold in Scotland in the past 10 years; and if he will give details of the purchaser and the selling price in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of the piers in Scotland formerly owned by my Department which have been sold in the past 10 years and the purchaser in each case are set out below. The sale prices are commercial in confidence.

  Location

  Purchaser

  Date sold

  Arrochar

  Clydebank Developments

  21 January 1993

  Invergordon

  The Bannerman Company

  31 May 1993

  Inveraray

  I. Turner

  2 June 1993

  Holy Loch (Ardnadam)

  G. R. Thompson

  11 June 1993

  In addition, offers for the purchase of two further piers at Holy Loch (Sandbank) and Gourock are at an advanced stage of consideration by my Department.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) of 22 July,Official Report, column 353, if he will set out the reason for the confidentiality of the Aldermaston Radioactive Waste and Decommissioning Document to which he refers; and whether he applies the harm test to the refusal to disclose information, as set out at paragraph 3.7 of the White Paper on open government (Cm 2290).

  Mr. Aitken
  The decommissioning plan is a classified document and the waste management plan contains commercially sensitive information. The information contained in these two documents is such that the harm test, as set out in paragraph 3.7 of the White Paper on open government (Cm 2290), is applicable.

  Anthony Evans
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken to discipline those soldiers identified as being involved in the racial abuse and harrassment of Anthony George Evans, a former private in the first battalion of the Royal Regiment of Wales.

  Mr. Hanley
  The soldiers were dealt with summarily by their commanding officer. It is not our practice to comment on the disciplinary action taken by commanding officers in such cases.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 1993,Official Report, column 80, whether the testing of depleted uranium-tipped shells is covered by his policy of not revealing the costs of nuclear testing.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. Depleted uranium (DU) is not a fissile material and is used for armour-piercing projectiles because of its high density and mechanical properties. Ammunition natures which incorporate DU cannot be regarded as nuclear weapons, do not form part of the defence nuclear programme, and it is not sensible to link their testing with the testing of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received since 28 July from(a) serving members of the armed forces, (b) retired service people and (c) members of the public who fear they are suffering (i) from the alleged Desert Storm syndrome or (ii) from the effects of testing missiles tipped with depleted uranium at sites in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 28 July my Department have received one representation from an ex-soldier who alleges he is suffering from Desert Storm syndrome. He has been advised to consult his general practitioner in the first instance with a view to referring the case to the defence medical services.

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the electromagnetic radiation levels around the Fylingdales monitoring station in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am writing to the hon. Member and will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines are issued on the use of(a) dum-dum bullets and (b) Frag 12 exploding ammunition in the United Kingdom by the armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  No such ammunition is held by our armed forces.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent Home Office police regulations are applied to members of the Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence police force (MDP) is constituted in accordance with the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. This Act, from which the independent MDP force derives its authority, sets out where and how far the MDP powers and privileges of constable operate in the United Kingdom.

  In addition to the 1987 Act, Home Office guidelines have been drawn up to assist in defining the respective responsibilities of the MDP and local police forces. These have been agreed by the Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and by the chief constable MDP.
  64
  As with the Home Department Police Forces, the MDP operates in accordance with all appropriate legislation and in particular the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  As well as holding the office of constable, the MDP are non-industrial civil servants and their terms and conditions of employment being covered by both departmental and police regulations reflect this unique position. Those areas of employment specifically drawn from police regulations encompass:

  Appointment Qualifications

  Probation

  Discipline

  Conditional Allowances

  Pay

  Overtime

  "Police" Allowances, e.g.:

  Housing

  Plain Clothes

  Detective Duty

  Detective Expenses

  Leave

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a Minister from his Department will meet representatives of the Ministry of Defence Police Federation to discuss the ramifications of(a) the Sheehy report, (b) the White Paper on police and (c) matters of general concern to federation members which are not operational matters reserved for the chief constable.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government have yet to complete their deliberations on the way forward in implementing the recommendations of the Sheehy report and the White Paper on police and it is too early to say how far these initiatives will apply to the Ministry of Defence police. A review team is to be appointed under the chairmanship of Sir John Blelloch, to examine how these and other matters may affect the future structure, organisation and conditions of service of the Ministry of Defence police. The review team will consult widely and seek among others the views of the MOD police staff associations including the Defence Police Federation. These matters will also be considered in accordance with the normal consultative procedures and a special meeting of the Ministry of Defence police joint consultative committee (JCC) is to be convened for this purpose.

  Under the terms of the consultative agreement the MOD police staff associations are allowed access to Ministers, but matters raised should normally have been first considered within the joint consultative committee forum. At this stage therefore it would be premature for Ministers to meet representatives of the Defence Police Federation, but should their representatives have continuing concerns following the special JCC meeting, it would be open for them to seek discussions at ministerial level.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who serves on the police committee of the Ministry of Defence police; and how often it has met over the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current membership of the Ministry of Defence police committee is as follows:

  Second Permanent Under Secretary of State—Chairman

  Vice Chief of the Defence Staff—Vice Chairman

  Deputy Under Secretary of State (Civilian Management)

  Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff1—(Operations/Security)

  Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff

  Assistant Chief of the General Staff

  Assistant Chief of the Air Staff1

  Assistant Under Secretary of State (Security and Counter

  65
  Terrorism)—Clerk

  Such other persons as the Secretary of State may from time to time appoint.

  In addition, the following who are not members attend the meetings on a regular basis:

  Chief Constable Ministry of Defence Police—accompanied by the Deputy Chief Constable MDP and Head of MDP Secretariat as required)

  Police Adviser

  Scottish Police Adviser

  The number of times the police committee has met over the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  4

  1990

  3

  1991

  4

  1992

  4

  1993

  3

  Total

  18

  1 ACDS (Ops/Sy) and ACAS replace Assistant Under Secretary for Research and Development Establishments and Research Administration, AUS(ER), a defunct post and Commodore General and Director General of Security for the Royal Air Force (CG and DG SY(RAF)). The latter posts are at present included in statutory instrument 1988 No. 1098 which promulgates the police committee membership, but a new statutory instrument in the course of preparation will reflect the updated changes in composition.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what joint consultation procedure exists between the police committee of the Ministry of Defence police, and that force's Police Federation, and the representative bodies of other ranks at which matters relating to police pay and conditions of service are discussed; what is the membership of the joint body; and on how many occasions it has met in the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Ministry of Defence police pay and conditions of service are discussed in accordance with the memorandum of agreement on the consultative machinery between the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Police Federation (DPF) and the Chief Police Officers Association (CPOA). The means of implementing this agreement is the Ministry of Defence police joint consultative committee (JCC). The membership of this joint consultative committee is as follows:

  Official Side Representation

  2nd Permanent Under Secretary of State—Chairman

  Deputy Under Secretary of State (Civilian Management)—

  Deputy Chairman

  Vice Chief of The Defence Staff

  Chief Constable Ministry of Defence Police

  Head of Ministry of Defence Police Secretariat

  Staff Side Representation

  Chairman of the Chief Police Officers' Association

  Chairman of the Defence Police Federation

  Vice-Chairman of the Defence Police Federation

  General Secretary of the Defence Police Federation

  Secretariat

  Civilian Management (Ministry of Defence Police)

  The JCC normally meets twice a year and there have been nine meetings in the past five years.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many missions have been flown by search and rescue helicopters at each RAF and naval search and rescue base in the United Kingdom in each year since 1986; and how many of these missions were military and how many civilian.
  66
  Mr.Hanley
  The information requested is given below:

  1986

  Civilian

  Military

  Total

  RAF

  Boulmer

  90

  14

  104

  Brawdy

  87

  11

  98

  Chivenor

  98

  12

  110

  Coltishall

  65

  10

  75

  Leconfield

  74

  18

  92

  Leuchars

  109

  11

  120

  Lossiemouth

  151

  16

  167

  Manston

  98

  2

  100

  Valley

  123

  5

  128

  Aldergrove

  6

  0

  6

  RAF Total

  901

  99

  1,000

  RN

  Culdrose

  75

  3

  78

  Lee-on-Solent

  115

  4

  119

  Portland

  5

  0

  5

  Prestwick

  53

  5

  58

  RN Total

  248

  12

  260

  1987

  Civilian

  Military

  Total

  RAF

  Boulmer

  104

  16

  120

  Brawdy

  117

  17

  134

  Chivenor

  107

  21

  128

  Coltishall

  89

  18

  107

  Leconfield

  81

  12

  93

  Leuchars

  103

  10

  113

  Lossiemouth

  134

  19

  153

  Manston

  117

  4

  121

  Valley

  137

  15

  152

  Aldergrove

  18

  0

  18

  RAF Total

  1,007

  132

  1,139

  RN

  Culdrose

  116

  38

  154

  Lee-on-Solent

  131

  5

  136

  Portland

  1

  0

  1

  Prestwick

  49

  6

  55

  RN Total

  297

  49

  346

  1988

  Civilian

  Military

  Total

  RAF

  Boulmer

  116

  9

  125

  Brawdy

  141

  13

  154

  Chivenor

  169

  19

  188

  Coltishall

  79

  14

  93

  Leconfield

  103

  10

  113

  Leuchars

  134

  18

  152

  Lossiemouth

  128

  18

  146

  Manston

  144

  3

  147

  Valley

  158

  9

  167

  Aldergrove

  16

  1

  17

  RAF Total

  1,188

  114

  1,302

  RN

  Culdrose

  143

  27

  170

  Lee-on-Solent

  67

  3

  70

  Portland

  104

  9

  113

  Prestwick

  70

  12

  82

  RN Total

  384

  51

  435

  67

  1989

  Civilian

  Military

  Total

  RAF

  Boulmer

  112

  13

  125

  Brawdy

  143

  5

  148

  Chivenor

  176

  13

  189

  Coltishall

  74

  23

  97

  Leconfield

  128

  14

  142

  Leuchars

  114

  19

  133

  Lossiemouth

  126

  10

  136

  Manston

  157

  8

  165

  Valley

  179

  13

  192

  Aldergrove

  19

  0

  19

  RAF Total

  1,228

  118

  1,346

  RN

  Culdrose

  204

  11

  215

  Lee-on-Solent

  0

  0

  0

  Portland

  105

  16

  121

  Prestwick

  80

  6

  86

  RN Total

  389

  33

  422

  1990

  Civilian

  Military

  Total

  RAF

  Boulmer

  127

  10

  137

  Brawdy

  163

  9

  172

  Chivenor

  145

  12

  157

  Coltishall

  74

  24

  98

  Leconfield

  125

  16

  141

  Leuchars

  119

  6

  125

  Lossiemouth

  154

  15

  169

  Manston

  175

  5

  180

  Valley

  160

  16

  176

  Aldergrove

  9

  0

  9

  RAF Total

  1,251

  113

  1,364

  RN

  Culdrose

  213

  24

  237

  Lee-on-Solent

  0

  0

  0

  Portland

  97

  12

  109

  Prestwick

  126

  7

  133

  RN Total

  436

  43

  479

  1991

  Civilian

  Military

  Total

  RAF

  Boulmer

  108

  10

  118

  Brawdy

  155

  7

  162

  Chivenor

  139

  10

  149

  Coltishall

  60

  10

  70

  Leconfield

  99

  12

  111

  Leuchars

  154

  7

  161

  Lossiemouth

  208

  16

  224

  Manston

  141

  7

  148

  Valley

  155

  11

  166

  Aldergrove

  19

  2

  21

  RAF Total

  1,238

  92

  1,330

  RN

  Culdrose

  172

  34

  206

  Lee-on-Solent

  0

  0

  0

  Portland

  97

  9

  106

  Prestwick

  143

  8

  151

  RN Total

  412

  51

  463

  68

  1992

  Civilian

  Military

  Total

  RAF

  Boulmer

  125

  9

  134

  Brawdy

  151

  7

  158

  Chivenor

  163

  11

  174

  Coltishall

  103

  3

  106

  Leconfield

  146

  14

  160

  Leuchars

  118

  13

  131

  Lossiemouth

  227

  14

  241

  Manston

  157

  5

  162

  Valley

  179

  8

  187

  Aldergrove

  20

  2

  22

  RAF Total

  1,389

  86

  1,475

  RN

  Culdrose

  204

  29

  233

  Lee-on-Solent

  0

  0

  0

  Portland

  126

  12

  138

  Prestwick

  153

  15

  168

  RN Total

  483

  56

  539

  Jetstream Aircraft
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had with British Aerospace about possible orders to be placed by his Department for new Jetstream aircraft; what the outcome has been; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations or request he has received concerning the relaunch of the ATP aircraft as Jetstream 61; what action he has taken as a result; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received concerning the replacement of the Jetstream aircraft currently operated by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force with new aircraft; what discussions or action have followed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  A number of representations concerning the replacement of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Jetstream aircraft have been received. My officials maintain a regular dialogue with British Aerospace to discuss future requirements. However, there is currently no requirement for turbo-prop aircraft to replace those in-service with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Should a future requirement emerge, British Aerospace would have every opportunity to compete.

  NATO
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what projects in the United Kingdom have been in receipt of infrastructural funding from NATO in the last 10 years for which information is available; and how much such funding there has been in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of projects in the United Kingdom funded in the past 10 years and the amount funded is as follows:

  Year

  Amount (£)

  Total Projects

  1982

  57,842,282

  22

  1983

  26,284,008

  18

  1984

  72,720,315

  27

  1985

  84,590,421

  42

  1986

  107,233,047

  47

  1987

  78,669,515

  48

  69

  Year

  Amount (£)

  Total Projects

  1988

  92,685,963

  69

  1989

  75,262,451

  64

  1990

  85,506,958

  64

  1991

  33,049,156

  73

  1992

  34,219,482

  59

EMPLOYMENT

  Offshore Oil Workers
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the policy of his Department when dealing with claims for unemployment benefit by those formerly employed in offshore oil and gas fields.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Michael Bates, dated 18 October 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the policy of his Department when dealing with claims for unemployment benefit by those formerly employed in offshore oil and gas fields. This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  All claims for unemployment benefit, including those from people formerly employed in offshore oil and gas fields, are dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Social Security legislation. Unemployed people who have paid sufficient National Insurance contributions, are available for and actively seeking employed earners employment in GB, and are not disqualified from receiving benefit for any reason, may receive unemployment benefit.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Oil Industry
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on the application of the International Labour Organisation conventions on(a) freedom of association and protection of the right to organise and (b) application of the principles of the right to organise and bargain collectively, to United Kingdom workers (i) generally and (ii) in the oil industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is the Government's firm policy to honour their obligations under the international labour conventions they have ratified. Workers in the oil industry are covered in the same way as those in any other occupation or industry.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from employees of the oil industry concerning the right of freedom of association at their place of work; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives representations from employees 70
  on a variety of issues, but none has been identified in this form. Our employment law is consistent with international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom on freedom of association.

  Southend
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will rename the Southend travel-to-work area as the South Essex travel-to-work area or the Southend/Thurrock travel-to-work area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A review of all travel-to-work areas is currently being undertaken. New boundaries will be drawn using information on commuting patterns from the 1991 census of population special workplace statistics. These are due to be released by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys at the end of November this year. Revised travel-to-work areas, including maps, will be circulated for comment six to nine months after this date. All comments received, regarding boundaries and names, will be considered at this time.

  EC Labour Markets
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the labour market participation rates in each EC country at the last date for which figures were available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available economic activity rates, comparable across all EC countries, are for spring 1991 and are shown in the table:

  Per cent

  Denmark

  67·1

  United Kingdom

  61·8

  Portugal

  59·5

  FR Germany

  58·7

  Netherlands

  56·9

  France

  54·5

  Ireland

  51·9

  Luxembourg

  51·2

  Italy

  49·9

  Belgium

  48·5

  Greece

  47·4

  Spain

  47·2

  Europe 12

  55·1

  Source: Eurostat, labour force survey results 1991.

  Older Workers (Health Care)
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage employers to undertake initiatives to promote preventive health care among older workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) provides employers with a wealth of advice and guidance on occupational health, which applies to all persons exposed to health risks at work including older workers. Both the Employment Department and HSE are members of the workplace task force and have been active in supporting "The Health of the Nation" initiatives designed to encourage employers to promote health in the workplace.

  EC Unemployment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment in each EC country(a) in January 1993 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available; and what was (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Miss Widdecombe
  Up-to-date and internationally comparable unemployment figures are available only in the form of rates and are based on the ILO definition of unemployment. These figures are published by EUROSTAT in its monthly "Unemployment Bulletin", copies of which are available in the Library. The table shows the latest available information.

  Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in EC countries January 1993 and latest month

  January 1993

  Latest Month

  Change

  Belgium

  8·8

  29·5

  0·7

  Denmark

  10·0

  210·6

  0·6

  Germany1

  5 0

  25·7

  0·7

  Greece

  –

  –

  –

  Spain

  20·0

  221·2

  1·2

  France

  10·3

  210·9

  0·6

  Ireland

  18·4

  218·2

  –0·2

  Italy

  10·6

  210·9

  0·3

  Luxembourg

  2·0

  22·6

  0·6

  Netherlands

  7·2

  27·9

  0·7

  Portugal

  5·0

  25·0

  n/c

  United Kingdom

  10·5

  210·3

  –0·2

  EC Average

  9·9

  210·4

  0·5

  1 This figure only relates to the former West Germany.

  2 August.

  3 July.

  Parliamentary Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the locations of the television sets in his Department which can receive the live television feed from the Chamber of the House; and what is the total cost to his Department of this Service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are seven television sets in the Department's headquarters which can receive the live television feed from the Chamber of the House. There is one in each of the four Ministers' private offices; one in the permanent secretary's office; one in the parliamentary branch; and one in the press office. The annual cost of the service is £17,900.

  Training
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the job entry rate for employment training leavers in the west midlands.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Latest information shows that three months after leaving employment training in the west midlands during September 1992, 29 per cent. were in a

  Expenditure on Diocesan Bishops' Residences

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Bath and Wells

  55,906

  51,980

  47,414

  48,841

  37,480

  106,937

  19,104

  67,109

  53,336

  58,315

  Birmingham

  12,499

  13,094

  5,830

  21,335

  45,001

  13,817

  30,187

  70,240

  76,667

  70,808

  Blackburn

  16,880

  7,282

  4,274

  7,301

  13,317

  9,771

  38,333

  15,776

  25,755

  18,888

  Bradford

  8,196

  17,208

  27,710

  55,938

  30,869

  58,425

  15,571

  18,029

  18,009

  62,705

  72
  job and a further 15 per cent. were undertaking activities including training, full-time education, work experience or voluntary work.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest information he has on the number of people who are participating on training courses which are supported by the European social fund; how many are operated by(a) training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies, (b) local authorities and further education colleges and (c) voluntary organisations; how many people will benefit from ESF training courses in the current operational year; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to her reply, 27 July 1993, c. 785]: I regret that the numbers of participants on European social fund (ESF) courses in 1993 in Great Britain given in my reply of 27 July 1993, Official Report, column 785, was incorrect. The number of beneficiaries given for the training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies—including departmental programmes to help the unemployed—included beneficiaries from another sector. The correct information is given below:

  Sector

  Beneficiaries

  Training and Enterprise Councils, Local Enterprise Companies (including Departmental programmes to help the unemployed)

  320,000

  Local Authorities/Further Education Colleges

  438,000

  Voluntary sector

  106,000

  Overall we currently expect some 1,308,000 people to benefit from ESF-funded training during 1993. This figure is likely to rise as further projects continue to be approved.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bishops' Residences
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the expenditure for each of the last 10 years on the residences of each bishop, diocesan area and suffragan.

  Mr. Alison
  The following figures for diocesan bishops' houses, which include both a chapel and office accommodation for the bishops' staff, show the total expenditure—capital and revenue—on each. The figures include expenditure on furnishings and gardens, but are net both of rental income for accommodation not occupied by the bishop and of sale proceeds of any surplus property.

  Suffragan, area and full-time assistant bishops' houses also incorporate office accommodation. The figures include total expenditure borne by dioceses on periodical outgoings, e.g., rates, insurance and repairs, half of which are met by grants from the commissioners. Full details of all capital expenditure is not available, but capital grants made by the commissioners are included.
  73

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Bristol

  5,036

  16,196

  19,997

  43,488

  15,492

  10,050

  22,709

  31,050

  21,187

  25,176

  Canterbury:

  Lambeth Palace

  201,248

  178,073

  27,868

  113,760

  (70,938)

  173,367

  164,979

  270,726

  272,680

  176,812

  Old Palace

  144,140

  35,439

  15,987

  21,830

  37,402

  8,629

  12,286

  19,545

  117,777

  14,233

  Carlisle

  19,319

  17,038

  30,486

  11,474

  37,693

  35,503

  94,167

  29,163

  22,210

  27,976

  Chelmsford

  20,991

  10,001

  20,716

  40,721

  36,622

  22,395

  25,212

  23,460

  15,849

  26,841

  Chester

  14,503

  35,505

  13,556

  15,803

  36,573

  20,028

  22,968

  16,795

  36,739

  25,907

  Chichester

  26,492

  37,488

  24,505

  20,902

  27,531

  18,055

  32,877

  27,760

  28,111

  37,167

  Coventry

  (61,272)

  11,263

  65,574

  37,346

  15,326

  14,136

  12,818

  63,458

  50,898

  35,270

  Derby

  52,241

  (15,678)

  9,643

  6,767

  10,807

  29,182

  19,649

  13,158

  20,062

  11,399

  Durham

  157,103

  71,114

  82,840

  13,549

  19,228

  44,653

  59,232

  113,813

  60,910

  53,852

  Ely

  5,131

  7,596

  15,221

  8,867

  15,042

  9,283

  42,069

  200,622

  100,633

  68,019

  Exeter

  18,713

  9,669

  25,314

  18,145

  (915)

  13,867

  22,960

  21,312

  7,229

  12,563

  Gloucester

  6,130

  6,039

  6,489

  25,431

  8,492

  8,400

  16,709

  36,673

  85,981

  58,532

  Guildford

  34,613

  13,483

  37,592

  37,253

  2,552

  20,684

  27,002

  28,458

  37,264

  24,437

  Hereford

  7,866

  32,762

  78,358

  55,803

  7,222

  3,138

  7,550

  52,083

  16,166

  20,123

  Leicester

  8,836

  8,181

  10,512

  15,533

  1,848

  12,162

  8,146

  11,904

  70,684

  9,270

  Lichfield

  8,813

  18,591

  16,584

  20,573

  11,960

  12,341

  21,323

  27,488

  49,858

  26,342

  Lincoln

  15,428

  58,669

  4,511

  10,305

  19,766

  61,534

  91,428

  12,382

  24,001

  8,358

  Liverpool

  9,271

  12,796

  28,743

  24,067

  21,512

  44,279

  18,628

  38,239

  38,703

  24,179

  London

  3,970

  4,821

  11,009

  15,698

  7,437

  27,977

  22,913

  4,576

  66,134

  7,187

  Manchester

  14,567

  7,548

  13,515

  22,685

  268,597

  10,223

  11,518

  9,620

  20,145

  14,341

  Newcastle

  12,146

  5,049

  6,365

  3,004

  5,684

  3,674

  9,422

  8,000

  6,297

  7,698

  Norwich

  19,318

  8,123

  16,528

  40,777

  31,228

  22,861

  23,419

  34,575

  32,848

  63,591

  Oxford

  8,471

  3,122

  5,626

  3,657

  31,501

  6,037

  15,533

  23,107

  20,114

  11,714

  Peterborough

  20,126

  21,988

  11,759

  19,123

  54,008

  92,439

  18,257

  42,097

  28,371

  25,651

  Portsmouth

  12,758

  13,923

  48,248

  12,347

  46,759

  5,274

  34,372

  39,796

  41,473

  37,530

  Ripon

  18,643

  8,313

  22,301

  20,260

  103,016

  23,450

  43,178

  33,984

  28,553

  27,709

  Rochester

  7,635

  6,481

  8,766

  7,936

  17,359

  146,142

  28,406

  37,840

  39,948

  52,836

  St Albans

  22,931

  8,419

  23,425

  15,177

  11,111

  25,524

  9,930

  19,839

  26,008

  10,764

  St Eds and Ips

  7,985

  7,005

  21,425

  10,338

  111,447

  25,828

  11,485

  40,862

  29,640

  28,454

  Salisbury

  (274,297)

  28,024

  5,159

  15,490

  5,164

  15,324

  20,406

  14,245

  20,248

  18,524

  Sheffield

  10,054

  33,159

  8,022

  7,694

  16,368

  13,971

  28,238

  24,425

  18,039

  32,267

  Sodor and Man1

  599

  285

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14,233

  24,756

  417

  3,687

  Southwark

  16,425

  33,271

  20,434

  9,005

  24,068

  8,648

  13,767

  38,315

  90,939

  79,835

  Southwell

  21,175

  45,644

  219,607

  107,576

  20,141

  46,232

  10,284

  27,983

  22,946

  8,112

  Truro

  14,034

  8,277

  12,594

  18,232

  16,054

  14,318

  11,219

  28,180

  42,371

  14,624

  Wakefield

  27,784

  15,780

  39,688

  13,870

  13,830

  11,731

  15,317

  27,675

  20,116

  75,821

  Winchester

  23,988

  9,559

  46,537

  26,269

  1,885

  10,921

  13,653

  30,868

  48,642

  49,535

  Worcester

  41,976

  31,112

  17,563

  14,245

  11,701

  8,104

  46,140

  83,657

  36,711

  36,874

  York

  87,980

  62,268

  89,387

  74,967

  69,083

  19,126

  32,116

  34,588

  113,040

  30,838

  Europe

  2,209

  5,943

  2,209

  8,367

  8,353

  1,872

  3,622

  14,614

  12,487

  3,481

  1 The See house is owned by the commissioners of the Isle of Man

  Expenditure on suffragan, area and full-time assistant bishops houses

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Bath and Wells

  Taunton

  4,024

  2,847

  2,110

  4,326

  1,275

  7,511

  959

  17,171

  3,089

  9,133

  Birmingham

  Aston

  1,453

  5,984

  2,033

  2,186

  1,292

  1,338

  1,188

  0

  0

  90

  Blackburn

  Burnley

  1,087

  2,165

  1,260

  824

  1,926

  6,368

  74,275

  40,263

  19,268

  3,227

  Lancaster

  1,802

  1,758

  732

  1,245

  3,160

  1,023

  2,513

  6,841

  5,083

  4,081

  Bradford

  Asst Bishop

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  89,747

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bristol

  Malmesbury

  540

  3,603

  3,471

  3,740

  10,854

  9,784

  4,936

  15,086

  4,622

  4,669

  Canterbury

  Dover

  707

  644

  709

  962

  2,821

  3,601

  1,032

  1,160

  791

  9,226

  Maidstone

  15,628

  702

  922

  946

  2,825

  1,360

  1,517

  4,115

  973

  3,466

  Carlisle

  Penrith

  399

  240

  515

  393

  2,604

  6,113

  5,189

  1,724

  1,660

  3,102

  Chelmsford

  Barking

  27,648

  1,358

  2,556

  1,310

  1,373

  6,233

  2,644

  925

  1,484

  578

  Bradwell

  14,378

  2,915

  1,015

  4,109

  1,422

  10,567

  17,954

  1,680

  813

  771

  Colchester

  905

  618

  1,343

  1,041

  739

  241,155

  2,568

  1,304

  572

  2,575

  74 75

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Chester

  Birkenhead

  4,007

  3,992

  739

  1,915

  3,884

  10,690

  980

  1,382

  9,086

  1,670

  Stockport

  1,465

  1,236

  1,424

  1,254

  1,353

  1,035

  2,770

  5,757

  3,187

  954

  Chichester

  Lewes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,178

  27,622

  4,776

  4,574

  Horsham

  2,535

  7,025

  1,011

  1,291

  5,941

  1,792

  2,071

  650

  6,115

  3,484

  Coventry

  Warwick

  3,271

  1,574

  1,319

  65,783

  20,883

  12,929

  1,780

  652

  1,022

  7,442

  Derby

  Repton

  617

  648

  1,302

  2,289

  2,283

  1,810

  1,680

  2,298

  9,632

  4,758

  Durham

  Jarrow

  5,089

  2,690

  2,899

  2,103

  3,166

  14,295

  3,291

  67,661

  31,911

  6,907

  Ely

  Huntingdon

  544

  2,913

  808

  949

  1,092

  3,034

  218,688

  1,039

  1,166

  1,593

  Exeter

  Crediton

  5,644

  1,328

  5,654

  2,041

  5,386

  3,209

  1,967

  1,267

  7,911

  1,674

  Plymouth

  481

  3,842

  536

  1,591

  807

  695

  832

  50,325

  586

  3,329

  Gloucester

  Tewkesbury

  2,877

  1,010

  1,907

  25,920

  1,074

  706

  786

  889

  3,616

  866

  Guildford

  Dorking

  771

  906

  1,674

  1,422

  1,355

  1,238

  1,307

  19,951

  1,707

  894

  Hereford

  Ludlow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  63,896

  445

  902

  2,361

  3,883

  682

  Leicester

  Asst Bishop

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  33,498

  8,245

  1,246

  9,510

  2,238

  Lichfield

  Shrewsbury

  1,178

  4,661

  898

  5,234

  3,841

  4,107

  1,348

  4,685

  899

  8,141

  Stafford

  1,823

  1,477

  1,492

  644

  4,097

  5,031

  1,832

  4,338

  773

  727

  Wolverhampton

  5,361

  5,055

  2,928

  1,343

  2,227

  1,135

  1,590

  552

  2,793

  650

  Lincoln

  Grantham

  2,404

  2,773

  2,020

  2,896

  65,976

  7,128

  1,558

  6,307

  2,054

  862

  Grimsby

  902

  1,140

  2,674

  1,418

  788

  2,846

  1,409

  76,245

  6,168

  602

  Liverpool

  Warrington

  1,962

  2,495

  8,306

  1,995

  1,584

  3,059

  6,870

  6,520

  2,444

  2,754

  London

  Fulham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  506

  11,033

  5,769

  1,067

  30,340

  Kensington

  2,363

  3,652

  11,518

  6,263

  15,089

  17,944

  46,564

  7,835

  2,928

  7,345

  Stepney

  2,867

  1,185

  16,195

  8,883

  2,787

  2,057

  1,133

  1,612

  1,514

  18,710

  Willesden

  3,945

  2,411

  18,332

  1,842

  1,318

  6,790

  23,171

  9,851

  1,268

  15,754

  Edmonton

  484

  519

  2,838

  519

  519

  610

  223,964

  3,177

  13,722

  3,626

  Manchester

  Hulme

  692

  52,776

  1,324

  2,066

  1,112

  2,019

  7,695

  1,225

  764

  1,774

  Middleton

  13,938

  1,501

  870

  3,462

  3,118

  1,449

  1,772

  921

  1,683

  547

  Bolton

  0

  744

  520

  1,511

  2,630

  863

  2,078

  937

  9,251

  5,754

  Newcastle

  Asst Bishop

  770

  1,653

  2,174

  9,958

  3,139

  1,520

  2,040

  815

  861

  6,379

  Norwich

  Lynn

  4,494

  4,658

  5,592

  4,554

  23,550

  3,010

  8,960

  23,179

  15,607

  906

  Thetford

  1,513

  778

  12,714

  2,430

  1,243

  1,905

  6,639

  709

  999

  83,641

  Oxford

  Buckingham

  1,225

  1,449

  3,495

  4,532

  2,094

  1,845

  2,125

  2,376

  2,740

  1,432

  Dorchester

  1,199

  2,783

  1,891

  2,346

  1,505

  5,940

  7,132

  6,640

  3,102

  1,180

  Reading

  8,270

  3,130

  3,635

  2,986

  4,161

  1,952

  6,608

  8,381

  2,649

  1,036

  Peterborough

  Brixworth

  2,068

  933

  589

  429

  138,000

  302

  5,649

  3,170

  3,957

  1,334

  Ripon

  Knaresborough

  1,830

  498

  1,053

  1,917

  2,906

  3,905

  1,431

  1,020

  1,097

  2,750

  76 77

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Rochester

  Tonbridge

  4,693

  2,487

  2,213

  2,263

  2,312

  2,715

  2,912

  6,689

  2,024

  4,880

  St Albans

  Bedford

  782

  823

  997

  1,849

  1,180

  1,270

  1,708

  1,478

  4,014

  989

  Hertford

  1,227

  996

  1,016

  1,182

  1,563

  1,823

  4,442

  1,195

  3,414

  1,037

  St Edmunds and Ipswich

  Dunwich

  1,233

  809

  1,515

  1,432

  37,944

  910

  1,247

  (16,782)

  1,903

  4,480

  Salisbury

  Sherborne

  2,658

  2,698

  2,194

  3,185

  533

  42,651

  1,216

  705

  4,121

  782

  Ramsbury

  261

  227

  691

  2,334

  1,498

  4,399

  2,685

  1,718

  3,965

  4,219

  Sheffield

  Doncaster

  1,886

  775

  3,356

  2,951

  2,183

  489

  1,137

  11,421

  1,500

  777

  Southwark

  Kingston

  206

  3,356

  1,217

  1,598

  1,412

  1,089

  5,327

  6,027

  1,870

  20,690

  Woolwich

  1,915

  1,403

  4,432

  1,486

  3,782

  1,826

  8,888

  2,811

  442

  1,946

  Croydon

  726

  906

  792

  736

  1,377

  14,698

  13,278

  1,981

  1,272

  1,129

  Southwell

  Sherwood

  8,750

  1,282

  1,653

  1,579

  2,724

  1,558

  1,200

  2,307

  9,894

  10,746

  Truro

  St Germans

  7,724

  260

  278

  632

  378

  435

  476

  3,741

  3,080

  4,767

  Wakefield

  Pontefract

  0

  5,948

  10,825

  2,127

  4,530

  2,079

  3,808

  1,812

  3,230

  1,561

  Winchester

  Basingstoke

  15,425

  782

  782

  2,173

  50,476

  11,729

  607

  0

  3,531

  1,312

  Southampton

  842

  4,558

  3,499

  487

  721

  997

  7,487

  1,053

  1,652

  836

  Worcester

  Dudley

  1,200

  1,933

  1,203

  4,790

  1,418

  2,930

  3,943

  1,054

  11,634

  1,673

  York

  Hull

  1,898

  2,223

  3,641

  4,279

  2,041

  4,124

  2,476

  676

  1,021

  1,338

  Selby

  875

  1,069

  1,260

  731

  912

  2,923

  1,060

  881

  1,012

  2,003

  Whitby

  849

  885

  1,943

  755

  7,407

  772

  4,618

  477

  4,433

  868

  Europe

  Europe

  3,903

  4,522

  5,103

  5,585

  5,910

  7,909

  7,414

  13,477

  6,714

  11,301

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of all animal products confiscated by the Hong Kong authorities at(a) ports of entry and (b) in restaurants and shops during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the past 12 months—from 1 August 1992 to 31 July 1993—the Hong Kong authorities made 198 seizures of suspected endangered animals and animal products at ports of entry and 14 seizures in restaurants and shops. Court proceedings for 89 of the above cases have been concluded and the related animals/animal products confiscated. The remaining cases are either under investigation or awaiting court proceedings. The local legislation provides for mandatory forfeiture of the animals/animal products upon conviction.

  Interpreters
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training is given to interpreters at overseas British missions in respect of entry clearance officers.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Those appointed as interpreters should already be fluent in the languages concerned, so no linguistic training will normally be necessary. Appropriate training, including on the job, in office practices and procedures will be given after recruitment.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training is given to interpreters employed by the British embassy in Ankara; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy in Ankara does not employ any interpreters, but does employ two translators, one in the information section and one in the defence section. Both were required to demonstrate their competence on recruitment. Additional training has not been needed.

  European Treaties
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects a publication of consolidated text of the treaty on European union incorporating all the amendments, which it, and other treaties, have made to the treaty of Rome and the treaties establishing the coal and steel, and Euratom communities respectively; and if he knows of any impediment to such a document being printed and published by Her Majesty's Government in the Command series prior to October.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A consolidated text of the treaty of Rome incorporating the amendments which would be made by the treaty on European union was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (C 224 Vol. 35) on 31 August 1992. It has been available through HMSO outlets since that time. There are no plans, either by the European Community or by ourselves, to produce similar consolidated texts of the treaties establishing the European coal and steel and Euratom communities in advance of entry into force of the treaty on European union.

  E1 Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring is taking place of the electoral registration process in El Salvador; and if Her Majesty's Government will send a delegation to monitor the process.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The UN observer mission in El Salvador, ONUSAL, is supervising preparations for next year's elections. We expect to send an observer.

  Israel
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Israel concerning the plight of Mordechai Vanunu; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have raised with the Israelis concerns over humanitarian aspects of this case. They assured us earlier in the year that the conditions under which Mr. Vanunu is detained have improved. We have no formal locus to intervene.

  Sudan
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the United Kingdom Government are taking to ensure that human rights are respected in Sudan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We were active at the last sessions of the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights in highlighting the human rights situation in Sudan, and in particular in securing the appointment of a public UN rapporteur. The rapporteur has just visited Sudan, and we await his report.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to further the peace progress in the Sudan and to bring fighting to an end.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have welcomed the initiative of the Kenyan, Ugandan, Ethiopian and Eritrean Presidents to 80
  try to encourage dialogue between the Government of Sudan and the factions of the Sudan People's Liberation Army. With our EC partners, we are addressing ways of putting further pressure on the parties to respond positively to mediation efforts.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what tests the French Government have reported to(a) European political co-operation or (b) the European Foreign Affairs Council under the provisions of article 34 of the Euratom treaty on nuclear tests conducted on any of its overseas territories since 1963.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are not aware of any such notifications having been made under article 34 of the Euratom treaty.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current support for the UN MINORSO team in the western Sahara; what plans there are to continue this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom has contributed 14 military observers and the chief of staff to the MINORSO operations since September 1991. We keep all UN commitments under review as operations' mandates develop, and informed the UN in March this year that we were considering the withdrawal of our personnel. We confirmed to the UN the decision to withdraw in August 1993, and the United Kingdom military contribution to the force is now running down. All 15 British military personnel will have withdrawn by the end of October. The UN has so far identified Malaysian, Ghanaian and Bangladeshi replacements for 12 of the departing British observers and expects to fill the remaining three positions in the near future.

  China
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Chinese Government about the prisoners of conscience(a) Li Jiayao in Chek Li prison near Guangzhou, (b) Pastor Pei Zhongxun (Chun Chul) imprisoned in Shanghai and (c) Xu Guoxing, leader of the Protestant House Church in Shanghai; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No specific representations have been made. We have, however, raised human rights and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's list of cases of concern on a number of occasions with senior Chinese leaders, most recently during my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Vice Premier and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen in New York on 1 October.

  India
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of India concerning human rights abuses in Punjab and Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.
  81
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have regularly raised our concerns about human rights with the Indian Government, most recently during a discussion between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Indian Foreign Minister, Dinesh Singh, in New York in September.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 June 1992,Official Report, column 86, when he now proposes to bring forward legislation to repeal the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We intend that a provision to repeal the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989 should be included in a Bill to give effect to the environmental protection protocol to the Antarctic treaty. We hope that this Bill can be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are taken to enforce the moratorium on mining activity in Antarctica.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Measures to enforce the moratorium require the introduction of legislation. We intend that a provision to repeal the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989 should be included in a Bill to give effect to the environmental protection protocol to the Antarctic treaty. We hope this Bill can be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Until the new legislation is in force, the United Kingdom will do all it can by administrative means to implement the provisions of the environmental protocol, including the prohibition of mineral activities. The other Antarctic treaty consultative parties are doing likewise.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the creation of a world natural park in Antarctica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Antarctica is a special conservation area under the 1964 agreed measures for the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora. It is also designated a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science, by the 1991 environmental protection protocol to the Antarctic treaty. We believe that this and the stringent environmental protection measures in the protocol adequately reflect the concept of a world park.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart over the American initiative launched in July to assist Asian countries to develop policies to control regional nuclear proliferation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  To the best of my knowledge no specific American initiative aimed at controlling nuclear proliferation in Asia has been launched.

  EC Measures
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of the EC measures which it was agreed at the Anglo-French summit on 26 July should be(a) amended and (b) withdrawn.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is not our intention to publish the Anglo-French subsidiarity list. We have fed ideas into the Commission at several stages as a contribution to the report on subsidiarity that it is preparing for the Brussels European Council in December. The Commission report will, of course, be published.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many mining companies have offices in the Falkland Islands; and what cases cif mining exploration licences have been sought for.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The only company with interests in mining which has offices in the Falkland Islands is the Falkland Islands Company. It is a subsidiary of Anglo United plc.

  Since 1982 the Falkland Islands Government have twice authorised exploratory surveys of one farm. Before Anglo United plc sold its farmlands in the Falkland Islands in 1991, it carried out a preliminary geological survey of those lands.

  Secret Intelligence Service Headquarters
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost for the internal equipping of the new Secret Intelligence Service headquarters at Vauxhall cross; and if he will indicate the budgets drawn upon to cover the costs to date.

  Mr. Hurd
  The programme provision for the total cost of fitting out and equipping the new Secret Intelligence Service headquarters is £86 million. This sum has been included in the programme of the Foreign and Commonwealth office, and we expect the final cost to be within this total. A revised figure will be published in next year's estimates.

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many buildings the European Parliament rent in(a) Brussels, (b) Luxembourg and (c) Strasbourg; and what is the total rent paid in each city.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Parliament rents nine buildings in Brussels—some of which are physically linked—five buildings in Luxembourg and five buildings in Strasbourg—three of which are linked extensions to the original building.

  The rents paid in each city for 1993 are as follows:

  Brussels: 27.258 million ECU (approx £21.264 million);

  Luxembourg: 12.212 million ECU (£9.527 million);

  Strasbourg: 13.254 million ECU (£10.339 million);

  The detailed appropriations are given in section 1, chapter 20 of the general budget of the European Community, published in Official Journal No. L31, Vol. 36 of 8 February 1993, copies of which are available in the House.
  83
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the allowances payable to Members of the European Parliament.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Parliament's allowances for Members in 1993 are as follows:

  Subsistence
  Subsistence allowance of 199 ecu (approx £155) per day for attending official meetings within the European Community plus the cost of overnight accommodation, etc. for attending official meetings outside the Community.

  Travel
  Flat rate travel allowance of 0.73 ecu (57p) per kilometre for the first 800km and 0–37 ecu (29p) for each additional kilometre for travel within the Community to attend official meetings. Reimbursement of the return air fare by the most direct route for travel outside the EC to attend official meetings. Travel allowance of up to 3,000 ecu (£2,340) per annum for travel on official business other than to attend official meetings.

  Office and Secretarial Assistance
  Secretarial assistance allowance of up to 7,468 (£5,826) ecu per month. General expenditure allowance of 2,732 ecu (£2,131) per month for office management costs, telephone, postage and travel within member states. (Halved in respect of Members who, for no valid reason, have failed to attend at least half the number of plenary sittings.)

  Data Processing
  Data processing allowance of up to 1,000 ecu (£780) per annum for purchase or rent of equipment.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost of the European Parliament each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Expenditure under the European Parliament's budget for each year since 1989 has been as follows:

  Expenditure net of receipts

  Year

  Million ECU

  £ million

  1989

  349.451

  2272.607

  1990

  393.346

  306.849

  1991

  450.441

  351.389

  1992

  538.241

  419.882

  11993

  585

  456.358

  1 Estimate

  2 Approximate

  Bosnia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 July to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson),Official Report, column 86, regarding the reported no-fly zone of 13 March, for how long the aircraft were observed over Gladovici; whether the border is visible from the village of Gladovici; what is the minimum time required to reach the border from Gladovici; what further information has since come to light about the incident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We understand that the Serbian border is not visible from Gladovici, but that an aircraft or helicopter could fly between Gladovici and the border in under a minute. No further information has come to light about the incident there on 13 March.
  84
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made as to the accuracy of information surrounding the alleged breach of the no-fly zone over Gladovici on 13 March; if his Department has contacted any international agency or body regarding the details of this alleged breach during the past four weeks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are satisfied with the standard of UN reporting on the observance of the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzogovina, including the information provided about the breach over Gladovici on 13 March. We have not contacted any international agency concerning the details of the breach in the past four weeks.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the evidence now available on the reported no-fly zone violation on 13 March over Gladovici, Bosnia-Herzegovina, has produced proof as to the nature of the mission, the identity of the aircraft operators or the location of the aircraft operating base; who Her Majesty's Government now regard as being responsible for this violation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No new information has been received concerning the breach of the no-fly zone over Gladovici. The aircraft observed there on 13 March were never definitely attributed to any party. However, the flight pattern of the aircraft would be consistent with the use of Serbian airspace to lose altitude before landing at an airstrip near the border.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names, rank and national origin of UN personnel present in Gladovici on 13 March; what role they were fulfilling there; when reports were first received by these personnel of a breach of the no-fly zone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are unable to give detailed information on UN personnel. Those in Gladovici on 13 March were carrying out duties pursuant to UN Security Council resolution 781 of 9 October 1992. Information on the breach released by the UN on 16 March made it clear that the UN personnel concerned observed the incident themselves.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated cost of the new wall being built along the frontage of the high commission property at Shakespeare avenue, Lefkosa, northern Cyprus; why this wall is necessary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The estimated cost of rebuilding the wall is £35,000. The new wall is necessary because the old one had been undermined by a culvert and was in danger of collapsing and endangering passers by.

  Iran
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding the human rights position of the Baha'i community in Iran.
  85
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received representations from several Members of Parliament and from the National Spiritual Assembly of Baha'is of the United Kingdom about the human rights of the Baha'i community in Iran. We and our EC partners have raised specific alleged cases of human rights abuses affecting the Baha'i community with the Iranian authorities. We have also co-sponsored resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights urging the Iranian authorities to improve their human rights record, and drawing attention to the treatment of Baha'is in Iran.

  Thailand
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa applications for entry into the United Kingdom have been made from applicants from Thailand in the latest year for which figures are available; and how many were(a) accepted and (b) rejected.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, 28,316, visa applications for entry into the United Kingdom were received at the British embassy in Bangkok, of which 27,329 were granted and 927 refused.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what is the current backlog in each of the queues at the following posts(a) Bombay, (b) New Delhi, (c) Islamabad, (d) Karachi, (e) Dacca. (f) Nairobi and (g) Dar-es-Salaam; and what is the average length of time in each queue from application to interview.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [pursuant to his answer, 22 October 1992, c. 341 ]As I have already explained to the hon. Member, the figures quoted for Islamabad were incorrect. They should have read:

  Islamabad

  Queue

  Number

  1

  51

  2

  1,470

  3

  237

  4

  557

  Total

  2,315

  Gulf War
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the health risks passed to Iraqi children as a result of the use during the Gulf war by United Kingdom armed forces of depleted uranium ammunition.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the Gulf conflict, British forces used small quantities of depleted uranium ammunition in sparsely populated desert areas of Iraq. This is not considered to have constituted a significant risk to the health of Iraq's civilian population.

ENVIRONMENT

  Jobs, Walsall
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the jobs created within the Walsall borough area covered by the Black Country development corporation for each year since it is establishment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The jobs created in the Walsall borough area covered by the Black Country development corporation—and related to its activities—for each year since designation are as follows:

  Financial Year

  Jobs

  1987–88

  10

  1988–89

  25

  1989–90

  70

  1990–91

  450

  1991–92

  104

  1992–93

  320

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 25 March,Official Report, column 712, if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Baldry
  Work on the review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95 is proceeding in consultation with the local authority associations. A substantial programme of work remains and we have not yet reached any conclusions.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hostel spaces for the homeless in London have been supported by his Department in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Under the rough sleepers initiative in central London, my Department funds voluntary organisations and housing associations to provide temporary hostels for homeless people. The total number of bed spaces made available in each of the specified years is as follows.

  Year

  Number

  1990–91

  87

  1991–92

  485

  1992–93

  834

  1993–94

  806

  In addition, my Department allocates resources, through the Housing Corporation, to housing associations for the provision of bedspaces in shared housing/hostels for the single homeless in central London. New units provided by the Housing Corporation in each of the specified years are as follows.
  87

  Year

  Number

  1990–91

  587

  1991–92

  1,782

  1992–93

  738

  1993–94

  443

  The Housing Corporation also continues to provide support for 7,381 places for homeless people in London that were approved before the introduction of a new funding system in 1991.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on what monitoring has been undertaken of the controlled experiment in nuclear waste discharges to the Irish sea from the Windscale plant; and if he will set out in(a) historic and (b) current prices the costs incurred in carrying out the monitoring.

  Mr. Yeo
  Although historical discharges to the Irish sea from Sellafield may once have been described as a"controlled experiment in nuclear waste discharges",
  this has certainly not been the case in recent times. Strict discharge limits have been set and British Nuclear Fuels —BNF—plc has been required to satisfy Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP—and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—MAFF—inspectors that best practicable means are being applied to minimise discharges.

  BNF plc publishes an annual report on radioactive discharges and monitoring of the environment relating to its nuclear licensed sites, including Sellafield—formerly Windscale. In addition, HMIP and MAFF each publish annual reports on monitoring of radioactive substances. The reports of both official bodies include monitoring information relevant to historical discharges to sea from Sellafield. The costs of monitoring by BNF plc are a matter for the company. The costs of monitoring by HMIP and MAFF are recovered from the company through the levy of fees and charges in accordance with section 43 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

  The monitoring information shows a substantial and continuing reduction in environmental radioactivity from the peak levels in the 1970s.

  Travellers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make available in the Library copies of the responses received to the consultation on planning guidance on gipsy sites;

  (2) if he will publish an analysis of the responses received to the consultation on planning guidance on gipsy sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Copies of the responses to the draft planning guidance on gipsy sites are available for public inspection in the Library of my Department. A list of respondents has been placed in the Library of the House. We are not proposing to publish an analysis of responses.

  A joint DOE/Welsh Office circular will be published as soon as the views of respondents have been fully considered. The circular will guide local planning authorities in assessing gipsies' accommodation needs in their areas, making suitable policies in their development plans, and determining applications for gipsy sites.
  88
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to co-ordinate policies between Government Departments on the subject of gipsy sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our proposals for reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which were set out in the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on 31 March,Official Report, column 291, were prepared in close consultation with other interested Government Departments. We will continue to liaise closely with these Departments and, in particular, when we bring forward legislation to implement these proposals.

  Metropolitan Districts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he plans to issue to the review of the electoral boundaries in metropolitan districts; and whether he will consult local authorities and the local authority associations before finalising.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has not yet reached a view on whether to issue separate guidance to the Local Government Commission on the conduct of either boundary and electoral reviews of metropolitan areas, or the commission's statutory periodic electoral reviews of all areas. My right hon. Friend will consult on any proposed guidance before issuing it to the commission.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the Local Government Commission prepares and consults local authorities and their associations on a statement of the principles it will use in carrying out the review of electoral boundaries in metropolitan districts prior to the review being undertaken.

  Mr. Baldry
  In undertaking reviews, the Local Government Commission must have regard to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1992 and to any guidance which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued to it. Otherwise, the conduct of reviews is a matter for the commission itself. The Secretary of State has as yet issued no guidance on electoral reviews in metropolitan areas.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the terms of reference of the review of electoral boundaries in metropolitan districts extend to changes requiring legislation.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Act 1992 makes provision for my right hon. Friend to direct the commission to undertake reviews of the structure, boundaries and electoral arrangements of local government in areas of England. The commission also has a statutory duty to undertake periodic reviews of local government electoral arrangements in all areas.

  Any changes recommended by the commission, whether as a consequence of a review undertaken at the direction of my right hon. Friend or of the commission's statutory responsibilities, can be implemented only by means of an order made by statutory instrument.

  Bedsitting Rooms
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received to alter legislation in respect of local authority powers to inspect and register bedsitting rooms.
  89
  Mr. Baldry
  Several local authorities have requested from time to time that a mandatory system of licensing for houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—should be introduced. However, the Government consider that the powers currently available to local authorities under the Housing Act 1985 to register and inspect HMOs are adequate and have no plans to amend them.

  Multiple Occupation Homes
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to alter the statutory duty of local authorities to inspect multiple occupation houses.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans to alter the statutory powers of local authorities to inspect houses in multiple occupation. They have a duty to ensure that houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—with at least three stories and a combined floor area over 500 sq m are provided with adequate means of escape from fire, and have powers to inspect all HMOs.

  Sporting Clubs
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities grant 80 per cent. discretionary rating relief to all private sporting clubs; and what would be the cost to the Exchequer if all authorities did so.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not available. The cost to the Exchequer of authorities' decisions to grant relief is 75 per cent. of the sum granted.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much local authorities have received in capital receipts since his announcement in the last autumn statement of a relaxation of the rules which govern their use;

  (2) what plans he has to extend the relaxation of the rules governing the use by local authorities of capital receipts beyond 31 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans to extend the relaxation in the capital receipts rules. Recent information provided by most local authorities in England indicates that around £1.3 billion of usable receipts were obtained during the period 13 November 1992 to 31 July 1993, of which about £0.7 billion represented additional spending power as a result of the relaxation. This information also suggests that local authorities currently expect to obtain around £2.3 billion of usable receipts during the whole period of the relaxation—13 November 1992 to 31 December 1993 —of which about £1.3 billion represents extra spending power arising from the relaxation.

  Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recent visit of the Housing Minister to Liverpool.

  Sir George Young
  I visited Liverpool on 4 October. I had a very full and interesting day. I visited the Project Rosemary site where I was impressed by the physical 90
  regeneration of the area. I delivered the opening speech at the Housing Corporation's conference on "Housing and Partnership". I opened an exhibition set up by Wimpeys which will show the options available to tenants as part of the redevelopment of housing stock in Islington under the vacant dwelling initiative. I attended the ceremony where Councillor Rimmer, on behalf of Liverpool city council, handed over ownership of 67 tower blocks to the Liverpool housing action trust. I also had a useful visit to the Buying Agency. Finally, I met a deputation of tenants from the Dovecot residents association.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 5 October.

  Mr. Yeo
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council held in Luxembourg on 5 October. The Council discussed a lengthy agenda, including a number of waste issues. No formal vote was taken on any of the items under discussion.

  The Council reached political agreement, pending, receipt of the opinion of the European Parliament, on a proposal to amend annex I to regulation 2455/92. That regulation established a system of prior informed consent whereby non-EC countries which import chemicals banned or severely restricted in the EC are: notified of the potential dangers; informed of the necessary safety precautions; and advised of the restrictions on those products in force in the Community. The amendment will add 15 chemicals and groups of chemicals substances to the existing annex.

  The Council discussed a proposed new regulation on ozone-depleting substances which will enable the Community to ratify the Copenhagen amendments to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, relating to hydrochlorofluorocarbons—HCFC—sand methyl bromide. Good progress was made and the Council referred the proposal to the Committee of Permanent. Representatives—COREPER—for further discussion. I reaffirmed the United Kingdom's commitment to going further than was agreed in Copenhagen on both methyl bromide, and on HCFCs where I supported the Commission's proposal for phase-out by 2015. I also urged those member states that had put forward the servicing of existing refrigeration equipment as essential use for chlorofluorocarbons—CFCs—to withdraw their nominations.

  The Council held a substantive policy debate on the proposed packaging and packaging waste directive. This focused on six issues suggested by the presidency, in particular the hierarchy of waste management options, the principle of prevention, and the scope, level and time scale of recovery targets. Ministers also briefly discussed collection systems, the question of marking packaging and the essential requirements it must meet. The Council referred the proposal to COREPER for further discussion.

  The Council considered substantively for the first time a proposed directive on waste landfill. I made clear the United Kingdom's view that the proposal fails to meet the guidelines on subsidiarity agreed at the Edinburgh European Council. In the event that the directive proceeds, I also spoke strongly in favour of a proposal from the presidency which would allow for co-disposal of waste albeit with the possibility of individual member states banning this practice within their own countries. Some

  91
  member states shared our concern over subsidiarity, at least in respect of the level of technical and administrative detail in the current draft. The discussion on co-disposal left the door open to the directive allowing this landfill practice which I had explained was environmentally sound when properly controlled. Our views on co-dispersal were set out in a brochure on landfill which we had published in September and had circulated to other member states and the Commission.

  The Council held a first discussion of a proposal to amend directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. Problems have arisen over the implementation of this directive, due to be completed by December this year, since the Commission has not produced the list of hazardous waste required by the directive. The Council recognised this by reaching a consensus on the Commission's proposal to prolong the existing directive on toxic and hazardous waste—78/319/EEC—to 31 December 1994 and to aim to establish the list by 30 June 1994. COREPER will continue its deliberations on the Commission's proposal.

  The Council also considered a proposed directive on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls—PCBs—and polychlorinated terphenyls. The Council invited COREPER to discuss the proposal further on the basis of a revised text that had just been issued by the presidency after consultation with the Commission. The United Kingdom is committed under the North sea conference to phasing out PCBs by 1999 at the latest.

  The Commissioner introduced to the Council new proposals for a directive concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market; and for a directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. There was a general welcome for both proposals. The latter proposal is broadly in line with the United Kingdom system of IPC. The presidency indicated that discussion of both proposals would begin at working level before the end of the year.

  Halon
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he considers that there are any essential uses of halon for which the United Kingdom will seek continued production in 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government are today issuing a consultation paper seeking nominations for potential candidates for "essential uses" which might need production of halons in 1995 under the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer and EC regulation 3952/92.

  All applications for halon production in 1995 have to meet the stringent criteria agreed by the parties to the protocol. Uses must be necessary for the health and safety of society or critical for its functioning. There must be no technically and economically feasible alternatives available which are acceptable on health and environmental grounds. And finally, a particularly important point for halons, there must be insufficient recycled material available for the use. All these criteria must be met.

  The availability of recycled material through the Halon Users National Consortium made it possible for the United Kingdom to withdraw the nominations we had made to the
  92
  UN Environment Programme—UNEP—for halon production in 1994. However, in withdrawing those nominations the United Kingdom stressed that further production might be needed in subsequent years.

  I understand that nominations for 1995 have to be with the protocol secretariat by 31 December 1993. The closing date for the Government's consultation exercise is therefore 30 November 1993. All applications will be considered, but the Government are committed to keeping essential uses to a minimum. A list will be published of those candidate uses, if any, that the Government nominate to UNEP for 1995.

  Dovecot Residents Association
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Housing Minister's recent discussions with the Dovecot residents association in Liverpool; what representations were made to him; and what actions he proposes to take in response to those representations.

  Sir George Young
  I met representatives .the Dovecot residents association in Liverpool on 4 October. They explained their concerns about the poor conditions in their area and I have written to the leader of Liverpool city council.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Widgery Inquiry
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received in the past three months concerning the Widgery inquiry into Bloody Sunday; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have received none.

  The Government have stated and continue to believe that it would not be right, after a tribunal of inquiry has reported, to set in train a further examination of events that occured 21 years ago.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on future planning for waste disposal in the Greater Belfast area.

  Mr. Atkins
  Waste disposal planning is a matter for the district councils. Under article 4 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, councils are required to prepare—and update from time to time—plans for the disposal of waste.

  Proposals for changes in the legislation dealing with waste were recently announced in a consultation paper dated March 1993. These proposals do not include any changes in the responsibility for planning for waste disposal.

  Ophthalmology
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the (i) average waiting times and (ii) the year end waiting list for(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient treatment in ophthalmology for each health and social services board and for Northern Ireland in each year since 1985.
  93
  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is provided in the tables:

  Median waiting time by months waiting—In-patients

  At 31 March

  Eastern Board

  Western Board

  Northern Ireland

  1985

  0–2

  0–2

  0–2

  1986

  3–5

  0–2

  0–2

  1987

  3–5

  0–2

  3–5

  1988

  3–5

  3–5

  3–5

  1989

  3–5

  3–5

  3–5

  1990

  6–8

  6–8

  6–8

  1991

  6–8

  6–8

  6–8

  1992

  6–8

  3–5

  6–8

  1993

  3–5

  6–8

  3–5

  Median waiting times by months waiting—Out-patients

  At 31 March

  Eastern board

  Northern board

  Southern board

  Western board

  Northern board

  1985

  0–2

  0–2

  0–2

  0–2

  0–2

  1986

  0–2

  0–2

  0–5

  0–2

  0–2

  1987

  0–2

  0–2

  0–2

  0–2

  0–2

  1988

  0–2

  0–2

  0–2

  0–2

  0–2

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  n/a

  0–2

  0–2

  3–5

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. In-patient treatment in the ophthalmology specialty is only available in the Eastern and Western boards.

  2. Information relating to waiting times for out-patient treatment was not collected centrally between 1 April 1988 and the introduction of the corporate monitoring system on I April 1992.

  3. The information requested on out-patients in the Eastern board area is not available for 1993 and so no figure for Northern Ireland as a whole is available.

  Numbers Waiting—In-patients

  At 31 March

  Eastern Board

  Western Board

  Northern Ireland

  1985

  1,256

  113

  1,369

  1986

  1,188

  259

  1,447

  1987

  1,421

  249

  1,670

  1988

  1,610

  562

  2,172

  1989

  2,572

  616

  3,188

  1990

  3,083

  768

  3,851

  1991

  3,752

  922

  4,674

  1992

  3,639

  801

  4,440

  1993

  3,552

  973

  4,525

  Note:

  In-patient treatment in the ophthalmology specialty is only available in the Eastern and Western health and social services boards.

  Numbers Waiting—Out-patients

  At 31 March

  Eastern Board

  Northern Board

  Southern Board

  Western Board

  Northern Board

  1985

  1,264

  364

  All

  464

  2,519

  1986

  1,102

  387

  791

  213

  2,493

  1987

  1,899

  440

  879

  345

  3,563

  1988

  991

  591

  957

  525

  3,064

  1993

  1—

  899

  694

  780

  1—

  1 Not available.

  Notes:

  1. Information detailing the number of people waiting for first out-patient appointment was not collected centrally from 1 April 1988 until the introduction of the corporate monitoring system on I April 1992.

  94

  2. Information on the numbers of out-patients waiting for their first appointment in the Eastern board area in 1993 is not presently available and so no figure is available for Northern Ireland as a whole.

  Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what joint consultation exists between the police committee of Northern Ireland police and that force's police staff assocation, and the representative bodies of other ranks at which matters relating to police pay and conditions of service are discussed; what is the membership of the joint body; and on how many occasions it has met in the past five years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  There is no police committee of Northern Ireland police. The Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom provides a forum for the consideration of questions relating to police pay and conditions of service for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Membership of the Police Negotiating Board includes representatives of the RUC staff associations and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. The Police Negotiating Board meets on a regular basis.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if a Minister from his Department will meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Airport police to discuss the ramifications of(a) the Sheehy report, (b) the White Paper on police and (c) matters of general concern to federation members, which are not operational matters reserved for the Chief Constable.

  Mr. Atkins
  I met with representatives from the Belfast Airport Police Association on Tuesday 7 September 1993, when there was a wide-ranging discussion on the arrangements for the future policing of Belfast international airport. The Sheehey report and the White Paper on police do not affect the Northern Ireland Airport police.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who serves on the police committee of the Northern Ireland Airport police; and how often it has met over the past five years.

  Mr Atkins
  Northern Ireland Airport police do not have a police committee. The constabulary is under the direct control of the airport management.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent Home Office police regulations, or those applicable to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, are applied to members of Northern Ireland Airport police.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Nothern Ireland Airport constabulary are subject to regulations established by the management of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd., who have at their discretion implemented similar regulations to those of the RUC.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to take in relation to rural unfitness as reported in the house condition survey 1991.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave him on 16 July and 27 July,Official Report, column

  95
  602 and columns 841–49. The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has advised me that the measures outlined in those replies are kept under review and are currently considered to be the best means of dealing with rural unfitness as indicated by the house condition survey 1991.

  Mr. Billy Gorman
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make a substantive reply to the letter of 28 May from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West about the case of Mr. Billy Gorman.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I replied to the hon. Member on 3 September 1993.

  Vehicles (Testing)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to implement European Council directive 88/449/EEC in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  As Northern Ireland law already incorporated the requirements of Council directive 88/449/EEC, no action was necessary.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amendments have been made to(a) primary or (b) secondary legislation in Northern Ireland, pursuant to (i) Council directive 77/143/EEC and (ii) Council directive 88/449/EEC.

  Mr. Atkins
  The only change made was in primary legislation. Article 34 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 was amended to provide for the testing of an ambulance one year after its first use rather than seven years after its first use.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to assimilate Northern Ireland road traffic legislation in respect of public service vehicle regulation with that of Great Britain.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no such proposals.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the target reasonable period for replies to ministerial correspondence; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Each Department and agency has set its own target for replying to correspondence from hon. Members. The nature of correspondence and case load varies between Departments and between agencies and targets are set to reflect the particular circumstances of each. A table showing performance against targets for 1992 was published on 23 March 1993,Official Report, columns 551–52.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 317, when he now expects to be able to reply to letters of 8 February, 31 March, 4 May and 21 June from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford.
  96
  The Prime Minister
  I have done so.

  Human Rights (Jamaica)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, he will raise the question of human rights in Jamaica with specific reference to men held on death row.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs visited Jamaica from 6 to 10 September and discussed capital punishment with Jamaican Ministers, who are aware of our concern.

  Business Opportunities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government since the Earth summit in June 1992 to work with industry to create business opportunities from environmental protection and enhancement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government established the joint DOE/DTI environmental markets unit in late 1992 in response to a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment. The unit's objective is to increase awareness among United Kingdom firms of the huge and growing markets for environmental goods and services and to help and encourage United Kingdom firms to exploit such opportunities.

  In March the United Kingdom launched a technology partnership initiative aimed at encouraging greater co-operation in technology between businesses in the United Kingdom and those in newly industrialising countries. This will include technology for environmental protection and will open up commercial opportunities for United Kingdom companies.

  Nuclear Trade
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to nuclear trade and the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield were discussed during his visit to Japan in September.

  The Prime Minister
  During my visit to Japan I discussed a wide range of bilateral trade issues.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he has had or plans to have with officials of the Institute of Refrigeration regarding the phase-out of CFC use in refrigeration.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to meet the institute. However, I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside is arranging a meeting with refrigeration industry representatives, including the Institute of Refrigeration, in order to discuss all aspects of ozone-depleting substances.

EDUCATION

  Visual Impairment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers are to be seconded for training leading to a recognised qualification in visual impairment during the year 1993–94.
  97
  Mr. Forth
  The Department has completed a survey of local education authorities' use of grant 12—training for special educational needs—of the grants for education support and training programme in 1993–94. The 95 authorities which responded to the survey were supporting a total of 130 teachers on courses leading to qualifications approved by my right hon. Friend for teachers of children who are visually impaired.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the level of earmarked grants made available to support the training of teachers in recognised courses of visual impairment for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available for all of the years requested. In 1991–92 and 1992–93, £1.2 million and £1.3 million respectively was made available to support the training of teachers in recognised courses of visual impairment, under the grants for education support and training (GEST) programme. In the GEST programme for 1993–94, special needs training is no longer confined to specific areas and the programme has been extended to cover all areas of special needs training. To accommodate this extension, the amount of eligible expenditure to be supported was increased from £7.2 million in 1992–93 to £10 million in 1993–94.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his Department's estimate of the number of teachers who should be qualified in visual impairment during each academic year to maintain the required level of qualified personnel.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the Education Acts, ;oval education authorities and schools have responsibility for securing special educational provision for pupils who have special educational needs. It is for the LEAs and schools themselves to decide, taking account of local needs and priorities, exactly what form this provision should take, and what levels of staffing are needed to deliver it.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers who received a recognised qualification to teach visually impaired children in each academic year since 1987–88 attended(a) a full-time course, (b) a part-time course or (c) distance courses.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much grant he estimates is to be allocated in support of visual impairment training towards a recognised qualification in 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the grants for education support and training (GEST) programme for 1993–94, local education authorities are free to choose which areas of special needs training to support, according to local needs and priorities. A recent survey by the Department, of LEAs' use of GEST funding for special needs training, received information from 95 LEAs. It is estimated that these 95 LEAs intend to allocate in 1993–94 at least £915,000 in support of courses for training teachers of the visually impaired, including those which lead to a qualification approved by my right hon. Friend for the purposes of the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1993.

  Special Needs Training
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his response to the survey inspection of specialist training courses in England and Wales for teachers intending to teach hearing impaired pupils, visually impaired pupils and pupils with severe learning difficulties 1990–91 Ref. 64/92/NS; and what assessment he has made of the effects of the reduction in the supply of specialist trained teachers on the quality of education provision for hearing-impaired pupils.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is aware of the findings of the survey, and is monitoring the situation carefully in respect of training for teachers in all areas of special education.

  DNA Technology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the introduction to schools of courses involving DNA technology.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The National Curriculum Order for science includes study of DNA and genetics in attainment —target 2 life and living processes for pupils aged 14 to 16. It is compulsory for pupils in maintained schools in England and Wales.

  Teacher Training
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many places were available in universities and other institutions of higher education for educating and training(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers in each of the academic years from 1989–90.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Data showing the number of places available are not collected by the Department. The table shows the number of students enrolled at higher education institutions in England on primary and secondary phase initial teacher training courses for the academic years 1989–90 to 1992–93.

  Enrolments on initial teacher training courses1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–932

  PRIMARY

  1st year

  11,300

  12,000

  14,400

  15,900

  2nd year

  5,900

  6,500

  7,300

  8,800

  3rd year

  4,600

  5,200

  6,000

  6,800

  4th year

  3,800

  4,600

  5,300

  6,100

  Total

  25,600

  28,200

  33,000

  37,600

  SECONDARY

  1st year

  7,700

  8,500

  11,100

  11,900

  2nd year

  1,600

  1,800

  2,300

  3,000

  3rd year

  1,100

  1,100

  1,200

  1,700

  4th year

  1,000

  1,100

  1,100

  1,100

  Total

  11,400

  12,500

  15,700

  17,700

  1Figures are full-time equivalents to the nearest hundred for higher education institutions in England.

  2Provisional.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answers of 17 May,Official Report, column 23, and 7 July, Official Report, column 137, what other studies on the impact of class size on educational attainment have been considered by his Department.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department monitors work generally in this field.

  STAR Project
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 511, if he will place a copy of the report on the STAR project in the Library.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A copy of the final executive summary report of June 1990 has been placed in the Library.

  Parliamentary Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the locations of the television sets in his Department which can receive live television feed from the Chamber of the House; and what is the total cost to his Department of this service.

  Mr. Forth
  The television sets utilising the live feed from the Houses of Parliament are located in Ministers' offices and the press office—a total of nine sets—in Sanctuary buildings. The net annual cost of this service is £14,458.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposed reform of student union membership and funding on student community action projects.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about student community action projects, which are being considered very carefully during the current consultations on the implementation of the Government's proposals for student union reform.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will identify all the specific purpose grants given to grant-maintained schools in Cumbria for each financial year since 1991–92 including the current year; and if he will state the purpose of each grant.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following self-governing schools in Cumbria have received special purpose grants (SPGs):

  Amount paid (£) for each financial year

  School

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  APPLEBY GRAMMAR SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  21,558

  23,772

  SPG (Development)

  —

  —

  21,718

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  —

  10,832

  SPG (Restructuring)

  —

  —

  6,727

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  —

  5,925

  100

  School

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  BRAMPTON JUNIOR SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  —

  27,250

  SPG (Development)

  —

  —

  5,331

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  —

  1978

  BROUGHTON PRIMARY SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  —

  18,000

  CARTMEL PRIORY SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  —

  38,610

  SPG (Development)

  —

  —

  7,116

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  —

  19,159

  DALLAM SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  30,225

  19,245

  SPG (Development)

  —

  —

  27,583

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  —

  34,659

  SPG (Restructuring)

  —

  —

  4,741

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  —

  4,371

  HARRABY SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  —

  43,276

  SPG (Development)

  —

  —

  23,800

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  —

  12,886

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  —

  6,000

  HAYTON CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  10,326

  12,314

  —

  SPG (Development)

  —

  4,936

  5,000

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  2,463

  2,679

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  598

  754

  KIRBY STEPHEN SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  24,688

  15,542

  SPG (Development)

  —

  —

  14,493

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  —

  3,594

  KIRKBIE KENDAL SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  57,600

  —

  —

  SPG (Development)

  22,245

  37,953

  37,953

  SPG (VAT)

  25,358

  54,091

  50,756

  SPG (Restructuring)

  —

  9,253

  36,131

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  4,127

  4,678

  SPG (Emergency)

  —

  22,000

  —

  PARKVIEW SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  —

  45,078

  SPG (Development)

  —

  —

  19,460

  QUEEN ELIZABETH GRAMMAR SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  45,000

  —

  —

  SPG (Development)

  5,295

  21,388

  22,865

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  11,815

  15,587

  SPG (Restructuring)

  —

  10,020

  —

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  4,250

  3,978

  THE QUEEN KATHERINE SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  60,000

  —

  SPG (Development)

  —

  26,651

  49,300

  SPG (Restructuring)

  —

  18,598

  —

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  —

  5,528

  SCOTBY SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  36,030

  —

  SPG (Development)

  —

  5,529

  8,373

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  3,089

  7,355

  SPG (Restructuring)

  —

  2,717

  —

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  —

  1,065

  ST. AIDANS COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  1,600

  43,100

  —

  SPG (Development)

  —

  20,825

  22,100

  SPG (Restructuring)

  —

  —

  16,086

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  5,651

  6,000

  ST. PAULS CHURCH OF ENGLAND JUNIOR SCHOOL

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  —

  12,434

  101

  School

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  TRINITY SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  3,400

  56,600

  —

  SPG (Development)

  —

  70,890

  74,205

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  14,868

  10,306

  SPG (Restructuring)

  3,459

  15,878

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  —

  6,000

  WARWICK BRIDGE SCHOOL

  Transitional Grant

  —

  —

  25,340

  SPG (Development)

  —

  —

  4,412

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  —

  1719

  1 Provisional figures to be finalised.

  The purpose of each of the SPGs is as follows:

  Transitional Grants
  Available to help with the costs incurred as a result of the school's acquisition of self-governing status.

  Special Purpose Grant (Development)
  Available to fund management training, staff development and implementation of the national curriculum.

  Special Purpose Grant (VAT)
  Compensates for the payment of VAT on supplies and services, which self-governing schools may not claim back.

  Special Purpose Grant (Restructuring)
  Available to help with essential staff restructuring which involves costs arising from premature retirement, redundancy or voluntary severance of teaching staff.

  Special Purpose Grant (Premises)
  Assists self-governing schools with the additional cost of school premises insurance.

  Special Purpose Grant (Emergency)
  To meet any urgent need occasioned by circumstances outside the control of the governing body.

  Literacy Problems
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment has been made of the estimated annual cost to business and industry, including small firms, of poor basic literacy.

  Mr. Boswell
  A recent survey by the Government-funded adult literacy and basic skills unit estimated the annual cost to British industry of poor basic skills—both literacy and numeracy—among the work force as almost £5 billion. This figure takes account of the cost of cancelled orders, rectifying incorrect orders, lost custom and the additional recruitment and staffing required.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to ensure that(a) all pupils both in public and private sector schools receive sex education and (b) teachers are sufficiently trained to deal with the issues involved.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the Education Act 1993, all maintained secondary schools will from autumn 1994 be required to provide sex education for all their pupils, while at maintained primary schools it will remain discretionary. At all maintained schools, parents will have the right to withdraw their children from part or all of the sex education offered. We plan to issue detailed guidance to schools next spring on the operation of these arrangements and the content of sex education. These statutory 102
  arrangements do not apply to independent schools. The grants for education support and training programme has provided support for relevant in-service teacher training.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  BBC
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress the BBC has made in its programme for building new FM radio transmitters to extend the coverage of its national services.

  Mr. Brooke
  By September this year, I understand that the BBC had 185 national network radio transmitter sites in operation, including seven built since 1 April 1993. Transmissions from a further 15 sites are due to begin before 1 April 1994.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid and Trade
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on overseas aid decisions and trade implications for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We aim to expand trade opportunities for British firms in the future by promoting economic growth.

  Forest Management and Conservation
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the Government are giving to forest management and conservation in developing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have around 200 projects in progress or under consideration, at an expected cost to the aid programme of over £150 million.

  Southern Sudan
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet European counterparts to discuss the situation in the southern Sudan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey has regular discussions, most recently on 6 October during her visit to Tokyo to attend the International Conference on African Development. We expect Sudan to be discussed at the EC Development Council on 2 December.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the ODA convoy drivers in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British supplies to central Bosnia and the UN protected areas total some 47,000 tonnes in 600 convoys to date. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of our drivers and mechanics and also their local interpreters.
  103
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position regarding humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We remain most concerned about the large number of people at risk in the former Yugoslavia over the coming winter. Britain's financial commitments for humanitarian aid are now £152 million, including our share of EC expenditure. We shall continue to do all we can to support the UN international relief effort, as long as security conditions are tolerable.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking(a) domestically and (b) internationally to ensure that the target of the emergency appeal launched by the UNHCR is reached.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  UNHCR has 18 special program-mes around the world for which funding is sought, in addition to its general programmes. Britain's contributions to UNHCR so far this year, including the value of our assistance to the UNHCR-led operation in former Yugoslavia, amount to £48 million. This is more than we contributed in the whole of 1992. If the value of our contributions through the European Community are also taken into account, Britain is the second largest national donor to UNHCR this year.

  We regularly encourage other Governments to contribute to UNHCR, most recently associating ourselves with an appeal for support at this month's executive committee of UNHCR.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of the aid programme of the aid to Nicaragua is taking place; and if he will make a statement on the administration of the aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our small bilateral aid programme to Nicaragua is administered by the Overseas Development Administration and our embassy in Managua, and is monitored through regular project visits by British embassy staff.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Young Offenders
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received over young offenders not being prosecuted when a guilty plea has been made in a statement to the police; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Where an offence is admitted the police will consider cautioning the offender, following cautioning guidelines issued by the Home Office, usually without reference to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the latest position regarding attempts to secure the return of Mr. Asil Nadir.
  104
  The Attorney-General
  Asil Nadir remains in northern Cyprus whose administration is not recognised by the United Kingdom and with which we do not have any extradition arrangements. There is a warrant for his arrest should he return to the United Kingdom. Interpol have been notified of the warrant.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent consideration he has given to the work of the Serious Fraud Office with regard to prosecutions for fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General what new proposals he has to improve the prosecution of crimes of fraud.

  The Attorney-General
  I am today announcing a review of the distribution of casework between the Serious Fraud Office and the fraud divisions of the Crown Prosecution Service in accordance with recommendation No. 36 of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of the Serious Fraud Office in the light of recommendation 36 of the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

  The Attorney-General
  The distribution of casework between the Serious Fraud Office and the fraud divisions of the Crown Prosecution Service at present gives rise to substantial differences in the manner of their handling and the powers available which were highlighted by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. I have therefore decided that there should be a review of the handling of serious fraud and this is now under way.

  This review will examine relative workloads and the criteria for allocating cases between the two departments; the organisation and management of investigation and prosecution work taking into account the role of the police in fraud investigations and of the DTI in company matters generally; and bearing in mind the need to secure timely and cost-effective prosecutions; and to examine the effect of the extended powers available to the SFO.

  The outcome of the review will be material to the government's attitude to recommendation 36 of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many of his staff are now seconded to the Scott inquiry.

  The Attorney-General
  Two lawyers from the Treasury Solicitor's Department have been assigned on a full-time basis to work in the secretariat to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has for improving the career prospects of non-legally qualified civil servants in the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Attorney-General
  The restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service over the last 12 months has led to a reappraisal of its administrative structure.
  105
  Each CPS area now has a new senior post to co-ordinate administrative functions and each assistant chief crown prosecutor (operations) has a senior non-lawyer at the head of his support team. In addition, development centres will be open to non-lawyers to identify those with the potential to become senior managers in the future.

  The CPS continues to sponsor a number of staff to obtain the necessary legal qualifications to enable them to become Crown prosecutors.

  Prison Officers
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Attorney-General how many assaults on prison officers have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service each year since it was set up; how many of those referrals were proceeded with; and how many resulted in a conviction.

  The Solicitor-General
  The information sought by the honourable Member is not centrally recorded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) staff assaults and (b) prisoner-on-prisoner assaults have taken place at Her Majesty's prison Blackenhurst since it opened.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of (a) staff assaults and (b) prisoner-on-prisoner assaults that have taken place at Her Majesty's Prison Blakenhurst since it opened.
  Central records of proven adjudications at Her Majesty's Prison Blakenhurst (including any attempted offences) show that provisionally in the six months April to September 1993 there were 16 assaults on staff and others plus 3 assaults on prisoners by prisoners.

  Life Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of life sentence prisoners have been released immediately on completion of their tariff in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information in the form requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, examination of the records of the 87 life sentence prisoners released on life licence for the first time in 1992 show that 9 per cent. of them were released either before, on, or within one month after, expiry of tariff.
  106
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of persons serving life sentences of imprisonment in England and Wales, the sub-totals for men and women prisoners and the proportion who are serving mandatory sentences for murder.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many persons are serving life sentences of imprisonment, the sub-totals for men and women prisoners and the proportion who are serving mandatory sentences for murder.
  The latest available information is for 31 May 1993 when there were 3,108 prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales serving life sentences, of whom 3,002 were men and 106 were women.
  Of these some 81 per cent. of the total life sentence population were serving mandatory sentences for murder.

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are now being made to select a prisons ombudsman.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following the Home Secretary's decision not to appoint from the previous competition, the post of prison ombudsman is to be readvertised in the national press next month. An executive search agency will also be used.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of advertising the posts of prisons ombudsman and assistant prisons ombudsman.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The cost of both advertisements in the national press was £31,689.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the original timetable for the appointment of a prison ombudsman ; how many candidates were short-listed; when he now expects to announce an appointment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The original intention was to announce an appointment in spring this year and to have the new office operating by January 1994. Six applicants for the post were interviewed in June, but after careful thought my right hon. and learned Friend decided that he needed to consider candidates from a wider range of backgrounds before agreeing an appointment. The post will therefore be re-advertised shortly and the aim is to announce the appointment of a prisons ombudsman by March 1994.

  Prison Workshops
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison workshops have been closed in the last 10 years; at which prisons they were closed; and when they were closed.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prison workshop closures in the last 10 years.
  I am afraid it is not possible to provide all of the information you are seeking in precisely the form you have requested, but I hope the following may be of help.
  In 1983 there were over 300 prison workshops. In 1985 Home Office Ministers approved proposals for a review of prison workshops that were under-utilised. This resulted in the closure of about 50 workshops. Since 1985 other workshops have closed (some of which have re-opened doing other work), some prisons which had workshops have been closed, and some new prisons with workshops have opened. At present there are 238 prison workshops in operation, a net reduction of around 60 on the 1983 figure.
  Comprehensive details about the location and timing of all closures over the past 10 years could, I am afraid, only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many workshops there are in each prison in England and Wales.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of workshops in each prison in England and Wales.
  I enclose a list of all prisons in England and Wales having workshops, arranged by Prison Service Area. There are 238 workshops in all, at 99 prison establishments. A further 26 have no workshops but do have a Farms and Gardens enterprise; three have neither.

  Area: East Anglia Establishment and workshop

  Blundeston

  Tailoring

  Laundry

  Printing

  Bullwood Hall

  Laundry

  Contract Services

  Chelmsford

  Laundry

  Highpoint

  Tailoring

  Contract Services

  Norwich

  Laundry

  Printing

  Wayland

  Tailoring

  Laundry

  Area: Kent Establishment and workshop

  Aldington

  Contract Services

  108

  Canterbury

  Combined textiles

  Cookham Wood

  Tailoring

  Maidstone

  Tailoring

  Laundry

  Contract Services

  Printing

  Rochester

  Laundry

  Standford Hill

  Light textiles

  Swaleside

  Combined textiles

  Contract Services

  Elmley

  Laundry

  Area: London North Establishment and Workshop

  Littlehey

  Interlock

  Shoes

  Contract Services

  Grendon

  Laundry

  Spring Hill

  Contract Services

  Holloway

  Light Textiles

  Whitemoor

  Tailoring

  Tailoring

  Laundry

  Contract Services

  Oxford

  Laundry

  Heavy textiles

  Pentonville

  Tailoring

  Wellingborough

  Laundry

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Tailoring

  Tailoring (cutting)

  Laundry

  Engineering assembly

  Contract Services

  Area: London South Establishment and Workshop

  Albany

  Tailoring

  Woodwork joinery

  Woodwork brushmaking

  Camp Hill

  Heavy textiles

  Light textiles

  Engineering fabrication

  Feltham

  Laundry

  Parkhurst

  Tailoring

  Laundry

  Contract Services

  Wandsworth

  Tailoring

  Clothing repairs

  Laundry

  Contract Services

  Woodwork joinery

  Woodwork brushmaking

  Belmarsh

  Contract Services

  Area: South Coast Establishment and workshop

  Ford

  Tailoring (shirts)

  109

  Engineering fabrication

  Contract Services

  Contract Services

  Kingston-Portsmouth

  Printing

  Drawing Office

  Lewes

  Contract Services

  Winchester

  Tailoring

  Contract Services

  Contract Services

  Downview

  Contract Services

  Highdown

  Laundry

  Area: Central Establishment and workshop

  Ashwell

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Shoes

  Birmingham

  Laundry

  Heavy textiles

  Heavy textiles

  Featherstone

  Interlock

  Interlock

  Interlock

  Engineering fabrication

  Gartree

  Knitwear

  Shoes

  Plastics

  Glen Parva

  Laundry

  Contract Services

  Contract Services

  Leicester

  Contract Services

  Long Lartin

  Laundry

  Light textiles

  Engineering fabrication

  Stafford

  Tailoring

  Tailoring (cutting)

  Laundry

  Contract Services

  Contract Services

  Area: Mercia Establishment and workshop

  Drake Hall

  Laundry

  Interlock

  Contract Services

  Shrewsbury

  Interlock

  Stoke Heath

  Laundry

  Engineering Assembly

  Sudbury

  Laundry

  Shoes

  Slippers

  Contract Services

  Woodwork joinery

  Area: The Chilterns Establishment and workshop

  Aylesbury

  Laundry

  Contract Services

  Coldingley

  Laundry

  Engineering fabrication

  Engineering (signs)

  Onley

  Contract Services

  110

  Contract Services

  The Mount

  Engineering fabrication

  Bullingdon

  Laundry

  Area: Wales and the West Establishment and workshop

  Bristol

  Tailoring

  Heavy textiles

  Cardiff

  Tailoring

  Laundry

  Contract Services

  Erlestoke

  Sewing machine repair

  Leyhill

  Laundry

  Woodwork joinery

  Printing

  Swansea

  Tailoring

  Light textiles

  USK

  Concrete

  Area: Wessex Establishment and workshop

  Channings Wood

  Tailoring

  Laundry

  Woodwork (furniture)

  Dartmoor

  Laundry

  Light textiles

  Engineering fabrication

  Woodwork (furniture)

  Dorchester

  Heavy textiles

  Exeter

  Contract Services

  Guys Marsh

  Laundry

  Portland

  Laundry

  Woodwork joinery

  Shepton Mallet

  Tailoring

  The Verne

  Contract Services

  Woodwork joinery

  Area: East Midlands Establishment and workshop

  Lincoln

  Laundry

  Heavy textiles

  Interlock

  Interlock

  Lindholme

  Tailoring

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Nottingham

  Tailoring

  Ranby

  Contract Services

  Plastics

  Woodwork joinery

  Whatton

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Stocken

  Heavy textiles

  Sewing machine repair

  Moorland

  Heavy textiles

  Contract Services

  Area: North East Establishment and workshop

  Acklington

  Tailoring

  111

  Laundry

  Heavy textiles

  Durham

  Heavy textiles

  Light textiles

  Light textiles

  Frankland

  Laundry

  Woodwork (furniture)

  Low Newton

  Light textiles

  Castington

  Heavy textiles

  Full Sutton

  Tailoring

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Clothing repairs

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Contract Services

  Holme House

  Laundry

  Contract Services

  Area: North West Establishment and workshop

  Haverigg

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Laundry

  Heavy textiles

  Weaving—hand

  Weaving—machine

  Sewing machine repair

  Contract Services

  Hindley

  Weaving—hand

  Concrete

  Kirkham

  Laundry

  Weaving—machine

  Sizing and beaming

  Contract Services

  Woodwork joinery

  Lancaster

  Heavy textiles

  Light textiles

  Preston

  Heavy textiles

  Light textiles

  Wymott

  Tailoring

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Laundry

  Weaving—machine

  Engineering fabrication

  Garth

  Tailoring

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Weaving—machine

  Contract Services

  Area: Trans Pennine Establishment and workshop

  Leeds

  Heavy textiles

  Light textiles

  Light textiles

  Contract Services

  Liverpool

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Laundry

  Shoes

  Contract Services

  Woodwork joinery

  Contract Services

  112

  New Hall

  Light textiles

  Risley

  Laundry

  Light textiles

  Contract Services

  Styal

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Wakefield

  Tailoring

  Laundry

  Heavy textiles

  Heavy textiles

  Light textiles

  Engineering fabrication

  Engineering

  Contract Services

  Area: Yorkshire Establishment and workshop

  Deerbolt

  Laundry

  Everthorpe

  Woodwork joinery

  Hull

  Light textiles

  Light textiles

  Contract services

  Contract services

  Northallerton

  Light textiles

  Rudgate

  Tailoring (shirts)

  Laundry

  Sizing and beaming

  Sewing machine repair

  Thorp Arch

  Tailoring

  New Prisons
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will name the construction firms which were hired to build each prison that has come on stream in the last 15 years;

  (2) what are the projected capital costs, and over what period, of the new private prisons announced on 6 October;

  (3) whether the proposed new prisons announced on 6 October are in addition to the prison building programme currently nearing completion.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters 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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the prison building programme and the proposals to build six new prisons.
  I attach a table listing the construction firms employed to build the new prisons which have opened in the last 15 years.
  The six new prisons to which the Home Secretary referred on 6 October are in addition to the current new prison building programme which will be completed when Doncaster prison opens next year. The construction of the first two of these prisons was announced in the Autumn statement last year. On 2 September 1993 the Home Secretary announced that the design, construction, management and potentially financing of the new prisons would be contracted out to the private sector. I expect that the further four prisons which were announced on 6 October will be procured in the same way. It is too early to indicate the cost of these prisons which will be assessed on the basis of value for money obtained for the complete financial package comprising

  113
  both capital and operating costs. Outline proposals and expressions of interest in the first two prisons will be invited shortly.

  Prison

  Location

  Date of Opening

  Main Construction Contractor

  Wymott

  Leyland Lancashire

  April 1979

  Alfred McAlpine

  Frankland

  Frankland Durham

  April 1982

  Fairclough

  Wayland

  Thetford Norfolk

  January 1985

  Carters of Norwich

  Stocken

  Oakham Leicestershire

  June 1985

  Miller Construction

  Thorn Cross

  Warrington Cheshire

  July 1985

  Shepherd Construction

  Full Sutton

  Full Sutton York

  September 1987

  Monk Construction

  Littlehey

  Huntingdon Cambridgeshire

  January 1988

  Bovis Construction

  Mount

  Bovingdon Hertfordshire

  March 1988

  Wimpey Construction

  Garth

  Leyland Lancashire

  July 1988

  Tarmac

  Swaleside

  Isle of Sheppey Kent

  May 1990

  Mowlem

  Belmarsh

  South East London

  April 1991

  Wimpey Construction

  Moorland

  Hatneld Woodhouse South Yorkshire

  July 1991

  Higgs and Hill

  Whitemoor

  March Cambridgeshire

  September 1991

  Monk Construction

  Brinsford

  Featherstone Staffordshire

  November 1991

  Taylor Woodrow

  Elmley

  Isle of Sheppey Kent

  February 1992

  Mowlem

  Bullingdon

  Bicester Oxon

  March 1992

  Kier Construction

  Wolds

  Brough North Humberside

  April 1992

  UK Detention Contractors (Consortium: Mowlem and Sir Robert McAlpine)

  Holme House

  Stockton-on-Tees Cleveland

  May 1992

  Sir Robert McAlpine

  Woodhill

  Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire

  July 1992

  Higgs and Hill

  High Down

  Banstead Surrey

  August 1992

  Alfred McAlpine

  Lancaster Farms

  Lancaster

  March 1993

  AMEC

  Blakenhurst

  Redditch Worcestershire

  May 1993

  Tarmac

  Doncaster

  South Yorkshire

  April 1994

  Shepherd Construction

  Wymott Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were transferred out of Wymott; and to which establishments they were sent following the riots at Wymott prison.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the transfer of prisoners from Wymott following the riots.
  A total of 696 prisoners were transferred to the following establishments:
  114

  Belmarsh

  Birmingham

  Blundeston

  Chelmsford

  Elmley

  Full Sutton

  Garth

  Gloucester

  Highdown

  Highpoint

  Holme House

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Norwich

  Pentonville

  Preston

  Shewsbury

  Wakefield

  Wandsworth

  Wayland

  Whitemoor

  Winchester

  Wormwood Scrubs

  115
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Chief Inspector of Prisons to report on the causes of the recent riots at Wymott prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I received HM Chief Inspector of Prisons' report of his inquiry into the recent riot at Wymott prison on 30 September. The report is being carefully studied. I expect to publish it shortly.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the latest estimate of the cost of refurbishing Wymott prison in the wake of the recent riots.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of refurbishing Wymott prison following the disturbances there at the beginning of last month.
  If we were to reinstate the prison, which had an operational capacity of 768 places, as far as possible to its condition before the riot took place the cost would be in the region of £9 million. For the present, two of the four living units are being repaired and control measures strengthened so that they can be brought back into use for vulnerable prisoners. Work to A Wing was completed so that it could be re-occupied by prisoners within 14 days of the disturbance and work on B Wing is currently underway and should be finished by 1 November. Additional work to repair other essential parts of the prison affected by the riot is being undertaken at the same time. The repair work currently being undertaken is likely to cost approximately £6 million.
  We are currently reviewing the future of C and D Wings, which were more severely damaged.

  Prison Dog Service
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of drawing up plans to market test the prison dog service.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of drawing up plans to market test the prison dog service.
  I estimate this to be approximately £7,000, mainly the cost of the time of two staff members temporarily allocated to the project.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the prison dog service.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the future of the prison dog service.
  116
  There are no current plans for any major changes to the dog service.

  Wolds Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners from the Wolds prison have been treated at outside hospitals as the result of attacks on them in prison; and how many prisoners have been treated by medical services within the prison as a result of attacks since the prison opened.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the numbers of prisoners from the Wolds remand prison who have been treated at outside hospitals and by medical services within the prison as a result of attacks since the prison opened.
  Between 6 April 1992, when the prison opened, and 11 October 1993, ten prisoners have received treatment at Hull Royal Infirmary and 24 at the prison's Health Care Centre for injuries sustained in attacks on them by other prisoners.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who represents the Wolds prison on the local criminal justice committee.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about who represents Wolds remand prison on the local Criminal Justice Committee.
  Wolds, like all prisons in the locality, is represented on the Committee by the governor of HMP Hull.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Director of the Wolds prison currently receives copies of all relevant Prison Service instructions and advice to governors.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about whether the Director of the Wolds prison currently receives copies of all relevant Prison Service instructions and advice to governors.
  All instructions and advice to governors which are relevant to the Wolds are passed to the Director.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to integrate the Wolds prison into the rest of the Prison Service.

  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.
  117
  Letter from D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what steps he intends to take to integrate Wolds prison into the rest of the Prison Service.
  The first step was taken on 1 April this year, when the Prison Service Agency became responsible for all prisons, both directly managed and contracted. Since than a number of further steps to integrate the Wolds have been taken, including incident reporting, mutual support on difficult prisoners and performance measurement. It is also intended that the Area Manager will assume part of the supervisory role in relation to the Wolds.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to designate part of the Wolds prison for sentenced prisoners.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what plans he has to designate part of Wolds prison for sentenced prisoners.
  We consider that there would be advantages if some sentenced prisoners were introduced to Wolds, and have reached agreement in principle with Group 4. Both the Prison Service and the contractor are considering how best this should be implemented.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether working copies of the consolidated agreement between the Home Office and the contractor, Group 4, for the running of the Wolds prison are held on site by the controller and the director.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about copies of the consolidated agreement for the management of Wolds remand prison.
  Both the Director and Controller have consolidated copies of the agreement.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners at the Wolds prison are currently held at their own request under rule 43.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the percentage of prisoners at Wolds remand prison currently held at their own request under Rule 43.
  On 14 October 0.6 per cent. of prisoners (2 prisoners out of 323) were held at their own request under Rule 43.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties are provided for in the contract with Group 4 to manage the Wolds prison in 118
  respect of failure to provide a library service and a bail unit; if these services are in operation; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about penalties in the contract with Group 4 for the management of Wolds prison, and about the library service and the bail unit.
  The contract with Group 4 permits the Prison Service to withhold in whole or in part the agreed monthly fee for any month in which the management of the prison was unsatisfactory in any respect. The library at Wolds is in operation, and a probation officer for the bail information scheme is in post.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made in the chain of command at Wolds prison since Group 4 took over running it; and what assessment he has made of its effectiveness in the event of a serious incident.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the management of serious incidents at Wolds remand prison.
  Incidents at contracted prisons, like those at directly managed prisons, are now routinely reported to the Incident Management Suite Unit at Prison Service Headquarters. It is intended that the suite should be used in the future for the management of serious incidents at all prisons.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the deputising arrangements at the Wolds prison for use in the absence of the controller were last reviewed.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the deputising arrangements for the Controller at Wolds remand prison.
  These are currently under review.

  Prison Population
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the Department's projections for the size of the prison population in each of the years 1994 to the year 2000.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Projections of long-term trends in the prison population to 2001 were published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 6/93 on 30 March 1993, on the basis of the legislation then in force. These projections have been revised on an interim basis, reflecting the

  119
  changes introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and taking account of the most recent data. The revised projections for 1994 onwards are:

  Number

  1994

  48,800

  1995

  50,500

  1996

  51,100

  1997

  52,100

  1998

  53,200

  1999

  54,300

  2000

  55,400

  2001

  56,600

  These projections are based on an estimate of the effect of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and are therefore subject to a considerable margin of uncertainty. Further revised projections will be published next March following the full annual updating exercise.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) certified normal accommodation and (b) actual population at each prison in England and Wales; and what were the total figures, at the latest available date.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Prison Service accommodation and population.
  I attach a table showing the certified normal accommodation (CNA) and actual population in each establishment in England and Wales on 11 October 1993.

  Establishment CNA and population on 11 October 1993

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Acklington

  676

  643

  Albany

  313

  297

  Aldington

  133

  105

  Ashwell

  404

  392

  Askham Grange

  129

  106

  Aylesbury

  241

  238

  Bedford

  170

  226

  Belmarsh

  841

  688

  Birmingham

  638

  719

  Blakenhurst

  523

  523

  Blantyre House

  95

  94

  Blundeston

  410

  322

  Brinsford

  446

  451

  Bristol

  374

  432

  Brixton

  518

  615

  Brockhill

  156

  124

  Bullingdon

  635

  610

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  106

  Camp Hill

  406

  342

  Canterbury

  128

  194

  Cardiff

  328

  426

  Castington

  300

  278

  Channings Wood

  594

  546

  Chelmsford

  217

  326

  Coldingley

  222

  237

  Cookham Wood

  120

  116

  Dartmoor

  560

  506

  Deerbolt

  432

  347

  Dorchester

  136

  204

  Dover

  316

  185

  Downview

  287

  283

  Drake Hall

  255

  193

  Durham

  364

  526

  120

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  East Sutton Park

  85

  76

  Elmley

  635

  590

  Erlestoke

  206

  203

  Everthorpe

  228

  224

  Exeter

  317

  413

  Featherstone

  599

  580

  Feltham

  874

  797

  Finnamore Wood

  112

  81

  Ford

  536

  459

  Frankland

  339

  317

  Full Sutton

  604

  522

  Garth

  512

  508

  Gartree

  258

  246

  Glen Parva

  854

  741

  Gloucester

  207

  254

  Grendon

  190

  170

  Guys Marsh

  300

  173

  Haslar

  145

  142

  Hatfield

  180

  179

  Haverigg

  345

  331

  Hewell Grange

  136

  163

  High Down

  549

  521

  Highpoint

  679

  650

  Hindley

  317

  309

  Hollesley Bay

  425

  299

  Holloway

  517

  492

  Holme House

  649

  586

  Hull

  269

  417

  Huntercombe

  240

  164

  Kingston

  104

  96

  Kirkham

  620

  589

  Kirklevington

  74

  68

  Lancaster

  186

  261

  Lancaster Farms

  260

  324

  Latchmere House

  131

  117

  Leeds

  700

  1,111

  Leicester

  194

  343

  Lewes

  267

  333

  Leyhill

  410

  410

  Lincoln

  444

  591

  Lindholme

  622

  608

  Littlehey

  543

  525

  Liverpool

  931

  1,273

  Long Lartin

  362

  333

  Low Newton

  199

  250

  Maidstone

  513

  524

  Manchester

  291

  308

  Morland

  641

  629

  Morton Hall

  168

  169

  The Mount

  484

  464

  New Hall

  205

  157

  North Sea Camp

  204

  191

  Northallerton

  146

  22

  Norwich

  463

  440

  Nottingham

  218

  209

  Onley

  456

  458

  Parkhurst

  286

  232

  Pentonville

  559

  651

  Portland

  424

  340

  Prescoed

  40

  33

  Preston

  324

  550

  Pucklechurch

  56

  66

  Ranby

  331

  329

  Reading

  182

  167

  Risley

  773

  693

  Rochester

  303

  169

  Rudgate

  300

  262

  Send

  113

  111

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  181

  Shrewsbury

  168

  290

  Spring Hill

  210

  206

  Stafford

  532

  511

  Standford Hill

  384

  308

  Stocken

  396

  389

  Stoke Heath

  300

  266

  Styal

  180

  199

  Sudbury

  509

  425

  Swaleside

  504

  500

  121

  Establishment

  CAN

  Population

  Swansea

  213

  277

  Swinfen Hall

  167

  166

  Thorn Cross

  240

  187

  Thorp Arch

  166

  164

  Usk

  201

  187

  The Verne

  552

  538

  Wakefield

  662

  649

  Wandsworth

  838

  811

  Wayland

  580

  556

  Wellingborough

  284

  279

  Werrington

  110

  106

  Wetherby

  120

  139

  Whatton

  217

  213

  Whitemoor

  534

  495

  Winchester

  361

  392

  The Wolds

  320

  321

  Woodhill

  492

  493

  Wormwood Scrubs

  527

  732

  Wymott

  110

  78

  TOTAL

  46,361

  46,471

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held(a) two to a cell and (b) three to a cell, on the most recent date for which figures are available.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about cell sharing.
  On 30 September 1993, the number of prisoners held two to a cell intended for one person was 7,740, and the number held three to a cell was 93.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the expected capacity of prisons in England and Wales in the years 2000, 2005 and 2010.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the expected capacity of prisons in England and Wales into the next century.
  Our current projection indicates that the Certified Normal Accommodation of prisons in England and Wales will be 54,000 places in the financial year 2000–01, assuming that a small proportion of accommodation will be out of use for essential building and repair work. This projection reflects the plans for additional capacity included in the 1992 Public Expenditure Survey. It therefore includes only two of the six new prisons announced by the Home Secretary earlier this month.
  We have not made any projection of accommodation levels beyond that year. A revised projection should be available early next year and this will include all years up to 2001–2.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the prison population for each month of 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has 122
  been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about monthly changes in the prison population in 1993.
  The table below gives monthly changes based on the population on the last Friday of each month.

  Month

  Change

  January

  +884

  February

  +1,249

  March

  +368

  April

  +116

  May

  +659

  June

  +301

  July

  +926

  August

  +489

  September

  +533

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average monthly change in the prison population in the years 1988 to 1992.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about monthly changes in the prison population in recent years.
  The following table gives the average monthly change in the prison population for the years 1988 to 1992.

  Month

  Average change 1988 to 1992

  January

  1,044

  February

  692

  March

  124

  April

  -130

  May

  -220

  June

  66

  July

  176

  August

  -98

  September

  -112

  October

  -276

  November

  -220

  December

  -2,194

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) sentenced prisoners and (b) people on remand were held in prisons in England and Wales each month in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 up to the latest date available.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:

  123
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the population of (a) sentenced and (b) remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments for each month in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.
  The information for 1991 is published in Prison statistics England and Wales (Table 1.2 from the 1991 edition, Cm 2157)

  Table 1.2

  Population in custody: by sex and type of custody, annual averages and month end figures, 1986–91

  England and Wales: Males and Females

  Number of persons

  Males

  Females

  Males and females

  Remand prisoners

  Sentenced

  Non-criminal

  Population in custody

  Remand prisoners

  Sentenced

  Non-criminal

  Population in custody

  Population in custody

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Young offenders

  Adults

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Young offenders

  Adults

  Prison service estabs.

  Police cells1

  Prison service estabs.

  Police cells1

  Annual averages

  1986

  8,210

  78

  1,362

  8,949

  26,409

  233

  45,241

  320

  41

  70

  237

  976

  5

  1,648

  46,889

  1987

  8,743

  469

  1,479

  8,557

  27,677

  266

  47,191

  331

  68

  72

  205

  1,092

  4

  1,772

  48,963

  1988

  8,395

  1951

  1,587

  8,156

  28,850

  221

  48,160

  403

  127

  77

  190

  1,086

  6

  1,789

  49,949

  1989

  8,204

  1100

  1,727

  7,056

  29,543

  214

  46,843

  372

  13

  93

  176

  1,117

  6

  1,767

  48,610

  1990

  7,324

  1447

  1,749

  6,121

  28,201

  197

  44,039

  300

  —

  84

  143

  1,066

  4

  1,597

  45,636

  1991

  7,254

  1669

  1,845

  5,723

  28,551

  294

  44,336

  291

  11

  97

  136

  1,030

  6

  1,561

  45,897

  Month end figures

  1989 January

  8,594

  1275

  1,681

  7,298

  29,343

  211

  47,402

  380

  126

  88

  186

  1,096

  9

  1,785

  49,187

  February

  8,436

  1195

  1,726

  7,386

  29,787

  226

  47,756

  364

  17

  105

  183

  1,131

  16

  1,806

  49,562

  March

  8,545

  71

  1,678

  7,227

  29,721

  235

  47,477

  394

  —

  82

  178

  1,111

  9

  1,774

  49,251

  April

  8,407

  1108

  1,689

  7,218

  29,784

  234

  47,440

  375

  2

  94

  172

  1,134

  8

  1,785

  49,225

  May

  8,120

  1131

  1,675

  7,117

  29,612

  227

  46,882

  374

  —

  102

  175

  1,121

  4

  1,776

  48,658

  June

  7,943

  226

  1,845

  6,997

  29,737

  254

  47,002

  378

  4

  98

  173

  1,106

  1

  1,760

  48,762

  July

  8,102

  64

  1,870

  7,045

  29,887

  214

  47,182

  377

  —

  99

  175

  1,115

  6

  1,772

  48,954

  August

  8,389

  20

  1,833

  6,952

  29,255

  229

  46,678

  395

  —

  79

  173

  1,153

  3

  1,803

  48,481

  September

  8,287

  68

  1,781

  6,965

  29,531

  220

  46,852

  366

  —

  102

  196

  1,159

  2

  1,825

  48,677

  October

  8,190

  32

  1,784

  6,922

  29,633

  172

  46,733

  382

  —

  100

  156

  1,111

  6

  1,755

  48,488

  November

  7,840

  4

  1,676

  6,979

  29,740

  184

  46,423

  350

  —

  94

  203

  1,086

  2

  1,735

  48,158

  December

  7,593

  —

  1,486

  6,559

  28,483

  160

  44,281

  336

  —

  70

  144

  1,087

  —

  1,637

  45,918

  1990 January

  8,033

  —

  1,727

  6,359

  28,636

  177

  44,932

  359

  —

  84

  134

  1,117

  2

  1,696

  46,628

  February

  8,041

  —

  1,772

  6,338

  28,892

  186

  45,229

  325

  —

  90

  144

  1,105

  2

  1,666

  46,895

  March

  7,970

  —

  1,822

  6,391

  28,890

  188

  45,261

  304

  —

  98

  132

  1,089

  4

  1,627

  46,888

  April

  7,565

  1392

  1,602

  6,103

  28,105

  175

  43,942

  303

  —

  81

  123

  1,067

  2

  1,576

  45,518

  May

  7,154

  1662

  1,679

  6,127

  27,964

  187

  43,773

  280

  —

  67

  153

  1,090

  2

  1,592

  45,365

  June

  7,033

  1628

  1,726

  6,252

  28,027

  187

  43,853

  280

  —

  77

  154

  1,099

  3

  1,613

  45,466

  July

  7,121

  1458

  1,707

  6,297

  28,249

  208

  44,040

  284

  —

  47

  152

  1,095

  3

  1,581

  45,621

  August

  7,134

  1844

  1,748

  6,114

  28,013

  212

  44,065

  296

  —

  85

  143

  1,052

  8

  1,584

  45,649

  September

  7,174

  1752

  1,824

  5,967

  27,965

  205

  43,887

  306

  —

  89

  153

  1,044

  9

  1,601

  45,488

  October

  6,968

  1691

  1,909

  5,940

  28,230

  218

  43,956

  301

  —

  105

  151

  1,036

  4

  1,597

  45,553

  November

  6,823

  1634

  1,962

  5,940

  28,096

  213

  43,668

  297

  —

  97

  146

  1,031

  5

  1,576

  45,244

  December

  6,878

  1299

  1,515

  5,619

  27,344

  204

  41,859

  267

  —

  83

  136

  966

  3

  1,455

  43,314

  1991 January

  7,180

  1423

  1,868

  5,577

  27,709

  303

  43,060

  291

  —

  94

  138

  985

  2

  1,510

  44,570

  February

  7,246

  1443

  1,999

  5,776

  28,054

  271

  43,789

  261

  —

  105

  146

  1,022

  —

  1,534

  45,323

  March

  7,072

  1523

  1,771

  5,787

  28,147

  273

  43,573

  272

  —

  94

  136

  1,029

  2

  1,533

  45,106

  April

  7,329

  1366

  1,796

  5,730

  28,160

  299

  43,680

  282

  —

  88

  128

  1,024

  2

  1,524

  45,204

  May

  7,385

  1400

  1,818

  5,761

  28,310

  315

  43,989

  322

  —

  90

  116

  1,020

  5

  1,553

  45,542

  June

  7,074

  1605

  1,811

  5,693

  28,531

  368

  44,082

  286

  —

  101

  110

  1,038

  9

  1,544

  45,626

  July

  6,964

  1829

  1,848

  5,757

  28,922

  317

  44,637

  298

  —

  100

  136

  1,084

  10

  1,628

  46,265

  August

  7,134

  1925

  1,901

  5,696

  28,788

  268

  44,712

  308

  —

  89

  130

  1,055

  16

  1,598

  46,310

  September

  7,462

  11,040

  1,829

  5,798

  28,910

  272

  45,311

  311

  —

  112

  134

  1,034

  11

  1,602

  46,913

  October

  7,514

  1966

  1,894

  5,755

  29,198

  278

  45,605

  291

  18

  124

  144

  1,043

  5

  1,615

  47,220

  November

  7,302

  1985

  1,970

  5,827

  29,401

  286

  45,771

  291

  14

  102

  161

  1,033

  7

  1,598

  47,369

  December

  7,380

  1520

  1,635

  5,520

  28,487

  278

  43,820

  284

  —

  62

  154

  992

  7

  1,499

  45,319

  1 Up to 1987 all those in police cells are assumed to be untried remand prisoners. For 1988 onwards estimates have been made of the numbers convicted unsentenced and included with the corresponding prison service establishment figures (see table 1.4). In 1988 the average total population in police cells was 1,047 males and 30 females, in 1989 107 males and three females, in 1990 661 males and in 1991 1,086 males and two females.

  Prison population1 by type of custody: England and Wales—January 1992–August 1993

  Untried

  Convicted Unsentenced

  Total Remand

  Sentenced

  Total2

  1992

  January

  8,583

  2,078

  10,661

  35,585

  46,566

  February

  8,679

  2,068

  10,747

  36,540

  47,590

  March

  8,626

  2,052

  10,678

  36,751

  47,746

  April

  8,638

  2,008

  10,646

  36,721

  47,738

  May

  8,299

  1,995

  10,294

  36,057

  46,696

  June

  8,381

  2,023

  10,404

  36,065

  46,832

  July

  8,029

  1,913

  9,942

  36,603

  46,875

  August

  8,207

  1,921

  10,128

  35,929

  46,350

  September

  8,123

  1,897

  10,020

  35,589

  45,835

  124
  and I enclose a copy of the table. Information on the monthly population in Prison Service establishments for 1992 up to August 1993 (the latest date for which information is available) is given in the attached table.
  125

  Untried

  Convicted Unsentenced

  Total Remand

  Sentenced

  Total2

  October

  7,436

  2,169

  9,605

  34,019

  43,905

  November

  7,190

  2,269

  9,459

  33,333

  43,064

  December

  6,718

  1,772

  8,490

  31,845

  40,606

  1993

  January

  7,175

  2,258

  9,433

  31,793

  41,561

  February

  7,435

  2,498

  9,933

  32,461

  42,882

  March

  7,289

  2,707

  9,996

  32,661

  43,195

  April

  7,472

  2,525

  9,997

  32,796

  43,391

  May

  7,586

  2,595

  10,181

  32,805

  43,585

  June

  7,857

  2,775

  10,632

  33,046

  44,246

  July

  7,810

  2,762

  10,572

  33,653

  44,830

  August

  8,603

  2,804

  11,407

  33,616

  45,633

  1 Includes prisoners held in police cells.

  2 Includes non-criminals.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what forecast has been made of the change in the size of the prison population relative to the total capacity of prisons in England and Wales.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the prison population and the total capacity of prisons in England and Wales.
  The table below compares projections of average population with estimates of the average number of certified normal accommodation (CNA) places available for use to the year 2000–01.

  Population

  CAN

  1993–94

  46,000

  48,900

  1994–95

  49,400

  50,300

  1995–96

  50,700

  52,200

  1996–97

  51,300

  52,500

  1997–98

  52,300

  53,100

  1998–99

  53,400

  53,800

  1999–00

  54,500

  53,800

  2000–01

  55,700

  53,800

  The population figures reflect projections which have been revised on an interim basis, reflecting the changes introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The accommodation figures assume that a small proportion of accommodation would be out of use for essential building and repair work. The current projections reflect plans for additional capacity included in the 1992 Public Expenditure Survey. They therefore include only two of the six new prisons announced by the Home Secretary earlier this month.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the projected capacity of prisons in England and Wales for each of the years 1994 to the year 2000.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  126
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the projected capacity of prisons in England and Wales.
  Our current projections for the financial years up to 2000–01 are as follows:

  Capacity

  1993–94

  48,900

  1994–95

  50,300

  1995–96

  52,200

  1996–97

  52,500

  1997–98

  53,100

  1998–99

  53,800

  1999–2000

  53,800

  2000–2001

  53,800

  The figures shown are for average certified normal accommodation places, and assume that a small proportion of accommodation would be out of use for essential building and repair work. The projections reflect plans for additional capacity included in the 1992 Public Expenditure Survey. They therefore include only two of the six new prisons announced by the Home Secretary earlier this month.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preparations he is making to deal with potential prison overcrowding; and what plans there are to use(a) police cells, (b) temporary buildings or portakabins and (c) prison ships or barges.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about preparations to deal with prison overcrowding.
  The Prison Service is making every effort to deal with the increasing prison population without recourse to police cells. There are no immediate plans to use temporary buildings or accommodation barges, although both have been actively considered. The approach currently being taken is to seek to use: existing Prison Service capacity to the fullest extent possible, having close regard to the safety of staff and inmates. This approach includes work to reclaim, where possible, inmate accommodation currently being used for other purposes.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of inmates of the Wolds and Blakenhurst prisons, respectively; and what plans he has to bring them up to their full complement.
  127
  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of inmates at Wolds and Blakenhurst prisons.
  Group 4 are contracted to hold a maximum of 320 prisoners in Wolds remand prison. The roll at unlock on 14 October was 323.
  Blakenhurst has a target to fill at the rate of approximately 100 prisoners per month, giving a current target of 500 by 26 October. Despite difficulties with the water supply which caused a delay in taking prisoners in August and September, the roll at unlock on 14 October was 531.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population in March 1990; what is the population now; what is the current monthly level of change; and what plans he has to use police cells.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the prison population and police cells.
  The prison population on 30 March 1990 was 47,304 and on 15 October 1993 was 46,935. The monthly change (on the basis of last Friday in the month figures) so far this year has been as follows:

  Number

  January

  +884

  February

  +1,249

  March

  +368

  April

  +116

  May

  +659

  June

  +301

  July

  +926

  August

  +489

  September

  +533

  We are making every effort to avoid any recourse to police cells. To this end we are making adjustments to the way the Prison Service's estate is used and we are taking action to ensure that all possible inmate accommodation is made operational.

  Grendon Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for a further prison run on the lines of Grendon.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about plans for a further prison run on the lines of Grendon.
  128
  Proposals for a second therapeutic community run on Grendon lines have in the past received endorsement from both HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and Lord Justice Woolf. We are giving careful consideration to these proposals and the Director of Health Care, Dr. Rosemary Wool, is chairing a task force the terms of reference of which are:
  to determine the strategy for treating/managing those prisoners who are suffering personality disorder and the need for further "Grendon style" therapeutic regimes.
  The task force has a membership drawn from the Department of Health, Home Office, special hospitals and independent specialists and has been giving careful consideration to the type of facilities required, the category of prisoners to be provided for, the physical location of any additional facilities and whether another facility wholly dedicated as a therapeutic community is required, or alternately whether units in a number of other prisons would be a more suitable option.
  The task force is due to report in January 1994 and until their report is received it would be premature for me to comment further.

  Prison Escort Services
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who have been transported by the Group 4 prison escort service have arrived late at their destinations.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners who have been transported by Group 4 Court Services Ltd have arrived late at their destination.
  Of the prisoners delivered by Group 4 Court Services Ltd in the East Midlands and Humberside by the end of September, 1,690 had arrived late at their destinations. To that date Group 4 had been responsible for 42,658 prisoner movements. Of the late deliveries, the majority were late for reasons beyond the control of the Contractor.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoner escorts are carried out by private hire coach and private hire taxi.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the proportion of prisoner escorts carried out by private hire coach and private hire taxi.
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received about the Group 4 prison escort service since Group 4 took over the service in the east midlands and Humberside in April.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:

  129
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of complaints received about Group 4 Court Services Ltd since they took over the court escort and custody service in the East Midlands and Humberside in April.
  By 7 October a total of 141 complaints had been received; 13 by the Prisoner Escort Monitor, and 128 by Group 4 Court Services Ltd. Of the latter, 82 were from prisoners and 46 from other sources. By that date Group 4 had been responsible for 50,352 prisoner movements. The number has steadily declined as the service has settled down from a peak of 36 complaints in April. In September only seven complaints were received.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the security arrangements for escorting each category of prisoner between prisons; and what are the average costs per mile.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about security arrangements for escorting each category of prisoner between prisons and the average costs per mile.
  In general terms prisoners may be escorted between prisons using a variety of vehicles including contract taxis, coaches, mini-buses, cellular vehicles and secure vans and accompanied by an appropriate number of officers. Category B prisoners, those on remand and category C prisoners may be handcuffed. Handcuffs are not used when category D inmates are escorted to open prisons and are not used routinely on women prisoners.
  Other security arrangements include searching of inmates and vehicles, depending on the analysis of the escape risk of each individual prisoner. Special arrangements, including police support, are made for transferring category A prisoners.
  Given the wide variety of arrangements for escorts between prisons there is no central record of average costs per mile. This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many legal actions are pending against Group 4 in relation to its prison escort service.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of legal actions pending against Group 4 in relation to the court escort and custody service.
  I am not aware of any such action.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff Group 4 employs to operate the court escort service for the Hull and east midlands region.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of staff employed by Group 4 in the court escort and custody service in the East Midlands and Humberside.
  130
  Group 4 Court Services Limited employ 359 staff to operate the court escort and custody service in the East Midlands and Humberside.

  Prison Offences
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have been seriously assaulted in 1993; and if he will provide details.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of officers who have been seriously assaulted in 1993.
  Central records provisionally show that in the first nine months of 1993 there were 1,915 cases proved at adjudication where the charge was an actual assault on a member of staff or other person (not including an inmate). There were a further 166 cases proved of attempted assault. No other relevant details are held centrally.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many alleged offences in prisons have been referred to the police, and in how many cases prosecutions have ensued, since the abolition of boards of visitors adjudications.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the referral to the police of alleged offences by prisoners.
  The full information you request is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In a survey for the year starting in April 1992, 98 prisons gave the following information:

  547 alleged offences by prisoners were referred to the police

  121 were still current at the time of the survey

  176 had gone to court

  187 had not been pursued by the police

  54 had not been pursued by the CPS

  9 cases had no information recorded on the outcome.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers of assaults on prison officers per 100 prisoners at each prison in England and Wales for each quarter since 1986.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the numbers of assaults on prison officers per 100 prisoners at each prison in England and Wales for each quarter since 1986.
  The available information is for the number of assaults proved at adjudication under the prison discipline system. Data are not available prior to April 1989 as assaults on prison officers, staff,

  131
  inmates and others (other than gross personal violence to an officer) were grouped together in a single category. The information for April to December 1989, for 1990 and 1991 was published in successive volumes of "Statistics of offences against prison discipline and punishments, England and Wales" (Cm. 1236 for 1989, Cm. 1651 for 1990, Cm. 2066 for 1991). For convenience I enclose copies of the relevant tables.
  Provisional information for 1992–93 and for the six months April to September 1993 is enclosed. I regret that more detailed information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many breaches of prison discipline occurred(a) in the 12 months before and (b) in the 12 months after the abolition of boards of visitors adjudications.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about breaches of prison discipline in the twelve months before and after the abolition of boards of visitor adjudications.
  The disciplinary role of the boards ceased with effect from 1 April 1992. In the twelve months from April 1992 to March 1993 there were 89,163 proven offences compared with 89,050 in the previous twelve months.

  Market Testing
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what management consultants have been used to advise on market testing and privatisation in the Prison Service; for what purposes; and at what cost.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what management consultants have been used to advise on market testing and privatisation in the Prison Service; for what purposes; and at what cost. Since the launch of the White Paper "Competing for Quality" the following consultants have been used to assist in our market testing work:

  Coopers Lybrand
  Identification of potential Home Office and Prison Service candidates for testing.

  Handley-Walker PLC
  Technical and evaluation advice for the market test of warehousing and distribution.

  Further Education Staff College
  Advice on competitive tendering of prison education.

  PDP
  Review of the operational specification used in the tendering of prisons management.

  PA
  Analysis and evaluation of tenders for the management of Blakenhurst and Manchester prisons.

  LEK
  Development of an analytical framework for the selection of prisons for market testing.

  Government Actuaries Department
  Analysis and evaluation of tenders for the management of Manchester prison.

  Mr. L Massey
  Analysis and evaluation of tenders for the management of Blakenhurst and Manchester prisons.
  132
  Mr. G. Lister
  Analysis and evaluation of tenders for the management of Manchester prison.
  The total cost of these contracts was £263,000.

  Mentally Ill and Addicted Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current estimate of the number of people who are(a) mentally ill, (b) drug misusers and (c) alcohol addicted in prisons in England and Wales.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the numbers of mentally ill, drug misusers and alcohol addicted prisoners.
  A study by Professor J. Gunn, Dr. T. Maden and Dr. M. Swinton1 of the Institute of Psychiatry, completed in 1991, suggested that of the sentenced population 19.2 per cent. had some form of psychiatric disorder and 19.6 per cent. had been substance misusers prior to corning into prison.
  A parallel research study has recently commenced to provide a psychiatric profile of the unsentenced prison population.
  1Gunn, Maden and Swinton, "Mentally Disordered Prisoners", Home Office, 1991.

  Short Prison Sentences
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in prisons in England and Wales have a sentence of six months or less; and what proportion of those are fine defaulters.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many people in prisons in England and Wales are serving a sentence of six months or less and what the proportion of those are fine defaulters.
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 August 1993 when there were 3,642 prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales serving sentences of six months or less.
  Fourteen per cent. of the population serving up to six months were fine defaulters.

  Penal Change Programme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the Prison Officers Association concerning the practicability and cost of his programme for penal changes, announced in Blackpool in October.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to meet representatives of the Prison Officers Association next month, but the conduct of industrial relations in the Prison Service is a matter for the director
  133
  general. It will be for the latter to arrange for Prison Service trade unions to be consulted about any matters arising from the implementation of the policies he announced in so far as they may affect the Prison Service and are appropriate for consultation.

  Penal Costs
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per person per month of(a) keeping someone in prison and (b) sentencing someone to community-based penalties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1991–92, the most recent year for which figures are available, the average monthly net operating cost of holding a person in prison establishments was £1,915 and the cost of community sentences was between £95 and £110 per month.

  Reoffenders
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage of (i) adult and (ii) juvenile offenders who reoffend within two years of receiving(a) a custodial sentence and (b) a non-custodial sentence.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest available information on reconvictions is shown in the table:

  Percentage of offenders given probation or community service orders in 1987 and those discharged from prison in 1987 who were reconvicted of a 'standard list' within two years.

  Offender

  Those discharged from prison service establishments per cent.

  Those commencing a probation order1 per cent.

  Those commencing a community service order1 per cent.

  All males

  57

  56

  55

  All females

  40

  37

  41

  Males aged under 21

  71

  66

  65

  Females aged under 21

  51

  41

  43

  1 Source "Reconvictions of those given Probation and Community Service Orders in 1987"—Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/93.

  Fine Defaulters
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are in prison in England and Wales as a result of fine defaults.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about population of fine defaulters in Prison Service establishments.
  On 31 August 1993 there were 500 fine defaulters (477 males and 23 females) in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Prison Custody Officers
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison custody officers work at(a) the Wolds prison and (b) Blakenhurst prison.
  134
  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoner custody officers at Wolds and Blakenhurst.
  There are 122 certificated prisoner custody officers at Wolds remand prison and 266 at HMP Blakenhurst.

  Woolf Report
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list progress made to date on each of the recommendations of the Woolf report and timetables for future implementation.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the progress made on the recommendations of the Woolf Report and timetable for future implementation.
  You will know that Lord Chief Justice Woolf made twelve major recommendations and each of these have been a key priority for the Prison Service. A summary of the progress made is set out below.

  Improve Security
  The Prisons Security Act is now in force.
  The long-term programme for refurbishing prisons to improve security standards is underway.
  Many of the recommendations from the Lakes Hadfield Report have now been implemented.
  Security audits have been instituted in prisons.
  X-ray machines have been installed in all prisons holding category A prisoners.
  Revised guidance on procedures for escorting prisoners has been distributed to all establishments.
  A new style escort chain is being trialled.
  The anti-bullying strategy for the Prison Service was launched in July of this year.
  A standardised intelligence system is now in place in every prison security department.

  Improve co-operation between Services
  A Criminal Justice Consultative Council has been created.
  A Criminal Justice Liaison Committee has been set up in each of the 15 prison areas. The links between the Probation Service and the Prison Service are being strengthened with the development of contracts between governors and chief probation officers.
  Measures have been taken to reduce the use of remanding purely for psychiatric assessment.
  There has been an increase in the number of prisoners transferred as in-patients to hospital for the treatment of mental disorder.

  Increase delegation and improve accountability
  From 1 April 1993 I have been personally responsible for the day to day management of the Prison Service.
  The Prison Service's Framework Document sets out our goals and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The Service is given specific targets by Ministers every year in relation to each of the KPIs.
  Much greater delegation to governors has taken place this year with budgetary and personnel responsibilities already devolved.
  On 1 April 1994 governors of prison establishments will have a new contract which in essence is a specification detailing standards of service delivery.

  135
  The strategy for involving the private sector in managing some of our prisons is established with the Wolds and Blakenhurst being fully operational. Manchester has been market tested and further prisons will be named for future market testing.

  Improve quality of jobs
  A Better Jobs Programme has been initiated throughout the Service.
  A comprehensive review of prison officer induction training and development training for existing staff has been undertaken.
  There has been significant progress in involving prison officers in suicide awareness, induction, sentence planning and personal officer schemes.

  Recognise status and requirements of unconvicted prisoners
  A model regime for local prisons and remand centres was issued in November 1992.
  New guidance on prison bail schemes was issued in August 1992 and there has been an extension of bail schemes and hostel provision.

  Provide active and relevant programmes
  There are now 500 NVQ schemes in place in establishments throughout England and Wales. This number is to be extended to 700 during the course of 1994. There are 180 construction industry training courses running in establishments throughout England and Wales. 80 prison establishments have now run pre-release courses. During the remainder of this year and into next year 48 establishments will have job search courses running with job clubs in 10 establishments.
  15 establishments are running sex offender programmes and about 400 prisoners benefit from these programmes each year.
  All female establishments have received new regime guidance.
  Every establishment has received guidance on the nature and balance of regime activities.
  A review of personal officer schemes has been undertaken.
  Many establishments now offer anger management courses and cognitive skills programmes are currently being developed.
  The regime monitoring system which measures inmate activity has been extended and improved.
  In November 1992 an admissions guide on reception and induction arrangements was issued to all establishments. All prisoners who were sentenced to 4 years or more after October 1992, and sentenced category A prisoners now have sentenced plans prepared for them. By the end of 1993 sentenced planning will be extended to all newly sentenced prisoners serving one year or more.
  In October 1992 new guidance was issued for establishments holding juvenile offenders.

  Provide Code of Standards
  The Prisons Board aims to approve a Code of Standards for the Prison Service by the end of 1993.

  Table A

  Persons sentenced at magistrates courts for all offences by month, type of offence and type of sentence England and Wales 19921

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Indictable offences

  January

  23,544

  100

  1,341

  6

  22,203

  94

  February

  20,673

  100

  1,172

  6

  19,501

  94

  March

  22,047

  100

  1,255

  6

  20,792

  94

  April

  20,117

  100

  1,157

  6

  18,960

  94

  May

  17,867

  100

  975

  5

  16,892

  95

  June

  20,402

  100

  1,040

  5

  19,362

  95

  July

  20,295

  100

  1,067

  5

  19,228

  95

  August

  18,301

  100

  1,017

  6

  17,284

  94

  September

  20,454

  100

  1,035

  5

  19,419

  95

  October

  20,699

  100

  483

  2

  20,216

  98

  November

  19,886

  100

  609

  3

  19,277

  97

  December

  17,131

  100

  645

  4

  16,486

  96

  136
  Improve relationships with prisoners
  A prisoners' information pack has been issued.
  The Board of Visitors' role has changed with their responsibility for adjudications being removed.
  A Prison Ombudsman will be appointed.
  A series of measures has been taken to improve standards of diets and food distribution in establishments.
  A major research project has been commissioned to examine how racial incidents are recorded and dealt with.
  A model prisoner compact has been approved by the Board and will be issued to all establishments.

  Provide access to sanitation
  During 1993–94 £17.5 million will be spent on simple sanitation schemes. This is in addition to other funding for refurbishment schemes.
  More than 80 per cent. of places now have access to sanitation.

  End overcrowding
  Twelve new prisons have been opened since 1991 providing 6,994 places.
  Approval has recently been given for a further six new prisons.

  Divide large wings into smaller units wherever possible
  Whenever major wing refurbishment schemes are considered the requirment to create smaller units is considered.

  Develop community prisons
  Work has commenced on selecting suitable areas where the clustering of prisons can be piloted.
  The opportunities for prisoners to maintain their family ties has been improved with an increase in the frequency and flexibility of duration of visits; further extension of financially assisted visit schemnes is projected for early 1994; and the provision of cardphones has now been extended to all prisons.
  The Prison Service remains committed to the policies set out in the White Paper. Further progress will be made as quickly as possible.

  Sentences
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage of people sentenced in the courts who received(a) a custodial sentence and (b) a non-custodial sentence each month from January 1992 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on sentencing for both the magistrates court and the crown court for 1992—which is provisional—is given in the tables A to C. Data provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department for committals for trial at the crown court are given in table D.
  137

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Total

  241,416

  100

  11,796

  5

  229,620

  95

  Summary non-motoring offences

  January

  41,146

  100

  438

  1

  40,708

  99

  February

  35,672

  100

  359

  1

  35,313

  99

  March

  40,817

  100

  380

  1

  40,437

  99

  April

  37,268

  100

  314

  1

  36,954

  99

  May

  36,018

  100

  266

  1

  35,752

  99

  June

  42,138

  100

  336

  1

  41,802

  99

  July

  41,937

  100

  322

  1

  41,615

  99

  August

  36,881

  100

  300

  1

  36,581

  99

  September

  41,214

  100

  277

  1

  40,937

  99

  October

  39,647

  100

  143

  0

  39,504

  100

  November

  39,799

  100

  187

  0

  39,612

  100

  December

  32,540

  100

  164

  1

  32,376

  99

  Total

  465,077

  100

  3,486

  1

  461,591

  99

  Summary non-motoring offences

  January

  61,977

  100

  612

  1

  61,365

  99

  February

  54,875

  100

  536

  1

  54,339

  99

  March

  61,195

  100

  593

  1

  60,602

  99

  April

  57,310

  100

  496

  1

  56,814

  99

  May

  52,930

  100

  436

  1

  52,494

  99

  June

  62,771

  100

  494

  1

  62,277

  99

  July

  64,265

  100

  545

  1

  63,720

  99

  August

  58,781

  100

  507

  1

  58,274

  99

  September

  63,925

  100

  450

  1

  63,475

  99

  October

  61,495

  100

  306

  0

  61,189

  100

  November

  59,806

  100

  368

  1

  59,438

  99

  December

  50,443

  100

  355

  1

  50,088

  99

  Total

  709,773

  100

  5,698

  1

  704,075

  99

  All offences

  January

  126,667

  100

  2,391

  2

  124,276

  98

  February

  111,220

  100

  2,067

  2

  109,153

  98

  March

  124,059

  100

  2,228

  2

  121,831

  98

  April

  114,695

  100

  1,967

  2

  112,728

  98

  May

  106,815

  100

  1,677

  2

  105,138

  98

  June

  125,311

  100

  1,870

  1

  123,441

  99

  July

  126,497

  100

  1,934

  2

  124,563

  98

  August

  113,963

  100

  1,824

  2

  112,139

  98

  September

  125,593

  100

  1,762

  1

  123,831

  99

  October

  121,841

  100

  932

  1

  120,909

  99

  November

  119,491

  100

  1,164

  1

  118,327

  99

  December

  100,114

  100

  1,164

  1

  98,950

  99

  Total

  1,416,266

  100

  20,980

  1

  1,395,286

  99

  1 Provisional.

  Table B

  Persons sentenced at the Crown Court for all offences by month, type of offence and type of sentence England and Wales 19921

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Indictable offences

  January

  7,990

  100

  3,622

  45

  4,368

  55

  February

  7,623

  100

  3,412

  45

  4,211

  55

  March

  8,094

  100

  3,742

  46

  4,352

  54

  April

  6,490

  100

  3,000

  46

  3,490

  54

  May

  6,554

  100

  2,960

  45

  3,594

  55

  June

  7,035

  100

  3,202

  46

  3,833

  54

  July

  7,919

  100

  3,637

  46

  4,282

  54

  August

  5,495

  100

  2,468

  45

  3,027

  55

  September

  6,496

  100

  2,889

  44

  3,607

  56

  October

  5,802

  100

  2,273

  39

  3,529

  61

  November

  6,268

  100

  2,538

  40

  3,730

  60

  December

  5,351

  100

  2,210

  41

  3,141

  59

  138 139

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Total

  81,117

  100

  35,953

  44

  45,164

  56

  Summary non-motoring offences

  January

  315

  100

  79

  25

  236

  75

  February

  273

  100

  54

  20

  219

  80

  March

  300

  100

  68

  23

  232

  77

  April

  240

  100

  52

  22

  188

  78

  May

  190

  100

  41

  22

  149

  78

  June

  266

  100

  52

  20

  214

  80

  July

  294

  100

  68

  23

  226

  77

  August

  176

  100

  43

  24

  133

  76

  September

  221

  100

  50

  23

  171

  77

  October

  218

  100

  36

  17

  182

  83

  November

  197

  100

  30

  15

  167

  85

  December

  161

  100

  34

  21

  127

  79

  Total

  2,851

  100

  607

  21

  2,244

  79

  Summary motoring offences

  January

  141

  100

  43

  30

  98

  70

  February

  117

  100

  43

  37

  74

  63

  March

  142

  100

  49

  35

  93

  65

  April

  91

  100

  36

  40

  55

  60

  May

  123

  100

  52

  42

  71

  58

  June

  112

  100

  38

  34

  74

  66

  July

  131

  100

  50

  38

  81

  62

  August

  105

  100

  36

  34

  69

  66

  September

  127

  100

  40

  31

  87

  69

  October

  104

  100

  18

  17

  86

  83

  November

  111

  100

  25

  23

  86

  77

  December

  83

  100

  18

  22

  65

  78

  Total

  1,387

  100

  448

  32

  939

  68

  All offences

  January

  8,446

  100

  3,744

  44

  4,702

  56

  February

  8,013

  100

  3,509

  44

  4,504

  56

  March

  8,536

  100

  3,859

  45

  4,677

  55

  April

  6,821

  100

  3,088

  45

  3,733

  55

  May

  6,867

  100

  3,053

  44

  3,814

  56

  June

  7,413

  100

  3,292

  44

  4,121

  56

  July

  8,344

  100

  3,755

  45

  4,589

  55

  August

  5,776

  100

  2,547

  44

  3,229

  56

  September

  6,844

  100

  2,979

  44

  3,865

  56

  October

  6,124

  100

  2,327

  38

  3,797

  62

  November

  6,576

  100

  2,593

  39

  3,983

  61

  December

  5,595

  100

  2,262

  40

  3,333

  60

  Total

  85,355

  100

  37,008

  43

  48,347

  57

  1 Provisional.

  Table C

  Persons sentenced at all courts for all offences by month, type of offence and type of sentence England and Wales 19921

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Indictable offences

  January

  31,534

  100

  4,963

  16

  26,571

  84

  February

  28,296

  100

  4,584

  16

  23,712

  84

  March

  30,141

  100,

  4,997

  17

  25,144

  83

  April

  26,607

  100

  4,157

  16

  22,450

  84

  May

  24,421

  100

  3,935

  16

  20,486

  84

  June

  27,437

  100

  4,242

  15

  23,195

  85

  July

  28,214

  100

  4,704

  17

  23,510

  83

  August

  23,796

  100

  3,485

  15

  20,311

  85

  September

  26,950

  100

  3,924

  15

  23,026

  85

  October

  26,501

  100

  2,756

  10

  23,745

  90

  November

  26,154

  100

  12

  23,000

  88

  December

  22,482

  100

  2,855

  13

  19,627

  87

  Total

  322,533

  100

  47,749

  15

  274,784

  85

  140 141

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Summary non-motoring offences

  January

  41,461

  100

  517

  1

  40,944

  99

  February

  35,945

  100

  413

  1

  35,532

  99

  March

  41,117

  100

  448

  1

  40,669

  99

  April

  37,508

  100

  366

  1

  37,142

  99

  May

  36,208

  100

  307

  1

  35,901

  99

  June

  42,404

  100

  388

  1

  42,016

  99

  July

  42,231

  100

  390

  1

  41,841

  99

  August

  37,057

  100

  343

  1

  36,714

  99

  September

  41,435

  100

  327

  1

  41,108

  99

  October

  39,865

  100

  179

  0

  39,686

  100

  November

  39,996

  100

  217

  1

  39,779

  99

  December

  32,701

  100

  198

  1

  32,503

  99

  Total

  467,928

  100

  4,093

  1

  463,835

  99

  Summary motoring offences

  January

  62,118

  100

  655

  1

  61,463

  99

  February

  54,992

  100

  579

  1

  54,413

  99

  March

  61,337

  100

  642

  1

  60,695

  99

  April

  57,401

  100

  532

  1

  56,869

  99

  May

  53,053

  100

  488

  1

  52,565

  99

  June

  62,883

  100

  532

  1

  62,351

  99

  July

  64,396

  100

  595

  1

  63,801

  99

  August

  58,886

  100

  543

  1

  58,343

  99

  September

  64,052

  100

  490

  1

  63,562

  99

  October

  61,599

  100

  324

  1

  61,275

  99

  November

  59,917

  100

  393

  1

  59,524

  99

  December

  50,526

  100

  373

  1

  50,153

  99

  Total

  711,160

  100

  6,146

  1

  705,014

  99

  All offences

  January

  135,113

  100

  6,135

  5

  128,978

  95

  February

  119,233

  100

  5,576

  5

  113,657

  95

  March

  132,595

  100

  6,087

  5

  126,508

  95

  April

  121,516

  100

  5,055

  4

  116,461

  96

  May

  113,682

  100

  4,730

  4

  108,952

  96

  June

  132,724

  100

  5,162

  4

  127,562

  96

  July

  134,841

  100

  5,689

  4

  129,152

  96

  August

  119,739

  100

  4,371

  4

  115,368

  96

  September

  132,437

  100

  4,741

  4

  127,696

  96

  October

  127,965

  100

  3,259

  3

  124,706

  97

  November

  126,067

  100

  3,757

  3

  122,310

  97

  December

  105,709

  100

  3,426

  3

  102,283

  97

  Total

  1,501,621

  100

  57,988

  4

  1,443,633

  96

  1 Provisional.

  Table D

  Proportionate use of immediate custody for defendants sentenced at the Crown Court following committal for trial Crown Court following committal for trial

  England and Wales 1992–1993

  Month

  1992

  1993

  January

  48

  42

  February

  48

  46

  March

  49

  47

  April

  50

  49

  May

  49

  50

  June

  49

  51

  July

  48

  52

  August

  48

  54

  September

  48

  October

  42

  November

  42

  December

  43

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions accused persons in criminal cases have exercised their rights to silence in each six-month period over the three years; and if he will list such information he has available on the last dates, courts, and charges when verdicts of not guilty have been given in such cases over that period.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the five categories of crime that have(a) increased and (b) decreased most since 1979, excluding consequences of criminalisation and decriminalisation.
  143
  Mr. Maclean
  The five largest increases in recorded crime, i.e. notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales, between 1979 and 1992 were:

  Per cent.

  Perverting the course of justice

  +915

  Theft or unauthorised taking from mail

  +531

  Aggravated burglary in a building

  +377

  Other criminal damage value £20+ not endangering life

  +338

  Robbery or assault with attempt to rob

  +324

  The five largest decreases in recorded crime were:

  Per cent.

  False accounting

  -67

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl over 12 but under 16

  -56

  Theft by an employee

  -54

  Abstracting electricity

  -49

  Indecency between males

  -33

  Classifications with small numbers of offences and those largely affected by legislation and definitional changes have been excluded.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of changes in the incidence of crimes against the person and of crimes against property since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  Recorded crimes against the person and crimes against property both increased by 120 per cent. between 1979 and 1992.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of crimes committed in the London borough of Lewisham in each year since 1985 were crimes related to(a) theft from residential property, (b) theft from commercial property, (c) theft from vehicles, (d) murder and (e) drugs.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to notifiable offences recorded by the police and is contained in the table:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police—certain offences as a percentage of all offences in Lewisham

  Percentages

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary in other building

  Theft from a vehicle

  Homicide

  Drug trafficking

  1985

  16

  8

  16

  0.03

  0.2

  1986

  18

  6

  19

  0.04

  0.1

  1987

  15

  7

  21

  0.05

  0.1

  1988

  19

  6

  19

  0.01

  0.2

  1989

  20

  6

  19

  —

  1—

  1990

  21

  7

  15

  0.03

  0.2

  1991

  19

  7

  16

  0.02

  0.2

  1992

  20

  7

  14

  0.04

  0.1

  1 Not available

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were reported to police in the London borough of Lewisham in each year since 1985; and what percentage in each year resulted in a conviction.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to notifiable offences recorded by the police and is given in the table. It is not possible to link recorded crime statistics with convictions, as the information collected on convictions is compiled on a different basis.
  144

  Number

  Offences recorded

  1985

  25,943

  1986

  27,005

  1987

  26,384

  1988

  25,210

  1989

  26,002

  1990

  27,959

  1991

  29,775

  1992

  31,380

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many violent crimes were committed in(a) south-east London as a whole and (b) Lewisham, for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Offences of violent crime1 recorded by the police

  Number

  South-east London (No. 3 Area)

  Lewisham

  1985

  5,792

  1,326

  1986

  6,039

  1,444

  1987

  6,776

  1,728

  1988

  7,060

  1,689

  1989

  8,058

  1,961

  1990

  9,163

  2,224

  1991

  10,980

  2,821

  1992

  11,199

  2,646

  1 Includes violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  War Crimes Act 1991
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are being investigated under the War Crimes Act 1991; what is the cost of these investigations to date; what prosecutions have been brought; how many prosecutions are likely to be brought; and if he will consider abandoning these investigations and/or prosecutions in whole or in part.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Forty-four cases are currently under investigation by the Metropolitan police war crimes unit. The cost of investigations to date is estimated at £3.8 million. No prosecutions have yet been brought under the Act, and I cannot anticipate when, or if, sufficient evidence will be available for any prosecutions to be brought. However, the police and prosecution authorities cannot ignore evidence of war crimes which has been and may be uncovered.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate changes in the incidence of drink driving, over the limit drink driving and deaths associated with over the limit drink driving since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available relates to the incidence of drink driving when a driver is over the prescribed alcohol limit.

  Estimates of fatal casualties involving illegal alcohol levels are published by the Department of Transport. The

  145
  table give the number of positive or refused breath tests and revised estimates of the number of fatal casualties in accidents involving illegal alcohol levels:

  Positive/Refused Breath tests England and Wales (Thousands)

  Fatal casualties Great Britain1 (Numbers)

  1979

  84.4

  1,640

  1980

  89.2

  1,450

  1981

  80.6

  1,420

  1982

  88.6

  1,550

  1983

  98.4

  1,110

  1984

  87.6

  1,170

  1985

  95.7

  1,040

  1986

  97.8

  990

  1987

  111.4

  900

  1988

  111.7

  790

  1989

  108.0

  810

  1990

  102.4

  760

  1991

  90.3

  660

  1992

  87.1

  2610

  1 Department of Transport figures

  1 Provisional

  Exclusion Orders
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals against exclusion orders are outstanding.

  Mr. Howard
  There are none.

  Daylight Saving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the gains and losses of continuing the practice of returning to Greenwich mean time from autumn to spring;

  (2) on what issues he has received representations on the use of Greenwich mean time in winter.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The 1989 Green Paper "Summer Time—A Consultation Document" (Cm 722) considered possible losses and gains from returning to Greenwich mean time in winter, in particular as to: the incidence of road traffic accidents; crime; leisure pursuits; energy consumption; communications; travel; trade; agriculture; the construction industry; and tourism. Representations we have received since the Green Paper have focused on that range of issues.

  Table A1 Number of juveniles aged 10 to under 17 cautioned and prosecuted and committed for trial at magistrates' courts within the Metropolitan Police District1 and the Lewisham area by type of offence 1990

  Committed for trial

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Prosecuted (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Per cent.

  Metropolitan Police District1

  Indictable offences

  8,583

  4,221

  327

  8

  Summary non-motoring offences

  3,234

  1,468

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  11,817

  5,689

  327

  6

  Lewisham juvenile court

  Indictable offences

  2—

  112

  —

  —

  Summary non-motoring offences

  2—

  35

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  2—

  147

  —

  —

  Greenwich juvenile court

  South African Citizens
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many South African citizens have enetered the United Kingdom in each of the past five calendar years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of admissions of South African citizens into the United Kingdom were 123,000 in 1988, 132,000 in 1989, 150,000 in 1990, 138,000 in 1991, and 156,000 in 1992.

  Driving Disqualifications
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if disqualifications from driving imposed by(a) courts in the United Kingdom and (b) in courts of other member states of the European Community are enforced in the Isle of Man.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Disqualifications imposed by courts in the United Kingdom, or by courts in other member states of the European Community, are not recognised in the Isle of Man.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation that provides for disqualifications from driving, imposed by courts in the Isle of Man, being enforced in the United Kingdom; if he will seek to extend such disqualifications to member states of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans at present to introduce such legislation.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many juveniles were(a) cautioned and (b) prosecuted by the police in (i) London and (ii) Lewisham for each year since 1990; and how many of those prosecuted were committed by the courts;

  (2) how many juveniles convicted of a crime in (a) London and (b) Lewisham had committed an offence which was drug related, in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information available centrally on juveniles aged 10 to under 17 years in the Metropolitan police district—including the City of London—and courts within the Lewisham area is given in the table.

  It is only possible to distinguish centrally offenders who have committed drug offences as opposed to drug-related offences.
  147

  Committed for trial

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Prosecuted (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Per cent.

  Indictable offences

  2—

  238

  —

  —

  Summary non-motoring offences

  2—

  66

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  2—

  304

  —

  —

  Greenwich Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  2—

  21

  12

  57

  Summary non-motoring offences

  2—

  2

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  2—

  23

  12

  52

  Woolwich Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  2—

  10

  5

  50

  Summary non-motoring offences

  2—

  10

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  2—

  20

  5

  25

  1 Includes the City of London.

  2 Not applicable.

  Table A2 Number of juveniles aged 10 to under 17 cautioned and prosecuted and committed for trial at magistrates' courts within the Metropolitan Police District1 and the Lewisham area by type of offence 1991

  Committed for trial

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Prosecuted (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Per cent.

  Metropolitan Police District1

  Indictable offences

  8,092

  4,050

  310

  8

  Summary non-motoring offences

  2,733

  1,310

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  10,825

  5,360

  310

  6

  Lewisham juvenile court

  Indictable offences

  2—

  76

  4

  5

  Summary non-motoring offences

  2—

  18

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  2—

  94

  4

  4

  Greenwich juvenile court

  Indictable offences

  2—

  210

  —

  —

  Summary non-motoring offences

  2—

  57

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  2—

  267

  —

  —

  Greenwich Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  2—

  45

  14

  31

  Summary non-motoring offences

  2—

  11

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  2—

  56

  14

  25

  Woolwich Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  2—

  11

  4

  36

  Summary non-motoring offences

  2—

  3

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  2—

  14

  4

  29

  1 I Includes the City of London.

  2 Not applicable.

  Table A3 Number of juveniles aged 10 to under 17 cautioned and prosecuted and committed for trial at magistrates' courts within the Metropolitan Police District1 and the Lewisham area by type of offence 19922

  Committed for trial

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Prosecuted (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Per cent.

  Metropolitan Police District1

  Indictable offences

  8,644

  3,823

  269

  7

  Summary non-motoring offences

  3,065

  1,254

  1

  0

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  11,709

  5,077

  270

  5

  Lewisham juvenile court

  Indictable offences

  *

  107

  3

  3

  Summary non-motoring offences

  *

  24

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  *

  131

  3

  2

  Greenwich juvenile court

  Indictable offences

  *

  188

  1

  1

  Summary non-motoring offences

  *

  102

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  *

  290

  1

  0

  Greenwich Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  *

  28

  4

  14

  Summary non-motoring offences

  *

  6

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  *

  34

  4

  12

  148 149

  Committed for trial

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Prosecuted (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Per cent.

  Woolwich Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  *

  8

  2

  25

  Summary non-motoring offences

  *

  3

  *

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  *

  11

  2

  18

  1 Includes the City of London.

  2 Provisional.

  * Not applicable.

  Table B

  Number of juveniles aged 10 to under 17 years convicted of drug offences in the Metropolitan Police District1 and Lewisham area 1985 to 19922

  Year

  Metropolitan Police District1

  Lewisham Juvenile Court

  Greenwich Juvenile Court

  Greenwich Petty Sessional Division

  Woolwich Petty Sessional Division

  1985

  114

  8

  4

  —

  —

  1986

  116

  8

  3

  1

  1

  1987

  67

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1988

  80

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1989

  108

  6

  6

  —

  —

  1990

  107

  1

  7

  1

  —

  1991

  86

  3

  3

  —

  —

  19922

  67

  3

  3

  —

  —

  1 Including City of London.

  2 Provisional.

  Prison Dental Services
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is responsible for the provision of dental care in each of Her Majesty's prisons; and how this service is monitored.

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

  Letter from D. Lewis to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to the Parliamentary Question on this subject which you tabled for written answer on Monday 18 October.
  Dental surgeons are appointed to provide dental treatment at each establishment by the Prison Service. The surgeon undertakes work as part of the services he or she provides for the Family Health Services Authority (FHSA) as part of the NHS commitment. The dental surgeon remains subject to General Dental Services Regulations and the FHSA's powers to inspect and monitor performance. The head of health care at each establishment is responsible to the governor for the routine supervision of the service.

  Risley Training Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of Risley as a training prison, with particular reference to the integrated regime.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 18 October 1993:
  150
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the future of Risley as a training prison and in particular its integrated regime.
  You may be aware of the decision to accommodate 384 vulnerable prisoners in refurbished blocks at Wymott. This was announced by the then Home Secretary in Autumn 1992, in accordance with recommendations made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. The change was scheduled for November 1993, but is being implemented slightly earlier as a consequence of the recent riot. The transfer of vulnerable prisoners will create additional accommodation in prisons in the north west and midlands. A significant proportion of these prisoners will be drawn from Vulnerable Prisoner Units at Liverpool and Risley.
  The integrated regime at Risley has been successful in allowing Vulnerable Prisoners to share daytime activities with selected prisoners from the main prison. Clearly, the future development of the integrated regime will depend on the number of vulnerable prisoners remaining at Risley. The Prison Service intends to provide a full regime for those prisoners transferred to Wymott based on a core programme for sex offenders to address their offending behaviour.
  For the present Risley will continue in its present role as a training prison. The development of its future role as a local prison serving the courts is being discussed and plans are being considered for a multi-functional community prison along the lines envisaged in the Woolf Report. Such plans will aim to provide decent conditions and a regime of purposeful activity for all prisoners.

  Inland Revenue (Information)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances the immigration and nationality divisions of his Department disclose information to the Inland Revenue without the consent of the individual concerned.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  When the Inland Revenue requests it in accordance with procedures agreed with the Inland Revenue.

  Hull Prison
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what purpose the special unit at HMP Hull created to house category A inmates was built; when it opened and how many inmates it was designed to hold; how many inmates it held at opening; how many it has held to date; how many it held 12 months ago and how many it holds at present.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Richard Burden, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Special Unit at Hull Prison.
  The Special Unit opened in 1988 to hold long-term adult male prisoners in category A and B who have a history of disruptive and aggressive behaviour.
  The Unit is located on A Wing in Hull which can accommodate 20 prisoners under normal prison conditions. However, given the special role of the Unit, the number of prisoners held would not normally exceed ten.
  On opening, the Unit held four prisoners. To date 47 prisoners have been located in the Unit, for varying lengths of time and some prisoners have left and returned for a further period. In October of last year, ten prisoners were held on the Unit and the Unit currently holds five prisoners.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring has taken place of the workings of the special unit for category A inmates at HMP Hull, what evaluation has been made of its success; and what plans he has for the future of the unit.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Richard Burden, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Special Unit at Hull Prison.
  A report evaluating the Hull Unit was completed at the end of 1991. It was prepared by Professor Norman Jepson and the late Mr. Kenneth Elliott, formerly of Leeds University. The report covers the first 2½ years of the Unit. A further assessment, to study whether the existence of this Unit and the other Special Units have had a beneficial effect on the management of long-term prisoners who present persistent control problems in the context of the long-term prison system as a whole, is currently being undertaken by Professor Keith Bottomley. His report is due at the end of the year and will subsequently be published. He will draw on all previous work which has been undertaken and will also have access to work carried out by the Unit's psychologist.
  We will wish to consider Professor Bottomley's report before making an informed judgement on the long-term future of Hull and the other Special Units.

  Sheehy Report
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he now intends to take following publication of the Sheehy report.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.

  Fire Hazards
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) killed and (b) injured in bedsitter fires in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of casualties in fires, attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom, which started in bedsitting rooms of dwellings in multiple occupation, is given in the table for the years 1987 to 1991.

  Fire-related deaths and injuries from fires starting in bedsitting rooms of dwellings in multiple occupancy, attended by local authority fire brigades, United Kingdom.

  Year

  Fire related deaths

  Fire related injuries

  1987

  40

  254

  1988

  41

  261

  1989

  37

  229

  1990

  36

  305

  1991

  28

  252

  Source: Home Office Fire Statistics, based on reports from local authority fire brigades.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to implement EC fire regulations in respect of offices and businesses;

  (2) what discussions he has had with EC institutions with regard to EC fire regulations in respect of offices and businesses during the last year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are presently considering revised proposals for Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations to implement the fire safety requirements of European Council directives 89/391/EEC and 89/654/EEC in the light of the recent efficiency scrutiny report on the implementation and enforcement of EC law in the United Kingdom. Those regulations, if implemented, will apply to most places of work with one or more employees.

  The Home Office has had no discussions with EC institutions about those proposals or the fire safety provisions of other health and safety directives during the last year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Licence Applications
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of his Export Control Organisation's time is taken up by(a) licence applications for sensitive destinations and (b) licensing for individual goods for non-sensitive destinations.

  Mr. Needham
  There are no figures setting out the proportion of time taken up by licensing in different areas and they could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, I would refer my hon. Friend to chapter 9 of the Export Control Organisation's annual report for 1992 in the House Library. This gives a breakdown of the work carried out by each of the licensing sections.

  Within these sections the number of staff at grades AA-SEO is as follows:
  153

  Number

  Sensitive Destinations Section (SDS)

  11

  COCOM Licensing Section (CLS)

  6

  Military and Atomic Licensing Section

  13

  Industrial Free World Licensing

  5

  These sections are managed by two G7 officers.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received from British Nuclear Fuels in regard to(a) the volume of radioactive waste that will be created from facility contamination and (b) the proposed disposal strategy for the decommissioning waste arising as a result of provisional commissioning of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant with uranium nitrate feedstock, in the event that consent for fuel commissioning of THORP is not subsequently granted.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, acting jointly with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to assist the European Commission in its preparation of its reports on(a) re-evaluation of the requirements for reprocessing and (b) the preparation of an inventory of nuclear waste holdings in each member state of the European Community.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has received no such request for assistance from the European Commission.

  AEA Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future arrangements for the provision of information services by the AEA library to hon. Members and the general public.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a management matter for the Atomic Energy Authority.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to implement his Department's interest in implementation of the British Nuclear Fuels-Nuclear Electric fixed price contracts.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 9 March 1993,Official Report, column 500.

  Environmental Awareness
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on how his Department plans to meet its target to promote environmental awareness and best practice as set out in his departmental MINIS 93, part Four, environmental section, page 15.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Plans for achieving my Department's environmental objectives are shown on pages 3 to 9 of the environmental section, part 4 of the departmental MINIS 93.
  154
  The Department has published a number of practical guides on matters relevant to the environmental performance of business, including waste minimisation, alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and export opportunities, and more are planned. A more general booklet, "The environment—a business guide" endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment (ACBE) was launched on 13 October with the aim of helping smaller firms in particular to improve their environmental performance. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Department supports or participates in a wide range of seminars and exhibitions to raise awareness of environmental issues and continues to operate a telephone environmental inquiry point—freephone 0800 585794—which provides a comprehensive information and signposting service to business. It is also supporting a number of local environmental self-help initiatives including five local business and environment clubs established under a programme recommended by ACBE.

  Together with the Department of the Environment, my Department is also funding the development and administration in the United Kingdom of the European Community eco-labelling scheme, which aims to encourage environmentally sound product and process design, and the European Community eco-management and audit scheme which will encourage the adoption of best environmental management practice.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the role played by his Department in co-ordination of United Kingdom participation in negotiating in EC instruments relating to export controls and an export licensing policy compatible with single market obligations.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department is co-ordinating the United Kingdom's contribution to the continuing negotiations on the proposed EC regulation covering export controls on certain dual-use goods and technologies. Other Government Departments and agencies which have an interest in export control matters have also participated fully.

  The Government's aim in the negotiations is to enhance enforcement of export controls in the context of the single European market, to ensure that the United Kingdom's ability to apply export controls in line with national foreign and security policy is maintained, and to protect the interest of United Kingdom exporters. The House will be informed of the outcome of the negotiations.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to implement policies to put into effect obligations entered into on nuclear safeguards on United Kingdom facilities since 1979; and how he has ensured such policies have not put the United Kingdom at an unnecessary disadvantage in regard to competitor countries.

  Mr. Eggar
  Arrangements for the application of International Atomic Energy Agency and Euratom safeguards in the United Kingdom have been negotiated pursuant to the terms of INFCIRC/263 and the Euratom
  155
  treaty. These site-specific inspection arrangements are confidential to the operator, HM Government and the international inspectorates.

  Judgments on what are considered to be appropriate inspection procedures for United Kingdom facilities take into account, as far as possible, accepted international practice at similar plants in other countries. In furtherance of this goal of maintaining common standards, the United Kingdom has played an important role in developing internationally accepted approaches for safeguarding major nuclear facilities, for example at centrifuge enrichment plants and large-scale reprocessing plants.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the Commission proposal for a Council decision approving the amendment by the Commission of Commission regulation (Euratom) No. 3227/76 of 19 October 1976 concerning the application of the provisions on Euratom safeguards, Corn (93) 294 final of 24 June.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers given to him on 31 March,Official Report, columns 210–11, and 21 May, Official Report, column 344, concerning the original Commission proposal to amend regulation (Euratom) 3227/76 of 19 October 1976. A revised version of the proposal detailed in Com(93) 294 final of 24 June, was approved by the Council with United Kingdom support. The text of the amendment was published in EC Official Journal No. L 191/75, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Tom Thorpe
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the reasons for the departure of Dr. Tom Thorpe from the energy technology support unit at Harwell.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Tom Thorpe has not departed from the energy technology support unit but continues to work in the unit's strategic studies department, which he joined in June 1989.

  Insurance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet officials of the Association of Insurance and Risk Managers in Industry and Commerce.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have accepted an invitation to meet members of the association to discuss matters such as insurance related to terrorism, environment and employment.

  Assisted Areas Status, Southend
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will extend to all hon. Members whose constituencies are included in the Southend travel-to-work area, an invitation to meet him regarding assisted area status for south-east Essex.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Decisions on the new assisted areas map were made after the careful consideration of each area's circumstances and are not subject to appeal. I received seven submissions from Southend during the review, all of which were given full consideration. I am not, therefore, meeting any delegations to discuss assisted area status.

  Atomic Energy Authority Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what joint consultation procedure exists between the police committee of the Atomic Energy Authority police, and that force's Police Federation, and the representative bodies of other ranks at which matters relating to police pay and conditions of service are discussed; what is the membership of the joint body; and on how many occasions it has met in the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested was provided in my answer to the hon. Member of 28 June 1993,Official Report,columns 369–70.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who serves on the police committee of the Atomic Energy Authority police; and how often it has met over the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The police committee of the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary (AEAC) is chaired by the AEA's managing director for corporate services and includes senior managers from AEA and British Nuclear Fuels sites and in particular those sites protected by the AEAC. The AEAC chief constable and deputy chief constable also attend meetings of the police committee. The committee has met twice a year during the past five years.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a Minister from his Department will meet with representatives of the Atomic Energy Authority Police Federation to discuss the ramifications of(a) the Sheehy report, (b) the White Paper on police and (c) matters of general concern to federation members which are not operational matters reserved for the chief constable.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. Regular meetings take place between representatives of the Atomic Energy Police Federation and AEA management through the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary joint consultative committee to discuss matters affecting the force.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent Home Office police regulations are applied to members of the Atomic Energy Authority police.

  Mr. Eggar
  Home Office regulations do not apply to members of the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary (AEAC). Their conditions of service are governed by the UKAEA staff conditions memoranda. However, these include many special provisions which apply only to members of the constabulary and which are based on the Home Office police regulations. Broadly, these provisions cover such matters as pay and allowances, duty, overtime, leave, housing, uniform and equipment.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of research(a) current and (b) planned to begin within the next 12 months in respect of clean coal technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Over 80 projects with a value of £144 million are currently under way in my Department's coal research and development programme. My Department is
  157
  contributing £28 million to this project portfolio. Over the next 12 months we expect to initiate at least 30 projects on clean coal technology involving British Coal, United Kingdom industry, universities and overseas organisations such as the European Community and United States Department of Energy. Since the end of May of this year we have announced the start of 34 projects committing £7.2 million of Government funding.

  To ensure there is adequate support for R and D on clean coal technology the Government announced in the coal White Paper increased support for coal R and D rising from approximately £3 million per annum to £7 million per annum for the period 1993–94 to 1995–96. This will enable research in developing advanced power generation technology and other coal science activities to continue at the Coal Research Establishment, universities and in industry and help ensure that full advantage can be taken of international collaboration.

  Companies House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to(a) publish and (b) consult on the study by SRU Ltd. on the future of Companies House; what assessment he has made on the impact on employment in Wales of any major alteration in the status of Companies House itself as the primary registrar of companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The SRU Ltd. report represents advice to Ministers, and I have no plans to publish it at present. During the preparation of the report, there was consultation on a number of issues with Companies House staff and with users of the registry's services, and there will be further consultation when we come to a view on the options before us.

  Until a clear picture emerges of what Companies House would look like, no accurate assessment can be made of the impact on employment.

  Timeshares
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken on the Office of Fair Trading report on timeshare of June 1990; and if he proposes to press for EC regulations on the subject.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Timeshare Act 1992 provides a mandatory cooling-off period for timeshare contracts entered into in the United Kingdom or under United Kingdom law.

  The United Kingdom Government consider that regulation at Community level is also required. The EC Commission submitted a draft timeshare directive to the Council of Ministers in July 1992. Negotiation of the draft directive is continuing and a common position is hoped for in the near future.

  Trade Regulation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the nature of the evidence he has received concerning statutory regulation of trade, manufacture, or commerce that constitutes obstruction to their success: and what is the purpose of each respective instrument currently available to him.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A wide variety of evidence on the impact of regulation on business has been received from a158
  number of sources in business, local authorities, pressure groups and academia. The purpose and effect of all regulatory instruments having an impact on business are currently being examined as part of the Government-wide review of all such regulation. The review aims to establish whether regulation is achieving what it was intended to and how necessary protections can be assured in a way that is least obstructive to trade and industry.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the approximate base load in thermal units of gas he expects to be generated by gas-burning electricity power stations from 1994 onward, the consequential depletion rate of known gas reserves in percentage of those known supplies, and the period he expects such supplies to be available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's coal review, published in March 1993 as Cm 2235 "The Prospects for Coal", contains a range of estimates of electricity generation frorn gas-fired power stations over the period 1993–94 to 1997–98 (table 11.3). The Department's Energy Paper No. 59 contains projections of the use of gas in power stations over a longer period up to 2020 (table 4.4). Drawing on these projections, the coal review contains estimates of the period over which United Kingdom gas reserves might meet overall gas demand (paras 7.12 to 7.14).

WALES

  National Health Service Provider UN0
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the numbers of provider units which have not made price lists for treatments available to purchaser units for the present financial year; what sanctions against late provision of treatment price lists he has authorised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The provision of contract price lists is a matter for commissioners and providers within a timetable agreed for the national health service in Wales as a whole.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has in regard to the areas of land in Wales contaminated by asbestos wastes; what representations he has received from owners of small businesses or domestic properties erected on land now found to be contaminated by asbestos; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The 1988 Welsh Office survey of contaminated land in Wales identified three former asbestos waste tips covering, in total, 3.5 hectares. Remedial work has already been carried out at two of these sites.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has received no representations from owners of small businesses or domestic properties.

  Building regulations require precautions to be taken to avoid danger to health and safety caused by substances found on, or in, the ground to be covered by buildings.

  Ophthalmology
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year end waiting list for(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient treatment in ophthalmology for each health authority and for Wales in each year since 1985.

  Median waiting time (days) for in-patients admitted from the waiting list during the calendar year1

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  21991–92

  Clwyd

  80

  63

  49

  46

  56

  55

  114

  East Dyfed

  34

  38

  43

  85

  83

  158

  4—

  Gwent

  196

  124

  97

  117

  155

  203

  4—

  Gwynedd

  65

  58

  47

  66

  82

  97

  86

  Mid Glamorgan

  39

  76

  34

  47

  53

  56

  48

  Pembrokeshire

  (26)

  (33)

  (29)

  (36)

  (33)

  (36)

  126

  Powys'

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  77

  86

  92

  111

  112

  106

  129

  West Glamorgan

  167

  170

  121

  192

  213

  135

  4—

  Wales

  71

  75

  51

  72

  77

  89

  94

  1 For patients admitted from the waiting list during the calendar year. A median waiting time is such that approximately half the patients waited less than this time to be admitted and half waited longer; median waiting times based on fewer than 50 cases are given in parentheses.

  2 A new information system for collation of hospital activity data was introduced from 1 April 1991. Figures for 1991–92 financial year are therefore not directly comparable with those for earlier years. Only districts for which reliable information has been received from hospitals have been included for 1991–92.

  3 There are no in-patient ophthalmology services provided by hospitals in Powys.

  4 Denotes not available.

  Notional time (days) to clear out-patient waiting list at 31 March

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clwyd

  30

  61

  54

  76

  71

  52

  81

  80

  43

  East Dyfed

  54

  40

  24

  56

  28

  35

  54

  69

  52

  Gwent

  46

  58

  19

  37

  42

  27

  20

  47

  54

  Gwynedd

  41

  73

  44

  64

  109

  57

  50

  65

  102

  Mid Glamorgan

  163

  122

  101

  74

  119

  77

  67

  93

  98

  Pembrokeshire

  18

  15

  19

  20

  24

  22

  32

  78

  92

  Powys

  31

  49

  45

  45

  105

  117

  146

  50

  120

  South Glamorgan

  31

  18

  33

  38

  68

  68

  84

  129

  167

  West Glamorgan

  215

  164

  103

  125

  92

  37

  82

  203

  208

  Wales

  74

  70

  50

  62

  73

  51

  62

  94

  100

  Provider Based Waiting Lists as at 31 March

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  In-patients:

  Clwyd

  744

  425

  260

  284

  356

  429

  626

  907

  1,126

  East Dyfed

  201

  181

  158

  418

  674

  1,080

  1,738

  1,370

  1,016

  Gwent

  746

  659

  572

  767

  868

  1,307

  1,081

  1,196

  1,247

  Gwynedd

  90

  181

  251

  390

  611

  654

  568

  633

  500

  Mid Glamorgan

  548

  718

  510

  359

  397

  397

  587

  617

  996

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  17

  6

  —

  Powys1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  372

  421

  399

  552

  633

  550

  769

  875

  641

  West Glamorgan

  382

  512

  624

  738

  964

  1,190

  1,382

  902

  842

  Wales

  3,083

  3,097

  2,774

  3,508

  4,503

  5,613

  6,768

  6,506

  6,368

  Out-patients:

  Clwyd

  421

  790

  728

  1,074

  1,043

  753

  1,114

  1,255

  846

  East Dyfed

  503

  399

  272

  606

  360

  440

  625

  950

  810

  Gwent

  858

  1,113

  386

  662

  864

  620

  451

  1,081

  1,309

  Gwynedd

  332

  616

  452

  711

  1,302

  646

  596

  648

  1,010

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,979

  1,590

  1,302

  1,098

  1,787

  1,569

  1,371

  1,928

  2,203

  Pembrokeshire

  44

  39

  62

  75

  84

  96

  146

  394

  487

  Powys

  47

  73

  76

  72

  186

  243

  297

  108

  239

  South Glamorgan

  660

  383

  739

  925

  1,523

  1,564

  1,896

  2,440

  3,440

  West Glamorgan

  2,533

  2,142

  1,392

  1,766

  1,377

  621

  1,195

  2,624

  3,263

  Wales

  7,377

  7,145

  5,409

  6,989

  8,526

  6,552

  7,691

  11,428

  13,607

  1 There are no in-patient ophthalmology services provided by hospitals in Powys.

  160
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is given in the following tables, which relate to hospital providers in each area. For in-patients median waiting times are available and for out-patients the notional time to clear the out-patient waiting list is given. Further information is available from the Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin 1993 No. 2, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The notional time to clear a waiting list is calculated by dividing the total waiting list at 31 March each year by the average daily number of new out-patients seen during the previous 12 months.

  Drawing Office
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with staff in the Welsh Office Drawing Office in relation to market testing in-house bids, the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and management reviews of the Drawing Office operation.

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials have had substantial consultations both with staff and their trade union side representatives about these issues.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on public access to the central register of air photography for Wales following the market-testing exercise in respect of the Welsh Office Drawing Office.

  Mr. Redwood
  The central register of air photography for Wales is not included in the market test of the Drawing Office and public access to the register is not affected.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with contractors and their representative organisations in relation to the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to private contractors tendering for the Welsh Office Drawing Office functions via the market-testing procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the tender specifications for the market testing of the Welsh Office Drawing Office.

  Mr. Redwood
  The tender specifications will be issued to those invited to bid, including the in-house team, in the near future.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future location of Welsh Office land use records in the light of the market-testing procedure for the Drawing Office.

  Mr. Redwood
  The land use records unit is not included in the market test of the Drawing Office.

  Urban Safety Management
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the designation of the canton urban safety management study as a pilot urban safety management scheme for Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  South Glamorgan county council has submitted a proposal and my right hon. Friend has received the hon. Member's letter of support of 20 September.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what communications he has received from the Wales regional office of the National Rivers Authority with respect to the classification of the proposed impoundment 162
  at Cardiff bay as a sensitive water in the at risk of eutrophication category, under the urban waste water directive of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The National Rivers Authority has yet to submit to my right hon. Friend its proposed list of candidate sensitive areas for Wales in connection with the implementation of the EC urban waste water treatment directive. The NRA has provided its current working list of candidate eutrophic sensitive areas which includes Cardiff bay, assuming the barrage is constructed. A copy of the list has been placed in the Library of the House pursuant to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for the the Environment and Countryside gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on 27 July, column 905.

  Wales Engineering Centre
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Wales engineering centre proposal; what consultations he has undertaken; and if he will place a copy of the Brodie report in the Library.

  Mr. Redwood
  The initiative to establish the Engineering Centre for Wales was taken in response to the need to raise the image and status of science, engineering and technology and to create awareness of the important contribution these subjects make to wealth creation. It is being driven forward by the Engineering Council, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency.

  At an early stage, the views of about 100 representatives of industry, academia, various agencies and professional institutions were sought at a workshop held in March 1992. Since then, the views of the centre's key customers have continually been canvassed for consideration in the planning process.

  I have arranged for a copy of my Department's engineering skills consultation paper to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Church Act Funds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had in relation to the administration of Welsh Church Act funds in the light of his local government reorganisation proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have consulted the two local authority associations and the Church in Wales. The Wales Council for Voluntary Action has submitted a proposal about the future of the funds: I have yet to reach a decision on this.

  Radioactive Sulphur, Wylfa
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the leak of radioactive sulphur 35 from the Wylfa nuclear plant on 31 July andl 1 August.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Sulphur-35 was released to the atmosphere on 2 August 1993 during shutdown of reactor 1 following equipment failure during refuelling on 31 July. The release was in excess of the weekly authorised limit and was graded as a category 1 incident on the international nuclear event scale—anomaly beyond the authorised operating regime.
  163
  The authorising departments considered the release to have resulted in negligible off-site consequences and monitoring of foodstuffs found no activity above European Commission maximum permitted levels. The authorising departments are conducting an extensive investigation into the incident.

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the source and scope of the fund that is providing the expenditure for a revolving door at the Wrexham Maelor hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The revolving door at Wrexham Maelor hospital is included within the expansion of the hospital currently under way, which is funded from the major capital building programme for hospital and community health services.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the West Wales training and enterprise council in relation to(a) the deadline for publication of all TEC accounts and (b) the latest estimate for the publication date of the 1992–93 accounts for West Wales TEC.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My officials wrote to all TECs on 24 June 1993 to remind them of their contractual obligations under the TEC operating agreement for the submission of annual reports and audited accounts. This letter was subsequently followed up informally by officials.

  A copy of the TEC's 1992–93 annual accounts is available in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual spending on family credit; and what was the spending on family income supplement in 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  Family credit expenditure for 1992–93 was £864 million. This is 13 times more in real terms than the £24 million spent on family income supplement in 1978–79.

  Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department has taken to reduce the level of fraudulent claims for social security benefits.

  Mr. Lilley
  Record fraud savings of £558 million were made last year when the Benefits Agency caught over 270,000 people cheating the system. Through a range of measures already introduced or planned for the future we are cracking down on opportunities for fraud.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra investment in anti-fraud work his Department is making over preceding years.

  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra investment in anti-fraud work his Department is making.
  164
  Mr. Burt
  To help step up the fight against fraud we have allocated an extra £10 million to the Benefits Agency this year, to be continued in succeeding years. We have also introduced new incentives to encourage local authorities to crack down on housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud.

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioner households had an income below half of the contemporary average in 1990–91.

  Mr. Hague
  In 1990–91, an estimated 34 per cent. of pensioners had income below half the national average before housing costs; and estimated 37 per cent. after housing costs.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have some form of second income to add to the basic state pension.

  Mr. Hague
  Eighty-five per cent. of pensioner units had income on top of state benefits in 1990–91, the latest year for which information is available. State benefits include both basic state pension and income-related benefits.

  Benefits
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to promote a debate on the balance between selective and universal benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Through my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security's Mais lecture in June and "The Growth of Social Security" published in July we have fuelled a widespread debate on the British social security system. In due course, we will put forward specific proposals for reform. These will be subject to extensive debate in Parliament and elsewhere.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of recipients of(a) housing benefit, (b) income support, (c) family credit and (d) invalidity benefit by region and the percentage of the eligible regional population receiving this benefit in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 24 August 1993. The information is as follows:
  Pursuant to my reply of 22 July in which I said I would let you have such information as is available. I am now pleased to be in a position to give you a reply.
  Information on the eligible population for each benefit on a regional basis is not available. Such information as is available is in the tables attached.

  Housing Benefit Recipients without Income Support

  (000)

  Region/year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  171

  151

  140

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  143

  126

  158

  East Midlands

  104

  99

  117

  East Anglia

  50

  53

  59

  South East

  445

  451

  458

  South West

  118

  107

  112

  South Midlands

  91

  181

  181

  North West

  260

  194

  182

  Scotland

  238

  239

  237

  165

  Region/year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Wales

  89

  84

  86

  Great Britain

  1,709

  1,685

  1,730

  Income Support Recipients

  (000)

  Region/year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  North Eastern

  674

  688

  753

  London North

  638

  735

  891

  South Western

  274

  310

  357

  Wales

  248

  257

  287

  Midlands

  665

  699

  800

  North Western

  643

  669

  731

  Scotland

  481

  487

  519

  London South

  558

  641

  749

  Great Britain

  4,180

  4,487

  5,088

  Family Credit Recipients

  (000)

  Region/Year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  North Eastern

  59

  63

  82

  London North

  35

  38

  52

  South Western

  26

  28

  37

  Wales

  22

  22

  29

  Midlands

  59

  66

  84

  North Western

  56

  58

  74

  Scotland

  40

  43

  54

  London South

  29

  32

  45

  Great Britain

  327

  350

  457

  Invalidity Benefit Recipients

  (000)

  Region/Year

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Northern

  110

  117

  126

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  107

  118

  125

  East Midlands

  61

  66

  74

  East Anglia

  24

  26

  29

  South East

  192

  205

  219

  South Western

  60

  66

  72

  West Midlands

  90

  97

  106

  North Western

  185

  200

  220

  Scotland

  158

  169

  181

  Wales

  132

  137

  147

  Overseas

  7

  7

  7

  Great Britain

  1,126

  1,209

  1,306

  Sources:

  Housing Benefit/Community Charge Benefit annual 1 per cent. sample, May 1990–1992.

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1990–1992.

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards, October 1990–1992.

  Invalidity Benefit 1 per cent. sample of claimants, April 1989, March 1990–1991

  Notes:

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

  2. The regions given for Income Support and Family Credit are the Social Security Administrative Regions used by the Department prior to 1988. The regions given for Housing Benefit and Invalidity Benefit are the Standard Statistical Regions.

  3. Figures are given for each benefit. People receiving one benefit may also receive one or more of the others.

  4. Figures come from "Point in time" surveys carried out on different dates; care should be taken in comparing figures between benefits.

  5. Invalidity Benefit figure includes overseas recipients.

  6. Figures for the eligible regional population for each benefit are not available.

  Goode Report
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the findings of the Goode committee report on occupational pensions.

  Mr. Hague
  The Government will be giving careful consideration to the committee's detailed recommendations.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the first three months operation of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency is a new business operating under new legislation.

  In its first three months of operation the agency issued 177,000 maintenance application forms to parents with care of children, sent 38,500 maintenance inquiry forms to absent parents and made 4,000 maintenance assessments.

  We are closely monitoring its performance and I am satisfied that the start it has made in introducing these new arrangements will ensure that parents meet their responsibilities for child maintenance whenever they can afford to do so.

  "The Growth of Social Security"
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had about his Department's publication of "The Growth of Social Security"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  "The Growth of Social Security" was intended to stimulate and inform public debate on the social security programme. The Department has received a substantial number of comments and representations reflecting a wide range of opinion.

  Incomes
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the incomes of the poorest and richest 10 per cent. of households have changed in real terms, after housing costs, between 1979 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) on 26 July 1993,Official Report, column 460.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage change in income during the period 1979 to the latest date for which information is available before and after housing costs, of each percentile group in the population.

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 July 1993, c. 1010]: I am advised that a figure was omitted from the table included in my reply. The correct information is:
  Real increases in income between 1979 and 1990–91 for each decile group in the income distribution are provided in the table; greater disaggregation would not give statistically reliable results. These figures relate to the United Kingdom and are based on income equivalised for household size and composition.
  167

  Percentage changes in real income by decile group 1979–1990–91

  Decile Group Medians

  Income before housing costs

  Income after housing costs

  Decile 1

  -1

  -14

  Decile 2

  6

  0

  Decile 3

  11

  7

  Decile 4

  17

  16

  Decile 5

  23

  22

  Decile 6

  27

  28

  Decile 7

  31

  33

  Decile 8

  36

  38

  Decile 9

  43

  45

  Decile 10

  58

  62

  Note: All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Pensions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people currently contribute to(a) a final salary occupational pension scheme, (b) a money purchase occupational pension scheme and (c) a personal pension; and what is his estimate of the corresponding figures in five years' time.

  Mr. Hague
  The Government Actuary provisionally estimates that in 1991, 8.4 million people made personal contributions to final salary occupational pension schemes; and 0.7 million made personal contributions to money purchase occupational pension schemes. Figures on the number of people who are making additional voluntary contributions to occupational pensions schemes are not available.

  In the financial year 1991–92, 2 million people made personal contributions to appropriate personal pensions in place of the state earnings-related pension scheme, and a further 3 million made contributions to other personal pensions.

  The information on the corresponding position in five years time is not available.

  Sources:
  Occupational Pension Schemes: The Provisional Results of the 1991 Government Actuaries Department Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes.
  Personal Pensions: Inland Revenue, Statistics and Economics Office.

  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners currently have an occupational pension; and how many had one in 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the table.

  Percentage of pensioners with income from occupational pensions

  1979

  1990–91

  Pensioner couples

  65

  70

  Single pensioners

  32

  56

  All pensioner units

  43

  61

  Source:

  Family expenditure survey and GAD survey of occupational pension schemes.

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners units are defined as single people above state pension age and couples in which the husband is above state pension age.

  2. 1990–91 denotes estimates from a combined sample of the 1990 and 1991 family expenditure surveys (FES). One quarter of the 1991 FES sample has been omitted because of inadequate data on community charge benefit receipt following the delayed issue of community charge bills in April 1991. As a result the sample size in that year is too small to provide reliable estimates of pensioners' incomes. For this reason the remaining data for 1991 have been combined with that for 1990.

  Pension Age
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost to public funds would be of equalisation of the state pension at 60 years.

  Mr. Hague
  Equalising the state pension at 60 would cost, at today's prices, over £4.5 billion by 2025.

  Income Support
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support there are in the Cunninghame, North constituency.

  Mr. Burt
  Information of this kind is not collected for individual parliamentary constituencies. However, I understand from the Benefits Agency that there are 65,441 income support recipients recorded by offices located within Cunninghame, North.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many men aged between 60 and 65 years were claiming income support in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available figures show that there were 176,000 men aged between 60 and 65 years successfully claiming income support.

  Notes:

  1. Source: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, November 1992.

  2. The figure has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. The figure includes men aged 60 but excludes those aged 65 and does not include men receiving income support as partners.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to reducing the taper for housing benefit assessment.

  Mr. Burt
  I have no plans, at this time, to cut the housing benefit taper.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of people currently in receipt of invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated average number of people who will be receiving invalidity benefit at any one time during the year 1993–94 is 1,585,000.

  Source: The departmental report, 1993.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many men aged between 60 and 65 years were claiming invalidity benefit in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  On 4 April 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 285,000 men aged between 60 and 65 receiving invalidity benefit.

  Notes: Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Pensioners (Shares)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has as to the number of pensioners who own shares.
  169
  Mr. Hague
  We estimate that in 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available, 1.5 million pensioner units received income from stocks and shares.

  Expenditure, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were his Department's capital and total expenditures in North Yorkshire for the last financial year and for each of the previous three years.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table. The figures are for administrative spending in the North Yorkshire district by the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency since they were established in 1991.

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Capital spending

  30,953

  47,128

  Total administrative expenditure

  4,427,095

  5,029,952

  Child Benefit
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to the level of child benefit or equivalent paid to the mother of one child in each other EC country.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Comparison of weekly rate of child benefit in EC Member States—For first child at age:

  £

  4

  11

  16

  Belgium

  9·39

  12·66

  14·65

  Denmark

  10·53

  7·93

  7·93

  France1

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Germany

  4·94

  4·94

  4·94

  Greece2

  0·76

  0·76

  0·76

  Ireland

  3·54

  3·54

  3·54

  Italy3

  —

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  7·69

  9–57

  1332

  Netherlands

  6·75

  9·42

  12·10

  Portugal

  2–78

  2·78

  2·78

  Spain4

  3–92

  3·92

  3·92

  UK

  9·65

  9·65

  9·65

  Source: MISSOC 1992.

  The conversion to sterling has been calculated using the OECD averages of purchasing power parities during 1992.

  1 Child benefit paid only for second and subsequent children.

  2 Progressively reduced to £0.52 per week if gross family income is more than £6,796 per annum.

  3 No specific amount; child benefit is means-tested.

  4 No benefit if family income is more than £5,661 per annum.

  Family Resources Survey
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what purposes his Department has commissioned a family resources survey; by whom the questions were devised; by whom the data gathered will be analysed; and how and when it will be published.

  Mr. Burt
  The new family resources survey (FRS) has been commissioned to provide better information about the characteristics and finances of households. The improved data will enable better monitoring of the social security 170
  programme and expenditure forecasting. In particular, it will be better geared to provide information on low-income households as the basis for households below average income statistics than the family expenditure survey which is currently used.

  The questionnaire content was agreed in consultation with DSS analysts and other interested Departments and finalised with the survey's field contractors after pilot studies.

  The field contractors began collecting data for the new FRS last October. After the removal of information identifying individual respondents by the contractors, the data are passed to the analytical services division of DSS.

  It is envisaged that a summary statistical bulletin with provisional data will be published, as a publication of the Government Statistical Service, in the second half of 1994.

  Absent Fathers
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women have been asked to name an absent father at benefit offices in(a) Edinburgh and (b) Scotland as a whole; how many have demurred; and how many have had income support deducted as a penalty.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive, who has written further to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. Hepplewhite to Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, dated 16 August 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency I wrote to you on 26 July in response to your Parliamentary Question about the number of women in Edinburgh who had been asked to name an absent father and how many had demurred.
  My letter said that between 5 April and 30 June 1993, 37 parents with care of children had been interviewed in Edinburgh in connection with their applications for child maintenance. I also said that, of these, 24 had declined without good cause to co-operate in providing details of the absent parent. However, I have subsequently established that of the 37 interviewed, 12 named the absent parent and only one parent declined without good cause to co-operate. The other figures given are unchanged.
  I am sorry for any confusion my earlier reply may have caused.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many successful prosecutions have taken place of self-employed individuals found to be evading national insurance contribution payments; and what has been the value of the revenue recovered in each year since 1984–85(a) in each region and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of national insurance is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from A. Chant to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 27 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency I ant responsible for answering questions about relevant operational matters. I have been asked to reply to your question about how many self-employed individuals have been successfully prosecuted for the evasion of National Insurance contributions (NICs), and the value of the revenue recovered in each year since 1984–85.

  171
  When arrears of self-employed (Class 2) contributions are discovered it is the aim of the Agency to obtain current compliance and payment of the arrears at the smallest cost to public funds. If necessary, the Agency will pursue unpaid Class 2 NICs by either civil or criminal prosecution. In my answer to your other separate question about the self-employed I have supplied, in annexes which will be tabled in the Library, details of the number of proceedings undertaken by the Agency and the amounts involved.
  We do not keep separate figures for the number of successful prosecutions nor for amounts of money collected in relation to these proceedings, because some cases are resolved before litigation has run its full course or alternatively the money may be collected by instalments. These cases are regarded as an effective part of the litigation process.
  I regret that I have been unable to give you the precise information that you requested in your question but I hope that my reply has proved helpful.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the names, occupations and current employers of those who currently hold positions in each public body to which he makes appointments; if he will make a statement on the considerations taken into account when making such appointments and if he will list details of the posts and salaries or allowances payable which have changed since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992."

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 June 1993, c. 322–23]: The earlier reply contained incorrect information. The correct information is in the table.

  Chair

  Members

  Disability Appeal Tribunals

  325 male

  908 male

  79 female

  677 female

  Social Security Appeals Tribunals

  479 male

  2,269 male

  122 female

  1,252 female

  Medical Appeal Tribunals

  88 male

  464 male

  8 female

  9 female

  Disability
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide statistics on the basis of the latest analysis of households below average income, for the long-term sick and those on disability benefit to correspond with statistical data for pensioners, recipients of income support and unemployment given in tables A4 and A5 in the latest households below average income report.

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 July 1993, c. 71–72]: I am advised that the reply contained incomplete information. The correct information is as follows:
  The households below average income (HBAI) dataset, the family expenditure survey (FES), does not identify all long-term sick or disabled people, and its identification of receipt of disability benefits is imperfect. The estimates are susceptible to these imperfections as well as sampling errors. The results reported in the tables may, therefore, reflect changes in the categories of long-term sick or disabled people identified in the FES, as well as changes in the incomes of such people.
  Where figures are particularly uncertain due to sampling error and where the confidence intervals exceed pre-determined limits the estimates are bracketed or omitted. Further information about the effects of sampling errors can be found in appendix 5 of HBAI, a copy of which is in the Library.
  The figures in the tables are presented in line with tables A4 and A5 in Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1990–91.
  172

  Changes in real income for long-term sick and those on disability benefits

  Real changes in median incomes 1979 to 1990–91 (Percentage) Income before housing costs

  Bottom quintile

  Second quintile

  Third quintile

  Whole group (mean)

  Before housing costs

  Long-term sick or receiving disability benefits

  (4)

  (14)

  (*)2

  26

  Income after housing costs

  Long-term sick or receiving disability benefits

  (*)3

  (14)

  (*)4

  30

  Notes:

  1 People who reported receipt of invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance, attendance allowance or mobility allowance or people not in work who reported long-term sickness or disability.

  2. 95 per cent. confidence interval is +9 to +30.

  3. 95 per cent. confidence interval is -7 to +15.

  4. 95 per cent. confidence interval is +12 to +36.

  Money values of quintile medians for long-term sick and those on disability benefits in April 1993 prices (£ per week equivalised)

  Bottom quintile

  Second quintile

  Third quintile

  Whole group (mean)

  1979

  Before housing costs

  Long-term sick or Receiving disability benefits

  92

  113

  135

  148

  1990–91

  Long-term sick or Receiving disability benefits

  96

  129

  162

  186

  1979

  After housing costs

  Long-term sick or Receiving disability benefits

  76

  96

  117

  128

  1990–91

  Long-term sick or Receiving disability benefits

  79

  109

  144

  166

  Note:

  1. All estimates are subject to sampling error—see table on income growth.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Wheat
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average ex-farm price of wheat received by farmers in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany in pounds sterling in 1979 and each year since 1984.

  Mr. Jack
  Information for Great Britain, France and Germany is set out in the following table. Comparable information for the United Kingdom is not available.
  173

  Ex-farm price of wheat

  £ per tonne

  Great Britain1

  France2

  Germany2

  1979–80

  98·13

  91·51

  117·70

  1983–84

  124·33

  98·48

  123·90

  1984–85

  111·26

  96·06

  111·25

  1985–86

  112·20

  114·74

  129·24

  1986–87

  112·67

  113·82

  134·74

  1987–88

  111·20

  100·32

  116·40

  1988–89

  114·19

  105·57

  113·67

  1989–90

  112·23

  106·28

  116·26

  1990–91

  119·56

  107·19

  112·50

  1991–92

  122·31

  107·53

  122·66

  1 Source: Home Grown Cereals Authority—Actual prices (Years are from July-June).

  2 Source: Eurostat—by calendar year—1979 and 1984–92.

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements her Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by her Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as Braille, large print or tape.

  Mr. Jack
  MAFF aims to respond positively and helpfully to all requests for information from blind and partially sighted people. The Department has recently set up a telephone helpline to offer callers unfamiliar with MAFF a clear route into the Department and the information it can provide. Helpline staff would welcome enquiries from visually impaired people at any time. As well as providing a new focal point for information from the Department, the helpline is an additional means of putting callers rapidly in touch with officials who can deal with enquiries on specialist issues. The Department has an equal opportunities unit which provides central advice on meeting special needs.

  Computer Consultancies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list all the computer consultancies employed by her Department and agencies, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to her Department.

  Mr. Jack
  There follows a list giving details of the computer consultancies employed by the Department since November 1991 and the tasks on which they were engaged.

  I am unable to provide precisely the total cost of consultancies in that period, since that would involve the officials in considerable effort. However, in recent years the annual budget for computer consultancies has varied between £5 million and £7 million.

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food list of computer consultants employed since November 1991.

  CONSULTANT AND TASK

  Admiral—Development of computer systems for CAP Reform schemes.

  AIMS Systems—Technical advice on Structured Design Methodology.

  Ampersand—Development of computer systems for CAP Reform schemes.

  Amtec—Advice on quality management.

  Amtec—Support to market testing programme for IT Services.

  Asterisk Systems—Development of computer systems for CAP reform schemes.

  174

  BIS—Technical advice on Strucutred Design Methodology at the Central Veterinary laboratory.

  Brandt Computers—Development of Resource Management Strategy.

  Bristol University—Development of computer system for National Food Survey.

  Brook Systems—Project Management of Sample Mangernent System.

  Capita—Support to market testing programme for IT Services.

  CCTA—Development of IT Strategy for National Institute of Agricultural Botany and National Meat Hygiene Service.

  CCTA—Support to IT procurements.

  Chris Cole Associates—Advice on strategy for structured cabling.

  Cooper and Lybrand—Support to market testing programme for IT Services.

  Cooper and Lybrand—Development of computer systems for CAP Reform schemes.

  Corporate Computers—Advice on computer systems for National Food Survey.

  CSS Trident—Implementation of Resource Management Strategy.

  Digital Equipment Corp. —Advice on configuration management.

  D M Shaw Associates—Advice on management of change.

  D M Shaw Associates—Development of standards for post implementation review of computer projects.

  D M Shaw Associates—Advice on quality management standards.

  D P P International—Implementation of Resource Management Strategy.

  Duhig Berry—Advice on project management techniques.

  Electronic Facilities Design—Audit of Sample Management System project.

  Electronic Facilities Design—Development of IT training strategy.

  Ernst and Young—Development of Resource Management Strategy.

  Exclusive Software—Conversion of programs to Ingres.

  Exeter University—Development of computer systems for ADAS.

  FI Group—Quality assurance of development of computer system for National Food Survey.

  FI Group—Data conversion for Agricultural Census.

  FI Group—Facilities management of Agricultural Census computer system.

  Forvus Ltd. —Development of National Food Survey system.

  Gateway Systems—Advice on data communications cabling.

  Harwell Computers—Advice on IT system for licence identifications and management.

  Hayes-Davies—Advice on quality management, customer satisfaction surveys.

  Hoskyns—Development of computer system for Farm Woodlands Scheme.

  Hoskyns—Assistance with Ingres database conversion project.

  Hoskyns—Advice on project management tools.

  Inference Ltd. —Implementation of computer system for relocation expenses.

  Intersect Ltd. —Development of IT maintenance strategy.

  ISM Consultants—Assistance with data communications strategy.

  John Guest Ltd. —Advice on data management in the Fisheries Group.

  Kermon Associates—Technical assurance on implementation of office systems.

  Kermon Associates—IT security reviews.

  LBMS—Development of computer system for CAP reform schemes.

  LBMS—Business analysis/feasibility studies/system design.

  LBMS—Advice on standards.

  Logica—Development of knowledge based system in the Animal Health Group.

  Midsummer Computing—Advice on geographical information systems.

  MMT Ltd. —Development of computer system for Licensed Veterinary Inspections, Horticultural Inspection Recording.

  MMT Ltd.. —Advice on relational database management systems.

  175

  MMT Ltd—Project management for National Food Survey system.

  Mouncey & Partners—Development of computer systems for emergencies planning, meat plant monitoring.

  Mouncey & Partners—Development of IT sub-strategy for Fisheries Group.

  Mouncey & Partners—Assistance with market testing programme of IT Services.

  Mouncey & Partners—Technical assurance on accommodation planning IT project.

  Mouncey and Partners—Feasibility study on milk quotas system.

  Mouncey and Partners—Development of Grants and Subsidies Management System.

  OFICE—Assistance with building cabling projects.

  Opal Ltd. —Conversion of office systems.

  Oracle-Development and implementation of Resource Management Strategy.

  PA Consulting—IT sub-strategy studies.

  PA Consulting—Advice on project costing and management for ADAS.

  PA Consulting—Development of Animal Tracking Project for the Animal Health Group.

  PA Consulting—ADAS Accounting Project.

  PA Consulting—Development of Food Related Database Shells Project.

  PACTUM Ltd. —Ingres program development for the Horticulture Inspection Recording System.

  Perspective—Advice on quality audit.

  Premier Computing—Implementation of Office Systems.

  Price Waterhouse—Development of Resource Management Strategy.

  Price Waterhouse—Development of IT strategy for Central Science Laboratories.

  Prime Computer Systems—Advice on capacity planning. Quanta Learning Systems—Development of IT training guides.

  Reading University—Advice on relation of statistical software.

  Ricardo Ltd. —Advice on end user support documentation.

  SAC Ltd. —Advice on end user support methods.

  Sapphire Ltd. —Support for IT systems in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  Sema Group—Development of Farm Survey System.

  Sequent Computer Systems-Capacity planning.

  Sherwoods Ltd.—Development of computer system for CAP reform schemes.

  Shreeveport—Development of IT strategy for National Meat Hygiene Service.

  Siemens Nixdorf—Implementation of office systems (Project Maiden).

  South-West Health Authority—Implementation of Resource Management Strategy.

  Touche Ross—IT security reviews.

  Touche Ross—Project management for development of IT accounting system in National Institute of Agricultural Botany.

  Touche Ross—Development of IT strategy for personnel management.

  Triad Ltd.—Development of computer systems for CAP reform schemes.

  Triad Ltd.—Development of computer system for Import Licence Identification and Management.

  Triad Ltd.—Development of computer system for administration of pesticide approval applications.

  Triad Ltd.—Implementation of Resource Management Strategy.

  Zergo Ltd.—Security review of data communications network.

  Stock-proof Fencing
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make it her policy to introduce legislation compelling adjoining landowners to maintain stock-proof fencing against commons.
  176
  Mr. Jack
  I see no need to introduce such legislation, since there is a general duty on landowners, whether adjoining common land or not, to contain their livestock and to ensure against straying.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in her Department and agencies, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Jack
  The application of TUPE depends on the nature of the work awarded and the contractors' own proposals for carrying out the work.

  Since publication of the White Paper "Competing for Quality, Buying Better Public Services", the Department's market-testing programme has included the activities listed which have been contracted out under contractual arrangements which did not need to incorporate the 1981 regulations:

  Building and Estates Management (Part)

  General Recruitment (Up to Grade 7)

  Library Services (Books and Journals)

  Royal Navy Surface Surveillance (Fisheries Protection Contract)

  Relocation Work (Central Science Laboratory)

  Information relating to services or functions which are not on the Department's market-testing programme but which have been contracted out since November 1991 cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Houses
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the member states in the European Community which currently designate agricultural animal status or its equivalent to horses; and if she will make it her policy to adopt such a designation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  The practice of designating horses as agricultural animals varies among member states. The Government have no plans to adopt a comprehensive designation since this would, in itself, have no significance. What is significant is how horses are treated in specific pieces of national legislation.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the achievements of(a) her policies and (b) her Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if she will publish the performance indicators by which her Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government continue to help small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  This Department has continued to contribute significantly to the process. The completion and implementation of the common agricultural policy reform agreement

  177
  provides a framework for the development of a competitive agricultural industry for future years. It gives farmers the stability to plan ahead.

  In other areas of its work also the Department continues to offer help and assistance. For example:

  (i) special rules to enable small producers to claim arable area payments under simplified arrangements that do not require them to set aside land;

  (ii) specific arrangements to enable meat from low-throughput abattoirs to be supplied to wholesalers as well as retailers and final consumers;

  (iii) the group marketing grant which can assist individual farmers to band together to market their produce more effectively;

  (iv) the prospective easing of salmonella controls for poultry producers with small breeding flocks; and

  (v) the establishment of small business panels to enable Ministers to hear at first hand the views of small businessmen on the regulatory burden.

  All the schemes operated by this Department are closely monitored. Reports on particular schemes are published from time to time.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been undertaken by her Department into the relationship between instances of pesticide contamination of humans and symptoms of depression amongst the farming community.

  Mr. Soames
  I would advise any farmers suffering symptoms of depression to seek the advice of their doctor in the first instance. Specialist advice on farming issues can be obtained through the nearest Ministry regional service centre.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are required by his Department for mink farmers to follow when mink are moved from one fur farm to another.

  Mr. Soames
  The Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, as amended, require that no mink shall be transported from place to place except in closed cages or other containers constructed in such manner and of such materials as to prevent their escape. There is no requirement to inform the Ministry of the transportation of mink.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has about the mink transported from Halifax to Appin in Scotland in September and October 1992; when her Department became aware of the movement; and what action was taken.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no information on this. There is no requirement to inform the Ministry of the transportation of mink.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessments she has received from(a) the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, (b) the National Rivers Authority and (c) English Nature as to whether the Isle of Wight is free from an established feral mink population; and what assessment her Department has made.

  Mr. Soames
  Although sightings of mink on the isle have been reported in the press, ADAS has not been 178
  presented with evidence to support any claims of a feral mink population, nor has it received any complaints of small animals and poultry, which are easy prey for mink, being taken. Its overall assessment is that, at present, there is no feral mink population on the isle.

  A 15-month study of otters and mink in south-eastern Britain, including the Isle of Wight, carried out on behalf of the Hampshire Wildlife Trust and the National Rivers Authority, found no evidence of mink on the isle in late 1991 or again in 1993.

  In its response to the Ministry's public consultation exercise, reviewing the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987, English Nature said:
  "Although the mink is now well established in England, it is not yet established on the Isle of Wight."

  A number of mink farms existed on the isle prior to the introduction of controls on the keeping of mink in 1962. Escapes from these farms could have led to the establishment of a feral mink population many years ago, although there is no evidence that this occurred. Hampshire has a well-established feral mink population and mink are capable of swimming the distance from the mainland. Therefore, there is always the possibility that mink could reach the isle and in the absence of adequate control by the owners and occupiers of land responsible for such control, establish a feral mink population.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give details of the numbers of mink farms which have existed on the Isle of Wight since controls on mink keeping were introduced, with the size of such establishments.

  Mr. Soames
  Mink keeping controls were introduced in 1962. Since then only one mink farm owner has been licensed to keep mink at premises on the island. Details of mink farms provided in support of licence applications are confidential between the Ministry and the applicant.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has on outbreaks of botulism on mink factory farms; and how many resulting mink deaths have occurred on individual mink farms.

  Mr. Soames
  Botulism in animals is not compulsorilly notifiable and therefore complete data are not available. We are aware of an outbreak on one mink farm in September 1992 which resulted in around 1,000 mink deaths.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink were(a) reared and (b) killed on fur farms in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  The Mink (Keeping) Order 1992, which requires that mink farms be licensed by Agriculture Departments, does not require returns of numbers of mink reared and killed to be made. Therefore no official figures are available.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is she will give details of the size of mink cages most often found by officers of the state veterinary service when inspecting mink farms.

  Mr. Soames
  The majority of mink cages inspected by officers of the state veterinary service were of dimensions being greater than 38 cm in depth, 23 cm in width and 30.5 cm in height.
  179
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what work has been carried out to assess the impact on wildlife of the Isle of Wight were a feral mink population to become established; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  No studies have been carried out by the Ministry to assess the possible impact were a feral mink population to become established on the Isle of Wight. Experience in other parts of Britain has shown that feral mink can have a significant effect on local populations of birds and water voles if adequate measures are not taken by landowners and occupiers to control the feral mink.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment officers of the state veterinary service have been made of the extent to which the current cages used for fur farming meet the ethological needs of mink.

  Mr. Soames
  In monitoring welfare standards on fur farms the state veterinary service operates to the guidelines laid down in the relevant recommendations adopted by the Council of Europe.

  Officers of the SVS note any signs of abnormal behaviour in the mink which may indicate that the cages do not meet the ethological needs of the animal. Such abnormal behaviour was observed in only a very small proportion of animals and on no occasion was it considered by officers to be associated with unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give details of reports of feral mink on the Isle of Wight of which her officials were aware in 1983, 1987, 1992 and February 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry is aware of press reports and claims, from time to time, of feral mink on the Isle of Wight. In 1983 a dead mink was reported on the road at Chale and collected by a Ministry official and in 1992 a report was made to the Ministry of a mink being shot at Porchfield. Officials are aware of the recent reports in 1993 of evidence of mink on the River Medina. Their presence has not been confirmed. ADAS has advised the working group, set up by the Isle of Wight county council this year in response to these reports, on appropriate methods of capture and humane despatch of feral mink which can be employed by land occupiers and owners if this proves necessary.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional security precautions her officers have advised in order to ensure that mink are securely held in the mink farm on the Isle of Wight in addition to the general provisions of the Mink (Keeping) Orders.

  Mr. Soames
  The Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, as amended, set out the requirements for keeping mink under licence and allow for modifications to the requirements to be made where local conditions may make these appropriate.

  The conditions of the licence issued to the Isle of Wight mink farm were drawn up on ADAS advice following inspection of the premises and with regard to the local conditions and the need to prevent mink escaping into the surrounding area. The details of particular licences to keep mink are confidential between the Ministry and the licensee.
  180
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the annual cost of(a) animal welfare inspections of mink farms by officers of the state veterinary service, (b) the administration of the Mink (Keeping) Orders by her Department and (c) annual inspections of mink farms by her officials over the last five years to ensure compliance with the security provisions of the Mink Keeping Orders.

  Mr. Soames
  Information on the annual cost of animal welfare inspections is not separately available.

  The costs for administration and annual inspections for compliance with the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, as amended and the issue of licences are as follows:

  MAFF Administration £

  Annual Inspections £

  1988–89

  840

  2,270

  1989–90

  910

  2,920

  1990–91

  700

  1,000

  1991–92

  520

  1,710

  1992–93

  220

  1,600

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is taken by her officials when Arctic foxes are found to be present on licensed mink factory farms to ensure that the foxes cannot escape into the countryside.

  Mr. Soames
  The keeping of Arctic foxes is not subject to control. Ministry officials visiting licensed mink premises confine their security checks to the arrangements for the keeping of mink.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on how many occasions in each of the last five years welfare inspections of Arctic fox farms were carried out by her officials;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the accommodation for Arctic foxes witnessed by her officials during welfare inspections of fur farms.

  Mr. Soames
  In monitoring welfare standards on fur farms, the state veterinary service operates to the guidelines laid down in the relevant recommendations adopted by the Council of Europe.

  Welfare inspections of Arctic fox farms were carried out by officers of the SVS on four occasions in 1989 and once in 1990. Of the two farms visited, the accommodation in one was found to be well constructed and in good condition. On the other farm improvements to flooring were recommended and this was satisfactorily carried out. I understand that both farms have since ceased to operate.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each of the last five years officers of the state veterinary service monitored or observed the slaughter of Arctic foxes in fur farms; and if she will give details of the various methods of killing used.

  Mr. Soames
  Officers of the state veterinary service monitored the slaughter of Arctic fox once in the last five years. The method of slaughter used was by lethal injection.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether officers of the state
  181
  veterinary service have witnessed (a) the gassing of mink on fur farms and (b) the gassing of mink via a box connected to car or tractor exhausts; and if she will give details of precautions taken in the latter case to ensure that the mink die humanely;

  (2) what assessment her officials have made of the humaneness of carbon monoxide gassing of mink; and what is the average time to unconsciousness and death noted by officials of the state veterinary service when observing the gassing of mink on fur farms.

  Mr. Soames
  Officers of the state veterinary service have witnessed the gassing of mink on fur farms by a variety of methods. Killing by exhaust gases from a car or tractor was not observed on any occasion.

  The Department has carried out no specific research into the gassing of mink. However, research and observation in other countries have concluded that gassing by carbon monoxide as practised in Britain is humane.

  Very few data are available on the average time to unconsciousness and death, but in the cases observed the time has varied between one and a half to seven minutes to unconsciousness with death supervening between three to 15 minutes later. No evidence of undue stress was observed prior to unconsciousness.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been conducted into the areas recommended by the Farm Animal Welfare Council for research to determine the optimum enclosure for mink and fox in 1989.

  Mr. Soames
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council review of fur farming recommended that the industry should carry out research to determine the optimum enclosure for mink and fox. However, the fur farming industry in this country, being one of the smallest in Europe, has so far been unable to support such research and development.

  The Council of Europe recommendation on fur farming also contains a recommendation that research should be undertaken in the area of, inter alia, the development of husbandry systems to improve the health and welfare of the animals. Such research is being carried out in other countries such as Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands, whose industries are large enough to bear the costs involved.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken by her Department in respect of the report by the Institute of Fisheries Ecology of evidence of a feral mink population on the River Medina in the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Soames
  ADAS has advised the working group set up by the Isle of Wight county council this year in response to the institute's report on the methods of capture and humane despatch of feral mink. The county ecology officer is to hold courses for local landowners and occupiers who are responsible for feral mink control, to ensure that they are able to identify signs of mink and the ways of controlling them.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times the mink farm on the Isle of Wight was inspected by his officials in each year since 1988 in connection with the security provisions of the Mink (Keeping) Orders.
  182
  Mr. Soames
  The number of inspections made by ADAS on behalf of the Ministry was as follows:

  Number

  1988

  1

  1989

  1

  1990

  2

  1991

  1

  1992

  2

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the annual income over each of the past five years from mink farm licence fees.

  Mr. Soames
  The annual income, on a financial year basis, from mink farm licences in England is as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  6,267

  1989–90

  4,715

  1990–91

  3,220

  1991–92

  2,530

  1992–93

  2,185

  School Milk
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has made to the Council of Ministers to retain the subsidy for school milk;

  (2) what representations he has made to ensure the continuation of the subsidy for school milk.

  Mr. Jack
  At the Agriculture Council on 20–21 September the United Kingdom, supported by several other member states, argued that the Commission's proposal for a 50 per cent. cut in the rate of school milk subsidy was too drastic a measure for achieving budgetary savings and would threaten the viability of a popular scheme which had played an important role in encouraging consumption of milk and milk products. In the light of these representations the Council agreed to limit the reduction in subsidy to 25 per cent. and to find the balance of the necessary savings by making technical adjustments aimed at improving the cost-effectiveness of the scheme. The Government are satisfied that this represents a sensible compromise which safeguards the viability of the scheme while at the same time taking account of the severe pressure on the Community budget.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the throughput in British abattoirs in each month since January 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  The throughput of abattoirs in the United Kingdom is published each week in a press notice entitled "United Kingdom Slaughter Statistics". Historical monthly figures, including those since January 1992, are given on the reverse of this press notice.

  Agriculture Expenditure
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the overall expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food, as shown in the public
  183
  expenditure White Paper is attributable to (a) agriculture, (b) fisheries, (c) food, (d) forestry, (e) coast defence and (f) all other non-agricultural activities including civil defence for each year since 1985–86.

  Mr. Jack
  The information available is contained in the 1991, 1992 and 1993 editions of the MAFF/IB departmental report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Lupin Seed
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has received from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods about the toxic components of lupin seed.

  EC Cereals Production 1986–87 to 1991–921

  ('000 tonnes)

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Belgium

  2,345

  1,920

  2,207

  2,243

  1,996

  1,979

  Denmark

  7,968

  7,271

  8,067

  8,808

  9,606

  9,169

  Germany

  25,590

  23,770

  27,112

  26,113

  37,580

  39,289

  Greece

  5,263

  5,071

  4,587

  4,534

  4,042

  5,607

  Spain

  15,974

  19,814

  23,146

  19,346

  18,230

  18,851

  France

  50,100

  52,242

  55,866

  57,310

  55,118

  60,232

  Ireland

  1,831

  1,992

  1,979

  1,872

  1,970

  2,093

  Italy

  17,796

  17,436

  16,563

  16,207

  16,286

  18,202

  Luxembourg

  48

  61

  124

  124

  126

  138

  Netherlands

  1,261

  1,145

  1,217

  1,363

  1,388

  1,296

  Portugal

  1,593

  1,563

  1,295

  1,643

  1,200

  1,543

  United Kingdom

  24,511

  21,676

  21,110

  22,725

  22,566

  22,635

  Total

  154,280

  153,960

  163,273

  162,289

  170,108

  181,035

  Source: EC Commission's Cereals Bilans.

  1 Cereals marketing year runs from I July to 30 June.

  Total EC payments of cereals co-responsibility levy (Basic and Additional) (Thousand ECU)

  19861

  19872

  19883

  19894

  19904

  19914

  Belgium

  5,203

  18,958

  15,538

  14,932

  11,602

  14,527

  Denmark

  1,841

  12,081

  14,621

  40,509

  29,315

  50,376

  Germany

  16,749

  77,866

  148,822

  104,688

  87,409

  151,123

  Greece

  877

  4,592

  9,204

  13,918

  9,189

  7,686

  Spain

  —

  33,765

  33,971

  71,743

  80,204

  59,073

  France

  10,337

  103,625

  315,827

  329,104

  273,701

  390,911

  Ireland

  766

  5,106

  9,434

  10,816

  7,540

  11,851

  Italy

  10,074

  37,430

  33,589

  66,053

  60,661

  62,174

  Luxembourg

  69

  419

  325

  476

  352

  704

  Netherlands

  769

  22,110

  21,249

  7,872

  7,951

  11,454

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  United Kingdom

  9,745

  62,752

  74,924

  139,151

  147,166

  166,154

  Total

  56,430

  378,704

  677,504

  799,262

  715,090

  926,033

  Source: EAGGF—payments represent amount of cereals co-responsibility levy paid in each EAGGF financial year.

  1 1 January—31 December.

  2 1 January 1987—31 October 1987.

  3 1 November 1987—15 October 1988.

  4 16 October—15 October.

  Cereals co-responsibility levy net rate 1986–87 to 1991–921

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Intervention price (ecu/tonne)

  179·44

  179·44

  179·44

  174·06

  168·55

  168·55

  Net rate2 (ecu/tonne)

  5·38

  5·38

  8·25

  5·22

  7·59

  8·43

  1 1 July to 30 June.

  2 Net rate of levy includes both basic and, where appropriate, additional levies. The basic co-responsibility levy was calculated as 3 per cent. of the

  184
  Mr. Soames
  None. The committee is unable to report on this matter pending the completion of additional studies necessary for the safety assessment of two applications to use lupin products in food.

  Cereals
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was(a) the total amount paid by each member state of the EEC in cereals co-responsibility levy for each year since the co-responsibility levy has been operative and (b) the total tonnage of cereals produced in each member state of the EEC, showing in each case how much per tonne the co-responsibility levy represented.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the total amount paid by each member state in cereals co-responsibility levy, the total tonnage of cereals produced in each member state and the rate of the co-responsibility levy per tonne of cereals each year since 1986 is provided in the following tables.
  185
  common wheat intervention price (5 per cent in 1991–92). The additional levy was charged in cases where the Maximum Guaranteed Quantity was exceeded. The basis of calculation was not consistent throughout this period.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the tonnage and average price of grain exported from the United Kingdom(a) generally and (b) separately for each country to which grain was exported in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Jack
  The information sought cannot be produced without disproportionate cost to the Department. However, details for each type of grain covering total trade in volume and value, as well as a list of the major trading countries involved and their respective trade, can be found in the annual volumes of the "Overseas Trade Statistics for the United Kingdom" (MA 20) for 1989–91, while figures for 1992 can be found in the December 1992 issue of the monthly version (MM 20) of the same publication. Copies of these publications are in the House of Commons Library.

  Details of grain classification within the Standard Industrial Trade Classification Division 04 are shown in the "Guide to Classification for Overseas Trade Statistics" (MA 21), which is also in the House of Commons Library. All the data itself can be found within table VI, section 0, 041–045.99 of the MA and MM 20s.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the size of the United Kingdom harvest in(a) tonnes and (b) value, at actual and at 1989 prices in each year since 1979;

  (2) if she will list the quantity and value of grain produced in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979 giving value in real and 1990 prices.

  Mr. Jack
  I assume that my hon. Friend's first question refers to the cereals harvest. As values are not available at 1989 prices, I have answered both questions together showing values in actual, 1990 prices and as deflated by the index of retail prices (1990=100). The information is set out in the table.

  United Kingdom Cereal Production and Value of Output

  Quantity (thousand tonnes)

  Value (£ million)

  Value at 1990 prices (£ million)

  Value deflated by RPI (1990=100)

  1979

  17,415

  1,184

  1,300

  2,635

  1980

  19,480

  1,463

  1,548

  2,758

  1981

  19,621

  1,693

  1,648

  2,853

  1982

  21,910

  2,062

  1,888

  3,200

  1983

  21,307

  1,996

  1,670

  2,963

  1984

  26,602

  2,420

  2,319

  3,421

  1985

  22,466

  2,281

  2,279

  3,041

  1986

  24,489

  2,153

  2,139

  2,776

  1987

  21,681

  1,990

  1,983

  2,463

  1988

  21,162

  1,821

  1,907

  2,148

  1989

  22,729

  2,052

  2,134

  2,246

  1990

  22,583

  2,055

  2,055

  2,055

  1991

  22,635

  2,165

  2,081

  2,044

  1992

  22,063

  2,221

  2,050

  2,022

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give the average price of imported wheat into the United Kingdom for each year since 1979, showing the quantity of all imported wheat in each of these years.

  Mr. Jack
  The information sought on United Kingdom imports of wheat is as follows:
  186

  Weight 000's Metric Tonnes

  Value £ million

  Average Price Per Metric Tonnes £

  1979

  2,601

  257

  98·63

  1980

  2,256

  233

  103·12

  1981

  1,772

  208

  117·51

  1982

  1,554

  182

  117·12

  1983

  1,326

  180

  135·86

  1984

  1,123

  168

  149·90

  1985

  1,614

  230

  142·60

  1986

  1,708

  236

  138·32

  1987

  1,719

  224

  130·16

  1988

  1,641

  222

  135·08

  1989

  859

  124

  144·80

  1990

  873

  109

  124·65

  1991

  746

  96

  128·98

  1992

  1,276

  182

  142·83

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Agricultural Support
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total of moneys received from the European Economic Community, in connection with agricultural support, subsidies or intervention payments of any kind, in each year since accession; and what has been the net cost of agricultural support, both national and community, after allowing for the moneys received from the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Jack
  Figures showing receipts from the EC budget and total United Kingdom public expenditure on agriculture in each year since 1972–73 are given in the table. The figures on total public expenditure include spending on the common agricultural policy; this is funded in the first place by the Exchequer and subsequently reimbursed, partly or in full, from the EC budget. The United Kingdom contributes to this reimbursement through its payments to the EC budget; as a net contributor the United Kingdom contributes more to the EC budget than it receives back.

  Financial year

  United Kingdom receipts from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guidance and Guarantee Fund1 £ million

  Public expenditure in the United Kingdom under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies £ million

  1972–73

  0·3

  267

  1973–74

  77

  392

  1974–75

  170

  495

  1975–76

  260

  512

  1976–77

  169

  378

  1977–78

  169

  460

  1978–79

  329

  537

  1979–80

  412

  677

  1980–81

  606

  1,012

  1981–82

  742

  972

  1982–83

  805

  1,433

  1983–84

  1,221

  1,729

  1984–85

  1,203

  1,712

  1985–86

  1,282

  2,165

  1986–87

  1,481

  1,449

  1987–88

  1,128

  1,630

  187

  Financial year

  United Kingdom receipts from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guidance and Guarantee Fund1 £ million

  Public expenditure in the United Kingdom under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies £ million

  1988–89

  1,597

  1,380

  1989–90

  1,229

  1,258

  1990–91

  1,636

  1,910

  1991–92

  1,810

  1,959

  21992–93

  1,683

  2,066

  Sources: Annual review of agriculture 1972 to 1987; Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1988 to 1992.

  1 Receipts do not always relate to expenditure in the year to which they are received.

  2 Forecast.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Expenditure £ million

  £/head1

  Expenditure £ million

  £/head1

  Expenditure (estimate) £ million

  £/head1

  Exchequer expenditure on the CAP in the United Kingdom

  1,849

  32

  1,871

  32

  1,993

  34

  Receipts from the EC in relation to agriculture2

  1,636

  28

  1,810

  31

  1,683

  29

  Total Exchequer expenditure on agricultural grants and subsidies (EC and National)

  1,910

  33

  1,959

  34

  2,066

  36

  Cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the total Community budget (all EC expenditure including agriculture)3

  2,185

  38

  943

  16

  2,100

  36

  Sources:

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1992.

  1992 Departmental Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department.

  OPCS 1993 Annual Abstract of Statistics and Monthly Digest of Statistics (July 1993).

  1 1990–91 population based on the OPCS 1990 population figure, 1991–92 and 1992–93 based on the OPCS 1991 population figure.

  2 Receipts do not always relate to expenditure in the year to which they are received.

  3 The bulk of contributions (excluding duties and levies) are based on estimates of domestic GNP, agreed well before the start of the year in question.

  A difference invariably arises between estimates and outtum figures, and adjustments to contributions are made in following year to correct over/under payments; this leads to consequential correction to the abatement in the year after that. The net contribution is subject to considerable variation as a result of this process.

  Food Prices
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average price paid to producers for(a) wheat, (b) beef, (c) milk, (d) eggs and (e) pork in 1960, 1979, 1980 and in each year since 1990, in actual prices, at constant 1960 prices and at constant 1990 prices.

  Mr. Jack
  The following table shows the average price paid to producers for wheat in the years 1960, 1979, 1980 and each year since 1990. The actual prices and the prices deflated by the retail prices index are given.

  Year

  Average price (£/tonne)

  RPI (January 1987½:100)

  Price deflated by RPI

  1960

  27·43

  12·6

  217·34

  1979

  96·06

  56·6

  169·58

  1980

  99·30

  66·8

  148·57

  1990

  109·77

  126·1

  87·04

  1991

  116·46

  133·5

  87·24

  1992

  121·52

  138·5

  87·75

  188
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give the total net cost to the Exchequer of support for agriculture and the common agricultural policy, after deducting any relevant refunds and grants received in each year since 1990–91; and if she will also show the amount per head of the population of the United Kingdom which this net figure represents.

  Mr. Jack
  Figures showing the cost to the Exchequer of total agricultural support and of the CAP in the United Kingdom, since 1990–91, globally and per head of population, are shown in the table. Expenditure on the CAP is funded in the first place by the Exchequer and subsequently reimbursed, partly or in full, from the EC budget. The United Kingdom contributes to this reimbursement through its payments to the EC budget; as a net contributor the United Kingdom contributes more to the EC budget than it receives back.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the price of(a) bread and (b) wheat in each year since 1988, with the annual increases in actual terms and real terms.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Average price

  Percentage change from previous year

  (actual)

  (in real terms)1

  Bread—large white sliced loaf

  (pence/loaf)

  1988

  46

  +6.3

  +1·3

  1989

  49

  +5·0

  -2·5

  1990

  50

  +2·6

  -6·3

  1991

  53

  +6·3

  +0·4

  1992

  54

  +0.9

  -2·7

  Breadmaking wheat

  (£/tonne ex-farm)

  1988

  115·00

  -9·7

  -13·9

  1989

  110·50

  -3·9

  -10·8

  1990

  114·50

  +3·6

  -5·3

  1991

  126·40

  +10·4

  +4·3

  1992

  135·40

  +7·1

  +3·3

  1 Deflated by All Items RPI.

  189
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average price to the consumer of(a) a pint of milk, (b) a 21b loaf of bread and (c) a pint of beer in 1970, 1980 and in each year since 1990.

  Mr Jack
  The annual averages of the prices used for calculating the retail prices index are given in the table.

  Annual average price (pounds)

  Bread (800g white sliced loaf)

  Milk (1 pint pasteurised)

  Beer (1 pint draught beer)

  1970

  0·090

  0·047

  10·145

  1980

  0·330

  0·160

  10·550

  1990

  0·500

  0·310

  1·090

  1991

  0·530

  0·320

  1·240

  1992

  0·540

  0·340

  1·310

  1 Bottled beer

  Food and Agricultural Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how her Department was represented at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe study group meeting on food and agricultural statistics in Europe held in Geneva on 5 to 9 July.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry was represented by two officials from its economics and statistics group.

  Fishing Offences
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the names, port of registry, offence and penalties imposed on Spanish-registered ships found guilty in British courts of fishery offences in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1991 there have been six successful prosecutions against Spanish-registered fishing vessels. The details are as follows:

  Vessel

  Port of Registry

  Offence

  Penalty

  1992

  Cantero Cuadrado

  Gijon

  Fishing without authority within British Fishery limits

  £30,000 fine plus £60,000 for the value of the catch

  Pakea Laurean

  La Corufia

  Fishing without authority in British Fishery limits Use of undresize net

  £20,000 fine plus £2,900 for the value of catch £2,000 fine and forfeiture of net £1,000 fine

  1993

  Vieirasa Neuve

  Vigo

  Undersize net

  £750 fine

  Illegal net construction

  £750 fine

  Home do Mar

  Vigo

  Retaining cod1

  £225 fine

  Failure to record cod in logbook

  £90 fine

  Retaining undersized hake

  £135 fine

  Retaining undersized megrim

  £360 fine and £2,000 for the value of the catch plus costs of £1,000

  190

  Vessel

  Port of Registry

  Offence

  Penalty

  Capredi Dos

  San Sebastian

  Retaining haddock1

  £450 fine

  Retaining cod1

  £450 fine

  Retaining saithe1

  £150 fine and £500 for the value of the fish plus costs of £200

  Playa de Aldan

  Vigo

  Illegal net attachment

  £480 fine and forfeiture of net

  Retention of Undersized megrim

  £480 fine plus £1,000 for the value of the fish

  Retention of cod1

  £600 fine plus £482 for the value of the fish

  Failure to record cod in EC logbook

  £600 fine

  Under recording of megrim

  £300 fine

  Under recording of hake

  £300 fine

  Under recording of anglers

  £300 fine

  Other

  £600 for costs

  1 Spain does not have quotas for these species in the area of capture.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is she will make it her policy to revoke or suspend British fishing licences on vessels found guilty in British or Irish courts of having a secret fish room, using undersized mesh nets, landing undersize fish or related offences.

  Mr. Jack
  Powers to revoke or suspend fishing licences under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 can be used only in respect of breaches of licence conditions, for example, overfishing, or the failure to carry a logbook. The infringements mentioned in the question would not breach the conditions in any existing UK licences.

  Agricultural Products
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of United Kingdom self-sufficiency in all agricultural products in 1979, 1985 and each year since 1990.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Self-sufficiency

  Per cent.

  All food and feed

  All indigenous food and feed

  11979

  56·9

  71·4

  11985

  60·1

  79·3

  21990

  56·5

  72·1

  21991

  57·9

  73·7

  21992

  56·5

  72·1

  Source:

  1 Annual Review of Agriculture 1981 and 1987.

  2 Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1992.

  Northmoor Pumping Station
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what cost-benefit assessment of the proposal to replace the pumps at Northmoor pumping station has been carried out; what options were assessed and what was the benefit-cost ratio of each of the options.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 July 1993]: The National Rivers Authority Wessex region carried out a cost-benefit assessment of its proposals to replace the pumps at Northmoor pumping station in accordance with prevailing Ministry guidelines. The three main options considered by the NRA were: installation of single speed pumps in the existing station; construction of a new station; and installation of new variable speed pumps in the existing station. The implications of taking no action were also considered. The quantifiable benefit: cost ratios of the three options were as follows:
  192

  ratios

  Single speed pumps in existing station

  1·5:1

  New station

  1·2:1

  Variable speed pumps in existing station

  1·3:1

  The last-mentioned option was the one put forward by the NRA as this gave the added gain of environmental benefits, by eliminating extreme fluctuations in controlled water levels.

  Sugar
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the price in pound per tonne of raw bulk sugar in the United Kingdom in each month since August 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 July 1993]: Raw beet sugar is not generally traded. Raw cane sugar is imported at about the intervention price for raw sugar, which was 439·40 ecu per tonne for 1992–93—equivalent to £412 at current exchange rates.

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

Middle East: Peace Initiatives
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to broaden the extent of recent peace initiatives including the Palestinians, Israel and other Middle Eastern states.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are urging on all sides the need for progress towards a comprehensive settlement. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is visiting Syria on 23rd and 24th October.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. She probably understands better than most people that the name of the United Kingdom stands high in the Middle East, and that the Israeli Government and their Prime Minister, with Mr. Yasser Arafat, have performed in a remarkable and worthwhile manner. But there will be other problems. There will be problems with some other Arab states and some Israelis. I hope that the Government will urge the United Nations to give help when it is required. Will the Minister also consider the problem that faces Kuwait, which has so many of its countrymen and women prisoners suffering terribly in Iraq? Will that too be taken into account as a direct consequence of the Middle East problem?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for what he said. He is right. Despite the fact that the majority on both sides, in Israel and the Palestinians, are in support, there is opposition to the agreement. Unfortunately, there are also extremist elements who might resort to violence to overturn it. Such groups must not be allowed to succeed. We believe that all other Arab states and the Israelis must be helped by the international community to the maximum possible extent to make the peace agreement stick and to begin the business of rehabilitation. I shall look at what the noble Lord said about Kuwaiti prisoners in Iraq.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, while I express great admiration for the part that the Foreign Secretary is playing in the Middle East, will the Minister be kind enough to ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State whether, while he is in Syria, he will raise the case of Mr. Ron Arad, an Israeli pilot who was captured eight years ago, and seek if possible, on humanitarian grounds, to get that man restored to his family?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, for his question. We have deep sympathy for the relatives of Ron Arad
410
and other hostages still held. The family of Mr. Arad called upon a senior FCO official this morning and raised those points. We have already engaged the staff of the United Nations Secretary General on Mr. Arad's case. We believe that the best hope lies with their efforts, but I shall bring the noble Viscount's question to the attention of my right honourable friend. If, by talking to the Syrians, we can do more to secure his release, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will do so. The difficulty is not so much with the Syrians but perhaps more with the Iranians.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the peace process is an intricate jigsaw which has to be assembled painstakingly piece by piece? Has she noted the comments of Mr. Shaat, who leads the Palestinian delegation at Taba, that the low key discussions there made more progress in a few hours than more dramatic discussions have made in two years? Except where the safety of individuals such as Mr. Ron Arad is concerned, or where we can make a specific contribution, such as resources for the West Bank, does she agree that our most helpful course is probably to wish the negotiators well and to abstain from too much public comment?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree fully with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, that quiet diplomacy is often the best diplomacy. It worked to the benefit of Israelis and Palestinians in this case. We hope that it will work to the benefit of many others, not just in the Middle East but all over the world. The noble and learned Lord will understand that the intricate negotiation of a peace process is something after which the media hunger. To say nothing is assumed automatically by some to mean that one does nothing. That is not true. Quiet diplomacy will continue, whatever the media may call for.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how it happened that the press never got a hint of what was going on in Norway? Cart that process be repeated?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has put her finger on an issue which has puzzled us all: how on earth did we succeed in what went on? I believe that the emergence during the negotiations of a nine year-old boy alongside his father must have put everyone off. We must see whether children are a good influence in future peace negotiations. I do not know why the process was so successful but all I can say is thank goodness it was.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that enormous progress has been made in the peace process? However, to follow the question put by my noble friend Lord Tonypandy, would it not be a gesture of reconciliation which would help the peace process on its way if those who hold Ron Arad in captivity were persuaded to release him as soon as possible not only on humanitarian grounds but on the ground of helping forward the peace process?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is absolutely right. As was said by my honourable friend Mr. Lennox-Boyd on 21st

411
June, we are certain that, given that there is a willingness on Israel's part to release Sheikh Obeid and other prisoners if Ron Arad is released, the peace process would be further helped. However, as I remarked last week in this House during Question Time, the matter is not merely between Israel and the Palestinians but between Israel and other Middle East countries. We shall continue to use quiet diplomacy to try to achieve those very ends.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the remarkable Israeli-PLO endeavour, which cannot be praised high enough, has left authorised but inexperienced Arabs responsible for education, culture, health, social welfare and taxation? Is it not now time for the United Nations to help the Arab and Israeli people in those areas to set up a sensible organisation to carry out their duties?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is right not only that the United Nations should help but also that help should be given by those of us who on 1st October attended the Middle East Support Conference in Washington. There is a great deal to be done. Within the Community a substantial medium-term package is under consideration. In addition, Britain will build on the work that it has been doing in the occupied territories. That will in particular alleviate the plight of those living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank who have had no sizeable input as regards their education, health provision and housing.

Local Authorities: Capital Receipts
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the policy, announced in the 1992 Autumn Financial Statement, of allowing local authorities to use the total receipts from the sale of assets in the following 12 months to build council homes, has achieved its objectives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the policy has achieved its objective of enhancing local authorities' resources for spending on capital projects. Our latest provisional estimate of the additional spending power, based upon local authorities' own recent forecasts, is £1.3 billion in England. This money may be used for any kind of capital expenditure and may either be spent immediately or held over for future years.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, congratulate the Minister on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box in her new role, which is very difficult. I am grateful for the figure which the Minister gave of £1.3 billion. That is in excess of what other people say has been gathered in and can be used. However, the Minister must be aware that the then Chancellor, Mr. Lamont, stated specifically that the figure would be £1.75 billion, which means that there is £0.5 billion less
412
than expected. That is an enormous disappointment to local authorities which wish to build housing in order to deal with the difficult problem of homelessness. Furthermore, it is an enormous disappointment to the building industry which, despite all the predictions of an uplift in the economy, remains in severe recession. Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to make up the shortfall by making available an additional sum of £0.5 billion from the capital receipts which are held by local authorities and on which there is a tight moratorium?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box in my new role. It is, indeed, a difficult subject but a very worthwhile role. I suggest that he looks again at the Autumn Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The estimate of £1.75 billion did not represent a target; it was a projection based on English local authorities' own estimates of receipts. Therefore there is no question of making up a shortfall. I suggest that many local authorities could, with initiative and enthusiasm, add to that total.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in order to understand the dimensions of the Question, will the Minister give the House the total receipts for the sales of assets and the amount spent?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I repeat for my noble friend that the estimated figure for capital receipts, which is based upon local authorities' own figures, is £1.3 billion. They can spend that during the coming years and there is no question of the spend being related to income.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the £1.3 billion capital receipts. Will she say how much loss has been incurred in the receipt of that money by selling assets at well below their market value? Is that a practice which she would commend to industry generally in order to achieve the recovery which is so devoutly desired?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that it is not for local authorities to sell below market value, and that is not what has happened.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, in welcoming the Minister to her portfolio, which we are sure she will grace with her usual competence and courtesy.
Is the Minister aware that local authority associations no longer keep records of the numbers of new council houses being built because they are too few—probably barely 1,000 in the entire country this year? Yet at the Tory Party Conference Minister after Minister, to his shame, scapegoated homeless families for the country's housing crisis. Will the Minister agree that we need to build houses for both homeless families and for families on the waiting lists, which is why those capital receipts are so desperately needed? The only way to do that is to build and not blame, and to construct more houses and not more moral homilies.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for her welcome. I am also pleased that she was one of the people listening so keenly to what was said at the Conservative Party Conference. I stress that total starts on new house-building projects in the three months to July 1993 were 9 per cent. higher than in the same period last year. Homelessness acceptances declined in 1992 for the first year ever. Having said that, I agree with the noble Baroness that we must continue to concentrate wholeheartedly on that issue.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some of us were rather puzzled by her answer to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington who suggested that council houses have been sold at below their market value? The noble Baroness denied that. I was under the impression—and perhaps she will confirm it—that council houses had been sold at anything between 25 per cent. and 40 per cent. below market value, as those were the discounts given to council tenants. In addition, some council tenants have been given lump sums of £20,000 to get out of their houses. If that is not selling assets at below market value, I do not know what is.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that local authorities have to sell for the best consideration reasonably obtainable. We believe that to allow tenants the right to buy their homes is one of the best policies which this Government have ever brought forward.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I was grateful for the detailed answer by the Minister to my supplementary question. However, her perception of what has taken place is totally different from mine. I am quite clear in my recollection that Members in another place, and also in your Lordships' House, said at the time that the figure projected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never be reached. The Minister must understand that the local authorities are disappointed because they were ready to set designs and let out contracts on the basis that they would be receiving £1.7 billion. That is not the case. Is it not realistic and fair for the Government to make available a similar sum from the capital receipts which the local authorities already have?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, those figures were estimates made at that time by the local authorities, which have revised their estimates. As they are responsible for attracting the income, I would expect their spending programmes to be based on those estimates. An extension of the period of the relaxation of the rules would add to pressures on public expenditure. When capital receipts are used to repay debts or are invested for future debt repayments, public expenditure and public sector borrowing are reduced. I was in Ealing this morning and the council has paid back £50 million of its debt. That is to the benefit of its residents.

Gibraltar
2.55 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the address of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to the UN Committee of 24 on 14th July 1993 on the right to self-determination.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we shall continue to fulfil our obligations to non-self-governing territories under Chapter XI of the UN Charter. The situation in Gibraltar is complicated by historical realities, particularly the Treaty of Utrecht. We stand by our commitment to the people of Gibraltar enshrined in the constitution.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that UN Resolution 2734, paragraph 3, of 16th December 1970 reaffirms the General Assembly's statement that obligations under the charter shall prevail over obligations under any other international agreement? Does she further agree that that declaration is applicable to self-determination in the context of decolonisation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are keenly aware of the debate in Gibraltar about self-determination. Of course the British Government accept the right of the Gibraltarian people to self-determination but we take other rights and responsibilities and the Treaty of Utrecht into account. I know that the Chief Minister, Mr. Bossano, made an extremely important address to the UN Committee of 24 in July and then to the UN Fourth Committee, which is the decolonisation parent committee, on 12th October. We are well aware of the need for negotiations, to which we are committed, with Spain about Gibraltar under the 1984 Brussels agreement. We stand by our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as set out in their 1969 constitution. But I do not believe that my noble friend is right to say that the UN Charter can prevail over all else when those are more recent decisions. We must bring together the Gibraltarians with the Spanish to resolve that issue. My noble friend will know that I have sought to do that on several occasions and we continue to try.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the loyalty to this country of both the Government and people of Gibraltar, will my noble friend give an assurance that the wishes of the Government and the people in Gibraltar will be given very high priority indeed in those forthcoming discussions?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can only reassure my noble friend that the wishes of the people of Gibraltar are given due consideration at all times. But, as he knows, the situation is complicated by Gibraltar's status in the EC and the Treaty of Utrecht, which was the basis for British sovereignty but which still gives Spain the right of refusal in the event of any change. We shall continue to try to resolve the issue, as I have said on many previous occasions to my noble friend.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in consequence of recent measures introduced by the Government of Gibraltar, British subjects are in a worse position in relation to employment than the subjects of other EC states? If the Government of Gibraltar expect, as I hope they will receive, the loyalty of this country, is that not a matter which should be addressed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no reason that British subjects should be in a worse position. But I shall look at the detail of what the noble Lord said. However, over a period of time we have had extremely positive discussions with Chief Minister Bossano and if there is a problem in that regard, I am quite prepared to look again at that matter.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble Baroness referred to dialogue. Does she agree that there was a massive turnout and enthusiasm for Gibraltar's first national day on 10th September last, the anniversary of the 1967 referendum? Therefore, do Her Majesty's Government recognise that in a process of dialogue with Spain, Gibraltar is entitled to recognition of its separate identity as a people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware that in 1967 over 99 per cent. of the people of Gibraltar voted in favour of retaining links with the United Kingdom and that, as my noble friend said, there was a massive turnout on 10th September last. Popular attitudes in Spain seem to be changing. A recent poll among Spaniards indicated that almost a quarter of them favoured self-determination for Gibraltar. Sadly, however, the Spanish Foreign Minister's statement to the United Nations at the end of September did not indicate a similar impending change of heart on the part of the government. Nevertheless, Gibraltar has a growing number of friends in Spain ready to espouse its cause; among them is the recently formed organisation, Friends of Gibraltar, which we wish well in the work that it is undertaking for Gibraltarians.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in response to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter she stated that Her Majesty's Government would give "due consideration" to the wishes of the governor and the people of Gibraltar, while he asked whether the Government would give "priority" to those wishes? Will she be good enough to distinguish between "due consideration" and consideration as a "priority"?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I should not have used the word "due", but we have made our position absolutely clear. We are committed to negotiation. We stand by our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as set out in the 1969 constitution. There is no going back on that. My "due" was meant to take all that into account. I apologise if it did not sound like it.

THORP: Plutonium Reprocessing
3.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any of the plutonium reprocessed by the THORP plant at Sellafield will be used in Trident warheads.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, both the THORP plant and the plutonium arising in it will be subject to international safeguards. Her Majesty's Government have no plans to transfer any plutonium from THORP to defence use.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer means, I think, a confirmation of the view that the product which is intended to come from THORP will primarily be a matter of export and re-export? In that case, is he further aware that the United States defence department has said that in its opinion this trade is very dangerous and will not be at all helpful in relation to non-proliferation? In those circumstances, will the Government reconsider their decision to start THORP?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord can read into my Answer whatever he wants. It was a very plain Answer that the Government have no plans to transfer any plutonium from THORP to defence use. It had no other repercussions.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the United States has tested a nuclear weapon made with reactor-grade plutonium? Therefore, the material which THORP will be returning to Japan and Germany and, if current contract negotiations are successful, to South Korea could quite easily be used for nuclear weapons at any level of technical sophistication. Would the noble Lord care to comment on that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is not for me to speculate on what nuclear tests may or may not have been carried out by the United States. However, on the broader issue of exports, when considering applications to return plutonium from reprocessing the Government would, of course, not permit that export unless they were confident that no attempt would be made to divert the material for military use.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it may not be for the Minister to speculate but it is for the Government to know and it is for the Minister to respond, in the light of proper briefings, to the Question that is asked of him.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is not the case. Government spokesman have consistently refused to speculate on what nuclear tests may or may not have been carried out by the United States.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the defence authorities in America have

417
attempted to make an atomic bomb out of commercial-grade plutonium and the best that they have been able to achieve so far is what is known as a "fizzle"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot confirm that because it is not in the public interest to speculate on such matters.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is an awkward question; that it is possible to make bombs from ex-reactor fuel and that whatever the intentions of the governments concerned—the British Government, the Germans or the Japanese—the non-proliferation treaty forbids the export of such material?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be possible to make a bomb out of reprocessed material, but that of course depends entirely on its composition.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, of course it depends on its composition. That goes without saying. However, is the noble Lord aware that, while we respect the technical knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on these matters, the United States has successfully tested a weapon made of reactor-grade plutonium? THORP will therefore be returning to Japan, Germany and possibly South Korea material which can be used in nuclear weapons. Does the noble Lord think that that is in the interest either of the non-proliferation treaty or of the UK Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, whether or not the material from THORP could be used for making a bomb is irrelevant because all plutonium recovered in reprocessing is subject to stringent, internationally accepted standards of safeguards and physical protection.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is none so blind as those who will not see? It is not a question of speculation; it is a question of the Government refusing to accept what is generally known and internationally agreed. Why are they refusing to consider the possibilities which will flow from their decision, if they take it, to open THORP? Is he not aware that one of those possibilities is that the Government will be marching dead against the vast majority of opinion in the world which will be that they are creating a risk which is unacceptable and which they ought not to create?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not accept that that is the Government's position.

Welling: Disturbances
3.7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely: whether Her Majesty's Government will make a Statement about the recent disturbances in Welling.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Answer is as follows:
418
"The police became aware that the Anti-Nazi League planned a major march past the site of the British National Party bookshop in Welling on Saturday 16th October.
"The Commissioner considered that for the march to progress through this area would be to risk serious public disorder. He therefore decided to re-route the march, using his powers under Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986, to a safer area Some 20,000 people were estimated to have taken part in the march; 2,600 police officers were deployed, together with 84 police horses, with a further 3,000 police officers held in reserve.
"When the march reached the point where the revised route departed from the organisers' preferred one, there was a confrontation which resulted in many appalling acts of violence. Thirty-one arrests were made and more are expected once the police have had time to review the video evidence. Twenty-one police officers and 41 demonstrators were injured. All the police officers are now out of hospital.
"As the Commissioner said at his press conference, it is highly regrettable that what should have been a peaceful demonstration against the despicable views of the British National Party was hijacked by a malevolent minority bent on confrontation of the police. I am satisfied that, had the Commissioner not taken firm and decisive action to re-route the march, the level of violence could have been much worse.
"It is a matter of great regret that the police and the public should be subjected to this disgraceful level of violence. The police acted with astonishing bravery, as is their custom, and according to the highest standards of their profession."
My Lords, that concludes the Answer.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for replying to this Question, would he not agree—I am sure that he will—that this was a deplorable episode? It involved calculated attacks upon the police and created an immense amount of fear among law-abiding people who have the misfortune to live near the headquarters of this thoroughly unpleasant organisation.
Does he not also agree that the behaviour of a minority of the demonstrators reminded one only of the conduct of fascist bully boys? Will he pass on the congratulations of the whole House—I am sure that is the case—to the commissioner on the way in which he organised a response to this incident? Will he also pass on our regrets to those officers who were injured, and in particular to the black officer who was attacked solely because he was black? Will the Government remember this incident, as well as others that have involved a substantial level of violence against the police, when they are considering their response to the recommendations of Sir Patrick Sheehy? Does he not agree that it would be deplorable if the starting salary of police officers—if the recommendations are accepted—were reduced to a level below that of traffic wardens?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that this was a deplorable act and it was a calculated one. I agree with him that the fear inculcated into not only the people in the locality but also, let us not forget, into the police themselves was absolutely shocking. I hope that when these people appear before the courts they will be dealt with severely. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the behaviour of some of these people was that of bully boys. Our information is that some 10 per cent. of the people—this is only a rough guess—attended the march not because they sympathised with its cause but rather because they intended to create mayhem. I shall be happy to pass on to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police the noble Lord's congratulations, which he offers on behalf of the whole House—I know everyone in the House shares in those congratulations—on the work of the police officers. I shall pass on his regrets to those who were injured, and particularly to the black officer who I understand was singled out for particularly offensive treatment. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that Sir Patrick Sheehy considered all the conditions relating to policing when making his proposals. This incident and all the other conditions relating to policing will be taken into account in the Government's response.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the Minister accepts that we on these Benches agree with what has been said with regard to the decision of the commissioner of police to use his powers under Section 12 of the Public Order Act to divert the march from its intended objective. We share the horror felt by all decent people at the injuries that were inflicted on Saturday afternoon at Welling. Does the Minister also accept that two demonstrations took place against nazism? One took place, completely peacefully, at Trafalgar Square. That march was organised by the Anti-Racist Alliance. The other, as has been said, took place under the auspices of the Anti-Nazi League. The vast majority of members of that organisation are peaceably inclined and belong to all political parties and to none. We share the Minister's view that it was a tiny minority of the people who took part in the demonstration at Welling who were responsible for the damage and the injuries that were caused. I congratulate the Minister on resisting any temptation to call for a change in the law with regard to the confrontation last Saturday. It is apparent that, although it is not possible to stop those who are hell-bent on violence, the right to demonstrate peacefully in our streets is of great importance and ought not to be diminished.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is correct to say that another march took place. It went from the Strand to Trafalgar Square and some 3,000 people took part in it. The march was conducted entirely with decorum and there was no trouble. It is a great pity that the other march did not follow the same pattern. The reason for that, as I have already said, is that many other people, extraneous to the organisers of the march, decided to batten themselves on to the march and cause trouble.
420
However, we have no intention of changing the law to which the noble Lord referred. The right to free speech is essential. The right to go on marches is also essential, but the right to protect people from the disasters which these marches can cause is also essential. That is a responsibility for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. As the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Harris, have said, the commissioner conducted that exercise wholly correctly and in the interests of all those who live in the area through which the march passed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister consider the planning laws which allow nazis to site their offices in certain places and to engage in provocative and intolerant acts of racism which incite acts of hatred and violence against members of ethnic minorities in the centre of our urban areas? Will the Minister consider the planning laws which allow offices of such organisations to be sited in such areas? Will he reflect on the possibility that if the local authority had been able to refuse permission for the BNP to operate from its premises, no march would ever have taken place and the violence would not have occurred?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are getting on to dangerous ground if the Government or local authorities are in a position to permit certain people to do things and certain people not to do things which are perfectly legal operations in themselves. The British National Party is not a proscribed organisation. If it were, other considerations would apply. I believe that it would be dangerous to give planning authorities the right to discount those people they do not like.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am sure that among all the people in this country there will be a wide acceptance of one simple fact concerning this disgraceful behaviour: that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and his officers not only knew what was happening by means of good intelligence but also knew how to deal with the situation and save a great deal of trouble. The Metropolitan Police deserve the greatest congratulations. They are so often criticised. Sometimes they are rightly criticised, but on an occasion such as this they should receive all the credit they deserve.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw for those comments, which I know the police service will receive with pleasure. My noble friend is quite right to say that the commissioner had plenty of intelligence about this matter. He informed my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that there was likely to be trouble. He also informed the Home Secretary that he could take sufficient action to contain that trouble.
This is yet another example of how hooligans can bring this country into disrepute as they did last week on the occasion of the football match in the Netherlands. So often the people of this country are blamed for such action when it is a matter of only one or two people who are intent on creating trouble and who have no interest in either football or in the march that took place on

421
Saturday. Nevertheless they bring the whole country into disrepute and they upset and put fear into ordinary law-abiding people.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is there any indication that the tiny minority who created the trouble are members of the British National Party?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is too early to say at the moment whether that is the case but the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is studying all the evidence which is available to him.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend take care to repudiate the suggestion always made by the rioters on these occasions; namely, that the police overreacted?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that such a concept would be totally absurd in this connection. The police knew there was going to be trouble. They informed the marchers that they intended to re-route the march from the place the marchers wished to proceed to, which was the British National Party's headquarters, because the police knew that the roads in that area were restricted and therefore it would be impossible to control the march, and any mayhem which arose would be much worse. I suggest that there is no question that the police acted in an untoward fashion. However, if anyone has a complaint to make, the commissioner will, of course, investigate it.

Protection of Young People at Work: ECC Report
3.19 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham Lord Lewis of Newnham rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Protection of Young People at Work [23rd Report, HL Paper 100].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I discuss the report referred to in the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, perhaps I should bring your Lordships' House up to date with the position in Brussels. The Social Affairs Council met on the 12th October, when key changes to the draft directive were agreed. Those are expected to go forward for formal adoption of a Common Position by the Council. The Common Position will then be transmitted to the European Parliament for its opinion before returning to the Council for final adoption of the directive, probably in the first half of 1994.
I am not clear what that means so far as concerns today's discussion. have a horrible feeling that it means arriving too late for the main event. However, we discussed the situation in Sub-Committee C and it was generally felt that we should proceed as that would give the noble Lord, Lord Henley, an opportunity to tell us in detail the outcome of the deliberations in Brussels. It would also allow your Lordships to consider any aspects of the directive which may be of specific concern.
I turn now to the report. Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee on the European Communities has
422
carried out a short inquiry into the amended proposal for a council directive on the protection of young people at work. The Council's proposal involves the consideration of work carried out by children and young people below the age of 18. The main topics covered are: restriction on hours of work; risk evaluation and health assessment associated with work; and the prohibition of work in certain areas. I believe that we would all agree that those are important aspects of working conditions for children and young people.
The Select Committee reported on those proposals and the report was published in July of this year. The Government response was received in August. I should like to take this opportunity to thank Ministers for their replies.
We would all agree that the employment of children within society has always occurred, often with exploitation. Perhaps we can use as a measure of the civilisation of a society how it has been able to deal with such exploitation. There is no doubt that children and young people at work require protection. Equally, there is no doubt that the experience gained by the young from work is important. It therefore follows that the rules governing work by children must be carefully considered to allow for gradual transition from childhood to adulthood and to lubricate what can be a very difficult change.
I have very little direct experience of this particular form of training for young people. However, for about 20 years I was involved in examining for the Higher National Certificate in chemistry, which is a subject which has a very large work training component. Equally, I find within my own university that many engineers take a year off before going up to university, and so have industrial experience. There is little doubt in my mind that that leads to the development of maturity in young people. It is a very valuable aspect which complements their academic attainments.
The sub-committee considered the proposals with considerable care because of our belief in the importance of managing that transition from school to work, which is not only of potential importance to the individual but also to society as a whole.
Before considering the detailed conclusions of the committee I should like to deal with two considerations which may be regarded as technical, although I am not sure how far these are now appropriate if the directive has reached an adoptive stage. The first is that the proposal was based on Article 118a of the EC treaty. As your Lordships may be aware, that article authorises the Council to adopt directives having as their prime objective the harmonisation of conditions, especially in the work environment, with regard to health and safety. The article states:
"Member States shall pay particular attention to encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers, and shall set as their objective the harmonization of conditions in this area, while maintaining the improvements made".
The evidence before the committee was divided as to whether the then draft directive was correctly based in Article 118a. However, there was no doubt in our minds that Article 11 of the draft directive, which is concerned with paid leave, was most inappropriate in this

423
connection. I fear that we are now reaching a very delicate decision as to which of the various articles will be used for legislation. The Social Charter is an underlying problem which I believe will come to the surface on a number of occasions.
The other question which taxed the committee and some witnesses was the problem of subsidiarity. There are clearly wide variations in the laws concerning working practices. The times at which school starts, the length of the day within a school and even leaving ages vary considerably across the Community. It was felt by some that the present directive imposed unnecessary uniformity across the Community. The alternative view was that the directive would set a minimum standard for the Community as a whole. I remind the House that under Article 118a any member state is allowed to enhance the conditions for its own particular community.
Some witnesses believed that employers could be discouraged from giving jobs or training work because of the new rules. That is an extremely important point, because in the present economic environment it is becoming difficult for many employers to provide appropriate training experience. I know that industry as a whole is finding it very difficult to fulfil that commitment at present.
So far as concerns the adequacy of the law in this country, there was a sharp difference of opinion between those who believed that the UK's law and practice were fully adequate and those who regarded the situation as potentially dangerous for young people. The main legislation in this country governing work by children derives from the 1920s and 1930s. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act was introduced in 1920 and the Children and Young Persons Act came into force in 1933. It is also important to note that the Employment of Children Act 1973, which was passed in order to provide a national standard across the country, remains unimplemented. In the light of evidence given to us we question whether the situation in the UK is satisfactory. In other words, the law may exist but enforcement of the law is becoming important.
A survey carried out in Birmingham found that 43 per cent. of children between the ages of 10 and 16 have some part-time employment. About 75 per cent. were employed illegally and 25 per cent. were under the age of 13, the age below which no work is permissible under existing UK regulations. It has been argued, particularly by the Minister, that that evidence is anecdotal and that hard evidence is not available. However, to put it at its lowest, we cannot be confident that the present laws and by-laws concerned with work by children and young people are widely known or enforced. It is probable that they are not.
Until I was involved in this inquiry I was totally unaware of the need to obtain a work permit for the employment of a child. In my discussions I have met few people who knew of the existence of such a document. I have obtained a copy. I find that it is necessary to have the application countersigned by a parent, the employer and the headmaster of the school
424
which the child attends. I understand the reasoning for that. But, equally well, I understand that that will be a somewhat cumbersome operation which will not be attractive to many employers. A further point is that the possibility of not fulfilling that procedure is becoming great. Allowing children of this age to ignore the law does not start them on a good trail or with a good example.
Perhaps I may console some noble Lords with the fact that it is possible to have one's lawns cut by one's own kith and kin. Regulations often provide for that. For instance, in the Cambridgeshire area the regulation states that,
"a child who has attained the age of 10 may be employed by his parent or guardian under the direct supervision of a responsible person in light agricultural or horticultural work but only on the agricultural or horticultural holding of such parent or guardian".
In other words, it is not legal to go next door and cut the lawn. In this instance, if the child is under a certain age the type of lawn cutter that one can use is somewhat limited. I am not clear whether such employment will now become illegal in this country if the directive is passed.
Another aspect worries me, I refer to the close inter-relationship between work and school. At present there is considerable concern over truancy and attendance at schools in general. I am not clear whether there may be some correlation between those facts.
Perhaps I may consider some specific points in the proposal. I shall not elaborate upon them in too great detail because I am not sure of the future of the programme. We accept that special rules for children must exist. However, we cannot see the justification for special rules for those above minimum school-leaving age which do not apply to adults. In other words, for over 16 year-olds different sets of regulations will apply depending upon whether one is or is not attending school. That does not seem to us to be a wise procedure.
We cannot see the justification for lowering the maximum weekly working time outside the school holidays from 15 to 12 hours. However, we welcome the revised proposal that protects the position of work experience and training. We undoubtedly view that as one of the more important aspects of training available to young people. I emphasise that we regard work experience and training as an important part of the total development of children. We should like to ensure that we are not in any way limiting that possibility.
In conclusion, I thank the members of Sub-Committee C. It is the first report since the reconstitution of the sub-committees of the Select Committee on the European Communities. I remind noble Lords that it involved the merger of Sub-Committees C and F. I much appreciate the help and support which the committee gave me during the investigation. I wish also to take the opportunity to thank the previous chairmen of Sub-Committees C and F, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and my noble friend Lord Nathan, who is present today. Both provided excellent leadership of their committees and are difficult to follow. I thank our clerk, Mr. John Goddard, for his considerable help and dedication

425
during the inquiry. Finally, perhaps I may also thank all who helped the inquiry by giving evidence to the committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Protection of Young People at Work [23rd Report, HL Paper 100].—(Lord Lewis of Newnham.)
3.35 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will be grateful to the sub-committee for the most interesting, informative and well drafted report, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, for his speech today. In the course of that speech, he gave us some idea of the problems of regulating the employment of both school children and young adolescents. In the light of existing legislation—enforced or in some cases perhaps unenforced—and the importance of getting it right, both because we would wish to continue the tradition of protecting children against exploitation—that has been a mark of our social legislation since early in the last century—and, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, because the transfer from dependence and study to active participation to the world at work is an important phase in the life of every young person, if proposals were made to your Lordships' House on behalf of this or any future government to look again at our legislation and the degree to which it is enforced, my sympathies might certainly be with such a step.
However, what I find difficult—it was alluded to by the noble Lord—is the position in respect of the directive which forms the object of investigation. When the Government gave their evidence to the committee—it is recorded in the evidence in the report—it was made clear that the Government held the view, first, that Article 118a was an unsuitable clause for covering much of the material in the proposed directive. It had to be stretched a great deal to cover many of the clauses in the proposed directive. They also took the view—I understand that it was shared by the committee—that subsidiarity would indicate that the control of the work of young people, most of which does not enter directly into international commerce (I refer to mowing daddy's lawn), would not appropriately be dealt with by international or supranational action and was indeed exactly the kind of thing which the concept of subsidiarity was expected by the British Government—perhaps by no one else—to cover. Therefore we have a prime example in the directive of what I and some other noble Lords in this House frequently warned the Government about during the passage of the Maastricht Bill; namely, that the Government might clutch at subsidiarity thinking that the concept meant that more would be left to them but that that was not what they were going to receive from the Commission or from some European governments favourable to the cause of European integration.
It is interesting that the issue has arisen so quickly. However, I should warn your Lordships that if the directive is passed—I base this warning on plenty of evidence from the Continent of Europe—we may expect further directives concerning, although perhaps not exclusively regarding, our labour legislation. They will
426
be dressed up to depend upon one or other of the elastic clauses in the Treaty of Rome in which the notion of subsidiarity will be regarded as a curious British quirk.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, pointed out, we need to know what has actually happened. We do not know that. According to the press, at the meeting to which the noble Lord referred and which I think was some time last week, the British Government accepted the directive, though perhaps in a revised form. We wait to hear from the Minister what revision the Government succeeded in obtaining.
However, it seems to me peculiar, in the light of the evidence that the Government gave to the subcommittee, that they should have accepted it at all. That is because their view that Article 118a was not sufficient to justify it, and their belief that subsidiarity made that in any event an unsuitable area for Community action should have made them refuse to accept it under any circumstances. In other words, have the Government climbed down? Do they no longer take the position which the Minister himself gave to the sub-committee? If there has been such a change, are we to regard it as second thoughts? Are we to regard it as the fact that a noted Europhile has become Secretary of State for Employment rather than a more robust lady who preceded him? We should very much like to know, because if we are to have that kind of thing again and again, we need to understand how the Government will operate in regard to such directives.
In particular, it is important for your Lordships' House. We have a whole series of sub-committees to deal with proposed Community legislation. As in this case, their reports were delivered with considerable promptness. The committee worked hard; it produced a document which is convincing and, as I said at the beginning, well phrased and well drafted. Then the committee finds that, irrespective of that, the Government apparently change their mind. If that is going to be common, if House of Lords reports will not be considered seriously before the Government accept a directive from the Community, we may as well save the Treasury a little money and wind up our European Communities Committee altogether. I think the Minister has some important explanations to offer the House this afternoon.
3.43 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, for chairing the committee so ably and for his exposition this afternoon of what the report is about, as well as for the explanation he gave about what happened last week in Luxembourg. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff. referred to it in a speech which for him was not totally unexpected, but it was directed more to the Minister for his reply rather than to members of the committee.
When the report was being considered by the Select Committee, one member asked what had been the point of having the inquiry if in fact the need for a directive was being queried. In a way that is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was asking. However, I believe that the evidence we received shows conclusively that there is a need for better knowledge of what is

427
happening in this area and what the law is, depending, as it does, on a vast number of by-laws produced by the local authorities.
That is not to say that the situation in Europe is satisfactory. It palpably is not, as I shall point out later. We did not seek evidence on the situation in member states, but we have received evidence from a range of organisations with varied responsibilities for young people in this country, including local authorities, employers, trade unions and those concerned with the welfare of children and young people. In the light of that, we are not convinced that the situation is satisfactory. Research shows that there is a high level of illegal working by children below the minimum school-leaving age.
We detected a good deal of complacency from the two Ministers who gave oral evidence. They seemed to think that matters were under control; that it was the responsibility of the local authorities to create by-laws and to inspect and enforce them. It was up to them. I cannot help commenting that it is convenient for Ministers and the Government to pass responsibility to local authorities—for which at times they show a good deal of scorn—and then not to give them the resources to carry out the work. I asked the Minister about the failure of any government to implement the Employment Act 1973, now 20 years old. He responded that most local authorities had introduced by-laws as required by the Act. I am not so sure. We had written evidence about one shire county where in 1981 there were four separate child employment by-laws covering the county, each differing from the other. The local authority made an attempt to update them but in 1992 that had not been achieved.
It was not until a new head of the education welfare service from Birmingham arrived that action was taken. She had knowledge of the work undertaken in Birmingham for the National Child Employment Study, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, referred, and she found evidence of gross infringements. I quote from her evidence on page 51 of the report. She found, for example:
"Evidence of recent prosecution against employers regarding children and young people 'carrot Topping' … Children absent from school because of injury sustained by the removal of the top of fingers through 'carrot Topping' … Children as young as ten working on a market stall … Village schools turning a blind eye to whole families taking their children out of school to help with the fruit picking … Only 1,500 children registered for employment with the Authority. (The National Child Employment Study suggests that there is likely to be two thirds more children working illegally)".
Anyway, new by-laws were then made and given the seal of approval by the department, to take effect in June 1993.
It is difficult to believe that all other authorities are perfect, and in fact the Association of County Councils in its evidence admits that they are not. But even now the Government's response to our report continues to be complacent.
When the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and I asked Mr. Yeo whether local authorities were enforcing the by-laws, the answers were far from satisfactory. On page 8 of the report he said:
428
"the evidence is probably a little patchy … Some authorities are very much more zealous than others".
The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, asked whether the Minister knew of any local authority which employed people to enforce the laws. He said, in paragraph 31 on page 8, "I do not know". Well, I do. The National Association of Social Workers in Education is the professional organisation for all staff who work in the education welfare services. It gave written evidence which is disturbing. There are only 3,000 of them in the country and they have other duties besides enforcing child employment legislation. They believe that there must be some national standardised legislation which would make the law more easily understood and therefore more easily enforced. This, they thought, could be achieved by the Government implementing and supporting the directive, which is similar to the 1973 Act.
We now know that that will probably not happen, but we shall not be certain until we have heard definitely. More research has been called for by a number of people and in the situation in which we now find ourselves I believe that that is important.
I wish to speak of the likely effects of child employment on education. The Department for Education has recently been concentrating a good deal on truancy, which the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, mentioned. I guess that a great deal of truancy is linked to illegal employment. So far as I can make out, the department's concentration does not seem to be on that. The recession, with many families suffering financial hardship, encourages parents to turn a blind eye if the child is bringing home additional pennies to help the family budget. I suspect also that many children are working more than the permitted hours per day or week, probably again in many cases for more cash.
The Government must realise that there has to be better knowledge of the law among local authorities, employers, teachers and parents and the law needs to be enforced; and that means that sufficient resources are needed. The welfare officers believe that the Department of Health should make certain that illegal child employment and the exploitation of children and young people are recognised as a form of child abuse. The Children Act 1989 should be amended accordingly.
We should be really anxious about the effect of working too long hours on a child's education. If children are tired—and they have been known to fall asleep in lessons—they will not absorb what is being taught and will not have the energy or perhaps the time for homework. If they are truanting, they will miss out altogether on education. We hear a good many complaints from the Government about standards of literacy and numeracy. Maybe if more trouble were taken about protecting children in that area there would be an improvement.
In that context, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who asked whether, if the work turned out to be detrimental to the child's education, the school would have an opportunity of saying that the child should stop work for the sake of the education, Mr. Yeo said:
"The education authority has a statutory duty to stop that work from taking place … if it is detrimental".

429
The noble Lord asked, "Even within permitted hours?", to which the answer was yes. I believe that research would prove that that is not what is happening.
I should like to say a word on work experience, which we all agree is a good thing. The directive posed problems in Article 8. Young people working eight hours a day might need to go to evening classes. People in further education undergoing work experience might also need to attend an evening class and would have been prevented from doing so.
I said earlier that I would mention member states, and I want to refer to Portugal. During the Recess I read a short book, Child Labour in Portugal, by Suzanne Williams. It was supported by the European Human Rights Foundation. It had some horrifying tales of the exploitation of young people. A boy, Nuno, aged 13 had worked in a bakery since the age of 11. He worked from 9.30 in the evening until 12 noon; he slept from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m.—that is 93 hours' work. The pay was £23. In ceramics, shoe-making, textiles, the service sector and stone-breaking, which led to lung disease, there were more horrific stories. Fifteen is the minimum working age. It is estimated that 200,000 under-15s are working. Their education is totally disrupted.
In written evidence we heard that Portugal has one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks preventing the exploitation of young people but one of the worst practical records. Presumably it will agree to the directive. As a member of the Community I do not think that we should be complacent about what is going on elsewhere in the Community.
Now the Social Affairs Council has had its meeting, as the chairman said. There seems to have been fierce disagreement, according to the papers, about whether Mr. Hunt had won a famous victory or suffered a humiliating defeat in gaining a six-year renewable opt-out from measures which would have forced the Government to scrap the legislation that they passed in 1989 to remove restrictions on child labour.
It seems rather ridiculous that we are debating a report which is redundant. But I hope that it will not be neglected.
The deletion of one sub-committee and the amalgamation of the Social and Consumer Affairs Committee with the Environment Committee was a big mistake. They do not mix well. It may well be that some directive needing scrutiny gets put aside. We might well have concentrated earlier on this one if we had not started on packaging and packaging wastes. If so, we could have had the report earlier and perhaps debated it before the decisions had been taken by the Social Affairs Council. I hope that the Leader of the House and others who came to that unnecessary decision will think again, and think quickly. The European Communities committees are very good value and extremely cheap.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I would have thought that your Lordships' Select Committee report on the European Council's Directive on the Protection of Young People at Work is something of a gem. I say that only partly because of its content, although I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is indeed of the
430
very high quality which the world has come to expect of your Lordships' Select Committee reports. However, since I had the privilege of sitting on the committee which produced this particular report, I fear that it would not be appropriate for me to dwell upon its excellence; although I think it is in order for me to congratulate and to thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, for the patience and skill with which he conducted our business, and all those who assisted us.
I believe that it is appropriate for me to touch briefly on what most of our witnesses saw as the deeply misguided quality of the directive itself. However, I propose to spend most of my few minutes looking at what I regard as the report's star quality; namely, its timing, and the wider questions which its publication therefore begs. I say that because this debate comes close on the heels of our debates in June and July on the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht. The circumstances surrounding the directive on young people at work appear to belie all the vital assurances given by the Government then about subsidiarity and the Luxembourg Court; and because we thus have the opportunity of asking the Government exactly where they think they are going from here, particularly at the proposed Euro Summit at the end of this month.
At this point I should perhaps offer an apology to my noble friend Lord Henley (who I see is to answer for the Government) if he were to feel that some of my questions might be more fairly directed at my noble friend Lady Chalker and at my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who between them gave most of the assurances to which I refer; or indeed, at my right honourable friend the Prime Minister himself, whose article in the Economist on 25th September makes such encouraging reading but which does not seem to relate to the reality of where we find ourselves with this directive on young people at work. I cast no aspersions on my noble friend's ability to answer for the Government—quite the reverse. If he feels that my apology is out of place, then I trust that no harm has been done.
Other noble Lords have dealt with much of the detail of this unfortunate directive far more ably than could I. Suffice it for me to say that the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers' Federation, Grand Metropolitan Hotels, the Institute of Directors, the Independent Television Network Centre, the National Farmers' Union, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and the Society of West End Theatre all agree that it is likely to do much more harm than good to young people at work.
The general savour of their submissions is that the directive is likely to increase youth unemployment and to restrict work experience, employment and training opportunities for young people. Those who disagree with them have to explain how a European directive, and especially one which rests on a false legal base, as does this one, can be expected to help with the problems that they perceive when adequate UK law already exists. There may be a case, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has pointed out, for enforcing existing UK law

431
more rigorously. But I cannot think that there is much case for this interfering and damaging nonsense from Europe.
To give noble Lords some idea of the insidious stupidity of this directive I must tell the House that it proposes to ban all work by children under 13 years of age. In its original form, the directive did propose to make an exception for children working on a limited or occasional basis for their family. But the vigilantes of the European Economic and Social Committee got at it, aided and abetted by the European Parliament, and appear to have removed the exemption. That seems so absurd that I have to ask my noble friend if I have got this right. Will it in future be lawful for me to pay my nine year-old daughter to clean my shoes; or indeed her own shoes? Where will those of us who do not believe in giving pocket money to our children unless it is earned by some limited or occasional work for the family stand towards the law? Shall we be breaking it? If so, perhaps I may remind my noble friend that bad laws eventually make bad people.
Perhaps I may go further, and point out that this whole process of having bad laws thrust down our throats by the European socialist super-state is bound in the end to turn the British people into less law-abiding citizens. Surely my noble friend would agree that that would be a tragedy if it were to happen.
I come then to the wider questions which this wretched directive begs. To start with, it is clear that the Government rightly do not agree that the directive should be based on Article 118a of the Treaty of Rome, which proposes to harmonize the health and safety of workers across the Community. To quote from the Government's response to our report dated 2nd August 1993, to the chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and signed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. David Hunt:
"We … remain to be convinced that the Treaty Base is appropriate. In our view the proposals involve a range of social and educational considerations and go beyond the protection that would be justified on Health and Safety grounds".
The letter continues with a statement which may prove useful to anyone wishing to gauge the value of our opt-out from the Social Charter. My right honourable friend has this to say about what he rightly calls "the prescriptive nature" of the proposal:
"The Government welcomes the point made by the Committee on the need to emphasise the requirement for leaving the Member States to argue the objective case for the need for regulation at a level other than the national level. As the Committee knows the UK did not sign the Social Charter. We nevertheless welcome the Committee's conclusion that, even by the requirements of the Charter, the directive is excessively prescriptive".
I am sure that all noble Lords on these Benches and indeed elsewhere in the House, though perhaps not on the Benches opposite, will welcome the words of the Secretary of State. The trouble is that his opinion was not shared in Luxembourg last week at the Social Affairs Council when he met with his colleagues. I understand that he was out-voted by 11 votes to one. If I have that wrong, no doubt my noble friend will advise us.
432
So I should warn my noble friend on the Front Bench that my first general question will be: "Of what value is subsidiarity or our opt-out from the Social Charter in resisting this and other similar directives?"
The other European initiatives that I have in mind are works councils, sex discrimination, working time and the acquired rights directive. I should be most grateful if my noble friend could tell the House what value the Government now place on the subsidiarity clause in the Union treaty and more particularly how they intend to use subsidiarity to resist the young people at work directive. Before my noble friend comes to reply, it might help your Lordships if I quote a little more from the Government's response to our report dated 2nd August 1993. The Government's response is not available to most noble Lords because it has only just reached the Select Committee. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment made clear the Government's determination to resist the directive. He was also under no illusion as to the seriousness of the national interest. I quote:
"The proposals will affect an important element of our society and deal with the serious matter of young people's transition from school to work. The Report is an extremely useful consideration of the proposals and will help in our negotiations in Europe".
My right honourable friend then took the subsidiarity issue head on and made it clear that he believed our report would have strengthened the Government's hand when they came to invoke Article 3b of the Treaty on European Union; namely, the subsidiarity clause. His letter went on:
"We welcome in particular the Committee's confirmation of the Government's view that while accepting that children and young people need to be protected, much of the draft directive is unacceptable on the grounds of subsidiarity, and inappropriate for Community legislation. The Committee's endorsement of the Government's view that there is no convincing case for detailed Community action gives valuable support to our efforts to press the Commission on points of principle and practice in the negotiations to come".
Your Lordships will no doubt agree that nothing could be clearer or fairer than that.
However, to get the full flavour of the Government's determination in this matter, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence to quote two further paragraphs from the Secretary of State's letter. My right honourable friend continued thus:
"Finally, the Committee's recommendations and views on: the need for a distinction between those above and below school leaving age; the definition of the 'employment relationship'; the need to reinstate a limit of 15 rather than 12 hours weekly work; the general undermining of job opportunities by derogation; the impracticability of accumulating working time for different employers; the need to safeguard training opportunities for young people; the inappropriateness of different assessment regimes between adolescents and adults are most welcome and will strengthen the Government's hand in the negotiations to come …
I must restate the Government's intention to resist the directive as it is currently drafted and generally handle matters in line with the Committee's recommendations. We agree that the matters of ensuring and encouraging training, work experience and young people's employment opportunities are very serious ones. These should not be left to the mercies of arbitrary and inadequately focused regulations, whose basis for introduction into the EC programme of initiatives are themselves questionable. We will aim to convince our European colleagues of the Government's views and will no doubt be much helped by the report to secure their conversion".
Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that that is the end of the quotation. They are fine words and show

433
courageous tenacity to the lofty principle of subsidiarity; but the vote last week was still 11 to one against us on the substance of the directive about which my right honourable friend was so eloquent in his thanks to your Lordships' committee. I am told that my right honourable friend was also fairly forthright in his condemnation of this and other similar directives at this year's Tory Party Conference. If so, he was perhaps echoing the truly excellent article in the Economist of 25th September by no less an authority than my right honourable friend the Prime Minister himself. I am sure that noble Lords will have read that article and so I shall not burden the House with further extensive quotations, apart from one short one which is very much to my point. It goes as follows:
"Long term unemployment is higher in the European Community than in either Japan or the United States. There is now increasing agreement that these problems stem from the inflexibility of European labour markets, from the tangle of regulations, from wasteful systems of welfare, from the burden of too high taxation, which Europeans have imposed upon themselves in the last 40 years".
Quite so. I should have thought that the young people at work directive is just one further extension of what my right: honourable friend so rightly criticises.
So I must ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the Government still believe that subsidiarity can save us from the young people at work directive and similar directives. Noble Lords will be aware that I am among those who have always regarded the subsidiarity clause as worthless. But I suggest that the young people at work directive sets up an interesting test case. I very much hope that the Government will prove me and others who agree with me to be wrong. But the omens are not good for the Government. It seems that they are not always well advised as to what the attitude of our European partners may be to these matters and indeed to subsidiarity itself. I say that because I am told that the UK representatives were caught on the wrong leg, to put it mildly, by last week's 11 to one decision against us in Luxembourg. Apparently they had not thought that the issue would even go to a vote and advised our Ministers accordingly.
Finally, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government are thinking of referring this directive to the Luxembourg court. Here again, it would be an interesting test case. Those of us who objected to the Union treaty regard the Luxembourg court as no court of justice at all, in the British understanding of that expression, but merely as the engine of the Treaty of Rome. We believe that it is most unlikely to find against an 11 to one decision in the Council. But as I said, it could be an interesting test case.
I end by throwing down two gauntlets for my noble friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench. First, I say that the story of the young people at work directive shows that subsidiarity is worthless to our national interest. Secondly, I say that justice will not be available to us in the Luxembourg court. I very much hope that the Government will prove me wrong.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we are warned—are we not?—that the Maastricht debate is by no means over. So it seems from today's contributions to the debate. However, I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on one matter; namely, that it is most regrettable that decisions should be taken by the Government before your Lordships' House has had the opportunity to discuss the reports produced by the Select Committee.
A great deal of work goes into the preparation of the reports, excellent evidence is taken and the deliberations are most carefully carried out. I am not a member of the committee but I feel that it is both discouraging to he committee and slightly less than complimentary to your Lordships' House that the Government should take action before there has been a proper opportunity to consider the matters put forward in these reports. I recognise that perhaps this is an exceptional occasion in that we are just at the edge of the Recess and no doubt the timetable for considering these matters was not entirely in the Government's hands. But I hope that the Minister will confirm that there is every intention that reports should be properly debated in your Lordships' House before the Government arrive at a conclusion about what they intend to do. Having said that, that is the only point on which I can find any agreement whatsoever with what has been said from speakers behind the Government on this occasion.
It seems to me that this is a matter for which there should be a directive. I do not understand the arguments. After all, we accepted in the Treaty of Rome that there should be directives in relation to equal pay. The argument was not that this was being put forward by great libertarians or feminists when the Treaty of Rome was being adopted; it was that if some countries paid equal pay and others did not, the countries that paid would be at a disadvantage economically. It follows equally that if some countries are able to employ large numbers of children at very low rates of pay that is an economic disadvantage to the countries which are trying to apply reasonable standards—the standards which have been laid down in the legislation of this country and laid down in the legislation of this country before the European Community ever came into being.
It is in our economic interest, leaving on one side all social considerations, that countries which are exploiting child labour—we have had good examples from the noble Baroness, Lady David, and there are no doubt many others—should not be tolerated and that on strong economic grounds we should be able to demand that minimum standards be enforced throughout the Community. I know everyone will say that the problem is enforcement. Of course there is a problem of enforcement. That is something on which we have to work, and to work much harder than we have done in the past. But I would agree that this is a subject for subsidiarity.
I do not take the view that has been taken by the dyed-in-the-wool anti-Maastricht people that subsidiarity is some sinister device for doing down this country. I want subsidiarity in this case because I believe that this

435
country should be prepared to go further than the minimum standards laid down. It may be that this directive puts too much detail into those minimum standards and does not leave enough for countries which are able and wish and consider that they ought to apply higher standards to apply them without being handicapped by details which in some ways run across the better practice which we are already carrying out, or which some of us hope we will in future carry out in this country—although, as we have already been reminded, our legislation in this country is not being enforced as it ought to be enforced.
In my view, the requirements laid down here are an absolute minimum, and in some cases are not high enough even at the level of enforcement, let alone at the level at which countries which are able to do better ought to do better. I find it quite extraordinary that people should think it desirable that children under the age of 15—under school-leaving age—should be able to work even 12 hours a week let alone 15 hours a week. Children should be in school. We deplore all the time the low level of performance of so many children coming out of school. I cannot believe that encouraging them and allowing them to work is a way in which to improve their educational standards. It is on that that we should be focusing as much as we possibly can. To go from 12 hours to 15 hours is very retrogressive. We ought to be reducing rather than increasing the number of hours that children are able to work.
I am also sorry that the committee took the line—I think I have this correct—that there should not be a distinction between those above minimum school leaving age and adults. It is the view of many of us that youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 should be regarded primarily as trainees and that they should be given the opportunity to learn based inside a place of work. These are years of learning and training and not years of production. In this connection, in talking about the transitional period when youngsters leave school and go into work, the question of work experience has been discussed and is discussed in the report.
Those of us who have had anything to do with the transfer from school to work recognise that work experience is important. But there is a tremendous distinction to be made between planned work experience, which fits in and is devised in order to enhance the skills and learning processes of the youngster, and any old job which they happen to pick up in which there may be no training content whatsoever and which is entered into simply in order to earn a little more money. From the point of view of the health and safety of youngsters and indeed the health of the economy, the level of training is what really matters. That is not gained by any kind of job. It is gained only by planned work experience, which is something quite different from letting youngsters pick up a little knowledge about work by delivering the papers or whatever else it may be.
For these reasons, I think that the Government not only should accept the basic principle that there should be directives in this field but that they should look at
436
their own provision and recognise that it is far from adequate. So far from cutting it back, it should be enhanced.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the committee on its report. As usual, the committee has done a great deal of work. It has taken evidence from a wide range of interested parties, from organisations concerned with the welfare of young people and from trade unions and employers' organisations as well as from the Government themselves. Not surprisingly, those organisations, while expressing concern for the welfare of young people, came to very different conclusions about the EC directive.
Meantime, as we all know, there have been some further developments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, has already referred. The EC in Brussels wanted to move on with this directive, but the British Government have objected and the Secretary of State emerged last week with what he apparently thought was some kind of triumph. As I understand it from newspaper reports, the UK now has six years before it need put the provisions of the directive into operation. This has been presented to the media as a great victory on behalf of boys and girls who are extremely anxious to be able to do newspaper rounds. Their freedom to do so was threatened, so we are led to believe, by this directive. In fact, I think that this probably had nothing to do with it, since I understand that Britain had already, at the time of the Secretary of State's intervention, secured for itself a special exemption in regard to newspaper deliveries.
At the time the committee considered this directive, a revised version had been produced which altered the original version under which workers under 18 working on a limited or occasional basis for their family were excluded. The revised version brings within the scope of the directive all persons under 18 working for one or more employers. In other words, it brings into consideration people working for their families. Admittedly, there may be some difficulties about enforcement here; but many witnesses made the point—I think rightly—that it is often in family businesses that children and young people are vulnerable and exploited. I therefore take the view that the directive was right to move away from the original exclusion.
Perhaps I may give an example from my own experience. My husband was the bright child of small shopkeepers. He has never got over the resentment he felt that he had to work in the business instead of working at school. He has said to me repeatedly, "I didn't do as well as I might have done at school because they made me work in the shop". That still is true for many children in those circumstances.
The directive quite specifically rules out nightwork for young people under the age of 18, and places limitations on hours worked. In the case of children under compulsory school-leaving age, it reduces the hours from 15 to 12 a week. On the other hand, the directive accepts that the provision of work experience

437
and training should be safeguarded. The committee and various of the respondents to the committee welcomed those references in the directive to work and training.
The directive, as we have heard, has as its legal basis Article 118a, which is used to harmonise conditions in regard to health and safety in the working environment, and as such can become operative by qualified majority voting. It seems to me that as concerns young people, it is vital to ensure that their working conditions are conducive to maintaining good health. At that period of adolescence with which the directive is concerned young people are still developing, and a bad working environment can be seriously damaging. Working hours and leave may therefore be more important in that context regarding health than for older people.
Therefore, it does not seem to me to be entirely inappropriate to use Article 118a as the legal base although I note that both the committee, and of course the Government, take a contrary view.
The Government's standpoint in this directive, as with others, has been entirely predictable. They regard any regulation of employment conditions as unnecessary—worse, as an interference with the market; a disincentive to employers to employ more labour and thus a diminution of employment prospects. It does not seem to matter to the Government what kind of jobs, if any, are created as a result of this free-for-all philosophy.
In the context of this report, the Government also seem to me to take a rather odd view of subsidiarity. They believe that a directive to harmonise is not necessary since few young people are likely to move across transnational borders looking for work. But I thought that harmonisation was about more than that. Surely, it is regarded as good in itself; avoiding social dumping to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has referred, and allowing everyone to feel that they may benefit in the EC single market. In other words, there is a social dimension designed to ensure basic protection for the most vulnerable. As I understand it, the subsidiarity doctrine applies when the social objectives can best be achieved by national parliaments enacting legislation to suit their own circumstances. Surely that is reasonable and sensible.
There is already some sort of provision in the UK designed to regulate hours for children below the minimum school-leaving age. It is the employment card system. But witnesses gave evidence to the effect that it was little known and rarely enforced. Moreover, protective legislation covering 16 to 18 year-olds—legislation which prohibited night work in accordance with the directive—disappeared in 1989 as a result of one of the all too frequent Employment Acts. Therefore, in two key areas covered by this directive, whatever provision existed in UK legislation is either not enforced or has been abolished.
Many of the organisations submitting evidence expressed anxiety that UK legislation of itself seemed unable to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable young people. The Trades Union Congress was concerned at the level of health and safety protection for the young, pointing out that in agriculture, for example, there had been 22 deaths of young people in the past three years.
438
Even the Government's spokesman, in giving evidence to the committee, expressed worry at the level of industrial injury among young people working in farming. Any steps which might reduce the risk of injury or death should surely be taken. Long hours do result in fatigue, and that is recognised as one of the causes of industrial injury.
The Government's position appears to be that there is no justification for introducing special protection for young people on health and safety grounds and, as already indicated, used this argument to justify removing most of the protective legislation covering 16 to 18 year-olds in the Employment Act 1989. They were also removed from the protection of the wages council by the Wages Act 1986. These measures have resulted, as the Children's Rights Development Unit said in its evidence, in young people entering the workforce being treated as adults. The unit says that there has been an increased incidence of accidents to young people, particularly in the first year at work. There was also some anxiety expressed about Article 2c which appears to provide an exemption in the case of children not less than 13 years of age, performing "light work". Derogations are permitted under this article to cope with established national practice.
I understand that it is under this article that the UK would be allowed to continue with the practice of employing children still at school to deliver newspapers in the early morning or in the evening. Despite the fact that there may well be noble Lords—perhaps even Ministers—to tell us that they were delivering newspapers at the age of 12 and enjoying it, and that it never did them any harm (we have often heard those kinds of arguments) I have never been very happy with this good old British custom. One cannot help noticing that it is often the children of poorer families who engage in this sort of activity. One should not always assume that they enjoy doing it. Children are only too well aware of what is going on if their parents are having difficulty making ends meet and often will want to help out. I accept that there is nothing much that can be done about it, particularly when so many are having to cope with reduced living standards. But it does not exactly fill me with unrestrained joy that a British Secretary of State should regard it as a triumph that he has preserved the "freedom" for this kind of exploitation to continue.
Of course, we must expect that employers' organisations will not want restrictions on the rights of their members to employ vulnerable labour as cheaply as possible. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that that is just to be expected—hence the comments of the IoD, the CBI, the EEF, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, and others. But it is the duty of the Government to protect the vulnerable, and the duty of parliamentarians to make sure that the Government do that.
It is to the credit of the committee that while it does not believe that the directive was appropriate, it refused to be complacent about what its research had revealed. It said,
"We are not convinced that the situation here is satisfactory".
The committee refers to the fact that research indicates that there is a high level of illegal working by children

439
below the minimum school-leaving age, with by no means trivial breaches of the "no work before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m." rules. My noble friend Lady David gave us some examples of that. Moreover, the committee has expressed concern that the Employment of Children Act 1973, passed in order to establish national standards, remains unimplemented.
In case the Minister says that it remained unimplemented by Labour Governments as well, I am not impressed by that argument because I believe that things have moved on. Anyway, for 14 years we have had Conservative administrations committed to reducing the amount of protective legislation in employment on the plea that only in this way can employment be provided, since regulation is a "burden on employers". Deregulation has not produced more employment, and those in employment have had significantly less protection than hitherto, as have young people who are the subject of the EC directive.
I commend the committee for suggesting that the Government should commission research into enforcement and the adequacy of the present laws. I would have preferred it had the committee supported the directive at least in principle. But now that the Government have obtained their so-called "renewable opt-out", it becomes even more necessary that something should be done by ourselves to ensure that young and vulnerable people are protected. As the TUC points out in its evidence, in times of high unemployment many young people feel constrained to take whatever is on offer. Some unscrupulous employers see young people as a source of cheap labour, often willing to carry out dirty or dangerous jobs that more experienced workers would decline. Such young people may not be aware of rights that already exist under health and safety legislation. As I said earlier, the Government must ensure that the vulnerable are protected. The committee's report makes that point very clearly, and I fully concur with that.
4.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, put it, two strands have developed in this debate. As they have developed, and with their links, I found myself very much between the devil and the deep blue sea. The first strand of the debate relating to the question of the European Community to some extent continues the debate which we had at some length last summer. I shall deal with that in due course. Secondly—and this is what the draft directive and also the report of the Select Committee is about—is the principal question of the protection of children and young people at work. There was a third point which I shall briefly touch on—that is to say, the remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the work of the sub-committees. I believe that the noble Baroness will appreciate that it would not be for me to respond to these particular points she made, but I am sure that they will be noticed by both my noble friend the Leader of the House and by the Chairman of Committees.
We welcome the committee's report and its findings.
440
We fully agree that children and young people need adequate protection of their health and safety and of their educational development. That has never been in dispute. Where we have differed from our partners in Europe is over the extent to which community legislation in this field is either necessary or appropriate. In drawing the attention of the House to his report, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, quite rightly drew attention to the appropriateness of Article 118a and voiced the concerns that subsidiarity should rule. That was a point made both by my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Pearson. I must stress that we are still not convinced that there is a need for Community legislation in this field. The Council that met last week did not reach a decision that was put to a vote, so I say to my noble friend Lord Pearson that there is no question of a 11:1 vote. The Council recognised the diversity of national arrangements and, in particular, the United Kingdom's approach to health and safety. The amendments agreed by the Council show a far greater recognition of the principle of subsidiarity than did the original proposals which the Select Committee was considering. My noble friend also wished to know whether we intended to challenge the directive and the use of Article 118a.
The text of the draft directive, as agreed, focuses far more firmly on health and safety matters. The agreement that we reached addresses the vital anxieties that we put; and therefore we shall not be challenging the directive in the European Court of Justice, if it is adopted in its present form. I should stress that the United Kingdom's challenge to the proposed directive on working time will enable the issues of principle in Article 118a to be ventilated fully. We believe that that will be sufficient.
The House will be aware that there was much discussion at the Council last week, and that it reached broad agreement. I shall describe that more fully in a little while. The essential point is that on the major points in the proposed directive where it would have conflicted with our own approach we shall be free to continue that approach.
Our prime concern must of course always be the best interests of the young people themselves. We must take account not only of their health and safety, but also their social and educational development and their preparation for adult life. Ultimately, our aim is to help them realise their full potential and make full use of all their talents and abilities.
The protection of children and young people in the United Kingdom has a long history. I do not believe that I need to review it now. It runs from Lord Shaftesbury, through the Factories Acts, factory inspectors and other legislation right up to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and beyond. We believe that we have one of the most effective and admired systems of health and safety protection in the world.
In relation to children—by which I mean those below the minimum school leaving age—we have long prohibited their work in factories, mines and quarries, construction, ships and road and rail transport. We do however see no harm, and much positive benefit, in permitting suitable light, non-industrial, work from the

441
age of 13 upwards, always provided children's health and safety and their educational development is not compromised.
My noble friend Lord Pearson asked whether the under-13s could do odd jobs at present and would be allowed to do so in the future. Doing those types of odd jobs is not part of an ongoing commercial undertaking, and there should be nothing wrong in such a child doing such work. The wording of the draft directive takes us no further in that. I can assure my noble friend that my understanding is that he can continue to have his shoes cleaned by his children aged under 13, or whatever.
For young people above the minimum school leaving age (broadly speaking 16 and 17-year olds), the basis of our current legislation is to provide additional protection where there are specific risks greater than those to adults in the same occupation. Although I may have misunderstood him, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, who said that he saw no need for such protection. I am sure that he will agree that there is a case for it where the risk to the young person is greater than the risk to an adult. For example, there are regulations on the work of young people involving potentially dangerous machinery, chemicals and other substances, and ionising radiation. Obviously, as all will recognise, that can affect a young person to a greater extent than it will an older and more mature person. That is of course in addition to the general duties of all employers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act and the vigorous enforcement powers of the HSE.
We do not however see a convincing case for imposing special restrictions on young people's hours of work. Such restrictions may have been justified in the past, when the general system of health and safety protection for all employees was less developed; and when, moreover, the school leaving age was substantially lower than it is today. But the regulations that had been put in place became increasingly complex and outdated. They were difficult to understand, to enforce, or to justify on any scientific basis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to the point—although with no great enthusiasm—that in 1989 Parliament enacted a major reform of the existing legislation, retaining all protection for children below the school leaving age, and all the protection of young people above that age which the Health and Safety Commission advised was necessary on health and safety grounds, but repealing restrictions on hours of work and night work for which there was no health and safety basis.
There is no evidence to suggest that that reform of our legislation has had any adverse effects on the health or safety of young people. In so far as accident rates of young people are a guide to this (I appreciate that they are only a guide) not only have they not risen since 1989, but they have actually fallen. While we must never be complacent about such matters, there is no reason to believe that our current system of protection for young people is inadequate or that restrictions on their working time of the kind envisaged in the draft directive are necessary.
I come to the outcome of the Social Affairs Council itself. There were confusing reports of the outcome in
442
the press. I ask noble Lords not to believe everything that they read in the press. I shall come to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Lewis, rightly said—I believe that he spoke for the entire committee—that they were too late for the event in that the Council had taken place before the House had had an opportunity to consider the report. My noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pressed me to say why we were debating the report now when it appeared that it would be of little effect. It was not our decision that the matter should go to the Council now. It was in fact the desire of the Belgian presidency. My noble friend put a rather strange interpretation on Her Majesty's Government's action. We were not ignoring everything in the report and taking no note of the committee's work. We did take note of the report—and, as I shall show, it influenced last week's deliberations. I should he the last to decry the efforts and work of this committee.
I should like to stress that it is untrue to say that everything was agreed in advance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, seemed to imply. Seine possible amendments had been discussed before the Council, but nothing had been agreed. The lengthy discussions in Council would not have been necessary had the amendments been agreed in advance. Moreover, some of the important changes were only threshed out in the Council itself. I do not believe that our Community partners would recognise the descriptions in the press reports to which I presume the noble Baroness was alluding. I repeat our regret to the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, the chairman of the committee, that the Council reached its decisions on this matter before today's debate. I must stress that we took full account of that report which influenced the outcome of the Council meeting.
The Government remain of the view that member states themselves are in the best position to provide protection, taking account of their own particular circumstances and traditions. It became clear, however, in the course of negotiations that a majority of member states felt committed by their adherence to the Social Charter to taking action at Community level.
Our partners have recognised the strength of concern in the United Kingdom about the impact of the directive on our different national approach to the protection of young people, and the need to take account of the principle of subsidiarity. Building upon that recognition, the Council agreed to make substantial changes to the draft directive to accommodate our principal concerns. I will mention three main points.
First, in the light of the committee's recommendations, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State emphasised the need for the directive to give some acknowledgment of the positive value of appropriate work by children, subject of course to necessary safeguards, as stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis. The Council has adopted the suggestion of the sub-committee that that point should be incorporated in the preamble to the directive.
Secondly, the Council recognised that the directive as it stood would present some obstacles to the traditional practice of newspaper deliveries. I do not accept what

443
was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Notably, it accepted that a requirement for two days' rest in every week would be unnecessary in such cases, and that a requirement of 14 hours' consecutive daily rest would be an obstacle to some children who deliver newspapers in both the morning and the evening. Those potential problems have been removed by an appropriate amendment.
Thirdly, the Council recognised the strength of our anxieties as regards unnecessary limits on daily and weekly work and evening or night work by young people above the school-leaving age. While our labour force survey statistics show that comparatively few young people work beyond the limits previously proposed, they would nevertheless have affected significant numbers of young people and would have involved a complex administrative burden on employers. As a result of the Council's decision, these provisions will not apply in the United Kingdom for at least four years following the date set for the implementation of the directive. At the end of the four-year period—at least six years from now—the Commission and the Council will review the arrangements and decide whether to amend them.
The noble Lord, Lord Lewis, alluded to the view of the committee that there is a significant level of illegal working below the minimum school leaving age in the United Kingdom and that the present laws, which date from the 1920s and 1930s, need to be updated, preferably through the implementation of the Employment of Children Act 1973. The enforcement of the law relating to children below the minimum school-leaving age is primarily a matter for local education authorities. They have the power to enforce not only the national framework of legislation but also to enforce their own by-laws which central government approve in the normal way.
As regards illegal working, it is for local authorities to take action if they have any concerns. Some local authorities may argue that their resources are inadequate; but it is for the authorities themselves to decide their priorities and to allocate the resources accordingly. We have no reason to think that, generally speaking, local authorities are failing to make and to act on informed and responsible local judgments.
In the areas where the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcement—notably where children are found to be working illegally in industrial premises—I can assure the House that the policy of the executive is to take immediate and vigorous action in the first instance by excluding children from the workplace and, if necessary, by closing it. The matter is then reported for possible prosecution.
The noble Lord, Lord Lewis, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and others suggested that there is a need for further research into the extent and effects of children's work. We remain unconvinced that local authorities are experiencing problems with the adequacy or the enforcement of legislation. In our consultation with local authorities in connection with the draft directive, they have certainly not represented the issue to us as a significant problem. Therefore, it is to be expected that
444
this will not feature high on the Government's priority list for further research, and it will certainly not be appropriate to divert what research funds are available from other much more pressing research on childcare and child protection.
I turn to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, that the 1973 Act should be brought into operation. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, reminded the House that the Labour Government of 1974 decided not to implement that Act because of the resource implications for local authorities. Since then the vast majority of local authorities have brought their by-laws into line with the proposed content of the national regulations under the 1973 Act. We believe that the degree of standardisation envisaged by the 1973 Act has therefore largely been achieved. The advantage of by-laws is that local authorities may update them in order to take into account local circumstances and modern conditions. Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary to bring the 1973 Act into force.
We made it clear from the outset that we see no need for this directive. I can assure the House that the vigorous presentation of our anxieties by my right honourable friend has succeeded in removing the directive's potentially most damaging effects. Moreover, the principle of subsidiarity has been taken into account in provisions which recognise the validity of the United Kingdom's approach to the protection of young people. The draft directive will now go forward for formal adoption of a common position by the Council and then for further consideration by the European Parliament.
I conclude by thanking all noble Lords who took part in the debate, in particular those who took part as members of Sub-committee C, for their careful analysis and comments which, as I have tried to make clear, greatly assisted Her Majesty's Government in their endeavours to present the United Kingdom's concerns to our Community partners.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full exposition of the position in which we find ourselves. Today's debate has been a fair representation of the variation of views which the committee received. I am still concerned that the Government are not prepared to look in some detail into the enforcement side of the problem. I believe that it is dangerous to have laws and not to be concerned with their enforcement. The sentiments voiced in the House make it clear that there is considerable anxiety about the employment of young people and children. If that is true it is a natural consequence to see how the law is being enforced, but I can readily see that the Government are not prepared to take that view.
I thank noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. All fairly represented the various facets of our experience in the committee. The problem as regards subsidiarity, with which the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Pearson, were concerned, taxed us. I fear that this is by no means the last time that the House will be concerned with it. On one occasion the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, kindly offered to make available to

445
me copies of the Edinburgh discussion on subsidiarity. For about 30 seconds I thought that I understood it but after that it was as elusive as will-o'-the-wisp. I still do not understand it and would love to have an insight into the issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, made her position clear. There is no doubt that the imposition which enforcement will place on local authorities will be great and will certainly cost money. I found most poignant her sentiments about the situation as regards school, education as a whole and work.
It is clear that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and I do not agree on many of the basic issues. I do believe, however, that the planning of experience at work is essential and I do not believe that there would have been disagreement with the sub-committee on that issue. However, the suggestion of 12 to 15 hours did not reflect the way in which the committee was looking at the programme.
I turn to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. We dealt again with the problem of Article 118a and subsidiarity. As regards the 1973 Act, it is one of those problems which comes and goes. It is interesting to note that the appearance of a work permit for children was as a result of the non-implementation of the 1973 Act. It was put forward in that Act as an alternative procedure until the Act was introduced. It is one of the primary problems which exists in such a form of enforcement.
Having said that, I thank your Lordships for your considerable attention on this occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Livestock Premium Quotas
4.50 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell Lord Hamilton of Dalzell rose to move to resolve, That this House considers that the Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quota Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993, No. 1626) do not contain adequate measures, either to tackle the adverse economic effects which arise from the transferability of quotas away from particular holdings, or to protect vulnerable livestock rearing areas and the communities that depend on them; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce further measures, sufficient to provide full redress for these adverse consequences of livestock premium quotas.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have an interest in this debate both as a landowner and a member of the Country Landowners' Association, which supports this Motion.
At the time at which I originally tabled the Motion for debate I was obliged to pray for an annulment of the statutory instrument implementing the regulations on sheep and suckler cow premium quotas. Due to a number of days' legal proceedings during the Recess, the time has run out for a Prayer and I am grateful to the Government for allowing time for this important debate to take place as an ordinary Motion.
I have also changed the substance of the Motion. It now calls for the Government to take further measures
446
to correct deficiencies in the operation of those regulations. As a result, the Motion before your Lordships will observe what I am told is the tradition of the House by not seeking to throw out a statutory instrument. It will ensure also that it cannot give rise to a retrospective effect on those who may have already carried out transactions in quota.
It follows from that that, in spite of motives which some of your Lordships may have attributed to me for initiating the debate derived from the part that I played in another debate in this House which took place before the Recess, this Motion does not challenge the principle of applying quotas to agricultural production. The British Government have fought against them in Brussels but their opinions have not been taken by the other countries in the Community, and that it is a fact of life which we must sadly accept.
This debate is focused on the particular problems created by the arrangements made by our Government for applying premium quotas to sheep and stickler cows. But it is of far greater importance than that. It will set the precedent for measures to implement further quota regulations which could very well follow.
Why is it that I ask your Lordships to conclude that the Government's regulations are inadequate? The starting point is that a producer is eligible for a maximum premium payment according to the number of sheep or suckler cows which he happened to have and registered—at the end of 1991 for sheep. The arrangements for suckler cows arrived on my desk this morning and appear to be similar in principle but with a registration date at the end of 1992.
The number of animals which can be produced is dependent upon the amount and quality of land, in hand or tenanted, available to the producer. Therefore, I argue that the value of the quota for premium now payable can only have come from a combination of capital assets, incorporating both livestock and land.
The producer under those regulations may sell that quota. Where there were two assets needed for profitable livestock rearing, now there are, in effect, three; namely, land, livestock and quota. Anyone wishing to farm land from which quota has been removed will have to acquire quota or bring it with them. The value of the contribution of land to the equation has been diminished. The only way in which the land value will not be reduced is if there is an economic alternative to livestock rearing on it. In both uplands and lowlands the flexibility of farmers is becoming ever more restricted by set-aside, milk quotas and planning designations, so these alternatives may be few and in many cases non-existent.
This problem becomes an issue between landlord and tenant only because an owner-occupier has less incentive to sell his quota than his tenant because, as I have just explained to your Lordships, the sale of the quota has the effect of creating a reduction in the value of the land. An owner-occupier will make little or no net gain by selling, whereas this measure is a direct inducement to encourage tenants, particularly elderly ones with no succession, to take their money and retire, partly at the landlord's expense.
We claim, therefore, that there are five detrimental effects in the measure as it now stands. First, it devalues land and, therefore, the landlord's assets, as I have explained. Secondly, the ability to capitalise quota rights means that substantial sums will be realised and, by their nature, are likely to leave the industry. A thousand sheep on a less favoured area have premium rights with a capital value of between £40 and £45 per animal or £40,000 to £45,000—less the 15 per cent. syphon if the quota is sold to anyone other than the landlord or incoming tenant. The potential for a drain of money out of agriculture seems to run against government policy over many years when both Conservative and Labour Governments have used substantial sums of taxpayers' money to maintain rural employment and to prevent the emigration of the rural population to the towns.
Thirdly, there is the possibility—I might say likelihood—that quota rights will move away from some marginal areas where conservation goes hand in hand with grazing. There are wild plants which will survive the grazing of animals, particularly sheep, but not the mower; and some that actually require the grazing of sheep to survive. This measure will not help ecology.
Furthermore, the loss of income arising from reduced rents on new tenancies will strike a further blow at places where there are obligations placed on their owners to maintain the heritage. It will bring closer the point, already reached by some when those liabilities will exceed the assets available. This measure will, in my opinion and doubtless in the opinion of many of your Lordships who are faced with this problem and are aware of the perilous state of the national heritage entrusted to their care, give rise to a further deterioration in what they hold, deemed to be in the national interest.
Fourthly—and this is an important point in this debate—the Government's regulations on these quotas will, whether or not they wish it, guide landowners in decisions on whether to let land in the future. Because this legislation will be seen as the precursor to further measures, it will influence decisions across the range of farming activities.
It is, therefore, not only landowners who should be concerned. It is also those enterprising young men and women who need tenancies to become the nation's future farmers. If owners will not let, new entrants cannot rent.
The Government, on their announcement of the shape of landlord-tenant legislation, only about a fortnight ago reiterated their desire to see more land let. There is little point in reforming the framework of the legislation if at the same time the Government pursue policies which will discourage owners from letting at all before they even look at the new legislation.
Fifthly, following the May 1992 CAP reform settlement, in November last year the Community agreed to insert a provision—Article 13—into EC law requiring member states to adopt measures to tackle problems arising when the producer is not the owner of
448
the land. That covered the transfer of quotas or other equivalent actions. It was a victory for the British Government in Brussels.
However, the Government now say that they did not win after all but lost. They recognise the adverse effects of transferability of quota rights on land but claim that under their interpretation of Article 13 they can do nothing about it. The issue is the subject of a judicial review initiated by the CLA.
Clearly this House cannot resolve the legal arguments of the judicial review in this debate. But it is relevant to note that the Commissioner for Agriculture, Rene Steichen, has said that Article 13 was agreed expressly to allow the United Kingdom to solve the problems created by having the most highly regulated landlord tenant system in Europe.
I have a letter from M. Steichen to my noble friend Lord Inglewood in which he concludes:
"Thus, it is clearly a matter for Member States to act in the area of problems arising between producers who own quota rights and the owners of the land they farm".
That is from the horse's mouth.
I would ask your Lordships to note too that the Council of Ministers has also stated that the resolution of landlord-tenant issues is a matter for member states. In my opinion this is a correct and proper view of the purpose of subsidiarity which I heard many noble Lords claim to be the jewel in the Maastricht Treaty. Why are the Government denying it?
In looking at the possible solutions to this problem, I am of the opinion that a compensation mechanism would be the most practical cure for it. It would mean that, where a landlord could prove that his land had been devalued by a loss of quota rights, he would be compensated by being entitled to claim a proportion of the proceeds of their sale.
I do not, however, claim a monopoly of wisdom, and doubtless noble Lords will have other suggestions to make. I can accept that a guarantee of replenishment of the national reserve for let land left denuded of quota would serve to neutralise the negative effects of the present regulations. I shall listen with interest to any ideas your Lordships may put forward.
In any event, I hope that the House will agree that the regulations as they stand pose real problems. They are problems which the Government themselves recognise and which will have far-reaching knock-on effects. This Motion is designed to make the Government address these problems and I commend it to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House considers that the Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quota Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993, No. 1626) do not contain adequate measures, either to tackle the adverse economic effects which arise from the transferability of quotas away from particular holdings, or to protect vulnerable livestock rearing areas and the communities that depend on them; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce further measures, sufficient to provide full redress for these adverse consequences of livestock premium quotas.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
5.2 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I start with a confession: I am no farmer. Accordingly, I am somewhat surprised to find myself speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, who so comprehensively and ably moved this Motion. Indeed, many distinguished farmers are due to speak after me. I would not have put my name down to speak on this undoubtedly important but, I am sure we all agree, rather technical issue if it were not for the difficult problems which it raises for the organisation of which I have the privilege of being chairman. I refer to the National Trust.
Your Lordships may be aware that the trust owns nearly 600,000 acres of land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Much of that land, which we have acquired over the years for its landscape and amenity value. is upland country. It is hill farming and sheep country. We have, for example, 1,200 tenant farmers and nearly 100 farms in the Lake District. So, the good economic health of the upland sheep farmer is of the utmost importance to the trust.
I do not say that particularly because of the rents that they bring in—important though they are—nor because of their importance to the rural economy—although that is extremely important—but because of a further factor, the sheep themselves. Our upland landscape, the landscape of Wordsworth and the lakeland poets, has been shaped over the centuries by the sheep. Without sheep, the landscape would revert to scrub because sheep are natural lawnmowers. Therefore, any measures which wittingly or unwittingly endanger the future of sheep farming are of direct concern to the trust. It is in that context that we are concerned about the effects of the quota regulations on tenanted farms and on conservation grazing.
Established tenants will generally have received sufficient quota, but the tenants who have taken farms since mid-1991 and those who have been allocated extra land on the splitting of a vacant holding are in difficulty. The main problem concerns the letting of vacant holdings. The capital required by an incoming tenant is considerable and has to cover ingoing valuations, purchase of livestock and machinery and working capital. The hill farmer will be required to purchase or rent the hefted flock. The additional cost of leasing ewe premium quota at £10 to £12 per ewe or purchasing it at £40 to £50 is prohibitive and there is a real fear that hill farms will be increasingly difficult or impossible to let. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, referred to that.
The trust devotes considerable resources to upland management for our statutory purpose of conservation. In the Lake District alone, we spend about £3.5 million a year on conservation work. The trust, as landlord, owns the hefted flocks of Herdwick sheep which are leased to tenants. These flocks are an important part of the Lake District scene and, as I have explained, they are important for conservation. But their existence is threatened by the quota system because, although the flocks are owned by the trust, the quota necessary to claim the premium has been given to the tenant. I find that extraordinary.
450
An outgoing tenant will sell or lease his quota. It would seem logical to transfer the quota to the incoming tenant, but any quota that the incomer purchases will be counted against any allocation that he may get from the national reserve, thus providing a disincentive to keeping the quota on the farm.
It might be argued that an alternative would be for the trust to buy the outgoing tenant's quota and lease it to the incomer. But the regulations prohibit holding of quota by non-producers for more than two years. The trust has also been designated a single producer for the whole country. That bears hardly on us 'because any premium claims in excess of 500 ewes attract only 50 per cent. of the premium. Since the trust already manages some 2,000 ewes in-hand, any additional ewe premium claims will reduce even further the amount of subsidy received. This seems most unreasonable.
What are the options for rectifying these weaknesses? Let me say right away that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and that we recognise that there is little prospect of altering the EEC regulation to vest quota in the owner rather than the producer. However, the definition of a producer could perhaps be interpreted more liberally so that non-producers could hold and lease quota for the purpose of ensuring that sufficient quota was available to enable a farm to be let. We believe that this would be justified on general grounds, but there is a further justification in that it would help ensure that areas of conservation value would continue to be grazed.
The Country Landowners' Association arid the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are pressing for a system of compensation to landlords for the devaluation of the holding where quota is transferred away. I have great sympathy with this claim but, as far as the trust is concerned, the more important point is to ensure that sufficient quota is available to tenants. Our conservation objectives are more important to us than diminished land values.
A better suggestion, I would suggest, would be for a larger national reserve so that all legitimate claimants receive a full allocation. Incoming tenants would thereby get sufficient quota for the proper farming of the holding. To get a larger reserve, the percentage put into the reserve when quota is transferred away from a farm, which I understand is currently 15 per cent., needs in our view to be increased to at least 25 per cent. Similar rules should apply to leased quota.
As quota only goes into the reserve when it is transferred away from the farm, the higher the percentage into the reserve, the greater will be the incentive to retain the quota on the farm. An adequate national reserve will bring down the price of quota so benefiting new entrants and reducing the windfall gain to existing producers.
Finally, I understand that this whole problem has been, and continues to be, exacerbated by administrative delays. We have experienced this ourselves over a hill farm which we have been trying to let for some months in the Lake District.
This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is inequitable as regards the landowner; it is inequitable as regards our hefted flocks; and, perhaps most

451
importantly, it bears heavily on new entrant farmers or those seeking to enlarge their farm. Moreover, much of this takes place on land which is today economically right at the margin. It probably has no other use except for forestry, yet much of this land is of the highest conservation value and it depends on grazing for that conservation and for its appearance. It bears heavily on the trust financially, but perhaps much more importantly, because of the work we do. I hope the Minister will take on board not just the fact that we have problems with equity here and of an economic nature, but also the great importance of the uplands to landscape conservation and the fact that there are a number of what appear to me to be relatively easy ways of dealing with this matter.
5.10 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, personally I do not much like sheep. When I farmed them myself I always found that if they had anything wrong with them the first thing they did was to lie on their backs, flap their feet in the air and die. They seemed to put up little natural resistance. They also had some nasty personal habits. I have never known anything which spent more time on doing what you or I do a few times a day than they did. They also seemed to do it in the dirtiest possible way, with the maximum amount of mess. I also do not like seeing sheep much when I visit moorland. I do not like to see such land covered with sheep. However, I like the end product of sheep and I like the people who produce them; namely, the hill farmers. There is a place for them on the hills as one cannot do anything else with some hill farms other than farm sheep. Provided that farmers do not put too many sheep on the open moors, I am all for them farming up there.
The matter of quotas is proving a dangerous threat to the livelihoods of the people I have just mentioned. The term "quota" in the context of this debate is probably a misnomer. After all milk and potato quotas give one the right to produce and there are penalties if one overproduces, but beef and sheep quotas give one the right to receive a subsidy for specific production. There are no penalties for overproduction. However, if one does not achieve the quota, the subsidy is simply not paid. It is acknowledged that sheep farming on the uplands would be totally uneconomic without subsidies. Without a sheep quota, therefore, an upland farm ceases to be an economic concern. When therefore a farmer, particularly a tenant farmer is tempted—the temptations are great—to up sticks, cashing in on the quota, the damage done to the farm which that tenant leaves can be overwhelming.
I shall elaborate on two cases from my own estate which may provide examples of what I fear. My first example concerns a hill farm on the edge of the moor of about 334 acres which became available to let because of the retirement of the tenant in April 1993, immediately after the regulations we are discussing now had come into effect. The farm in question was rather a good hill farm but I only received three offers from future tenants, of which two were totally unsuitable. I am sure this occurred because of the threat of the sheep
452
quotas which hung over farmers at the time. Luckily the only suitable offer came from an existing tenant who happened to be the neighbour and son-in-law of the retiring tenant. This led to a happy outcome which only resulted because the retiring tenant wanted to help his son-in-law by leaving the sheep on the farm. I am sure that if these extremely fortunate circumstances had not occurred, I should not have been able to find a tenant for that farm.
The second example concerns a similar hill farm of 296 acres which becomes vacant in April 1994. The tenant on that farm took over the tenancy from his father in 1991 and has decided to buy his own small-holding and remove the stock and the quota. By this time the beef quota will be in place as well as the sheep quota and it is estimated that it will cost an incoming tenant some £33,000 to purchase the relevant quota. This item is on top of the tenant's normal capital which is required for the purchase of live and dead stock. The figure of £33,000 is equivalent to £111 an acre, or, if the amount is borrowed from a bank, it is equivalent to a rent charge of about £11.14 an acre. One can compare these figures to the current rental value of the farm of £21 per acre. The charge on the quota of about £11.14 is over 50 per cent. more than the current rental value.
In the meantime the young farmer who has been a tenant for a mere three years leaves the holding with a golden handshake of approximately £33,000. I do not criticise the young man for doing that. I say good luck to him as he is taking advantage of a windfall, and why should he not do so? But surely these regulations were designed to control supply and not, as in this case, to transfer a windfall profit for the benefit of tenant farmers who can then simply remove it and leave the holding. I am sure that when my noble friend Earl Howe replies to the debate, he will make much of the disincentive posed by the 15 per cent. that producers have to surrender to the national reserve if they transfer quota away from the holding. A 15 per cent. tax on a windfall profit really is an enormous disincentive, is it not? When I think of some of the deals I have done in my life, I would have been jolly happy to pay a 15 per cent. tax. I am certain that many noble Lords would agree with me. A disincentive of a 15 per cent. tax does not even equal the current rate of value added tax. I do not believe that that is much of a disincentive.
I believe my noble friend will also mention ring-fencing of less favoured areas. I am afraid that those points also do not constitute great disincentives as the areas we are talking about are so large. I am, of course, worried about the drop in rental value of hill farms and I gladly declare this interest to your Lordships. My next sentence may make me sound rather a prig but that is not the case. I am far more worried about the general effect of the quota on the uplands than about how the loss of rental value will hit my pocket, because I believe the quota system will produce alarming effects on hillside farms. I believe some of those farms will be badly farmed simply because the tenant does not have the money to farm properly when he has paid for his quota. What is worse than that, I fear some farms will not be farmed at all. I am extremely worried about the environmental damage that such a

453
course may result in. Some of that damage will occur in the loveliest areas of our land, in the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
I believe social damage will also occur when farms are not farmed in struggling hill-farming communities as local shops and post offices will suffer. The whole position will be simply appalling. I am alarmed at this position and I beg the Government even at this late hour to reconsider this matter to see whether they cannot do something about it. I could not support more strongly the Motion of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.
5.18 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, all those concerned with the well being of agriculture will thank the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, for initiating this debate, for among other points it touches deeply upon the future of the landlord and tenant system in this country. It concerns the legitimate interests of both parties in implementing CAP reforms. Quotas are increasing their control over different enterprises and cereals may become the next target and these regulations a precedent. Many noble Lords have argued in this Chamber in the past about the dangers of supply management but when it has a direct effect on the value of land we must start to ask various questions.
I acknowledge my interest as a landowner of let farms in the lowlands, but I feel that the future of land tenure rises above that personal interest. For some years it has been difficult to find future farm tenants with sufficient capital. Any proposals which add to initial capital costs, such as the purchase of livestock quotas, will make it that much harder, if not impossible, for young men to apply successfully for a tenancy. Under these plans new entrants will buy their CAP support in advance.
The CAP reforms of last year were not intended to discriminate between landlord and tenant. Even though the Commission is generally regarded as being slightly anti-landlord, the new regulations include a provision allowing individual member states to solve such problems. Indeed, I believe that MAFF negotiated hard for that right. As we have heard, the right was confirmed in the European Parliament in April and by the agricultural commissioner in May.
I should make it clear that I am referring to loss of land value where the tenant has sold the livestock quota and the farm is unsuitable to some degree for other enterprises. That severely limits the options of an incoming tenant and must therefore affect the farm's rentable value. Therefore, I am speaking only of assessable and provable loss.
MAFF takes the view that it is not legally entitled to compensate for such loss, despite my previous point concerning its negotiations and despite a judicial review obtained by the CLA and legal opinions contrary to that of MAFF. Indeed, I am told that the Government have said that they would not wish to introduce further measures even if it was resolved that they had such a power. Perhaps when he winds up the debate the Minister can tell the House whether that is true. If we find that legislation for the general reform of the
454
landlord and tenant system so long expected is not included in the forthcoming Queen's Speech we shall perhaps have to presume that this Conservative Government are no longer a supporter of the system.
I hope that MAFF will try to keep the hearing of the judicial review in the High Court in London, in the interests of a speedy resolution and of lower costs, and will not encourage procrastination in the European Court of Justice.
MAFF has instigated a national reserve and a siphon system, which is good. However, even MAFF admits that there is no guarantee that a particular holding can he allocated a new quota when the original quota has been sold. Therefore, the system will still fail. If MAFF could provide such a guarantee many problems would disappear.
There are other important reasons that further measures are necessary. The 1990 report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the Future of Rural Society alluded at length to the importance, economically and thus socially, of keeping livestock on the hills of LFAs. Environmentally, it is vital to have some sheep on the hills. Therefore, it is a pity that the broadly placed ring fence around the LFAs, as outlined in these regulations, will not have sufficient effect in protecting marginal hill areas. That is because quotas will still be transferable, for example, between Dartmoor and Exmoor, or from poorer to better land within the LFAs. That report is still valid. It points out the human cost involved where viable agriculture is forced to cease as a result of changes in the rules.
Perhaps I may end by asking two questions of the Government. First, am I right in thinking that there should be no change in rents as a result of the introduction of quotas? If that is the case, what is the position where a tenant sells the quota but remains in occupation? Secondly, why did not the Government take up the option of operating a national pool for transfer of premium quotas, thus leaving quotas with zero value and obviating all the stress? That option was available in the 1992 CAP reforms.
It is clear to me that the Government have made a mistake with the statutory instrument and that the UK has ended up with the worst of all worlds. Therefore, I hope that they will take notice of this Motion and that all noble Lords will support it.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, although I do not own any agricultural land, I am paid by a company which owns land, some of which is farmed and some of which is let to farming tenants. To that extent I have an interest in Statutory Instrument No. 1626.
By now it will be clear from what other noble Lords have said that the root of the difficulties arising from the sheep and beef cow premium quota regime lies in the decision by the European Council of Ministers to allocate quotas not to land but to individual producers. As we have heard, quotas are valuable and can be bought and sold. My noble friend Lord Hamilton told us that the current price for a sheep quota in LFAs is £40 to £45 a head. I agree with my noble friend Lord Swinton that it must be very tempting for a farmer in

455
financial difficulty or at the point of retiring to cash in on that windfall gain. The harm that will result was described by my noble friend Lord Hamilton: the drain of capital from agriculture; social and environmental damage in the uplands, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred; the devaluation of land bereft of the right to receive payments for livestock; and the undermining of the landlord and tenant system.
The Government cannot be held responsible for the decision of the Council of Ministers to allocate individual quotas. I know that they opposed it. They were well aware of the problems that would arise and, greatly to their credit, expended considerable effort in achieving the inclusion of Article 13 in the EC legislation. That article was referred to by the noble Duke who has just spoken.
Article 13 provides that member states shall take appropriate measures to deal with problems arising from the transfer of a quota or other equivalent actions when the producer is not the owner of the land. The Government rightly foresaw the problems that would arise; they succeeded in having Article 13 included; and they admit the existence of the problems which they foresaw. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why they now say that they have no power to intervene and to take appropriate measures by invoking Article 13.
The legal argument on which the Government base that refusal seems to me to be a poor one. As we have heard, it is to be tested by means of judicial review, which I understand is to be in January. Therefore, this is not the time to examine the Government's legal case. However, as I understand it, and as no doubt we shall hear when my noble friend the Minister replies, in essence they say that diminution of land values takes place at the time of allocation of a quota and not at the time of transfer of a quota. Therefore, they say, they are powerless to invoke Article 13, which they say allows them to act only to alleviate problems arising out of transferability of quotas.
I cannot for the life of me see how in itself the introduction of quota (which merely gives a right to an occupier to receive premium on his sheep which are already there) can alter the manner of his farming, the value of the land he farms or the rent which it should command. What may alter its value is when he gets rid of his quota so that he or a future occupier cannot obtain sheep premium. Depending upon the location of the holding and the availability of alternative enterprises, such impact could range from 0 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the capital value.
What form could the appropriate measures required under Article 13 take? My noble friend Lord Hamilton referred to compensation but only where the loss in the value of land can be proved. Compensation would go no further than making good any loss sustained. It could not exceed the value of the quota. Yet the Government are making extraordinarily heavy weather of that aspect. I dare say that we shall hear something about that later.
So long as I have had experience of agricultural holdings legislation, and well before that, provision has always been made at the end of a farm tenancy to weigh up, on the one hand, what improvements have been
456
made by the tenant to a landlord's assets; and, on the other hand, what damage may have been done. The end of term valuation is performed by professional valuers acting for each party who finally agree figures so that a tenant is compensated for any improvements to the holding and dilapidated for any damage. For instance, he might diminish the value of the holding by destroying gates or fences or by various kinds of neglect. Valuers have long been accustomed to assessing damage to a holding so as to arrive at a dilapidations figure. I should have thought that it would not be too difficult for them to assess diminution of value following a removal of quota. Yet the Government appear to be obsessed by difficulties which they envisage in working a compensation mechanism. I believe that their worries are groundless.
It may be that judicial review will confirm the Government's view about their power to act under Article 13. I do not think that it is likely, but it may happen. However, the Government might then say that that rules out compensation. What else could be done to mitigate the admitted difficulties? Those difficulties are admitted by government. Already they have established a national reserve of quota, as we have heard; and there is the siphon whereby on disposal of quota 15 per cent. of it goes into that reserve. The Government intend to use that reserve to provide quota for incoming tenants to replace that which has been sold off as let land.
But there are other competing uses for which the reserve is required. The Government admit that there will not be enough in the reserve to go round. A guarantee of priority for the let sector would be helpful. However, only a guaranteed undertaking that quotas transferred from let land will be replenished from the national reserve would remove the adverse effect of those regulations on that sector.
The Government have sought to limit the migration of quota away from the uplands by means of what they call less favoured area ring fences. That would stop quota going outside a less favoured area. However, there could still be marginal upland areas denuded of quota, and therefore almost certainly of sheep as well, to the detriment of the environment, possibly leading to overstocking lower down the hill and further environmental damage. The ring fencing could probably be more tightly drawn.
I support my noble friend in asking the Government to introduce further measures such as those that I have suggested in order to redress the adverse consequences of marketable livestock quotas.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Hamilton will press this Motion to a Division. Clearly that will depend upon what kind of reply he has elicited from the Minister. First, I have heard it said that a vote against the Government on this Conservative Back-Bench Motion would be disloyal. But it is hardly a party matter. It is a matter of administration. There are precedents where a Conservative Government have, through an order, created an undesirable administrative situation which has been pointed out to them by their own supporters. In this specific case I understand that the matter has been under discussion with government

457
for well over a year, with no satisfactory result. The Government are keenly aware of the problems but appear to be paralysed and unable to solve them.
Secondly, I have also heard it said that a vote against the Government would be damaging to agriculture in general and to the landlord and tenant system in particular. It is the strong belief of my noble friend and those who support him that what will cause damage is the way in which the Government, through the order, are implementing the EC legislation. Any measures which will mitigate that damage will only benefit agriculture and the landlord and tenant system and prevent tension between landlord and tenant.
Thirdly, I have heard it said too that such a vote would be bad for the House of Lords. It is said that it would be harmful to this House to press the Government on what will be perceived to be a landlords' interest. But the order affects the whole spectrum of those in agriculture, including landlords and tenants. It affects others living in the countryside too. As we have heard, environmental and social issues are involved.
If one were to pursue that argument further, Members of this House who own land should therefore be disqualified from debating or legislating upon any agricultural matters where agricultural holdings law is involved. I should have thought that that would go far further than the ordinary rules and conventions about Peers' financial interests. It would in effect be a gag on a particular category of Members because it might be thought that these were still the days when landed interests exerted influence upon government. That perception is 100 years out of date and I am very surprised to hear it put forward.
Therefore after hearing the debate and after listening to the Government's case, if my noble friend is still dissatisfied, then I would follow him into the Lobby with a clear conscience on all those three points.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell for giving us the opportunity to discuss this problem today. Like many other Members of your Lordships' House, I have to declare my interest, first, as a producer, secondly, as a landlord and, thirdly, as a member of one of the organisations which has showered noble Lords with advice.
My noble friends Lord Middleton and Lord Swinton referred to the fact that the quotas that we discuss today are the right to receive a premium as opposed to quotas that we have already had on milk. The quotas that we discuss are not problems of the Government's making. The Government merely pick up the difficulties.
The concept of tradable quotas has been referred to in one of your Lordships' sub-committees. Professor Tangemann referred to bonds. That might be a solution. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will take that into consideration in the future, although not this afternoon.
The consistent line running through the remarks made by all noble Lords this afternoon is the extra cost on existing producers in areas which are already somewhat handicapped. In Scotland, we call them
458
"disadvantaged" and "specially disadvantaged" areas. The complications, not just financial but administrative, on any producer or landlord with problems, let alone a producer or landlord who wants to expand his operation or enter an operation, have an enormous effect on finances. That point was well put by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who, I believe, was and still is a distinguished chartered accountant, and I took on board his thoughts which had particular relevance.
The sums which have been mentioned are more marked in the hills than they would be on a comparable holding outside the less favoured areas, perhaps in arable areas. That is well known to many of us, particularly my noble friend the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, sitting on the Front Bench (the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne). He and I both know the problems in Angus and several Members of your Lordships' House here this evening come from Angus.
So far as I am aware, on the figures produced in paragraph 6(1) of the regulations, if a producer has 500 ewes outside a less favoured area, on a transfer he will lose the right to obtain a premium on 7.5 ewes. If there is a second transfer, as my noble friend Lord Swinton mentioned, he loses 27 per cent. of the quota. In the less favoured areas that is serious enough, but in the specially disadvantaged areas, mentioned on page 7 of the regulations, that is a particularly harsh handicap.
Another side to the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was that under paragraph 6(1) the "siphon"—which I believe is the technical name—might be raised to 25 per cent. That would accentuate the problem.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, I do not wish to go deeply into the definition of "holding" which is in the regulations, but would I be right in thinking that a tenant in a less favoured area who gives up, sells or moves from his holding of land will lose 15 per cent. of the value of the quota which he might receive through the siphon mentioned in paragraph 6(1)? However, if the tenant moves to another holding in the same area—quoting the example given by my noble friend Lord Swinton—he would not lose any quota through the siphon. Am I right in thinking that that is the case? If so, then the former holding of land is effectively sterilised. The producer on the former holding or the landlord will have to buy or somehow acquire a quota.
That has been the consistent line through the debate and if I am right, it is a harsh penalty in areas which are already somewhat handicapped. Perhaps a plain swap could be negotiated. However, in any case, the new producer will have to bring the quota with him or he may be required to buy it. In any case, it is a new overhead in agriculture, which is already handicapped. For that reason, I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Thirdly, in paragraph 9 on page 4 of the regulations there is what is classified as "Transfers and leases between sensitive zones". Will my noble friend confirm that paragraphs 9(1) and 9(2) will provide the protection that my noble friend Lord Middleton sought over leakage from upland to the more marginal areas right

459
down to within 100 yards of what is delineated as less favoured areas? One might be able to turn them into arable areas with a little effort.
If the ring fences that have been mentioned, and which one hopes will work through the regulations, are not adequate, there will be an additional factor in the transfer of quota from the upland areas. That is not the intention of the Government. I believe that the intention of the Government and the Commission is that the quota should remain in the hills and not be transferred right down to the margins of the less favoured areas.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton hoped that the ring fences would work. I hope that they will be able to, without undue dispute and argument. This afternoon we have heard pretty strong arguments and I think that I am the first Scot to speak in the debate, although there are three or four more. When noble Lords come to hear my noble friends, they will realise that I have been extremely moderate and I look forward to hearing what my Scottish friends have to say. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, a Scot in exile, and look forward to what the Minister has to say.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, for moving this Motion. I must declare an interest as I am a producer and a sort of tenant, with my noble kinsman Lord Swinton being the landlord. Unlike my noble kinsman, I like sheep, for the good reason that their wool keeps us warm.
I think that I am the piggy in the middle and it is because of that that I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity of airing some of the problems surrounding the sheep quota. As problems are here for solving, I hope that the Government will succeed in finding a solution to make the new quota system more fair to everybody. As this Chamber is for improving legislation, I hope the debate will have that effect on the matter before your Lordships this evening.
I have a flock of sheep at the moment without a quota. I know I speak for many people who have had to contain their frustrations over the lack of information coming forth about the appeal system of the sheep quota and then the rush to fill in forms, with only a few days' or weeks' notice.
As the base year was 1992, I shall try to explain, as an example, how complicated the situation has been and still is for some of us tenants who took over land which comprised the three farms which had been farmed by my noble kinsman. When he gave up farming on 1st November 1991, the quota was allocated automatically only to those who claimed premium in 1991 and 1992. The tenants concerned, with me, could not claim in 1991 as they did not take over their holdings until November. The rules regarding taking over the previous producers' quota apply only if one takes over or inherits the entire holding. So a problem arose.
It is totally uneconomic to have a commercial flock of sheep without the support of the annual sheep premium, which is paid only if one has a sheep quota. Most sheep farmers who have not yet received any
460
quota have supported their flocks from their own resources throughout 1993, living in hope, as information dates were repeatedly postponed. This dilatory action on the part of the authorities will cost unsuccessful applicants £20, £30 or £40, or whatever the ewe quota is, through no fault of the farmer's.
Do the Government really want farmers who do not receive a quota to plough out their grassland, where possible, for arable crops which are already in surplus in the European Community, where lamb meat is still imported from the rest of the world? In my case, there are eight other tenants involved. There must be many throughout the country with complications. An article in the Yorkshire Post was headed:
"Ministry warns of ewe quota disappointment".
I hope that the Minister will try to understand the problems of unlucky producers and be able to give more hopeful news tonight.
In the long term there is anxiety that people wanting to start farming will not be able to afford to do so if they have to buy or rent a farm, stock it, equip it and buy quota. There are many farms on the high ground which are suitable only for sheep. Sheep farming is an isolated life in winter with many hazards, such as snow and the loss of sheep. Many young people do not wish to dedicate their lives to that sort of routine. The subsidies are now so big that a farmer could not afford to farm without them.
I can see that the quota system controls the amount of stock in the country. But Europe still imports lamb. When we traded at world market prices the subsidies were more simple. The EC seems to be creating more bureaucracy and complicating the lives of farmers who want to get on with the planning of their breeding programmes. We have been told that the computer at Northallerton has broken down—just one more delay and complication of modern life.
I have sympathy with landlords who will be left with hill farms with no quota if the farmer leaves taking his quota with him. If there is no reserve for incoming quota-less farmers to apply for and they cannot afford to buy quota, will the farms remain empty, causing desolation to the countryside? It is important that there should be good relationships between all people living on, looking after and working the land. The countryside needs looking after. Why cannot Britain interpret the European regulations to suit our way of life instead of complicating the issues?
The Minister is a helpful and well motivated Member of the Government. I hope that, having heard the debate, he will understand better some of the many difficulties. It is always a problem to please everybody, but working together in harmony is better than causing divisions among landowners and farming tenants.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am delighted to add my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. I fear that much of the thinking behind the Government's proposals comes from the better arable areas of the country and that more thought should be given to the LFAs in the hills. In many cases the stock, whether sheep or cattle, has to be hefted to these areas.

461
Many of the areas are unfenced. One cannot just go into the marketplace to replace such stock. The ewes on the ground must know their way around. It is vital that they know where to go in a storm and where to find the best grazing, and that they are acclimatised to the area and stay upon the area.
So far as cattle are concerned, I have personal experience. I made the mistake of trying to boost my stock by buying in some Irish cattle. It was a mistake because they were infected with red water fever. It was not until my own stock started to die that I realised what had happened. By that time the ticks on that hill had been infected and now it is not possible to put any other cattle on to the hill unless they are immunised by having come off an area which has red water fever. So it is quite vital to have a hefted stock of cattle on this area. The hefted stocks are of key importance to the future welfare of some of our rural areas.
Some five million hectares of Scotland are classified as either less favoured or disadvantaged. That amounts to 90 per cent. of the total agricultural area of Scotland. In much of this area—I believe it is about 4 million hectares—there is little or no alternative method of farming. The loss of quotas from such areas would render them uneconomic. There is no surplus cash in these fragile areas. The drainage of cash will hit them very severely. I already know of one old boy who has put off his retirement so that he can go with a golden handshake, given to him by the Government at the expense of his holding. Either an incoming tenant or his landlord will have to pay for his golden handshake, and the future of the hefted stock is in jeopardy. My noble friend Lord Swinton has put this point most strongly, and I heartily applaud him on behalf of those concerned with the welfare of the hill areas of this country.
I gather that the NFU's point is that the landlord can write into his lease that quotas may not be removed from the holdings. But that will apply only to new leases—or possibly to a tenant who may agree to it being written in to his existing lease.
In certain circumstances quota can be removed from the LFA ring fence. I know that the number of circumstances is not large, but there are circumstances in which it can be done. However, I cannot find anything which permits fresh quota to come within the ring fence. Consequently, it seems to me (I may be wrong) that the amount of quota in the area will steadily run down. I am very doubtful whether the 15 per cent. syphon will be adequate to keep these LFA areas stocked.
I cannot understand the Government's attitude to this matter. I wonder whether it could be that other commodities are shortly to come onto quota and that the Government are worried about setting some sort of precedent in relation to quota. I wonder whether there is anyone here today, particularly on the Front Bench, who would disagree that the landlord-tenant system is a good one, one which has stood the test of time. Yet this legislation will now undoubtedly make landlords less willing to let their property on agricultural leases. The quota proposals seem to advocate short-term gain while jeopardising the long-term profitability of our farming.
5.57 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend for having raised this topic for debate. I am bound to say that I think the timing is in some way unfortunate. I am sure that it would have been preferable if we could have discussed this matter after the judicial review. We should have had a clearer idea of the Government's commitments. I accept of course that this is no fault of my noble friend. He had to find a slot, and this is where we find ourselves this evening.
I too must declare an interest in this as an owner of an upland estate and as a member of the CLA, which is of course involved in the judicial review. I am also a member of the NFU. I like to keep a balanced view of these matters. I hope that the discussion will not turn into a slanging match between those two organisations. That would be a great tragedy. At the heart of this matter is the welfare particularly of upland farms. We must concentrate our minds on that and, if possible, try to strike a balance between the landlord on one side and the tenant on the other (the CLA and the NFU).
I suppose that I like quota. We have it, and we must try to make it work. But I have to say that I find it rather distasteful that we now find ourselves in a position where farmers are to be trading in subsidies. They are to be trading in taxpayers' money. I do not find that a particularly attractive aspect of this quota business.
Noble Lords have already expressed the importance of the viability of hill farms and the fact that they rely very much on the subsidies that they receive. Again, the socio-economic effects on hill farms without subsidies would be drastic. Certainly, under the existing proposals for attaching quota to the producer, without a satisfactory solution there will undoubtedly be extreme difficulties.
It is very easy to exaggerate in these matters but I believe, as noble Lords have already said, that we have a very real problem. As my noble friend Lord Swinton pointed out, quota is a very valuable asset. Certainly tenant farmers will be attracted to the idea of disposing of that quota at the end of their tenancy. I beg the question whether some of them might even consider it before the end of their tenancy. We have all done our figures. Taking a rough view on 700 ewes., the quota would be worth £23,800. It is a lot of money and very tempting to many hill farmers when that is the sort of level of support that they can now trade, particularly if they see the future of hill farming as doubtful. With the considerable changes which have taken place over the past few years, one cannot blame them for thinking like that.
My noble friend Lord Burton mentioned the problem of the hefted flock. Very often such hefted flocks belong to the landlord. They are the landlord's capital. So the landlord could find himself in a situation in which he has a flock without any quota as well as land without any quota. That is a double problem—a double whammy, as a government Minister once said.
In my own case I have eight tenant farmers. If they go with their quota, I shall not know what to do. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will advise me on this matter. I do not say that they will all walk off with the

463
quota here and now, but over the next few years, as some of them retire, that problem will arise. It will arise in my case and in many other cases also. We must have some clear guidance as to the way we are going. I can only see it resulting in either increased rent for the farmer, if the landlord has to buy the quota, or indeed a situation where, if a tenant has bought quota, he may not be able to afford the rents which exist at the moment. Those questions must be answered.
The Government have consistently supported the LFA's over the years. Millions of pounds have been invested in retaining the socio-economic aspects of the uplands in providing a system whereby farmers can continue to farm. But I believe that, by failing to provide a solution to this very thorny problem, the Government could be undermining those millions of pounds worth of support that we have seen over the years. We must have a solution to this problem. As I said, it must not be seen as a landlord/tenant argument; we are talking about the welfare of the upland communities and farming in that area.
I have known the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for years and know that she is an eminent rearer of ponies. I was not aware that she also bred sheep. She never ceases to amaze me. The noble Baroness quoted from the Yorkshire Post. I should like to quote from another great northern newspaper: the Darlington and Stockton Times. The paper quotes a particular individual as saying what I believe is very relevant:
"MAFF must take firm and effective action if it is to avoid the undoubtable hardship and inequity that will certainly be suffered by genuine cases and if it is to avoid becoming the object of total ridicule by the Country Landowners' Association when new tenants do not receive the quotas they have been so faithfully promised".
I believe that that is the nub of the matter.
Perhaps I may change tack for a moment. As a member of the council of English Nature, I should like to raise a problem concerning nature conservation. Sections 15 and 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act refer to management agreements on sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves. For some reason they have not been recognised in the regulations as qualifying environmental schemes. That makes no sense to me at all because they are the hard core of the environmental process in the countryside. There could be a case in which a farmer entering into a management agreement on an SSSI to reduce his sheep will be obliged to sell his unused quota rather than lease it for the duration of the agreement. That poses enormous problems. If and when those agreements terminate, it may well result in farmers being reluctant to enter into such agreements. One cannot blame them.
Similarly, problems may exist when the reintroduction of grazing on sites of special scientific interest is desirable. An example of that might be the chalk grasslands, which have deteriorated over the years through a lack of grazing. How will the quota be made available in such cases?
What is perhaps of even more concern is that the lack of an equitable solution may result in the UK Government not meeting its international obligations under the EC habitats and species directive. I hope that
464
my noble friend the Minister will give considerable thought to that problem which, along with many other problems that have been raised, must be addressed.
A number of solutions have been put forward by your Lordships this afternoon. Compensation in some way or another may be the answer. Amending the Agricultural Holdings Act to allow for the same quota to be intact at the end of the tenancy—in other words a covenant against assignment—is one solution that has been put to me. I am also informed that that would not infringe European legislation as it would not restrict the use of the quota by the producer during the tenancy. It would simply ensure that it was handed over intact at the end. I believe that it was the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, who suggested—I hope that I interpret him correctly—that the Government should act as a broker so far as the quota is concerned. So there would not be any trading. It would be distributed by the Government—nil value. Again, that is a perfectly reasonable solution which would overcome the whole business of trading.
But whatever the final solution, it has to be better than that we have at the moment. I know that my noble friend realises and appreciates the problem. His department has a duty to try to resolve it. Quite frankly, if it is not resolved, it will be expensive and, perhaps more importantly, divisive—divisive between landlords and divisive for tenants. That is the last thing we need. We must look to tenants and landlords to resolve this matter with the help of the Government. Most important of all, we must look after the upland farms.
6.9 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, after so many excellent speeches, it is very difficult to put forward a cohesive, technical rationale to these regulations. I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, for giving us the opportunity to discuss them today. I have various interests to declare. First, I am a member of the Country Landowners' Association and of the National Farmers Union. I farm jointly with my wife in a less favoured area and I even possess a share of the quota. But it is in my role as a chartered surveyor and therefore someone who supposedly has some knowledge of the economic background to this issue that I should like to make my comments. It is legitimate to make some general comments about the way in which the quota regulations have come about, notwithstanding the fact that many of them are imposed by the EC.
I agree that there has been a failure to address the question of overgrazing or prudent stocking levels which has been raised already. If anything, the regulations reward bad husbandry for enshrining past poor practices. That carries a high risk of damage to sensitive landscapes.
There is an element of intellectual improbability in the quotas because they are trying to make a freely tradeable asset divorced from the activity that nurtures it; namely, the use and occupation of land. I accept that that has been imposed by the EC. Nonetheless, it is the duty of the UK Government to attempt to mitigate its effect. Moreover, the exclusively tradeable item is for the benefit of one party only. That does not matter where

465
there is an owner-occupier. But it does matter where there is a tenancy and when both have an interest in what amounts to a legal co-partnership. It is not legitimate to disadvantage one al the expense of the other.
In less favoured areas such as Exmoor, where I have my farming interests, I cannot see that livestock husbandry with the benefit of a quota can be anything other than completely unprofitable. I say that in the knowledge of how the economics work in that part of the world. Without quota there is no economic use of that land for agriculture. There may be other uses but it will not be agriculture.
The quotas produce a high risk of dislocation. We heard of the dislocation of landlord-tenant relationships. I should like to point to the dislocation of investment and forward planning in agriculture in the areas that stand to be most severely affected because of uncertainty and the procedural difficulties about which we have heard. I cannot think of one landlord who would be willing to let land or construct new livestock buildings in those circumstances. It is not only a question of the National Trust and its tenants but also county councils and other similar bodies. The quotas uncouple the geographical distribution of livestock, holding by holding, and in so doing allow an element of freedom of migration, which was simply not possible before. That will produce a major difficulty in policing.
By creating the uncertainty there is an increase in risk. which in turn raises yield. An increase in yield damages the resource of the land, the buildings and the whole economic infrastructure. There are no minimum or maximum stocking density provisions to give any safety net.
I do not perceive any gains through quota allocation as between 1991 and 1993, unless for some remarkable reason the producer is given some greater quota allocation than he had reason to expect. But I worry about the barriers to tenants and new entrants to the industry who will have to buy quota in addition to bringing in their livestock. In the latest reports regarding the number of transfers of quota we are talking about it is £46 a head for sheep down in the Dartmoor area. Bearing in mind that the breeding ewe may cost a similar amount, it doubles the cost of the livestock.
I believe that the regulations will have an effect on rents unless somebody can reassure me that tenants will not take advantage of the situation presented to them. I do not blame them for that. Were I advising a tenant professionally I would tell him exactly that. It is therefore unlikely that there will be anything but an effect on rents. The market place will operate patchily. I do not anticipate for many years a good match between quota allocation and land available. In the meantime there will be uncertainty and muddle.
I fear for the likely effect on the consensus only recently hammered out on the matter of agricultural tenancy reform. I agree with the point made earlier that it is an important element in the sharing of the capital asset with a producer who pays a rent. It is something which is enshrined heavily in our land use and planning system. But the tenant can now affect the future viability of the holding as never before. I should like to know how the Minister would expect a local planning
466
authority to view an application for new livestock buildings in circumstances where there was a clear uncertainty over the long-term continuation of quota on that land.
Valuers will advise extreme caution. Therefore, whether or not actual falls in capital value occur in theory, the market will now reflect the uncertainty and risk, with significant capital and liquidity consequences. It is the creation of a large and expensive bureaucracy that worries me more than anything else. All those involved in agriculture know how much bureaucracy already exists. There is no attempt to go towards a proper free market. There will be rigidity for existing producers and new entrants. Difficulties of expansion and contraction in the flock or herd size will occur because of the way the regulations operate. The public perception of all that will be that overgrazing will continue; and that there will be an unseemly squabble, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, over handouts of public money. With no sheep extensification scheme, I fear that the perception among the general public will be a continuation of support for the unsupportable, with little support for the beneficial owners.
As did many other noble Lords, I received comments from all sources. I cannot agree with the position of the National Farmers Union that alternative agricultural enterprises are available. In my part of Exmoor that simply is not the case. In large parts of less favoured areas I suspect that a similar situation exists. I cannot agree also that no falls in value will occur. On the best impartial evidence of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the strong likelihood is that there 'will be falls in value.
The value of the quota is created out of another economic asset. It is either land value or ease of use in practice. It is not a free good. It is something which is created out of existing activity. The market for that transferable element is unlikely to produce early stability. I suggest that it may not even produce long-term equilibrium. The siphon and the national reserve provisions are insufficient for all of that.
The measures must be seen in the light of what amounts to the effect of nationalisation of arable cropping rights under the integrated administration and control system. Seen in that light I believe that the quotas will, as does the IACS scheme, reduce choice and competition. It makes a balance of payments deficit in temperate foodstuffs more likely to continue rather than the converse.
Both the Country Landowners' Association and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are of one mind; that is, that there need to be measures to produce stability. Landlords and tenants do not operate in isolation from one another. I would point out that the Country Landowners' Association, for one, represents owner-occupiers like myself as well as tenants and landlords. We need to reach the situation where we view the matter as impartially as possible among all the various interests. There must be some form of quota guarantee. I do not use the word "compensation"; that is tendentious. But somewhere along the line something will move from one person to another and there must be some form of guarantee that quota is available to make

467
good the deficiency, if not free, then at relatively modest cost. That needs to be coupled with a direction to arbitrators in rent reviews to prevent advantage being taken of the new situation in the context of rent reviews on agricultural tenancies. I am very much for freedom of action—good luck to these producers who have quotas allocated to them and can transfer them away. But this should not be done at the expense of the industry or other operators in it.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors warned from inception of the problems that were going to arise. I believe that to a degree it has been misrepresented in the sense that it has been asked to comment about issues such as when loss occurs rather than about the question which is really at the heart of this: if loss occurs, how do we mitigate the problems that arise from it? By "loss", I do not just mean financial loss; I mean the disruption to the industry.
I am very disappointed that having gone to negotiate the Article 13 provisions we are now told that they cannot be implemented. What about subsidiarity? Where is this question of protecting United Kingdom interests in the context of EC regulation? I find it very difficult to come to terms with that and very difficult that this Government are not protecting the interests of the industry as a whole. If the National Farmers Union is correct that there is no loss in value, a quota guarantee system would not cost anything at all. If the market was shaky, it would reinforce confidence. If there is a drop in value, why is it left to the industry to deal with it rather than the Government taking account of this?
I see that time is getting on and I have spoken long enough. I certainly support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and look forward with interest to what other noble Lords have to say.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, I declare my interest at once both as a landowner and a "farmer"—I prefer that word to "producer"—and I shall be entitled to receive payment on quotas both for ewes and suckler cows.
The more I have read this vast sheet of briefing papers not only from the Country Landowners' Association but from many other sources, the more I am astonished that the Government seem intent on resisting this quite modest and sensible amendment. I turn at once to the closing words of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about Article 13 of the European Community. The Commission has already confirmed that the Government have powers legally to do what they are expected to do to not disturb—those are the words of the Commission—the landlord-tenant relationship and yet they are refusing to do so. Why? I think that any objective layman reading all these papers and hearing all these speeches would come to the conclusion that the Government are quibbling and are hiding behind a legal technicality. I think it very surprising that they are willing even to be taken, if necessary, so far as the European Court where they are much more likely to lose their case. So why this obstinacy?
They have declared that they have no wish to upset the landlord-tenant relationship and yet they admit at the
468
same time that there will be distortions which will affect that relationship. Their only solution is to set up some monitoring device; and if things go wrong then they say—they have given an undertaking to the Country Landowners' Association—that they will do something to put it right. But that will be too little too late. Many people will suffer in the meanwhile and perhaps many holdings will have gone out of production altogether. It is not a solution at all.
It seems to me that they have put forward this solution with the main purpose of saving costs. They have calculated that it will cost at least £50 million to accept any kind of compensation or guarantee scheme in arbitration. Yet the CLA and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which after all must have more practical experience, with respect, than the civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture in these matters, have calculated that in only about 5 per cent. of cases would it be necessary to go to arbitration. Once the pattern is set by a few cases in the early days then voluntary agreements will be the order of the day. That is precisely what has happened in respect of milk quotas. I have been able to settle a milk quota capital value with a tenant perfectly amicably and without any difficulty at all. That will be the usual custom. So I think that their fears are completely baseless.
I understand that they want to save money in view of the appalling cost and the waste of time and money imposed on them by the European Commission in respect of the set-aside regulations and other environmental issues where, as the noble Baroness has said, people have been flooded out with horrible paperwork, which I remember by noble friend Lord Carrington, in an aside during a Maastricht debate, describing as absolutely intolerable. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. No assessment has ever been made either by the Commission or by our own Government of the economic viability or even the possible achievement of the objectives of those regulations, which will cost the taxpayer as well as the farmer a great deal of money in administration and time-wasting. I mention that as an aside—the kind of bureaucracy that one wants to avoid in this instance. I think that the Government's intentions will create more bureaucracy that the amendment itself.
I do not think that there will be any cost to the Government at all in any guarantee scheme or compensation scheme because money will pass between the tenant and the landowner, and vice versa. But what about the new tenant? I am not at all confident that anyone has asked or answered that question yet. How will the new tenant come in when the landlord cannot afford to allow him a lower rent if he has to buy a quota? It does not seem practical to me, and the Government do not seem to have thought this matter out.
I come finally to the words uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, about the intentions of noble Lords in their voting. I am astounded that the question of loyalty comes into it at all. As the noble Earls, Lord Peel and Lord Swinton, and other noble Lords have mentioned, this is not really a battle between the landowner and the tenant. It is a question of the future health of the agricultural industry—most particularly, as has been

469
pointed out, in the uplands, but everywhere. To suggest that there is any question of disloyalty in voting for the amendment is absurd.
It was also suggested that such a course might do damage to your Lordships' House. That is another suggestion that I cannot quite stomach. I have been a Member here for quite a long time—37 years—and I do not think I need any instruction as to what will do damage to your Lordships' House. I suggest that noble Lords have a very pleasant habit—or perhaps unpleasant from the point of view sometimes of the government in power—of exercising their own judgment. We rather like doing that here more than is allowed in another place.
I believe that my noble friend the Minister who is to reply, having heard all the arguments, may be—and ought to be—considerably shaken in voicing the brief that he has, having heard all the speeches. I do not know how he is going to address us with conviction. I ask noble Lords to exercise their own judgment in this case. If noble Lords do that I am pretty confident that they will be voting for this Motion and I hope I shall be right.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I too will follow the example of previous speakers in declaring an interest. I am a landlord and also a member of the Country Landowners' Association. Although I may not be a member of the National Farmers Union like others of my colleagues, I have a very great regard for that organisation, as indeed I have for the Tenant Farmers Association. I find their views and comments most helpful to me in discussing various matters with one's tenants. As a result I like to feel that I have a very happy relationship with them, but whether they have such a relationship with me or not is quite another question, although I obviously hope so.
This has been a most interesting debate because so far—unless I have not heard, and I am sometimes rather deaf—we have not heard one single word spoken against the Motion raised by my noble friend Lord Hamilton. I can tell noble Lords this: I am not going to be the one to start. I support it absolutely. The reason I support it is this: the Motion we have in front of us is another example of a further nail in the coffin for this country's landlord and tenant system, which has served the industry so well over hundreds of years. We have taken on the chin successive tenancy legislation which has weakened the enthusiasm of landlords and potential landlords for the letting of land.
Now we have these regulations, which again will act precisely as a disincentive to landlords as regards future tenants, and I regret that. If our party—of which I am proud to be a member—is going to stick by its professed intention of encouraging the landlord and tenant system, then for the life of me I cannot see why it has failed so consistently in this matter and has permitted this order to proceed unchanged.
I support quotas arid see the need for them. I am not against them in principle. But quotas cannot lie with the occupiers of land because, as my noble friend Lord Peel so rightly said, that opens the floodgates to potential trading with the nation's finances and the taxpayer's
470
money. It is undoubtedly a very dangerous step to take. Quotas are probably necessary and we must do the best we can with them.
If these regulations were allowed to remain in force unchanged, I believe that that could be—and almost certainly would be—the thin edge of the wedge for further quotas which may, and I suspect will, come. We have already the system of set-aside to reduce the amount of production of cereal growing. I am riot sure that set-aside itself will be sustainable for very long because of the enormous cost involved in paying compensation to people to do nothing. Therefore, the logical progression from that is to introduce quotas for cereal growers.
Are we to have a system where quotas shall apply to the tenants and not to the land? I hope not. Once one has a precedent then it is easy to hide behind it in the same way as it is relatively easy to hide behind the fact that it is the desire of our lords and masters in Brussels to impose these sorts of regulations on us because they perceive it to be good for them. Their system of farming is so totally different. As far as I am concerned—I believe that I also speak for a number of other noble Lords—they can do what they like, but for the life of me I cannot see why we should in any way subscribe to a system which pleases those eminent people to our detriment. Again, for that reason I hope that these regulations will be substantially changed.
My noble friend Lord Middleton referred to what can be done. He brought to light one of the possible routes—that is to say, compensation. I believe compensation is a most difficult thing to calculate. It would open the floodgates to endless argument. I believe my noble friend Lord Peel used the word "divisive". There should be no value attached to quotas. Once one begins to attach value to them one is creating something concrete which can be traded. Compensation is not very attractive although I see the logic of it. I see no reason why it should not be possible—only if the will is there—for the quota to be attached to land and, land being an immovable object, no value being attached to the quota.
I hope that it will be possible, even at this stage, to stand back, look at the problem which has been generated and be prepared to hold up one's hand and say, "We have got this wrong. From now on the quota will be attached to the land. There will be no compensation. The quota cannot be transferred away from the land and the owner is stuck with it". When the land is sold or acquired by another owner, then he acquires the quota at nil value because there will he no value attached to it. There will be the same value to the land as the grass which grows on it, the trees or whatever.
That is the point I want to make. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Hastings who suggested that compensation might cost about £50 million.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, no. The point is that the Government have suggested that. The CLA disagrees entirely.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. Whoever suggested it, the fact of the matter is that compensation may cost £50

471
million so that is a very good reason for not having it. I hope that we shall be able to find a different route and that the suggestion I have made is a possibility.
When my noble friend comes to reply in the most charming and persuasive way that he has, I hope that he will realise that he has an army of dissenters behind him. It is interesting to note that there are not so many dissenters in front of him. I would rather not be in his shoes, as I should find it extremely difficult to discover many arguments to persuade the noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently—myself certainly excepted—to change their views at a moment's notice.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I think it has nearly all been said so I shall be extremely brief. I have in fact no financial interest to declare, albeit I do belong to the Scottish National Farmers Union and indeed the Scottish Landowners' Federation. I do however strongly support this Motion as I believe it is vital for the survival of the uplands and the less favoured areas throughout Great Britain. I also think, as other noble Lords have pointed out, that there is a very serious danger of the situation causing bad blood and ill-feeling between tenant and landlord, and I would ask the Minister just to reaffirm that this is the last thing that the Government wish to foster.
I would like to take a moment to cite one example which I think clearly demonstrates the unfairness of the present situation. A neighbour of mine had saved all his life to buy himself a small upland farm, which he succeeded in doing in November 1991. He leased the farm back to the seller on a five-year limited partnership agreement. Within six months of the lease taking effect, quotas had been introduced, as a result of which the tenant was able to claim the livestock quotas for himself, even though he had only been the tenant for six months when they were introduced.
My neighbour did manage to obtain a condition in the lease whereby the tenant cannot sell the quotas during the term of the lease, and at the end of it he is bound to offer them to the landlord. However, this is little consolation as there is no way in which he will be able to afford to buy them at current values, which are somewhere in the region of £50,000. If he does not buy them, he is left with a farm which has no quota and is therefore rendered virtually unlettable and not worth farming for himself because he would be unable to obtain the livestock premiums without the quotas. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, that there surely is a very strong case for having nil value on the quotas, which must remain attached to the land.
This problem will also arise in the lowlands as flexibility and alternative enterprises to sheep rearing disappear with the arrival of set aside and its dearly beloved IACS forms.
As many other noble Lords have said tonight, it is surely only right and proper that the Government must now make provision to see that landlords' interests are protected, and tenants are required to compensate landlords for any proven loss, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, pointed out, in the value of their land not
472
exceeding the value of the quota if the tenant removes or sells it. As things currently stand, the tenant has obtained a gift at the landlord's expense, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, pointed out, which I believe could have disastrous repercussions, not only for the future of landlord/tenant relationships but for the whole pattern of livestock farming today, particularly the way the less favoured areas are managed and maintained. I fear that without such compensation our natural heritage and those responsible for it will be devastated.
6.43 p.m.
The Duke of Roxburghe: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Hamilton for giving your Lordships the opportunity to debate the serious problems related to the sheep annual premium quotas. I must first declare an interest in that the Roxburghe Estates encompass 22 farms within less favoured areas. So it will be of little surprise to your Lordships that, as a landowner, I, like many others, am deeply concerned about the implications of the transferability of quotas. On the other hand, as an eternal optimist I live in hope that my noble friend the Minister will heed what I and other far more eminent noble Lords have had to say tonight.
It is vital for landowners to foster a healthy and vibrant relationship with their farm tenants, the let farms forming, as they do, the backbone of the predominantly agricultural estate. Many farms are occupied by second or third generation successors, others by newer tenants, most of whom have expanded from smaller holdings with the attraction of a larger and more economic unit.
A large part of the Roxburghe Estates comprises land in the LFA. In the past 10 years, eight hill farms have been relet, including four which were previously farmed in hand. In the case of one new tenant, he started farming on his own at the age of 23, renting 33 acres and having 60 sheep. Twenty years later, he is now responsible for 2,800 hill ewes. That is proof indeed that there are opportunities for new entrants to the industry and for progression up the farming ladder. However, as many other noble Lords have said, it is vital that such opportunities are not stifled and that the livestock sector, particularly in the more marginal upland areas, is supported to ensure that the rural communities and economies, which are so heavily dependent upon agriculture, are sustained in the future.
Much has been made by noble Lords of the value of subsidies in upland areas. Indeed, one half of the gross farm income is represented by the sheep annual premium. Without subsidies therefore, farms in those most vulnerable areas would cease to be viable. If a tenant is permitted to transfer the quota off his holding without any restitution, the rights to a major part of the farm income are therefore removed with it. It is no idle threat to say that such a severe effect on the earning capacity of the breeding flock, herd, or even the land, would, in the poorest areas, render the holding unlettable and unfarmable, with damaging consequences for the local communities, the environmental management of the land and its value.
Where no alternative to agriculture exists—this is very much the case in many of the upland areas, where

473
now "no-go" designations for forestry are increasing—the land would fall into disuse and dereliction. That is a doom-laden scenario, but the damaging consequences are entirely avoidable, as we have heard from almost every speaker. The introduction of fair and equitable measures to address. the problems can and should be accepted by the Government. Landowners are merely seeking a fair deal to preserve confidence in the landlord and tenant system, and to maintain the viability of stock-rearing land in the event of a transfer of quota.
If the national reserve fails to meet the demand for quota from new tenants, an incoming tenant will be forced to purchase quota in the market in order to maintain livestock numbers at the previous stocking level, increasing the tenant's capital requirements and reducing the profitability of the holding. It would have serious repercussions, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, not just on the value of the land, the rental values and the economic viability of land owning, but—and perhaps most importantly—on the willingness and ability of potential tenants to offer for land to rent. The capital cost of stocking a hill farm would be out of reach of many of those seeking to start up or expand.
I should like to ask one question about the Scottish system, about which a note has been written by the Scottish Landowners Federation. It relates to bounded and hefted sheep stocks. On many tenanted hill farms, that hefted stock is also a "bound-sheep stock". The tenancy agreement will require the tenant to take over, at a bound-stock valuation, the sheep on that farm. At the end of the tenancy, he will be obliged to sell back to the landlord a fixed number of sheep. The valuation at which those stock are acquired and sold by the tenant is defined under the Hill Farming Acts and reflects, in addition to prevailing market prices, a premium for the hefting and acclimatisation.
The quota legislation does not address the issue of those bound stocks, allowing quota to be removed from the unit by a tenant without recompense to the landlord who is then obliged to purchase back the stock from the tenant at an above average price. I shall be interested to hear what proposals, if any, my noble friend has to deal with the hefted sheep stock system. Without the introduction of measures, either in the form of compensation or the guarantee mentioned by a number of noble Lords, I believe that it will lead to a further decline in the landlord and tenant system and to a continuing reduction in the supply of farms available to let, to the detriment of the agriculture industry as a whole. Indeed, landowners are now being advised by the organisation representing their interests in Scotland not to let land in view of the adverse effects that would be caused by the tenant transferring quota from his holding.
We must consider carefully the serious implications of failure to address the problems of quota transfer. Surely it cannot have been the Government's intention to create a situation in which landlords cannot let their land because of the impact of quotas. Therefore, I urge the Minister to implement the additional measures to remedy the adverse consequences, and I strongly support my noble friend's Motion.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as opposed to most noble Lords who have spoken I do not have to declare an interest. I and my wife are owner-occupiers and therefore whether the quota is attached to the land or to the shepherd makes no difference to us. However, between us we possess 1,008 sheep quotas. I have a suspicion that my comments will not exactly endear me to my noble friends and therefore I cannot thank my noble friend Lord Hamilton for tabling the Motion.
I sympathise with landlords over the thought of the possibility of losing capital value or rental income but I am doubtful whether such a loss will occur as a direct result of quota being sold off the holding by the flock owner. The rental and capital value of a sheep farm, in particular in the Highlands, will be determined by the profitability of sheep farming and any quota sold is and will be ring-fenced.
I was somewhat surprised to hear some noble Lords take the view that quotas should remain in upland areas. Many is the time I have heard noble Lords who live in such areas state that they are overgrazed. However, if stocking rates are reduced by the European Community, which is most certainly on the cards, more land will be needed for the existing sheep and rents could well increase. Certainly agistment rents in Wales have regularly increased and often average more than £100 per acre. Therefore, I believe that it will be extremely difficult to prove that a reduction in rental and capital value will take place because quota has been sold by the flock owner. In any event, I shudder at the thought of the possible litigation and work for valuers, and so, I believe, does my noble friend Lord Mountgarret.
As I understand the Motion, it does not necessarily suggest that further measures mean that the flock owner and the shepherd should compensate the landlord if he sells his quota. I must make it clear that as a shepherd I should object violently if that happened. I should do so for two reasons. The first is that the sheep are the flock owner's or shepherd's—usually the same person. That is the case as regards my wife and myself. The fact that there are any sheep on the holding at all is due to his or her care and attention. Indeed, many shepherds—myself included—foresaw the coming of quotas and deliberately overstocked. I hope that this foresight and hard work is not now being coveted by the landlord. The second reason—and I feel most strongly about it—is that if we must have quotas of any kind (and I do not like them) they must be freely traded in order to allow the younger producer and the more efficient producer to expand. That view was expressed many times during my membership of sub-committee D and since and also by many of your Lordships.
I wish to deal with a matter raised by no fewer than six noble Lords; that is the question of money leaving agriculture. One cannot stop quota having a value. It makes no difference whatever if the incomer pays his landlord or the outgoing tenant. All quotas, in particular milk it can be argued, mean a loss of money to the industry. In milk, as your Lordships and I know only too well, the main beneficiary is the landlord. In this case it

475
happens to be the shepherd. That is what quotas do and for better or worse—in my opinion worse—they are with us. We cannot get away from that.
Yes, as was said by my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Middleton, the flock owner has had a windfall. I fully accept that. However, landlords have also had a few—development rights and so forth—and often at the expense of the tenant. We are all avaricious in the end. It therefore follows that the only party against whom the landlord can make a claim is the Government. Well, good luck to him—I gather that the Government are a little short of money. As I have explained, I am extremely doubtful about whether any loss will be able to be proved.
I suggest that the constructive way forward to help a newcomer coming into a holding is to allocate him quota from the national reserve. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. That reserve, which is set at the highest permissive rate of 15 per cent. of sales, might be increased by taking, say, 1 or 2 per cent. off existing quota holders such as myself. I am feeling particularly charitable today because I have been to church—but it is only temporary. Will my noble friend Lord Howe say whether that is a possibility.
I fully appreciate the anxieties of the CLA expressed by all noble Lords. But I believe they are unfounded and for the reasons that I have mentioned unworkable. Furthermore, since 1984 most tenancy agreements have—perhaps I should say more honestly "could have"—included a clause reserving quota for the landlord. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Burton. I am in total agreement with the CLA, my noble friend Lord Hamilton and other noble Lords that the whole question of quotas and set-aside possesses horrific problems. Therefore, I welcome my noble friend's Motion to discuss a particular quota this evening. I hope that it will lead to continuing dialogue between all the farming organisations and government.
However, likewise, I hope that my noble friend will not press his Motion because, as I see it, that will only put the four contestants—I use that word incorrectly—the CLA, the Government, the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association, in opposite corners fighting each other and I fear that I shall be in the middle, which is worse. It will make further constructive discussions more difficult, including tenancy reform. I fully accept that that needs addressing, not least to resolve the inevitable problems that have been raised tonight caused by necessary agricultural cutbacks to satisfy the GATT negotiations. That matter was alluded to by the noble Duke.
It would be dishonest of me to say that I do not sometimes disagree with the Government and ask your Lordships for an opinion against them. I recently disagreed with my noble friend on the Front Bench about potatoes. But—and it is a very big but—I do so only if such an action will achieve something. A Division this evening cannot reverse the order and, as I have said, will only make matters worse. I beg my noble friend not to divide the House. Certainly I could not support him were he to do so.
Earl Peel: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may pose a question. My noble friend welcomed the concept of a windfall for the tenant through the quota system and he described that tenant, in most cases quite rightly, as the flock owner. I ask my noble friend how he feels that that would be overcome where the landlord owns the flock and it is part of the landlord's capital.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am not sure that I said that I welcomed the tenant having a windfall. I merely said that that has happened. I am not sure that I quite understand the question. Your Lordships may remember that I was not too happy when the landlord received the larger share as regards milk quotas. If my noble friend is asking me whether the landlord can own the quota, he can, provided that he has 10 ewes. I do not know whether that answers the question.
Earl Peel: My Lords, my noble friend has not understood the point that I was making. I was referring to a case in which certain hefted flock were part of the landlord's capital and owned by the landlord. My noble friend referred to the windfall profit, whether or not that is welcome. I wonder what his position is as regards the case in which the landlord owns the sheep as part of his capital.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I live in a sensible country and I do not believe that we have hefted flock. Therefore, I cannot answer that question. However, as the law stands at present, it would come back to who owns the sheep.
7.2 p.m.
Viscount Devonport: My Lords, there are few things that remain to be said at this late stage of the debate. I merely wish to make and underscore one or two points. I support my noble friend Lord Lytton in his views about the problems of evaluation and the decoupling of the product stock from the land on which it is reared.
I wish to underline also the remark made by my noble friend Lord Palmer which is extremely relevant; namely, that under the proposed and existing regulations tenant producers can and will obtain a windfall gain on transferring quota away from poor land which they farm. That must diminish the value of let land at the owner's expense. I fear that that inequity will cause great problems, as my noble friend said.
On the hills there is no economically viable alternative to sheep and suckler cow rearing. Once the quota is transferred, farming ceases to be viable, as other noble Lords have said. No new tenancies can be given. The land becomes derelict and reverts to scrub. Communities diminish and producers who are attracted towards leaving farming will sell up their quota premium.
Perhaps I may mention a concrete example of that in relation to my interest as a hill farmer in England and Scotland. It summarises the issues. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is right in what he says about future values of hill land, but I am not optimistic.

477
On the hills in Northumberland, about 1,000 to 2,000 acres are needed decently to support one family. I own and farm one farm of 836 acres and I own and let another nearby farm. That is a better farm but of the same size and one on which I wanted to expand production when it became vacant. The tenant there, who farms two other better farms on lower ground, offered this year to give up my farm. In 1991 I could have purchased his stock at market value and received a working return of about 5 per cent. Because of what I believe is the careless design by our Government of the regulations as applied in this country, I shall have to pay the outgoer an extra £85,000, which brings my return on that farm to about 1 per cent. Is that worth my while? I do not believe that it is worth my while or that of anyone else.
That underscores one of the basic problems. In cases where forestry is not an alternative for land use—perhaps there is no heather—which has some sporting value—that land will sink in value from about £300 to £15 per acre. There are already thousands of people in that situation. I wonder whether that treatment is just, especially when the Government had the opportunity under the 1992 CAP reform to avoid that not only, as the noble Lord said, by operating a national pool, but earlier this year the opportunity arose to support Germany to regionalise quota along the lines of the existing beef special provisions.
For my part, I await with interest the outcome of the judicial review. I conclude by asking the Minister, in support of the Motion, to assure not just the House but the country that effective measures will be introduced to correct that inequity in the regulations. I ask them to safeguard the future of marginal livestock rearing areas. To that end I press the Minister to explain why a national quota pool is not the most effective and fairest method for all concerned. I ask the Minister to do that, even though it is very late in the day. Failure to ensure that effective measures are taken to return quota in some way to the unit, whether by quota guarantee from the national reserve or by funding quota acquisitions, will most certainly lead to significant hill land clearances. I find it difficult to believe that that is the intention of either the Government or the Minister.
I conclude on a poetic but perhaps pertinent note with a quote by Peter Levy, made, I admit, in a different context:
"The sense of a crisis is universal: the landscape everywhere in Britain feels like a survival but no one is sure of the future".
My Lords, I feel the same.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Dormer: My Lords, at this late hour I do not wish to detain your Lordships for very long but as a result of strong opinions expressed to me by members of the farming community, I should like to say a few words.
At the outset I must declare an interest as a landowner of some farms which may be affected by the issue. The present situation is causing widespread anxiety among tenant farmers, landowners, upland farmers and especially among younger farmers who may wish to enter the profession. Unless the quota remains on the
478
farms, there will be insufficient capital. That has been extremely well put by my noble friend Lord Swinton and other noble Lords.
The question arises where farmers have been tempted to sell off a quota. That cannot be in the interests of the farm, the incoming tenant or in the interests of hill farmers in general or the agricultural industry. As a trader in an agricultural area said to me recently, "When farming does well, everything does well; when it suffers, we all suffer".
The question of the environment also arises when upland farms may cease to be let due to the removal of the quota, with the resulting removal of the subsidy—a factor well expounded by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
From every point of view, the matter is deserving of the most urgent consideration by the Government and I implore the Minister to do all that he can to assist the farming community and all connected with agriculture in this country, as a result of the speeches made in the Chamber this evening.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I do not intend to make a long speech, but want to say only a few words about the quota and to emphasise the importance of hill farming, sheep and cattle to a great deal of the hill land farms of Scotland and Wales. I hope that the Government will realise their importance. Although that has not been obvious from what they have said so far, we await with interest the speech of my noble friend Lord Howe. When considering this debate and discussions on this matter, I hope he will realise that hill farming and sheep and cattle in hill areas are of vital importance to agriculture in this country and must be supported.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, has initiated a fascinating debate in which we have heard, particularly from the landlord's point of view, the great problems which could arise—I say "could" advisedly—with regard to farms which are suitable only for sheep rearing and which are deprived of quota. We have heard about what might happen if there is a systematic denuding of the quota in those areas of the country where only sheep rearing can take place.
Unfortunately, we have heard from only one tenant farmer, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who I understand has a particularly sympathetic and benevolent landlord with whom she has a cosy relationship. That was the only expression of the tenant's viewpoint.
Much of the criticism that has been expressed in this debate has been aimed at Common Market regulations rather than at the regulations which the Government have introduced. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will tell us whether the Government have taken advice with regard to the suggestion of compensation and on the question of whether it is possible for the Government to order a tenant to pay compensation to a landlord if he sells the quota. I should have thought that that was not possible legally for this reason: a Common Market regulation introduced the quota and, like any

479
other form of subsidy, quotas inevitably distort relationships. We anticipate certain distortions which do not happen, but other distortions occur which we never anticipated. Am I not right in thinking that the Common Market allocated the quota entirely to the producer? If there is to be compensation, I should have thought that it should be paid by the Government and certainly not by the tenant. I do not think that the Government have a legal right to order a tenant to mitigate what might be described as the landlord's loss.
I am told that the Country Landowners' Association has obtained the right to a judicial review of whether the Government have interpreted the Common Market regulations correctly in a certain matter. If there was an order to the effect that tenants had to provide the compensation, I would advise them immediately to seek a judicial review because I do not think that it is open to the Government legally to order that to be done.
We must look at the purpose of the quota. Surely it was introduced as a result of a change in EC agricultural policy. It was introduced to facilitate a freer market in agricultural goods. It sought to discourage additional livestock from being kept in this country. Surely the purpose of the premium, of granting it to the producer in the first place and then of allocating the quota to the producer was to compensate for the loss of income which came formerly from support prices for the stock that he was selling in the market. The quota was compensation for the producer.
I doubt the proposition which has been made both in the House this evening and in the papers that I read this weekend which were produced by all the farming organisations in this country that the value of the quota has been created out of the land. I do not believe that that stands up to examination, because the quota, with its concomitant sheep subsidy and payment for ewes, is surely a means whereby the paternalistic Common Market is trying to safeguard the agricultural community's inevitable loss of income as a result of moving to a freer market.
All sides of the House have supported the GATT negotiations and the move to a freer market. I am possibly alone on these Benches in having grave doubts about the success of those negotiations. I foresee that by the turn of the century not only will agriculture in Europe be suffering greatly, but industry in Europe will also suffer. We are now seeing enormous developments, such as the cosy relationship that is now developing between the United States and Japan and the Pacific Rim. But let that be by the way.
Like the ewe headage payments and subsidies, the quota is surely a temporary expedient while Europe's agriculture is wound down. It is compensation for producers. If that is so, it seems to me that, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, wisely suggested, we should try to find a way out of the present dilemma without setting all the agricultural organisations at each other's throats. This is a dilemma which the Government must tackle.
I have an interest to declare because I have farmed for almost all my adult life and am an owner-occupier in a land largely of owner-occupiers. I have the same impression as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that there is
480
far more quota available in my area than there is land to meet it, because farmers have maximised their claims for headage. My view on that is reflected in the fact that enormous sums have been paid for agistment and grazing tenancies—well over £100 in some areas—because farmers have more quota than they have land to accommodate the sheep which are part of the quota.
The September newsletter of Smiths Gore, chartered surveyors, raises the question of consensus, stating:
"A consensus quickly seemed to emerge"—
in relation to sheep and suckler cow quotas—
"that any units bereft of quota would be depreciated in the eyes of the market-place".
The newsletter then states that in Smiths Gore's experience that has not happened. It continues:
"Two factors seem to be at work. First, in Scotland at least, there still appears to be considerable interest in farming properties from commuters and non-agricultural buyers … Secondly, there are signs that some livestock farmers are keen to get their hands on additional grazing land to overcome headage limits in the wake of the CAP reforms".
The newsletter goes on to point out that farmers in Scotland have paid up to £150 per acre for grass lets. Therefore the consequence that we foresee may not happen but other consequences which we have not foreseen may well happen.
I believe the Government ought to direct their mind to the following matter. There are certain farms surely that can only be used, agriculturally, for rearing sheep or suckler cows. If these farms were to be permanently denuded of quota I envisage that there could be a real problem. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, suggested, that the market might sort all this out. But what if it does not? That is the real problem which I believe the Government should consider.
My own suggestion is that the landlord should have the first option to buy. A provision could be introduced whereby the landlord was given the option to buy and to hold over in trust for an incoming tenant. That should not be subject to the 15 per cent. siphon. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will correct me if I am wrong. I believe the 15 per cent. siphoning off is the maximum that was allowed under the Common Market regulations. Personally I would have increased it to 20 or 25 per cent. and that would have added to the reserve in the Government's hands. Then the Government could have dealt with the problem. Is there not a means of providing that the landlord has the first refusal so he can guarantee that the holding will have a quota? The means of valuing that quota at that stage without the siphon would be a matter the Government would have to consider and make provision for. However, that is certainly a matter that is worthy of investigation.
I do not believe I can add anything more to the matter except to advance the following reflection. It seems to me that the quota is intended to mitigate the loss to the farming community generally. I can well believe that it could be argued in farm arbitrations that the farming income in the future which partly derives from the quota must be considered in fixing rentals. I would be surprised if that were not the case, although I can see immediately as a barrister what the argument would be the other way. The whole system of quotas, like set-aside and other such matters, is a temporary matter. Within a decade the picture will be very different. It may

481
be markedly more difficult for landlords, tenants and farmers alike if the developments that I can foresee occur. In the meantime the Government should give their attention to the issue of how one guarantees that the farms which are not viable unless they can be used as rearing farms have the headage available for stocking by the incoming tenant.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I wish to thank Lord Hamilton of Dalzell for tabling this Motion which has obviously roused a remarkable degree of interest, particularly on the other side of the House. The Motion draws attention to a very real problem which has been created partly by the Government, partly by the European Commission, but mainly by the absurdity of quotas.
Unlike other noble Lords, I do not have to declare a direct financial interest in either sheep quotas or suckler cow quotas, although I have for nearly 40 years been involved in the detailed accounting of a large number of sheep flocks. From the figures I have seen over that period, I can assure your Lordships that the sale or the lease of quota will make much more money for sheep farmers than anything they may do in terms of actually farming sheep.
The debate has underlined the many disadvantages of quotas: for example, their inflexibility, their attendant bureaucracy and the perceived advantage or disadvantage by one party or another. However, as a number of speakers have said, we are not talking about a quota in the sense of production control as on milk, potatoes and sugar beet. We are talking about a licence to receive a given amount of premium, and such licence as attaching to the ownership of livestock and not to the ownership of land. If the quotas we are discussing had been attached to land, that would have created an interest in the quotas on the part of landlords. A landlord's consent would have been required for the transfer of quota, and obviously there would have been an implied value to the landowner. Will the Minister explain why these quotas were not attached to land? What was the argument that was developed in the Council of Ministers and in the Commission? If it was decided not to attach the quotas to land, why did the Government not choose to operate the national pool for transfer of quotas that has been mentioned by a number of speakers? However, I suspect that it would be too late to do that now. Such a national pool would certainly be no more bureaucratic or cumbersome than the system we are now to have.
It is clear that the Motion contains two separate but related aspects. There is the argument regarding the loss of value to the landowner. I understand it is argued that the loss of value should be compensated by the taxpayer by the Government having to buy up quota and/or the tenant. There is also and to my mind the more compelling argument regarding what has been described as the vulnerable areas. It is a pity in some ways that the Motion had to combine those two separate but related aspects because, as I have said, the argument regarding the vulnerable areas is much more compelling than the argument regarding the loss of value in the lowlands.
482
So far as I am aware, there is no evidence so far of an effect on the value of land or on rental values. But perhaps, to be fair, it is too early to decide that. The Government have said they will monitor the effect of these quotas. I wish to quote from a letter written by Mrs. Gillian Shephard to Dr. Gavin Strang. She wrote:
"You will, I am sure, appreciate that it is difficult to predict the impact which quotas will have on landlords and tenants. However, I believe that the steps which we are taking will significantly diminish the effects which you and others fear may occur. I have also undertaken to monitor the operation of quotas carefully, and if it appears that distortions are occurring—such as a shortage of quota in one ring-fenced area when there is an excess in another—I shall, of course, consider any appropriate action to correct them".
It is significant that the only example the Minister gives is of the possible distortions resulting from transfers inside the ring-fenced areas. She has not mentioned the potential loss in value to landowners. Is this an oversight on her part or is the only area that is to be monitored the effect on the vulnerable areas and not the effect on land values and rental values?
I wish to make a general point which has been touched upon by a number of speakers, and that concerns the nature of tenancy agreements between landowners and tenants. These differ widely, but almost all of them contain a quota clause. I accept that most of the quota clauses refer to quotas which are attached to holdings. The NFU sent me an example of a tenancy agreement which stated that,
"the tenant shall before quitting the Holding nominate as his Successor the Landlord or incoming Tenant in respect of any basic quota of which he has the right of nomination and that he shall not allow any quotas allocated to the Holding or any agricultural marketing scheme or otherwise to lapse by his default and that he shall use his best endeavours to obtain for the Holding suitable quotas under any new scheme and maintain those already attached to the Holding".
It would be interesting to know whether in the case of that tenancy agreement the tenant would be able to transfer the quota without the consent of the landlord. I discussed this matter only this morning with a leading land lawyer. As I understand the position, there is nothing to stop the drafting of new agreements to deal with the problem that has been mentioned. This is not an area where European law prevails. We have already heard a quotation from a letter from the European Commissioner. I am sure your Lordships are aware of the CLA brief and the reply that was given in the European Parliament on 21st April which stated:
"Community regulations do not affect relations between landowners and farmers, national legislation being applicable in this area".
As I understand it, this means that our own landlord and tenant law is superior in this case and it would be possible for all new agreements—I understand that this does not apply to existing agreements—both tenancy agreements and share-farming agreements, to be drafted in future to deal with the problem which has been mentioned by a number of speakers.
It seems to me that there are two points where the situation will bite. Unless a new form of 'valuation mechanism is introduced, the situation will bite not when the transfer of quota takes place but either at the next rent review or on the termination of the tenancy. Can the Minister say whether an arbitrator will be able to take into account, under normal arbitration rules, any

483
change in value affecting the rental value or the value of the land? Is it in fact correct that further measures are required? Also, is there an argument in equity for such further measures if a loss of value results, and is proved, from the transfer of quota?
We have been here before. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Gallacher, who reminded me of the excellent report which was produced by the Select Committee on the European Communities on the milk production outgoers scheme. The report was produced by a joint committee of Sub-committee E (which deals with law) and Sub-committee D (which deals with agriculture). It makes extremely interesting reading, because all these matters affecting the rights of the landlord were examined and dealt with in that report. Many of the arguments are similar to those adduced today. There is reference to the possibility of the disposal of an interest in the property of the landlord without the landlord's consent being invalid because it conflicts with an article in the Treaty of Rome and also Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
I mention that report because in that case the committee tended to argue that in the case of that scheme insufficient regard was paid to the interests of the landlord. This is again perhaps a suitable case for examination by a joint committee of the law and agriculture sub-committees of the Select Committee. That would obviously have to await the outcome of the judicial review, but that might be a way of throwing some light on this very difficult point.
As I have said, there are two separate but related aspects. The second is the effect on the vulnerable areas. Here there is a very real anxiety, which was expressed so well by many speakers. In my view it is a much more pressing problem than the problem of the possible loss of value in land or rental values in the lowlands. It could have severe effects on the upland communities. The point has been mentioned, and is worth repeating, that some tenancies on hill farms require the farmer to keep a specified number of sheep. Reference has been made to hefted flocks on the hills. It is important that when he replies the Minister deals with this point because there is a real area of anxiety here which I share.
Do the Government agree that there is a real problem in the LFAs? Will they give those areas any priority in the allocation of the national reserve? Can the Government give us an estimate of the likely size of the national reserve and say whether they believe that it will be sufficient to deal with all the problems that have been raised?
Another point was raised with me by my noble friend Lady Nicol, who would have taken part in the debate today but had another engagement. It concerns the rights of commoners. A commoner who does not presently exercise his grazing rights could be allocated a quota, which might then be sold. Would that not have serious implications for total grazing numbers and the rights of future commoners? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
We have had an interesting debate, and obviously I cannot deal with all the points that have been raised.
484
However, I should like to comment on just a few. When he opened the debate the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said that the value of the quota arises from a combination of assets. That point was mentioned by other noble Lords. In fact, it does not. The value of quota arises from the political decision to introduce quotas and bureaucratic decisions regarding the method of implementation. That is not merely semantics. The source of value goes to the heart of the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, also said that the transfer of quota represents the capitalisation of quota rights. That is the CLA argument. The NFU and Tenant Farmers Association say, on the other hand, that it is the capitalisation of the future income stream from keeping sheep. I ask the Minister which side of the argument he comes down on—the CLA point of view or the NFU point of view?
A number of references were also made to the uncertainty that will be created over the letting of land in future. In my view the present uncertainty is due to the Government's proposals for tenancy reform in relation to the freedom of contract. Are we really to believe that landowners are queuing up at present to create new secure, lifetime lettings before they know the details of the new legislation which is promised, one hopes, for the 1995–96 Session? That uncertainty will stop the creation of new tenancies much more than the problems relating to sheep quotas.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, mentioned the fact that windfall gains arise in land ownership and land occupation. An example is the windfall gain in land values resulting from the granting of planning permission for development. That again is a value created by bureaucratic decision. Under landlord and tenant law, the tenancy can then be terminated and the compensation which has to be paid to the tenant is a few years' rent, which bears little relationship to the increase in value accruing to the landowner. I am not aware of many cases where the landowner has offered to share the windfall surplus value equitably with the tenant.
Some speakers said that there should be a nil value for the quota. I cannot help wondering whether that argument would have been adduced so strongly if the sheep quota had been attached to the land, thereby creating an interest in the quota for the landlord. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley—as always—expressed extremely well the difference of opinion which now exists between tenants and the Conservative Government on one side of the argument and substantial landowners on the other. To coin a phrase, it's a funny old world.
As I said, very real anxieties have been expressed, especially with regard to the way in which the regulations affect the vulnerable upland areas. We shall all listen to the Minister's reply with interest. I hope that he can assuage the considerable doubts that have been expressed. I understand from a number of observations that if he cannot do so, noble Lords opposite are wondering what they might do if the Motion is pushed to a vote. I would entirely understand those noble Lords opposite who wish to show their displeasure by voting

485
for the Motion and against the Government. I can assure them that it is not in the least difficult. On this side of the House we do it all the time.
I should like to conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, for putting down the Motion. Like the rest of the House, I await the Minister's reply with great interest.
7.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, every so often in your Lordships' House we debate an issue which arouses strong, if not passionate, feelings. One such is the subject of my noble friend's Motion this afternoon. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, because this debate has served to present me with a very clear idea of the anxieties which your Lordships feel most keenly. I shall therefore now seek to respond to those anxieties, to explain the Government's stance in these matters; and to set out the measures which we have taken to alleviate—I hope substantially—some of the problems which have been identified. At the end, I hope very much that my noble friend will find it possible to withdraw his Motion without a Division, both in the light of what I am about to say and in the knowledge that points raised in the debate will be studied closely by Ministers.
I recognise the anxiety which has been expressed about the impact which quotas may have on the land and on those who have an interest in the land. Let me therefore make clear from the outset the Government's approach to quotas. During the discussions leading up to the reform of the CAP in the livestock sector last year, the UK repeatedly stated its opposition to the introduction of quotas. We resisted their introduction for some time during the Community negotiations precisely because we believed that they would introduce distortions within the sector and so inhibit necessary adjustments, and create new and unwelcome bureaucracy for all. The Community as a whole did not share our view—in fact the UK was in a minority of one—and quotas were adopted last year as a means of constraining the future cost of the livestock regimes.
The Council of Ministers, however, sought to avoid some of the difficulties to which quotas can give rise. In particular, it decided that the quotas should be allocated to producers, and should not be attached to the land. In that decision lies the origins of this debate. A number of noble Lords have said today that their concerns would be resolved if quota were tied to land. But the Council recognised that, because quotas inevitably introduce rigidities into the farming industry by making it more difficult for producers to develop their enterprises in line with the needs of the market, those rigidities are reduced if producers are able freely to buy or lease-in quota as their businesses expand, and to sell or lease-out quota if they choose to diversify into other sectors. That freedom can only be achieved in its fullest sense if quota is not tied to the land. The Council was also mindful of the administrative, legal and other difficulties which have emerged in the dairy sector from the attachment of milk quota to land. Again, this decision on the ownership of quotas rested with the Council as a whole; had we
486
chosen to argue the opposite case, there is no doubt that we would have failed. That explains why quotas are not attached to land and I must make it clear that it is an issue over which member states have no discretion.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton asked why there should be no discretion, and why subsidiarity should not apply. If there is to be a common organisation of the market for livestock production, the EC regulations on livestock quotas must be adopted in every member state in a way which does not distort competition between producers in the Community as a whole. That common organisation of the market is fundamental to the CAP; and I am sure that noble Lords who insist on a level playing field in other areas of the single market will recognise that it is just as important in this area.
The Government recognise, however, that although a system of freely tradable quotas mitigates some of the problems which arise with any quota system, it also creates other potential problems. My noble friend's Motion identifies that when it refers to the problems which arise from the transferability of quotas away from particular holdings and the need to "protect vulnerable livestock rearing areas and the communities that depend on them". Those are concerns which the Government share. We have accepted from the outset that the transfer of quota by producers away from the land on which it was initially exercised could lead to certain areas becoming unattractive for sheep and suckler cow production. On land where no alternative profitable enterprises are possible, this could, in some cases, lead to some environmental and economic problems. The Motion suggests that the Government have not taken sufficient measures to address those potential problems, and calls upon the Government to introduce further measures. Let us first, however, examine the steps which the Government have taken.
First, I refer to the protection of vulnerable livestock rearing areas. The Community rules require member states to take the necessary measures to avoid quota being moved away from sensitive zones or regions where sheep or suckler cow production is especially important for the local economy. The Government have defined seven such sensitive areas, out of which ewe premium and suckler cow premium quota may not be transferred except under very limited exceptional circumstances. These areas are: the lowlands of Great Britain, the English less-favoured areas, the Welsh less-favoured areas, the less-favoured areas of the Scottish Highlands and islands, the remainder of the Scottish less-favoured areas, the Northern Ireland less-favoured areas and the Northern Ireland lowlands. This approach reflects both the Government's policy of retaining extensive livestock product ion in the less-favoured areas, and the need to retain a balance between the livestock sectors in the hills and in the lowlands.
The aim of ring-fencing quota in this way is to ensure that large differences in the demand for quota between areas do not result in quota draining from one area, to the detriment of its environment and its local economy. The ring-fences are real protective barriers. However, in creating ring-fences we had to be mindful of the need not to introduce so many of them that they have the

487
effect of freezing the structure of the industry. Some noble Lords have suggested today that more ring-fences should be created. The risk, however, is that that would simply introduce new and artificial rigidities into the sector, without providing any real additional protection for the environment or the industry. That would be in nobody's interest. The Government consulted widely on their proposals for ring-fencing earlier this year. Those proposals were widely welcomed as likely to meet the objective of protecting vulnerable areas without introducing unnecessary strains into the industry. I say to my noble friends on the Benches behind me in particular that there is no evidence that this approach is failing in its objectives, nor that it is likely to fail in the future. It is premature to say that ring-fencing of quota needs to be tighter. Moreover, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has given a clear and firm undertaking to monitor the operation of our ring-fencing policy carefully. She has also given an undertaking that, if any distortions do emerge, the Government will look, where possible, to introduce amendments so as to mitigate those effects. I hope that that undertaking helps to meet a part of the concern which has been expressed in the House today.
Turning to the concerns of those who have an interest in the land, the Government recognise the desirability of discouraging speculative transfers of quota from a holding, as well as the predicament of landowners whose land may be affected thereby. We have therefore taken measures by means of the national quota reserve. The Community regulations require member states to operate national quota reserves for both sheep and suckler cow premium and to allocate quota as may be necessary to help alleviate distortions. In the first year of operation of those reserves—in other words for the 1993 schemes—priority for receiving allocations must go to a number of clearly defined hardship and exceptional cases: in essence producers who, for one reason or another, have not received an automatic allocation of quota matching their production in the reference periods, but who nonetheless remain genuine producers.
For subsequent years, however, different priorities can, and will, apply. Under the Community rules, the reserve itself is to be re-stocked with quota by means of a "siphon" on quota transfers, as many noble Lords have mentioned. The siphon applies only in cases where quota is transferred by a producer without a simultaneous transfer of the holding. Again the Government accept that where quota is transferred away from its initial holding, this may, in some cases have some adverse environmental or social consequences. That might, for example, be the case where a landlord finds it difficult on marginal land to attract a new tenant who either already holds his own quota, or is prepared to acquire new quota.
To address that risk, the Government have set the siphon, on quota transfers which take place without transfer of the holding, at the maximum level—and I emphasise "maximum"—permitted under the Community rules; that is to say at 15 per cent. of any quota transferred. We have two objectives in setting the siphon at this level. First, we intend that it should
488
discourage speculative transfers of quota by producers. And a siphon, or "tax", of 15 per cent. on such transfers should go a considerable way towards achieving that. Secondly, we want to ensure that, where such transfers take place, we maximise the quota that is made available as a consequence to the national reserve. Building on that, we intend from the 1994 schemes onwards to give a very high priority, when allocating quota from the reserves, to producers who take over land from which quota has been removed by the previous, outgoing tenant. Landowners themselves would be eligible to apply. Again, that undertaking should, I hope, bring a measure of comfort to those who have expressed concerns on that matter.
Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend Lord Swinton. The siphon is avoidable. If tenants wish to leave farming they have a direct incentive to sell the quota to a successor tenant and so avoid the siphon. In answer to my noble friend Lord Lyell, the siphon does not operate where the tenant transfers his sheep farming operation to another holding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, expressed worries arising out of her own difficulties in obtaining quota. My honourable friend the Minister of State wrote to the noble Baroness in the summer. The advice given in that letter still stands. Allocations of sheep quota were made automatically to producers who received payments under the 1991 sheep annual premium scheme and who also submitted a claim for premium in 1992. There are, however, special provisions for those who, like the noble Baroness, claimed premium for the first time in 1992. We hope to be able to invite applications to a pool of quota for 1992 first-time claimants and to the national reserve later in the year.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the Minister that that answer to the farmers who did not receive the quota, "later in the year", has been the answer all along. May I ask the noble Earl how late is "later"?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it should not be long now.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked about the quota rules for management agreements supervised by English Nature. We have negotiated with the Commission an arrangement under which producers taking part in an environmental scheme notified as a state aid to the Commission may lease quota for the life of the environmental scheme, rather than for a maximum of three years, which is the normal rule. I am, therefore, glad to say that the relaxation of the leasing rules would apply to any English Nature management agreement which has been notified as a state aid. It is for English Nature itself to arrange for notification of those arrangements.
The priority categories in the national reserve will be set out in a statutory instrument which we hope will be laid within the next few weeks. The quota available in the national reserve will be limited and it is therefore necessary to draw the categories fairly tightly. However, we propose to have a category covering producers who need extra quota as a result of reversion from arable to grazing. English Nature schemes will be eligible under that category.

489
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether the less favoured areas would be given priority when quota is allocated from the national reserve. The siphon on quota transfers and allocations from the national reserve will observe the ring-fencing rules which apply more generally to the movement of quota. In simple terms, there are separate compartments of the national reserve corresponding to each ring fence. Therefore, except in very limited exceptional circumstances, quota siphoned from a producer within a ring fence will be reallocated to another producer within that ring fence.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked this question: if a commoner is currently not exercising his rights, what is his position in relation to acquiring quota? A producer will only receive quota automatically at the outset if he was a producer in the relevant reference years. A commoner not exercising his rights in the quota reference period will not, therefore, have received an initial allocation of quota unless he was a producer on other land. If he chooses to exercise his common land rights in the future, he may purchase or lease quota from other producers. He may also qualify for one of the categories eligible to receive quota from the national reserve, although I should emphasise that that will depend on his individual circumstances. There is no specific priority category for commoners seeking to use their rights. For completeness, I should mention that he would also be free to graze the land without quota, although I accept that that is unlikely to be an economically viable option for many producers.
I understand the desire of some noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Middleton and the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, to secure an assurance from the Government that the amount of quota available in the reserves will be sufficient to cover all holdings where quota has been removed by an outgoing tenant. Let me explain why I cannot give such an assurance, much as I should like to. We do not yet know the extent to which transfers of quota will take place without transfers of the holding. We do not know whether these transfers will predominantly involve producers farming tenanted land. And we do not know how many of these transfers will affect "vulnerable" land where it would otherwise be difficult to retain livestock production. We cannot therefore know precisely the likely future supply of quota to the reserve, nor the likely demand for quota from it.
While it is therefore impossible to give the type of assurance which some noble Lords are seeking, I can assure the House that these three measures—the ring-fences, the siphon and priority from the national reserve—are all the steps the Government are permitted to take under the Community legal framework. There are no other measures which we are legally able to adopt. I should, however, like to make one additional point. The environmental, social or economic problems to which a number of noble Lords have referred are, as yet, theoretical problems. I do not wish in any way to belittle the concerns that have been voiced but there is no evidence yet that these problems are, in practice, emerging in marginal or sensitive areas.
My noble friends Lord Swinton and Lady Elliot and others have expressed particular concern about the
490
uplands. These are important concerns, but I do not think that we should ignore the possibility that quotas may exert pressures on rents and land values in the opposite direction from that which landlords fear. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out, already we are seeing a greater confidence and buoyancy in the livestock sector, reflected in market prices, in exactly the same way as the fortunes of the dairy sector improved after the introduction of milk quotas. Other factors, such as the structure of HLCAs, may very well influence the extent to which severely disadvantaged areas remain tenanted.
My point is that there are factors which work in the landlord's interests and we simply do not know at this stage whether some of the problems identified with quotas are more apparent than real.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton raised an argument that I believe is a red herring. It is that the regulations will result in a drain of capital from the industry I believe that that concern is misplaced. It is traditionally the case that when producers retire they pass on their assets, whether those be land, livestock or other equipment, to their successors. Or they sell them to other producers. Where they choose to sell those assets, other producers wishing to enter the sector or to expand their businesses buy them. Thus, although an outgoing producer may choose to retire on the proceeds of selling his assets, he can only do so to the extent that others are prepared to bring new proceeds into the industry to acquire those assets.
My noble friend also raised his doubts about vulnerable areas ceasing to be viable if quota is transferred away from holdings. While I am sure that we should be alive to those concerns, the environmental consequences of quota transfers should not be exaggerated. The total sheep and suckler cow quota in the UK is based on recent stocking numbers. 'Therefore, the introduction of quotas will not by itself lead to a reduction in livestock production. Despite any effect which quotas may have on land values, a similar amount of land is likely to be required for livestock production now to that required before quotas were introduced. Moreover, it will surely be the case that, where tenants leave their holdings, others who already have quota or who are willing to acquire quota will be prepared to bid for that land.
I wish now to turn to the second aim of the Motion: that of seeking measures,
"sufficient to provide full redress",
for the adverse effects which derive from,
"the transferability of quotas away from particular holdings".
The introduction of quotas in the agricultural sector can have some significant and complicated economic effects within and across the sector. It can, for example, affect the value of various assets, including breeding livestock, farm machinery and land. The economists will tell us that, in general, as quotas acquire a value the value of other assets will fall to a greater or lesser degree. There can even be knock-on effects outside the livestock sector. In the light of that, it is abundantly clear that it would be impossible, so long as the quota system is in place, to devise a mechanism which would be,
"sufficient to provide full redress",

491
for all those individuals who are adversely affected, one way or another, by the introduction of quotas. It is a practical impossibility.
Having emphasised that point, I accept that my noble friends Lord Hamilton and Lord Middleton are concerned in particular about the effect which the introduction of quotas may have on the value of land. Let me say at once that I understand that concern. The Government have acknowledged from the outset that, all other things being equal, one consequence of introducing a system of freely tradable quotas will be to increase the value of assets held by producers, who gain a new asset in the quota itself, while reducing the value of assets held by landowners, because land values may fall. The economic explanation of this effect is rather complicated and I do not propose to give a detailed exposition of it today. However, the theoretical effect itself can be expressed quite simply as a windfall gain to producers generally at the expense of owners of land.
During the Community negotiations on quotas, the Government explored fully the possibility of securing provisions in the Community legislation which would have allowed this transfer of asset value to be addressed. Most other member states, and the European Commission, were, however, extremely reluctant to include provisions to this effect because they considered that the quota should be allocated unequivocally to the producer and that landowners should not have any claim on it whatsoever. What we therefore got from the Commission were only limited powers whose wording is clear. They are powers requiring member states, where necessary, to take the appropriate transitional measures,
"to find just solutions to problems which may arise in existing contractual arrangements",
in the event of a transfer of quota by a tenant or other actions having the same effect. The crucial point here is that the provision identifies the problem to be addressed as occurring at the point of a quota transfer.
The wording of the Motion before the House today explains precisely why the provision we were granted cannot be used to introduce the type of compensation measures which are being sought for landlords. As the Motion clearly states, any "adverse economic effects" for landlords arise from the "transferability" of quotas. In other words, any loss in the value of land is a consequence not of actual transfers of quota away from the holding but of the introduction of transferable quotas and their attachment to producers. If there is a loss in the value of land, it affects all land capable of sheep or suckler cow production, regardless of whether, in the case of tenanted land, any quota is subsequently transferred or removed by the tenant. The Government have taken detailed professional advice on this matter. The advice is clear that any loss to landlords in terms of a fall in actual rents is likely to take place at the first rent review following allocation of the quota; not when the quota is subsequently transferred or removed by the tenant. My noble friend quoted Commissioner Steichen's remarks in this context. But member states
492
are required to act on their legal interpretation of EC legislation and not on the view of any Commission official.
In the light of that, I hope that it is easy to explain the Government's firm legal view that we simply do not have the powers to implement a scheme whereby all tenants with quota would compensate their landlords. The Community legislation provides only for member states to address problems arising from actual and particular quota transfers. Given that any losses which landlords may see in the value of their land derive instead from the introduction of the quota system, the Government believe very firmly indeed that they have neither the power nor the obligation to introduce a compensation scheme for landlords.
I think that there is something else I should say. I would not wish the House to be left with any mistaken impression that if the legal powers were available a compensation scheme could be devised which would be straightforward to operate and which would satisfy all parties. That would simply not be possible. Indeed, there is a real risk that any scheme would not only be costly to operate but would give rise to new inequities, arbitrary treatment and discrimination between producers. Let me illustrate that very briefly.
I have already explained that if there is to be a fall in actual rents this is most likely to occur at the first rent review following allocation of the quota. Even if legal powers were available to address this loss, it would give rise to very serious practical difficulties and problems of equity. For example, if compensation were to be made payable at this time (at the time quota is allocated), tenants would be required to pay compensation to their landlords even though they remained producers and may not have sold or leased out their quota. This could be both highly disruptive and unfair. If on the other hand compensation were delayed until some later date, there would similarly be formidable problems in assessing the precise extent of losses which could have taken place years, or perhaps even decades, earlier. There is a particular further difficulty over short-term letting arrangements. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to devise practicable compensation mechanisms in respect of producers who hold their land under short-term lets. The prospect of some producers paying compensation while others avoided the burden entirely would create further, damaging inequities. For these and other reasons the Government believe, and have stated firmly, that a compensation scheme would not any way be in the best interests of the sector as a whole.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to summarise what I have said. We have taken all the appropriate steps which are available to us under the Community legislation to address the concerns which have given rise to this debate. To those who have said that these steps are inadequate and have pressed us to go further, I must emphasise that there are no other steps which it is desirable for us to take or which we can legally take. If there was anything else we could do, we would have already done it. I would, however, also emphasise that the problems which we are addressing are at this stage still theoretical: there is as yet no real evidence that economic or environmental problems are

493
emerging from the introduction of quotas in the hills or elsewhere. Let us not therefore decide that the Government's actions are inadequate before we have any evidence that that is the case.
On the issue of compensation, I have explained why it is not realistic to suggest that a mechanism could be devised to provide full redress for all those—whether they be producers or others—who may be adversely affected by the introduction of quotas.
There is, however, a further consideration which I would ask my noble friend Lord Hamilton to reflect upon most particularly. Noble Lords will be aware that the Country Landowners' Association has challenged the Government's position over a compensation scheme for landlords by seeking a judicial review. That is the CLA's privilege and it goes without saying that the Government will abide by the decision of the courts, whatever that may be. However, it is now a matter for the courts to resolve; and no resolution of your Lordships' House can inform or be of benefit to that process of law. Furthermore, the challenge to the Government in the courts in no way affects the legal position as we must now take it to be and as I have outlined it to your Lordships; and I would ask my noble friend to consider whether it is desirable for your Lordships' House to instruct the Government to take action which it would not be legal for the Government to take. I believe it is not; and I very much hope that my noble friend, whatever his feelings about the substantive points at issue, will see the importance of these wider considerations when he comes to decide what to do with his Motion.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I thank all my noble friends and all those noble Lords who have given us the experience of their enormously wide knowledge of the countryside; of farming in the hills, the lowlands and everywhere, and the terrible damage that will be done. Only the Government—and also, I have to say, my noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson—take the complacent view that in spite of the additional costs put on tenant farmers, they will continue to farm happily and pay hundreds of pounds an acre in order to continue in their business. All I can say is that if that were the case, the compensation mechanism which I propose would then offer no compensation because there would be no compensation to offer. But to have no such mechanism in place would simply mean that one would have to have a major disaster before the Government finally decided that something ought to be done. I believe that that is very unsafe.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret said that he thought that the cost of having a compensation scheme would be very high, and vast figures were bandied about. That is a nonsense. We do not claim that compensation arrangements should come into force until the quota rights are sold away. Therefore the matter would have to be settled then. If the Government were right and it becomes an issue as to when the quota is issued, there will still be rent reviews and all the mechanics will be gone through for deciding the value
494
and effect on the tenancy year by year. Therefore at some stage or another those costs will be incurred willy-nilly. Therefore I discount the argument that costs destroy these things.
Without keeping your Lordships for much longer, I must turn to the Government's case on their legal position. The Government's case depends on saying that they are legally incapable of doing anything about the matter. It would be extraordinary were we in this country to have a different system from that reigning in the rest of Europe, where tenant farmers are not a problem. This, my noble friend says. despite the assurances that I read out earlier from M. Steichen, what the commissioners have said and what appears to be the general interpretation of Article 13, put in specifically by the Government, with the Community's agreement, to solve problems which are particular to this country because of its tenant farmer relations.
I am not prepared to watch this Government destroy the tenant farmer relationship. Many noble Lords have expressed their great concern about what will happen to their tenants. This is not an issue between landlords and tenants. We are friends with our tenants, we work in co-operation with them and their affairs are our affairs. It is our business to make sure that our tenants survive happily.
I cannot sit down without asking your Lordships to give me their opinion on this matter.
8.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 52.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Aldenham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Kintore, E.

Barnard, L.

Kitchener, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Knutsford, V.

Boardman, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bridges, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Lytton, E.

Burton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Manton, L.

Chorley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Clinton, L.

Middleton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Moran, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cross, V.

Mulley, L.

Daventry, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

De L'lsle, V.

Norrie, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.

Palmer, L.

Devonport, V.

Peel, E.

Donegall, M.

Ridley, V.

Dormer, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Downshire, M.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gray, L.

Salisbury, M.

Halifax, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Halsbury, E.

Somerset, D.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Harrowby, E.

Walpole, L.

Hastings, L.

Westbury, L.

Hertford, M.

Wharton, B.

Holderness, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Hothfield, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Yarborough, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

495

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Arran, E.

Hacking, L.

Astor, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Blatch, B.

Hemphill, L.

Blyth, L.

Henley, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hives, L.

Caithness, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carnock, L.

Howe, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cranborne, V.

Long, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Lonsdale, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lyell, L.

Elton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Faithfull, B.

Marlesford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Melville, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

496

Seccombe, B.

Suffield, L.

Sharples, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Stewartby, L.

Vinson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wakeham, L.

Strathclyde, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Wise, L.

[Teller.]

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.

  GIBRALTAR MOORISH CASTLE: HM PRISON
  GIBRALTAR MOORISH CASTLE: HM PRISON
  SENEGAL: INVESTMENT BY COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  SENEGAL: INVESTMENT BY COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  CONSTRUCTION DEREGULATION TASK FORCE
  CONSTRUCTION DEREGULATION TASK FORCE
  MEPs: PAY AND EMOLUMENTS
  MEPs: PAY AND EMOLUMENTS
  ECOFIN: DRAFT BUDGET DISCUSSIONS
  ECOFIN: DRAFT BUDGET DISCUSSIONS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE
  BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE
  M.20 MOTORWAY ROADWORKS
  M.20 MOTORWAY ROADWORKS
  EC TOBACCO MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
  EC TOBACCO MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
  HSE GUIDANCE NOTE MS17: AVAILABILITY
  HSE GUIDANCE NOTE MS17: AVAILABILITY
  ARMED FORCES: OPERATIONAL GALLANTRY AWARDS
  ARMED FORCES: OPERATIONAL GALLANTRY AWARDS
  SUB-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR CAPABILITY
  SUB-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR CAPABILITY
  RN AND RAF VOLUNTEER RESERVES
  RN AND RAF VOLUNTEER RESERVES
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS, DEVONPORT AND ROSYTH
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS, DEVONPORT AND ROSYTH
  LOW COST RURAL HOUSING: OCCUPANCY CONDITIONS
  LOW COST RURAL HOUSING: OCCUPANCY CONDITIONS
  POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION: ENFORCEMENT
  POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION: ENFORCEMENT
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 5th OCTOBER
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 5th OCTOBER
  HALON
  HALON