Sitting of 19 October 1993

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

  UNIBANK BILL [Lords]
  Orders for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 21 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Low Pay (Lancashire)
    Mr. Pike:To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with jobcentres in Lancashire on low pay.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth):None, Madam.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that it is an absolute scandal that in a survey of five jobcentres in Lancashire in September 1992, 45.8 per cent. of jobs on offer paid less than £99 per week? Will not he recognise that the Government's abolition of the wages councils has increased the number of jobs offering less than £3 an hour? Is not it time that the Government started to give workers in the country fair pay for a fair day's work?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman had gone up the road to the jobcentre in Victoria earlier in the summer, he would have seen a job advertised at no pay at all, placed by his hon. and learned Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment. That job was to work for two months with expenses and resulted in an individual being placed in full-time paid work. That is the job of the Employment Service and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate it on the splendid work that it is doing.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that many fewer citizens of Lancaster will require the services of the jobcentre, because unemployment fell by 179 last month, which takes us below the national average and below the regional average.
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right, not only in what she says about her constituency, but in what is happening up and down the country. Unemployment in the past month fell in every region, and Britain is leading Europe out of recession. We are the only country in Europe, apart from
    130
    Ireland, that has seen falling unemployment this year. That is entirely due to the policies pursued by the Government, which are opposed by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Dobson: Referring to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), how can the Minister justify a situation in which many jobs in Lancashire pay less per hour than the £2.50 a minute that is paid to the boss of the privatised North West Water plc?
    Mr. Forsyth: As anyone who is involved in helping unemployed people find jobs knows, for those people who have been out of work for a long time it is most important that they should have an opportunity to have a job that will give them experience. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when people are on low pay, family credit and other benefits ensure that incomes are maintained. The truth of the matter is that if the hon. Gentleman had his way with a national minumum wage, 2 million people would be thrown on the dole. The people of Britain do not want that, which is why he is sitting on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory and insulting nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise matters on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to higher pay—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am very remiss. That point of order closes the question. I overlooked that.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in manufacturing industry in Somerset, Wiltshire, Devon and Cornwall, respectively, in 1983 and at the latest available date.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): The information is not available in the form requested, but I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the number employed in the civilian work force in the south-west between 1983 and 1993 rose by 279,000—the highest increase of any region in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Taylor: But if the Minister had answered the question that he was asked, he would have accepted that manufacturing employment had fallen dramatically in those areas, most of all in Cornwall, and that many local businesses associate that with the Government policies that have given us the highest gas, electricity and water prices in the country, yet lower levels of support than other deprived areas such as Scotland and Wales. Does the Secretary of State accept the case of the business men who feel that it is time that the south-west was given a fair deal by the Government?
    Mr. Hunt: I cannot quite follow the hon. Gentleman's question—[interruption.] I know that he is only a Liberal, I shall take the Liberals seriously when they take politics and decision making seriously. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to the substantial rise in the number of self-employed people in the south-west, which has risen from 215,000 in 1983 to almost 300,000 now. That bodes well for the future of the south-west.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Liberal party is the most federalist party in the House of Commons and has called, throughout, for the full cost of the social chapter to be dumped on British employers? How many jobs would have been destroyed in the west country if the social charter had been implemented in full?
    Mr. Hunt: Undoubtedly, thousands of jobs would be destroyed if we were to implement the policies proposed by the official Opposition and the Liberal party. I recall that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was once a defence spokesman for the Liberal party.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hunt: The musical chairs stopped in that direction at one stage. Of course, the Liberal party's defence policies would destroy many defence jobs in the south-west, which would be bad news.

    Northern Region
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had recently with the Northern Development Company about increasing employment prospects in the northern region.
    Mr. David Hunt: I met Dr. John Bridge, the chief executive of the Northern Development Company, recently and had a useful discussion with him.
    Mr. Thompson: The Secretary of State must be aware of the fact—he should have nightmares about it—that unemployment in the northern region in 1990 was 120,000 and had risen in September 1993 to 171,000–17 per cent. of that figure consisted of those aged between 16 and 18. Would it not be better if he and his Department took a greater interest in the excellent work of the NDC which is supported by local authorities, trade unions and employers in industry in the district? To my knowledge, his Department has shown little interest. It would be helpful for the northern region if his Department would get off its backside and show that it has an interest in reducing unemployment in the northern region.
    Mr. Hunt: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the Wansbeck initiative, which brings together the key players. I had understood that the hon. Gentleman was an observer on the Wansbeck initiative. If he were, and had been attending, he would know that my Department attends and is part of the initiative, as is the Employment Service, the Department of Trade and Industry, churches, trade unions, local councils, the Northern Development Company and the Northumberland training and enterprise council. May I have the hon. Gentleman's support in wishing the Wansbeck initiative every success in future? I believe that that partnership has the determination and skill to turn the problems of Wansbeck into the problems of success.
    Mr. Bates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest edition of "Business Survey North"—a quarterly survey of 764 firms in the northern region conducted by the Northern Development Company—was published this morning? Is he aware that it pointed to business confidence being at its highest level for three years, investment in plant and machinery being at record levels and profits at their highest levels since the survey began? Does not that give the true
    132
    picture of the diverse and dynamic economy in the northern region, which is very different from the gloomy one so often painted by the Labour party?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is sad that the Labour party does so much to talk down the northern region and the United Kingdom. Our GDP—whole economy output—has risen for five consecutive quarters, manufacturing output is up 1.25 per cent. on 12 months ago and industrial production is up by 2.5 per cent. As my hon. Friend said, we are leading Europe out of recession, through recovery and into growth. It is about time that Opposition Members realised that and paid tribute to the work carried out.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What can Ministers do to help the Northern Development Company find a tenant or a new owner for the 500,000 sq ft former Leyland Volvo national plant in my constituency?
    Mr. Hunt: Create the background environment in which people will find the opportunity to create more jobs and more opportunities. The last thing that we should do is adopt the policies of the Labour party by introducing a statutory minimum wage, and adhering to the social chapter, which would destroy millions of jobs in this country.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the figures for the last three months for unemployment in Basildon.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Unemployment has fallen in Basildon for the past three months. The figures are 9,149 in July; 9,009 in August; and 8,841 in September.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the summer recess, in my constituency, I opened Mobil Oil's Pegasus training centre, the United Kingdom headquarters of Cosatto, which makes the finest prams and cots in the world, and the international headquarters of Hay Pollock, freight forwarders? Does my hon. Friend agree that that, together with the downward trend in unemployment, is most encouraging and that, contrary to what the Opposition think, Basildon has a bright future?
    Mr. Forsyth: If only every constituency represented by Opposition Members had such a doughty champion as the people of Basildon, our work in the Department of Employment would be much easier.
    Ms Quin: Will the Minister confirm that unemployment in Basildon rocketed between 1990–93 by 126 per cent? Does he recall his colleagues saying to the people of Basildon and elsewhere that, if they voted Tory in the general election on Thursday, the recovery would begin on Friday? How was it, therefore, that unemployment in Basildon rose so sharply the following year? In the light of that appalling record, is it not clear that the voters in Basildon and elsewhere will never trust the Tories again, and that the only bright future that they are likely to experience is under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady, along with her hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), is getting a reputation for shooting messengers when they bring good news. The good news is that

    133
    unemployment is falling in Basildon. It is typical of the Labour party that it looks back to the past and not forward to the future.
    As to the socialists having the answer, is the hon. Lady not aware that a socialist Government in Spain are presiding over unemployment in excess of 20 per cent. and are now abandoning the policies of job protection, which were embraced by the Labour party conference a few weeks ago? The fact is that the Labour party is looking backwards and not forwards. That is why my hon. Friend will continue to represent Basildon for many years to come.

    School Leavers
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of Stale for Employment what steps he has taken to provide employment for 1993 school leavers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): All young people aged 16 and 17 are already guaranteed a place on youth training. Figures show that, if one has a qualification, one is more likely to be in employment. Those aged 18 or over benefit from a wide range of employment and training measures. I am delighted to say that, as a result of economic recovery and the YT guarantee, the increase in unemployment in July and August, when school leavers enter the labour market, was fewer than 10,000, compared with more than 90,000 for the same months last year.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: When the Minister stops being quite so pleased with herself, would she like to consider the fact that there are 22 people searching for every job vacancy? Will she seriously address the problem of youth unemployment, which is not only a disgrace to the country, but a great waste of human resources for which we shall all pay in the future?
    Miss Widdecombe: Dear, dear, dear. What little rays of sunshine the Opposition are. Perhaps I could spread some light and sunshine by pointing out to the hon. Lady that, in her constituency, there are only 33 young people waiting more than eight weeks for their offer. Therefore, youth employment is under considerable control in her constituency. Why does not she encourage the young people instead of trying to depress them?
    Sir Michael Neubert: As the matter has been raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), is not it apposite to point out that the Labour party's proposals for a minimum wage would severely worsen young people's prospects of employment? Has not that been the experience in France? Is not youth unemployment there higher than here?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. We have considerably lower youth unemployment than several countries in Europe and we are below the European average. If we were to sign up to a national minimum wage, or to the social chapter of which the Opposition are so fond, we should probably find ourselves on the European average or even worse. So once again, our policies have proved to be the best for the young people of Britain and my hon. Friend is right.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister admit that only one of the 22 people chasing each vacancy will be successful? Will
    134
    not the hon. Lady also admit that when the Secretary of State for Employment left school there were more jobs than there were people looking for them? When will the Tory Government give our school leavers the same job opportunities that the post-war Labour Government gave them?
    Miss Widdecombe: I need no lectures from the Opposition on opportunities for the young, because when we took over in 1979 only 28 per cent. of them stayed on in further education in schools. Today the figure is 56 per cent. We are devoted—[Interruption.]—The Opposition have summed up their view beautifully. They see education and training not as skilling for jobs but as optional. That is the philosophy of the dark ages. Training and education are essential if we are to have an internationally competitive work force. Our record on training and education is second to none. The Opposition merely have that of which they should be thoroughly ashamed.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should make education more relevant to the needs of the workplace? Is not the best help that we can give school leavers the elimination of illiteracy and innumeracy? Our education reforms are more likely to do that and is not it a scandal that they are opposed by the Opposition?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right. Our education reforms are crucially designed to ensure that people are equipped to enter the world of work. The training and enterprise councils that we have set up and which are operating so successfully exist specifically to bring business and education closer together and our education and business partnerships are doing just that. What have the Opposition to show? Have they one single initiative, one single proposed policy, that would do more than our policies are doing at the moment?

    Unemployment, West Yorkshire
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of local authorities in West Yorkshire to discuss unemployment.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had a request to meet representatives of the local authorities in West Yorkshire.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware of the great anger within West Yorkshire among local authorities and the public in general at the way in which the House was conned by the Government over the coal closure programme? Even before the present closure programme the Wakefield district had lost 20,000 mining-related jobs. Bearing in mind that the coalfield areas fund is based—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must have a question from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Bearing in mind that the coalfield areas fund was based on the assumption that 12 pits would be saved, which clearly will not happen, what steps will the Minister and the Government take to generate employment in areas such as Wakefield which have been devastated as a direct result of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not find time in his question to point out that the

    135
    Government have made available £75 million to create new jobs where jobs have been lost as a result of colliery closures. I am also surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not find time to refer to the new jobs that have been created in his constituency, such as—
    Mr. Skinner: There are none.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that there are none, but what about the 420 recruited by the jobcentre for Morrisons in the Wakefield constituency? There are a number which I shall not detain the House by listing. The Labour party must recognise that the only way to have secure employment is by being able to produce goods and services that people wish to buy.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that unemployment fell last month in every one of the 23 constituencies in West Yorkshire? What assessment has he made of the further prospects for job creation in the area, and the welcome change of policy by the European Community which enables areas such as the city centre of Leeds to qualify for objective 2 status?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the good news of falling unemployment as businesses take advantage of the economic conditions created by the Government in the teeth of opposition from Labour Members. The news on objective 2 status is welcome and is something for which the Government have campaigned long and hard. I am delighted that at least there is one Conservative Member who is prepared to take a positive and optimistic view of the future.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister tell the leaders of local councils in West Yorkshire, including Bradford—who are suffering because of the loss of assisted area status brought about by the Government—when the current level of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside of more than 10 per cent. will be down to the level of April 1979, which was 4.1 per cent? When does the Minister expect to equal the record of the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed, but unemployment is rising all over Europe and is approaching 18 million. Unemployment is highest among the young. Unemployment is also growing in those countries that have had the "benefit" of socialist Governments.

    Workstart
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in setting up the workstart pilot projects.
    Miss Widdecombe: The programme is now under way in all four pilot areas. The first long-term unemployed people were recruited under the programme and started work with employers in July.
    Mr. Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that this innovative scheme, which is rightly aimed at helping the long-term unemployed, will have to be carefully monitored? Does she further agree that, in monitoring the scheme, a great deal of weight should be attached to the benefits to society of getting the long-term unemployed back into work?
    Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the scheme. At the moment, it is going extremely well and it is thought by employers that long-term jobs will be created after the temporary period of employment is over. This is a very welcome initiative. As my hon. Friend said, the crucial thing in dealing with the long-term unemployed is to make sure that they have work experience and get back into the labour market, which is what this scheme is intended to do. I have high hopes for it.
    Mr. Flynn: Is not this just a new name for an old confidence trick? Does the Minister agree with her predecessor, who said that the main intention of her Department is to create almost entirely useless schemes in order to get the unemployed off the unemployment register? Does the Minister agree with Mr. Alan Clark?
    Miss Widdecombe: My predecessor, as the hon. Gentleman describes him, was in the Department of Employment a decade ago. The hon. Gentleman may not have caught up with events since then, but the unemployed have.

    Labour Markets
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives his Department has pursued to increase the flexibility of labour markets in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. David Hunt: My Department is taking a wide range of measures to improve labour market flexibility. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are doing our best to convince our European partners to follow the same policies. I certainly tried to do that at the Social Affairs Council last week.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. I congratulate him on as successful an outcome as may have been hoped for at the Social Affairs Council last week. In particular, I congratulate him on the veto that he applied to the works council directive, as he said he would at the Conservative conference. Is it not the case that the works council directive will be applied to the other 11 member states under the arrangements of the Maastricht treaty? How will we make the veto effective in the United Kingdom if British multinationals operating in Europe have to set up works councils as if they applied in the United Kingdom as well?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. First, on the veto that I applied, I made it clear that we were not prepared to contemplate the imposition, under the treaty of Rome, of statutory works councils in Europe. As my hon. Friend is aware, the social protocol, which Opposition Members would have us sign, exists and it now remains for the Eleven to consider how to proceed. I must tell my hon. Friend, however, that there is increasing evidence that our partners are coming round to our point of view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the evidence for that?"]. Wait a moment. There is, however, also evidence to show that all our companies must deal with the home laws of each country in which they trade, including the Community. What is clear is that a directive of the Eleven will not apply in the United Kingdom.

    137
    Opposition Members have shouted for the necessary evidence and I highlight today's edition of The Guardian —I do not often do that—which reports:
    "Jacques Delors has admitted that he is close to becoming a lame-duck president of the European Commission, unable to stop the community drifting towards 'an English-style Europe'."
    That is very good news for the United Kingdom and for the rest of the Community.
    Mr. Boyce: In Rotherham we have a steel plant that is recognised as one of the best in the country, if not in Europe, with a flexible work force second to none. It is proposed, however, that the Templeborough steel works will close at the end of December. What message of comfort can I take back to the 260 workers who will lose their jobs?
    Mr. Hunt: I regret any job losses anywhere in the United Kingdom, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that job losses would be threatened for thousands and millions of people if we were to adopt the policies that he and his hon. Friends urge on us in trying to make us sign up to a social protocol that would mean a more inflexible labour market. He must ask himself why more inward investment is coming to the United Kingdom than to any other part of the European Community. It is because everywhere else in the world sees the United Kingdom as a haven for inward investment.

    Training
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of the TEC movement to discuss training initiatives.
    Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets TEC representatives frequently to discuss the work on which they are engaged. Only yesterday, he and I met a group of TEC chairmen to discuss recent developments.
    Mr. Coombs: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to discuss with the Central England training and enterprise council the success of the training offered at Kidderminster college in my constituency, which has attracted a record number of entrants to its training programmes this year? The vast majority of those students are taking national vocational qualifications to a much higher level than ever before. Is that not evidence of the huge investment that the Government have been making in training programmes in the past 10 years and of the higher level of training that is now being attained through NVQs?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. I congratulate the TEC on the initiative in his constituency. It is certainly true that the Government place a great deal of emphasis on proper skilling of the work force through training and vocational qualifications. The local example that my hon. Friend has given is just one of many national examples, but it is an outstanding one.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: With graduate unemployment at 13 per cent. and with the Government actively encouraging more students to undertake further and higher education, does the Minister agree that that poses a serious problem? Can she tell us what initiatives she proposes to take through the TEC system to ensure that there are adequate jobs for those who complete further and higher education?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is still overwhelmingly the case that graduate unemployment is much lower than that experienced by those in general employment. For example, 5 per cent. of all graduates are unemployed, as opposed to the national unemployment level of just over 10 per cent. It is still overwhelmingly the case that if one is a graduate one has a better chance of employment. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we are concerned that graduates, along with everyone else, have had to bear their fair share of pain, but, along with everyone else, the number of unemployed graduates is falling and opportunities are growing. I will encourage TECs to find schemes and training that are suitable for graduates as well as all other unemployed people.
    Mr. Rathbone: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the Government's efforts to encourage company training schemes such as those that are being so admirably encouraged by Brighton university in Sussex? I believe that that is the largest company training scheme centre in Great Britain.
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, we are very keen that employers should not only train new recruits but train throughout life. We are encouraging lifelong training programmes through the investors in people programme, through company training initiatives and through our NVQs. We have made immense strides. Unlike the Opposition, we do not divide the functions of education and training from employment; they are interlinked and the Opposition should recognise that.
    Mr. Dobson: What representations has the Secretary of State received from training and enterprise councils about the Government's most dramatic trainiing initiative, the privatisation of skill centres? Before privatisation there were 60 skill centres, training more than 100,000 people. Just 27 are left, 13 of which have been sold to Mr. Patrick Doyle. Why have they been sold to Mr. Patrick Doyle? It cannot be because he has a reputation for integrity, because he was imprisoned for forgery and fraud; it cannot be because he has experience of running training schemes, because he has none. Is it because he has raised fuunds for the Conservative party? That he certainly has.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Miss Widdecombe: If hon. Members are keen to hear the answer perhaps they would like to listen.
    First, the hon. Gentleman asks what representations we have received from TECs. TECs have told us that they are satisfied that they can supply all the traininig that used to be supplied by the Astra outlets that have been closed. Secondly, 16 Astra outlets have so far been sold, and they have been sold as going concerns. We have no legal power to tell the receiver to whom he should sell the assets of a private company.

    Training
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received since 28 May about apprenticeships and the provision of training for 16 to 19-year-olds.
    Mr. David Hunt: Several, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Richards: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the recently introduced general national vocational

    139
    qualifications have been an outstanding success and that they are popular with 16 to 19-year-olds as well as with employers, who regard them as being especially relevant and important at the workplace?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right that the pilot scheme for GNVQs was extremely popular, and it is hoped that by 1996 one in four 16-year-olds will participate in GNVQ courses. GNVQs or vocational A-levels will provide an excellent grounding for the place of work, and many of the students attaining those qualifications will be able to build up their skills by obtaining NVQs as they progress through a lifetime of work.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister cast his mind back to the heady days of the 1970s, when there was hardly a motor component maker or a motor manufacturer in the west midlands that did not have an engineering apprenticeship school? One of the privileges of being a west midlands Member of Parliament was to attend the annual award ceremonies at apprenticeship schools. Can he confirm that since the Conservatives have come to office those schools have progressively closed and that few now exist? When does he hope to give school leavers the kind of apprenticeship opportunities that they had in abundance in the 1970s?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there are serious unemployment problems in the European Community, especially those of youth unemployment. Youth unemployment in this country is less than the European Community average. In, for example, Belgium, France and especially Spain, where youth unemployment is more than 30 per cent., there are some very serious problems. I have to recognise that I should like a return to the traditional form of apprenticeship and have said so on several occasions. I should very much like it to be based on learning rather than merely on time serving. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are considering various proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and I are considering the subject at the moment.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: First, may I say what a wonderful job the Dorset training and enterprise council is doing to encourage apprenticeships and skills training. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he will vigorously defend his budget and that of the TECs, as there is worry that more money might be switched to the academic education of that age group rather than to vocational training, which I believe all hon. Members value?
    Mr. Hunt: I recognise that there is a need to maintain a work-based vocational training scheme and readily accept what my hon. Friend has said. I join him in paying tribute to his TEC. I sometimes wish that Opposition Members would spend a little time, sit down with their TECs and give them the support that they need, in the way that my hon. Friend has said that he does.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: When the Government abolished the right for 16 and 17-year-olds to claim benefit, the previous Secretary of State said that young people would be guaranteed a training place. Since that time, 18,000 has been the highest figure that the Government have accepted for youth unemployment. The Department's labour force survey made it clear that more than 125,000 16 and 17-year-olds had no jobs and are not in educational training —they were the unemployed. Can the Secretary of State
    140
    tell the House what happened to those 107,000 young people who were denied benefit, training and a job? Did he mislay them or simply fiddle the figures?
    Mr. Hunt: The Opposition have to think seriously about the way in which they approach this serious subject. If the unemployment figures go up, they shout, "Bad news". When they go down, they shout, "Bad figures", which is a disgraceful imputation on the independent statisticians in my office. Every time that we hear that accusation I know that it greatly upsets those who work in my Department. They have invited the shadow spokesman to the Department of Employment so that he can hear the truth. As I understand it, that invitation had still not received a positive response from the hon. Gentleman before I came to the Chamber this afternoon.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what areas unemployment has fallen over the past six months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: Every region in the United Kingdom experienced a fall in unemployment last month and, in eight out of 11 regions, a fall in unemployment so far this year.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome that news very warmly as will all right-thinking people. Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a conference with Sir Ron Dearing and heads, teachers, parents and pupils in my constituency last week it was unanimously agreed that the education of children in schools has to be geared to prepare them for a very competitive world? Does he think that the Labour and Liberal parties are aware of that need? They do not seem to show it.
    Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The stream of doom and gloom that comes from the Opposition Benches does much to mar the achievements of the British people, in particular that of leading Europe out of the recession. Britain, as he rightly points out, is in very good shape to benefit from the recovery, with manufacturing productivity growth in 1993 the highest for six years and growing faster than in any other major country, and with earnings growth the lowest for 25 years. Unemployment has already fallen by 84,000, and that bodes well for the future.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency of Blyth Valley unemployment has increased, so it must be one of the few areas where, according to him, that is happening? Is he aware that this afternoon we delivered a petition from the trainees of Blyth Valley to the Prime Minister, expressing the lack of hope among, and the lack of a future for, young people in my constituency? What will he do about that? When will the Government get off their backsides and do something about it?
    Mr. Hunt: Those young people will lack hope if they listen to the hon. Gentleman. He and his hon. Friends bear a heavy responsibility for trying to talk down the prospects for this country of ours. With unemployment having fallen in every part of the United Kingdom last month, the prospects are good. With strikes at their lowest for

    141
    60 years, the prospects are good. With GDP whole economy output up for five successive quarters, the prospects are good. They would be even better if people listened to my right hon. Friends and me instead of to the siren voices of gloom on the Opposition Benches.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mandelson: Does the Prime Minister agree that the task of the Budget is to raise revenue without preventing recovery? Does he also agree that at least £5 billion worth of revenue is being avoided by individuals, companies and wealthy foreigners who are abusing the tax system? As that is twice the amount that would be raised if VAT were applied to fuel, will he give an assurance this afternoon that, in the forthcoming Budget, he will ensure that the interests of pensioners and families are put before those of tax dodgers?
    The Prime Minister: We have done a great deal in recent years to try to cut out tax avoidance. In each and every Budget my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will examine that matter to see whether there is more to be done. It is right that that should be done; it will be done.
    As for the recovery, I think that the hon. Gentleman will concede that it seems to have taken root—the evidence for that is becoming unmistakable. The hon. Gentleman does not dispute that, but if some of his hon. Friends care to dispute it perhaps they should look at the forecasts by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, by the International Monetary Fund and by the European Commission—quite apart from domestic forecasts.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the deregulation Bill that the Government propose to introduce in the next Session of Parliament will be both tough and effective? Is not that the best way to strengthen the successful supply side measures of the 1980s?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about that. We made great strides in the 1980s in supply side changes and in making the economy more competitive, and we now have to build on them both at home and abroad. I can confirm that there will be a deregulation Bill in the next Session; a Bill which I believe is of the utmost importance for British business and in particular for British manufacturing industry.
    142
    We know that the route to more jobs is less regulation and less Government red tape, and we propose to introduce legislation to achieve that.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister have the remotest appreciation of the overwhelming hostility throughout the nation to impossing VAT on domestic fuel? In addition to its obvious unfairness, is there not now evidence that the Government's tax increases imperil consumer confidence and any hope of a recovery? In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman now abandon these foolish proposals?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—both I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made the position clear—that the extra VAT is a vital part of our policies to reduce public borrowing, but we will offer help to vulnerable people.
    If the tax is as obnoxious as the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims, why did the Labour conference vote "for a general shift in taxation…towards energy resource use". What is that other than VAT?
    Mr. John Smith: Let me remind the Prime Minister that during the last election campaign he claimed that the difference between the parties was that he would not increase taxes; in particular—he must remember this point —he would not increase or extend VAT or impose taxes on income.
    Does he deny that he has now imposed swingeing increases on VAT, and is increasing national insurance contributions from 9 to 10 per cent? If the latter is not a tax on income, what is? Will the Prime Minister now apologise for the Conservative party's deceit at the last election?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been caught out, and everyone will have noticed that he did not respond remotely to my question.
    It is high time that there was a sensible debate on the issue, during which the Opposition could tell the public the truth about their policies on VAT and domestic fuel. As the Labour party's own journal made clear in summer, the party has been quite clearly considering
    "energy tax and taxing polluting activities".
    However much the right hon. and learned Gentleman wriggles to make cheap party political points, he cannot escape the reality of his party's commitments.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the Prime Minister explain how he has escaped from the reality of his promise to the public that there would be no tax increases when, within months, he has increased them? Does he accept that a result of the Government's tax increases is an increase in the burden on ordinary families by £8.50 per week? Why does he not close tax loopholes that cost billions of pounds before he puts burdens on ordinary families?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is slipping around a little this afternoon, and he has been slipping around rather a lot on this policy for a few months. However, he cannot wriggle out of the fact that what I have quoted to him was Labour party policy. It was only after we introduced the policy that he opportunistically changed his mind and his policies and moved to an all-purpose attack on politics generally. We need to cope with the fiscal deficit and we have the courage to do so.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The Prime Minister will remember that, time and time again, he has emphasised in the House and elsewhere that he would not negotiate with those who engage in or support violence. He will be well aware today that the IRA violence is continuing and that Gerry Adams last weekend became an apologist for that violence.
    Why has the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic announced that the right hon. Gentleman will engage in discussions with the Taoiseach at the end of the month concerning the agreement reached between IRA Sinn Fein and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)?
    The Prime Minister: I know nothing of the details of the agreement reached between the hon. Gentleman and Gerry Adams. Whatever statement may have been made by the Taoiseach in the Irish Parliament has not been cleared with me. I have had regular discussions with the Taoiseach covering a wide range of issues. If the Taoiseach wishes to raise with me matters that he believes will bring the violence in Northern Ireland to an end, I am compelled to listen.
    I repeat to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we do not negotiate with terrorists or with people who deal with bullet and bomb. We will not surrender to their violence, either now or in the future.
    Mr. Ashdown: As the Prime Minister is personally responsible for intelligence matters, will he tell the House whether the Minister for open government was correct in his statement that intelligence on the sale of British arms and equipment to Iraq went into the state machinery but did not appear to come out at the right place?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I set up a very wide-ranging inquiry under Lord Justice Scott to look at the whole question of United Kingdom arms exports to Iraq, including the use of third countries as channels. While that matter is under discussion and consideration by Lord Justice Scott, it would be prudent for me and the right hon. Gentleman to wait for the outcome of that inquiry.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a platform on law and order which included the policies of fining the victims of crime, legalising dangerous drugs and keeping criminals out of prison would find a suitable home only in the Monster Raving Loony party, perhaps led by one of our High Court judges?
    The Prime Minister: I do myself believe, as I have made clear, that prison is effective. I certainly support its use, where appropriate. None of us seeks an antiquarian prison system, but I want an effective prison system. [Interruption.] Unlike the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who undoubtedly cried out, "Oh, oh", I believe in prison as a punishment as well as a deterrent. I am far more worried about innocent people having to barricade themselves in at night than I am about the guilty being locked up. That, I must say to the hon. Gentleman, is not only my view and that of the police. I think that it is the overwhelming view of people in this country.
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Spellar: When does the Prime Minister intend to stop hiding behind procedure and come clean about the secret sources of Tory party funding?
    The Prime Minister: I must let the hon. Gentleman into a secret. There are a great many secret sources and they are all cheese and wine parties up and down the country.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in stark contrast to the shambles of the lot opposite at their conference, we want to congratulate our leader on a billiant speech at our conference? Could he tell me whether members of our Front Bench are all sponsored by unions and whether it was our conference that voted to reintroduce nationalisation? If it was not us, was it the lot opposite, led by the buddha from Monklands, East?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly undertake to my hon. Friend that, so far as I am aware, none of my hon. Friends is sponsored by the trade unions in the manner of the Labour party. But I believe that at Brighton we saw the true face of the Labour party: in favour of clause 4 and seeking to abolish grant-maintained schools and GP fund holders, to renationalise the water industry, and to scrap Trident. The leader of the Opposition gave the trade unions everything that they asked for. A minimum wage—he did it. Wages councils—he would keep them. The social chapter—he would adopt it. More Government spending —he wants it. For what? The unions still control 70 per cent. of the Labour party's policies, one third of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's election and 100 per cent. of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy.
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Roche: As the Institute of Management survey has found that three out of four managers do not believe that the recession will end in 1994, will the Prime Minister tell the House why British managers do not accept his Government's economic policies?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady was obviously otherwise engaged a few moments ago when I stated in reply to an earlier question the number of external sources that now say quite clearly that the recession ended some time ago and that the recovery is proceeding. To remind the hon. Lady, I shall add to that list. She may have missed the latest survey from the London Chamber of Commerce, the 3i survey, the fact that unemployment has fallen again, the OECD survey, the Commission report and the IMF report. If she has missed all that, I am surprised, but I hope that others have not.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has just visited west Germany where we heard again and again complaints that high social costs were causing rising unemployment there? We also heard again and again how wise Britain was under my right hon. Friend's leadership to opt out of the wretched social chapter.
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is clear right across Europe that people want decent social provision. That is
    146
    not the point at issue. The point at issue is whether social provision is increased to such an extent for those in work that it keeps others out of work and renders the whole of Europe uncompetitive with the Pacific basin, Japan and the United States. Everybody who criticises the Government's stance should bear in mind that, with the same amount of growth in the last quarter of a century the United States has created four times as many jobs as have been created across Europe. Those who care about employment would do well to ponder that statistic.

Welsh Development Agency
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the Welsh Development Agency.
In July this year, the Public Accounts Committee published its report on the 1991–92 accounts of the Welsh Development Agency. It was critical of the agency, finding a number of irregularities. The Committee concluded that the standards of the agency were well below what the Committee and the House had a right to expect. A number of recommendations were made to put matters right.
There were irregularities in the behaviour and conduct of the agency in its internal affairs. I believe that, when things have gone wrong, the important thing is to find out why, to identify the problems, and to put them right as quickly as possible.
The new chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe, decided to set up an inquiry into the findings of the PAC to see what action should be taken. The inquiry was headed by Sir John Caines, recently retired permanent secretary for the Department for Education. The other two members were Mr. Clive Beck, who was until recently deputy chairman and joint managing director of John Mowlem and Company, and Mr. Geraint Davies, partner at Grant Thornton, chartered accountants.
They were chosen for their independence and their understanding of public and private sector standards and practices. Their report, together with a report on the action that the agency proposes to take in response, has been sent to the Public Accounts Committee today, and copies are available in the Library. The report makes 43 recommendations.
The board of the Welsh Development Agency has agreed to accept all the recommendations which apply to the agency. Many of them have already been implemented, and action is under way on the others. Procedures and practices have been tightened up and revised. There is now greater emphasis on audit and on ensuring that proper procedures are followed. Welsh Office approval will be sought and obtained for activities when necessary. A committee of the board has been set up to deal with audit matters.
The board has also decided to make a number of changes in the composition of the senior management of the agency, of which the chairman gave details this morning. I believe that the chairman and the board of the Welsh Development Agency have taken tough action to deal with the criticisms in the PAC report and to ensure that in future the importance of compliance is understood. It is clear from the report that my predecessors were not to blame, and that the primary responsibility lay at executive level in the WDA. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I suggest that Opposition Members read the report, so that they see for themselves what is clearly stated therein.
The inquiry also made several recommendations to the Welsh Office in relation to administration and appointments. I am happy to adopt the administrative ones and, in making future appointments, I will take full account of the other recommendations. The Government are publishing this afternoon their response to the PAC report in the form of a Treasury Minute. Responsibility for the internal affairs and activities of non-departmental public bodies rests with
148
their boards and with the accounting officers, but ultimate responsibility is with the Secretary of State, which is why I am here to make a statement to the House.
I have reminded all Welsh public bodies of the need for the highest standards of probity and fairness in the conduct of public business and of the requirement to comply with rules and guidance. My Department is reviewing the authorities and approvals given to each of its public bodies and their compliance with them. An efficiency scrutiny to assess the effectiveness and efficiency with which the Department exercises its sponsorship function is also under way.
The Treasury has issued guidance to all Departments covering expenditure on staff benefits in non-departmental public bodies, severance terms for their staff, and the need to have in place arrangements designed to ensure that they do not act beyond their delegated authorities. The Treasury is also producing a memorandum setting out the duties of an NDPB accounting officer, is consulting Departments on whether the approach recommended in the Cadbury committee's report could be adapted to meet the needs of those bodies, and is considering whether further measures are required to strengthen the financial framework within which they operate.
The present system can combine great detail with unsatisfactory standards of compliance. My intention is to achieve a more strategic and effective style of monitoring. I want to strengthen the audit of compliance, set targets and review progress annually, with more frequent meetings only if there are problems. If that framework is right, then I should like to increase the delegated limits for expenditure by most Welsh NDPBs. I wish to approve only the larger capital projects, leaving more decisions to the board, subject to the rules about conduct and the strategic guidance given at the time of the review of the annual corporate plan review.
Everyone who operates in the public sector has a clear responsibility to be scrupulously correct in all his or her dealings and to be seen to be above reproach. It is easy to become so obsessed with rules and procedures that a body forgets why it is there in the first place, or a body can become so preoccupied with achievements that it overlooks some of the fundamental principles that must govern its behaviour. I do not wish to see Welsh public bodies making either of those mistakes.
It is easy to look only at the criticisms that have been levelled against the Welsh Development Agency and to neglect its very real achievements in recent years. I am sure that Opposition Members will agree with me that the Welsh Development Agency has made a significant contribution to economic development in Wales. Through its activities, the dereliction of decades of industrial use has been swept away as landscapes have been transformed. The property building programme of the agency has resulted in affordable modern factories, which have brought employment to many areas. The urban regeneration programme is making its mark on towns all over Wales, and the agency has played a central role in attracting inward investment. I wish to reinforce all that work on a firm foundation of good management.
If the Opposition wish to help Wales, after this examination of the WDA's affairs, they will give the new team at the agency a chance to show its worth and show that, like its predecessor, it is winning for Wales.
Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, and for the constructive and, for this Government, almost contrite response to most of the PAC's findings. The new chairman and staff of the WDA have our support and good wishes. However, the events of the past couple of years have cast a shadow over the work of the agency. That is a cause for regret, and an unfortunate distraction from the job of economic regeneration in Wales with which the agency is charged.
The Secretary of State today has clearly acknowledged the extent to which the agency ran out of control, and I hope that it will be possible for it now to redirect its energies to its proper functions.
Does the Secretary of State accept, however, that the current shadow has been cast by his predecessors as Secretary of State—Peter Walker and the present Secretary of State for Employment? They were responsible for the now notorious party political appointments to the board, and it was they who forced the agency to serve their own publicity-seeking antics.
Nothing more clearly shows that preoccupation with party propaganda and self-promotion than the demands made in the run-up to the monthly ritual of Welsh Questions for news of jobs or investments. Maximum publicity, not accuracy or regard for the truth, was always the object of that exercise. If the Welsh economy had been as prolific in its production as the Welsh Office was in its production of photo opportunities and press releases, we would not now have 130,000 unemployed in Wales.
Is it any wonder, given such casual leadership from the Welsh Office, that standards in the agency itself fell to such unacceptable levels? If the present Secretary of State really wants to put the matter to rest, why has he failed to grasp the nettle of Operation Wizard—a botched attempt at privatisation by the agency's top management? It was a one-way bet. Had it been successful, those public employees would have collected millions of pounds in profit; but it was not, and the stake of hundreds of thousands of pounds was taken straight from public funds.
How on earth, given the PAC findings of deliberate deception and incompatability with parliamentary accountability, can the Secretary of State gloss over the matter? If he does not reconsider his decision to do nothing, does he not realise that he will be tainting himself in an unacceptable cover-up?
Both the chairman, Gwyn Jones, and the chief executive, Philip Head, have now resigned. Will the Secretary of State now assure us that the WDA's own internal inquiry will be thorough in its review of all those involved in malpractice, and will he be resolute in implementing his findings?
In addition, is it not inappropriate for Dr. Jones to continue to hold public office? Should he not be dismissed forthwith as a governor of the BBC and removed from the board of S4C? Is it not clear, however, from the whole sorry affair that government in Wales is dependent on patronage and devoid of public scrutiny, and that parliamentary accountability is in need of radical overhaul? What is true of the WDA is true of the 80 other quangos in Wales and the billions of pounds they spend each year.
Open government and public scrutiny are the best defences against corruption and the abuse of power, but clearly the Government will not concede to the people of
150
Wales control of our own affairs. Will the Secretary of State therefore consider amending our existing parliamentary procedures to provide more penetrating scrutiny?
I believe that there is now an overwhelming case for an additional Select Committee with oversight of Welsh quangos, charged with reporting regularly to special sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee.
The present Secretary of State is still relatively new to his job and he has the reputation of being a radical.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: A bastard.
Mr. Davies: That too, perhaps.
Let us hope that he realises what his predecessors did not, The WDA and all the other quangos exist to serve the interests of the people of Wales, not the vested interests of his or any other political party.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks and I am glad that he and his colleagues wish the new chairman every success for Wales. They will need the support of all people in Wales and I am sure they will do an excellent job.
I cannot agree that we are looking at a shadow cast by my predecessors. They were the people responsible for the successes during the period under review—£4,000 million of investment was won for Wales. Let us not lose sight of that. They were the ones who had the vision and strategic direction. I have made clear in my statement what did arise and where the fault lay, and that is the result of an independent inquiry by men of stature.
Nor is it true to say that the former chairman of the agency was appointed for his politics. Lord Walker chose him for his business skills and his enthusiasm for Wales —something that he showed throughout his energetic term of office. It is interesting to look back at the record of the time when Dr. Jones was appointed. Nothing was heard from the Opposition then about how that man was unsuited to such an important post. They, too, thought that he was a great catch and were pleased that someone was prepared to take a cut in salary to run the WDA and to bring with him the benefit of his business skills. I would take the Opposition's criticism more seriously had they said then they thought there was something wrong with the appointment.
Of course I want to put the matter to rest, and anyone who wishes Wales well will also want to put it to rest. It has been cleaned up, and we now want to go forward on a firm basis.
On Operation Wizard, the report shows clear understanding of why the matter was treated with confidentiality. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) knew more about the conduct of Government, he would be aware that there are often reviews of the status and the future of such bodies as the WDA. It is the perfectly normal business of Government—although, if the hon. Gentleman is framing a supplementary question, I assure him that I am not currently planning the privatisation of the WDA. No doubt he will be pleased to know that.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the chairman and chief executive are no longer with the agency. There has been an extensive inquiry, which has shown that there has been no malpractice at the Welsh Office, so the point of the hon. Gentleman's question is not immediately apparent.
Dr. Jones tenure at the BBC is properly a matter for the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who sees no

151
reason why the problems encountered by the WDA should affect Dr. Jones's ability to discharge his responsibilities as a governor of the BBC.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly will find me only too willing to allow scrutiny of public bodies. There is already good public scrutiny through the PAC, through the parliamentary process, through debates and through sessions such as this. I chose to make this statement because I thought that it was a matter of public interest. I intend to continue to make statements or to make opportunities available to the Opposition so that Wales can see what its public bodies are doing and debate that fully.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. After those initial exchanges, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is a question period, during which questions must be asked of the Secretary of State. I ask for brief questions and brief answers, because many hon. Members wish to ask questions.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in Wales, especially the many thousands who work in businesses that have been supported by the excellent work of the WDA, will be appalled by the laughter this afternoon at the work undertaken by that agency? Whatever the position on the internal affairs of the agency—matters that have been exposed and are properly the subject of serious criticism —it is important that the work of the WDA is recognised. I urge my right hon. Friend to reassure the House—
Hon. Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: Order. I must give hon. Members a little instruction. This is not a time for statements—they can be made outside the House, on television and in the press. This is a time to elicit information from the Secretary of State. It is a time to ask him questions.
Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the WDA's budget will not be reduced as a result of the events that have been discussed in the House today? Will he further confirm that he will recognise the WDA's important role, notwithstanding the exposure of some difficulties in its internal affairs?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right to say that the WDA's work has been most valuable. He is also right to think that I will not reduce its budget because of the events that we have discussed today.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the search for a new chief executive will be widely advertised and canvassed? Will he give a further assurance that a prerequisite for holding that post will be a track record in manufacturing, engineering and industry? Without a concentration on manufacturing and engineering, by both the WDA and the Government, there will be little chance of lifting the economy of Wales from being the poorest region in Britain, as it is at present.
Mr. Redwood: I can certainly reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the post will be widely advertised—this debate will help in that task. We will of course be looking for a person of stature with a great deal of relevant
152
experience. However, I do not want to limit applications in quite the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Much will depend on who is forthcoming in response to the advertisement.
Mr. Rod Richards: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that strong action was initiated immediately the Public Accounts Committee reported?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right. We took action as soon as we could in the light of the report.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does not the experience with the Welsh Development Agency show the awful shortcomings of the quango aspect of government in Wales? Such quangos, with their Tory placemen, lack accountability to Welsh people.
Mr. Redwood: That deduction cannot be made. On occasions, there are irregularities in local government—as there are, regrettably, in central Government and in bodies such as the agency. It is quality of leadership and attention to the detail of the rules that matter.
Mr. Mark Robinson: As a former Welsh Office Minister, I can inform my right hon. Friend that the Welsh Development Agency's contribution to attracting inward investment is widely recognised, not just in Wales but even in the west country region that I now represent. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his response to the inquiry. I seek his assurance that he will give every encouragement to the WDA's new leadership to continue on its proven track record of success.
Mr. Redwood: I happily give that reassurance.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not this sorry, sad saga a clear warning to the Government of the dangers of removing whole tracts of public policy and expenditure from local government in Wales and from Parliament? Is not the almost inevitable result of political patronage a danger of corruption and lack of accountability? Will not the Secretary of State at least try to examine objectively the dangers that arise from the Government's increasing tendency to create quangos?
Mr. Redwood: That is rather rich, given that the Labour party set up the WDA. The hon. Gentleman should have directed his question at some of his Labour party colleagues. He can rest assured that I am not shy of public debate on such matters. It is legitimate that there should be proper public debate of the actions of such important bodies.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious commercial damage done to bona fide businesses in my constituency, which are not eligible for any Government grants, by grants made by organisations such as the Welsh Development Agency to feckless people running non-viable businesses in industries that have over capacity? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be much closer scrutiny of the way that such money is made available to commercial enterprises in future?
Mr. Redwood: It is always useful to have helpful questions, is it not? I reassure my hon. Friend that, if he has a specific complaint about a particular investment that he considers is anti-competitive and ill-judged, I will of

153
course investigate it. I believe, however, that the WDA's overall performance has been extremely beneficial to Wales.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House hope that the WDA is opening a new chapter, because of the vital role that it plays in Wales? It is ironic that the right hon. Gentleman's friends voted against the agency's establishment when it came into existence in 1975.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales find it difficult to believe that there was not a nod and a wink in the direction of the WDA from the political chiefs when there was a question of possible privatisation? If there had been scrutiny on a month-by-month and quarterly basis by an elected, all-Wales body, we would not have waited as long as we have to get to the bottom of the issue.
Mr. Redwood: There will always be some things which are commercial-in-confidence and which have to be treated in that way. There are occasions when investigations or studies have to be made of the future of bodies when it would not be wise at an early stage to share information with all the staff and the public because it could damage morale and yet might not lead anywhere. That was the case in this example.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Would my right hon. Friend care to confirm that the regeneration of industry in Wales has been one of the great success stories, much to the envy of the rest of the United Kingdom? May we rest assured that the chairman of the WDA will take disciplinary action against those who have made glaring mistakes?
Mr. Redwood: Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend and agree with his first point. The chairman has today announced disciplinary action against those who are still at the agency and who are held culpable for what has taken place.
Mr. Alan Williams: Can the Secretary of State explain how years of unprecedented incompetence, impropriety and deception went undetected by his Department and by his predecessors? Can he explain why, when the National Audit Office report revealed that deception and impropriety, and when the Public Accounts Committee hearing proved all the allegations, his predecessor reappointed the chairman, who should have been sacked, and made him a governor of the BBC.
Mr. Redwood: I have already covered that point. As the report makes clear, the former chairman is not held primarily to blame for those events. Blame is attributed first of all to the executive and the named members of it —some of them are no longer in post, and one has been removed from post—the remuneration committee and the internal audit service. Of course it is a pity that the matter did not come to light earlier through the audit process, but it is good news that it did come to light and that it has been handled in that way.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is it not vital that we refocus the agency on the continued industrial and manufacturing regeneration of our communities? Would not the best signal of that be the
154
appointment of a chief executive with the relevant experience that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has suggested?
Mr. Redwood: It is quite possible that such a candidate will come forward, and I would be delighted if a good candidate with that background were to emerge. But we cannot rule out, in a fair and free competition following public advertisement, people with slightly different skills, who would also be able to offer a great deal for Wales. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) should remember that an important part of the task is clearing the ground, making property available and developing property transactions that can lead to industrial rejuvenation. Those are also skills that we need to take into account in the executive management of me agency.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that all Opposition Members recognise that that body was intended to be the engine room for the regeneration of the Welsh economy? Instead of that, we find that it is riddled with fiddles. When will the Government accept responsibility for that state of affairs, and when will successive Secretaries of State recognise their responsibilities in these matters? Does the Secretary of State appreciate also that, if Wales had had an elected Assembly, the agency would have been much more rigorously scrutinised?
Mr. Redwood: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. Parliament is quite capable of scrutinising that body, as these questions and the papers before us demonstrate only too well. I have described where independent experts thought that the responsibility lay, and the chairman has set out what the board proposes to do about it. He has taken tough action with his board, and I should have thought that the House would respond favourably to that.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State makes a most unconvincing Pontius Pilate. Instead of continually washing his hands of responsibility in the matter, he should read a little history. This is not the first time that the Public Accounts Committee has drawn the Secretary of State's attention to problems within the WDA.
In 1985, when I was on the Public Accounts Committee, we investigated the Parrott Corporation. It had received millions of pounds from the WDA, but no one was censured and no one was brought to book. Instead of the Secretary of State and his predecessors washing their hands, why does he not have the guts to resign and accept responsibility?
Mr. Redwood: I have already answered that point. The responsibility has been clearly attributed to layers of management within the WDA, and tough action has been taken as a result. I am not trying to be Pontius Pilate: I am trying to be the Secretary of State, telling the House what firm action has been taken, and building a good base for the future.
Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the agency has become a world-class agency that is much admired throughout the western world? Does he remember that many of his hon. and right hon. Friends tried to prevent the agency from coming into existence? Does he accept that Lord Peter Walker's arrogant and cavalier use of his massive powers

155
of patronage have led to this sorry state of affairs? Why did not he come to the House today with measures to democratise appointments to public bodies in Wales? That is what is required. The Secretary of State, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham, has too much power in terms of appointments in Wales.
Mr. Redwood: I do not agree that it was Lord Walker's fault in the way in which the hon. Gentleman describes. I have taken action to democratise appointments in Wales. I have placed public advertisements asking for more good people to come forward on to lists. I have reassured the House that I will look carefully at the merits and talents of such people, and I will take up references. I will ensure that the best people in Wales are appointed to the jobs available. That is, of course, open to scrutiny by the House, and I am sure that Labour Members will not be shy about exercising that scrutiny.
Mr. Terry Davis: Given that the Welsh Development Agency is only one of several Welsh bodies to be criticised by the Public Accounts Committee in the past few years, can the Secretary of State give an assurance that we have seen the last of these scandals?
Mr. Redwood: I can give no 100 per cent. assurance along those lines. I have set out how I intend to proceed. I have told the House how I wish to monitor these bodies, how I wish to agree their strategy with them, what delegated powers I wish them to have and how I intend to audit their practices carefully. Therefore, I reassure the House that I will do all in my power to prevent a recurrence. One can never give a 100 per cent. guarantee that there will be no recurrence, any more than Labour Members can guarantee that there will never be a scandal in a Labour local authority.
Dr. John Marek: Does the Secretary of State agree that this sorry state of affairs came about directly as a result of the Government's 14 years' stewardship of government in Wales, corrupting it by introducing quangos in every walk of life and filling them with toadies, acolytes and placemen of the Conservative party almost exclusively? Does he agree that nothing will change until those quangos become democratic, accountable and representative?
Mr. Redwood: The quangos must be very accountable, which is what this debate is about. I resent the implication that the talented people on many of these boards are toadies or Conservative lackeys—it simply is not true. They represent the best of Welsh experience, business and commercial and public life. I am open to suggestions from Labour Members for other people who can take on some of the jobs and who will further strengthen those skills.
Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Secretary of State accept from a member of the Public Accounts Committee that, like me, many other members of the Committee were appalled by the evidence that came out during the investigation? Welsh Office officials, up to the permanent secretary, appeared to know nothing about the hundreds of thousands of pounds that disappeared from public funds into the pockets of consultants and merchant bankers during the whole sordid Operation Wizard
156
business. If the officials did not know about it, what has the Secretary of State done in the Welsh Office to ensure that such lapses of responsibility do not recur?
Mr. Redwood: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, under my stewardship, senior officials will know about my dealings with the agency in considerable detail, and we will observe all of the due procedures. I repeat what the report said about Operation Wizard. There was a case for keeping something confidential, or keeping it tightly between a few people, because it might not lead anywhere. If the matter was leaked, it could have been damaging to morale. As it turned out, it did not lead anywhere, so it was better that morale was not undermined at the time by a public statement.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Why are all the failures of the WDA the result of the activities of the staff and all its successes the result of the activities of the politicians?
Mr. Redwood: I did not say that—I said that the leadership and vision of the politicians are most important in developing the energy in attracting inward investment to Wales. However, I also gave due credit to the staff and the chairman of the WDA. They did all the hard work to deliver the vision. My predecessors set out what the staff should do. The staff followed up the leads and negotiated the transactions. I pay full tribute to them, and I trust that Labour Members will do the same.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Secretary of State resist the temptation to downgrade the WDA function in favour of a Thatcherite, hands-off approach to economic policy, because the relative success of the WDA has been achieved despite Thatcherism in England? Will he instead take this opportunity to refocus the thrust of WDA activity away from environmental upgrading and property development, necessary though that is, in favour of a serious strategy for rebuilding Wales's industrial and manufacturing base, providing long-term, low-cost finance for business and regenerating the much neglected Welsh valleys?
Mr. Redwood: I have announced today the next five-year programme for the Welsh valleys initiative. I am an admirer of what has been achieved in the past five years, and intend to build on it. Of course we have a vision of how we wish to see development unfold. We wish to see many more jobs and businesses come to south Wales and other parts of Wales. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there have been successes at the WDA. He can rest assured that I think that there is an important role for the WDA in encouraging the clearance of dereliction, in urban renewal and in winning new investment for Wales.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Secretary of State assure me that there will be the same intense investigation where evidence is presented to him of a scandal in the private sector affecting the collapse of companies in Wales?
Mr. Redwood: There are a number of ways in which that is undertaken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the companies legislation, there are substantial powers for investigation and, where necessary, for public investigation and public report. Often, these also become matters for the law courts, which is another way in which

157
they get extensive media coverage and public probing. I have also noticed that Opposition Members are not shy about raising these matters across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The Secretary of State referred in his statement to the poor standards of professionalism and integrity of a number of WDA officers. Does he realise that, because of that lack of professionalism and integrity, several former WDA employees at lower levels find themselves severely financially disadvantaged, as the redundancy terms that they were offered have turned out to be possibly illegal? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that those people will be properly compensated for the failures of more senior officers?
Mr. Redwood: I cannot give that guarantee, because we are talking about payments that were improper or perhaps illegal. The agency has clear guidance as of now that any redundancies must be agreed under the terms of the local government scheme, which is what should have happened in the past.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In an answer, the Secretary of State said that he had announced today a five-year programme for the valleys of south Wales, which has caused us great concern. I am a representative of one of those valleys, and I have not heard of this.
Successive Speakers have asked that Ministers should give their news or announce progress or policies to this House rather than to the press outside. May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to put pressure on the Secretary of State to come to the House immediately with a statement so that we know what is to happen in our constituencies over the next five years?
Madam Speaker: I am in equal ignorance. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has made a statement in a written answer or whether he has made a press statement about this matter. Perhaps he would like to add to the point of order.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for the opportunity. I meant to say that I would make a statement tomorrow. I shall ensure that hon. Members are properly informed.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Secretary of State accept that things have come to a pretty pass when, from the most powerful, high-profile quango in Wales under his control, the chairman, chosen at a Tory party fund-raising lunch, resigned last July, the chief executive resigned yesterday, the finance director went today, the marketing director was demoted today, the rural affairs director was reprimanded publicly today, the international marketing manager and the north Wales area manager were dismissed last week, and the north America marketing manager is in jail for fraud?
I am sure that the Secretary of State accepts that it is fair to say that this is a sorry tale about an agency that is off the rails, although it has pulled in some big names in world industry terms into Wales, including Bosch, Toyota, British Airways, Trico and Sony. Will the Secretary of State therefore accept that today is perhaps the day for
158
saying "Le WDA est mort; vive le WDA"? We need the agency. Does the Secretary of State accept that all Opposition Members wish to help the chairman to put it back on the rails?
At the Conservative party conference, we heard a cry of "Let's get back to basics"—a principle that may be susceptible of wide and flexible interpretation, but one that, undoubtedly, can mean only one thing in connection with the WDA and the Secretary of State: restoring the agency to its rightful position as the powerhouse of industrial development and job creation in Wales.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the new team. I look forward to observing more tangible support from the Opposition as its members go about their successful task of winning for Wales.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:
Mrs. Diana Maddock, for Christchurch.

BILL PRESENTED
  HUMAN RIGHTS (NO. 3)
  Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide protection to individuals and in the courts of the United Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; to entrench those rights and freedoms; to establish a Human Rights Commission; to make further provision with regard to the protection of civil, political, economic and social rights; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 October, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]

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

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  INTERESTS IN SHARES
  That the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  VALUE ADDED TAX
  That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) Order (S.I., 1993, No. 2001) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Parnick]
  Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matter relating exclusively to Scotland).
SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

  CHILD CARE
  That the Matter of Childcare in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

Pardon for Solidiers of the Great War
4.12 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to pardon soldiers convicted of, and executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1918 for, the offences of cowardice, desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would facilitate the granting of pardons to 307 soldiers of the British Empire forces who fought in the great war of 1914–18 but were executed by firing squad, having been found guilty of charges that ranged from cowardice to desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and hitting a superior officer.
Many of those soldiers were young men—teenagers. They were drawn from every corner of the United Kingdom. Many were not conscripts but volunteers, and some spent not months but years in the trenches enduring constant shellfire, sniping and lack of food and sleep in the constant wet and cold. It is hardly surprising that, in many cases, their spirit broke.
All 307 soldiers were, in my submission, denied the operation of rules of natural justice. They were not given the opportunity to prepare a defence; in many cases there was no advocacy whatever, and when there was it was not conducted by a legally qualified person. Above all, none of the soldiers was given the opportunity to appeal against the sentence of death: invariably, they were given only 12 to 24 hours' notice before that sentence was carried out. That shows that those men have endured grave injustice, and it is time that the record was put straight.
We now know from the documents that have become available, following the crazy 75-year public records rule, that many of those men were sick, traumatised and suffering from shell shock. For that reason, the House should begin to put the record straight to ensure that the men are held in high national esteem.
I am motivated to bring this Bill before the House because many dependants of those men seek redress, and because there are still among us a few thousand veterans of the great war, in the evening of their lives, to which nothing would give greater satisfaction or contentment than knowing—albeit late in the day—that their comrades in arms were finally exonerated. I was pleased to see the support in the press of my noble Friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, a veteran of Passchendaele, who endorses my view.
It has been suggested that I am seeking to rewrite history—I reject that. I am seeking to ensure that history is written with clarity and precision and that those things that are uncomfortable to the establishment are brought into the open.
In a few weeks' time, Her Majesty the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will be at the cenotaph, and other right hon. and hon. Members will rightly be at their local war memorials. We attend such memorials not to remember veterans of the Crimean war, the Napoleonic wars or the Cromwellian wars, but to remember soldiers of the great war because they are of our time.
All of us have had grandfathers, fathers and uncles who were in the great war. We have all seen, spoken, touched and loved them. That is something which cannot be ignored. They are not merely history. It is long overdue
160
that a remedy was sought to heal the reputations of those men that were broken during the sham trials in the great war.
My Bill provides two options: either to grant a blanket pardon for all 307 soldiers, which I and Lord Houghton favour, or, if that is not appropriate, that the Secretary of State be able to refer each case to a panel of High Court judges to test whether or not there has been injustice and whether or not there should be a pardon. I cannot see what can be wrong with that, other than that some people might not like the truth coming out.
The measure is universally popular. My postbag and those of many hon. Members show overwhelming public support for it. I shall go further: the difference between now and 18 months ago, when the pardons campaign began, is that, we now know that, in a sense, the soldiers have already been pardoned by the highest court in the land —British public opinion. My Bill would facilitate an official way in which the nation could collectively say sorry.
My Bill could be a matter of national pride for our generation and this House of Commons. We could draw a line under the unhappy events of the first world war, do all we can to repair the damage done to the reputation of those men, to heal the wounds of the families and to allow the veterans of the great war who are still alive to go to sleep tonight content in the knowledge that their comrades are now deemed to be brave soldiers.
I ask nothing more than for the opportunity for these cases to be tested by the normal criteria that operate in the land. Have the rules of natural justice been applied? Were those men sick and traumatised, as I believe they were? My Bill would facilitate a test by which their cases would he put before High Court judges. The documents are now available and they speak for themselves.
The demand for this remedy is like a cry from the grave. It is time that the House of Commons took hold of the matter, put aside the objections of the establishment and said that those soldiers of the great war who were executed are deemed worthy to be among those we will remember on Remembrance Sunday.
4.19 pm
Mr. Roger Evans rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.
Mr. Evans: The speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was plausible and emotional, but fundamentally misconceived and wrong in principle. History is littered with injustice, and it is entirely inappropriate at this stage in the century to examine what happened between 1914 and 1918. If ever there was an argument against open government and in favour of keeping the files closed for ever longer, it could be made now. What are we hoping to achieve by the measure?
If the scheme of the hon. Member for Thurrock is designed to give a blanket pardon, it cannot be right, as a matter of principle. It will be not an examination of the historical record, but a mere expression of opinion, without any reference to the particulars of the cases. It would be a case of wasting time with a sort of war crimes tribunal in reverse at the end of the century. That would be a monstrous procedure and wholly wrong. The matters are for historians, not the House now.

161
To seek to lay blame by using the word "establishment", as the hon. Member for Thurrock did, was an extremely unfortunate way of attacking the British state. The fact remains that we are the beneficiaries of the sacrifices made by our grandparents' generation, and it would be wholly wrong to continue with the scheme.
Madam Speaker: The Question is, That the hon. Gentleman do have leave to bring in the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) must call "No."
Mr. Roger Evans: No.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that on previous occasions it has always been argued that, when an hon. Member speaks against a 10-minute Bill, his or her vote should always follow his or her voice. Is the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) going to put up Tellers? Has he been asked?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) is not obliged to put up tellers. I think that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not hear me tell the hon. Member for Monmouth, who opposed the Bill, that his voice recording "No" must follow his speech. The hon. Gentleman gave the word "No", which is sufficient under our procedures. Even if he wishes to oppose the Bill, he does not have to put up tellers.
Question agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business).
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Paul Flynn.

Pardon for Solidiers of the Great War
  PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to pardon soldiers convicted of, and executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 for, the offences of cowardice, desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday II November, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]
Orders of the Day

  Statement on the Defence Estimates
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [18 October]:
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993 contained in Cm. 2270—[Mr. Rifkind.]
  Which amendment was: 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.'.—[Dr. David Clark.]
  [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: I should inform the House that I have had to impose a limit of 10 minutes on the length of speeches between the hours of 7 and 9 pm. Those speaking outside those hours should use voluntary restraint, so that I can call as many Members as possible.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On today's Order Paper you will see the substantial amendment, supported by 17 hon. Members, which was tabled to give the House an opportunity to decide in a vote what many people in this country would like to hear discussed: whether this country should possess nuclear weapons and cut its arms expenditure. I appeal to you to allow the amendment to be put to a vote at 10 pm.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me yesterday. I have looked carefully at the amendment standing in his name, but I cannot allow it to be put to the vote. However, it can—and I am sure that it will—be referred to during today's debate.
  4.24 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Yesterday's debate focused on the broader defence issues raised in "Defending Our Future". Today, I should like to respond to a few more of the points from last night's debate and also take the opportunity to make some important announcements.
  But first the White Paper. I am pleased to say that "Defending Our Future" has had a positive reception in the House and the press. We have placed our cards on the table and we have a winning hand.
  "Defending Our Future"presents critics of Government defence policy with our case for the defence. Those who argue for increases in force levels across the board—because, they claim, we cannot meet our commitments —are given evidence that we can. "Defending Our Future" demonstrates the principle of multiple earmarking,

  163
  whereby individual force elements are attributed to two or three tasks that are unlikely to require simultaneous fulfilment. I should stress that multiple earmarking is nothing new. It is the only rational way to devise a force structure and has always been practised by both ourselves and our NATO allies.
  We have been able to demonstrate that we have a sustainable set of commitments with an effective force structure to meet them. Naturally, we must keep them under review to ensure that they do not grow beyond our ability to fulfil them and to ensure that our force structures and capabilities are adjusted as necessary. That includes ensuring that the high quality of manpower, equipment and support is maintained.
  There is still more. We have often been asked to state explicitly the kinds of conflicts in which we anticipate possible British involvement. We illustrate that in table 1 of the White Paper. I accept that that does not amount to a definitive list of scenarios, but it would be neither politically nor militarily sensible to stand here and give a list of countries that we might have to fight.
  When it comes down to it, there are no easy alternatives to the defence policy that we are pursuing. Indeed, I must say that I have yet to hear a genuine alternative—even during yesterday's debate—properly argued and taking into account all the aspects of British security requirements and international interests. I believe that "Defending Our Future" makes that clear. It again underlines the fact that we have a sound defence policy, a sustainable range of commitments and the effective and flexible force structures that we need to meet them.
  As an excellent example of that flexibility, I am pleased to tell the House that I have today agreed the deployment of HMS Active to Haiti to help our allies in the enforcement of United Nations sanctions against Haiti. HMS Active is currently serving in the Caribbean as the West Indies guardship and is able to divert to Haitian waters without affecting her other commitments. That clearly demonstrates the ability of the armed forces to deploy at short notice to conduct operations and enforce the will of the international community. HMS Active will be working in close co-operation with the United States navy and others enforcing the sanctions.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday touched on the changing face of the world and the situation within Russia, particularly its historic transition down the democratic path. He mentioned also the initiatives that we have in hand to continue the improvement in defence relations with central and eastern European countries and to draw them closer to the west. As an illustration of the change in the security environment, I was pleased last week to pay an official visit to Hungary for discussions with my counterparts in the Hungarian Ministry of Defence and meet Mr. Jeszenszky, its Foreign Minister.
  As a member of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, Hungary is a country of strategic importance to the future development of Europe. It is in the vanguard of the process of reform and restructuring taking place throughout central and eastern Europe and has set a fine example for others to follow. Hungary has made great strides in breaking down the barriers of the cold war and in developing public and parliamentary consensus in the role
  164
  of the armed forces in a pluralistic society. I am pleased to say that Her Majesty's Government have been able to contribute to the process of democratisation and civilianisation and I hope that we are now looking to deepen our contacts and the programme of co-operation, not only with Hungary but with other north Atlantic co-operation partners. It is in their interests and ours.
  On leaving Hungary, my impression was of a country totally committed to the development of armed forces founded on the rule of law and trained and equipped to co-operate effectively in the future with the international community on the difficult challenge that we face in security and defence. I think that that will enhance the security and stability of Europe. It is also clear that Hungary holds our forces in high regard.
  In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) referred to the test and evaluation ranges in his constituency. As part of our continuing rationalisation of support areas, we are reviewing all test and evaluation ranges. However, I stress that no decisions have been taken and they will be taken only after full consultation with trade unions and other interested parties. We are conscious of the importance of those establishments to their local economies. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement visited Benbecula and St. Kilda and saw that at first hand.
  The hon. Member for Western Isles takes a close interest in the safety of the Scottish fishing fleet, as do a number of hon. Members. "Defending our Future" rightly includes a substantial section on the subject of fishing vessel safety. The House will recall the tragic incident in November 1990 in which a Clyde-based trawler, the Antares, was sunk with the loss of her crew after a submarine became entangled in her nets. I know from my discussions with hon. Members how much concern that unfortunate accident engendered in fishing communities around the country and, in particular, on the Clyde. I place considerable importance on ensuring that everything possible is done to prevent a recurrence.
  Some have suggested that the answer is to ban dived submarine operations in inshore water, but that is not an option. If our submarines cannot train in shallow waters, they will not be able to perform their operational role safely or effectively.
  The Royal Navy has found ways of cutting the number of dived operations in waters used by fishing vessels. Where possible, training and exercises in areas such as the Clyde are carried out at weekends when fishing does not take place and transits are now routinely conducted on the surface.
  When there is a requirement for dived operations in fishing grounds, submarines now follow revised operational procedures designed to ensure that the risk to the safety of fishing vessels is kept to an absolute minimum. Those revised procedures have been worked out in close consultation with representatives of the fishing industry and I am grateful to them for the constructive approach that they have adopted in their discussions with the Navy.
  I am delighted to tell the House that we have now formalised those revised procedures in a code of practice. That has been published today in order to make clear to a wider audience the rules that the Royal Navy now follows. I have arranged for a copy of that document to be placed in the Library of the House.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The code of practice will be welcomed by all those living along the lower Clyde. Will the Minister assure me that all foreign submarines will come under Royal Navy control here and that that stipulation will apply to American submarines? What consultations have taken place with the United States navy, especially in the light of the recent incident in the Minch involving an American submarine?
  Mr. Hanley: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in matters involving the safety of the fishing fleet and I am grateful for the consultations that I had with him and some of his colleagues earlier. I can give him the assurance that, if any foreign submarines of any nation wish to sail in United Kingdom waters, they will abide by the code of conduct, to which most of them already adhere. That has been agreed with other nations and I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I congratulate the Minister on the publication of the code of conduct, which, as he said, is the result of long discussions following the tragedy involving a vessel from my constituency. I am particularly pleased that the hon. Gentleman managed to reach an agreement with the Department of Transport that the subfacts should still be broadcast by the coastguards. That will be welcome to fishermen.
  Can the Minister give me an assurance that any amendments or changes to the code of practice and the subfacts broadcast will always be discussed with the fishing industry before any such changes take place?
  Mr. Hanley: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has played a leading part in the consultations that led to the successful publication of the code of conduct. This is a non-party issue. It is the safety of men at sea about which we care. I can assure the hon. Lady that the code of practice is intended to be a dynamic document, to which we hope to add in the light of experience. Close consultation between the Royal Navy and the fishing industry will continue.
  In taking such measures we have broken new ground and other nations may be able to benefit from our experience. Therefore, we intend to bring the code to the attention of the International Maritime Organisation. Time forbids me from going into any more detail about the code, but, as I have said, it will be published and it is available to hon. Members from today.
  Subfacts will continue under the current arrangements for the time being. We intend to extend the subfacts scheme to the Minch and other areas off the west coast of Scotland. Later this year we will also be introducing a subfacts scheme in the Plymouth exercise areas, which have not hitherto been covered, using a British Telecom system. There are ongoing discussions with the Department of Transport, the coastguard and the fishermen's representatives on how best subfacts information should be broadcast in the future.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I have just seen the annex to the code of practice. I am surprised that none of the Welsh coastal areas or St. George's channel are covered by it, because both Welsh and Irish Republic fishing vessels have come into contact with submarines in those areas. Why are not the Welsh coastal areas and St. George's channel included?
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman has seen the map on the back of the document which shows the areas covered by this code of practice and by the subfacts system. Those are areas where we have seen a proven need for the system, but we are always ready to consider an extension to it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me chapter and verse about the incidents to which he refers.
  I know that a number of hon. Members take a keen interest in the Merchant Navy. As demonstrated during the Gulf crisis and more recently in the deployment of forces to the former Yugoslavia, merchant shipping continues to play an important role in military operations.
  In July 1992 my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement announced the conclusion of a review by Government Departments of the defence requirement for merchant ships in times of crisis. This established that there were still sufficient vessels on the British registers for defence purposes. It did, however, identify the need for further study into the availability of British seafarers to man those vessels.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: This morning the Select Committee on Employment has been investigating the employment consequences of the decline of the merchant fleet. Whatever my hon. Friend may be about to say, there is very little optimism among the merchant shipping contingents—the unions, the Chamber of Shipping or anybody who has submitted evidence to the inquiry—that the merchant fleet will be able to sustain operations in support of the Royal Navy in the future.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.
  The further work that the Ministry of Defence agreed to carry out, together with the Department of Transport, took into account the figures provided by the Chamber of Shipping from its latest fleet and manpower inquiry of federated vessels and a survey conducted by the Department of Transport of the number of British seamen employed in the non-federated sector.
  From all the evidence it is clear that there would be no difficulty in manning strategic chartered or requisitioned ships with British crews if that were necessary. Some 12,000 British officers and 14,500 British ratings are employed in the British shipping industry on federated and non-federated ships. The Select Committee will know that from the evidence given to it. That is hugely in excess of the numbers that we would require, even on the most cautious assumptions.
  That takes no account of the Merchant Navy Reserve, which itself would be able to provide a substantial part of our manning requirement in an emergency. Of course, where we would be operating in conjunction with NATO or other allies there is no reason why friendly tonnage and crews should not be considered for logistic movements, as we have done in the past.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) expressed his regret and sadness that the Royal Naval Reserve unit HMS Wildfire is to close. I share those sentiments—as I do about a number of other RNR units which will also be closing—but it is simply not in the interests of the nation or the reserves for the roles and structures to be frozen in the shape required by the cold war. I note, however, that my hon. Friend recognises that

  167
  the links between the Army and the Medway towns will be strengthened, with Royal Engineer training being largely concentrated in Chatham, at Brompton barracks.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: Many of us were prepared to support "Defending Our Future" on the basis that the match which it made between commitments and resources and the procurement programme that was financed under it would be implemented. We are now concerned that important features of that programme might be under threat. For example, I am worried about the future of our tank forces and the procurement programme for them, and many colleagues on the Conservative Benches are worried about other elements of the programme, which we believe to be integral to the White Paper. What comfort can my hon. Friend offer us? When will he be able to make announcements about the procurement programmes, which are long overdue?
  Mr. Hanley: The House has heard what my hon. Friend said and Government spokesmen have heard what he has said. The issues are complex. It is a sensitive time for decisions about finance. The time for decisions will arrive, but I am grateful for his comments.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister accept that there are many Conservative Members for whom a further cut of £1 billion would not be acceptable?
  Mr. Hanley: I can confirm that there are Conservative Members for whom a cut of £1 billion would not be acceptable. [Interruption.] I do not intend to identify individual Members or individual Benches.
  Let me mention our internal initiatives to increase efficiency and obtain the best value for money from the taxpayer, to which several hon. Members referred during last night's debate. I can today confirm additional proposals aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the support area and ensuring that the size of the support organisation is appropriate to the size of the front line.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hanley: Would my hon. Friend allow me to make some progress?
  We have no intention of bolstering the size of the support area at the expense of the front line. We are determined to make all necessary efficiency savings that are commensurate with operational requirements and effectiveness.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wish to make a somewhat oblique argument on the subject of cost-effectiveness. There is no more cost-effective force in the country than the reservists. Although we all appreciate the enhanced role that some of those have been given, it would be a great pity if, in parallel to that, their numbers were to be reduced. I know that the document says that a reduction is not necessary, but a reduction in that cost-effective force —which occupies our young people so effectively in their spare time—would be regrettable and I hope that it will not be contemplated.
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady is taking advantage of the consultation period to state her views about the structure of
  168
  the reserves. The reserves play a valuable part, not only in the history and tradition, but in the present formation of the armed forces. They are very valuable, but we must assess, in the light of changing circumstances, the proper military role for our reserves and then we must assess the numbers that are necessary to meet that commitment. That is part of the debate that is going on.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I shall refer to one aspect of the support service—the Army Records Office in my constituency, which, sadly, has had to be closed so that all the offices can be relocated in Glasgow. Can my hon. Friend confirm that those who are to be made redundant in South Wigston in my constituency will receive the best possible redundancy package, outplacing, counselling and so forth, so that those who have worked so hard for the Ministry of Defence will be properly compensated when the time comes for them to give up service with the military forces?
  Mr. Hanley: I can give the assurance that my hon. Friend requires. I will return to the subject of the Army personnel centre later if I am given the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the efficiency savings that the Ministry of Defence has made during the past few years have been within a very small percentage of the targets that it set itself and much better than those achieved by virtually any other Department of state? Does he agree that if other Departments of State had done what the Ministry of Defence has done, we would not have quite such a large public sector borrowing requirement?
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the Ministry of Defence, which is wholly justified, but no single Government Department could not do more, could not do better and could not continue that process. We must always root out inefficiency, especially in the armed forces. The vital aim of our armed forces is not to provide a job protection scheme for the support services, but to ensure that we have an efficient and effective sharp end. We must have effective armed forces and for that we must not waste a penny that should be spent on making sure that our people are better trained and equipped.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hanley: I have not made as much progress as I would like. I shall give way later.
  The House will recall that, on 25 May this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) announced a proposal to discontinue in-service first degree engineer officer education for naval officers at the royal naval engineering college at Manadon in Plymouth in preference to a pre-entry engineering degree sponsorship scheme based in the civilian university sector. That proposal stems from a reduction, from about 90 to only 60 students per annum, in the Navy's requirement for engineer officers entering service. About 30 of those already are, and will continue to be, recruited from private sector universities, but that reduction in numbers clearly affects the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of maintaining an expensive "university" facility.
  I received many powerful representations about our proposals, in particular from my hon. Friends the Members

  169
  for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) and for Plymouth, Drake (Dame. J. Fookes), who made a forceful case for the retention of RN officer training at Manadon. I considered those representations carefully, but concluded that the proposals should be confirmed—as those hon. Members, and hon. Members with a constituency interest, will know from the letters that I wrote to them last month informing them of my decision. The sponsorship scheme will save money frm the defence budget and will take advantage of high-quality education available through the university sector.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: What attempt has been made to sell the wonderful facilities that this country has for training naval and other personnel to our NATO allies? Might not other countries be interested to send officers to Manadon and more trainees to Portland, for example, thus reducing the need to cut those facilities so drastically?
  Mr. Hanley: I assure my hon. Friend that every effort is made to provide those facilities. There is great demand for courses of all lengths and at all ranks from nations throughout the world. Our education is second to none. However, there is a requirement for 30 engineers only to be trained in the Royal Navy by those means, plus the other 30, whom we shall manage to recruit from the university sector.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the situation with regard to those engineering courses at Manadon college. I congratulate him on his full consultation exercise. Will he tell us something about the premises? They command a central position in Plymouth and are a magnificent asset. We want them to be transferred to the university of Plymouth so that they will be retained as an asset to the city and used for education. Is his Department prepared to go down that route?
  Mr. Hanley: I repeat my tribute to my hon. Friend for the efforts that he made. He is right about the quality of the building at Manadon; it is superb and has been rightly defended by all those who have had anything to do with it or who know it. The Ministry of Defence has a responsibility to make the best use of its resources and assets, but the city council has made it clear to us that it regards the building as being of great importance. Having first investigated any possible further use of the building for military training purposes, we shall consider further and hold discussions with the council about a continuing educational use. That would seem to be sensible. 'We cannot rule out anything, nor should we rule out anything at this stage, but we are well aware of what my hon. Friend has said.
  I am now able to tell the House that we have decided to select the university of Southampton for the sponsorship scheme. All the universities under consideration were of a very high standard. Indeed, there was a shortlist of about eight universities, but the university of Southampton emerged as offering the best course content and quality relevant to the Navy's requirements in the marine, weapon and air engineering disciplines. The university was also judged to offer the best academic reputation, marketability and geographic location to meet the Navy's specific needs. In no way do I want to run down any of the other seven, but we decided that Southampton was the best location for
  170
  those 30 students. The Navy is engaged on work with the university to ensure that the campus is absolutely fit for the autumn 1994 intake.
  As part of our continuing rationalisation of the Royal Navy, we have also looked at the requirment for berths, known as Z-berths, that are approved for occasional visits by nuclear-powered submarines for rest and recreation or operational reasons. The current number of Z-berths and their locations were derived from assessments carried out in the 1980s, when a larger fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines was envisaged than is required today. Given the reduction of our nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet to 12 boats and the changing operating patterns of our submarines as they measure up to the new challenges of an unsettled world, it is now clear that not all the berths currently designated as Z-berths will be required. We have therefore decided that Z-berth status will be withdrawn from the following locations in Scotland: at Loch Fyne, Lamlash, Loch Torridon, Loch Na Beiste and Thurso bay; and at Barry and Swansea in Wales.
  Approved locations for visits by nuclear-powered warships will remain at about 25 to 30 general locations around the United Kingdom. While we are confident that the remaining berths around the coast of England, Scotland and Wales will be sufficient for the needs of the Royal Navy, the situation will be kept under review.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank the local authorities and communities around our coasts that have hosted visits by our nuclear submarines during past years.
  Turning to the Army and the question asked earlier, as many hon. Members with a constituency interest will recall, we have been considering improving the cost-effectiveness of the Army's personnel management organisation. A study was carried out last year which concluded that a single integrated Army personnel centre should be created and housed in an existing commercial building in Glasgow—Tay house. It was said that that would allow staff savings of 38 per cent., by comparison with the current organisation—a very useful reduction in support costs.
  Subsequent events, in particular the identification of an alternative existing building in Stockport, are well documented and I will not dwell on them now. I shall, however, take this opportunity to thank all those hon. Members who contributed so usefully to the debate, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) and for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), who advocated alternative solutions so forcefully, and the hon. Members for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and for York (Mr. Bayley) and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).
  I assure them that a number of those options, particularly those for new build, were most attractive indeed and I examined them very carefully. However, over a 25-year period, the option of going to the eventual destination of Kentigern house in Glasgow will produce savings of about £150 million when compared to the costs of the organisation as it stands today. That seems to me to be absolutely certain as far as acceptance is concerned.
  Dr. John Reid: First, I welcome the fact that the original choice of hierarchy for the personnel department has been confirmed, despite some delays. Secondly, I would like some clarification on the number of new jobs. Various figures for the exact number have been given to different organisations in Glasgow. In

  171
  May this year 700 new jobs were spoken of, but it seems that they might not all be new. They might be taken by people who previously worked in other areas or departments of the Ministry of Defence and the number of new jobs could be as low as 200. Can the Minister say how many new jobs will be created in Glasgow by the move?
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have said that if anyone wishes to remain within the Army personnel office they will be given a job. The number of places available in Glasgow will therefore very much depend on how many people want to move there. Our estimate is unchanged from the figure of 700 that he mentioned, but that is merely an estimate and if Glasgow sells itself to the people who work throughout the rest of the United Kingdom there may not be as many new jobs as he mentioned.
  Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. He has narrowed the possible take-up of slack to the people who work in the personnel office and it is only fair that they should have the opportunity to go to Glasgow. However, will he confirm that people who work in other departments of the MoD and who may be superfluous to needs, either because of agency status or efficiencies in their departments, will also have the right of first call on the jobs in Glasgow—or is that rumour unsubstantiated and untrue?
  Mr. Hanley: I am not aware of any guarantees, but I can certainly clarify the position for the hon. Gentleman. I was not aware that he was going to raise the matter and I am not sure of the terms of service of people throughout the Ministry of Defence. It is my understanding that those people in the personnel centre have been given guarantees on relocation and costs for going to Glasgow. The matter is very much in the lap of the gods, but I shall clarify it subsequently with the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
  There are now about 16 defence agencies employing about 40,000 service and civilian staff. Our plans envisage the Ministry of Defence police—which comprises some 5,000 staff—being the next support organisation to become a defence agency. Plans are also well advanced for launching the RAF training group as a defence agency.
  I should like to mention civil servants and to pay a tribute to all those who work in the Ministry of Defence, both those who support me and my Front Bench colleagues so ably in London, and those at our units and establishments around the country. We must not lose sight of the fact that this is a difficult time not only for the service men and women affected by the changes in the armed forces, but for all the civilians affected by the disruptions and uncertainties of management and efficiency initiatives.
  The House will be aware that there have been several media articles recently about the number of so-called bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence, comparing numbers and functions unfavourably with those in the armed forces.
  "As many officials as soldiers",
  is one such quote. Let us hear another.
  Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister is very patient. May I remind him that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State both visited RAF Sealand in my
  172
  constituency. I have heard them mention the word efficiency in connection with the Royal Air Force. There is a great concern at RAF Sealand about the impact of market testing on jobs. Will there be a level playing field and a guarantee of a fair and proper chance to compete? Will tenders be evaluated independently and objectively?
  When those Ministers visited RAF Sealand they were very impressed by what they saw. I want a commitment from the Minister that there will be a level playing field. Will he accept that my constituents are very willing and that, ideally, he should not go forward with market testing?
  Mr. Hanley: The RAF benefits considerably from market testing, but there will be independent evaluators on the assessment panel. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the level playing field that he wants is there. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State were both murmuring their appreciation of RAF Sealand as he spoke. It is an impressive facility, but the RAF must look for improvements and efficiency in all its operations.
  I used the quote about there being as many officials as soldiers, which is terribly misleading. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) last night referred to the cost of civil servants and their apparently large numbers. I am afraid that the figures that have been published in some of the articles are totally misleading.
  Last April, the totals were 156,500 civilians and 274,000 serving members of the armed forces. It is somewhat unfair to pick just soldiers in the regular Army. Since 1979, there has been a 48 per cent. reduction in the number of United Kingdom-based MOD civil servants. Headquarters' numbers, which include civilians and military, are being reduced by about 20 per cent. and top civilian posts have already been cut by 13 per cent.—top service posts by 12 per cent. Nor, despite the civilianisation of posts, has the proportion of civilians to military staff increased. On the contrary, the civilian-service ratio has reduced since 1980, from 86 per cent. to 57 per cent.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend accept that large numbers of jobs have been privatised—for instance, people working in the royal ordnance factories and the royal dockyards used to appear as civil servants? The more important factor is surely not the aggregate total of civil servants—including scientists, technologists and so on—but the proportion of people involved in bean counting. That proportion has increased in many areas as a result of the introduction of executive responsibility budgets. In just one area, the training establishment, 70 extra posts of this kind have been created.
  Mr. Hanley: I am afraid that in a previous life I, too, was a professional bean counter, so I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. The total number of what we might classify as pure bureaucrats or pen-pushers, like Sir Humphrey or his acolytes, is 30,000 in the MOD—quite a slimmed-down total, given the service that they provide. When I talk about reductions in support areas I am also talking about reductions in the MOD. We are continually looking at that matter.
  It is equally wrong to talk of civilians in the MOD as a separate arm unrelated to the services. The fact is that a high proportion are recruited and managed by the services

  173
  themselves and provide them with essential support. Many of them are scientific, technical and engineering staff. I have found the civilian staff in the MOD utterly professional and highly competent. Perhaps it is the competition with their armed forces colleagues that helps to bring out the best in them—I am sure that the armed forces would say so. I happen to think that it is the high quality of the civil servants that brings out the best in their armed forces' colleagues in the MOD.
  It is no coincidence that the services are enthusiastic about the civilianisation of posts that do not require to be filled by service manpower, because that frees service men to do the job that they are meant to be doing.
  I am delighted to announce a number of positive developments in the employment of women in the armed forces, a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) referred in colourful language last night, not to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Western-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin)—
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I echo my hon. Friend's words about the high quality of the people whom we employ, many of whom realise that there must be large numbers of redundancies. But perhaps what I have been saying has been misinterpreted: they are telling me—the Minister paid tribute to their professionalism just now—that they do not think that the savings made from their salaries should be spent over 15 years on putting up new office blocks. I have been told today that the Treasury is providing £1–143 billion over and above the £1 billion for defence refurbishment. Staff want that figure to be cut, not the number of our forces.
  Mr. Hanley: Every new project needs an investment appraisal and MOD Ministers will look carefully at such appraisals. The accounting officer at the MOD, the permanent under-secretary, will ensure that the most cost-effective option is the one selected.
  To return to women in the armed forces: as from 1 November, the Women's Royal Naval Service will be fully integrated with the Royal Navy. This move is aimed at enhancing the career opportunities for women and the way is now open for women to reach the highest ranks in the Royal Navy. Indeed, the move can be said to pave the way for the first woman member of the Navy Board.
  Some people may perceive integration as the disappearance of a broad and historic tradition, that of the Wrens, but I do not believe that it will be. With some few exceptions, men and women in the services will be recruited, trained, developed, promoted and paid in exactly the same way and they will have the same rank titles. Integration is the inevitable and logical culmination of a series of changes made since the 1970s, when women first came under the Naval Discipline Act 1957, and then in 1990, when women went to sea. It should be viewed positively, as a means of ensuring that women can compete on fully equal terms with men, without any artificial barriers to promotion on merit.
  Contrary to what some media stories might lead the uninitiated to beleve, mixed manning at sea has proved a real success story. Increasing numbers of women are serving at sea and all new surface ships are built with facilities for women. There are now nearly 800 women serving on 27 surface warships. It would be foolish to pretend that incidents do not occur on board ships between men and women—indeed, it would be surprising if the
  174
  Navy were the only workplace where they did not occur. But the great majority of men and women in the Navy are going about their jobs in a responsible, disciplined and professional manner.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I congratulate Ministers, naval officers and other service officers on their real progress in this area. It has shown how equal opportunities can pay off in terms of efficiency and opportunity.
  Mr. Hanley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The policy of the Royal Navy is that all areas of work should be open to women, and that has been achieved in all but a few areas, such as the submarine flotilla and the Royal Marines commando forces, where there are real practical obstacles. The decision not to employ women in the current classes of submarine will be revisited in about five years' time and the potential for further employment with the Royal Marines—as RM bandsmen—is already under review.
  Dr. Godman: Can the Minister estimate the number of Wrens or women sailors or female members of the Royal Navy who have been dismissed in each of the past 20 years on the grounds of pregnancy? In the light of the findings of recent industrial tribunals in the cases of women dismissed from other services, have naval commanding officers in bases and on ships been given a new code of practice?
  Mr. Hanley: I have to admit to a deficiency: I do not carry in my head the exact numbers of women dismissed for pregnancy from ships in each of the past 20 years. With cries of "shame!" ringing in my ears, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will reply to him in detail with the information he requires.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: At the risk of trespassing once again into the field of political incorrectitude, I must tell my hon. Friend that I suspect that he and his defence colleagues, and senior serving officers, would take a different view of the idea of putting women in the front line if they thought there was any serious prospect of an imminent major war.
  Mr. Hanley: I cannot accept that. Some people may live in a different age or may have been born in a different age, but I would think it wrong if the armed forces refused to recruit a woman who had shown ability and a desire to serve in the Royal Navy and who was competent so to serve. After all, as my hon. Friend knows, we have had a woman Prime Minister and there is no reason why we cannot have women doing everything.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that it was every bit as dangerous for the women who served on RAF stations during the last war as it is to serve in the Royal Navy now?
  Mr. Hanley: I agree absolutely. I seem to recall that some of the stories of the greatest bravery to come out of the second world war involved women who served in the Special Operations Executive and in various undercover roles. They suffered far more than did many of our serving men operating in more conventional roles. I believe that women can grasp the opportunities offered by the modern armed forces. I pay a great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) for his

  175
  leadership in introducing women into the armed forces. The armed forces will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for years to come.
  It was decided earlier this year that women should in future be able to serve as officers and ratings in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. There was no immediate reason to recruit any personnel into that service, male or female, but now there have been recruits. The RFA has been brought into line with the Royal Navy and the merchant service and that will be implemented progressively.
  The most recent recruitment campaign has resulted in three women being selected as officer cadets and I have every expectation that that number will be increased as future recruitment opportunities arise. The three women cadets commenced training last month and they have now embarked on a RFA vessel for a five-month seagoing course.
  It has also been decided that female staff of the Royal Navy Supply and Transport Service should be eligible for temporary postings on board RFA vessels as part of their career development, in the same way as their male colleagues. I am pleased to say that the first two female staff have already been appointed to RFA Fort Austin.
  Since the disbandment of the Women's Royal Army Corps in April 1992, women have been fully integrated into their employing corps. The integration continues to go well, as I saw myself in Germany earlier this year. All soldier recruits are now trained in mixed-sex platoons in the Army training regiments. Apart from some aspects of physical training, the recruitment programme is identical for men and women. More than 100 career employment groups are now open to women and they are proving successful in areas previously open only to men. The first two female helicopter pilots have now qualified and are serving with their units.
  At present women in the regular Army are excluded from the Royal Armoured Corps and the infantry on the grounds of operational effectiveness, but as part of its initiative to employ women more widely, the Army is continuing to devise and validate gender-free testing. The testing, which it is hoped will be introduced in 1995, will help by determining suitability for a particular specialisation according to physical capacity rather than by gender.
  Women in the Royal Air Force compete on equal terms with men for appointments, training places and promotion and are now eligible for nearly all branches and trades. There are now eight female pilots and 17 trained female navigators. A further 21 pilots and six navigators are undergoing training. Of the eight trained pilots, two have qualified as fast-jet pilots and will be undertaking Tornado training. The remaining six are serving either as flying instructors, as search and rescue helicopter pilots or as co-pilots in Hercules transport aircraft.
  I must say to my hon. Friends who are mumbling in the background that that is not because of political correctness, but through self-interest and trying to get the best people into the armed forces.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Minister reassure the House that the ladies who are to be trained as helicopter pilots will not be used in the way helicopters were used in Scotland—to
  176
  service a Conservative party theft? Will the Minister assure the House that the women will be put to better things than raising money for the Conservative party?
  Mr. Hanley: I would rather take a woman on a helicopter than the hon. Gentleman; unless, of course, one were to 'use a Sikorsky heavy lift.
  Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the award of battle honours to those ships, regiments and squadrons that took part in the campaign in the Gulf. At that time, the Army regiments and corps and the RAF squadrons had not been selected for battle honours.
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the award of battle honours to the Army regiments and corps and RAF squadrons which took part in the campaign to liberate Kuwait. The list of the units to receive honours has been set out in my answer today to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). The House will wish to join me in welcoming the award of battle honours as a permanent record of the contribution made by the Army and RAF to the liberation of Kuwait and in passing on our congratulations to the men and women involved.
  Finally, yesterday the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) raised the matter of our long-term ammunition orders. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement pointed out, as the tender period had not yet expired, the hon. Gentleman was rather—as it were—jumping the gun.
  Happily, I can now say more on that important subject. My hon. Friend announced to the House on 20 January that our intention was to offer longer-term contracts for ammunition. The aim was to both secure the sources of supply for key types of ammunition and to give industry greater confidence with which to plan ahead and invest. Tenders for the long-term contracts have now been evaluated and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that it is our intention to offer Royal Ordnance plc a contract worth almost £200 million for a package of ammunition requirements covering the period until 1998. The package covers all ammunition requirements in the long-term buy. It includes small arms ammunition, tank training ammunition and charges and some other minor requirements. We expect that the contract will maintain almost 1,000 jobs.
  The House will agree that that is excellent news both for our armed forces and for the company. Royal Ordnance's impressive win against an array of top-class international opposition demonstrates clearly the remarkable efficiency improvements that have been made since privatisation. Our policy of long-term ammunition buying makes clear our commitment to achieving value for money to make the best of the sharp end of our armed forces. I also believe that it shows our understanding of the needs and concerns 6f the developing defence industry.
  Dr. David Clarke rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the Minister given way, or has he finished his speech?
  Mr. Hanley: I had finished, but, out of courtesy, may I pretend that I had not?
  Dr. Clark: May I thank the Minister and, with similar courtesy, say that I am grateful for his announcement? I am

  177
  sorry that I was 24 hours premature, but the announcement will be welcomed in all parts of the House. It means that the men and women who work in Royal Ordnance factories have a secure future and it is a recognition of their skill, which is second to none in the world.
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman's comments will be echoed throughout the House.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton rose—
  Mr. Hanley: I shall now pretend for a second time that I have not finished my speech.
  Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so late in the day. May I also welcome the statement that he has made today? It will be very much welcomed in my constituency. The people who work at Radway Green making small arms ammunition for the Army will be delighted by the news. It is good for employment in the future and for investment. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, Royal Ordnance has a splendid record of achievement since privatisation.
  Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend's comments are justified. Hon. Members like good news from time to time, and it is even nicer when people on both sides of the House support the Government in their policies.
  5.17 pm
  Dr. John Reid: May I thank the Minister for his courtesy, and for his dual pretence as he ended? It surprises me that a Defence Minister can pretend with such ability and that is probably the first time that he has had to do so.
  The Minister made a long speech with a considerable number of announcements. I do not want to reply to all of those, but I shall comment on one or two. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has already expressed his pleasure regarding the Royal Ordnance contract, and we also welcome the announcement of the code of practice regarding fishermen and submarines.
  May I also take the opportunity to thank in retrospect —although it is not a party issue—my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for his private Members' Bill this afternoon? My hon. Friend spoke for many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I find the argument that, if an injustice occurred a few years ago, we should just bury it and forget about it quite astonishing. Many innocent people would be languishing in British goals if the same attitude were taken as was espoused by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. Graham: My hon. Friends will be aware that Royal Ordnance factory workers from Bishopton, who won a famous victory to keep the factory open, are here today listening to the debate. They must be delighted to hear the news that the Government's long-awaited decision has now been reached. After sweating blood, the work force will once again sweat blood to ensure that Britain is safe in a crisis. That is more than the Tory Government will do.
  Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful comment. We all congratulate the workers at Bishopton, especially those who are here tonight. Indeed, we congratulate workers at all Royal Ordnance factories As the Minister said, they have achieved considerable
  178
  increases in efficiency and productivity. I congratulate them on what my hon. Friend calls a famous victory. I am sure that all hon. Members and the workers at Bishopton unite in congratulating the Member of Parliament who represents Bishopton on the sweat, blood and tears that he put in to ensure that the contract went to the Royal Ordnance factories.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) cast a slur on those who operate our helicopters. We have a major station at HMS Gannet in my constituency. The people there do a great job for those in Scotland and beyond in air-sea rescue. Would the. hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) like to make the point that our helicopter service is a good one in safe hands?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we progress, I remind hon. Members that no fewer than 32 right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in the debate. There have been many interventions. That is right and proper, but they were probably from people who do not intend to speak in the debate. Some hon. Members who are present and who sat here through yesterday's debate will be denied the opportunity to speak if there are too many interventions.
  Dr. Reid: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sat here all day yesterday waiting to speak. I am not getting far in the first five minutes of my speech. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallic) or in congratulating not only the pilots who fly our helicopters but those who build helicopters—just in case any hon. Member present represents a constituency that produces helicopters. If anyone else has a particular constituency interest that he wishes to raise, will he or she write to me? I wil raise it in my next speech in opposition to the Minister.
  I should like the Minister who is to reply to answer a question in connection with HMS Active, which is normally in the Caribbean and is being sent to Haiti. Will he confirm that when HMS Active goes from the Caribbean to take part in that embargo it will be under the command and control of the United Nations, not the United States? I should be grateful if we could have that important clarification.
  Traditionally on these occasions we express gratitude to our soldiers, seamen, airmen and service women. Although we do so by convention and tradition, our gratitude is no less sincere. Along with others, I thank them, wherever they serve and whatever their role in the armed forces. We also thank their families, who bear the burden of their absence, share in the sacrifice of the risks that they take. In their own way, those families commit themselves to public service. In an age in which public service is denigrated, we forget that those who fulfil the greatest public service because they take the greatest risk are those in our armed forces. They do not ask what their country can do for them or even what they can do for their country—they simply go out and do it. We take that for granted on occasions.
  It is only natural when we give those thanks that we should think particularly of those who are under active fire at present. We mention, not unnaturally, those in Ireland and Bosnia. But today of all days, it is also appropriate to remind ourselves of those who carry out a vital, delicate and risky task manning the green line that separates two potentially hostile parties in Cyprus.

  179
  Today, it is appropriate to send our thanks to Brigadier Dick Lamb and all the men and women who serve with him with the United Nations forces in Cyprus. That task should not be taken for granted by anyone, least of all the beneficiaries of the presence of those soldiers serving in Cyprus. We assure our service men and women that no one in the House from any party takes them for granted. We express deep admiration and appreciation of their efforts.
  There has been great interest in the debate and, as the Secretary of State will know, a considerable amount of advice has been given. For instance, I notice that in this evening's newspaper—I do not know whether the Secretary of State has read it—advice is offered by no less an authority on defence reviews than Sir John Nott. Receiving advice from Sir John Nott on defence reviews is a little like reading a marching manual by the grand old Duke of York. Nevertheless, it gives some idea of the widespread unease about the position in which we find ourselves.
  I shall put four simple propositions to the House. First, the world is not only changing rapidly but changing in a more dangerous direction which requires us to give more attention to problems that are more numerous and complex. Secondly, in that context, the British defence budget has been cut, is being cut and will continue to be cut.
  Thirdly, precisely the mismatch between the first two propositions—the expanding nature of the problems that we face and the pressure to commit ourselves more and more as against the reduction in defence spending—has led to the present near-chaos in both thinking and practice at the Ministry of Defence. The fourth simple proposition —I shall elaborate on all of them—is that the chaos and indecision can and ultimately will be solved only by a full defence review and by making hard choices. I shall explore all those propositions.
  Let us take the proposition that the world is becoming more unstable and dangerous. All the Front-Bench speakers so far have told us about various visits that they have made. I want to tell the House about three visits that I have made in company with hon. Members from both sides of the House. Those visits confirmed what I suspected before I went—how dangerous and awful many parts of the world are becoming. On three occasions, I visited Bosnia. It is easy to imagine when we see television pictures that one could never have a worse experience. I hope that I never have an experience like it again.
  I stood in a mass grave of 85 eighty-year-old women whose heads had been crushed and whose bodies had been ripped open. They had been put in sacks and thrown into a mass grave. The stench of the slaughterhouse was everywhere. It is not an experience which I want to repeat. I have also talked to the orphans in Bosnia. I have mixed with Muslims in the besieged town of Goradze, which is now composed almost entirely of old women and young children.
  I moved from Bosnia to Georgia. I was there before the cameras got there. Like Bosnia, it is a beautiful, pleasant and fruitful land full of tremendous potential. Along with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), I was awakened by the sound of artillery in the beautiful coastal village of Sukhumi. It was unknown nine months
  180
  ago, but now appears on our television screens as it is bombarded by the Abkhazians. It has become supposedly the last redoubt of Shevardnadze and the Georgians. We have seen that land torn apart by a revolt not only by the Abkhazians but by the South Assettians and various ethnic groups.
  From Georgia, I went to the front line in Azerbaijan, where the tragic war between Azerbaijan and Armenia has caused several hundred thousand refugees to flee. The war has wrecked a potentially economically powerful country with amazing resources of oil. It has destabilised the region in its strategic relations between Russia, Turkey and Iran.
  As the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) said, all those places were virtually ignored before CNN and Sky Television turned up. There are 20 to 30 other such places, but the cameras are not there. They all have symptoms of a world from which threats have not disappeared but have merely changed form.
  Instability is perhaps greater than ever and the risks are more numerous. There are two reasons for that. First, communism and the centralised control of Leninism suppressed many causes of instability, such as ethnic tension, national rivalries, border disputes and sovereignty claims. Those regimes did not eradicate that instability, but for 70 or 80 years the causes were suppressed. Now that the lid of the pressure pot has been lifted by the removal of Leninism, those causes of instability are seen not to have disappeared.
  Secondly, for all its horror, the cold war gave a sort of glacial stability to relations between nations. During the cold war, everyone could freely say, "Of course we believe in the self-determination of nations." That was because we knew that in practice no one would recognise a new nation as that would upset the stability of the two great icebergs facing each other. That stability has been taken away.
  Another reason will be recognised by Conservative Members. It is that market economics do not immediately deliver prosperity or democracy. This country had market economics for 200 years before it had any form of democracy. Initially, market economics produces unemployment, poverty, insecurity and degradation. That can be seen in Moscow and, indeed, throughout the former Soviet Union. Poverty, insecurity and degradation are the harbingers not of democracy, but of a demand for totalitarianism, whether from the extreme right of nationalist fascism, from communism or, in other parts of the world, from fundamentalism. All those reasons found my first proposition that the world is more unstable than it was before the end of the cold war.
  No doubt Conservatives would dispute my second proposition. It is that in the context of growing risks, our defence budget has been cut every year, is still being cut, and is likely to continue to be cut. Before the taunts, may I say that that will happen whatever party is in power, not just because of a conference resolution, but because of the public's natural expectation that, as the cold war is over, there should be some reduction in defence expenditure. Without being too jaundiced, I should say that it will also happen because of the Government's economic failure and the tragic £50 billion deficit in the public sector borrowing requirement.
  It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that there have been cuts. Under current plans, by 1995 the defence budget will have fallen by 20 per cent. in real terms since 1985–86. If the Treasury succeeds in forcing a further £1 billion cut in the annual defence budget, the drop in

  181
  defence expenditure between 1985 and 1995 will be about 25 per cent. If, as is likely, expenditure under a Conservative Government continues to fall at that rate until the end of the decade—it is likely to do so and we have not been assured that it will not—the defence budget will have fallen by more than 33 per cent. in real terms between 1985 and the year 2000.
  It is sheer hypocrisy for Tories to condemn conference resolutions to cut defence expenditure to the European average when the Government have been cutting it in practice by an even greater amount than the theoretical cuts of those resolutions.
  Mr. Churchill: By how much more would a Labour Government cut defence now and in the years ahead?
  Dr. Reid: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was not only listening intently but was capable of understanding simple English. At no stage did I say that we would not have cut it. I explicitly said that under any Government it would have been cut. The hon. Gentleman asks by how much more we would have cut it. We would not necessarily have cut it by any more than the Government. If it is cut by £1 billion over the next three years, as the Treasury wants, by the year 2000 there will be a 40 per cent. cut in real terms. If that happens, not only will the Government have surpassed Labour party conference resolutions, but they will be well on the way to meeting the demands of the Liberal party.
  We made it plain in our last manifesto that we will provide whatever is required for the defence of the United Kingdom. That is still our position. We also made it plain that we want a full defence review, and I am trying to explain more fully than usual why we want that. My first point was that we have increasing commitments and, secondly, I said that we have a reduced budget. If those two propositions are true—and no hon. Member has yet disputed them—the only way to resolve the mismatch is by a full, open, detailed and rational review of commitments and resources, to bring them into conjunction.
  The Government will say that we are wrong, that a defence review is not needed. They told us that when we said two and a half years ago that their figures on the infantry were wrong, but then they admitted that we were right. They told us that we were wrong about the tactical air-to-surface missile. For two and a half years, I have told the Government that they could not afford TASM and that there was no military need for it. They told us that we were wrong, but yesterday they publicly accepted that we were right.
  For two and a half years, I said that we could determine the reliability and safety of nuclear weapons without testing, but they said that it could not be done. The President of the United States thinks that it can be done. We have constantly told Ministers with all their civil servants—whether it is 150,000 or 250,000—things that they apparently did not know. I shall take a gamble by predicting that Tomahawk missiles will replace TASM. Those missiles will be put on Trident, as I think the Ministry of Defence already knows but is not telling us.
  Perhaps I and The Herald of Glasgow, which is one of my sources, are wrong about that, but the defence correspondent of that newspaper was more correct about the infantry and about TASM than the Secretary of State for Defence. We shall see from an announcement about
  182
  Tomahawk cruise missiles and Trident submarines whether, once again, that correspondent has been more right than the Secretary of State.
  Let us examine the muddled thinking involved in the mismatch between resources and commitments in the absence of a course of action to relate them. It is difficult to get Ministers, even Ministers such as the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who has committed his life to open government, to speak openly. That is because they are constrained by civil servants and by convention, and by the guard dogs that accompany them everywhere. But occasionally the guard slips, and nowhere is it likely to slip more quickly than from a Minister who has just resigned. That gives rise to 'a free flow of thought and shows the patterns of thought that dictated decisions when he was in Government. I mentioned one such Minister—Mr. Alan Clark—in the previous debate on defence estimates.
  Yesterday, we heard a glorious contribution by the recently retired Minister for the Armed Forces, my old friend the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. Some of his speeches are worth re-reading, but for different reasons. I recommend that one reads the right hon. Gentleman on the difficulties of armed intervention in Yugoslavia, a paragraph that I found concise, well informed, historically accurate and, in many ways, a perfect summary of the difficulties that, I accept, face Ministers.
  I recommend that one does not read the right hon. Member's solution to the Irish problem, which is to relieve overstretch by ignoring the problems that cause overstretch in the first place. If I remember it correctly, he said that he was talking not about "peremptory action" in the military sphere but about withdrawing one battalion every six or 12 months. He was thus the first recently retired Minister from the Ministry of Defence fully to support the "Troops Out" movement, although not in a peremptory fashion.
  Even better, because it bears directly on the question of a defence review, were the following two sentences. First, he said:
  "I disagree with the Opposition, who say that we should think about specialisation."
  In other words, he rejected specialisation. He then said:
  "The broad range that I propose will inevitably narrow under financial pressures."—[Official Report. 18 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 56.]
  There is the classic confession—unwittingly—of the truth of what the Labour party has said over the past three years. The Government are not taking decisions after thought. but are allowing policies to result from financial pressures.
  We thought that they were the result of the inadequacy of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell when a Minister, but, after last night, we know that they were deliberate, because he thereby applied the free market economic to military choice. He felt that Ministers should not take decisions and that the Opposition should not think about specialisation, which would happen inevitably anyway as a result of economic pressure.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way because we are involved in an interesting debate. Does he agree that specialisation was considered in the Nott review in 1981, which decided that we should get rid of our amphibious forces and cut back on the Navy, and that that policy was proved wrong within a short time by the Falklands war?
  Dr. Reid: I accept that case. I am not arguing that we should get rid of amphibious forces, or anything like that. I am arguing that, because of economic pressures, we may have to look at specialisation, so we should think about that in advance, through a defence review. What the right hon. Gentleman is arguing—the pattern has been pursued by his successors—is that there is no need to think about it because economic pressures will cause it anyway. When the Treasury demands that the budget is cut by £1 billion, the Department thinks of the last order and delays it by two years.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me there, because I have another quote, in which he surpassed himself—incidentally, in the same paragraph.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Before the hon. Gentleman passes to another selection from the speeches of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), I have a question for him. Does it occur to him that, although the Nott proposals were not implemented, and we were thus able to fight the Falklands war, since then, economic pressures have created such circumstances that few people believe that today we would be able to fight such a war?
  Dr. Reid: We spoke earlier about the merchant fleet. That is a perfect example of the problem that the hon. and learned Gentleman has set out. We could not now mobilise the same flotilla that was mobilised for the Falklands war. However, circumstances have changed—there is now Mount Pleasant airport and different ways to protect the area. I should not like anyone outside the House to get the impression that any Member of Parliament wants to modify our defence of the Falklands and our commitment to the people there. That is not the case, but we would not be able to reinforce it in the same way, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.
  I am quoting the words of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell because he was, merely a few months ago, dictating policy. He said yesterday:
  "It is nonsense to talk about a review because that could not predict any clearly identifiable future threat."—[Official Report. 18 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 56.]
  He is thus saying, first, do not think about specialisation and let the market—or, in this case, the Treasury—do it anyway and, secondly, because we cannot with certainty identify a future threat, let us not think about any threat at all.
  All Conservative Members who, in their frustration, are wondering why what is going on in the Ministry of Defence is going on should take home that paragraph and frame it. It is symptomatic of the type of thinking that we have had from the Government in the past four years. They have said, "Don't let's think about strategic decisions in the future—leave it to economics. We can't determine everything so let's not determine anything." It is nothing other than a fancy formula for avoiding hard decisions. In Army terminology, it is a combination of a lack of moral fibre and a dereliction of duty.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am sorry to intervene again, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with both the defence review and the intelligence on which we base our assessments of where the threat is coming from. Does he accept that, in the case
  184
  of the Falklands, our intelligence was wrong and that invasion was not forecast, and that the same was true of the occupation of Kuwait?
  Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman should take note of Denis Healey's law of holes, which is, "When in a hole, stop digging." He is now arguing that there should be no military planning. If everything is so uncertain that we should make no decisions, why should we debate matters and why should we have chiefs of staff and all the civil servants, whether they are bean counters or technologists? If we start from the basis that because we cannot predict everything, we should not try to analyse or judge anything, we shall be in an even sorrier mess—or perhaps not. Perhaps that is the basis on which the three remaining Ministers in the Department operate. As I said last time, they are the three ministerial monkeys of "See no cuts, hear no cuts and speak no cuts."
  Those of us who have been attempting to follow the seemingly random direction of British defence policy have struggled long and hard to discern the method behind the madness, but without success.
  What are we to make of a Government who, because of the mismatch and their refusal to think things through, reduce the size of the Army from 155,000 to 120,000 and then to 116,000 and then increase it to 121,000? What are we to think of a Government who start off with a surface fleet of "around 45" frigates and destroyers, then announce that we need a surface fleet of "around 40", only to change their mind and conclude that "around 35" will be enough, but they cannot give a definite figure and speak of plus or minus five? What are we to think of a Government who cannot tell us whether 31 ships will be enough in the present circumstances?
  What are we to make of a Government who allowed Britain's surface-to-air missile system accidentally to lapse into obsolescence? How does one forget about such a system? How does one "accidentally" allow such a system to lapse? They then rushed about desperately trying to procure a new system before deciding eventually that we no longer require such a capability. What are we to make of a Government who promised a replacement for the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb by the end of 1990 and then dithered until the end of 1993 before saying what we had been saying for three years—that TASM was not needed in the first place and could not be afforded?
  The list of issues on which the Government have prevaricated is endless. Churchill used the glorious phrase:
  "constantly resolute in their equivocation".
  Never was it more apt than in the case of Defence Ministers.
  Let us take the example of what was said about the royal dockyards yesterday. Having botched the allocation of the Trident contract by giving guarantees that proved to be worthless, causing much hardship at both Devonport and Rosyth, Defence Ministers have been panicked by the Treasury—this is a Treasury-led decision—into opting for a tired and discredited policy of privatisation.
  I see the Secretary of State smile, as though it were an outrageous suggestion, to the point of being ludicrous, that any decision that he has taken could have been influenced, in some way, by the Treasury. He reminds me of the wee man in the Mercury phone advertisements—the wee snappy dresser with the moustache and the clipped tones. One never knows whether he is serious. When the Secretary of State tells us that his decisions were not made

  185
  as a result of Treasury pressure, that wee man appears before me. The Secretary of State is smiling as if none of the decisions had anything to do with the Treasury.
  We regard the royal dockyards as assets which are vital to national security and we will fight privatisation tooth and nail. (Interruption.) The Secretary of State says, "Huge cheers", but I did not notice the standing ovation after his speech yesterday or the laurel wreaths being carried down to him from Back Benchers shouting, "Hail Caesar, presiding over our victorious armies." Perhaps he did not notice that they were behind him and those are always the ones to watch, as the Secretary of State will know.
  Those hoping to discover some kernel of strategic genius guiding Tory defence policy—I am an open-minded man and I thought that perhaps there was one and that they might have some vision of dizzying clarity which I cannot see—will be profoundly let down by the "Statement on the Defence Estimates."
  The Secretary of State clearly hoped to distract attention from the intellectual barrenness of his policies by a deluge of mumbo jumbo. Earlier today, someone—I forget which hon. Member it was—said that giving us a large quantity of accurate information is not enough. I do not want to go through the White Paper, but let me tell him that the information it contains is not even accurate. I advise the Minister of State that, if he is employing bean counters, he should employ people who can count beans properly.
  Table 3 on page 22 of the estimates sets out the force allocation of the three roles. There are no fewer than 13 instances in which the number of units required for a given task exceeds the incremental total available. Some of those can be made up by war requisitioning, but if table 3 was an attempt to show that we already have adequate forces, those of us who can count up to 14 found that it illustrates the opposite: in 13 of the instances we do not have the forces deemed absolutely necessary.
  Those who ask why the decisions are so erratic and unpredictable and why the Ministry of Defence always seems to change its tune under Treasury pressure are asking the same questions as we did. We asked why the decisions were erratic and unpredictable; we asked why Ministers changed their tune under pressure. We searched and thought and could not find any explanation—that is, until this morning.
  This morning, I had a quick look through a book which should be recommended reading for anyone who wants to understand why the Ministry of Defence is erratic, unpredictable and changes its tune under pressure. The book is a philosophical tome called,
  "Margaret Thatcher: the Downing Street Years".
  As we all know, it deals with ideology and general politics and does not descend to the level of political personalities or backstabbing.
  On one of the occasions when the former Prime Minister does comment on the personalities involved, she describes the Secretary of State thus: a man whose judgment is "erractic", whose behaviour is "unpreclictable", a man who always
  "changed his tune under pressure".
  As they say in the Tab advert, suddenly everything becomes clear. That is the explanation of the erratic nature of British defence policy. It is not only because of the mismatch between resources and commitments; it is also a reflection of the erratic and unpredictable nature of the man responsible for formulating it.
  186
  Had the former Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence been political enemies, I would not have believed it, but I know that they were close political allies because when he was Secretary of State for Scotland the right hon. and learned Gentleman assured me that there was no difference between them; so I take it as an objective comment. Behind the cool and confident exterior of the Scottish legal establishment, apparently lies a quivering wreck presiding over the Ministry of Defence.
  The search for a deeper meaning has been a pointless one because there is no deeper meaning. Tory defence policy really is as chaotic and shambolic as it appears to be.
  We shall try not to be too harsh in our criticism because I aim to be consistent and take .the advice of the former Prime Minister. She informs us that the Secretary of State is a man who is "sensitive and highly-strung" and we would not wish to be unfair to a man of such a delicate disposition. I shall therefore move on to the general political arguments.
  If all that were not enough, the truth is that the sorry mess of "Options for Change" was not exclusively of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's making. The honour belongs mainly to his predecessor, a man who, although he is not noted for his sensitivity, displayed all the erratic and unpredictable qualities expected from a Conservative Secretary of State for Defence. Even so, the 1993 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", although clearly an attempt to respond to the severe criticisms that have been levelled at the Government from both inside and outside Parliament, is an inadequate document in almost every respect.
  In particular, there is still no elaboration of the strategic rationale for the decisions that have been reached, no discussion of the foreign policy objectives shaping our military requirements and little explanation of the missions that our armed forces have been restructured to undertake.
  We were given assurances that there would be a strategic input into the document. It was heralded by Ministers as a major work, a PhD thesis on strategic thinking. Hon. Members should reread the document. There are five pages on strategy excluding the tables. The Secretary of State has a copy; he can count them. There are four pages in the glossary. There are eight pages in the index. There are as many pages in the glossary and the contents as there are on strategy. There are twice the number of pages in the index as there are on the strategic decisions taken for the future of the British armed forces for the next 30 years. No detailed justification is offered.
  I shall not go through any of the shambolic decisions . that are included within the document. I merely repeat that, if we do not have a defence review, we shall have a constant incremental cut across all the services which will represent a reduction in most of them to a critical level. That will mean that, instead of doing some things well, we will do all things badly.
  Finally, as the Gulf war showed, we remain crucially dependent on our allies for the provision of certain essential capabilities. When we talk of specialisation, which so horrifies ex-Ministers and, presumably, Ministers, their assumption is that we are doing everything now. But we are dependent on our allies for some tasks, as was amply shown during the Gulf war.
  At the Tory party conference, the Secretary of State predicted that if there were any more cuts we would have paper tiger armed forces. Two things struck me about that comment. First, it was made with the air of a detached

  187
  observer, a commentator. He made the prediction that we may soon have paper tiger armed forces, as if it had nothing to do with him and was all to do with unforeseen circumstances, the "Book of Revelation" or the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
  It was a classic case of trying to opt out of responsibility for the present position, and Opposition Members will not let the Secretary of State opt out of that responsibility. The truth is that under his stewardship and that of his predecessor the Tories have forfeited all their claims to be the party of strong defence. I have some sympathy with the frustration of Conservative Back Benchers, including one or two who are nodding in agreement, who recognise that.
  I can tell the Secretary of State today that, although we do not want to intrude in grief, if he continues down that path he will not be forgotten by the Conservative party because those on the Benches behind him do not want to forfeit the right to claim to be the party of sound defence. However, he has already done it and he is going further down that road. That is my first point on paper tigers.
  Secondly, whatever the Secretary of State or the Government do, the people in the British armed forces will never be paper tigers. Those looking for paper tigers should not look to the armed forces because, however badly resourced or badly treated they may be, their men and women will always rise well above the description of paper tigers.
  Those searching for paper tigers should not look in the barrack rooms of the British Army, the ships of the Royal Navy or the air bases of the Royal Air Force. They should not search in the green fields of South Armagh, the green hills of Bosnia or the green peace line in Cyprus—they should look for paper tigers on the Government's green Benches. That is where the paper tigers sit. Using an animal metaphor, I can say only that there is nothing more sickening than someone who can roar like a lion on the party conference platform, but can only squeak like a mouse in the Treasury vaults or the Cabinet room.
  We have seen all this before and the British armed forces deserve better. That is why the Opposition will not acquiesce in the Government's plans. That is why we have tabled an amendment. That is why we hope that those who have the fundamental interests of our armed forces at heart will vote for the Opposition amendment.
  6.1 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is always enjoyable and entertaining to listen to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). I am sorry to disappoint him, but I assure him that Conservative Members stand solidly behind our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. We certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  I find it sickening to listen to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen pontificating, as they always do, about the level of our defence capability and the cuts that they claim the Conservative Government should not be making—while at the same time saying that they, too, would make cuts, but that they would be different cuts. They are not prepared to say what cuts and whether they would be deeper or lesser cuts. They are not prepared to give the slightest indication to the country of what shape they plan for our defence forces. Of course, they are in the happy position of not
  188
  having to do that because neither now nor in the foreseeable future will they be in any position to make such decisions.
  Having said that, I must now say that I am not entirely happy with the rumours going around the country—which I hope will be proved to be wrong—that there will be further defence cuts over and above those that we have already suffered. I am confident that such rumours do not come from the Ministry of Defence. I am equally confident that our Defence Ministers would not wish such cuts upon us. I want to know where the rumours originated and, in a moment, I want to deal in some detail with the reasons why they cause me great concern.
  First, I want to say a few words about the defence estimates. I very much welcome their new shape, with the matching of our commitments with the resources available. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North about the matching of the commitments in table 3 on page 22 with the resources allocated to them. For example, the target for defence role 1—MCMVs, the mine clearing vessels—is 28. The number proposed is 25 and the glossary at the end of the estimates shows that we will not get even that many because the number will drop to 18 next year as some of the obsolete vessels are removed and new vessels have not yet been ordered or built.
  I am unhappy with many of the detailed aspects of current defence planning. I have the honour to chair the Defence Select Committee, whose report expresses the concern that we could not fully meet our commitments. I shall return to that theme later.
  The level of defence expenditure proposed arises not from the 1993 defence estimates, but from "Options for Change", which was introduced in 1991 and originally planned in 1989. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North quoted what Lady Thatcher had said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Perhaps he should have reminded the House that the person in overall charge of "Options for Change" was Lady Thatcher. It is not right to blame the present leadership—and certainly not right to blame the present MOD team—for our current level of defence. "Options for Change" was based on the assumption that there would be a peace dividend.
  I was never one of those who believed that there would be a peace dividend and I want to explore whether we now have a world that is demonstrably safer than it was in 1989. I believe that it is demonstrably very much more dangerous. There is fighting throughout the outer regions of the former Soviet Union. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Georgia are aflame. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out in his opening speech yesterday, Russia came within an ace of dissolving into civil war. There has been no reduction in the number of nuclear warheads in Russia and the Ukraine, but control of them has become much less secure. The danger of nuclear proliferation in states that are incapable of proper and responsible action niust have grown substantially since 1989.
  In the far east, China is enormously powerful and is growing in military might. It is buying and building military equipment at an enormous rate and is planning to expand its naval fleet and naval bases. It is still a dictatorial regime—it is crushing Tibet, where it is carrying out genocide to the eternal shame of the west, which seems incapable of doing anything to influence China. It has recently exploded another nuclear bomb in an experiment

  189
  that directly contravenes the international moratorium on nuclear tests. Looking 10 or 20 years ahead, can we be sure that China will not be a major threat to the western world?
  Closer to home and nearer in time, we have only to look at Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. The war in the provinces of the former Yugoslavia threatens to spill over into Albania, Greece and Turkey. That would have horrific consequences for the United Kingdom and western Europe. We cannot for one moment assume that none of that will happen.
  The United States of America is currently making some extremely unwelcome and aggressive noises about our special relationship, about Europe and about the future of NATO. I am deeply concerned about that. I am sure that we can hold NATO together, but the unity of the United States and Europe is an essential part of our integral future security. If that is threatened we shall be in grave danger.
  There never was any room—and there certainly is no room now—for any peace dividend. Even if I were wrong about that and even if there were plenty of room, I believe that we have already taken any peace dividend, and more than in full. It is a staggering fact that, as a nation, we are now spending less on our defences in real terms than the Labour Government spent in 1978. Since 1989, we have lost 20 per cent. of our manpower capability and 15 per cent. of our overall budget. Under the current defence estimates, we will lose 18 per cent. of our current defence expenditure and almost 23 per cent. of our overall manpower by 1995–26.
  There is a contrast between what has happened in the Ministry of Defence and what has happened in all the other big spending Departments. The Department of Health is now spending 50 per cent. more in real terms than it did in 1979; the Department for Education is spending 30 per cent. more; and the Department of Transport 25 per cent. more. I am not quibbling about that and I do not say for a moment that those Departments should not have that increased expenditure.
  However, if we must look for savings we should look to those Departments to provide them. They have suffered no cuts in the number of civil servants or in their Departments' activities and there has been enormous growth in their administration costs. The Ministry of Defence has already made a significant attack on those areas and it should take great credit for doing so. Is there room for further cuts? I say that there is not. I do not mean to suggest that some millions of pounds cannot be saved —perhaps even tens of millions—by further pruning inefficiencies and looking for additional economies in administrative costs. I am sure that can be done.
  What particularly frightens me are persistent rumours of a cut of £1 billion or more being demanded by the Treasury of the Ministry of Defence. I must tell my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench—and those of my right hon. Friends in the Treasury who are looking over their shoulders—that any such attempt further to cut our defence budget would meet with strong opposition. I have no doubt that I speak for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends on these Back Benches as well as for myself when I say that any attempt to put into action cuts of the scale that I have heard mentioned would offer no alternative but to vote against them.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman suggests that cuts should be made in other areas. Does he consider that tax should be increased if that is necessary to save the defence budget?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not want to turn this into a detailed economic debate but it is certainly my view that, when trying to bring down the unacceptably high deficit that I accept exists, the pain ought to be spread among Departments, and there should be a partial increase in tax as well to balance the way in which the gap is narrowed.
  The Ministry of Defence can seek exemption from cuts because it is the only Department that has already made enormous savings and should not be asked to contribute further. I am deeply disturbed by rumours and by the false and malicious disinformation released to the press from some source.
  One example is the claim that there are more civil servants than fighting men. That is a fatuous misrepresentation of the truth. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces dealt with that point at the beginning of the debate. The fact is that we have 240,000 fighting men and 135,000 civilians—including civil servants, but also all those who man the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, those who have taken over jobs previously done by members of the armed services in guarding depots and headquarters, and those who perform many other tasks taken into the civilian sector. To call them all civil servants and to deride them as pen pushers is offensive.
  Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech and some powerful points. I assure him that, if the unthinkable happens, he would not go into the Lobby alone to vote against the cuts.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I never actually thought that I would.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As to savings and bureaucrats, I remind the House—while my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is present—that my right hon. and learned Friend took the view that a difference of £64 million is sufficient to justify a transfer from Rosyth to Devonport, despite the additional cost of doing so. Under the guidance of my right hon. and learned Friend when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, it was proposed to build a new palace for the Scottish Office in Leith at a cost of £55 million, plus transfer costs of £10 million. That makes a total of £65 million, to accommodate more bureaucrats at the Scottish Office—a sum higher than £64 million.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. and learned Friend gives me an opportunity to defend the decision taken by my right hon. and learned Friend to go ahead with the new building at Bristol. It will be expensive, but both the Ministry of Defence and the Public Accounts Committee examined the costings and were satisfied that there will be a substantial overall saving to the Ministry. I therefore have no hesitation in saying that I am sure that it is correct to construct that building.
  What can be done to solve our present dilemma? Should we believe the rumours and look for further cuts at the Ministry of Defence? Should we continue, for example, to bash admirals—which seems to be the pastime of whoever circulated the rumours of the past week? We were told that

  191
  there are more admirals than ships. Several radio commentators said that it is disgraceful that so much gold braid was about.
  The truth is very different. In 1989 there were 47 admirals, and now we have 42. In two years' time, we shall have 36. Of those, four will be doctors. Therefore, our entire fleet—which will still be substantial if not as substantial as most of us would like—will be under the command of 32 admirals. By a happy coincidence, that is the same as the number of Private Secretaries, Deputy Private Secretaries, Permanent Secretaries and Under-Secretaries at the Treasury. I know where I would like to see the axe fall.
  The great cry appears to be that there should be a public review of our defence requirements in the context of matching our commitments to our resources. Superficially that is an extremely attractive idea, but I must make mention of two papers published by the Defence Select Committee, on defence estimates and on the Royal Navy. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will take the opportunity to read both, as well as the Library paper on defence reviews. If they read that paper, they may view with more reluctance the defence review system. It has not been frantically successful in the past, for the reason that it is a rolling programme.
  Mention has already been made of the 1962 review. There was also one in 1981, which was not successful, and "Options for Change" was a review by any other name.
  Dr. Reid indicated dissent.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he will find that there is no difference between the process adopted by the Government for "Options for Change" and that normally used for the kind of review that he advocates. We should not go for a public review of our defence requirements but must prevent the Treasury from taking over detailed control of our defence commitments and resources.
  There must of course be some financial balance and control over the money that we spend on defence, as on everything else—but I am deeply concerned about the moratorium imposed by the Treasury since July on orders that the Ministry of Defence wants to place. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announce the order for ammunition, but that should have gone in months ago. It is only because Royal Ordnance created such a fuss that at last the go-ahead has reluctantly been given.
  Orders should also have been placed for Challenger 2 tanks, which I know that my hon. Friend the Minister wanted to enter and which the Ministry of Defence was ready to confirm. That order was blocked by the Treasury, as were preliminary orders for the MCMVs and the EH101. All are vital for our national interest and have been budgeted for. Detailed interference of that kind from the Treasury and from Treasury Ministers and officials is anathema to anyone who believes in proper Government and makes it impossible for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, the Ministry of Defence or the House to keep proper control. We must stop it, and I hope that can be done without recourse to a defence review.
  192
  We must also make sure that our commitments and resources are balanced. That again is broadly the case now, give or take some of the shortcomings from which we suffer. We must ask whether we have too many commitments at the moment. That is for the Foreign Office to do, not for the Treasury. What are the proper commitments for our country to be carrying out? What do we wish to do?
  Briefly, I have no hesitation in advising my right hon. and hon. Friends what those commitments should be. We must be able to defend our own interests at home and abroad. We must be able to play a proper part in NATO and in the United Nations, as required by our allies and as is properly demanded of us as a member of the Security Council. We must also be able to use our armed forces abroad to bolster British interests wherever we deem that appropriate.
  I shall give one example of where we have got it wrong —Belize. We have withdrawn our troops from Belize, and that has had two beneficial effects. First, it has helped our emergency tour plot to become shorter, and I welcome that. Secondly, it has saved the Treasury a vast amount—to the tune of £9 million a year.
  What were the benefits of having our troops in Belize? Were they worth £9 million a year? The central part of America is critical for the future security of the west. South America, central America and north America are burgeoning trading areas in which we need a strong British presence. We were asked by the Americans to stay there. We were asked by the Belize authorities to stay there. We were asked—ironically—by the Guatemalan Government against whom we were defending Belize. But we decided, for the sake of £9 million and to ease a short-term problem with the ETP, that we would withdraw our troops from Belize.
  I was horrified last night by the answer to a question that I put to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He told me—he did not tell me, but we were safe enough to divine it—that we were not going to renew the guarantee that we gave to Belize that, in the event of its being invaded by Guatemala, we would go to its aid. I can think of no better way of losing friends and our reputation for being prepared to stand by our friends, which the House is entitled to demand of our Government and our Ministry.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): May I reassure my hon. Friend? It so happens that earlier today I had a meeting with the Prime Minister of Belize, who is in London. I assure my hon. Friend that there continues to be very close consultation between Belize and the United Kingdom. We recognise that Belize has understandable concerns about the future, notwithstanding the very much improved relationship with Guatemala. My hon. Friend can be assured that we continue to discuss with the Belizean Government the way in which any concerns that might develop in future could properly be responded to by the United Kingdom in the interests of ensuring not only security in central America but the continuing independence and integrity of Belize.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend had been able to reassure me, but I am afraid that he has done precisely what our hon. Friend the Minister did last night, and that is fail to give me the assurance that I sought. We have clearly not given Belize the assurance that we would unequivocally go to its aid in

  193
  the event of it being invaded by Guatemala—an undertaking which we have always given in the past and which was the purpose of our troops' presence in Belize until now. With all due respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, it should not be too difficult for Her Majesty's Government to give that undertaking to an ex-colony which heavily depends upon us for its security.
  That is one example of where we must look on a wider base rather than purely asking whether that is how we use our defence forces in order to defend immediate British interests. The value of our white ensign and our troops in that area spreads through the whole of that part of the continent and that has an enormous added benefit. Closer to home and in a smaller way, the trooping of the colour ceremonials carried out by the guards has inestimable value for tourism income and for the financial well-being of London. I have seen no sign of that point being taken into account when deciding what will be done about ceremonials.
  Last year, we were given an assurance that the cut in the guards regiments would not affect ceremonials, but already this summer there has been what was described as a one-off accidental failure to get the emergency tour plot right. Therefore, the guards had to be taken off other duties. The ceremonial in London was cut in a way that we were assured no one would notice, but one would have had to be blind or ignorant not to notice a substantial difference over two years.
  We must carefully consider where the money comes from. I see nothing wrong in the suggestion that the Ministry of Defence be able to charge another Department for the value that our troops give in certain areas. However, I certainly do not believe that we should cut what our troops do in those areas on the spurious ground that we cannot afford it when we are talking about £9 million in the case of Belize and probably a fraction of that amount in terms of extra ceremonial duties which are cut.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at this moment, Group 4 is practising with horses so that it can bid for the ceremonial aspect of the military when it comes up for tender?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not think that I will waste my time on that intervention. No doubt it will appear in Hansard.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting comparison between the number of senior civil servants in the Treasury and the number of admirals. He said that there are 32 of each. As many hon. Members think that the Treasury is trying to run the Ministry of Defence, it might be sensible to send admirals to run the Treasury.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am not sure whether I should have given way on that occasion, either. That intervention gives a lighter note to the finish of what is meant to be a serious speech.
  I conclude by reiterating that I do not believe for one moment that this country will remain properly defended and adequately secure, and it will certainly not be able to carry out its duties in the various areas that I described if we suffer any more substantial cuts. I am afraid that I would have to oppose any such action, even though I would do so with great reluctance when my own Government propose it.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It was a relief to hear in the speech of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) references to the context in which defence policy should be analysed and in which our defence forces should be deployed. I did not necessarily agree with some of his arguments, but at least he tried to address the wider context of defence policy.
  During the past day and a half, we have had two hours and 12 minutes of ministerial speeches, but we have heard nothing of what the Government's defence policy is about. We have heard about weapons, procurements, deployments and medals. Today, from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, we heard about something called gender-free testing.
  Yesterday, we even had spatchcocked into the Secretary of State's speech—no doubt it was drafted and inserted by the Foreign Office—a completely gratuitous statement about the situation in Russia today. The House was enlightened by the Secretary of State on how essential to safeguarding Russian democracy it was that the discredited Russian Parliament should be dissolved. I suppose that the same argument might be used about this country at present.
  It seems that the Secretary of State for Defence is involved in a great dispute inside the Cabinet about the defence budget. The hon. Member for Upminster, with the weight of his chairmanship of the Select Committee, gave a grave warning to the Government of the consequences among Conservative Back-Bench Members if cuts of £1 billion were made in the defence budget.
  It is interesting that the dispute that is going on inside the Cabinet and which is echoed throughout the Conservative press today is not about what the Secretary of State should spend his budget on or whether that expense in necessary, justifiable or cost-effective.
  The dispute simply seems to be about what the figures in the budget should be. In defending his budget, the Secretary of State for Defence seems to be echoing Descartes in saying: "I spend, therefore I am." He is simply saying: "I need the budget to show that I am the Secretary of State for Defence, and that the Ministry of Defence has a role to play in the Government." However, that is very different from the Ministry carrying out its role as the protector of the armed services and as the Department designated to work out a defence policy for our country.
  The level of defence spending should not be an abstract figure. It should not be as high as the Secretary of State can bargain it up, or as low as the Chancellor can manage to cut it down. I tell the hon. Members for Upminster and for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)—the latter sought to make the same point yesterday—that having league tables on expenditure between Government Departments is not the point. The point is whether the expenditure of Departments can be justified by what those Departments are doing and what they should be doing.
  Whether the defence budget of £24 billion—if that is what it turns out to be—is too high or too low does not depend on picking a figure out of the air or on an argument between the Secretary of State and the Chancellor. It depends on what our armed forces are supposed to be doing, and whether that amount of money will make it possible for our armed forces to do it. The figure of £24 billion is much too low if it does not provide the

  195
  wherewithal to fulfil a sensible defence policy. However, it is too high if it goes beyond the needs of a sensible defence policy.
  The problem with the present level of defence spending and, indeed, any future level of defence spending—it is more likely to be lower than higher—or any variant that is now being considered is that no one knows how much needs to be spent. No one, including the Secretary of State for Defence, has the slightest idea of what the defence policy is about and what it should be about.
  Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) with what he clearly regarded as an absolutely daring notion—that the Foreign Office should have some say in what defence policy should be, and that defence policy should be a consequence of foreign policy.
  Yet that is simply all that a defence policy should be. It does not exist in abstract. Our forces do not exist in order that they should exist. The defence budget does not exist in order that there should be a figure that can be defended by the Secretary of State or cut down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It exists to carry out policies in the interests of this country, by defending our country and ensuring that our national interests are defended in the various forums of the world in which we properly have a say.
  When Clausewitz said that war was the continuation of diplomacy by other means, he was encapsulating what the right hon. Member for Watford regarded yesterday as so far out a notion that he dared to make it only once he had left the Government—that defence policy should be an arm of foreign policy. But that is precisely what defence policy is and should be: it should be an extension of our foreign policy.
  The problem is that, under this Government, the country does not have a foreign policy that can be discerned. It has a number of propositions and elegances that the Foreign Secretary is well equipped to voice. However, we are not getting a world view and a view of Britain's place in that world. We do not have a rational defence policy that can be the military arm of a world view and a view of this country's place in the world.
  For 45 years, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, this country's foreign and defence policies were governed, rightly and necessarily, by the cold war. NATO was formed in 1949 to prevent Stalin's armies from overrunning western Europe. The NATO nuclear strategy was necessarily and rightly aimed at preventing the Soviets from backing their huge armies with a nuclear threat.
  Mutual assured destruction—with its appropriate acronym of MAD—kept the peace from D day in 1945 to that day in November 1990, to which Lady Thatcher referred in her book, when she heard in Paris that she had failed to be elected on the first Conservative ballot. She was in Paris to represent Britain at the conference which brought about the formal end of the cold war.
  The cold war lasted for forty-five and a half years. During that time, we had the same policy and strategy under both Conservative and Labour Governments. It was to deter Communist aggression by alliances, especially NATO, and to have the necessary armed forces on land, sea and air and the necessary nuclear deterrent to make it clear
  196
  to the Soviets that they faced a nuclear response if they launched a land attack. The policy was tough, but it worked. It was clear, and we all knew where we were.
  The problem is that we no longer know where we are, because the certainty of the cold war—the certainty was ugly, but nevertheless it provided a great deal of clarity —has gone. We no longer know why we have the alliance that was rightly formed in 1949.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence said that it was desirable to expand NATO to include Russia. However, he did not tell the House why we needed NATO, following the end of the cold war. When Mr. James Baker was the United States Secretary of State—he was a fine Secretary of State—he was rightly responsible for killing NATO's flexible nuclear weapons response strategy, against the bitter resistance of Lady Thatcher.
  Mr. Baker said that, following the changes and the end of the cold war, a new raison d'etre for NATO needed to be devised. But no one has tried. No one knows why we still have the alliance, which the Secretary of State should be expanding. Nor do we know why we need strategic weaponry.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence boasted about defence co-operation agreements with Russia, Ukraine, Albania and other easter European Communist countries. When I asked him why we needed a nuclear deterrent against countries with which we were working out defence agreements—he was very enthusiastic about the co-operation—he said that the Government did not know what would happen, and therefore had to guard against uncertainty.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is a great advocate of the Royal Air Force. Yesterday, when he rose with some agitation and asked why the tactical air-to-surface missile weapon would not be developed, the Secretary of State said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 18 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 35.]
  The Secretary of State is sure that it is right not to have the tactical air-to-surface missile weapon. During the general election, the Government challenged Labour Members about whether a Labour Government would have the tactical air-to-surface missile. Nevertheless, he says that we are unsure, because the Government still believe that they should keep Trident.
  The Government had better not jeer at the Labour party, or even at silly resolutions passed by the Labour party conference, as one was a couple of weeks ago, because, although those silly Labour party resolutions may not become Labour Government policy, they often become Tory Government policy. That being so, let the Government not be too firm in their defence of the need to have four Trident submarines—much as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, (Mr. Hutton) wants them, for practical reasons.
  This Government may not decide to commission the four submarines, whatever they say today, and they have absolutely no notion of how many warheads they will have on those submarines. When we say a maximum of 192, the Secretary of State will not say, "Yes, definitely 512," because he knows that he cannot commit himself to that.
  I warn the Government that, just as they flourished TASM as their macho symbol at the last general election and taunted the Labour party with it, they had better not

  197
  taunt the Labour party about even the sloppiest, most sentimental part of the resolutions that it espouses in emotional moments at party conferences because that part may turn out to be more realistic than this Government when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a go at the Secretary of State for Defence.
  The Government have not begun to think through what the defence policy should be for a medium-sized European power, such as the United Kingdom, with few worldwide responsibilities outside its European alliance and United Nations commitments. Indeed, in this debate, commitments have been shed like autumn leaves.
  We have just had a valid row about getting rid of our commitment in Belize. The hon. Member for Upminster joined in, and I disagree with him. We heard yesterday that our troops are to be withdrawn from Hong Kong. The little contingent will go from South Korea. The commitment in Belize has gone, in my view rightly. We have some sailors in the Caribbean.
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces in last night's speech, which was like a long series of postcards home to his mother—his absolutely delightful mother, whom I greatly admire—told us that among our deployments these days were our sailors going on leave in Miami and getting what he assured us was traditional United States hospitality. I hope that our troops are allowed to be armed if they are to receive the traditional hospitality of Florida.
  In these circumstances, every penny that the Government spend on defence is wasted, because it is not being spent for a clear reason in pursuit of a clear policy. We have excellently trained armed forces, who commit themselves magnificently whenever they are called upon to go into action. During the Gulf crisis, I met our troops in the Gulf. They acquitted themselves superbly, as they do whenever they are called on to fight. The question is: what are our troops supposed to be doing and preparing for? What should Britain's defence policy be?
  Clearly, we must be equipped properly and adequately. We must be prepared to face and defeat any threat to us as a nation. But who on earth is going to threaten us? Not Germany, despite Lady Thatcher's nightmares. Not Russia, as has been made absolutely clear to us by the Secretary of State for Defence himself. The last thing to interest President Yeltsin is some foreign adventure, unless, like the tiny country in the film "The Mouse that Roared", he can persuade the Americans to fight a war with him, defeat him, occupy Russia and solve his problems for him. President Yeltsin is certainly not about to fight us and, indeed, the Secretary of State has just signed agreements with him.
  Clearly, we must have basic forces to meet any rare contingency, should foreign policy fail, as it did so abysmally over the Falklands. This afternoon, it was pointed out to us how near we came to not being equipped to fight that war. We must be able to prepare for such a contingency.
  I am ready to support any Budget necessary to make sure that we can deploy whatever forces are required rapidly and efficiently. Clearly, we need troops for Northern Ireland, although I say to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in all friendliness and good will that the sooner we have an end to that sterile and costly commitment by the political solution of a united Ireland, the better for all of us, including Ireland.
  198
  Beyond that, we should have well trained, mobile units available for United Nations policing operations on land, in the air and at sea. The end of the cold war has not brought a new world order, as the hon. Member for Upminster made clear so eloquently. Due to a lack of statesmanship by many Governments, including this one, the end of the cold war has brought about a new disorder, which in many ways is less satisfactory and more frightening than the old communist authoritarianism. At least, under communism, the people of those countries, oppressed as they were, lived under a certain rough if ugly order. That order has gone, but the risks have not gone with it.
  The people of Yugoslavia presumably thought that nothing could be worse than the communism under which they used to be misgoverned. Now they know that things can be, and indeed are, much worse than that. Is the upheaval in the former Soviet Union preferable to the regime of Mikhail Gorbachev? My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) told us what has been happening in Georgia and Azerbaijan. Many who suffer in those territories would doubt it. Communism was ugly, oppressive and dictatorial; it had its secret police and concentration camps; but it prevented ethnic civil war, which in many ways is worse than what existed before.
  Although Russia is no longer the super-power that the Soviet Union once was, it remains a nuclear power. What is more, there are now four nuclear powers where there was one before. One of the problems of there being four irresponsible nuclear powers is the danger of a nuclear capability seeping through to medium-sized and small countries, which will not exercise the control over the weapons that the Soviet Union did. Of course the Soviet Union's ownership of nuclear weapons was odious and ugly, but it was part of a stand-off that the two super-powers understood totally. They both knew where they were, and mutually assured destruction was the name of the game. Brezhnev and Stalin understood that, just as much as Eisenhower.
  Already there is proliferation, and now there is a danger of greater proliferation. It can be said that it was far preferable to have a huge super-power, like the Soviet Union, with a nuclear capability than a seepage which enables medium-sized and even small powers to gain a nuclear capability. Too many countries already have that capability, such as India, Pakistan and Israel. A prime aim of our defence policy should be to prevent nuclear proliferation and to reduce the number of countries with a nuclear potential.
  That is why this country should take the lead in pressing for a total ban on all nuclear testing. It is frightening that a Chinese resumption of tests should lead President Clinton to consider ending his moratorium on tests. Yet the Government have no idea whether or not they are in favour of nuclear testing. A year or 15 months ago, they said that it was essential; but when I have challenged the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in the Chamber, to say whether they regard it as essential for the country's nuclear capability, they have dodged the question. They do not know—because the answer depends on whether President Clinton will allow them to have nuclear testing.
  We ought to be saying that it is best for the whole world if no one carries out such tests. We ought to be using the current moratorium, and our own inability to conduct tests —because the Americans will not allow us to do so—both to negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty and to extend

  199
  adherence to the non-proliferation treaty. We should be calling on the United Nations to ban trade in all nuclear-potential materials between countries that refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty—as too many still do.
  That would, of course, mean a change of heart in this country. Day after day, the Scott inquiry reveals that the Government fell over themselves to break their own embargo by selling Saddam Hussein not only conventional weapons, but the wherewithal to manufacture nuclear weapons. The disgraceful record of the Thatcher Government—which, for some reason, is not highlighted in that lady's memoirs—was continued under the present Government, right up to the day on which Iraq seized Kuwait: we were enhancing Iraq's nuclear capability until that day in August when Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait. We ought to use the present position to stop testing and to stop proliferation.
  Moreover, rather than squabbling internally about the kind of nuclear weapons with which they should make do — as a macho symbol—the Government ought to realise that the only real and practical use for the residual British nuclear capability is to give us authority to participate in, and if necessary initiate, the next round of strategic arms reduction talks, and to demonstrate to countries that already have a nuclear capability—or wish to acquire it—that the United Kingdom is ready to work with them to make the world a safer place, together with France, China, the former Soviet nuclear powers and the United States.
  As I have said, this country is a medium-sized power on the edge of Europe, and it is part of the European Community. Nevertheless—medium-sized though it is, and limited though its capabilities are—it is uniquely placed to play a constructive part in world politics and the establishment of a new world order. Ours is the only country in the world that is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the European Community, the Commonwealth and the Group of Seven, and also has a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council —which we should insist on keeping, whatever meddling others wish to try.
  We are uniquely placed in those five centres of power, influence and authority. We ought to be playing a constructive role in trying to build the new world order for which we hoped when the cold war ended but which has not come about. It is because the Government are failing to take advantage of a unique opportunity, in unique circumstances, that I will readily join my hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight.
  6.53 pm
  Sir Dudley Smith: Let me declare two interests. In June, for my sins, I was chosen as President of the Western European Assembly. My other interest is hardly relevant to the debate, but I suppose that I should mention it: I am connected with a company that has a good many clients, one of which makes weaponry.
  The speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was a tour de force. I agreed with parts of what he said and disagreed with others; time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak, so I hope that he will forgive me if I do not go into the details.
  I sat through many of yesterday's speeches and have sat through all today's. There is no doubt about the message
  200
  from Conservative Members: we are concerned about the defence cuts that are already being implemented and extremely worried by suggestions that more are to come. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will heed the warnings given by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, and by others who have been present over the past two days.
  Because of our commitments—particularly our peace-keeping commitments—any further substantial cuts will have a far-reaching and devastating effect, practically eliminating our role as a major element of NATO. As Lord Younger, the former Secretary of State for Defence, said on the radio yesterday,
  "We are a linchpin of NATO".
  Indeed we are—and several senior serving officers have told me, "We are already cut to the bone and morale is sagging." Those remarks were not made lightly.
  Mr. Wolfson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Dudley Smith: I would rather not. As my hon. Friend knows, I am not usually chary about giving way, but there have already been a good many interventions. It is very unfair to others who wish to speak.
  To date, our peacekeeping role has been very positive and helpful. However, given all the defence requirements of Northern Ireland—I note that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has sat through the entire debate—and our intensive role in the former Yugoslavia, we are becoming very thin on the ground, especially the Army.
  I welcome the step forward taken yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in regard to reservists; but why have we not been more realistic about them in the past? Why are we not doing more than he suggested, even at this stage? I believe that reservists are the key to modern defence planning. The United States has found that out for itself; indeed, I have observed something of its large and enthusiastic training operation. Men are prepared to give up their weekends and travel hundreds of miles to fly combat aircraft, sail ships and develop the latest soldiering skills. They become virtually as good and reliable as the professionals. The future must lie with reservists if we are to retain credible forces.
  Had the Owen peace initiative succeeded, we would already have been compromised over the number of troops required as our contribution to policing duties in the war-torn areas. The stark reality is that greater European instability leads to potentially increased demands on our defence capability. For those who suggest that we should now collect the peace dividend and opt out of our major role in the world, leaving it to others—this has been mentioned in the Chamber over the past two days—I quote just one figure.
  Since 1954, in Europe, the Mediterranean and the middle east—nowhere else in the world—3.5 million people have been killed in local and area wars. That is not my fanciful figure; it comes directly from NATO. That staggering statistic should be given to anyone who makes a fuss about defence spending and thinks that we do not economise enough. As the right hon. Member for Gorton pointed out, the world remains a perilous place, and recent events in the Soviet Union have underlined that we would be sensible to bear that in mind at all times. In imploring the Government to keep defence spending at a realistic

  201
  level—despite all the other crucial demands of which we are ware—I stress that greater co-operation is needed between the allies to harmonise reductions and produce cost-effective solutions to common problems.
  Since taking over as President of the WEU Assembly, I have become more than ever convinced that the WEU, as the European pillar of NATO, has a special role to play. I am pleased that the statement on the defence estimates makes frequent and positive mention of its contribution. I am glad that there is United Kingdom support for new Western European Union developments such as the establishment of the satellite centre at Torrejon near Madrid, the planning cell in Brussels, which I saw recently, and the Institute for Security Studies. Of those three developments, two had British directors; one a well-regarded gentleman who formerly sat on the Opposition Benches.
  Two other WEU initiatives should also be strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Uprninster and the Government: first, the recent creation of the Western European Union armament group, which superseded the Independent European Programme Group and which is far more flexible and worth while in its new format; and secondly, the development of observation satellites, which, given the confused state of the world, will be necessary over the next decade, if not just to monitor the migration of large numbers of people from one part of the world to another.
  Britain is a prominent member of NATO and the Western European Union. In the WEU assembly, the British delegation, drawn from all parties, plays a full and effective role in its proceedings. It cannot be stressed too often that the Western European Union is not trying to duplicate NATO or even trying to succeed it. However, it is sometimes possible for the WEU to act effectively in certain areas, such as the running of three Danube emergency control points in co-operation with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania and as a catalyst for NATO action, for example, by inspiring the highly successful blockade in the Adriatic, which I was able to see in the past week.
  That joint NATO-WEU operation has a complement of 12,000 sailors who have virtually shut down 50 miles of Montenegrin coast line and almost ended the traffic into the two main ports there, exerting a considerable effect on the Serbian economy. Further defence cuts would probably see the end of such help. We would not be able to contribute in future to such operations and would set a poor example to our allies.
  We all know that NATO has more than proved its worth since 1949, when, as the right hon. Member for Gorton pointed out, it was formed during the time of a Labour Government—although it was a general wish. However, it must evolve into a new area, which is why next January's summit on the future of NATO is so important. It has become even more important following the American President's comments at the weekend, which I consider unwise and unnecessary.
  I am chary about the enlargement of the WEU because of many complications. It would be resented by Russia and would extend a large number of commitments. However, many countries would love to have a closer relationship with the free countries of the old western world and it would be better if our chiefs decided to make the WEU the vehicle by which those countries could join rather than NATO.
  202
  Defence economists must play a part in the forthcoming summit. That is why I believe that there is so much scope for co-operation and joint enterprise. It is vital that the summit further develops the relationship between the countries of central Europe, and perhaps it could arrange for them to play a part in the Western European Union.
  Co-operation between Europeans on security and defence is vital, but we must never abandon national responsibilities. That was clearly underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and others, that the No. 1 task for any Government or Secretary of State for Defence is to look after our country and defend our own. We must be vigilant over any attempt to develop a European defence policy beyond the bounds agreed at Maastricht and one in opposition to our interests. We can achieve that by strongly pursuing the kind of policies which have been criticised by the Opposition but which have been generally good over recent years. We must have credible defence spending options available if we are to succeed.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that speeches from now until 9 pm must be restricted to 10 minutes.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: One must be deeply concerned, at a time when there are so many conflicts throughout the world, that the United Kingdom cannot maintain its forces at a level that creates reasonable confidence within our armed services, if not in the country. Confidence is being eroded and the signs are becoming evident.
  In the not too distant past, there were separate Ministers for the Army, Navy and Air Force. Without explaining the reason for that arrangement ceasing, the change provided an opportunity, which worked well, for chiefs of staff to take a more panoramic view of our defence interests to minimise the competition among the three arms of our defence forces.
  "Options for Change", allied to proposed crippling financial constraints, has now created such a strain that we are already beginning to see old inter-service rivalries re-emerging as each arm understandably seeks to ensure that it is adequate in its role.
  No one would suggest that new efficiencies are not possible in the light of reduced threats from the former Warsaw pact, but I am deeply unhappy when it appears that the extent of other threats are under-estimated and under-provided for. It is always a poor recipe for success when one seeks to impose swingeing financial cuts at the same time as seeking to implement radical structural changes.
  Most hon. Members depend to a considerable extent on valuable and objective reports from the Defence Select Committee. It is imperative, therefore, that that Committee should have access to as much information as is available. When I was a member of the Committee, it was apparent that one could gain access to much more sensitive information through the United States Pentagon than through our own Ministry of Defence. Is it not time that members of the Select Committee on Defence were positively vetted to ensure that there was no continuing excuse for the Ministry of Defence to act in that coy

  203
  manner? If not, we shall continue to be unable to make a judgment based on Select Committee indications on, for example, whether our present costly commitment to Cyprus is still justified or whether there may be less expensive alternatives.
  Yesterday, I listened with a growing feeling of unease as the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), struggled, almost in desperation, to present a disturbing method of partially alleviating the problem that we face, by withdrawing a number of battalions from Northern Ireland. I must address that issue, since I was somewhat disappointed that the Minister failed to respond to those dangerous ideas. I hope not to distort what the right hon. Gentleman espoused, or misrepresent his stated reasons for doing so, but it seemed that he was suggesting that there was little or no correlation between the number of troops on the ground and the incidence of terrorism.
  On that dangerous premise, he suggested that we should begin to consider reducing the military commitment that operates in support of the civil power in Northern Ireland at the rate of one battalion every six to 12 months. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell justified it on the basis that, if the number of troops had any correlaton to the level of terrorism, we would have resolved the problem by initially committing 100,000 troops. That wrongly presumes that the problem was and still is predictable, uniform and constant. But terrorism does not operate like that. It pitches its activities at a level consistent with the vulnerability of the community.
  If the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is correct in his correlation theory, it would be equally logical to conclude that the terrorists would not even notice if troop levels were gradually reduced to zero. Yet we know that that would be nonsense and that decisions on manpower levels take account of current intelligence and the assessment of commanders on the ground. But some of us who listened to the right hon. Gentleman will ponder whether he knows something that we on this Bench do not.
  I would not want to believe that a former loyal member of Her Majesty's Government would be party to the abandonment of a part of the United Kingdom or to leaving 1.6 million citizens to be dominated by terrorists. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot have failed to recognise that it is those commanders on the ground, including the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable, who have access to the most recent intelligence and who, on that basis, have to be depended upon to present their case honestly to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Defence. The right hon. Gentleman cannot really believe that it would be better to react to terrorist outrages than to respond to a perceived threat.
  The reality is that the level of terrorist violence is, at any time, but a fraction of the terrorist intent. We who live in Northern Ireland know that there is a definite correlation between the level of security on the ground and the extent to which the terrorist is denied access to the battle—in practical terms, to his full schedule of targets. It is on that basis that judgments must be made.
  It is important that the House is never again lured into the same sort of trap as in 1985, when it embarked upon the fruitless exercise of trying to placate those who cannot be
  204
  placated through the good offices of those who cannot be trusted. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is intelligent enough to know that if what is understood to be the Hume-Adams agenda were followed and Her Majesty's Government withdrew their presence, even by degrees, the net result would be a move towards a dangerous and unstable independent Ulster, not towards a united Ireland. Ulster Unionists do not want that. Does anyone?
  Rather than sowing seeds of doubt about the commitment of the House to the democratic process in Northern Ireland, it may be reasonable to expedite the movement towards greater stability by seeking—through the courts, or if necessary by executive detention—to dismantle the command and control structures of the paramilitary groups. However, the need to withstand subversion in any part of this Kingdom is paramount and cannot be minimised or tinkered with.
  Of course one has sympathy for the stresses and strains imposed by 17-month operational cycles in Northern Ireland, but that will abate to some degree when amalgamations are complete. What a pity that the Secretary of State has not seen fit to ameliorate the problem still further by reprieving the Queen's Own Highlanders and the Gordon Highlanders. My party would implore him to do so.
  Before leaving the problem of an overstretched Army, I want to ask the Secretary of State about the level at which our troops are equipped. One has to be frightened by the continuing rumours that the SA80 is inadequate for its purpose. Can the Secretary of State for Defence reassure the Housed that a multitude of faults have now been rectified? I wonder how many soldiers have been unfairly penalised for losing parts that have simply dropped off?
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I can immediately give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks so that there will be no confusion—the faults on the SA80 have been rectified.
  Mr. Maginnis: Having bad weapons and inadequate fire power are the quickest ways to demoralise any army. The whole system of procurement is called into question when a weapon like the SA80 is commissioned in the knowledge that it has 32 innate faults. What has been done to ensure that that state of affairs cannot happen again?
  Similarly, one must ask how it makes any sense to have our helicopters operating close to the frontier with the Irish Republic while totally under-equipped to deal with the threats that they face. On 23 September last, a number of helicopter crews in the Crosmaglen area of South Armagh, acting above and beyond what might reasonably be expected of them, closed on a heavily armed group of IRA terrorists and succeeded in forcing them to flee and to abandon some of their arms.
  The terrorists were equipped with two mobile firing platforms, each fitted with one 12.7mm Duska heavy machine gun, two general purpose machine guns, and one AKM. The Duska is capable of bringing down a helicopter and has an effective range, under those conditions, of 1.5 km. The helicopters are fitted with weaponry which requires them to engage the enemy at about half that distance. Those are the issues which we should be debating as they involve our responsibilities to our security services.

  205
  Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House on whether he has considered the future of our special forces and how they will fare, in terms of recruitment and resources? What will be the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully respect the 7 o'clock ruling which the Chair imposed earlier, but I must put on record the fact that we, the third largest Opposition party in the House, field one speaker in major debates, and invariably fall within that time trap. An extra minute or even half a minute would have allowed me to finish. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can do nothing about that, but will you take into consideration the fact that the ruling invariably militates against us when we are trying to put our case to the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has placed his submission on record and I shall draw Madam Speaker's attention to it. In fact, I gave the hon. Gentleman an extra 15 seconds to compensate for the Minister's intervention during his speech.
  7.16 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I understand the feelings expressed by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and I hope that he will understand if I do not follow on from the interesting comments that he made. There is a great deal of sympathy and understanding of the problems that he and his colleagues face in Ulster.
  From what one has read in the press, both before today's debate and after yesterday's debate, one might gather that we were having a row about whether the Government were spending enough. However, our debate is on the 1993 estimates and the document "Defending our Future" published with the estimates in July.
  It is worth putting it on the record that I and my hon. Friends were, on the whole, pleased with much of the report, although that was not graciously acknowledged by Opposition Members. Some new improvements were made to our armed forces, particularly to our anti-armour capability. Such improvements were well received by the House, and we were particularly grateful for the fact that, for the first time, we were able to gauge for ourselves the match between commitments and the resources allowed to meet those commitments.
  It would be stupid of me in the few minutes available to go on and on about the estimates, as the debate is still overshadowed by reports that our armed forces are likely to be subjected to drastic cuts. I do not know how much truth there is in the reports. I assume that they contain some truth, but I do not know how much hype there has been or how many of the reports are due to leaks from a Government Department, possibly the Treasury. My friends in the press tell me that there has been many a nod and a wink.
  Whatever the scale of the cuts, the fact remains that the sum of £1 billion is undoubtedly disturbing. The concerns expressed by so many of my hon. Friends today cannot be lightly dismissed as the atavistic and knee-jerk reaction to be expected from those who could be regarded as defence buffs. That suggestion has been made, though not, I am glad to say, today. I think that I can say that, with one notable exception, all those I know who take a close
  206
  interest in the subject—such as members of the Select Committee on Defence and members of the Back-Bench defence committee, of which I am proud to be Chairman —are too young to be described as armchair generals, retired defence strategists or cranky colonels.
  Over the years, the Select Committee has done a good job in drawing attention to some of the problems and shortcomings of our defence policy. I should like to think that, in our meetings, we on the Back-Bench committee have tried to be constructive. In our discussions with Ministers, our strictures have always been received in the constructive spirit in which they have been made.
  I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making it clear, albeit in a television interview and in other ways, that he expects all branches of the Government to help reduce the deficit. It is quite right that he should want to do that. He is a robust man and can look after himself. It would be foolish of me, and I believe of all of us, to suggest that the budget of the Ministry of Defence is inviolable, even though we have already successfully cut out waste in many areas, and have experienced cuts, sometimes against our will. Nevertheless that has been done.
  Many of us admire my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which he has conducted our affairs as Secretary of State over the past few years. He gave a sturdy response yesterday to the questions that were put to him. He made sturdy comments about his desire to strengthen our armed forces and ensure that they are well equipped and can carry out their duties, but, at the same time, he expressed a willingness to comply, to some extent, with the requests and demands that were made of him.
  I am sure that we all agree that the Secretary of State has been flexible—I believe up to a reasonable point. He will know that there is a big difference between being asked to change the levels of expenditure in defence and other areas of public expenditure. One can switch off some social service expenditure—changes in taxes can be switched on and off. At the stroke of a pen, one can be confident that the recipients of a benefit will feel the effects of the decision almost immediately, or at least within six months if one is a pensioner.
  However, the lead times for defence are entirely different. Those who have looked at some of the figures for the 1930s will know what happened then. Year after year, defence was run down, but we managed to beef it up just before the war. Because it did not take too much time to design, build and produce a Hurricane, we had them just in time. One cannot do that today. Most of us know that it takes 10, if not 15 years to develop some of the modern equipment that is needed should one face a serious enemy and threat from abroad.
  We should consider also the effect of a run down in the defence forces at a time of instability and the impact that that could have on the morale and quality of leadership that we so much admire. Of course equipment is valuable, but there is not one of us, after seeing our armed forces at work, who has not come away with the striking impression—regardless of the equipment—of the quality of the men and women of every rank. We should talk about the often terrible and hard work done in Northern Ireland; work which demands courage, leadership and understanding. One will not find a better leader anywhere in the world than a corporal in the British Army.

  207
  Those things cannot be changed overnight. If one destroys what has been created, it takes years to build it up again; I was in a regiment that was disbanded and I know the agony that we went through.
  The international situation is fluid, and there are threats from abroad. If it deteriorates, we all know that it is important not to accept cuts that go to the bone. That is the message which the debate sends out.
  However, despite all the alarmist talk, which seems to have come from the sources to which I referred earlier, I find it difficult to believe that the Chancellor would seriously propose, or that the Government would accept, further deep cuts. Such cuts would jeopardise our role in NATO and destroy the foundations of our foreign policy. I do not believe that the Government are as crazy as that —I do not believe that the Government are crazy.
  I have just returned from the North Atlantic Assembly. We were discussing matters concerning the future of NATO. One of the reasons why I am able to discuss some of our views reasonably sensibly is that I am briefed by the Foreign Office. I do not find anything in the Foreign Office brief that says, "Go easy on NATO. Do not worry about trying to develop it or bring about a better, understanding relationship with France." We have an important role to play in developing European security.
  We have important roles to play and the Foreign Office knows that one of them is the strength and leadership of the armed forces in Europe that we have stationed under NATO, and our role in the Rapid Reaction Corps.
  We know also that discussions have to take place with the Americans, which we do through the NATO assembly, with Congressmen and others, who expect from us an assertion that we are four-square with them in preserving the alliance, which has kept the peace, and that we are willing to discuss its future, because it is undergoing change. That is why our policy must be adaptable.
  The changes that the Government have been forced to make over the years have been partly to do with the economic strength of the nation, but were almost entirely in these past few years due to the changing nature of the threat. We are undoubtedly being criticised, but I think that "Options for Change" provided the framework that enables us to move forward so that we can ensure that our defence policy is in tune with our commitments.
  I shall conclude with the point that defence, as we have heard today, is about discharging, first and foremost, the primary duty of our country. Having discharged that duty, we can then decide what is our political interest, whether to be involved in other alliances, to extend our political and economic influence and help create a more secure world.
  Our position in the Security Council alone, let alone in Europe, dictates that we have a wider interest than the defence of our shores. I should hate to see soured the statement that we had in July, which was greeted so well. Rather than make a decision that involves not only the Ministry of Defence, but other Departments, I hope that the Government as a whole will help to set the political parameters. If not, we shall see the death of our armed forces by a thousand cuts.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Llew Smith: I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I remember that, way back in 1988, Marjorie Thompson warned the Labour movement that we were in danger of having a radical vision without radical policies. Some five years later, according to comments made about the divisions passed at the recent Labour party conference, we have neither a radical vision nor radical policies. If history is to repeat itself, once again this evening we shall be faced with a three-line Whip to abstain on what is the most important issue facing us in this parliamentary Session.
  Those same hon. Members who refuse to oppose the defence estimates will be the same people who will vote and campaign against cuts in health, education, housing and so many areas that are important to the communities that we represent. They seem to refuse to accept that there is a link between the level of defence spending and- the provision of public services, or they regard investment in weapons of war as far more important than investment in health and life.
  The standard of our public services is dependent on defence spending, especially at a time when all parties seem to be unwilling to increase taxes substantially, even on the richest people within our communities, to begin to pay for those services. Some may argue that that is not necessary because we shall find the taxes to pay for the services through increased economic growth in the months and years ahead. I suspect that that will not happen. We shall not have sufficient economic growth to pay for the services that are so important to our communities.
  I believe that the situation is even more difficult when one realises that, with the Maastricht treaty, no country will be allowed to have a budget deficit that exceeds 3 per cent. of its gross domestic product. That means that there will be cuts in public expenditure in the region of £25,000 million, which is almost exactly the same as the budget in the defence estimates for 1993. In such circumstances, defence cuts will be even more important to pay for some of the services, and the cuts in the services that almost certainly will happen through the Maastricht treaty.
  I must admit that I find it increasingly difficult to relate to the new Labour party, which asks us to vote for the Maastricht treaty and public expenditure cuts and abstain on defence estimates of £24,500 million. It is our task to defend those services and, for that very reason, I shall vote against the Government's defence estimates this evening.
  What savings could be made if we had a decent defence policy? If we linked our defence expenditure to that of a country such as France, we would have savings in the region of £8,000 million. If we linked it to that of Germany, we would have savings in the region of £13,000 million. At the recent Labour party conference, we demanded that our defence expenditure be linked to the average defence expenditure of other countries in western Europe and the scrapping of Trident. That would save us billions upon billions of pounds. Sooner or later, we shall have to confront the issue, or all the talk of defending our public services will be just talk.
  Some hon. Members seem to believe that the slashing of the defence budget will come naturally through the ending of the cold war and the peace dividend. But the question that we should be posing is, "What peace dividend?" When the Berlin wall came down in 1989, we were

  209
  spending about £20,000 million on our defences. Some five years later, in 1993, our defence spending is about £24,500 million, so where is the peace dividend?
  It is also disturbing to note that the United States 1994 defence budget is planned to be $275 billion. The United States defence industry employs approximately 2.75 million people, so the cost of each job is approximately $365,000. In 1994, the United States so-called peace dividend will result in savings of only $11.8 billion.
  It is somewhat ironic, even obscene, that countries such as Britain and the United States, which are supposedly most responsible for global security, are the very same nations most responsible for arming the conflicts that they are trying to police. Just name a country or a dictatorship from Iraq to Iran, from Indonesia to Somalia, and it will be found that the west has supplied it with arms to engage in conflict.
  Some months ago, I asked the Ministry of Defence to list the arms sales to Yugoslavia since 1979. It refused, saying that it would cost too much to compile such information. However, it gave me the information from 1989 and it was a long and sad list. The Government should realise that people from Somalia to the United Kingdom cannot eat weapons or be educated with aircraft carriers. If we continue to spend as much money on weapons of war, if our defence budget continues to increase, if there is no real peace dividend, the losers will be the very same people whom we were elected to defend.
  One reason why our defence budget is so high is Trident. In past months, there have been squabbles about whether the Trident refit contract should go to Devonport or Rosyth. I can understand Members of Parliament taking sides, but that is not the answer. The answer is to use the skills, talents and creativity of those people employed in the nuclear industry for peaceful purposes. For example, they could be employed in cleaning up the terrible legacy of radioactive waste that has already been created by the Polaris programme, or in dismantling the stocks of weaponry that are no longer required. The Royal Ordnance factory at Glascoed has the skills to do that work. Why not ensure that it has the work to use those skills?
  Vickers, the builders of Trident submarines, could be given the go-ahead to offer thousands of jobs to workers to manufacture the undersea water column which Vickers designed and which could provide energy from a clean, non-polluting source.
  If we were to ask anyone in our community to draw up a list of the jobs necessary to make the community nicer and environmentally friendly, it would be almost endless. If a future Labour Government were to implement present party policy, as set out in the latest manifesto, to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty and to negotiate with the other four recognised nuclear powers for a reduction in the stock of nuclear weapons, Trident would not have to be refitted and would either be cancelled or renegotiated out of existence. A unilateral example has been set with yesterday's announcement of TASM's cancellation.
  We should also focus on the defence implications of the Maastricht treaty and, in particular, article 4, which requests the Western European Union to implement decisions and actions of the union which have defence implications. By ordering the integration of the Western European Union into the European union, the EC has taken on a military wing—an alliance which is armed with
  210
  nuclear weapons and which has no restriction on its operation.; a Western European Union which openly admits that its most important pillar is the nuclear pillar.
  Whether we are addressing the export of arms, the so-called peace dividend, the non-proliferation treaty, the defence estimates or the Maastricht treaty, we are spending too much effort, imagination, creativity and finance in developing more and more sophisticated ways of destroying life when we should be trying to find ways of preserving it—a life of dignity and hope in which our children and grandchildren have the opportunity to use their truly wonderful talents. That is surely what the Labour movement is about. That is what has attracted generations of people to our cause. If we take that road, we shall have a glorious future. If we fail, we shall be little more than a Social Democratic party mark II.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: The one issue that I wish to raise, which has not been adequately addressed in the defence White Paper, is the shared development of a global missile defence system. In May this year, the United States Defence Secretary announced the reduction in research which would now be directed towards ground-based defences instead of space-based weaponry; in other words, an end of the strategic defence initiative.
  That decision is dangerously complacent and premature. I fully accept that the original Reagan concept of SDI in 1983 achieved considerable success in ending the arms race without even one brilliant pebble being placed in orbit. To his credit, President Gorbachev perceived that he could not match the technology or resources that the United States was prepared to deploy. Today, it is fashionable to dismiss Reagan's original concept of a laser umbrella as fantasy. Perhaps we shall never know.
  In abandoning global defence, the United States is ignoring certain realities. It ignores the reality that the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction shows no signs of abating. By the end of this decade, 15 or more countries will have the capability to produce ballistic missiles, six countries will have missiles with ranges of 2,000 km or more, and several may possess missiles with intercontinental ranges.
  At least eight countries will have nuclear weapons or advanced programmes, 30 will probably possess a chemical weapons capability, and seven or more will possess biological weapons. Of course we must hope that international efforts to introduce controls and conventions will succeed, but we have yet to reach that situation.
  By the early years of the 21st century, numerous countries with ballistic missiles will have the ability to release not one but dozens of small bomblets—cluster munitions—that would overwhelm any land-based defence system.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that the implications of that for western security and international stability, or instability, are tremendous. The deployment of space-based missile defences, preferably in co-operation with the Russians, is an essential minimum response to such proliferation. The absence of such deployment will serve only to encourage such proliferation. It will also challenge our will and our capability to respond to regional aggression such as that of Iraq against Kuwait, which led to Desert Storm.

  211
  In view of the United Kingdom's memorandum of understanding with the United States Government sanctioning co-operation in the research of SDI, I should like to know what consultation was undertaken by Mr. Aspen, the United States Defence Secretary, before his announcement effectively ending SDI.
  In view of President Yeltsin's offer to Congress in April that Russia wanted to develop global defence with the United States, sharing costs and technology, it would be interesting to know whether he too was consulted on the ending of SDI.
  In short, I believe that the Clinton Government's decision to abandon global defence without regard to the anticipated need for global defence is utterly irresponsible. It is a missed opportunity not only for international co-operation but in the development of dual-use technology.
  For example, it now threatens to put back the development of the space telescopic mirror, which would transmit light and energy for peaceful purposes, as well as the so-called death ray laser beams. Those are all areas in which British, European and Russian technological capability could be deployed, but American leadership is required. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what representations have been made.
  We in Europe cannot afford to abandon the goal of an effective space-based missile defence. One of the lessons of the Gulf war was that an attacking rocket requires to be intercepted in its early boost phase—which means within 70 seconds of launch for a Scud missile. It requires tremendous speed, and can only be guided by sensors from space. That must remain our goal, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that tonight.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: In common with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), I wish to refer to one aspect of this wide-ranging debate, although it is not the same one. I make no apologies for making a constituency speech, because of the appalling circumstances that currently confront Swan Hunter shipbuilders on Tyneside. The shipbuilding community on Tyneside has served Britain well in peace and war, and it deserves a hearing in the House—a hearing in the most desperate circumstances.
  Two key procurement decisions have put Swan Hunter —the last remaining shipyard in Tyne and Wear—into receivership: the procurement of the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel—HMS De Lorean as it is known in the industry—and the recent decision as to the procurement of the landing platform helicopter carrier—the LPH. Both were political decisions, both claimed to provide the best value for money at the time of procurement, and both winning bids were heavily subsidised, although by different routes. The eventual outcome of the procurement of the AOR1 has become one of the greatest defence procurement scandals of the post-war era.
  The Ministry of Defence has a responsibility to Swan Hunter, both as a supplier and as the main employment base of a community that has provided more than 80 per cent. of all the Royal Navy's fleet auxiliaries in the past 20 years. That community has provided, and continues to
  212
  provide, warships built to time and delivered fault-free to the Ministry of Defence. It has a record unequalled by any other supplier.
  The, decision to allow Swan Hunter to go into receivership was not taken lightly by the Government. The Prime Minister, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment, as well as the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, were all involved in the discussions as to the consequences and in the decision. The outcome—Swan Hunter going into receivership—reflects the collective view of the Government, not just that of the defence chiefs.
  What has amazed all those who have followed this issue is the way that the Government have failed to respond to the situation at Swan Hunter since the company went into receivership. No commentator on Tyneside—including Conservative-supporting newspapers like the Evening Chronicle, and broadcasting media like Tyne Tees television and Metro radio—has been able to explain or to understand the Government's indifference to the company's plight. It is all the more perplexing because prospective private-sector purchasers of the business cannot make final commercial judgments because the Government's attitude is ambiguous.
  Perhaps there is no ambiguity at all about the Government's attitude towards Tyneside. Perhaps the Government want the business to close; perhaps they want it to cease trading as a shipyard, whether military or merchant. Perhaps they are trying to pretend to the outside world that closure is not their objective, whereas in reality it is. If that is the sort of unambiguous response that we will get from the Government, I hope that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will tell the truth about the Government's approach to Swan Hunter.
  It is a matter of record that, since the receiver arrived, every initiative to help Swan Hunter has been met with double dealing from the Department of Trade and Industry and cold hostility from the Ministry of Defence.
  Closure of Swan Hunter has meant some 6,000 direct and indirect redundancies in Tyne and Wear, redundancies inflicted on a shipbuilding community where male unemployment is already 38 per cent. even before the redundancy rounds are completed. There are still 1,600 men working at Swan Hunter, building the type 23 frigates.
  The Government have not announced any significant economic development package for the area, whether directly related to shipbuilding or not. The whole issue of intervention funding has been grotesquely mismanaged, particularly in the Government's dealing with the European Commission.
  The only possible assumption that can be made is that this was deliberate. Intervention funding would have enabled Swan Hunter to survive as a shipyard, and would have facilitated the transition from over-reliance on warship building to a broader base of civilian activity. Significantly, such a broader base and state aid were made available to Harland and Wolff at the time of the AOR1 competition, and to Kvaerner-Govan at the time of the LPH procurement.
  When the Germans needed intervention funding consent from the European Community to deal, perfectly understandably, with the difficult problems in East German yards, the German delegation to the European Commission was led by the German Chancellor, after some very strong lobbying, conducted by all parties and at all levels of

  213
  German public life. The Germans made it perfectly clear that they were serious about preserving their shipbuilding industry and competing directly with the Pacific rim.
  We sent the Minister for Industry, the right hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to Europe. He managed to put the wrong case to the right commissioner at the end of a meeting convened to discuss something else. Later, he managed to put the right case to the wrong meeting, a meeting that had no power to agree to intervention funding.
  By dressing up the Swan Hunter case as part of a package for all four yards, the Minister is disingenuously able to claim, for domestic consumption, that he has made a special case for Tyneside, certain in the knowledge that he has also made a case that the European Commission cannot possibly accept.
  It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the Government's intention is to blame Europe for Swan Hunter not getting intervention funding, or better still to blame European socialists. That contemptible strategy would not convince even a Conservative party audience, if such a thing could still be found in Tyneside.
  The behaviour of the Ministry of Defence has been even worse. Now that the company is in receivership, the Ministry of Defence is denying it a chance to tender for any MOD work—even minor refit work that would be completed well before the type 23 frigates leave Tyneside. Some 90 per cent. of the refit work for the entire British fleet has now been earmarked for Rosyth dockyard to help underpin the employment base there. I make no complaint about that, but the people who took that decision will not give Swan Hunter a single ship.
  There is no core programme for Swan Hunter. The Ministry of Defence could bring forward the landing ships logistic, LSLs, for Swan Hunter—the ships are currently in the programme—but the Government will not do that, because the Prime Minister has personally forbidden it. Even more absurdly, the Ministry of Defence is refusing to send the AOR1 to Swan Hunter, where the several thousand defects that have so far been discovered on that vessel could be remedied by the same work force who delivered its sister ship, the AOR2, to the Navy, defect-free.
  Not content with denying the yard domestic work the Government must take the blame for preventing Swan Hunter from gaining a key overseas contract. The Government of Oman wished to place a contract for patrol vessels with Swan Hunter—two or three to start with, but potentially more. The British Government allowed the Omani order to go to a French shipbuilder, CNN, rather than allow the work to be carried out on Tyneside. The international shipbuilding community could not conceal its collective amazement when the Omani decision was announced.
  The British Government's attitude has become clear. No other European Government would behave in such a way. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Conservative party is deliberately starving the yard of work, with a view to seeing it close.
  I hope that, when the Minister of State responds to this debate, he can give the lie to all that, and that he will say that the Ministry will allow Swan Hunter to tender for work, will allow it to win work from his Ministry, will put work into the yard—either while it is in receivership or when it is in new ownership—and that it is the Ministry of
  214
  Defence's wish that it makes the transition to new ownership by a shipbuilder that can tender for Ministry of Defence work.
  Mr. Aitken: That is exactly the position.
  Mr. Brown: I hope, therefore, that the Minister will list the work that Swan Hunter can tender for, and will give an assurance to the House that that work can go into the yard, even though the yard is in receivership.
  Mr. Aitken: As long as the yard is in receivership, it will be difficult for it to have the financial strength and credibility to win new orders from the Ministry of Defence, although we have done our best. to give it some extended new work on one or two matters that the hon. Gentleman knows about.
  As for the future, we hope that Swan Hunter will survive and flourish and win new orders competitively, and we will do everything to make that possible.
  Mr. Brown: On Tyneside, that will be interpreted as "No".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Mr. Neville Trotter.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: I will resist the temptation to follow the perverted and obtuse line taken by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I remember the way in which he advised the House, at the start of the sad story of Swan Hunter, that it was all the result of a deliberate plot by a small cabal in the middle of the Ministry of Defence. That spurious and ridiculous idea was seen off by the National Audit Office. I shall confine myself at this stage to the comments that I had intended to make on the general defence scene.
  Defence has been a success story. NATO kept the peace for 40 years and won the cold war. Excellent work has been carried out year by year in humanitarian aid and peacekeeping by our forces. In the major war in the Gulf, a significant and distinguished part was played by our men and women. The forces always respond admirably to the challenge. Great tribute must be paid to the individual men and women and to their leaders. We must ensure that our defence policy remains a success.
  Our very success in the cold war has caused difficulties. The collapse of the Soviet Union and a reduction in the Russian military capability has led to an inevitable reduction in strength for all the western allies. In our case, we have received a peace dividend in the form of about a 25 per cent. reduction in manpower and a similar envisaged reduction in funding. We have already enjoyed the peace dividend. There is no more to come, in my judgment.
  When we confronted the Warsaw pact countries, it was never easy to find the funds to provide all the defence that we desired when the need was obvious. Indeed, force numbers were spelt out for us by NATO, which was helpful.
  In the changed circumstances of today, much more difficult decisions must be taken. The Treasury, as always, busily pursues the saving of public money and naturally seeks to maximise the peace dividend. The Treasury argues for the minimum leveel of defence, but the current plans provide the minimum acceptable level of defence. They provide a balanced and capable force.

  215
  A side effect of the cold war was that forces designed to support NATO were available to fight and win elsewhere, such as in the Falklands and the Gulf. The challenge now is to ensure that, without the immediate and obvious threat from Russia, we maintain that capability to use when necessary.
  Self-evidently, the world is far from stable—it is much less stable than it was at the time of the cold war. We read daily of the conflicts raging. In the background of the former Soviet Union there are terrible problems and tremendous pressures. Who can say what form of government will ultimately emerge?
  We must be prepared to meet the unexpected, to respond quickly and unexpectedly to unforeseen crises, and furthermore to be able to sustain operations for lengthy periods. It is not sufficient to provide only a gendarmerie for low-intensity peacekeeping. Who can predict when we shall again be called upon to take part in a high-tech campaign such as that in the Gulf?
  We must not forget the long-term possibilities, either. Defences are easily disbanded, but it takes many years to rebuild them. Russia retains formidable military capabilities. We wish it well in tackling its immense problems, but we cannot forecast the outcome of the struggle in that country.
  The Government have sought to confront the uncertain future with powerful, highly competent forces. I welcome the White Paper. The way in which it sets out the details of our forces is a great improvement. It is inevitable that the more is spelt out, the more questions are asked.
  I commend the Government on the way in which they produced the White Paper this year. The Ministry's long-term costings have been carefully constructed so as to maintain our capability. There has been no improvement in the world scene since the long-term costings were arrived at, and no reduction for defence reasons could possibly be justified to reduce the long-term costings now.
  I welcome today's announcement of the ammunition order. It will be well received at the Birtley Royal Ordnance factory on Tyneside. My right hon. Friend will understand if I refer particularly to the need to order more Challenger 2 tanks to enable the armoured regiments of the Army to be entirely converted.
  Exhaustive studies have taken place in the Ministry and it has been unanimously agreed that the best solution for the Army and the best value for money is to proceed with an order for Challenger 2. I urge my right hon. Friend to proceed in the near future with that order. I emphasise the importance of that order for Vickers, not least for the plant on Tyneside. Such a United Kingdom order would be helpful in securing further export orders for that excellent tank.
  I shall mention the question of Navy orders. The House is aware of the disastrous effect on Swan Hunter of losing the LPH order to VSEL. The immediate appointment of a receiver highlighted the dearth of orders in the naval field. Every endeavour is being made locally to secure a new owner for the yard. That is obviously needed. Some months before the collapse, the then owners of Swan Hunter advised me that they could not continue on their own, and that a new owner was needed.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East suggested that inadequate attempts have been made to
  216
  obtain permission from the European Commission for intervention funding. I can categorically deny that, from the content of discussions in which I have taken place. I welcome the Minister's assurance that Swan Hunter can again, with a new owner, compete for new orders for the Royal Navy.
  Let me mention potential orders. I welcome the statement at the start of the debate that there are to be more orders for type 23 frigates. I urge my right hon. Friends to proceed as fast as possible with those important ships for the Navy. I also mention the pressing need to replace the landing platform docks Fearless and Intrepid, which are not only 30 years old but expensive to run—far more expensive than modern successors would be.
  The Select Committee on Defence, on which I have the honour to serve, pointed out in a report the age of many of our RFAs. Swan Hunter is especially well placed to provide the necessary replacements for those ships.
  I welcome the announcement that competition is to take place in ship repair for the Royal Navy's fleet. For too long those ships have been allocated to Devonport or Rosyth. If we read carefully the pronouncements on the future, we shall see that half the surface warships will go out to competition. I welcome that. Tyneside has a proud record. The Southampton was very satisfactorily repaired after collision damage and a Leander was satisfactorily modernised and refitted a few years ago on the Tyne.
  In considering the defence scene overall, we must maintain our defence industrial base. We must maintain our technical capability; we must ensure that every help is given to the industry to secure exports; and we must retain the capability to acquire the necessary equipment to expand our forces if needed in some future crisis.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I will refer to the industrial strategic requirement later in my speech. I will follow the comments then of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).
  We have heard many references in the debate to the horrors and slaughter in this unstable world. That instability, and the dangers internationally, lead us to view the role of the Secretary of State with some sympathy as he seeks to extract resources from the Treasury. We cannot wish him well, but we have sympathy, not least because many Opposition Members understand that, if he fails, it will not be Conservative Members who suffer but the personnel in the armed services, to whom so many tributes have been paid in the debate.
  The wicket on which the Secretary of State is batting is a bad one, for it comes at a time when Britain's economic weakness is utterly demonstrable—and it is severe. We have experienced a massive decline in our international economic position. Over the past 12 years, we have slipped from sixth to 15th place, and it has become increasingly difficult to match our international obligations with our economic capacity.
  I am not suggesting that we should run away from those obligations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out the importance of our position on the Security Council, but we will eventually reach the point where the policies and values adopted by this Administration for the past decade

  217
  must be changed—or Britain will not be able to fulfil the commitments that Conservative Members so avidly want us to pursue.
  Tribute after tribute has been paid to our service men, but tributes do not relieve the pressures of their duties, the strain of their separation from their families or their profound anxieties about their careers. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made a plea for a gap of 24 months between overseas tours. He was referring to the Army; but the Minister will confirm that it would be impossible for the air force to offer a 24-month gap between tours. A great many RAF personnel have done three tours of duty in a 24-month period—some even more. The strain on those young men and their families is serious indeed.
  The young men who perform these frequent tours of duty are never in one place for long, and they are extremely anxious about their careers. The highly skilled technicians whom the Air Force needs to retain are worried about whether their promotion prospects have been slowed down. They are worried that they may not reach the next rank which will allow them to stay in the service.
  If they do not, they will be forced out into a world in which there are no jobs, and their great technological abilities will probably be wasted. Young officers, some of whom I know, who are on their fourth tour in a 24-month period, do not know yet whether they will receive permanent commissions, yet they too need to maintain the energy and enthusiasm which the service certainly needs.
  The services will not be well served by the contractorisation which, as I said in another debate, leaves Britain with the capacity to defend the realm between 9 am and 5 pm, because civilian firms cannot provide the resources outside that time that the services seem to need.
  Defence is not only about people: it is about equipment too. On the last occasion that we debated this subject, I pointed out that the Hercules has been in squadron service for 25 years. Now it is a year older, and it needs replacing, because it is being used more intensively now than ever before. If the Hercules needs replacement because of its antiquity, so too does the Wessex, which entered squadron service some years before the Hercules and which carries our troops in conditions of considerable hazard.
  The hon. Member for Tynemouth mentioned the strategic factor. We have also heard about shipbuilding. The Minister tried to tell us that our merchant fleet is large enough to sustain us in a crisis. If it is, it will not be for much longer if its decline continues.
  As for engineering, in South Yorkshire we have what is probably the finest engineering steel production capacity in Europe. We have made enormous sacrifices and put in a great deal of investment to achieve that in recent years, but the Templeborough steel works, which produces steel of strategic importance, is to close—not because the quality of its production is poor, or because there have been delivery delays, or because the work force is inadequate.
  It is to close because three plants in Europe, two in Germany and one in Spain, are competing with it. None of those plants can compete with the United Kingdom firm, United Engineering Steel, on equal terms, but they remain in competition with it because the German and Spanish Governments give massive state aid to their industries. Our superior plant therefore has to close.
  The Minister responsible at the Department of Trade and Industry tells us that we must understand the difficulties facing the German and Spanish Governments in
  218
  their areas. So we have to bear the costs, despite the fact that unemployment in our area is much worse than in those European areas for which the Minister appears to have some sympathy. The Minister has also assured me that the DTI will serve Britain's national interest. What national interest is served by the slaughter of our merchant marine, our shipbuilding industry and our engineering steel industry?
  The Government may be able to manage the armed forces, although increasingly the latter tend to doubt it, but they have shown that they are utterly unfit to manage the strategic requirements of this country.
  If Britain is to play the proper part in the world that many of us feel it should, we must return to an economic approach that will make our commitments and obligations achievable. If they are being achieved at present, that is only because, caught between political incompetence and economic inadequacy, our forces are carrying burdens that are becoming intolerable. I honestly believe that, before very long, the Conservative party will have to tell the Government that enough is enough, and that a far wiser approach is essential.
  8.5 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: When it was proposed to merge the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Rangers, the Democratic Unionist party warned of the consequences, especially for part-timers in the UDR. It has been clear for some time that the UDR and its part-time members are in the sights of the Republican Government and of certain elements in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the day the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, Garrett Fitzgerald and Dick Spring announced that the agreement would put the UDR out of action.
  The vicious attacks launched against the security forces of Northern Ireland, part-timers in particular, are testimony to their effectiveness and their dedication to duty. Twenty years ago, a young member of the UDR was murdered. This week, his mother died, killed by an IRA bomb.
  At the time of the merger, the threat to the part-time element was raised in this House. I remind the House that no proper debate on the merging of the regiments was permitted. Indeed, the only Member given the chance to speak in the debate—myself—was guillotined, and no other Ulster Member was allowed to speak.
  We were, however, given certain assurances. But the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has supplied my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) with figures showing that, since 1990, the part-time element in the UDR and the RIR has decreased from 3,075 to 2,794; and the number of recruits taken on each year has also declined, from 843 to 407. So, during this crucial period, the number of part-timers has fallen by 10 per cent.—in line with the Dublin-led demands for the phasing out of the part-time element.
  There has been a steady reduction in the part-time element ever since the late 1970s, in fact, and the trend has accelerated even as Dublin applies the pressure.
  I am also perturbed by the fall in the number of recruits to the regiment. There has been a 50 per cent. drop in the number of soldiers joining it since 1990. The 1992–93 total of 407 compares poorly with totals of between 1,300 and 1,600 in the late 1970s.
  The people of Northern Ireland are at present faced with an upsurge of killing and terrorism on all sides. They need

  219
  to know that the security forces, and the part-time elements in particular, will be maintained and strengthened, and that the IRA will not be given the massive boost of seeing the part-time element eliminated.
  I have listened with interest to what Ministers have said about the part-time elements of the security forces. I was surprised that the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), talked as he did in the House yesterday. He talked about getting outside operators in, for example, to guard the Maze prison. There are already people who are trained to do that. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that they be sacked to make way for new people who need to be trained? The problem could be solved by using the people who are willing to give their services.
  I was also surprised that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have joined the "Troops Out" movement. He said yesterday that, although he did not want a radical measure, he thought that the Government could achieve their goal by withdrawing a battalion from Northern Ireland every six or 12 months. It would not be long until there were no troops there at all if that were done. The right hon. Gentleman also said that, the longer the British Government continue to talk to Dublin, the more they give the IRA the impression that they could leave the United Kingdom altogether with one more push. That is unnerving people.
  I suggest that the British Government should deal with the claim that the Dublin Government have over a territory of the United Kingdom. Having dealt with that claim, the oxygen would be taken from the IRA, and it would realise that there was no hope for its campaigns.
  However, I cannot accept the assurance that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East that there is no hidden agenda. That is because of the stark facts before us, and the well-signposted intentions of the Dublin Government, the Social Democratic and Labour party and others who have been prominent in the pan-nationalist attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment through the years.
  The Minister has admitted that the trend of steadily reducing the number of part-timers will continue, at a time when terrorism is on the upsurge. The people of Northern Ireland are convinced that the rundown of the part-time element will continue until it is no longer of any significance, when it will be done away with altogether. Such a betrayal of the part-timers would be an insult of the highest magnitude to the many who have paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving their Queen and country. The UDR has lost more of its members than any other section of the armed forces. That would be another victory for the IRA and for their fellow travellers.
  The part-timers must be retained, because they are needed. At the height of the recent troubles, it was only because part-timers were available that serious sectarian riots were stopped and the districts affected were policed in a proper manner. I would appeal to the Government tonight to face up realistically to what is happening in Northern Ireland.
  People are concerned. We hear that the IRA Sinn Fein leader has come to an agreement with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP. They have said that they now have a plan and, if the plan can be further negotiated, all will be well. The next time the Sinn Fein
  220
  leader opens his mouth, he is defending the violence and the bombing. He also tells us that there can be no peace until everyone has got around the table. They will decide how peace can be achieved. The IRA could turn off the violence simply by ceasing to bomb, kill and maim.
  I trust that the Government will recognise their responsibilities within the United Kingdom. I welcome the fact that the Minister for the Armed Forces has left in the Library copies of correspondence that give the figures for recruitment to the UDR and Royal Irish Rangers through the years. Hon. Members should read it for themselves to see what is happening in Northern Ireland.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I was delighted to hear the announcement from the Government that, after a considerable delay, they were going to give a £200 million order to Royal Ordnance.
  It was not long ago when Royal Ordnance was bought with British Aerospace. One of the major announcements was that the Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory was to close. I remember that, at the time, everyone said that it would close. The work force fought vigorously and showed the country that they were a caring and dedicated bunch of workers. They were committed to the defence of the country as much as the soldier on the front line. They wanted to work and to contribute to the country. That battle was won, and they have won the right to continue to work in Bishopton. I am glad to say that the factory is still open, and that there are 430 workers still there.
  What worries me is that over 600 workers have now left. I can assure the House that those people will probably still be unemployed, languishing on the dole, scramblingm about looking for work and still trying to live on the pitiful dole money that the Government provide for the so-called unfortunate unemployed.
  What happened to the grand statements made by the Government about diversification? They have done nothing for the former workers at the Royal Ordnance factories. I can assure the Minister that the workers were delighted to hear today's announcement. However, why was there a huge delay? The announcement could have been made months ago, and we would not have lost all of the jobs that have gone.
  I heard the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) talking about jobs that were created in his constituency, including "75 bean counters". I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would be quite happy to get some of those 75 bean counters jobs in my constituency. Do hon. Members remember what the Minister said? He replied to his hon. Friend that, in a previous life, he had been a bean counter. I can tell the House that he is certainly not working for a bunch of smarties now.
  I have never seen such a dummy Government. They cannot manage the economy and they cannot look after the nation's defence in a sensible way. Thousands of dedicated people who have worked sincerely in our arms industry are looking now at the Government who have mismanaged the economy, run the country into a £50 billion deficit and are now looking to cut their jobs to make a saving for the Government's mismanagement.
  During the Falklands crisis, the Bishopton factory workers worked 24 hours a day and sweated blood. That was not just to ensure that they kept their jobs, but to

  221
  ensure that the soldiers, sailors and airmen had the best equipment and the most accurate weapons, provided by British workers. We must recognise that, when our people produce arms for our people, they work to produce the best. Britain should buy the best. It should not go for the lowest bidder.
  It is a joke to say that we should go to foreign people in a war and ask them to provide our weapons. I would not chance it. The people of this country would not like it. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) can smile all he likes, but I am sure that if he wanted a bullet to put in his gun to fire at the enemy he would prefer a Royal Ordnance factory worker's bullet to anyone else's bullet. He would want one which would work; one which would explode and make sure that his head was not blown off.
  Today I met a group of shop stewards. They were men who have worked almost all their life at the Royal Ordnance factory. They have skills. They recognise the changing world more than the Government do. But they also recognise that they have a right to receive a wage to pay their rent, electricity and food bills and to pay for a house, a holiday and all the things that go with a salary. The workers say, "Tommy, if the Government continue in their mad, blundering way, are we going to have a job? Are we going to face the dole?" They do not see the Government doing anything to diversify from products for war into meaningful civil products. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government intend to do.
  I intervened lightheartedly in the Minister's speech about the ladies who are training as helicopter pilots. Funnily enough, I mentioned the military helicopter that the Tory party in my area used to raise funds. I received deep, sincere apologies and was told that it would not happen again. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallic) intervened later to say that I had cast a slur on our helicopter service.
  Mr. Martlew: It appears that that is not the first occasion on which the Conservatives have used military aircraft for private means. Two years ago, in the south of Cumbria, the Red Arrows put on a display because ii was the birthday of a former Cabinet Minister.
  Mr. Graham: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's illumination. The Government have abused their power in every way. They use our military forces for their own needs and even to fill their coffers—probably because Asil Nadir did not give them enough. They use a helicopter to make a few bob.
  There is no way that I would cast a slur on any of our service men. My late father fought for this country for nine bloody years. He died when I was 19. I am proud of my father and of his record as a sailor in the Royal Navy. I would never cast a slur on the men and women who fight in the front line for this country. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) can smile all he likes. People like my father made it possible for him to sit where he is.
  Clearly, the world is changing. There is a major split in the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. I watched the previous Prime Minister talking about the special relationship on television the other day. What a load of nonsense. Mr. Clinton is saying to the United Kingdom, "You are on your own," because he does not get what he wants. Europe does not get what it wants. The special relationship is nonsense when it
  222
  comes to countries looking after their own. I should like to see a special relationship not just with America but with all parts of the world.
  I would like to see the defence bill reduced, but not if we put the country at risk. We are seeing revolutions all over the place in Russia. The most terrible civil war is raging in Yugoslavia. I hope that Britain will ensure that our defence is such that nothing like that will ever happen here.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on his speech. We were not laughing at his serious points. We laughed only at his jokes—those that we could understand.
  We expect our armed forces to rise to the occasion, whatever it may be, in emergencies. We turned to them in 1990 before the Gulf war, in 1982, and today in Bosnia and Northern Ireland. We must play fair by them. The men and women of our armed forces want to know what is their future. The recurrent complaint in the mess and barrack rooms around the British Isles is not about boots or food, as it normally is. In the language of the trooper, they are saying, "What the — is our future going to be? What is going on?"
  "Options for Change" promised a different future. It promised a versatile future after the cold war. The Secretary of State at the time told the House that "Options for Change" would be followed by stability. I fear that the opposite is the case. We have seen considerable cuts since 1991, but no real change in policy. Policy and resources are no longer compatible. Our forces are double or even triple-hatted in their roles. The position seems likely to get worse rather than better.
  The armed forces are still a respected institution, made up of high-calibre professionals of all ranks. They remain well equipped and well trained, backed by an excellent defence industry. They are respected at home and abroad. They are successful, reliable and without parallel in the world. They are able to defend the United Kingdom and our national interests whenever they are called upon. Are they not the sort of armed forces that we want? Before we make any change, we must decide what change is desirable.
  It is already planned to reduce all armed forces. For example, it is planned to reduce the Army to 119,000 people. That will be the smallest since 1840, when the population of this kingdom was half what it is now. So proportionately we are reducing the Army to smaller than it has been for more than 200 years, before the Napoleonic wars. Yet we cannot get sufficient good recruits into Sandhurst. There is concern about manning and strength in all units.
  The question we must ask is, "What sort of armed forces do we want?" Do we want an all-arms capability? Do we want to fight tank wars in the desert and engage in counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland? I suggest that we do. If we give up capabilities, we cannot resuscitate them overnight. We will lose ability, training, experience and equipment. It takes a long time to restore those things. If we withdraw from Belize—as we are doing—we shall endanger the jungle warfare skills that took years to learn in world war two. We may not need them tomorrow, but who can say when we may need them again?

  223
  If we want a wide range of options, we need the equipment, training and troops for them; we need decisions on equipment. I was delighted to hear the decision on ammunition announced today. But we cannot have a Treasury freeze on future contracts for ever. Decisions on batch 2 Trafalgar class, replacement of the C130, Challenger 2 and minehunters need to be made swiftly because we are asking the armed forces to carry out the tasks listed in the excellent estimates. We must give them the tools for the job in future.
  Long-term planning and stability is also essential. That involves equipment contracts, training and organisation. They all take time to get right and put into place. To attract high-calibre armed forces we must offer them a future for however long a person wishes to serve—be it three years or longer. Paradoxically, stability will be achieved by conducting a review of our capabilities, commitments and resources. It is a paradox that at present we have no stability and no review. We need to ask what armed forces we want and what we want those armed forces to be able to do.
  Whatever happens, there must be stability, so that our armed forces will know what the future holds for them. Their morale is low and they will vote with their feet, as many are already doing. We have a duty to them to quote yesterday's speech by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Robathan: I am afraid that I will not.
  Defence estimates consider various roles and tasks. At the moment we cannot identify potential enemies, and all certainties have changed. Two weeks after the worst fighting in Moscow since the Bolshevik revolution, it is almost beyond belief that we should be considering further defence reductions.
  With nuclear proliferation in north Africa and the middle east, events in the former Yugoslavia, Georgia, the Ukraine and Azerbaijan, let alone in Africa where the USA is contributing so well to peace in Somalia while in Angola and Sudan awful civil wars continue, the world is not a safer place. Russian submarine activity is almost at its pre-1989 level. I hear that Russia has launched 12 new nuclear submarines in the past year. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
  Confusion and instability abound in international affairs, and they are matched only by confusion and change in our armed forces and in the Ministry of Defence. Commanding officers are being asked to plan for 3 per cent. savings next year. As they cannot cut pay, they have to cut training, operations or manpower as a whole. Will they be asked for further paring of resources? Is the Ministry of Defence budget being planned for 119,000 soldiers or is a shortfall being built in to make matters worse? There is an incoherence in policy which might be rectified by review.
  If we cut defence spending as a soft option, in 25 years many of today's political arguments will be largely forgotten and irrelevant. In the middle of the next century nobody will recall the level of social security benefits in 1993, but people will recall whether we had been unable to
  224
  maintain national security or our interests in a crisis or conflict. That will be remembered, and those responsible will rightly be blamed.
  Baldwin and Chamberlain, both good men I am sure, have not been kindly treated by history. I was always taught to speak softly and carry a big stick. I urge the Government to ensure that we continue to speak softly, to wield our influence in international affairs and to have a stick to hand if it is needed; otherwise, in future I am unlikely to be able to support the Government's defence policy.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), which would be seconded, if they were allowed to, by the vast majority of those who voted for these policies at the recent Labour party conference. I support the amendment because of its fairly basic propositions: first, that our current defence thinking is woefully out of touch with the realities of the modern world; secondly, that we need a wholesale review of our international and defence thinking; and, thirdly, that a profound redirection of our defence spending and priorities is long overdue.
  I contrast the realities of the outside world with the issues that frequently seem to obsess the House. I attended a recent conference of the International Peace Bureau in London. It was attended by delegates from all over the world who spoke about the greatest threats to peace and stability in their respective regions. It included delegations from the Caribbean, the middle east, Africa and southern Asia, and I was astonished by the commonality of the issues that they raised.
  They spoke about poverty and starvation and the primary threat of environmental disaster. They also spoke about the threats of regional and civil conflict and many of them echoed the comments by Boutros Boutros Ghali in the UN document "The Agenda for Peace 1992":
  "Poverty, disease, famine, oppression and despair abound, joining to produce 17 million refugees, 20 million displaced persons and massive migrations of peoples within and beyond national borders.
  These are both sources and consequences of conflict that require the ceaseless attention and the highest priority in the efforts of the United Nations. A porous ozone shield could pose a greater threat to an exposed population than a hostile army. Drought and disease can decimate no less mercilessly than the weapons of war.
  So at this moment of renewed opportunity, the efforts of the (UN) Organisation to build peace, stability and security must encompass matters beyond military threats to break the fetters of strife and warfare that have characterised the past."
  I contrast those comments with ones that I heard when I visited NATO headquarters and spoke to people there about the threats to peace. Far too often they were bedevilled by a language which was obsessed by the cold war and by images of a world constrained by notions of aggression and deterrence.
  I listened with interest to the Khmer Rouge band of the Tory right—those who are most obsessed by market forces and whose lexicon appears to extend little beyond the notion of the words "cut" and "privatise". However, they make special pleas for not cutting defence while advocating a defence posture that is driven by the belief that we can somehow threaten or bully our way through the

  225
  threats to our existence in the rest of this century and in the century ahead. That is not the way to peace, stability or security.
  As an example, I should like to focus on the issue of Trident. The otherwise gung-ho privatisers, in their enthusiasm for continuing expenditure on Trident, should ask themselves how it addresses any of the threats or conflicts in the past decade. Almost the only conceivable use for Trident would be to fill the warheads with a combination of spam and veggie-burgers. We could give advance notice of targeting and send the missiles as food convoys, delivered to their doorsteps as drive-in diners for the dispossessed.
  Trident is no deterrent to the many people who are in the process or on the verge of mass migration resulting from fear for their survival. Trident offers no deterrence to hunger, homelessness or starvation. Most of us would take the opportunity to flee if we were faced with the same threats in this century and in the century to come.
  There must be an enormous rethink of our priorities, and I shall address some of the possibilities. We must ask two questions about our conventional defence policy. They are, first, what conventional forces are needed to defend this country from attack and, secondly, what forces do we need to honour our international peacekeeping obligations? Beyond that we must move to a different notion—from peace keeping to peace-building. That is the area in which we must move profoundly from our past thinking.
  We must acknowledge that the challenge of the next century may well be to take on board the notion of a massive resource shift from NATO to the United Nations. We must face the nuclear paradox because we cannot convincingly say to the rest of the world that it must move away from nuclear proliferation while we reserve the right to retain and increase nuclear weapons. We cannot credibly hide behind the argument of a test ban treaty while we reserve the right to continue testing ourselves.
  The House should examine the resolution moved in the House of Representatives by Mike Kopetski, in which the United States proposes to levy charges for the entire cost of restoring areas, such as the Nevada desert, used as test sites. Those costs would be levied against the country that wishes to test in the area. That is a real and significant cost that our Government could face in the future.
  We need to say clearly to the public that there is no credible place for nuclear arms in the defence and security system that we must develop. We need to face up to the fact —as I have been trying to do with workers in the Royal Ordnance factory in my constituency—that the future lies not in squandering skills but in using them, in engineering and design, to move from building for war to building for peace. It is the "swords into ploughshares" argument made real.
  Those on my Front Bench must be aware that it is no good saying that we want a commitment to a defence diversification industry if we do not start to develop such a policy before we go into government. We need to enter into plans with workers from those industries now so that they know the jobs that they will be doing from day one of the next Labour Government.
  We must also face up to redirecting our spending priorities. We have to reduce them to the level of the European average, which in this case would mean the redirection of up to £8 billion. At the same time, we must think the unthinkable—that it may not be relevant or desirable for Britain to retain its place on the Security
  226
  Council. That would be the biggest challenge that we could face. Our priority should be to set up a conflict resolution council or a preventive diplomacy council under the United Nations. The House and the country should rise to that challenge.
  We must address the fact that the future stability of Britain and Europe will be found not through threats of war but through guaranteeing that we can live our lives, in the words of John Dos Pasos,
  "not afraid, not hungry, not cold: not without love."
  That will not be achieved if we follow the siren voices of the men from the Maginot line who want to keep up the strategy forged in cold war who believe that, with a few more bricks, the world will be a safer place. It will not be, and unless we face the reality of those challenges, we shall betray the future safety of our children and our children's children.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). I have three simple points of my own to make. First, it is not just the world which is a more dangerous place, but we face greater dangers than are suggested in the White Paper. Secondly, even within our existing long-term costings, there is a gap between the funds available and even the much smaller level of forces that we plan. Thirdly, we need a strategic review, not a measuring of commitments to resources but a serious look at wartime capabilities and a matching of those with resources.
  I am an admirer of Boris Yeltsin, but if an historian today were to compare the Weimar Republic of the 1920s with the present regime in Moscow, and did not know the end of either story, he would notice that the Weimar Republic could draw on a limited pre-1914 democratic experience and on a tremendously successful pre-1914 capitalist past. In contrast, Russia today has neither, and the Russians, unlike the Germans, are a notoriously ungovernable people. Boris Yeltsin today is in power only because the general staff chose to allow him to stay there. The coming elections will take place only because of their agreement.
  The situation in Moscow, which has been mentioned by several of my hon. Friends, would be of great worry and concern to statesmen of previous generations. Yet today, the situation is different, because we are dealing with a country that has over 20,000 nuclear weapons and enormous stocks of conventional weapons. It is true that many of them are now unserviceable, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said, Russia is continuing to build weapons at a great rate.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brazier: If my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I will not, because others are waiting to speak.
  That brings me to the other serious danger we face—nuclear proliferation. The break-up of the Soviet Union has meant that 3,000 nuclear scientists and tens of thousands of nuclear technologists have uncertain futures. Jane's Intelligence has calculated that as many as seven new countries, most of them in the middle east and north Africa, will acquire nuclear weapons during the next five years. The Uranium Institute in London has calculated that Saddam Hussein was only 18 months from the bomb when he invaded Kuwait. If he had waited another couple of

  227
  years, we might have been faced not with deterring but actually with fighting a nuclear armed aggressor. The Government should be publishing their assumptions about those sectors. The White Paper is strong on activities but short on analysis of the threat.
  What is our response to the threat? We shall be cutting the resources available for defence from 5 per cent. of GDP in the mid-1980s to 3.2 per cent. in the year after next, even before any further cuts. The percentage of our budget spent on equipment is at its lowest since we took office and will decline over the next three years to a lower level than at any time under the previous Labour Government, so that quality as well as quantity is bound to decline. Stocks of ammunition and spares are both in desperate shortage and training is being cancelled. Inevitably, morale has plummeted.
  Worst of all, we are slipping into a peacetime model in which the configuration is being driven by considerations of peacekeeping in Bosnia, of maintaining the blue line in Cyprus, and of providing an extra battalion or two in Ulster. We are losing sight of the necessity to provide high-tech, high-capability forces to defend the country from a real threat. That is why we need a strategic review, oriented towards deciding the priorities and what wartime and military capabilities we want to keep. Only then can we decide what we can afford in the way of peacetime commitments.
  If we wish to keep the NATO alliance together, the vital requirement, as a number of hon. Friends have said, is to keep America committed to Europe. I have just been lecturing in the United States and I ended with some meetings on Capitol Hill. The Government are right to resist President Clinton's calls for us to intervene in Bosnia, but we are simply fooling ourselves if we believe that Uncle Sam will continue to bear a disproportionate part of the west's burden if we and our European allies continue to cut, cut and cut again so as to maintain our social programmes.
  I expect that three points would come out of a strategic review. First, the emphasis must be on the high-tech and the highly capable. We need a tactical air-launched nuclear weapon—not an expensive Rolls-Royce such as TASM, but a cheaper option, independent of Trident. Secondly, we must keep the armed forces as an attractive career. We cannot expect service families to continue to tolerate the unacceptable levels of separation. Much of the housing is squalid and service men's wives face terrible disadvantages in trying to find employment.
  Thirdly, there must be an imaginative use of reserves. Lack of time prevents me from dwelling on that subject. I heard what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said to me yesterday, but the process that he is conducting now is based on a paper that contains nothing that has not been proposed many times before. The process is identical to all the previous unsatisfactory reviews. We need an independent review of the reserve forces led by a civilian with reservist experience. I have suggested a number of names to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  I end where I began. We face considerable dangers in the world today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby said, in 30 or 40 years' time, nobody will remember our level of spending on health or social security. Do the Government wish to go down in history as the Government
  228
  who disarmed at a time when, to our east and potentially to our south, the world was sliding increasingly into a nuclear armed chaos? I shall be voting with the Government tonight. I hope that it will not be the last occasion on which I vote with the Government, whom I have loyally supported in the past five or six years, on defence issues.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Jamie Cann: I come from East Anglia. I am a new boy here, there are many bases in East Anglia and I represent a marginal constituency. All those factors ensure that I talk to many people in an area where people know something about the services. I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I should like to pass on to the House the views that are expressed to me and the views that I share.
  I followed carefully the speech of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who I believe is an ex-Army officer, and I consider much of what he said to be correct.
  For a number of years, Britain has had three overlapping defence objectives: first, to ensure the protection and security of the United Kingdom and any dependent territories; secondly, to insure against a major external threat to United Kingdom and our allies through membership of NATO; thirdly, to work with our partners in NATO, the Western European Union and the United Nations to maintain Britain's wider security interests by concerted action to safeguard international peace and security. Those objectives have been with us for some time now and I am sure that they represent and are fully representative of the wishes of the House and the people of the country.
  However, it seems to me and to those in the services to whom I talk that, although our aims are unchanging and are accepted, our capacity to deliver them is increasingly threatened.
  I make no criticism of the men and women who run and staff our armed services. They are admired worldwide for their professionalism, compassion, courage and efficiency. What concerns me and many of them is the seemingly annual reduction in the teeth of the services with no reduction—indeed, often unforeseen increases—in their burden.
  The utility players of our armed services—the infantry battalion, the RAF squadron, the destroyer and the frigate —grow fewer year by inexorable year. For example, in 1990 we had 50 destroyers and frigates and 50 infantry battalions. Soon, we will be down to 40 battalions and "about 35" frigates. In addition, 65 Phantoms have been taken out of service since April 1990, with no replacement being provided.
  The salami slice annual reduction in the cutting edge of our armed forces is not only deeply debilitating to their reactive capacity, but is also, as has been pointed out, devastating to the morale of both ranks and officers. Service men do not understand the logic of selling a ship such as HMS Challenger for £2 million when it was only recently built at a cost of £240 million. They do not understand why 65 Phantoms were broken up for scrap instead of being preserved for any future use, or why four new submarines built at a cost of £900 million had to be sold to the third-world equivalent of Arthur Daley for the price of a cup final ticket.

  229
  The objectives of our policy are intact and accepted by all. They are even growing. Why, then, are the forces necessary to achieve them being reduced? When I speak to service men of whatever rank, the word used most often in the conversation is "overstretch". The Government are willing the end without being prepared, it seems to many of us, to provide the means.
  I should also like briefly to draw to the House's attention the reserve formations, where morale is being severely affected. Many of us have acquiesced in the reductions in the numbers of regular units because of the promised increase in the numbers and roles of reserve units.
  We should therefore examine the Government's track record. Let me give an example from near my patch. As late as July 1992, the Ministry was able to state that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force field squadrons were to be retained for the area defence of airfields in times of war. As of this year, such units are under threat of being disbanded.
  The case in point is squadron 2623 based at RAF Barham near RAF Honington. It is unquestionably the strongest, best trained and most effective of the six Royal Auxiliary Air Force field squadrons, yet apparently only four are to be retained, with 2623 squadron being one of the two victims—and why?
  The uncharitable, among whom I must include myself, say that it is because 2623 is the squadron that is most up to strength, and therefore has the largest pay bill. The fact that it is the most efficient seems to count for nothing. Indeed, it would appear to count against it, as does the fact that a 120-strong reserve unit capable of defending a base in wartime costs only £500,000 a year to maintain in a state of readiness.
  The Government could make the equivalent saving by getting rid of 15 people in the Ministry of Defence and their on-costs. Why do we not do that instead? Why is it that, whenever savings are required in the Ministry of Defence they come from the people who work out in the services and not from the people who sit up the road in that palace?
  The reductions in the reserve forces tell the same sorry tale as the treatment of the regulars. It is the exact opposite of Theodore Roosevelt's dictum,
  "Speak softly but carry a big stick".
  The Government talk tough in wonderful Scottish brogue, but they progressively weaken the armed forces year in, year out.
  The Secretary of State would have us believe that he is fighting a savage rearguard action against the Chancellor's pressure to reduce the armed forces budget. In reality, there is no difference of principle between them. As Cabinet members, they are responsible for the year-by debilitation of our armed forces. Their only difference is how much further go down that road in any particular year.
  In my view, and certainly in the view of the service men I have spoken to, it is time for the Government to come clean. If the Government cannot afford to keep up all the roles of the armed forces, they should reduce the number or the treatment of those roles. If the Government insist on maintaining the same roles as at present, they should fund them properly. Above all, they should tell service men what is expected of them, give them the necessary manpower and equipment and please restrict themselves to a defence review every 10 years or so and leave them to get on with the job.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall be brief so that others of my hon. Friends may have the opportunity to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) on what he said. He spoke with real feeling and authority, based on his many conversations with his constituents. There was little in his speech with which I could disagree.
  I want to devote the few minutes at my disposal to appealing to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement—and he is a friend in every sense—and our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to stand firm. If one theme has run through every speech from both sides of the House, it is that the world is a much less safe and a much more dangerous place now than it was during the cold war. At this time of danger and volatility, the Government's paramount duty—and it is always a paramount duty—is to ensure the defence of the realm and of our national interests. That cannot be done if we arbitrarily cut defence spending.
  It is with real reluctance that I shall vote with the Government tonight. I could not support "Options for Change". We won our battle over the Staffordshire Regiment, but it was a small victory. We have cut too deep already and to cut any more would be, from a Conservative Government, a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of our past. It would totally jeopardise our future. In all conscience, that is not something which I could ever support.
  During the past two days, we have spoken several times of what has replaced the Soviet Union. None of us knows whether democracy will survive in Russia. I hope that it will and I back President Yeltsin, but things could go wrong even if he wins the election.
  The other point that we must bear in mind is that the United States of America is now led by a much less certain and sure-footed leadership than for some time past. I wish President Clinton well and I want a strong and close relationship between our two countries and between the European Community and the USA. However, the fact is that President Clinton, by his prevarication and his uncertain touch, has almost invalidated the very doctrine of the deterrent that has been the basis of successful policy for the past 50 years.
  With such a new, inexperienced and untried leader—and in so far as he has been tried, he has been found wanting—leading the greatest nation in the world, there is a greater responsibility than ever on the other nations of the west, and especially on Britain and France as the two permanent members of the Security Council. Because France is still outside NATO in the fullest sense, that means that that responsibility primarily rests on this country.
  Many times in the past we have stood alone; many times we have contributed enormously to the defence of freedom and the survival of decent values. We now have a greater responsibility resting on our shoulders certainly than at any time since the last war and, perhaps, during the whole of this century. This is not a time merely to try to balance the books and to say that £1 billion must go. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that if that happens, with the greatest possible reluctance I shall go into the Opposition Lobby and I shall try to persuade as many of my hon. Friends as possible to go with me.
  Mr. Bill Walker: There will not need to be too much persuading.
  Mr. Cormack: I am glad about that. If the Government pursue that course, it will be a black day for this country.
  We have been talking about press speculation. I do not believe that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary or any other member of the Cabinet would for a moment seriously contemplate that sort of arbitrary cut in our defence spending—
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Or any cut.
  Mr. Cormack: Indeed, the Government could not contemplate any cut in our defence expenditure, save for any proper economies that can always be made and which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence.
  That is my plea to my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not want to part company with him now or at any time, but we must recognise the priorities. Our national priority is the defence of the realm and the safeguarding of this country and all that it stands for. We cannot, at this moment, turn our backs on our greatest responsibility. I appeal to my hon. Friend to give an answer that will reassure us. I hope that long before 30 November we shall have ceased to discuss such a ghastly course. I hope that the Cabinet will knock it on the head very early and very firmly.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Earlier today, I returned from Belize, where I was with 45 Commando, as part of the armed forces placement scheme, and I want to refer to two issues that arose from that visit. I seek clarification of the exact nature of the Government's commitment to Belize. I read with interest the Hansard report of yesterday's debate, in which the Minister of State for the Armed Forces stated:
  "We will enter into discussions with those interested in the region to ensure that Belize continues to prosper as an independent sovereign state."—[Official Report, 18 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 116.]
  That leaves much to be desired. It implies that discussions have not yet taken place. With whom are those discussions to be held—the United States alone or the United States and Mexico? Will Cuba or Guatemala be involved? Who is to give Belize a guarantee of continuing independence?
  If we are contemplating British involvement in Belize solely in terms of guaranteeing the complete state's territorial integrity, that misses many of the achievements of British troops until now. It does not cover the risk of constant border incursions—perhaps by the Guatemalan army in hot pursuit of Guatemalan guerrillas—or take account of the roles played by British forces in supporting the civil power and helping to restrain illegal immigration, or take any account of the deterrent effect of the presence of British troops on drugs trafficking and the corresponding corruption of civil society that usually follows from that.
  Belize has a far lower level of drug money involvement than many other countries in that part of the world, not least because of the presence of British troops. If those troops are withdrawn, a country that is a beacon of democracy in that part of the world—I speak as someone who visited it shortly after a free general election—may slide into the kind of system that is seen elsewhere in the
  232
  region. We should not view our forces simply as a means of intervening after the event. They should be there to bolster a democratic regime.
  My second point relates to the SA80, which has been the subject of previous discussion and of reports claiming that it is satisfactory. That was not my experience when I was in Belize, and is not supported by reports that I received from officers and marines with whom I discussed the matter.
  I watched an exercise in the jungle in which two marines walked 150 yards along a trail, firing at targets popped up by instructors. Those marines suffered six blockages in their SA80s. I was told that the same happened on seven of the previous eight runs up that alley. I spoke subsequently to other marines to establish whether that was the general pattern and was told that the same thing had occurred before, and that they were anxious about the safety and security of the weapon.
  John Wilkinson and I had the opportunity to fire the weapon, and both of us encountered a series of blockages and faulty ammunition. The weapon did not work and the ammunition seemed faulty. John spent all his time shooting at red targets—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the need to refer to the right hon. and hon. Members by their constituencies.
  Mr. Davidson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who spent all his time shooting at red targets, whereas I at least switched my aim. In any event, both our weapons constantly jammed. I hope that the Minister will establish whether the situation is now satisfactory, obtain appropriate reports and ensure that we are sending marines and other troops abroad with equipment that actually works.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend may recall that the Minister assured the House that defects in the SA80 had been resolved and that the problem would not recur. My hon. Friend's experience suggests that the Minister needs to reconsider the matter urgently.
  Mr. Davidson: I am glad to hear that point. I should be happy if the Minister would consider the matter. He is a fair and reasonable man. I am reassured by the fact that he helped VSEL Kvaerner jointly to receive the order for the helicopter carrier, for which my constituents and I are eternally grateful.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) said about the SA80, which I had understood was a fine weapon. My only experience with it was during a trip to Cyprus, when I took part in a shooting competition and came last, but that was nothing to do with the weapon. My hon. Friend has made a serious complaint. Perhaps the conditions in which that weapon was used in Belize were different from those in Bosnia or Cyprus. I hope that the Minister will take up that matter.
  The debate has been a non-event. According to the papers, it was going to be a key debate. It is a key debate, judging by the number of hon. Members present. I fear the worst with regard to the so—called Tory revolt. If I were a Tory Whip, I would go to my Chief Whip and say, "There

  233
  are a few there; the ones we expected. You might not get away with knocking £1 billion off the budget, but you could get away with £600 million, £700 million or perhaps, if you push it, £800 million. Some of them will never vote for us anyhow, but the rest can be whipped in. There Is no problem." The duty Government Whip, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, Atcham (Mr. Conway), is smiling.
  The debate is similar to manoeuvres. The Government have pulled a fast one. They decided to hold the debate early so that we would not be in receipt of a copy of the defence budget and would not know what cuts were made. The Government took nearly a year to bring the previous statement before the House. It has taken five parliamentary weeks to prepare this statement, and it is all about tactics. The Conservative rebels, if that is what they would like to be called, are being out-manoeuvred, and they know it.
  Yesterday's debate was strange. It was admitted that there was a fight going on between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence on defence cuts. It was a coded message, but it was made. The Secretary of State also admitted that the Labour party was right to call for a full defence review.
  The Secretary of State does not have the ammunition to argue with the Treasury about the right defence expenditure, because he has never considered the minimum required for the defence of the realm. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now threatening—I understand that he did so during a television interview yesterday—that, if there is a cut of -1 billion, he will have a defence review. That sounds like an offer that his Cabinet colleagues cannot refuse. It is ludicrous of him to make such a statement. I suspect that we are in for troubled times.
  At the Dispatch Box yesterday, the Secretary of State had the look about him of people—I have seen them often over the past two years—who work for the Ministry of Defence. He appeared to be unappreciated, unsure of his future role, suffering from low morale and thinking about a career change.
  In the first 15 minutes of his speech, he told us about the trouble spots he had visited during the recess and the international statesmen he had met. It became apparent that he was looking for a career change—a career in the Foreign Office. I am not sure whether the Foreign Secretary will accommodate him, but I have a feeling that the Secretary of State is looking for a new job, and at a time like this.
  What else did the Secretary of State say yesterday? He announced a new classless system of awards for military bravery. That is in line with the Prime Minister's view of a classless society. I would have welcomed the Secretary of State's action if he had not announced one medal to be given solely to officers. That is not acceptable to the Labour party.
  It is a pity that, even when we are doing something that should not be contentious, the Government cannot get away from their class background. The changes will not cost a great deal of money, but I suspect that they will create a great deal of trouble. I read in the newspapers today about people who have received such medals in the past, complaining that they have been degraded in some way by other ranks and officers. I suspect that our constituency postbags will receive letters from people complaining about the changes.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State paid tribute to the United Nations forces serving in Bosnia. I agree that without the United Nations forces, and especially the
  234
  British forces, many more people in Bosnia would have died. Many civilians would have died if the humanitarian aid had not got through.
  I visited Bosnia in September. Like other hon. Members who have never seen a conflict before, I was shocked that there was conflict in a country to which many of us had gone for holidays in the past. We thought that the country was civilised. However, there were three different groups of people who were nice to speak to but who hated each other.
  I came away with the feeling that it was a civil war and that we should not get involved in resolving the problem of who should win and who should lose. We should be there to help to restore peace. Our troops are doing a good job. If called upon, we should send more troops to police the peace, but we should not try to resolve the problem.
  The Prime Minister was probably right to tell President Clinton that, if we took an active part in the fighting in the former Yugoslavia, it would bring down his Government. I do not think that the British people would accept the number of casualties that British troops and other service men would have sustained in that position. I do not think that any Government would have been able to persuade the British people that the fight was worth losing hundreds or thousands of our citizens.
  I am critical of the press and the media, because they have not given a balanced view of what is happening in Bosnia.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Martlew: I shall give way in a moment.
  When I was in the former Yugoslavia, I visited the Muslim safe area of Gorazde. The day after the peace agreement failed, the BBC World Service said that the Serbs were shelling Gorazde. We insisted to the Bosnian Serb general we were with that we should travel to Gorazde. He did not want to take us, but eventually he did.
  We were met by the United Nations and taken into the Muslim safe area. The United Nations told us that there had been no shelling in the town for more than a week. At the same time, the BBC World Service was saying that the town was being shelled. Disinformation has come to this country, just as it has to other countries. There is general agreement on both sides of the House about our policy in Bosnia.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the moment we dropped the first bomb on Bosnia, we would have been seen to be partial by all three sides and our humanitarian aid, which has been the biggest in the world, would have come to an end?
  Mr. Martlew: The threat was enough to make the Bosnian Serbs think again, and the ploy worked. It could have turned out differently, but it worked. So there is agreement about Bosnia.
  The Government agree with Labour Members about the tactical air-to-surface missile. Not only did we say that there was no need for it—we predicted that the Government would scrap it. On 9 February I told the Secretary of State that, in order to save at least £2 billion, the Government should scrap TASM, and I went on to predict that they would scrap it. The Secretary of State replied that that spoke volumes.
  "on the inadequacy of Labour thought on those crucial issues."—[Official Report, 9 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 816.]

  235
  Now he has had second thoughts, and that, too, speaks volumes.
  The Tories believe in TASM. We were glad to see it scrapped yesterday, but they believe that it should go ahead. The economy is in a shambles, and the Treasury has put pressure on the Secretary of State for Defence to scrap TASM. The Tories are running the economy in such a way that they cannot afford to provide a nuclear weapon that they think is essential.
  I am not convinced that there will be a replacement for TASM—we shall have to wait and see. Perhaps, when the Minister replies, he can tell the House how many millions of pounds have been wasted on developing TASM and their nuclear warhead for it, and what the cancellation costs will be. The House has a right to know.
  The Minister said that there would be consultation on the reserves, and that he would be asking for comments. If he takes as much notice of those comments as he took of the consultations on the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, we might as well not bother. On that occasion, he was interested only in saving £10 million, and I suspect that it will not be any different this time. We hope that the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box, so that he can be questioned on that announcement.
  A great deal has been said about the Royal Ordnance order. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), who made a strong speech. He is the sort of man who shouts and carries a big stick. His philosophy is like mine: if British troops are to shoot bullets, they should be British bullets. We saw what happened in the Gulf war. The Belgians were going to refuse to give us artillery shells.
  Why, then, have we placed this order with the French? Can hon. Members imagine the French asking us to tender to supply them with ammunition? What nonsense. Where possible, we should build equipment for British forces in this country. It must be of fine quality and at a competitive price. If we do that, jobs will be maintained here. In addition, we should be careful when we export weapons. British troops should not be fired on by British bullets, as happened in Iraq. The Government have a bad record on that.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) asked about the EH101. The order was promised six years ago by Lord Younger. At 3.30 am on 27 July 1993, we thought that we were about to hear an announcement. The knights of the shires, including the hon. Gentleman, were present. I was all excited, because I thought that this was how we would win the Christchurch by-election.
  In fact, we heard nothing, but we got something. The Minister said that he understood that there was a possibility of a Dutch order. He had had a word with his Dutch counterpart and—nod, nod, wink, wink—it looked as though everything would be all right. That obviously did the trick, because the order went to the French.
  I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence went to Yeovil, as I did. No doubt he saw the commitment of the work force and of management. I understand also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took away the Secretary of State's cheque book. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence told us tonight that the
  236
  Secretary of State would not be allowed to place that order until after the Budget. What a situation! It is six years since the Government promised to place the order: the allies won the second world war in less time than that.
  Yesterday, in a scurrilous intervention, the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) suggested that the social security budget should be cut to save defence. I suspect that that was a rehash of his grandfather's famous wartime phrase "guns before butter"—but, in this instance, it was "guns before social security". I do not think that that would have united the country in 1940.
  If extra money must be raised for defence, it should be raised through taxation; it should not be taken from the social security budget, and my party will not stand for that.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was Hitler who said that. Who taught you history?
  Mr. Martlew: I wonder who taught manners to the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Martlew: I am sorry; I have a very tight schedule.
  In the past, I have referred to the Secretary of State as the grand old Duke of York, and as one of the "donkeys" described by Alan Clark. Tonight, however, I think that he will be Pontius Pilate: ultimately, he will say, "I wash my hands of this."
  I hope that enough Conservative Members will decide to warn the Government with a pre-emptive strike, and join us in the Lobby to tell the Government that they do not believe that defence moneys should be cut further until a review has been completed. I hope that they will vote for the Labour amendment.
  9.26 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): In some ways, this two-day defence debate has been unusually sombre, but it has been valuable none the less. It has gone very wide of the White Paper at times, and—naturally—a good deal of attention has been paid to the public expenditure round and rumours of possible defence cuts. I have, of course, taken careful and profound note of the significant number of Conservative Members who have expressed grave reservations on that subject.
  The debate has thrown up two main themes, which could be described as "we want a clearer defence strategy" and "we do not want significant defence cuts". I shall address both themes and, indeed, those who developed them. First, however, let me deal with some of the specific points raised by hon. Members. As more than 40 have spoken—over 20 of them this afternoon—I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not mention every speaker, but I will do my best. It will depend on the time that is available.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) asked about HMS Active and the operation that is currently under way near Haiti, under United Nations auspices. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that HMS Active will be under British command and British rules of engagement at all times. Tactical control may be passed to the United States for specific operations, but at all times United Kingdom rules of engagement will apply.
  Two hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies—the hon. Members for Fermanagh and

  237
  South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) —raised important points. I assure them both that the Government have no current plans to withdraw security forces from Northern Ireland: it is our policy there to match force levels with threat levels and we see the present threat level as high.
  Indeed, I will go further. We believe that, if the level of support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary were reduced, the number of terrorist attacks would be more than likely to increase. It follows from that that we do not feel able to accept the novel correlation theory—as it is called—of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). He is, of course, entitled to his own views, given his new-found freedom; but those views do not yet find favour with Her Majesty's Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) raised some detailed questions about global missile defence. We have been kept in close touch with the thinking of the United States as the strategic defence initiative has evolved. We are aware of the emerging ballistic missiles threat. We have been working to prevent it through various export controls such as the missile technology control regime. We have preliminary studies in hand to consider future medium range surface-to-air missile and we will take ballistic missile threats seriously and carefully into account.
  I shall now turn to one of the major themes of the debate: the question of defence strategy. The point has been made by several Members of all parties that our defence policy lacks a coherent strategy. I believe that to be unjustified, but the debate has been enhanced by some good speeches on that subject such as from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the former foreign affairs Opposition Front Bench spokesman, and my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) among others.
  From the Opposition Benches, the concomitant cry immediately goes up that what we need is a defence review. When I hear that from the Opposition, I do not take it with anything other than a large pinch of salt. We all know that the Opposition's request in this context for a defence review is nothing less than a opportunistic mechanism to cover up the fact that they have no defence policy of their own.
  One of the rather amusing features of all our defence debates is the little Punch and Judy show that takes place on the Opposition Benches. No sooner has the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), bounced up in his usual way to say that the Labour party want a review, than up gets the Liberal party defence spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who rebukes him in tones of Gladstonian rectitude for what he now felicitously calls the hon. Gentleman's irresistible urge to call for a review. The hon. and learned Gentleman then points out that a review will not provide the answers to difficult questions. With that, we are certainly at one with the Liberal party.
  I give greater weight to the more thoughtful arguments put forward by some of my hon. Friends who have asked for a wider concept: a security foreign policy and strategic review of all our commitments. That was emphasised yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and others.
  In the context of those speeches, I shall turn to the interesting pamphlet "Facing the Future" that was written
  238
  by 12 of my hon. Friends, several of whom have spoken in the debate: the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Mr. Goodson-Wickes) for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) for Blaby, for Canterbury and others. When a pamphlet is signed by a cabal of my hon. Friends, whose number exceeds the Government majority, it, as Dr. Johnson once said in a different context, concentrates the mind wonderfully. I read it carefully and with some measure of sympathy during the recent recess.
  First, I must make friendly criticism of both the views expressed in the pamphlet and of the speeches. Some of the views are set out more in the interrogative than the substantive. In its six pages, the pamphlet asks well over 50 questions, many treble and quadruple-hatted. Some of those questions, I am bound to say, are answerable only by a Minister of clairvoyance. For example, the pamphlet asks:
  "Can we rely on the same commitment of interest holding together the Atlantic alliance over the next 40 years as has sustained it over the previous 40? What are the foreign policy implications of any alternative assumptions we might adopt, or vice versa? . . . Once we have answers to these questions of strategy and doctrine, others will need to be addressed. What changes, if any, do we need to make in numbers, training and, equipment? Do we need more or fewer men, tanks, helicopters, fighter interceptors, stand-off missiles, frigates or carriers? What is the scope for greater specialisation of roles?"
  And so it continues into a further flurry of broad-brush interrogatives.
  The sheer scope and breadth of such questions highlights the difficulty that we all face. The plain fact of the matter is that we have had a bonfire of the certainties that prevailed in defence and foreign policy for the 45-odd years of the cold war. Those old certainties have not been replaced with new certainties. We all agree that the world remains a dangerous place, but there is not much agreement about which of the current dangers and uncertainties pose a real and immediate threat to our security or that of our friends and allies.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Has not President Clinton told the United Nations that his top priority is non-proliferation? Why cannot the Government make that their top priority as well?
  Mr. Aitken: Of course the Government support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and drive to achieve it. They have said so unequivocally, so there is not—as the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting—any great difference between us and the United States. I deplore the attempts of some journalists, too many commentators and some hon. Members to drive a wedge between ourselves and the United States. The differences between us are minuscule compared with the great interests that keep us together and will do so for many years.
  The old certainties have not been replaced with new ones. There is not too much agreement as to which of the current dangers and uncertainties pose an immediate threat to our security or that of our friends and allies. In those circumstances, perhaps the White Paper that we are debating carries more strategic weight and credibility than some of my hon. Friends seem to have thought on first reading it.
  Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been generous in the amount of time that he has devoted to our little paper. The central message that it was designed to convey was that, since the big changes, we have received from the Ministry of Defence an enormous and

  239
  unprecedented volume of detail on existing activities, but less information than ever on underlying assumptions, even on issues on which MOD must hold a view.
  Those issues include questions such as, how many years, in a broad sense, may we expect before some of the middle eastern powers start to acquire nuclear weapons? Such matters need to be debated in public, and we can then settle questions of priorities—obviously, we cannot afford everything. The problem is that, without such a debate, we end up being pushed along by what is urgently needed in terms of our peacetime commitments instead of what is important in defending vital British and western interests.
  Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is perfectly right to draw attention to the potential menace of nuclear powers in the middle east. It is worth reminding ourselves that, despite all the intelligence skills available on both sides of the Atlantic, no western power was aware of how close Iraq was to becoming a fully fledged nuclear power until the invasion of Kuwait and the aftermath of that conflict revealed the depth of Iraq's nuclear capabilities. My hon. Friend's warning is well taken, but I am not sure that we will achieve any greater accuracy of information than before the Gulf war. We are striving to achieve that, but I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's example is a particularly good one.
  A review, of whatever sort, creates uncertainties, and an ongoing review effects the morale of the armed forces. The Government do not believe that the time is right for such a review. I agree with the words in the leader of today's edition of The Times:
  "What is needed is not a cumbersome defence review, whose findings will be out of date as soon as they are published, but a rolling response to the changing world."
  We must consider the acid test of a rolling response. When I read my hon. Friends' pamphlet, I found that some of the passages, particularly the section entitled "War and Proliferation Closer to Home", echoed John F. Kennedy's seminal work, "Why England Slept". I read those warnings, hear the warnings given in today's debate and return to the White Paper to ask: can we defend ourselves or at least get ready to defend ourselves against such potential threats within the strategy and capability of the White Paper? The answer now is a firm, "Yes, we can."
  Although I say that we can defend ourselves well now and have strong defences now, if we are to believe the rumours in the press, there seems to be a sword of Damocles hanging over our debate. There seem to be profound anxieties about the effect on defence of the current expenditure round. The debate has been notable for the stern warnings from the Back Benches. By John F. Kennedy's definition, England is clearly not sleeeping at this hour, because my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster, for Staffordshire, South, for Canterbury and for Blaby all said ominous words about their fears and gave warnings of what they might be compelled to do in political and parliamentary terms.
  Once or twice in the debate over the past two days, as we talked about cuts, I heard echoes of the ancestral voices of the great Tory parliamentarians of the 1930s and 1940s, such as Leo Amery, Duff Cooper and Brendan Bracken.
  Let me come to the big issue of cuts, because, in a major debate about defence spending, I can well understand that some of my hon. Friends wish to warn the House about the
  240
  dangers, as they see it, of a cut, or cuts, too far. The air is indeed full of rumours. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, who leads our Select Committee, these days speaks with the authority, expertise and political clout equivalent to Sam Nunn in the United States Senate. My hon. Friend has done us all a service in giving the warnings that he gave today.
  I am not against warnings, or even warning shots, but there is a real danger that, without sight of the figures, the proposals or counter-proposals, which are all part of the ebb and flow of public expenditure round of discussions, some of my hon. Friends may fall too easily into believing in a stereotype of stagey confrontation, which may turn out to be far removed from the collegiate discussions that can result in settlements that uphold, as we all hope, a strong and realistic defence posture for Britain.
  Before we get to the tabloid or war comic versions of "Treasury Guns for Defence" or our more colourful military response for that over-dramatised scenario: "Bombs Away over the Chief Secretary's Office", let me try to offer the House some conciliatory thoughts on an issue about which Treasury and Ministry of Defence interests do and should meet: value for money in defence spending.
  You, Madam Speaker, may or may not be aware of that vivid Pentagon phrase, "Getting more bangs for the buck". In our more restrained way, we in the Ministry of Defence talk of concentrating resources at the sharp end, and, above all, of ensuring that we spend as much as is humanly possible on the front line. I cannot emphasise too strongly the primacy of the front line and the need to give spending priority to it. It is fundamental to the philosophy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his entire ministerial team.
  It is our priority also to give stability to the funding for the front line, to its manpower and equipment. Even if we have to make difficult and painful decisions elsewhere in the defence budget, we believe that to be the right priority for our defence system, and we are making good progress on that. Many new brooms are sweeping hard to achieve our objectives.
  We have a good tale to tell on efficiency savings, because since 1988, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster was good enough to acknowledge and praise in his speech, we have secured 2.5 per cent. efficiency improvements, and plan to do so through to 1996–97. By then we shall have reduced the cost of the defence programme by some £3 billion sterling.
  If we ask ourselves whether we have done enough in that direction, the honest answer must always be, "Well, not yet." In a budget of more than £23 billion, there are bound to be areas where the quest for value for money has not prevailed as well as it should. We are getting to grips with that problem and are determined to come to closer grips with it. We have had a glimpse of far more radical efficiency savings possibilities as a result of the important lessons that we have learnt from our £1.2 billion market-testing programme, particularly the Army's share of it.
  It is the Army that has set the pace in recognising that there are massive areas of support expenditure which can just as efficiently and more cost effectively be delivered to the front line not by service men or women in uniform but by defence industries or by leaner in-house teams of civilians after bidding competitively against each other.

  241
  For example, right now in the Army Base Repair Organisation, some quite remarkable savings and changes are being made as a result of the spur of competition in the support area. The overhaul of a main battle tank, which used to take 34 weeks, now takes a smaller team of skilled workers just 19 weeks to accomplish with no loss of quality.
  A complete review of work practices and procedures is taking place at those Army base workshops. Where we no longer need service men, we no longer need some facilities. Even some officers' messes are going in the reorganisation programme. None of this is easy, but the certain end result, whoever wins the market testing competition, is, first, that the taxpayer will be saved tens of millions of pounds, secondly, that many service men will be redirected from the support area to the front line and, thirdly, that the Army will have at least as efficient and good quality support as it receives at present.
  I mention the Army's efficiency savings and market testing programme to make the point that not every defence cut means a reduction in defence capability. What is being accomplished at those Army base workshops will, in part, be notched up to the Treasury as a cut. But Army commanders will see them as a gain because service personnel are being released for the front line.
  The hard questions that we have been asking of the Army with such impressive responses and results we are now putting to the other services and to the civil service. The civil service cannot be exempt from value-for-money changes in our determined drive to direct maximum resources to the front line.
  Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster for what he said about the excellence and quality of our civil servants, so many of whom are in no sense administrators or pen pushers but are there almost as part of the front line, going out to the Gulf and other fields of quite dangerous service.
  I also accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), a new contributor to defence debates, that perhaps too often civil servants did not bear the brunt of the pressures while the people whom he described so eloquently from his constituency did. We are very much aware of that worry.
  I do not want today to go into a catalogue of targets for the radical value-for-money reforms and efficiency savings which my right hon. Friend intends to achieve within our Department, but it is worth saying that, in today's newspapers alone, there are articles which ask the same hard questions that Ministers have been asking internally.
  For example, there was a particularly knowledgeable column this morning by John Keegan, the defence editor of The Daily Telegraph. He suggested that the Department should
  "undertake an open-eyed rationalisation of its own house".
  He mentioned the cost of support agencies, the medical services and the white collar administrators, and I agree with his comments there.
  In another article, the defence correspondent of the Daily Express, Mr. John Ingham, drew attention to the differences in the size of the support tail per combat aircraft between the Royal Air Force and other air forces.
  I draw the attention of the House to such journalistic signposts only because we ourselves are now travelling fast down the same roads in our internal crusade for efficiency and value-for-money savings. I emphasise again that such savings can be substantial in financial terms but, above all,
  242
  I emphasise that such savings should not reduce the operation effectiveness of the front line of our services. If those are to be our cuts, they are not the sort of cuts on which tears or votes need be shed.
  As yet, I do not know the outcome of the public expenditure round, but I hope that I have gone some way towards making it clear where, according to our internal calculations, the priorities should lie.
  I said that I would come back to one or two points, particularly constituency points, made by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) referred to Swan Hunter. We have done our best to sustain Swan Hunter in the difficult time that it is now going through. As a mark of our confidence in Swan Hunter's capability, we have recently given it some extra work, but that is a short-term measure. We shall do everything that we can to help the company find a buyer and secure overseas work. More than that I cannot say, except that we very much hope that Swan Hunter will flourish in the future and win competitive bids.
  I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth for his warm welcome for the ammunition order that I announced earlier. As to the Challenger 2 decision, we hope to go ahead with this as soon as practicable. This and other major procurement decisions are, quite fairly, coming under careful scrutiny—which, in the present public expenditure climate, is understandable—but our defence capabilities are not in any way being affected. I understand the natural impatience of some hon. Members who have important factories in their constituencies.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I warned my hon. Friend that I would intervene. Another very important contract that is awaiting decision is for the Hercules replacement. The Hercules is the front-line work horse for all three services and the oldest aircraft are now more than 30 years old and desperately need refurbishing or replacement. I urge my hon. Friend to issue the invitations to tender for the new Hercules replacements as soon as possible after the public expenditure round.
  Mr. Aitken: I sympathise with my hon. Friend. We need to replace our Hercules fleet—or at least half of it —in the reasonably near future. We have recently placed a contract with Marshalls of Cambridge to look at the options of either refurbishing the existing fleet or buying a new type of Hercules aircraft. That is under consideration at the moment. I certainly appreciate my hon. Friend's point about urgency and I hope to be able to resolve it as soon as possible.
  A number of my hon. Friends have commented on the EH101, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). It is an excellent aircraft. We had a good debate about it in the small hours of the morning in July. We hope to be able to move forward but—again because of the extra scrutiny—we are biding our time. We are not losing any defence capability in doing so; it merely emphasises the importance of price and achieving value for money in that contract.
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) seems to be a member of the Labour party. He takes tremendous pride in the work force of the rearmament and stronger armament wing of the Royal Ordnance—quite rightly so—and it was moving to hear

  243
  him say how he took tremendous pride in his father's military service. If his attitude represented the heart and soul of the modern Labour party—I wish it did—there would be nothing wrong with that. I thank him for his robust contribution to the debate.
  As I have talked about at least one Opposition Member who has robust views on defence, I think that it is right that we should have a little fun with the Labour party's general defence policy. The Labour party likes to pretend that it had a very good conference. Well, on defence, it did not. There was a great deal of military posturing around, led by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy leader of the Labour party for the time being. She played the role of the Grand Old Duke of York; she marched her troops to the top of the hill and then had to march them down again.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on defence, seemed to be applying for the extraordinary new role of milliner general to the armed forces. A phrase in his speech could have come from the lips of Hardy Amies or the late Norman Hartnell when he said that he was proud of our boys in Bosnia who were "wearing their blue bonnets". I do not know wether he was playing the role of the mad hatter or whether he buys his wife an Easter beret, but I hope that he polishes up on his military terminology before he next visits the Royal Marines or the Paras.
  Then there was the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He was playing Rupert of the Rhine—charging off wildly in all directions, exhorting the troops in an incomprehensible language and then telling everyone that he had won the first battle of the civil war single-handed.
  Meanwhile, however, the ironsides of the trade unions were regrouping. They were regrouping so effectively that the following day in the conference they cast their block votes to make the Labour party push through some of the most irresponsible and destructive anti-defence policy motions in the history of left-wing socialism.
  Let me remind the House of composite motion No. 48, which instructs the next Labour Government to carry out the immediate scrapping of Trident. By a majority of 52 to 40, the brothers and the comrades passed that reckless reversion to unilateral nuclear disarmament. Evidently, in the new modern Labour party, OMOV washes redder.
  The brothers did not stop at throwing away our nuclear defences. They wiped out most of our conventional defences too, for they also passed, by a 79 per cent. majority—let us remember that a two-thirds majority is binding on the Labour party in policy terms—composite motion No. 49, whose effect would be to reduce Britain's defence spending by one third or £7.5 billion. That is the equivalent of removing the whole of any one of the three services or of stopping the whole of Britain's defence equipment orders to Britain's defence industries—indu stries that employ nearly 500,000 British workers.
  The Labour party likes to proclaim in its official motion its support in Parliament for its latest new-fangled quango a defence industry diversification agency, but by its votes at the conference it has created in effect a defence industry destruction agency and a defence industry jobs destruction agency, and we will not let its members forget that.
  244
  It is also illuminating that, of the plethora of motions on the Order Paper, the amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—not the Front-Bench amendment—represents official Labour party policy. With a two-thirds majority, it means just that.
  So much for those composite resolutions. Let their epitaph be, dust to dust, ashes to ashes, composites for the compost heap of history. Let us leave the past to Labour and its squabbles, because it is giving the future to us.
  The guiding beacon of our Government's policy must be that sound defences and sound money go hand in hand. On the subject of sound money, let there be no doubt that we all share the view that any sense of a return to high inflation, high interest rates or uncompetitive exchange rates would emasculate Britain's defence capabilities far sooner and far more devastatingly than any foreseeable hostile military attacker is likely to do.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right, therefore, when he said in his recent speech at Blackpool:
  "The Conservative Government is the Government of sound money or it is nothing."
  I know, however, that neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor nor anyone else will take it amiss when a Defence Minister adds this important rider; a Conservative Government are also the Government of sound defence or they are nothing.
  Her Majesty's Government have to confront the challenge, therefore, of how best we should spare the circle between the two imperative requirements of sound money and sound defence. No one pretends that it is an easy task, but after all, government is all about making difficult choices. When we choose, we shall have to temper financial realism with military responsibility.
  No one in Government is suggesting that our defence posture should be purely resource-led, but equally our defence posture cannot be unconstrained by resource considerations, because defence expenditure has to take its place within our overall priorities for public expenditure. That is not just a financial calculation. We cannot, to use the familiar cliché, pretend that there should be a level playing field between the finances of social security and the finances of national security.
  Defence goes to the very heart of nationhood. It goes to the heart of the beliefs of the British people about themselves; it goes to the heart of our national self-confidence and of our image, responsibilities and role in the world. It goes to the heart of those deepest of national values which are so well exemplified by our armed forces —honour, discipline, duty, loyalty and patriotism. It is with these higher considerations in mind that I know the Government will face the difficult decisions that lie ahead, to reach a realistic and responsible position that maintains Britain's role in the world as a premier military nation with armed forces of formidable skill, scope and excellence. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 322

  Division No. 363]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ainger, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Austin-Walker, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  245

  Barnes, Harry

  Garrett, John

  Barron, Kevin

  George, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bell, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Gould, Bryan

  Benton, Joe

  Graham, Thomas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blair, Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blunkett, David

  Gunnell, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Hain, Peter

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Hall, Mike

  Boyes, Roland

  Hanson, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Hardy, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Harvey, Nick

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Byers, Stephen

  Henderson, Doug

  Caborn, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Cann, Jamie

  Home Robertson, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southward)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hutton, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Connarty, Michael

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowelh Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Keen, Alan

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Darling, Alistair

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davidson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Leighton, Ron

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Litherland, Robert

  Dobson, Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dowd, Jim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  Enright, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Etherington, Bill

  McFall, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKelvey, William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fatchett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Faulds, Andrew

  McMaster, Gordon

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mahon, Alice

  Foulkes, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fraser, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  246

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Martlew, Eric

  Rooney, Terry

  Maxton, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ruddock, Joan

  Meale, Alan

  Salmond, Alex

  Michael, Alun

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Short, Clare

  Milburn, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Moriey, Elliot

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spellar, John

  Mudie, George

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Murphy, Paul

  Stevenson, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Straw, Jack

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, William

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tipping, Paddy

  Parry, Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Patchett, Terry

  Vaz, Keith

  Pendry, Tom

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walley, Joan

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pope, Greg

  Watson, Mike

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Winnick, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wise, Audrey

  Radice, Giles

  Worthington, Tony

  Randall, Stuart

  Wray, Jimmy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Redmond, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Richardson, Jo

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Booth, Hartley

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boswell, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ancram, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Graham

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Burns, Simon

  Baldry, Tony

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butterfill, John

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Beggs, Roy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cash, William

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, Mr

  Blackburn, Dr JohnG.

  Clapplson, James

  247

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Congdon, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Horam, John

  Couchman, James

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B. (WHertfdshr)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Eggar, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Elletson, Harold

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bifm E'stn)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evennett, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Faber, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McCrea, Rev William

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Gallie, Phil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Madel, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Maginnis, Ken

  Gill, Christopher

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair '

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gorst, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, William

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hannam, Sir John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  248

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Spring, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Nicholson! David (Taunton)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Steen, Anthony

  Norris, Steve

  Stephen, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Stern, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stewart, Allan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Paice, James

  Sykes, John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Thomason, Roy

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Richards, Rod

  Trend, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Trotter, Neville

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robathan, Andrew

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Walden, George

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Waller, Gary

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Ward, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sackville, Tom

  Watts, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Willetts, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wood, Timothy

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Yeo, Tim

  Soames, Nicholas

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 34.

  Division No. 364]

  [10.20 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baldry, Tony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amess, David

  Bates, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ashby, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Robert

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  249

  Booth, Hartley

  French, Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Fry, Peter

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gallie, Phil

  Bowis, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Garnier, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bright, Graham

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gorst, John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Burns, Simon

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butcher, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butler, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Butterfill, John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cash, William

  Hannam, Sir John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Churchill, Mr

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Colvin, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Congdon, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Conway, Derek

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Couchman, James

  Horam, John

  Cran, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dicks, Terry

  Jack, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Jessel, Toby

  Duncan, Alan

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Eggar, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Elletson, Harold

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Faber, David

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

  Fabricant, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forman, Nigel

  Legg, Barry

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Leigh, Edward

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lidington, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lightbown, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lord. Michael

  250

  Luff, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Madel, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Malone, Gerald

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spring, Richard

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Mates, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  Merchant, Piers

  Stephen, Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Stem, Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  Stewart, Allan

  Mills, Iain

  Streeter, Gary

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Sykes, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Norris, Steve

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paice, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Patnick, Irvine

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pawsey, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Pickles, Eric

  Walden, George

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Ward, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Rendel, David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Richards, Rod

  Whittingdale, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wilshire, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Sackville, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Harry

  Dafis, Cynog

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  251

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maxton, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Purchase, Ken

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Salmond, Alex

  Gordon, Mildred

  Simpson, Alan

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gunnell, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Lewis, Terry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Livingstone, Ken

  Wise, Audrey

  Loyden, Eddie

  McAllion, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Madden, Max

  Mr. Bob Cryer, and

  Mahon, Alice

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993 contained in Cm. 2270.

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. Lightbown.]
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. Lightbown.]
Hon. Members: Object.
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friends and I had hoped to table amendments tonight for consideration during the Committee stage of the European Economic Area Bill on Thursday. Because of the rejection of the Government's motion, amendments cannot now be tabled until tomorrow and they will then be starred. Would it be possible to persuade my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to agree not to hold the Committee stage immediately after Second Reading on Thursday? Otherwise, there will be no real Committee stage and no proper discussion.
I know that you, Madam Speaker, are concerned with proper debate in the House. It would be appalling if there were to be a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading without hon. Members having the opportunity to table amendments. I hope that there will be discussions through the usual channels, perhaps in consultation with you, to ensure either that amendments can be tabled or that there is not a Committee stage on Thursday.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point has been noted. It will certainly be noted by those on the Treasury Bench and, I am sure, the Leader of the House.

Wing Bypass
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
10.32 pm
Mr. George Walden: I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education with us this evening. He will add a scholarly tone to our discussions. I imagine that he will sit and listen in enforced, although I hope not unsympathetic, silence to what I have to say. I am also glad to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment-my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).
My hon. Friend the Minister may be getting used to debates such as this. If he is not, he soon will be. I begin by cautioning him against any belief that this is merely a routine protest about roads, where the Government want to build a route that they think is patently necessary and to which people object in the way that people always do. After the village meetings that I have attended and the expressions of exasperation and anger from normally placid and perfectly rational folk, and after answering almost 1,000 letters on the subject—more than I have received on any other—I would not make that mistake and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will not do so either.
I need scarcely remind my hon. Friend the Minister that all the polls show that concern throughout the country about transport policy in all its forms is mounting. For me, the A418 is obviously a major constituency issue, but it is also a symbol of far wider concern about what is happening with our countryside and increasingly profound anxieties about the direction in which Government transport policies are driving us.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows the history of the present proposals, and that I first drew the Department's attention to my concerns about the A418 in an Adjournment debate on the proposals for Wing nearly two years ago. My hon. Friend may appreciate less well the evolution of the proposals as seen through the eyes of those most concerned—my constituents.
Imagine the millenarian expectations of villages that have suffered for years from the effects of traffic growth, as they wait and hope for the long-promised bypass, and the frustration and fury that they feel when they discover that they are to get not a bypass but a major east-west trunk route—initially of four lanes but with provision for six lanes, which will in some cases run within a few hundred yards of their villages.
As to the question of six lanes, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister remembers that he wrote to me on 17 August to state:
"The only additional feature we are considering because of the wider implications of the East-West route is the provision at the outset of bridges that would allow widening to dual 3-lane standard in the future."
The next thing that my villagers learned was that their little local bypass features on the trans-European road network that is to be considered and approved by the European Parliament while Department officials are still explaining that proposal to the outraged villagers concerned. Even those who are well disposed towards the EC, such as myself, find that strange.

253
I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister, to whom I have written on that matter, will say exactly what I am supposed to tell my constituents when they express fears that matters are being decided over their heads. When they see all that happening, what conclusions are they to draw about Government transport policy? That it evolves organically, driven by the insatiable demands of the motor car; that it is made up as we go along; and that there is no transport policy in any rational sense.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member to forget his brief for a moment and to resort to his imagination. How does he think it feels to have a major European trunk route sprung on one instead of a bypass at the very moment that the Government are floating off the entire railway system, to be run by persons as yet unknown? In those circumstances, are the Government surprised that there is nil enthusiasm in my constituency—or in the country, as far as I can see —for rail privatisation, when all my constituents can see at the end of it are higher fares, fewer lines and more roads?
My own experience of the A418 has intensified my misgivings about rail privatisation and has strengthened my conviction that a fully integrated transport policy is needed. I am not saying that a railway could replace this particular road, but, were there a semblance of a national policy, Members of Parliament might be more inclined to explain to their constituents that, however, regrettable it may be, sacrifices have to be made for the greater good. I had to do that over the extension of the M40—as I am sure a number of right hon. and hon. Members did—part of which passes through my constituency.
I acknowledge the economic case for a link between the M40 and east coast ports, although it may be healthy to re-examine that too, because I have heard the contrary case made. How am I to explain to my constituents, at a time when they have so little confidence in the Government's overall road policy, that the best way to reach those ports is to string together a series of bypasses next to their villages?
My constituents' reactions naturally vary from village to village, as Department representatives who met them will have noted. I pay tribute to the way in which those representatives conducted themselves in the course of some warmish exchanges. Feeling against the road is strongest in places such as Haddenham, Long Crendon, Chearsely, Dinton, Cuddington and Nether Winchendon —which, because they were not asking for bypasses in the first place, will suffer much for absolutely no return.
Other villages, such as Stone, Biertori and Wing, have more nuanced opinions, but that is only because they have effectively been placed in a trap. They are being told that they either settle for a bypass in the form of a major trunk route of potentially six lanes, with all that that could mean for the local environment and the attraction of yet more traffic to the area, or they get no bypass at all. "Blackmail" is a strong word, but I have heard people use it.
For those reasons and many others that I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Minister and written to him about, I must call on him to withdraw the proposals as soon as possible and go back to the drawing board. Opposition to them is justified, widespread and determined. As my hon. Friend knows, Oxfordshire county council has strong views on the matter.
Mr. Andrew Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for initiating this debate. I agree that it is clear that what is going on is the
254
use of a series of supposedly local bypass schemes to smuggle in a major strategic route without proper consultation on that strategic route. Should not the Minister give an assurance that the strategic road, its justification and route, will be the subject of full public consultation before the Aylesbury bypass scheme and the related Oxford bypass schemes, which are so damaging to my constituents, especially at Barton and Old Marston, are given any further consideration?
Mr. Walden: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer that intervention as adequately as he answers my speech.
If the proposals go ahead, the A418, along with an increasing number of national schemes, will become a cause celebre. The only outcome will be the enhancement of the Government's regrettable reputation for vandalism by road building.
The Minister might think that I have spoken strongly, but I cannot exaggerate the sense of bitterness that my constituents feel. People will look back in future years at the despoiled environment around their villages, the acres of concrete, the desolating no-man's land between parallel roads, and ask, "Who in heaven's name did this?
10.42 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and to my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me a few minutes to intervene. As my hon. Friend will recall from an Adjournment debate that I initiated this year, there has been strong demand within Aylesbury, from county and district councillors and the local business community for the building of a bypass around the town at the earliest opportunity. The scheme, as published by the Department in its initial proposals, does not meet the demands or the needs of my constituents.
Criticism has fallen into two categories. A significant number of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, would say that no road needs to be built. Another group take the line to which I certainly subscribe—that there is a need for a bypass around Aylesbury which would remain even if the Government scrapped the east-west link tomorrow night.
I do not want to see Aylesbury fall into the position of towns in north Kent or some towns on the Sussex coast which have become pockets of high structural unemployment because of poor communications although they are located in a region which is generally prosperous with good employment prospects. That is the fear which drives local councillors and the local business community to say that a road of some sort along some route is needed not as an alternative to public transport but complementary to it. I certainly regard the Government's continuing commitment to the crossrail project as evidence of their good faith and the fact that they intend to pursue a balanced transport policy now and in years to come.
The criticisms that local people have made of the scheme concern both the route and proposed design. It has concerned me that, although my hon. Friend the Minister has now rightly released details of his Department's consultants' reports into the possibility of a northern bypass route around Aylesbury, it has become apparent that such a route has not yet been subjected to a thorough analysis in the way that the southern route has been treated.

255
The so-called S03 strategy seems to offer Aylesbury the economic benefits of a bypass but without the costs associated with the proposed southern route. There may be disadvantages. The people in Bedgrove, Walton Court and Wendover Park in my constituency would benefit from a northern route. They would not have the intrusion and the noise. People in the north of Aylesbury might feel differently. We need to know more about the relative costs and benefits of alternative routes before a final decision is taken.
I ask my hon. Friend to look at the design of the proposed road. Nothing has aroused more anger and resentment in Aylesbury than the proposal by the Department of Transport to stick this road on a 30ft high embankment going around the entire southern and western perimeter of the town. The Department's criteria are inconsistent. In the south of Aylesbury, it has rejected the so-called black route because it passes too near to homes, yet in the west of the town it is advocating a route that is as near to people's homes as the rejected black route is along the Bedgrove side of Aylesbury.
I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly with a much more detailed account of the specific objections raised by my constituents to the proposals published by his Department. Tonight, I ask him to recognise that a public consultation exercise a decade ago, showing a majority in favour of a southern bypass for Aylesbury, was undertaken with the expectation of a route that would be a normal single carriageway—a two-way traffic road—running a fair distance from people's houses and along the level, rather than a major trunk road running along a 30ft high embankment and lighted for its entire length.
I ask my hon. Friend to live up to the pledge that he has given to me, and which his officials have given at public meetings: that they will listen carefully to the criticisms and the comments made during the public consultations. In the light of those comments, I hope that they are prepared to reconsider the route and the design of the road that they propose to build.
10.46 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on his determination to focus attention on the concern that has been expressed about this road. I am glad to have this opportunity to put the record straight. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) and my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) here. I acknowledge the representations that I have received from my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on this issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham so eloquently demonstrated, the concern centres on the role of the Aylesbury scheme as part of the east coast to M40 route and the potential impact that it could have in the longer term when included in the trans-European road network. My hon. Friend mentioned the whole question of a balanced and integrated transport policy. I entirely agree that it is important for us to recognise in real and practical terms that that is what we are achieving.
256
I hope that the fact that we spend 56 per cent. of our budget on roads and the other 44 per cent. on public transport subsidy will go some way to reassure my hon. Friend on that point. Ninety per cent. of all journeys and freight movements are undertaken by road with only 10 per cent. by rail. Yet the balance of spending does not recognise that: it recognises the need to subsidise public transport and invest heavily in railways.
There is nothing new about the Aylesbury bypass. The current scheme has its origins in local authority proposals which, in the 1980s, formed part of a plan for a new route between Thame and Stevenage. This, in itself, is a concept from the early 1970s. The scheme was absorbed into the trunk road programme four years, ago when the 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" announced plans for a new strategic east-west route between the M40 and the east coast ports which would build on work already carried out by local authorities. Because of its background knowledge of the scheme as a local authority one, and to maintain momentum, Buckinghamshire county council was appointed as design agent to continue the development of the proposals to meet the demands of the new trunk road.
The route taken to consultation was to the south of Aylesbury—a preference which had been chosen in 1983 following a joint county and district council planning study and public consultation on routes to the north, centre and south of the town. It would not only bring direct relief to Aylesbury from traffic using the A418 and A41 corridors, but also relieve villages on the A418, such as Rowsham and Stone.
Initial surprise was expressed that the scheme appeared to have grown beyond a local bypass into a strategic east-west route. This strategic role was made clear in "Roads for Prosperity" in 1989 and again during consultation in both the brochure and the public exhibition material about the Aylesbury bypass. We are not proposing a motorway—nor a six-lane highway. The dual two-lane road now proposed is, in our view, the standard required even if we were only providing a local bypass. There are certainly no plans for the scheme to be expanded further as part of some fictional outer orbital route of London, nor any other national or international concept.
My hon. Friend referred to bridges. We design bridges to last about 120 years. Recently we have had to knock down many 30-year-old bridges because they are too narrow. It is simply prudent to design bridges that do not pre-empt decisions that may be taken in 50 or 100 years' time. Understandably, that has caused concern.
There has been concern, too, about the intrusion of the scheme on people's homes, particularly on the southern and western outskirts of Aylesbury. In addition, villages such as Haddenham are anxious about the impact of the new road on their peaceful surroundings. We have specifically asked in our consultation for views on points, such as the profile of the route, environmental measures and the position of the junctions.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that we would be prepared to consider putting the road in a cutting. We will take all these views fully into account before deciding which scheme to develop further. If and when we decide on a preferred route, we will publish draft orders, probably in 1995. The merits of alternative routes would be considered at a public inquiry.
This leaves the fundamental question of why northern routes have not been put forward for consultation. The immediate answer is that northern routes were considered

257
beforehand, but rejected. Some were inferior in traffic and economic terms while others suffered environmental disadvantages. A southern route is more acceptable in planning and environmental terms, while offering greater relief from local traffic for Aylesbury. At Buckinghamshire county council's request, we have produced a report of previously unpublished information about two rejected northern route options.
I am grateful to both my hon. Friends for coming to discuss these issues with me at the Department of Transport. Of course, public response to the consultation has been intense. The next step will be to analyse all the results. The decision will not be easy and there will be many points to weigh before we reach a conclusion about the best route. We hope to announce our conclusions in early 1994.
An important offshoot to the Aylesbury consultation has been the concern about the future development of the western section of the east-west route, west of the town. There is strong feeling that the choice of a southern route for Aylesbury has a bearing on this. This is not so. The Oxford-to-Aylesbury study, from which the corridor choice was made, had two principal objectives. The first was to advise us on the right corridor for the east-west trunk route west of Aylesbury to the M40; and the second to identify whether future improvements in that corridor were needed.
In the case of Oxford to Aylesbury, because of the significant interest and the perceived relationship with the Aylesbury bypass proposals, we departed from normal policy and announced the result at an earlier stage than usual. The announcement made it clear that we had not decided, and have still not decided, to add any improvement schemes to the roads programme for the M40 to Aylesbury section of the east-west route. At the request of my hon. Friends, I have made available the full text of the Oxford-to-Aylesbury study report.
Perhaps most disturbing has been the way in which some protagonists, in particular Oxfordshire county council, have speculated about the trans-European road network, TERN, concept in relation to the east-west route, and in particular the Aylesbury bypass. Facts about TERN have been distorted, and some eminent people have been misled as a result. There is no secret about TERN.
Part of the Maastricht treaty looked forward to the establishment of Community networks of infrastructure in transport, energy and telecommunications. Following the agreement in Maastricht in 1991, the Commission set up a working group to investigate proposals for a trans-European road network. That group produced an initial report and the Commission used this to prepare its published policy document "Towards a Master Plan for the Road Network".
At the Edinburgh Council last year, agreement was reached in principle for funding mechanisms to be set up for trans-European Networks, and at the Luxembourg Council in June a political decision was taken to proceed with TERN. The European Parliament is at present considering the latter decision, and will debate it on 25 and 26 October. Select Committees of both Houses of
258
Parliament considered these proposals in October 1992. A further memorandum was laid before this House in May the year.
Much of the TERN network already exists or is in preparation by member states. The agreed network in the United Kingdom includes a link between Oxford and Felixstowe, of which the east-west route forms a part. That route is not planned as a motorway as part of TERN; there is no requirement for links in TERN to be motorways. Nor are there any plans for the east-west route to be a part of an outer orbital route of London, as I have said.
It is worth noting that, in every other case, local councils have been clamouring to be included in the network. I have received at least one delegation in my office to that effect. As far as I know, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire are the only counties in the United Kingdom that are opposed to this concept, whose aim is to improve trade in the European Community.
We have been open in our preparation, frequently consulting the local authorities. For example, Department of Transport officials discussed TERN and the east-west route with Oxfordshire county council some six weeks before the council made its extraordinary statements. On the Oxford-to-Aylesbury study, my Department worked closely with Oxford in the formulation of the study; in fact, the county council brought important and practical influence to bear. Since July 1989, there have been six formal meetings between my officials and officials of Oxford county council about extending the east-west route between Oxford and Aylesbury. In July 1991, a presentation was given to Oxford county council officers and members.
My predecessor received a delegation from the council, together with the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), in December 1991. The council has also been kept up to date in correspondence from my Department in July and August this year.
I believe that the House will agree that to accuse us of secrecy now is just a little strange. We are not complacent about the effect of roads on the environment and do not claim that new and improved roads have no effect on people's enjoyment of their surroundings. That is why we follow such a careful step-by-step process of study, consultation and debate. I am sure that fruitful debate of the facts will, in this instance, lead to an acceptable solution.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject and hope that he and his constituents will be assured that their opinions count.
I cannot refrain from commenting on the fact that, only today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that we had decided to abandon a motorway scheme in the north of England, because—following consultation—we had concluded that it was no longer necessary or desirable. We do indeed listen very carefully and do indeed update and take seriously our economic assessments of the needs for roads. That was a motorway; this is not, and we have no plans for it to be one.
I am very glad to have had the opportunity to dispel some of the myths and misconceptions which, if not checked, can cause unnecessary worry to our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Partnerships for Change
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the initiatives launched and outcome of the Partnerships for Change conference held in Manchester on 20 to 22 September; and if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech made to the conference.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are preparing a Partnerships in Practice guide to reflect the exchange of experience which took place at the Partnerships for Change conference and to draw out lessons about achieving sustainable development through partnership. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has arranged for a copy of his speech to the conference to be placed in the Library.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation Her Majesty's Government had at the symposium on the environmental benefits of energy conservation organised by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in Moscow on 20 to 24 September.

  Mr. Yeo
  Four representatives from the United Kingdom energy efficiency industry were present at the symposium in Moscow on 20 to 24 September. There was no official from Her Majesty's Government present, but officials from the Energy Efficiency Office, who have regularly attended steering committee meetings of the UNECE, kept in touch with the United Kingdom industry representatives.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters were discussed and what decisions taken at the Environment Council meeting in Luxembourg on 5 October; and if he will indicate the policy proposals put forward by the United Kingdom and the votes taken on each proposal.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend).

  Environment Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the Engineering Employers Federation to discuss environmental management strategies.

  Mr. Yeo
  None, but my officials are in regular contact with the federation.

  Environmental Assessment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what meetings he has had in 1993 with the Environmental Auditors Registration Association; and what further meetings are planned with the EARA and the Institute of Environmental Assessment.

  Mr. Yeo
  None, but my officials are in regular contact with both organisations.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Advisory Service for Leaseholders seeking to enfranchise or extend their lease under the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, to come into operation.

  Sir George Young
  The leasehold reform co-ordinating committee has now submitted firm proposals to me for a Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service for England and Wales and I am urgently considering its request for Government financial assistance. I therefore hope to be able to make an announcement about the commencement of this service very shortly.

  Transport and Security Services Division
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made towards establishing the transport and security services division of his Department as an executive agency.

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to announce that the agency, which will be called Security Facilities Executive (SAFE), was established on 15 October 1993. It incorporates all the functions carried out by transport and security services division (TSSD) which comprised custody services, Government car service, interdispatch service, security furniture services and special services group. The divisional director, John King, has been appointed the chief executive following an open competition.

  The aim and objectives of the agency are set our in a framework document, copies of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. By setting demanding and realistic targets each year, I will be encouraging SAFE to maintain and improve its existing standards of performance. I am confident that the agency will rise to the challenge and continue to enhance the value for money that it offers whilst maintaining its enviable standards of excellence.

  For 1993–94, the following have been set for the agency:

  Category

  Measure

  Target

  Financial

  Outturn on the vote

  A surplus of £1.8 million

  Outturn on net running costs

  A deficit of £1.1 million

  Outturn on cost recovery in accruals terms

  99 per cent.

  Efficiency

  Unit costs

  No increase in real terms

  Quality of Service

  Regular customer surveys

  Average rating of "good" or higher

  Environment

  Vehicle fuel efficiency

  Annual average of 24 miles per gallon

  Recycling
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to the proportion of(a) plastics, (b) paper, (c) steel and (d) glass produced each year since 1980, which has subsequently been recycled.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 18 October 1993]: The following table, drawn mainly from the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", shows the known amounts recycled since 1980 (as a percentage of consumption):

  per cent

  Plastics

  Paper and Board

  Steel Cans

  Glass

  1980

  1—

  29

  —

  2

  1981

  1—

  28

  —

  3

  1982

  1—

  27

  —

  4

  1983

  1—

  25

  —

  7

  1984

  1—

  26

  —

  9

  1985

  1—

  27

  —

  13

  1986

  1—

  27

  —

  12

  1987

  1—

  26

  —

  14

  1988

  1—

  26

  8

  16

  1989

  1—

  27

  8

  17

  1990

  2

  31

  9

  20

  1991

  5

  32

  10

  21

  1992

  6

  32

  12

  26

  1 Not available.

  Packaging
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are being taken by his Department to encourage the use of reduced quantities of(a) metals, (b) plastic and (c) paper in packaging; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 18 October 1993]: Over the past two years the Government have been conducting
  196
  intensive discussions with a range of industries, including the packaging industry, to see what measures can be taken to reduce unnecessary packaging and improve the recycling rates of different packaging materials.

  On 27 July we invited all sections of the packaging industry—manufacturers and fillers of packaging and retailers—to draw up a plan for raising current levels of recovery to between 50 and 75 per cent. by the year 2000.

  We are asking these businesses collectively to take their share of responsibility for what happens to packaging once it has served its original purpose, while at the same time minimising the use of packaging wherever possible and encouraging reuse wherever practicable.

  We have set five objectives which any industry plan must meet:
  First, there needs to be an effective organisation, spanning all the relevant business sectors, which can both draw up a plan and put it into action;
  Secondly, there needs to be a commitment by business to meet the costs of new collection and processing capacity and of developing a mechanism for raising the necessary finances;
  Thirdly, against the background of a build up in capacity to increase recovery levels to between 50 and 70 per cent. by the year 2000, to expand collection and processing capacity within the next year,
  Fourthly, to encourage industry to increase demand for recycled material where it meets the appropriate standards;
  Fifthly, to safeguard recycling infrastructure for plastic and paper and board, which are currently threatened by subsidised foreign imports.

  We have invited leading figures in the industry to report back by the end of October on the action which they have taken to help collection and processing operations to continue, especially for waste paper, board and plastics. And we are asking them to present us with an effective plan for meeting all these objectives, before this Christmas.

  Copies of two recent DOE press releases (Nos. 519 and 594) setting out our challenge to the packaging industry have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Water Services
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Her Majesty's Government intend to publish a response to the water regulator Ian Byatt's paper "Paying For Quality"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In our document "Water Charges: the Quality Framework", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today responded to the Director General of Water Services' request for our perspective on the policy context of the review of water company price limits which he intends to complete next summer.

  Our safety and environmental standards are already high, but it is right that where necessary they should be further improved to achieve sustainable use of our water. Our privatised companies are already investing £3 billion a year to this end. Their charges are low compared with elsewhere in Europe.

  Charges will have to rise to finance further improvements. But they must also be sustainable. We expect that the water companies will continue to make significant efficiency improvements, and the law requires the Director General to be rigorous in identifying the scope for reduced costs.

  But we must also strike the right balance between the pace of quality improvements and costs, so that people do not face excessive increases in bills in the short term. In Europe and at home, we have to ask whether our priorities are right, whether benefits justify costs, and whether today's consumers are being asked unnecessarily to pay for long-term benefits.

  For our part, we shall look hard at costs in deciding how and when we place further obligations on water companies. We propose to make it a duty for the Environment Agency to do this. Meanwhile we expect the National Rivers Authority and the drinking water inspectorate to do so when they are not legally precluded from taking costs into account.

  The Government are also inviting their EC partners to re-examine priorities, for example, in the detailed implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive, so as to focus on the most immediate environmental concerns. The European Commission has already begun a much-needed review of the drinking water directive and we welcome its assurance that its proposals will be fully costed in relation to the likely benefits.

  The Director General sought certainty about the obligations that water companies would have to meet in the period 1995–2005. Such certainty facilitates efficiency and cost-reduction. But it is not reasonable to expect society to place itself under a 10-year moratorium on health, safety and environmental improvements: if, for example, a serious risk to health comes to light, we could not take
  198
  immediate action. But price limits do not need to take account of possible obligations which have not yet been decided upon.

  A copy of the response has been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Gulf Battle Honours
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) of 24 February,Official Report, columns 657–58, if he will make a statement as to, which regiments and corps of the Army and squadrons of the RAF will be able to include the Gulf campaign in their battle honours.

  Mr. Hanley
  Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the award of the theatre honour "Gulf 1991" and the battle honours "Wadi al Batin" and "Western Iraq" to the Army regiments and corps listed. Her Majesty has also approved the emblazonment of the theatre honour "Gulf 1991" on the colours, standards, or guidons of those regiments and corps awarded this honour.

  Her Majesty the Queen has also graciously approved the award of the battle honour "Gulf 1991" to the squadrons of the Royal Air Force listed. Squadrons which were involved in direct confrontation with the enemy and demonstrated gallantry and spirit under fire have been awarded the battle honour "Gulf 1991" with the right to emblazon the honour on their standards. Squadrons which operated in theatre and contributed to operations against the enemy have been awarded the battle honour "Gulf 1991" without the right to emblazon the honour on their standards.

  Her Majesty the Queen has also graciously approved the retrospective award of the theatre honour "Falkland Islands 1982" to the Army Air Corps for its part in the Falklands campaign.

  Army Regiments and Corps awarded the Theatre Honour "Gulf 1991" with the right of Emblazonment

  The Life Guards

  1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)

  The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars

  14th/20th King's Hussars

  16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers

  Grenadier Guards

  Coldstream Guards

  Scots Guards

  The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)

  The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment)

  The King's Own Scottish Borderers

  The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's)

  Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons)

  Special Air Service Regiment

  Army Air Corps

  199
  Army Regiments and Corps awarded the Battle Honour "Wadi al Batin"

  The Life Guards

  1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)

  The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars

  14th/20th King's Hussars

  16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers

  Grenadier Guards

  The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)

  The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's)

  Army Air Corps

  Army Regiment awarded the Battle Honour "Western Iraq"

  Special Air Service Regiment

  Royal Air Force Squadrons awarded the Battle Honour "Gulf 1991", with the right of Emblazonment

  Number 1 Squadron

  Royal Air Force Regiment

  Scorpion/Spartan

  Number 2 Squadron

  Tornado GR1a

  Number 6 Squadron

  Jaguar

  Number 7 Squadron

  Helicopter SF

  Number 9 Squadron

  Tornado GR1

  Number 12 Squadron

  Buccaneer

  Number 13 Squadron

  Tornado GR1a

  Number 14 Squadron

  Tornado GR1

  Number 15 Squadron

  Tornado GR1

  Number 16 Squadron

  Tornado GR1

  Number 17 Squadron

  Tornado GR1

  Number 18 Squadron

  Helicopter SH

  Number 20 Squadron

  Tornado GR1

  Number 27 Squadron

  Tornado GR1

  Number 31 Squadron

  Tornado GR1

  Number 33 Squadron

  Helicopter SH

  Number 41 Squadron

  Jaguar

  Number 54 Squadron

  Jaguar

  Number 208 Squadron

  Buccaneer

  Number 230 Squadron

  Helicopter SH

  Number 617 Squadron

  Tornado GR1

  Royal Air Force Squadrons awarded the Battle Honour "Gulf 1991", without the right of Emblazonment

  Number 10 Squadron

  VC10 AT

  Number 20 Squadron

  Royal Air Force Regiment

  Rapier

  Number 24 Squadron

  Hercules AT

  Number 26 Squadron

  Royal Air Force Regiment

  Rapier

  Number 29 Squadron

  Tornado F3

  Number 30 Squadron

  Hercules AT

  Number 32 Squadron

  AT/Comms

  Number 34 Squadron

  Royal Air Force Regiment

  Field/Ground Defence

  Number 42 Squadron

  Nimrod Maritime

  Number 43 Squadron

  Tornado F3

  Number 47 Squadron

  Hercules AT

  Number 51 Squadron

  Nimrod (R)

  Number 51 Squadron

  Royal Air Force Regiment

  Field/Ground Defence

  Number 55 Squadron

  AAR

  Number 58 Squadron

  Royal Air Force Regiment

  Field/Ground Defence

  Number 66 Squadron

  Royal Air Force Regiment

  Rapier

  Number 70 Squadron

  Hercules AT

  Number 101 Squadron

  AAR

  Number 120 Squadron

  Nimrod Maritime

  Number 201 Squadron

  Nimrod Maritime

  Number 206 Squadron

  Nimrod Maritime

  Number 216 Squadron

  AT/AAR

TRANSPORT

  Manchester Airport Rail Link
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from the chairman of the Greater Manchester passenger transport 200
  authority in regard to the Manchester airport rail link-southern spur; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have had a number of discussions with Councillor Clarke about the funding of this scheme. I understand that Manchester airport has now agreed to underwrite the expenditure needed for the scheme to go ahead.

  M1/M62 Link Road
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed M1/M62 link road.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Public consultation on proposals for an M1/M62 link road was held between February and June 1992. From the responses it became clear that earlier concern to achieve the economic benefits which were expected to derive from the introduction of a new road into the corridor was no longer a predominant local concern.

  At the same time I have been making it clear that the road programme should, wherever possible, be concentrated on widening and improving the existing network rather than building new motorways. Each scheme has to be judged on its merits but here there is opportunity to pursue a solution which avoids driving a new route through green fields.

  I have therefore decided not to proceed with development of plans for a new road but to investigate the possibilities for increasing the capacity of the relevant lengths of the two motorways.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a start will be made on construction of the docklands light railway extension to Greenwich and Lewisham.

  Sir George Young
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of the Environment is responsible for the docklands light railway. While the private sector has already shown a welcome interest in building and running the Lewisham extension, we must ensure that proposals are consistent with our manifesto pledge to consider the best means of privatising the DLR as a whole.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each relevant tax year the revenue he has derived from VAT relating to(a) building repairs, (b) non-domestic building and (c) civil engineering projects, with any convenient breakdown into category; and what is his estimate in each case of the consequential increase in price to the immediate client or consumer, and the approximate and total effect of such charges on (i) the retail price index and (ii) the rate of inflation.

  Sir John Cope
  When the tax regime for construction, buildings and land was revised on 1 April 1989 the increase in revenue was calculated to be £310 million in 1989–90 and £400 million in 1990–91. Since then no further revenue calculations have been made. The
  201
  assumption made at the time was that changes in VAT would have been fully passed on to clients. Since the clients affected by the tax changes were businesses the direct effect on the RPI and therefore on the rate of inflation would have been negligible and in any case is not possible to calculate.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the regional council directors of police and fire services to discuss the implications for police and fire services arising out of the reorganisation of Scottish local government; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 October 1993]: While my right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet officials of police and fire authorities to discuss the implications of local government reorganisation for these services, my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State has discussed the question of reorganisation with representatives of police authorities and forces at a meeting of the Police Advisory Board for Scotland. Scottish Office officials meet chief constables and firemasters regularly to discuss police and fire service matters. The existing number of police forces and fire brigades will be retained after reorganisation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Security Equipment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the guidelines or regulations applying to imports and exports of electro shock equipment.

  Mr. Needham
  The only export regulation for which I am responsible which applies to what might be regarded as "electro shock" equipment is the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992. Under head 5001(d) export without a licence is prohibited in respect of portable anti-riot devices for administering an electric shock or an incapacitating substance, and specialised components therefor. Under head 5001 (f) there is a similar prohibition in respect of riot control vehicles which have been specially designed or modified to be electrified to repel boarders. So far as imports are concerned, any weapon which is designed or adapted to emit an electric shock against another person would be regarded as a prohibited weapon under section 5(1) (b) of the Firearms Acts 1968–1992. Import of such weapons is restricted to those persons legally authorised to hold them in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines or regulations are applicable to exporters in respect of(a) manufacture and export of dum dum bullets, (b) export of tear gas, (c) design and construction of prisons for overseas Governments, (d) security equipment such as vehicles for overseas Governments and (e) Frag 12 exploding ammunition; and what particular guidance is given in respect of (i) Israel, (ii) other middle east Governments, (iii) Pakistan and (iv) Thailand.
  202
  Mr. Needham
  Under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992, the export to any destination of ammunition, tear gas and certain vehicles and related equipment for military or paramilitary police use is prohibited without a licence from the Secretary of State. I have no responsibility for regulations in respect of the design and construction of prisons for overseas Governments, other than where goods controlled by the order are to be exported from the United Kingdom as part of such projects. In terms of these export controls my Department gives no specific guidance in respect of the countries mentioned by the hon. Member: guidance in respect of weapons of mass destruction is available in a booklet "Non-Proliferation Controls", a copy of which is in the Library of both Houses. Each export licence application is considered on its merits.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made to publish compliance cost assessments to show the cost impact on business of complying with proposals for legislation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  It has been the Government's standard practice since 1 April to prepare and publish compliance cost assessments (CCA) for all legislative proposals which impact on business. We have now agreed formal procedures with the House authorities for doing so as follows:In the case of primary legislation the CCA will form part of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill.
  In the case of statutory instruments laid in draft before the House the CCA will form part of the published text of the draft instrument as a separate annex.
  In the case of statutory instruments made without having been laid in draft the CCA will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses when the instrument is laid after having been made and a note that a CCA is available and where it can be obtained from included in the explanatory note.
  In the case of private Members' Bills, where the Government consider it is appropriate to prepare a CCA it will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  In the case of private Bills the Government are still considering how the system can be extended to such Bills.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the arrangements he made for in-house bids for the market-testing programme at the Patent Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The terms of reference of the market test were set out in a notice to all staff on 6 November 1992, following consultation with the local trade unions. this drew specific attention to the opportunity for making in-house bids.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Redundant Churches
  Mr Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will enable denominations to dispose of redundant places of worship to suitable charities for less than full consideration.

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend has today made a direction to this effect under section 4(11) of the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969 in favour of the Friends of Friendless Churches. He
  203
  made a similar direction in May in favour of the Historic Chapels Trust. Copies of the directions have been placed in the Library and I will arrange for this to be done also for any further such directions that he may make.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the annual report and accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is due to be published.

  Mr. Gillian Shepherd
  The Veterinary Medicines Directorate annual report and accounts for 1992–93 was published on 29 July 1993. Copies are available in the House Library.

  The report charts the continuing progress and success of the directorate as a next steps agency, and I would like to congratulate the chief executive and his staff on their considerable achievements during the year.

  Habitat Creation Schemes
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if land put into habitat creation schemes can count towards set-aside quotas.

  Mr. Jack
  Current EC rules for the arable area payments scheme do not allow land withdrawn from production under any other scheme to count towards a producer's set-aside obligation. However, we are pressing for the rules to be changed to allow arable land which is in future withdrawn from production under agri-environment or forestry schemes to count towards set-aside. This would include land entered into the proposed 20-year habitat scheme and the proposed new nitrate-sensitive areas scheme, as well as the farm woodland premium scheme.

EDUCATION

  Centre for Young Musicians
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 673, what steps he is taking to ensure that children from all inner London boroughs have equal access to the Centre for Young Musicians regardless of parental means.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department is supporting the central costs of the Centre for Young Musicians at a cost of £100,000 a year for the years 1993–1996. The issue of access is a matter for the centre, relevant local education authorities, self-governing schools and city technology colleges, and parents.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 October.
  204
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he received from Mr. Vuk Draskovic during their recent meeting on the question of(a) sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and (b) Kosovo and its status as part of Serbia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I saw Mr. Draskovic during his visit. There was an exchange of views at both meetings about matters relating to the former Yugoslavia, including Kosovo and the effect of sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis Her Majesty's Government issued an invitation to Mr. Vuk Draskovic to visit the United Kingdom recently; in what capacity Mr. Draskovic was invited; what was the cost to United Kingdom public expenditure of the visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Draskovic was invited to the United Kingdom in his capacity as leader of the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO). This was an officially sponsored visit which included Mrs. Draskovic and his private secretary, who is also an SPO deputy. Costs for the visit, excluding air fares which are yet to be finalised, come to £5,688.26.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how often the British embassy in Belgrade checks the purity of tap water; what is the reason for these checks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British embassy in Belgrade does not carry out tests on the purity of tap water, but consults the Canadian and United States embassies, which co-ordinate purity reports from the local department of public health. On every occasion these reports have indicated that the water is drinkable.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what precautions British citizens living in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are advised to take to avoid hazards that arise out of the consumption of tap water contaminated as a result of the breakdown in purification processes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The British embassy in Belgrade assesses that local water purification processes are functioning normally and has therefore issued no advice to British citizens.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to invite elected members of the Opposition or Government of Yugoslavia to Britain in an official capacity.
  205
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We hope that the Montenegrin Foreign Minister, Mr. Miodrag Lekic, will pay a short visit to London on 24 and 25 October. There are no plans at present for further visits.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the issues discussed and decisions taken at the Council of Europe Special Assembly held in Vienna in early October; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Kingdom submission to the Vienna meeting.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The agenda for the Council of Europe summit meeting in Vienna on 8 to 9 October had two broad themes: (I) The role of the Council of Europe in the new Europe and (II) action relating to the strengthening of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.

  I shall arrange to place in the Library a copy of the speech made by my right honourable noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor who led the British delegation.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on issues discussed and matters decided at the annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, in regard to nuclear safeguards and proliferation; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Kingdom documents submitted to the meeting.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency had a wide-ranging agenda covering all its activities. The Conference passed resolutions on a number of matters relating to safeguards and non-proliferation including the implementation of the safeguards agreement between the agency and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 687, 707 and 715 relating to Iraq. A copy of the statement delivered to the plenary by the United Kingdom representative has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the proposals put forward by President Clinton on 27 September concerning the halting by the acknowledged nuclear weapons states of further production and stockpiling of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for military purposes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A preliminary meeting has been held at official level with the United States at which they set out their proposal. We shall naturally wish to consider very carefully the implications for our nuclear deterrent of the proposal for a cut-off convention. But we recognise the potentially valuable contribution which a multilateral convention prohibiting the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for explosive purposes could make to non-proliferation, and we will want to explore these potential benefits fully and positively in our approach to the issue. We are hopeful of being able to work towards a multilateral agreement of the kind proposed by the United States.
  206
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the conduct by China of a nuclear test on 5 October.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Chinese nuclear test on October 5 confirms our belief that the most effective way of restraining nuclear testing is through negotiated and verifiable agreement. We have made clear we do not believe the Chinese test necessarily clouds the prospect for a successful conclusion to comprehensive test ban negotiations, in which we shall seek to play a full and constructive part.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 4 and 5 October.

  Mr. Hurd
  I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 4 October. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also attended.

  The Council discussed the Presidency's proposal for a new inter-institutional agreement (IIA) on budget discipline. After addressing the concerns of several delegations, they reached a favourable opinion on the text and joint declarations, and agreed further Council statements. The IIA will be submitted to ECOFIN for confirmation of the Council's agreement.

  The Council reached general agreement on detailed arrangements to allow citizens of the union living in a member state of which they are not a national to vote and stand in European elections under the same conditions as nationals of that member state. These arrangements will be finally approved once the Maastricht treaty enters into force.

  Sir Leon Brittan reported on his discussions in Washington on 27 September and on progress in the Uruguay round negotiations in Geneva. The Council discussed in detail a number of the non-agricultural dossiers in the negotiations, including textiles, subsidies, steel, civil aircraft, services, including audio-visual services, and the proposed Multilateral Trade Organisation. The Council agreed that the Commission's negotiating position took account of member states' concerns, and invited the Commission to continue with the negotiations. The Council also discussed the Community's trade policy instruments—the Commission is to make proposals for speeding up and making more transparent anti-dumping and countervailing procedures.

  Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg briefed Ministers on latest developments in former Yugoslavia following the Bosnian Parliament's rejection of the peace plan. Ministers agreed that the EC should urge all the parties to return to the negotiating table, while preserving those elements of the peace plan already agreed. Ministers also discussed Community assistance to the middle east peace process, on the basis of Commission proposals for a package of medium-term assistance to the region and for an updated agreement with Israel. Ministers agreed that both proposals should be remitted for expert-level study.

  The Council discussed the Commission's opinions on the applications of Malta and Cyprus to join the Community. The Council broadly endorsed the opinions'

  207
  conclusions, and in particular the Commission's plans to begin talks with Cyprus and Malta to help them prepare for accession negotiations.

  The Council again considered the draft regulation on dual-use goods—those goods which could have either a civilian or a military purpose. Ministers reiterated their wish to see progress made which accommodated member states' concerns, and asked officials to undertake further work.

  Ministers signed new association agreements with the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These replace the association agreement signed with the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic in December 1991.

  The situation in Russia was also discussed, and the Council issued a statement of support for President Yeltsin.

  The Commission presented a paper on the Community's future relations with Switzerland. It was agreed that this would be discussed at the next Foreign Affairs Council in November.

  Meetings were held with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden. The meeting registered agreement on a range of issues and took stock of progress so far. There will be further ministerial meetings with all four applicants next month.

  Ministers also confirmed their decision made informally in New York earlier in the week in response to Nelson Mandela's call for the easing of sanctions, to lift some sanctions against South Africa. The Community will keep remaining sanctions under review.

  The Commission formally presented to Ministers the first draft mandate for negotiations with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries on the mid-term review of the Lomé convention, which governs aid and trade with much of the developing world. The Community will consider its position over the next few months, before entering negotiations with the beneficiary countries in early 1994.

  The Council also approved the Commission's negotiating mandate for an EC trade and co-operation agreement with Vietnam.

  The Council agreed arrangements for publishing Council votes to follow up the Edinburgh European Council's decisions on openness. Specifically, the Council decided, by seven votes to five—United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands—on a procedure which requires that decisions to publish are proposed by a member state and that a simple majority is required to block publication.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of people becoming unemployed return to employment within a month, three months, and six months, according to the latest available figures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Of those becoming claimant unemployed about a quarter leave unemployment within a month, almost half within three months and nearly two thirds within six months. The majority leaving claimant unemployment go into jobs.
  208
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) men and (b) women registered as unemployed in the Greater London area on 1 October.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Claimant unemployment figures for 14 October will be published on 18 November.

  Jobplan Workshops
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the operation of jobplan workshops.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The jobplan programme was launched in March of this year. By the 24 September 131,842 people had completed a jobplan workshop. More than 90 per cent. are leaving with a positive course of action to follow.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people benefited from the enterprise allowance in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The enterprise allowance scheme was replaced by the business start-up scheme in April 1991. In Great Britain, in 1992–93 some 41,000 people were helped to start a business.

  Public Sector Recruitment
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to rationalise recruitment services in jobs in the public sector.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department has no plans for such rationalisation at present.

  Manufacturing Industry, Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in manufacturing industry in Wales in 1983 and at the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There were 213,000 employees in employment in manufacturing industry in Wales in June 1983 and 203,000 in June 1993.

  Wage Levels
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers in the east midlands earn half or less than half of the male median wage.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We estimate that there are about 288,000 such workers.

  Working Week
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations his Department has received on the EC proposals for a 48-hour week.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since the Social Affairs Council reached a common position on the working time directive in June, my Department has received many representations
  209
  welcoming the important improvements that we have secured, while supporting the Government's decision to challenge the basis of the directive in the European Court of Justice.

  Jobclubs
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the jobclub scheme in the north West; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are currently 188 jobclubs in the North West. The number of people helped through jobclubs in the North West in 1992–93 was 31,530. There are 35,235 jobclub places available in 1993–94. Plans have not yet been made for 1994–95.

  Casual Workers
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many casual workers he estimates there are in each of the standard regions of the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Labour Force Survey provides quarterly estimates of the numbers of employees in casual employment. The latest available figures are shown in the following table:

  Number of employees in casual jobs Spring 1993 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Thousands

  Standard Regions

  Casual employment

  South East

  95

  Greater London

  29

  Rest of South East

  67

  East Anglia

  12

  South West

  21

  West Midlands

  28

  East Midlands

  20

  Yorks and Humberside

  27

  North West

  23

  North

  14

  Wales

  15

  Scotland

  19

  Northern Ireland

  1—

  United Kingdom

  279

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  1 Estimates below 10,000 not shown.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to increase employment in the Northern region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department's aim is to promote a free and flexible labour market to encourage employment in the Northern region as elsewhere. The Employment Service and the five Northern training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people in the Northern region find the best and quickest route back to employment.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made on achieving equality of opportunity in employment regardless of gender or ethnic background.
  210
  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are committed to equality of opportunity. The best employers already recognise the case for employing a work force which reflects the composition of the wider community. The Department continues to encourage all employers to make full use of the skills and potential of all sections of the working population.

  Company Agreements
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from trade unions concerning decisions of major firms to abrogate previous agreements.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government believe that employers must be free to decide, in the light of the circumstances and needs of their business, whether to bargain with a trade union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations on this subject. We remain convinced that the voluntary approach is best.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 1993 school leavers within the Greater London area are currently unemployed; how many 1992 school leavers are still unemployed; and what percentage each represents of the total number of school leavers each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is available only for 1992 and shows that while 7 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-old school leavers in Greater London became unemployed, more than 90 per cent. went into further education or employment.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the implementation of training for work.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training for work began on 29 March and was warmly welcomed by TECs for the flexibilities that it gives them in helping long-term unemployed people. The programme provides attractive training opportunities and at July there were 137,000 taking part.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women workers in the west midlands earn half or less than half of the male median wage.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We estimate that there are around 245,000 such workers.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the training for work programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The national follow-up survey shows significant increases in the proportions of employment training leavers going into jobs and gaining qualifications. These improved results, together with the additional flexibilities we have built into training for work, show that our adult measures are effective.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest health and safety report on Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest report published on health and safety at Sellafield was about an investigation into a higher than normal aerial discharge of radioactivity from the B204 ventilation stack. The report concludes that the potential doses to the public were very low.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has completed his review of the Employment Service's framework document; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Employment Service has been a next steps agency since 2 April 1990. My Department recently completed a review of the agency's existing framework document, in accordance with the Government's commitment to evaluate next steps agencies. The new framework document was published on 1 October and I placed copies in the Library on that date.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Social Affairs Council held on 12 October.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I and the Minister of State for Employment attended the meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council on 12 October in Luxembourg.

  The main discussion took place on the draft directive on the protection of young workers. I made it clear that, while the United Kingdom already has strict regulation to protect the health and safety of young workers, the Government could not accept unnecessary restrictions which would prevent the continuation of well-established and harmless patterns of work for young people below minimum school leaving age such as paperboys and girls. Nor could we accept special restrictions on the working hours of 16 and 17-year-olds which were not related to genuine health and safety needs.

  In the event, the Council reached agreement at a political level on significant changes to the draft directive to reflect the United Kingdom's concerns. The United Kingdom Government will not be required to implement key parts of articles 8 and 9 of the draft directive dealing with daily and weekly hours of work, and restrictions on night work, for 16 and 17-year-olds for a period of four years after the directive is implemented—that is, a total of six years from final adoption. This exemption is renewable at the end of this period by a Council decision on the basis of a report from the Commission. The agreement reached also ensures that young people below school leaving age can continue, as now, to undertake light work such as newspaper deliveries from the age of 13.

  This settlement is a satisfactory one for the United Kingdom, reflecting recognition by the Community of our high standard of health and safety provision overseen by the Health and Safety Commission and our particular national traditions.

  The Council also discussed the draft directive on European Works Councils for which unanimity is required.
  212
  We made it clear that the United Kingdom Government would, if necessary, vote against the text under discussion which is opposed by employers throughout Europe as being unnecessary, unworkable and damaging to European competitiveness. The Belgian Presidency noted that the draft directive would be taken forward by the other 11 member states under the social protocol provisions of the Maastricht treaty once these are in force.

  There was also a brief discussion on the draft directive on non-standard employment, which requires unanimity. It was apparent that a number of member states had problems with the existing text and the Presidency decided that further consideration needed to be given to the draft directive before it could be further considered by the Council.

  Finally, Commissioner Flynn made a brief presentation on the contents of his forthcoming Green Paper on the Future of European Social Policy and outlined a Commission proposal for a decision on a programme to combat social exclusion.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Employment Rights
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he will adopt to create equality of opportunity between the two main religious traditions in employment in the light of the report from the census 1991.

  Mr. Atkins
  Equality of opportunity in employment is a central objective of the Fair Employment Act (NI) 1989 which established the Fair Employment Commission and the Fair Employment Tribunal. A comprehensive review of employment equality is to be undertaken in 1995 by the Central Community Relations Unit and the consultation process has already begun. It would be premature to draw firm conclusions on the findings of the religion report of the census 1991 which are still being analysed.

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure, less capital expenditure, of the Eastern health and social services board in each of the past five years; and what proportion of this expenditure was for management and administration in each year.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Total revenue expenditure £

  Administration as percentage of revenue expenditure

  1987–88

  391,887,667

  4·76

  1988–89

  427,129,689

  4·80

  1989–90

  451,324,493

  5·15

  1990–91

  503,603,666

  5·59

  1991–92

  539,250,381

  6·55

  Roads
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve the roads structure in the constituency of South Down with particular reference to the A class roads and the B8—Castlewellan to Newry road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In addition to a substantial programme of maintenance work, a number of minor improvement schemes will be completed on the A2, A22, A24, A25 and B8 during the 1993–94 and 1994–95 financial years. Work on the Church street-Scotch street scheme in Downpatrick is currently programmed to start in 1997–98 financial year subject to the completion of the statutory processes and the availability of the necessary funds.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Category A Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made to the written criteria for selecting prisoners for security category A since 1991; and on what grounds the criteria have been changed.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about changes to the criteria for selecting prisoners for security category A since 1991.
  The Hadfield/Lakes report of the security audit of custody arrangements for category A prisoners and of an inquiry into DOC1 division noted that only some 20 per cent. of prisoners notified from prisons to Prison Service headquarters as potential category A prisoners were subsequently designated category A. The report concluded that Prison Service headquarters were applying a rigorous selection process but too many prisoners were being submitted by prisons for consideration. They recommended that the referral criteria be reviewed.
  This recommendation was accepted. Fresh guidance has been included in the Prison Service manual on security to assist prison staff to identify more readily and selectively those prisoners who, because of the nature and circumstances of their offences or alleged offences, need to be notified to headquarters for consideration for category A.

  Prisons
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to establish a more austere regime in prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Prison Service remains committed to the policy on regimes set out in the White

  Prison

  Location

  Date of opening

  Estimated total cost (includes capital costs, claims and property services agency's resource costs) (£K)

  Main construction contractor

  Wayland

  Thetford, Norfolk

  January 1985

  22,365

  Carters of Norwich

  Stocken

  Oakham, Leicestershire

  June 1985

  17,182

  Miller Construction

  Thorn Cross

  Warrington, Cheshire

  July 1985

  13,014

  Shepherd Construction

  214
  Paper "Custody, Care and Justice". Our aims are to require sentenced prisoners to participate in a demanding, constructive and disciplined regime centred on work training and essential education; to challenge prisoners to confront their offending behaviour and to work with them to reduce the likelihood of their re-offending.

  The programme of work to achieve these objectives set out in the corporate and business plans for the Prison Service, copies of which are in the House of Commons library. These include substantial development of regime activities and a continuing programme to improve the physical conditions in prisons.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) where the six new prisons, recently announced at Blackpool, will be located;

  (2) what is his timetable for opening six new prisons; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alun Michael, dated October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the proposals to build six new prisons and the new prison building programme.
  The six new prisons to which the Home Secretary referred on 6 October are in addition to the current new prison building programme. 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 potential financing of the 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.
  Sites at Fazakerley in Merseyside and at Bridgend in South Wales have been identified for the first two prisons. The proposal to build a prison on the Fazakerley site is the subject of a non-statutory public local inquiry beginning on 26 October 1993. We will be shortly submitting to the local planning authority a Notice of Proposed Development seeking outline planning clearance to build a prison on the site at Bridgend. Work is currently in progress to identify suitable sites for the other four prisons.
  If we obtain planning clearance for new prisons on the sites of Fazakerley and Bridgend we expect that the two prisons would open in 1997–98. It is too early to indicate a timetable for the other four prisons.
  It is also too early to indicate the cost of six prisons which will be assessed on the basis of value for money obtained for the complete financial package comprising both capital and operating costs. Outline proposals and expressions of interest in the first two prisons will be invited shortly.
  Twenty new prisons have opened since 1983 and Doncaster prison is due to open next year. The attached table shows the total cost of constructing each establishment and the main construction firm.
  215

  Prison

  Location

  Date of opening

  Estimated total cost (includes capital costs, claims and property services agency's resource costs) (£K)

  Main construction contractor

  Full Sutton

  Full Sutton, Yorkshire

  September 1987

  40,020

  Monk Construction

  Littlehey

  Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire

  January, 1988

  34,002

  Bovis Construction

  Mount

  Bovingdon, Hertfordshire

  March 1988

  28,185

  Wimpey Construction

  Garth

  Leyland, Lancashire

  July 1988

  45,110

  Tarmac

  Swaleside

  Isle of Sheppey, Kent

  May 1990

  33,539

  Mowlem

  Belmarsh

  South East London

  April 1991

  161,273

  Wimpey Construction

  Moorland

  Hatfield Woodhouse, South Yorkshire

  July 1991

  55,219

  Higgs and Hill

  Whitemoor

  March, Cambridgeshire

  September 1991

  54,100

  Monk Construction

  Brinsford

  Featherstone, Staffordshire

  November 1991

  45,563

  Taylor Woodrow

  Elmley

  Isle of Sheppey, Kent

  February 1992

  82,782

  Mowlem

  Bullingdon

  Bicester, Oxfordshire

  March 1992

  64,339

  Kier Construction

  Wolds

  Brough, North Humberside

  April 1992

  36,880

  UK Detention Contractors (Consortium: Mowlem and Sir Robert McAlpine)

  Holme House

  Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland

  May 1992

  66,184

  Sir Robert McAlpine

  Woodhill

  Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

  July 1992

  117,753

  Higgs and Hill

  High Down

  Banstead, Surrey

  August 1992

  91,058

  Alfred McAlpine

  Lancaster Farms

  Lancaster

  March 1993

  73,150

  AMEC

  Blakenhurst

  Redditch, Worcestershire

  May 1993

  80,432

  Tarmac

  Doncaster

  South Yorkshire

  April 1994

  94,730

  Shepherd Construction

  Parish Constables
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for implementing his proposal for parish constables; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is our intention that 20 pilot schemes should be up and running by Christmas. Costs in this financial year should be de minimis. No estimate can be made about future costs at this stage.

  Police Paperwork
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for the implementation of each of his 16 recommendations into cutting police paperwork.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend will publish the consultants' report and recommendations on 20 October. He is keen to see the recommendations in this area implemented as quickly as possible and expects to see substantial progress made in a matter of months. A fuller and more detailed timetable for implementation will require wider discussion between criminal justice system agencies.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for implementing his proposal for new rules on DNA samples; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend intends to introduce legislation to implement these proposals as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. The timetable thereafter will depend upon the speed of progress which such legislation makes. It is too soon to offer reliable estimates of the costs and savings to which the proposals will give rise.

  Cautioning
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give details of his plans to limit repeat cautioning; what rules will apply; what type of offences will be affected; and what criteria will govern decisions by the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to prosecution or caution;

  (2) what is his timetable for implementing his proposal on repeat cautioning and cautioning for indictable offences; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean
  I intend to publish supplementary guidance to the police later this month and to allow interested parties two months in which to comment on it. I shall send a copy of the draft guidance to the hon. Member.

  The guidance will leave the police with their existing discretion on whether to caution or prosecute, but it will strongly discourage, save in exceptional circumstances, the use of cautions for the most serious offences or for offenders who have been cautioned previously. In cases of doubt, it will continue to be open to the police to seek advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, whose decision whether prosecution is warranted will be governed by the code for Crown prosecutors.

  It is too soon to offer a reliable estimate of the cost implications of these changes.

  Police Bail
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his timetable for implementing the proposal for police to be allowed to attach conditions to police bail; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95;

  (2) what is his timetable for implementing his proposal for automatic custody for anyone convicted of serious offences who is subsequently accused of the same category of crime; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95;
  217
  (3) what is his timetable for implementing a new power of arrest for breach of police bail; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95;

  (4) what is his timetable for implementation of the proposal to allow courts to revoke bail when new information comes to light; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean
  We intend to introduce legislation to implement these proposals as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. The timetable thereafter will depend upon the speed of progress which such legislation makes. It is too soon to offer a reliable estimate of the costs and savings to which the proposal will give rise.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the White Paper on the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is intended that a White Paper setting out the Government's plans for the new tariff scheme will be published later this year.

  Community Sentence Review
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to announce the conclusions of the review on community sentences.

  Mr. Maclean
  This review, originally expected to be concluded at the end of 1994—beginning of 1995, has been expedited for completion by summer 1994. In the meantime, further guidance will be issued to the probation service as and when conclusions are reached on significant matters which need not await full formal publication of the revised standards themselves.

  Safer Cities Project
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce his decision on the next phase of the safer cities project; and how much it is intended to give to each of the cities named in the new phase.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Ten local authority areas have been shortlisted for the first group of new projects in the second phase of the safer cities programme:

  Blackburn

  Burnley

  Greenwich

  Lambeth

  Leeds

  Manchester

  Newcastle

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Plymouth

  Sheffield

  We plan to set up at least six new projects before the end of 1993–94.

  Organisations with appropriate experience have been invited to bid to manage two or more of these projects. Tenders were invited in response to this invitation on 5 October and are currently being evaluated. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to be in a position to announce decisions about the areas chosen and the successful contractors to run the projects before the end of the year.

  The running costs of individual projects will be met by payments to contractors under the terms of the invitation to
  218
  tender and are subject to the outcome of the evaluation. The size of the grant budget available to these projects for local crime prevention activity has not yet been determined.

  Squatters
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for implementing his proposal for faster court proceedings for evicting squatters; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean
  I intend to introduce legislation to implement this proposal as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. The timetable thereafter will depend upon the speed of progress which such legislation makes. It is too soon to offer reliable estimates of the costs and savings to which the proposal will give rise.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his timetable for implementing his proposal for a new offence of gathering information for terrorist purposes; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95;

  (2) what is his timetable for implementing his proposal for a new offence of possession in relation to terrorist activities; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Howard
  I intend to take the earliest legislative opportunity to create new offences of collecting information likely to be useful to terrorists and of possessing items intended for terrorist purposes. There are no resource implications for this financial year. Thereafter they are likely to be minimal.

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for implementing each of the 11 recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice on victims of crime; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean In its report the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice made 19 recommendations to help victims and other witnesses, 11 of which were specifically directed at government and have been accepted.

  Some of those recommendations relate to measures which are already in place or are being implemented, while others may require legislation. It is accordingly too soon to set a timetable for implementation or to offer reliable estimates of costs.

  New Criminal Legislation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for ending the presumption in favour of bail for anyone accused of offending on bail; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean
  I intend to introduce legislation to implement a proposal removing the presumption of a right to bail for those charged with serious offences which appear to have been committed while on bail as soon as
  219
  suitable opportunity arises. The timetable thereafter will depend on the speed of progress which such legislation makes. It is too soon to offer a reliable estimate of the costs and savings to which the proposal will give rise.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his timetable for allowing retrials where juries have been nobbled; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95;

  (2) what is his timetable for implementing a new offence of witness intimidation; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95;

  (3) what is his timetable for barring those on bail from serving on juries; and what is his estimate of the cost of this proposal in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean
  We intend to introduce legislation to implement these proposals as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. The timetable thereafter will depend upon the speed of progress which such legislation makes. It is too soon to offer reliable estimates of the costs and savings to which the proposals will give rise.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for abolishing the right to silence; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean
  We intend to introduce legislation to allow adverse inferences to be drawn from a suspect's silence as soon as an opportunity arises. The timetable thereafter will depend upon the speed of progress which such legislation makes. It is too soon to offer reliable estimates of any costs and savings to which this proposal may give rise.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional secure places he intends to provide(a) for 15 and 16-year-olds on remand in fulfilment of his predecessors promise in February 1991, (b) for 15 and 16-year-olds on remand in addition to (a), (c) for 15 and 16-year-olds sent to secure accommodation by a court following conviction, (d) for 10 to 14-year-olds on remand, (e) for 10 to 14-year-olds following conviction other than those sentenced to a secure training order and (f) for 12 to 14-year-olds made subject to a secure training order.

  Mr. Maclean
  The provision of local authority secure accommodation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. A programme is currently under way to create an additional 60 to 65 places in local authority secure units. This represents the number of new places estimated to be necessary to end the remands of 15 and 16-year-old boys to Prison Service establishments. The estimate is being kept under review.

  Courts have no powers to send 15 or 16-year-old juveniles directly to local authority secure accommodation on conviction—although, if the appropriate criteria are met, they may send boys in this age group directly to young offender institutions run by the Prison Service, for whom no additional accommodation is presently required. Similarly, they have no powers to direct the removal of 10 to 14-year-olds to secure accommodation either on remand or following conviction.
  220
  The intention is that places in which the custodial element of the proposed secure training order for 12 to 14-year-olds should be served should be provided by agreements with suitable public, voluntary or private organisations. No final decision has been taken on the number of such places to be provided.

  Parish Constables
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline his job description for a parish constable; what qualifications will be required; and what is the proposed level of pay for the job.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Pilot schemes currently under development will be based on the two most common "blueprints" for parish constables which the publish have suggested. In the "parish special constable" scheme, the parish special constable, like other special constables, will have the power and authority of a police constable and will be expected to provide assistance to the regular police. He or she will be under the operational control of the chief constable, but the parish or local council—or councils, if groups of small parishes are involved—will be consulted on some of the constable's duties through a service agreement between the parish and the chief constable. At this stage we do not propose that the selection criteria, training arrangements and employment conditions of the parish special constables will differ from those already provided for special constables.

  In the "parish warden" scheme local parish or town councils will be asked to authorise a volunteer to assist both the community and the police by dispensing crime prevention advice, encouraging local watch schemes, and by acting as a channel for information, warnings and advice. The duties and qualifications of parish wardens will be resolved through discussion between the parish, the volunteer, and the local people.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for implementing his proposal for new stop and search powers for the police to stop terrorists; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Howard
  I intend to seek new powers for the police to stop and search vehicles for counter-terrorist purposes at the earliest legislative opportunity. There are no cost implications for this financial year. Thereafter they would depend upon how the powers were exercised by the police but are unlikely to be significant within the overall budget of police forces.

  Criminal Cases Review Authority
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for the setting up of a Criminal Cases Review Authority; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice for the establishment of a Criminal Cases Review Authority. We have put in hand the detailed preparatory work which will be necessary before the new system can
  221
  be put into place. At this stage, however, it is not possible to offer a precise timetable for the introduction of the new arrangements.

  The costs of a new authority are one of the matters which are still being considered and it would be premature to offer an estimate of the financial resources that might be required in a particular financial year.

  Police Bail
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the type of condition he intends police may apply to police bail.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the Bail Act 1976 a court may attach conditions to the grant of bail if it considers that is necessary in order to ensure that, for example, a defendant surrenders to custody, does not commit an offence while on bail, and does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. I intend the police to be able to attach conditions for similar purposes to bail which they grant. I do not consider it appropriate to specify the precise nature of such conditions, which will vary according to the circumstances of the individual case.

  Prisons (Drug Tests)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for introducing urine testing for drugs in prison; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 19 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about drug urine testing in prisons.
  Detailed plans, including a timetable, for the introduction of drug urine testing are still being developed. There has been no estimate of the cost.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter the ruling that people who have had previous convictions for unrelated matters can have their award for compensation from the criminal injuries compensation scheme reduced or refused.

  Mr. Maclean
  Details of the rules of the new tariff scheme will be given in a White Paper to be published later in the year. It is expected that the basic rules for eligibility will remain largely as before.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for extending the Attorney-General's right of appeal for lenient sentences; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean
  We shall lay the necessary order before Parliament at the earliest appropriate opportunity. Our preliminary estimate is that the number of additional cases likely to justify referral to the Court of Appeal, and any additional costs, will be low.

  Drugs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the findings of research carried out for his Department by Sheffield university on drug use by young people.

  Mr. Maclean
  We intend to publish the report by Sheffield university by the end of this year.

  Trespassers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for implementing his proposal for new powers for the police to stop trespassers disrupting lawful activities; and what is his estimate of the cost in this financial year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We intend to introduce legislation to implement these proposals as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. The timetable thereafter will depend upon the speed of progress which such legislation makes. It is too soon to offer reliable estimates of the costs and savings to which the proposals will give rise.

  Rape Trials
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, and through what process, he intends to abolish the judge's mandatory warning to juries in rape trials about the truthfulness of women; and from what date he intends the changes to apply.

  Mr. Maclean
  We intend to introduce legislation to abolish this requirement as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. The commencement date will, of course, depend upon the progress which such legislation makes.

  British Citizenship
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to grant British citizenship to the wives and widows of service men who served in the defence of Hong Kong during the second world war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no power to grant British citizenship to this group of people unless they meet the residence requirements of the British Nationality Act 1981 or quality under the Hong Kong selection scheme; and I do not think that I would be justified in bringing forward legislation to dispense with the normal statutory provisions in their case. The Government have on many occasions given an assurance that these wives and widows may come to the United Kingdom with a view to settlement at any time. I readily repeat that assurance. It would then be open to them to apply in the normal way to be registered or naturalised as British citizens when they met the statutory requirements.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to the percentage of gross domestic product spent on pensions in each EC country.
  223
  Mr. Hague
  The latest information available on pensions expenditure in each member state of the EC is contained in the Eurostat publication "Digest of Statistics on Social Protection in Europe, Volumn 1: Old Age". This publication covers the years 1980–1988 and covers questions of definition and incomplete information which are important in interpreting the data.

  The Eurostat study "Social Protection Expenditure and Receipts 1980–1991" includes revised and more recent information on that part of social protection expenditure which is directed to the elderly, but it does not allow the identification of expenditure on pensions.

  Copies of both publications are in the House of Commons Library.

  National Insurance
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps will be taken to ensure that the national insurance scheme will provide the same range of benefits to widowers and widows; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  We have no plans to extend the current widows' benefits provisions to widowers, but we will keep the position under review.

  Benefit Investigations
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have had their benefit stopped for investigations; and how many were subsequently reinstated in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of benefit fraud is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. I understand that he has written to the hon. Member about this matter.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Mike Gapes, dated 12 August 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking, how many claimants have had their benefit stopped for investigations; and how many were subsequently reinstated in each year since 1987.
  I regret that on this particular occasion I am unable to answer your question as the Sector Fraud organisation does not record information in this way.
  I am able to say, however, that it is not general practice to "stop" a customer's benefit until it is certain that it is correct to do so. The decision to withdraw benefit has to be made by an Adjudication Officer and, as such, is not within the remit of any officer connected with the investigation of alleged fraud.
  I must also point out that only a very small percentage of the Benefit Agency's customers will ever have any dealings with a member of the Sector Fraud organisation as the vast majority of customers are honest and trustworthy.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many invalidity benefit claims were referred to the Benefits Agency medical service less than six months after winning an appeal against disqualification in(a) April, May and June 1992 and (b) April, May and June 1993;

  (2) how many invalidity benefit recipients who were carrying out voluntary work activities were referred to the
  224
  Benefits Agency medical service in April, May and June, broken down by (a) numbers disqualified and (b) numbers found incapable of work.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Supplementary Benefits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings his Department has made as a result of the abolition of single payments in the former supplementary benefit system, for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  The supplementary benefit scheme was replaced in 1988 by income support and the social fund. The different nature and scope of the schemes means that direct comparisons cannot be made between them.

  No precise estimate of any savings resulting from the abolition of supplementary benefit single payments can therefore be made.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals against disqualification from invalidity benefit were heard in(a) April, May and June 1992 and (b) April, May and June 1993; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, in April, May and June 1992 a total of 1,311 appeals were heard against a variety of invalidity benefit decisions. Of these, 681 were decided in the appellant's favour. Information for the later period is not available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for invalidity benefit were received from people previously in receipt of(a) sickness benefit, (b) income support and (c) statutory sick pay in the year 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available. Such information as is available is in the table. Information about invalidity benefit recipients previously receiving income support is not available.

  Spells of invalidity benefit commencing in the period 2 April 1990 to 30 March 1991 immediately in continuation of entitlement to:

  Recipients

  Sickness benefit

  87,000

  Statutory sick pay

  128,000

  Notes:

  (i) Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  (ii) 30 March 1991 is the latest date for which figures are available.

  (iii) Figures exclude cases where there has been a break in incapacity of eight weeks or less.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list changes made to benefits for long-term sick and disabled people, since April 1988 together with an estimate for each year to 2000 of the cost or savings for each change.

  Mr. Scott
  For a list of changes I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) on 26 July, c.715–16.
  225
  An estimate of the costs and savings in each case as requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants were in receipt of invalidity benefit in(a) Edinburgh, (b) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  For such information as is available I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 20 July at columns 280–81.

  Community Action
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what national insurance arrangements have been made for community action participants.

  Mr. Hague
  Community action which was announced in the Budget statement on 16 March will commence on 27 July. Participants will not be liable to pay national insurance contributions while they are taking part in this new work experience project. Furthermore, their future contributory benefit entitlement will normally be protected by the award of "approved training" credits.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has plans to change the way contributions to personal pension schemes are taken into account in income-related benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to lay before Parliament amendments to the regulations on the treatment of such contributions in the income-related benefits. It has been the intention since 1988 that when assessing earnings for the income-related benefits a deduction should be made of half of any contributions to a private pension scheme, and administrative practice has been in line with this. But the current regulations do not correctly reflect this policy. In consequence awards have been made since July 1988 which are incorrect in law at a total cost of £8 million. Amendments to the income-related benefits regulations will be introduced to bring the legislation fully into line with existing policy and administrative practice.

  Income Support
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps his Department is now taking to review the entitlement to income support of claimants in the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Percival White v. Chief Adjudication Officer; and what guidance has been issued to those adjudicating claims for income support in relation to inquiries initiated or procedures adopted in view of the court's ruling;

  (2) what steps he has taken to assure nursing home residents, their relatives, and the proprietors of homes in which they reside affected by the judgment of the Court of
  226
  Appeal in the case of the Percival White v. Chief Adjudicating Officer that, if income support claims are reviewed and payments discontinued alternative payments will be made by the district health authority responsible for providing the resident with in-patient treatment and care.

  Mr. Burt
  When the decision of the Court of Appeal has been published it will be studied carefully to ascertain whether any income support claimants, other than those involved in the case, will be affected. The decision confirms the existing policy and it is, therefore, expected that the number of people affected will be small. Most people whose care in a nursing home has been arranged by a health authority are already being assessed as patients. However, the vast majority of people in nursing homes are private residents and there is no question of their being regarded as in-patients.

  General guidance can only be issued when the decision has been studied in detail. However, the Central Adjudication Services will give advice to adjudication officers who require assistance with similar cases.

  I understand that the Department of Health issued advice to regional and district health authorities in 1991 on their responsibilities in this area.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by premium the deductions made from the income support of claimants who are also subject to a deduction for voluntary unemployment.

  Mr. Burt
  Only recipients of the family premium were found to have deductions when benefit was reduced because of voluntary unemployment, but the numbers in the sample are too small to give a reliable estimate.

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1992.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how long the figure set as the level of fuel debt which leads to a deduction from and direct payment of income support has been in operation;

  (2) what is the basis for the figure set as the level of fuel debt which can lead to a deduction from and direct payment of income support.

  Mr. Burt
  The minimum amount of fuel debt which can lead to direct payment to the fuel company is set at the level of the personal allowance for a single claimant aged not less than 25 years old.

  The figure has been set since the introduction of income support in April 1988.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applications for child maintenance have been made by parents with care who(a) are or (b) are not in receipt of income support or family credit;

  (2) in how many cases of the child support maintenance application forms returned to Child Support Agency centres, the parent with care has refused to authorise him to collect maintenance;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the work of the Child Support Agency in its first three months at each of the four Child Support Agency centres presently operating;

  (4) what was the average time taken by each Child Support Agency centre, during the first three months, to complete a maintenance assessment, from the date of maintenance inquiry form being sent to the absent parent;
  227
  (5) how many maintenance assessments have been carried out by each child support centre since the launch of the Child Support Agency in April;

  (6) how many (a) maintenance application forms and (b) maintenance inquiry forms have been sent out by the Child Support Agency at each of the Child Support Agency centres; and how many in each case have been returned:

  (7) how many of the maintenance assessments prepared by the Child Support Agency since April relate to children living with parents who are on income support and family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Ms R. Hepplewhite to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 26 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking about various aspects of the work of the Child Support Agency in its first three months of operation.
  I have attached as an annex to this letter a table providing information about the number of maintenance application and maintenance enquiry forms which have been issued, the number of these which have been returned and the number of maintenance assessments which have been completed.
  You asked also for a breakdown of the number of applications and assessments made in relation to parents who are in receipt of benefit. As you will be aware, Alistair Burt, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, pointed out in his reply of 13 July to a question from Frank Field MP reported at Column 482 of the Official Report that, after only three months' operation, it is too early to provide such a breakdown which is reliable enough for publication, and we do not currently collect information about the number of maintenance assessments made in relation to this group. It is also too early to provide reliable information on average clearance times, such as that which you have requested.
  You asked also about the number of applications received where the parent with care has refused to provide authority for the collection of maintenance. Whilst information is not available in this form, you may wish to know that some 2,300 have so far been referred for interview in connection with the requirement to co-operate.
  Although it is too early to draw any overall conclusions from the data so far available my view is that the Agency has made a steady start in introducing the new arrangements for ensuring that parents meet their responsibilities for child maintenance whenever they are able to do so.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Annex
  The number of Maintenance Application/Maintenance Enquiry Forms sent out by the Agency at each Agency Centre, the number returned and the number of assessments in the period 5 April to 30 June are as follows:

  Maintenance Application Forms

  Issued

  Returned

  Hastings

  51,000

  24,500

  Falkirk

  37,000

  18,000

  Dudley

  54,000

  29,000

  Belfast

  35,000

  18,500

  TOTAL

  177,000

  90,000

  228

  Maintenance Enquiry Forms and assessments completed

  Issued

  Returned

  Assessments made

  Hastings

  9,500

  3,500

  920

  Falkirk

  7,000

  3,000

  780

  Dudley

  14,500

  6,500

  1,900

  Belfast

  7,500

  3,000

  400

  TOTAL

  38,500

  16,000

  4,000

  Notes:

  (i) These figures have been rounded and are provisional, so may be subject to amendment.

  (ii) Birkenhead and Plymouth Centres are not yet operational and their caseloads are currently handled by Dudley and Hastings respectively.

  Recovery of Payments
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the performance of his Department in the recovery of overpayments of social security benefits.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 27 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what plans he has to improve the performance of his Department in the recovery of overpayments of social security benefits.
  The report of the Efficiency Scrutiny into the Management of Departmental Debt in December 1989 identified a number of key issues concerning recovery of money owed to the Department, the major concern was the priority given in the Department to benefit delivery over revenue collection. In order to take forward the recommendations of the Efficiency Scrutiny an Information Study was conducted over a 6 month period ending in June 1991.
  Following the recommendations made in the above reports various initiatives have been implemented in the overpayment recovery field. An Income Support recovery yield target for the financial year 1992–93 of £30 million was issued in August 1992. This was a 45 per cent. increase over the amount collected in 1991–92 and yet it was exceeded, the total recovery being £38.2 million. Further targets have been introduced for 1993–94 amounting to £54 million with recovery on non Income Support overpayments also being included.
  The BA are actively pursuing the establishment of a Central Recovery Group to collect outstanding overpayments of Income Support where the customer is no longer in receipt of benefit.
  In addition to the above BA staff have been issued with revised training material and a good practice guide aimed at assisting in the identification, calculation and recovery of overpaid benefit. The Overpayment Recovery Guide, a manual which assists staff in their recovery work, has been comprehensively rewritten and the letters which notify customers of overpayments and request repayment have been drafted in plain English. The procedure for referring cases for civil action, should recovery break down, has also been streamlined and is showing positive results.
  Work is also proceeding to develop Information Technology to assist in the overpayment process.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also appear in the Library.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases in each of the last five years civil enforcement action has been taken in either the county court or the sheriffs court to recover sums owed by way of social security benefits.
  229
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 29 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking in how many cases, in each of the last five years, civil enforcement action has been taken in either the County Court or the Sheriffs' Court to recover sums owed by way of Social Security benefits".
  The information you have requested is shown below.

  Year ending 31 March

  County court

  Sheriff's court

  1989

  311

  113

  1990

  250

  84

  1991

  249

  57

  1992

  612

  260

  11993

  6,657

  1,235

  1 The reasons for the 1993 figures being higher than previous years are that the work has been devolved from a central location to Area Offices which has led to increased efficiency. In addition, in July 1992, the process for referring cases was streamlined and the proceedings limit was reduced from £300 to £50.

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

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown by benefit of the number of recipients of benefits other than income support, where deductions are being made for the recovery of overpayments under section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 27 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for a breakdown by benefit of the number of recipients of benefits, other than Income Support, where deductions are being made for the recovery of overpayments under section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
  I regret that I am unable to provide the exact information you requested. Overpayments are recovered by virtue of both sections 71 and 74 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The relevant section is noted on individual claims to assist in the adjudication process only. These details are not collated locally and therefore no central records can be maintained. Obtaining the information you requested could be done only at disproportionate cost.
  However, you may be interested to know that recovery by deduction from non Income Support benefits to recover overpayments is currently being made on 21,142 claims. These overpayments are being recovered by virtue of both sections 71 and 74 of the 1992 Administration Act. I can advise that of these, 15,494 are for benefits administered by our District Offices with the following details for those benefits administered centrally;
  230

  Number

  Attendance Allowance

  607

  Family Credit

  607

  Invalid Care Allowance

  3,146

  Mobility Allowance/Disability Living Allowance

  740

  Disability Working Allowance

  6

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the official report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amounts have been recovered by way of overpayments of benefit in each of the last five years.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 27 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what amounts have been recovered by way of overpayments of benefit in each of the last five years.
  I regret that I am unable to provide the information you requested for the last five years. Centrally collected information on Income Support overpayments is held only from April 1991, when the first central target was set for Income Support recoveries. Information for all the other non-Income Support Benefits is being kept from April 1993 and recovery performance will not be known until April 1994.
  In 1991/92, £24.2m was recovered from overpayments of Income Support, against a target of £18m. This figure rose to £38.2m in 1992/93, against a target of £30m. A target of £54m has been set for 1993/94 for recovery of all benefits and the current year end outlook shows that this target will be exceeded.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many invalidity benefit recipients were found(a) medically incapable of work, after examination, (b) capable of work, after examination, or (c) medically capable of suitable alternative work (i) in April, May and June 1992 and (ii) in April, May and June 1993;

  (2) how many invalidity benefit recipients were referred to the Benefits Agency medical service (a) in April, May and June 1992 and (b) April, May and June 1993.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of invalidity benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 27 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for social security asking (i) how many invalidity benefit recipients were referred to the benefit agency Medical Service (a) in April, May and June 1992 and (b)

  231
  April, May and June 1993 and (ii) how many invalidity benefit recipients were found (a) medically incapable of work, after examination, (b) capable of work after examination, or (c) medically capable of suitable alternative work (i) in April, May and June 1992 and (ii) in April, May and June 1993.
  >The complete range of information requested is not available. This is because for operational reasons, figures for Scotland and Wales are not available. The full range of information will be available from April 1994. The figures available also include sickness benefit recipients as separate figures are not held. The figures below therefore relate to England only.

  (1a) Sickness benefit/invalidity benefit referrals to BAMS in April, May and June 1992 = 172,637.

  (b) Sickness benefit/invalidity benefit referrals to BAMS in April, May and June 1993 = 170,788.

  (2a) Sickness benefit/invalidity benefit recipients found medically incapable of work after examination:

  (i) in April, May and June 1992 = 33,847

  (ii) in April, May and June 1993 = 28,275

  (b) Sickness benefit/invalidity benefit recipients found capable of work after medical examination:

  (i) in April, May and June 1992 = 5,148

  (ii) in April, May and June 1993 = 3,280

  (c) Sickness benefit/invalidity benefit recipients found medically capable of suitable alternative work after medical examination:

  (i) in April, May and June 1992 = 11,442

  (ii) in April, May and June 1993 = 14,586

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

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the districts of the Benefits Agency which have not received the equal opportunities validation symbol; and what are the reasons for their failure in each case.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Win Griffiths, dated 26 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am, therefore, replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if he will list the Districts of the Benefits Agency which have not received the equal opportunities validation symbol; and what are the reasons for their failure in each case.
  The Disability symbol of 2 ticks and 2 dots was introduced by Employment Services for use by employers who wished to show
  232
  their commitment to employing people with disabilities. All Districts within the Benefits Agency were encouraged to use the symbol and many in fact did so.
  In June this year, the symbol was revised and criteria for its use were introduced. The Benefits Agency, in common with other Government Departments and Agencies, is currently looking at the implications of using the new symbol and complying with the criteria. This in no way affects the way we treat disabled people and our policies and procedures are in line with best practice and Civil Service policy on the employment of people with disabilities.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Sick Notes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are taken to ensure that sick note reminder forms BF6OB are sent to claimants prior to the expiry date of the existing sick note.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of sickness and invalidity benefit are matters for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Jim Wallace, dated 27 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what steps are taken to ensure that sick note reminder forms BF6OB are sent to customers prior to the expiry date of the existing sick note.
  Guidance to Benefit Agency staff is that form BF6OB should be issued if the current medical statement expires before the order book runs out. In both Lerwick and Kirkwall Benefit Offices, which deal with customers in your constituency, form BF6OB would be issued to a customer at the same time as the renewal order book where the medical statement expires during the currency of that order book.
  The computerisation of incapacity benefits is still developing. The latest improvement to the system, introduced on a rolling programme to District Offices from May 1993 to January 1994, will automatically issue form BF6OB whenever an order book is issued that extends beyond the date of the current medical statement.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

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

Lord Dixon-Smith
Robert William Dixon-Smith, Esquire, having been created Baron Dixon-Smith, of Bocking in the County of Essex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Platt of Writtle and the Lord Prior.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde
Miss Brenda Dean, having been created Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, of Eccles in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Dean of Beswick and the Lord Murray of Epping Forest.

Bosnia
2.56 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government
What steps, in conjunction with the United Kingdom's European Community partners, they have taken to safeguard the territorial integrity of Bosnia, following its recognition as an independent nation.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, no territorial changes will be acceptable to the United Kingdom and her partners except with the agreement of all the parties to the conflict. The Bosnian Government's rejection of the Geneva peace proposals represents a set-back. The Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 4th and 5th October agreed to explore ways to encourage the parties to return to the negotiating table while preserving the progress made in previous rounds of discussions.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will she, first, accept our admiration for the work of British troops carrying out relief work in Bosnia at the present time? Will she also accept that many Members of the House feel a deep sense of shame at the failure of the European powers, including ourselves, to impede the progress of Serbian ethnic cleansing? Although my noble friend made reference to the Bosnian Government, is it not the Serbs in Bosnia who have been carrying out ethnic cleansing most effectively and damagingly? Further, will my noble friend give us the assurance that there will be no support from Her Majesty's Government for the lifting of sanctions against the Serbs until the process of ethnic cleansing has been substantially reversed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comment about British troops. Perhaps I may say that, in addition to those troops, our RAF Hercules aircraft have flown 827 sorties to Sarajevo, delivering over 11,000 tonnes of aid; and our ODA civilian operation has delivered more than 47,000 tonnes through 590 convoys. Therefore, there are more people, as well as our troops, to whom we owe a great tribute. Ethnic cleansing has not only been carried out by the Serbs, although they have probably done more than Moslems or Croatians. All ethnic cleansing must be brought to an end, and all our efforts will be directed towards trying to ensure not only that that happens but also that those in camps are freed and that, until they are freed, the ICRC has full access.
So far as concerns the lifting of sanctions, we have said that we will not lift sanctions until there is a resolution of the situation. I know that there have been comments about progressively lifting them, but only when a Bosnian and a total settlement is actually implemented.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as has been said, Bosnia is at present looking into the jaws of disaster? That disaster is made much more likely if it is true that the UNHCR winter programme will be launched with less than half the budget pledged by donor countries supplying it. Will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom has paid its full quota? Further, can she tell us whether that is the case as regards the United States?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the United Kingdom has not only paid its full quota; indeed, we have done more than that in terms of aid to the people who are suffering. In my last discussion with Mrs. Ogata, the head of UNHCR, she told me that, although the money might not come forward immediately, she had hopes of gaining the majority of the support that she needs.
Every nation must realise that the people in Bosnia will now be far weaker this winter, which is unlikely to be as mild as the last one, and will need more help. In fact, 2.4 million people will be dependent upon the humanitarian help which is delivered by donors with the assistance of UNPROFOR.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the unilateral recognition of the state of Croatia by Germany, without consultation with its European partners, has somewhat complicated the position as it is completely contrary to Article J.2.1 of Title V of the Maastricht. Treaty, the text of which was known at the time that Germany did so?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if my memory serves me right, the German Government's decision was taken in November or December 1991. I believe that that was before even the paragraphs to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred were explicitly known to all and sundry. Whatever that decision, we cannot turn the clock back.

499
I have already said many times what I thought of it. We must move forward and resolve the situation in Bosnia and that is where our energies are devoted.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that President Clinton's recent statement in this regard shows a lack of understanding of our contribution in Bosnia? What steps have our Government taken to make the American public aware of the contribution that has been made by the British Government as regards relief supplies and in urging the futility of bombing exercises?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have spoken on American television several times to try to put over the British case, as I know that the Prime Minister has done when he has been given that opportunity. Britain and the United States are agreed on the policy of trying to secure a negotiated settlement while sustaining the humanitarian relief effort. We are working together to try to promote this whatever some of the media might say.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the view of Dr. Otto von Habsburg who last month said at the Charles Stransky memorial lecture that the real danger of the Yugoslav situation for the future stability of central Europe is the combination of the assumption of responsibility by the United Nations with the continued failure to fulfil it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that such a wise comment as that from Otto von Habsburg warrants much deeper consideration than I can give it at the Dispatch Box at this minute. I would simply say that the assumption of responsibility might be considered by some in the United Nations as a requirement on them to take on this responsibility when I believe the Secretary-General was well aware of the great difficulty of delivering what member nations have demanded of it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the division of Bosnia into a series of ethnic Yugostans importing the principle of apartheid into Europe just at the time when it is being ended in South Africa? Is that not a disastrous model to set before the rest of the world? If we had listened to President Clinton's advice and armed the Bosnians so that they could resist the ethnic aggression of the Serbs, might not a peaceful settlement have been reached by now to the advantage of all communities in Bosnia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I very much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is one of the "if only" category of Members of your Lordships' House. We cannot change the past. There is no question of forcing Moslems to accept an agreement that they find unacceptable and I believe that there is no question among your Lordships but that arming the Bosnians would have fuelled the situation still further. I do not agree with the noble Lord's view and the Government do not agree with him. I have yet to find anyone in the United Nations who thinks that his proposal would have been a solution.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, what would be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government when the Serbs—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will allow the noble Lord on the Cross Benches to speak.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House what is the situation today in Sarajevo and in Mostar? Does she agree that it is a disgrace that two outstanding European cities and their inhabitants can be destroyed with impunity?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what has happened to both Sarajevo and Mostar and other lesser-known towns is a disgrace, but there is nothing that I can do, standing at this Box, until there is the willingness of all three parties to cease fighting and that is why the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg must be fully supported.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, are we not moving into an era where the whole international community recognises a responsibility for relieving suffering and for maintaining legality, but where very few governments are prepared to pay the economic price of those protestations? What quantity of embargoed materials have been intercepted and confiscated? I fully echo her tribute to the part played by British forces in this matter, but do we not need a standing international police force which is not at the mercy of repeated defence cuts by individual countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret that without notice I cannot answer the first part of the noble and learned Lord's question. As regards the second part of his question, I do not believe that a standing force would ever be the right way to approach what are very different situations in different parts of the world. What is critical is immediate assessment and response according to that assessment, and that we do.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think that perhaps we ought to move on to the next Question.

Pit Closures: Policy
3.9 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What additional action they propose to take to prevent further pit closures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government's policy was set out in the Coal Review White Paper.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the massive opposition expressed by people throughout the country to the pit closure

501
programme about one year ago caused the Government to re-think their pit closure programme? Does the Minister recall that the Government made a number of promises? Is it not the case that a number of those promises have been broken? For example, is it not correct that at least one of the reprieved pits has been closed? Why is it that not one penny of the £500 million subsidy promised by the Government has been spent?
Of equal importance, why have negotiations not taken place on coal stocks? I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a crucial aspect. Finally, and perhaps most important of all, why has not the expert advisory panel been set up to consider the whole question of the rigged market against coal?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asks a number of questions, some of them very complicated when answering directly from the Dispatch Box. His charge that the Government have broken promises is not true. The White Paper provided opportunities. The Government explicitly did not offer guarantees. Furthermore, the subsidy which the noble Lord mentioned is still on offer, subject to Community clearance. My department, the DTI, is currently considering a number of applications.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a mistake to talk about, a rigged market against coal when the essence of the problem is that British coal is more expensive than any other coal?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct in saying that it is entirely false to talk about the market being rigged against coal. Since 1979 the taxpayer has provided over £18 billion of support for the coal industry. British Coal has benefited from very large contracts at higher than market prices. That suggests that the market has been tilted in favour of coal for many years.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, would not a more accurate answer to the specific question as to what additional action the Government have in mind be "nothing"?
Lord Strathclyde: Not at all, my Lords. I made the position plain at the beginning. The answer to the question is to be found in the pages of the Government White Paper.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that in any extractive industry the raw material is bound to become dearer as time goes on?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that may sometimes be the case. I am not sure that it is entirely so in this particular industry. The point is that we recognise that there may be alternative new markets for coal. That is why we have offered the subsidy.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, this is really a question about the future of our indigenous coal industry. If Her Majesty's Government's policies continue, that industry is likely to be decimated. Can the Minister explain why we continue to import 12 million tonnes of coal with a consequent closing of 12 pits, and why we import French electricity, so keeping their
502
nuclear power stations open but closing five more pits? Why do we not curb those imports? Why is there to be a continuation of the dash for gas? Why can we not curb the expansion of opencast coal mining which is the most environmentally damaging industry in the country'? If the Government acted in that way there would be a level playing field for coal and the industry would have a chance of survival.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no question of this Government decimating the British coal industry. The Government believe that the best future for the coal industry lies firmly in the private sector. Already we have seen a reduction in coal imports. As for the question of electricity from France, it is against Community law to cut off that electricity.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the party to which he belongs owes a special debt of gratitude to the Nottingham miners who broke the Scargill strike, which was called without a proper vote of union members, and who are now in particular difficulties? What do the Government propose to do to reward people who stood by them? They are not standing by the miners of Nottingham.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I salute all those who stood out against Arthur Scargill and his particular brand of socialism. That is why, when it comes to privatisation, we shall be offering special financial support to management and employee buy-out teams.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps. I may ask the Minister a question of fact. How many miners have been made redundant since the great coal rescue scheme was announced in March? I should like also to ask for his opinion. Does he not agree that now that the chairman of British Coal has announced that in all probability all of the 12 so-called reprieved pits will have to be closed shortly and not a penny of the money for the rescue scheme has been spent the great rescue was just a public relations con?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can inform the House that since the publication of the White Paper some 11,500 miners have volunteered for redundancy. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, perhaps I can reply by using the words of the President of the Board of Trade on 25th March, when he said:
"We have done all that we reasonably could consistent with the economic realities and legal constraints to increase the opportunities for British coal".
Lord Jay: My Lords, as the Government are subsidising nuclear power at a cost to the British exchequer of £1 billion a year, and since they are subsidising the production of nuclear power in France which is then sold to this country, and since German coal is heavily subsidised, is it not obvious that the market is rigged heavily against British coal?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I explained in answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that £18 billion has already been spent on British coal since 1979. That is a measure of the commitment of this Government to coal.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister confirm reports that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, has been in contact with the Government asking that a number of condemned pits be saved? If so, can he say what reply has been given?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is entirely a matter for my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I have no knowledge of contacts which she may have had with the Government, either formally or informally.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the Minister referred to the large number of miners who are losing their jobs. Can he inform the House what steps the Government have taken to provide, or to encourage the provision of, jobs for those people?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, will know that a number of schemes are available in coalfield areas offering terms for the regeneration of those areas and so provide the kind of jobs which will sustain those communities in the long term.

Low Pay: The Poverty Trap
3.12 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy that people should not be worse off in employment than they are when receiving state benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, yes. Government policies are aimed at striking a balance between providing for need while improving work incentives.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply, and I welcome it. Will he look with care for instances where government policy may inadvertently not achieve the intended effect? Will he take note of the combined effect of withdrawal of family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit, plus the phasing in of income tax and national insurance, which may already mean that people are losing 97p. in the pound when they come into employment? Is he aware that if compensation for VAT on fuel is confined to those on benefit it might bring that figure to over 100 per cent.? Will he investigate ways of avoiding that situation by adjusting the tapers on family credit and housing benefit?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, social security reforms and subsequent changes in the tax and national insurance systems have virtually eliminated the worst aspects of the poverty trap. Only a very small proportion of those receiving income-related benefits face marginal reduction rates at the highest level. Steeper tapers concentrate help on those at the bottom end of the income scale while aiming to keep the overall cost and scope of the scheme under control. A shallower taper, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would extend the help further up the income scale but would then not concentrate it on those at the bottom.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that special efforts ought to be made to solve the dilemma contained in this Question? Those who have contact with workers too often hear the reply: "I can't afford to take that job because I am better off receiving the aid I am getting now". I do not know the answer, but ought not special thought be given to an investigation to resolve that dilemma?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have taken a number of steps to help people get over the trap. For example, I refer to family credit. There are also other benefits which are payable in work. I refer to housing benefit, council tax benefit and disability working allowance.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that those steps are inadequate? Many lone parents are unable to afford to work simply because working makes them poorer owing to the cost of child welfare. In order to help lone parents and society, is it not possible for the Government to invest in child care?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the average gain from family credit covers average child care cost. Lone parents are on average £30 a week better off working and receiving family credit than on income support.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Government consider a graduated reduction of benefits as against earned income when people move back into employment? For instance, if for every £1 earned a benefit is reduced by, say, 50p., there is a financial incentive for people to move into work rather than to stay on state benefit.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there are incentives for people to move into work. Those are the tapers to which I referred earlier. The family credit taper is 70 per cent. Therefore there are incentives for people to get a job.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the best way to avoid the poverty trap is to ensure that income tax starts at a much higher level than at present, taking low earners out of the tax band altogether? Will he pass that message on to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer between now and Budget day?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall certainly pass the message that the noble Baroness has to offer to the Chancellor. I am sure that he will be interested in it. But the noble Baroness will remember the reduction in the basic rate of income tax to 25 per cent. in April 1992 and the introduction of a 20 per cent. band which was extended from April 1993. Those measures have helped.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister accept that most lone parents wish to work but cannot afford to because of the high cost of child care—the issue was referred to by my noble friend Lord Ashley—and the low pay that they will receive? In that context, will the Minister explain how abolishing the wages councils and thus depressing low pay even further will encourage people to come off benefits and into work?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, evidence from previous abolition of or reduction in the controls of wages councils suggests that there will be no widespread reductions in pay. The Government believe that wages are best decided in the labour market between the employer and workers concerned in the light of their particular local circumstances. There are plenty of incentives for people, including lone parents, to get back into the system and to get a job.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but we must be fair to the noble Lord who will ask the last Question. There are only five more minutes of Question Time.

Transport Research Laboratory
3.23 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis asked Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the proposed privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we announced on 27th May that we believed in principle that the laboratory should be privatised and that we were appointing consultants to advise us on the options for privatisation and their feasibility. We will not reach a firm decision on the future of the laboratory until we have carefully considered the consultants' report.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the laboratory has a proven record for independence, integrity, objectivity and expertise over many years? It has established a reputation of international renown in particular in safety work and in environmental work in the transport sector. Does the Minister also agree that it makes little sense to put an organisation of such international reputation at risk? What on earth could justify that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the work of TRL. It is of international repute. That is why we believe in principle that it should be allowed to go forward through the private sector and expand its work and potential. However, as I said to the noble Lord in my original Answer, until we receive the consultants' report we cannot take a view.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I, too, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the excellence of TRL? It is a pleasure to go to that building surrounded by such a wonderful collection of heathers, or erica. Is the option of a franchise being considered for the excellent people in TRL? That might free those people from the reins of government.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, nothing has been ruled in or ruled out. We must await the consultants' report. I hope that My noble friend will continue to be able to go to TRL, whether it is in the public or private sector, and will still be able to appreciate it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that if the consultants' report is heavily in favour of the organisation staying in the public sector, the Government will not monkey about once again to achieve privatisation for privatisation's sake, but will leave matters as they are?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are looking very much towards the future of TR.L. One of the matters that we specifically asked the consultants to consider is the long-term viability of TRL if it were to go into the private sector. Obviously we shall take into account what the consultants say.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, who are the consultants that the Government are consulting?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords., ICPNIG Peat Marwick.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate when he expects to receive the consultants' report? If he has any information about it, when does he expect to report to the House on that important issue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we expect to receive the report at the end of October. Obviously I cannot answer the second part of the noble Lord's question because we have to consider the report and then make up our minds.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain to the House why he expects a firm of accountants to be able to assess accurately either the quality of scientific research or the prospects for future scientific research?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there obviously was a tender exercise for consultancy. Tenderers were given a specification. Various firms quoted for that specification. We believe that we have a very good firm of consultants which will be able to answer the questions posed to it.

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Railways Bill
3.29 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 86 [Transfer to the Secretary of State or the. Franchising Director of the Board's function of making transfer schemes]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 98, line 14, at end insert:
("() Where the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him in subsection (1) above, directs the Board to

507
secure the disposal of any subsidiary of the Board principally concerned with the transport of goods, he shall, prior to the disposal taking place, consider the environmental and economic consequences of the goods hitherto conveyed by the subsidiary being conveyed instead by road vehicles.
() If, following the consideration referred to in subsection () above, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the environmental and economic consequences of the goods referred to in subsection () above being conveyed by road are unacceptable, he may make it a condition of disposal that the persons acquiring control of the subsidiary shall continue for the relevant period to use railway services for the movement of goods as far as reasonably practicable to the same extent as applied prior to the disposal.
() In this section, "the relevant period" means the period beginning with the date of the disposal and ending on the second anniversary of the disposal.
() In this section, "goods" includes mail, parcels, animals, plants and any other creature, substance or thing capable of being transported, but does not include passengers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is a modified version of an amendment which was debated and withdrawn at Committee stage. The original amendment would have required that any privatised freight or parcels subsidiary should continue to use rail for all traffic for five years so far as is reasonably practical. The new version requires the Secretary of State to consider the environmental and economic consequences of traffic transferring to roads. It then gives him the'option to require the traffic to continue to be conveyed by rail, but limits the duration of that requirement to two years.
The Government's long-standing commitment to the outright sale of British Rail's freight and parcels businesses was clarified in May with the publication of a detailed set of proposals. The existing Trainload Freight subsidiary, responsible for over 80 per cent. of total freight revenue based on moving full trainloads of commodities from private siding to private siding, will be restructured together with the Contract Services Division of Railfreight Distribution into three regionally-based freight companies. If the Bill goes through, they will be sold outright.
The amendment concerns the economic and environmental consequences of rail freight traffic being diverted to the roads, and the consequences of 3.6 million loaded wagons and 122 million tonnes of traffic no longer being carried by rail. The fact is that Clause 86 of the Railways Bill, as drafted, does not provide any guarantee that the privatised freight and parcels companies will continue to use the railways at all. There is nothing to prevent these companies being acquired by existing road hauliers who could promptly move the former British Rail traffic by road and liquidate the rail assets.
I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the matter and accept the amendment. It does not interfere with the market forces any more than other parts of the Bill. After all, passenger train franchisees will not be permitted under the terms of their franchises to substitute buses and taxis for trains. The amendment is also flexible, recognising that not every single rail cargo should forever and a day continue to be moved by rail. Its great merit is, I believe, that it provides a degree of protection for the economy and the
508
environment during what everyone accepts will be a difficult period of transition from the existing British Rail control to privatisation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have given very "serious consideration"—to use his words—to the amendment. The reason is that there is no difference between what he and the Government want; we both appreciate the importance of freight. However, the difference between us comes in the way that we wish to achieve the possibilities that we believe freight traffic can offer to the railways and to increase it. That is why we have produced a package of measures, including new and revised grant schemes introduced by the Bill, to encourage more traffic on to rail where that makes commercial and environmental sense.
However, keeping freight on rail means providing attractive, affordable services which can pay their way. That is why we are introducing a fundamental reform of the rail freight industry. First, we are completely opening up the railway network to new rail freight companies, allowing unfettered competition for the first time.
Secondly, we are wholly privatising the BR trainload freight operations—as viable business entities—in a new, competitive structure. The trainload businesses are being reshaped into three new companies which will compete with each other from their regional heartlands, while continuing to fulfil their existing contractual obligations. Those three new businesses will start operations next year, and we expect them to be sold in 1995. We also have exciting plans for the containerised services run by BR, which are currently under discussion with a number of private sector operators. And not least, we hope to announce in the very near future some excellent news for the carriage of mail by rail.
In the light of all those developments, I do not believe that we should sell the rail freight industry short by suggesting that it needs artificial safeguards in order to protect its position. That is really a recipe for stagnation and inefficiency. Our aim in privatising rail freight is to enhance its long-term prospects. Rail freight has undergone a prolonged period of decline—both here and in Europe—while in public ownership. That is why, from all the evidence of the past, we believe that the way to keep freight on rail is by injecting private sector capital and talent and not by statute or restrictive covenants.
Thus, although in principle I very much agree with the aim of what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, sought to do—which is to get more traffic on to rail—we believe that we are going about it in a different way from that suggested in the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his long explanation. I shall read it in Hansard with great care. I thought that we were trying to be helpful by giving the Government a breathing space in the transition. I am not sure that I completely agree with the Minister when he says that the transport of goods by rail has been a total failure

509
throughout Europe, or has been disappointing throughout Europe. The figures which I gave come from the Government and are last year's statistics: 3.6 million loaded wagons and 122 million tonnes of traffic would travel on the roads immediately or fairly quickly. It could happen, because the road haulage industry is not having a good time just now, and it could be absolutely disastrous.
I am sorry that the Minister is not taking the breathing space, but I shall read his helpful speech in Hansard. We may even get another chance to consider it. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 [Transfers of shares of certain companies: provisions supplemental to sections 83 to 86]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 99, line 13, leave out ("shares of') and insert ("interests in").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 219 and, with the leave of the House, speak to Amendments Nos. 220 to 223, 246, 247, 258, 301 and 310 to 313 inclusive.
These amendments serve two main purposes. First, they widen the definition of the term "company", as used in the Bill and make consequential and related technical changes. They will bring the definition of "company" into line with that of "body corporate" in the Companies Act 1985, so as to include companies other than those limited by shares and registered under the Act—for example, unlimited companies and companies limited by guarantee.
Secondly, they amend the definition of "securities", bringing it into line with that in the Financial Services Act 1986. I commend the amendments to your Lordships and beg to move Amendment No. 219.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 220 to 223:
Page 99, line 22, leave out ("shares or) and insert ("interests in").
Page 99, line 31, leave out ("shares of') and insert ("interests in").
Page 99, line 37, leave out ("shares of') and insert ("interests in").
Page 99, line 44, leave out ("shares") and insert ("interests").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 88 [Disposals by the Board and its subsidiaries]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 100, line 26, at end insert:
(5) In section 27 of the Transport Act 1962, in subsection (4) (which provides that the Secretary of State may direct the Board and the British Waterways Board to discontinue any of their activities, dispose of any part of their undertaking, dispose of any assets held by them, call in any loan made by them or exercise any power they may possess to revoke any guarantees given by them) the words "dispose of any part of their undertaking, dispose of any assets held by them" shall cease to have effect in so far as relating to the Board ").
The noble Earl 'said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 224 and, with the leave of the House, speak to Amendment No. 225 at the same time. The
510
amendments remove powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 27 of the Transport Act 1962. These powers have been superseded by others contained in Clauses 88 and 89 of the Bill. I commend Amendment No. 224 to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 224A:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause:
("Disposal of railway land
—(1) Where any party falling within section 84(1) paragraphs (a) to (e) or any franchise company proposes to dispose of or lease property currently or previously required for the operation of a railway service for purposes not connected with the operation of the railway, that party shall first offer that property for sale to all County, Regional, District, Metropolitan District or London Borough Councils and Passenger Transport Executives for the areas within which that property lies for use for transport purposes at a price reflecting its value for that use.
(2) If during a period of ten years following such a purchase, the purchasing authority disposes of the land for use other than for transport purposes, the said authority shall compensate the previous owner of the land or its successor in respect of any additional value realised by that authority on disposal).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 224A seeks to do two things: first, to ensure that, should Railtrack no longer wish to operate a particular rail line, it would make that rail available to one of the local authorities at its transport value.
The second part of the amendment seeks to make sure that in the event that that were to happen, Railtrack. would not lose the benefit of any increased value of the development that might take place on the line. I know that was an issue with which the Minister was concerned when I raised it earlier. Under the amendment, in the event that within 10 years the local authority put development on the line which would be over and above the transport value of the line, the value would go hack: to Railtrack.
I am a great supporter of the Bill. One of the advantages which I see is the economic improvement that it can bring, particularly to rural areas. I can see it opening up economic possibilities in rural areas which are badly needed. One can already see opportunities to redevelop disused rail lines—I use "redevelop", not in the sense of putting a supermarket on them, but in the sense of road use and giving access to areas which otherwise might not have it. But even under the Bill they could be taken over and could do things which, under the present system, it is not possible for them to do. In other words, it will be possible for the local authority to stimulate local investment because of a particular need.
I hope that my noble friend will give the issue serious attention. I believe that it will bring considerable benefit to certain local areas. It is wrong to anticipate that, if a line is no longer being used by Railtrack, it should immediately demand its full potential alternative value for development. I can give a number of examples where rail lines are no longer possible merely because somebody has extended a garden into the track and the value of the garden—or what people are prepared to pay for that little piece of land is greater than might be the overall transport value when it is closed. It seems to me quite wrong that we should take out whole sectors of

511
line which offer great opportunities for the future just for the sake of such small considerations in order to get an immediate gain.
I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment and that my noble friend will give it every possible consideration. It appears to me, on the evidence that I get, that in order to make these things happen the idea needs to be on the face of the Bill. It will not happen, and there will be no incentive for Railtrack other than to demand these very high development prices, unless some attention is given by government to dealing with the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Wade in this amendment, I should like to thank the Minister for his time and trouble in dealing with this question in response to my noble friend and myself during the Recess. I hope that his reply will be as reassuring as were his previous ones to me on various other points in the Bill.
As my noble friend said, the amendment would allow local authorities to take an active role in, for instance, keeping alive a possibly redundant line. As I have said to my noble friend before, local authorities feel—wrongly, I agree—that they have not been given the chance to keep such lines open or indeed use them, as my noble friend said, for other forms of transport. I hope that my noble friend will take particular note of the second part of this amendment which would prevent the local authority making a profit which should rightly belong to Railtrack. That point worried my noble friend at Committee stage.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have not intervened before in the debate on this Bill. I have tried to concentrate on only one or two matters in the whole passage of parliamentary business. But I was approached by Surrey County Council, and then got in touch with Cheshire County Council, which is leading the plea for this proposal. I was sufficiently convinced that it was an extremely sensible idea. I am almost certain that, before the invention of county councils, when the railways were being built, the lords lieutenant and the magistracy were certainly consulted. That was when the original Bills on the construction of the railways went through. Without that consultation, the construction could not take place. Local authorities have an interest in specific social aspects of transport. That interest should be built into the Act rather than merely an undertaking being given by the head of Railtrack that it will be taken account of. It is possible that under these circumstances local authorities could make a better shot at running a certain amount of transport for what we all admit will be social needs, especially in rural areas, than somebody stuck in London who is head of Railtrack and who will have different pressures upon him. This is an eminently sensible and diverse proposal to put into the Bill, and a thoroughly "Conservative" one, in the best sense of the word.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is quite clear that rail tracks that appear to be derelict can be used for transport purposes for some
512
considerable time in certain circumstances; or indeed, there may be a period when there is no real need for the track, either for busways or for light rapid transit uses, but some years later that need may develop. I think of the way in which the Manchester light rapid transport system has developed. In the days when I was a small schoolboy I used to catch the Bury train into Victoria station, then go across and catch a tram. That rail line became very nearly derelict. It has now been totally rejuvenated and one can take the light rapid transit system from where I used to get on and travel right the way through the centre of Manchester and out the other side. That would not have been possible if someone had been allowed to build some quite small property on that stretch of line. It does not need to be a huge construction such as some great supermarket, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said. The noble Lord perhaps slightly exaggerated when he said that it just needs someone to extend their garden; it needs to be a bit more than that. If someone decides to do a bit of "spec" building at just one point on the line, it can damage a whole future development of something like a light rapid transit system.
Other possible uses could be encouraged at proper values; for example, cycle tracks. Certainly if people are having to pay full property value, local authorities simply could not afford to do that. There is much to commend this amendment. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to it, even if they cannot accept it in this form. We need something on the face of the Bill to preserve these tracks.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment and to give one or two examples of the possibilities which I believe it would open up. Let us start with specialised routes for buses or coaches. Then there is a totally unsatisfied demand, at least in the South West of England, for bridleways for horse riders, who are exposed to considerable dangers if they are forced to use public roads.
I can quote an example between the cities of Bristol and Bath, where a disused railway has been used very successfully as a cycle track. It enables cyclists to go from the one city to the other during a rush hour somewhat faster than they could if they made the journey by car. I hope that the Government will look at this amendment seriously.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which my noble friend Lord Wade introduced the amendment. It is true, as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said, that there has been considerable discussion of this matter between Committee stage and today.
I believe it would be helpful if I set out the present position. I think it would be particularly helpful to my noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. At the moment the BR Property Board offers local authorities first refusal on surplus non-operational land. The price BR asks reflects the commercial development opportunities. Where planning authorities and development plans have identified surplus railway

513
land for transport purposes, the price obtained by BR—and in future Rai1track—will reflect the planning situation and the possibility of compulsory purchase for transport use. In effect, such land will be sold at its transport value rather than at the price it would have commanded had there been no planning constraint on development.
I accept that it is not always possible for local authorities to identify redundant land sufficiently in advance to enable continuing transport use to be backed up by planning policy. Where that is the case, local authorities must negotiate market prices with BR.
The amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Wade of Chorlton and Lord Stanley of Alderley would change that position by granting local authorities and PTEs a right to buy the land at transport value, irrespective of its potential for other development purposes. While I am sympathetic to the reasons behind the amendment, the Government do not see any intrinsic reason why local authorities should be given preferential treatment on the basis of possible future transport use instead of unlocking other possibly more valuable development potential. We are not persuaded that there should be this fundamental shift away from market prices for railway land acquisitions by local authorities. The interests of local authorities have to be weighed against the objectives given to BR—and Railtrack in future—to maximise property receipts to the benefit of the taxpayer.
We have considered whether the clawback provision proposed in subsection (2) of my noble friends' amendment would satisfy our concerns. I have discussed that point with my noble friends. The compensation provision would benefit BR or its successor only if there was, within 10 years, a disposal for purposes other than transport purposes and a resulting development gain. I have to say that the Government are not persuaded that the potential benefit of selling the land at market price should have to be put on ice, as it were, for a period of 10 years. The onus must surely be on the local planning authority to decide at the outset whether the land warrants its allocation for transport purposes, and for the value of the land to be determined in the light of that decision.
The arrangements for the disposal of surplus railway land have generally worked well. There are numerous examples of local authorities acquiring redundant lines for such use as road"; or footpaths. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, gave an example, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I too would like to give an example and a recent one at that; namely., the opening of the "Cuckoo Trail" in East Sussex. The trail has been developed on the trackbed of the former railway line from Polegate to Heathfield, which closed in stages during the 1960s. The trackbed was bought by Wealden District Council to provide a safe route for walkers and cyclists. Other examples include the Tissington and High Peak Trails set up similarly by the Peak District National Park. In addition, railway preservation societies have of course restored many miles of redundant line for renewed railway use. At the same time, the disposal procedures have avoided unnecessarily freezing land use.
514
I believe the record will show that BR will go to considerable lengths to keep redundant lines intact. When it sees any prospect of using the trackbed for public transport it pursues the prospect. There is no wanton disregard by BR when there is a prospect of continuing transport use within a given time. We believe that there is no reason why the system should not work equally well after privatisation. I for one hope that redundant lines can find continuing transport use.
I was taken by a comment made by my noble friend Lord Stanley who said that local authorities want an active role. Local authorities already have that active role. It has worked well. I believe that it is right that they should continue to have that active role. But the onus must be on them to consider in good time their transport policies and what they wish to do in the event of a line becoming redundant. At the present time they have the first refusal. Surely they ought to make the very best of that opportunity—as they have done in the past—without freezing the entire system.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he say whether British Rail has the right to impose a restrictive covenant on a sale of land, because that would cover the point in subsection (2)?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, BR can put on restrictive covenants. My noble friend is a surveyor and a more active surveyor than I am at the moment. Doubtless he would be more aware of the exact situation than I am. I can say that under the present position the local authorities have first refusal of surplus non-operational land. Provided that the local authorities have got their act together, there should not be a problem.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first let me thank all my noble friends who supported me and other noble Lords around the House for supporting the amendment. Obviously I am disappointed that the Minister could not take the matter a little further. I am grateful for the attention that he has given to the amendment and for the fact that he is sympathetic to what we are trying to achieve. I shall study his remarks in detail. Perhaps he will allow me the opportunity for further discussion with him before the next stage. I thank noble Lords very much and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 [Directions to the Board about the exercise of rights conferred by holdings in companies]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 100, line 39, at end insert:
("(4) Subsection (5) of that section (which provides that the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Board, direct the Board to exercise control over a subsidiary of the Board so as to require the subsidiary to discontinue any of their activities, dispose of any part of their undertaking, dispose of any assets held by them, call in any loan made by them or exercise any power they may possess to revoke any guarantees given by them) shall cease to have effect so far as relating to the Board.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Transfer schemes: general]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 101, line 1, after ("all") insert ("(or all but so much as may be excepted) of').
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 232 and 234 to 238 at the same time.
Government Amendment No. 226 is of a minor technical nature and is intended to improve the way in which transfer schemes made under the Bill operate. It enables a transfer scheme which defines the property, rights and liabilities to be transferred by reference to all the property, rights and liabilities comprised in a specified part of the transferor's undertaking to exempt from the transfer such property, rights and liabilities (if any) as is specified.
Amendments Nos. 232 and 234 to 238 are all minor and technical amendments to Schedule 7. I commend this group of amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 101, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) No right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry, option or similar right affecting land shall operate or become exercisable as a result of any transfer of land

(a) by virtue of a transfer scheme;

(b) by or, under an agreement or instrument made or executed pursuant to any provision of Schedule 7 to this Act or pursuant to any directions given, or requirement imposed, under that Schedule; or

(c) pursuant to an obligation imposed by a provision included in a transfer scheme by virtue of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above;

and, without prejudice to paragraph 9 of Schedule 7 to this Act, any such right or option shall accordingly have effect in the case of any such transfer as if the transferee in relation to that transfer were the same person in law as the transferor and as if no transfer of the land had taken place.
(5) Subsection (4) above shall have effect in relation to

(a) the grant or creation of an estate or interest in, or right over, land, or

(b) the doing of any other thing in relation to land, as it has effect in relation to a transfer of land; and any reference in that subsection or in the following provisions of this section to the transferor or the transferee shall be construed accordingly.

(6) In any case where

(a) any such right or option as is mentioned in subsection (4) above would, apart from that subsection, have operated in favour of, or become exercisable by, a person, but

(b) the circumstances are such that, in consequence of the operation of that subsection, the right or option cannot subsequently operate in favour of that person or, as the case may be, become exercisable by him,

such compensation as may be just shall be paid to him by the transferor or the transferee (or by both) in respect of the extinguishment of the right or option.
(7) Any dispute as to whether any, and (if so) how much, compensation is payable under subsection (6) above, or as to the person to or by whom it shall be paid, shall be referred to and determined by

(a) an arbitrator appointed by the President for the time being of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; or

(b) where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, an arbiter appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session; or

(c) where the proceedings are to be held in Northern Ireland, an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor.

(8) If it appears to the transferor that a person is or may be entitled to compensation under subsection (6) above, he shall
516

(a) notify that person that he is or may be so entitled, and

(b) invite him to make such representations as he wishes to the transferor not later than fourteen days after the date of issue of the document containing the notification required by paragraph (a) above,

or, if the transferor is not aware of the name and address of the person concerned, shall publish, in such manner as he considers appropriate, a notice containing information about the interest affected and inviting any person who thinks that he is or may be entitled to compensation to make such representations to the transferor within such period (being not less than 28 days from the date of publication of the notice) as may be specified in the notice.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 239 at the same time.
Amendment No. 227 is essentially technical. It replaces the whole of subsection (4) of Clause 90 with five new subsections. The aim is to prevent the transfer of property required for the smooth course of privatisation being prevented by latent conditions or options which might otherwise be triggered by the transfer. We wish to ensure that rights of reverter, rights of pre-emption, options and any similar rights affecting land, whether they be granted under a lease or otherwise, which are triggered either directly or indirectly by a transfer scheme do not defeat the transfer. We consider that such rights should be held in abeyance during, but not extinguished by, such transfers.
Amendment No. 239 amends paragraph 15 of Schedule 7, which deals with third parties who are affected by vesting provisions, so that, if it appears to the transferor that a person is or may be entitled to compensation under paragraph 15(3), the transferor must notify that person accordingly and invite him to make representations. Where the names and addresses of such persons are not known, provision is made for public notices to be published.
I hope that noble Lords will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I want to raise with the noble Viscount a very short point. In both Amendments Nos. 227 and 239 there is provision made of a comparable kind. Perhaps the noble Viscount would look at subsection (8). He will see that representations have to be made,
"not later than fourteen days after the date of issue of the document containing the notification".
In the subsequent paragraph but still under subsection (8) where the situation arises that somebody may not be traced, a longer period of 28 days for the notice is provided. Having regard to the fact that these provisions could cover quite complicated issues requiring detailed advice, does the noble Viscount agree that 14 days is somewhat inadequate? On reflection should not the period have been 21 days? I have no complaint about the 28 days in the subsequent paragraph.
Viscount Goschen:My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments on the amendments, particularly with regard to the time-frame. But, even considering the various complications of the issue, we consider that 14 days would be appropriate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he say why there is such a disparity between the two areas covered by these provisions-14 days in one and 28 days in the other? Would not 21 days have been a better period to enable people to take the complex, technical and legal advice or other advice that is required? On the face of it, 14 days seems to be somewhat short. I shall not press the point but I should like the Minister either to explain it or at least to write to me about it if he is not in a position to explain it at the moment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I note the comments made by the noble Lord. We have considered each of the cases that he raised on its merits. We consider that the time frame allocated to the various different situations is appropriate for that particular situation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, could he share his secret with me? On what basis does he feel that 14 days is an appropriate time-frame?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, all I can do to help the noble Lord is to re-emphasise that the allocations of time have been set as regards the various problems that have to be resolved within those time-frames. It is our advice and our belief that those time-frames are appropriate for what has to be done within those time-frames.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend finally resumes his seat, perhaps he will deal with the point as to whether 14 days is an adequate time if that period happens to fall over a public holiday. Ordinarily speaking, during the working year, 14 days is no doubt satisfactory. If, however, it went over the August Bank Holiday, it would not leave many days for action to be taken.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He makes an interesting point which we have noted and will consider.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4 p.m.
Clause 92 [Employment]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 228:
Leave out Clause 9'2 and insert the following new clause: Assignment of employees to particular parts of undertakings
("—(1) Schemes may be made

(a) assigning such qualifying employees, or qualifying employees of such a class or description, as may be specified in the scheme to such part of their employer's undertaking as may be so specified;

(b) modifying the terms and conditions of employment of those employees; and

(c) providing for the payment of compensation to any of those employees by his employer in respect of any overall detriment incurred by the employee in consequence of any modifications made by the scheme to his terms and conditions of employment.

(2) A scheme shall be made only for the purpose of facilitating, or otherwise in contemplation of, or in connection with,

(a) the disposal of the undertaking, or part of the undertaking, of the Board or of a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board;

(b) the transfer, by virtue of a transfer scheme, of any property, rights or liabilities
518

(i) from the Board or a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board to any such subsidiary or to a publicly owned railway company or a company wholly owned by the Franchising Director; or

(ii) from a company wholly owned by the Franchising Director to another such company;

(c) the provision of railway passenger services, or the operation of additional railway assets, under a franchise agreement, in circumstances where a previous franchise agreement relating to the provision of those services or the operation of those assets comes, or has come, to an end;

(d) the performance of any duty imposed on the Franchising Director by any provision of Part 1 above to secure—

(i) the provision of any railway passenger services;

(ii) the operation of any network or part of a network;

(iii) the operation of any station or fight maintenance depot, or any part Of a station or light maintenance depot; or

(e) the exercise of the power conferred on the Franchising Director by section 28 above to secure the operation of any additional railway assets.

(3) The power to make a scheme shall be exercisable

(a) by the Board, in respect of employees of the Board or of any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or

(b) by the Franchising Director, in respect of employees of any company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director.

(4) Where a scheme modifies the terms and conditions of employment of any person, the person's terms and conditions of employment after the modification takes effect must overall, and taking account of the amount or value of any compensation payable to him by virtue of subsection (1) (c) above in respect of any such detriment as is there mentioned, be no less favourable to him than his terms and conditions of employment before the modification takes effect.
(5) The duty imposed on an employer by section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (requirement for written statement in respect of certain changes relating to an employee's employment) shall extend to all of the modifications made by a scheme to a qualifying employee's terms and conditions of employment, as if those modifications were changes required to be dealt with in a written statement under that section.
(6) If any qualifying employee whose terms and conditions of employment are modified by a scheme is aggrieved

at the provisions made by the scheme with respect to the payment of compensation, so far as applicable in his case, or

at the fact that the scheme does not make any such provision,

he may make a written complaint to the maker of the scheme not later than twelve weeks after the date of issue of the written statement required by section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 in consequence of the modifications made by the scheme in the qualifying employee's terms and conditions of employment.
(7) Any complaint under subsection (6) above shall be referred to, and determined by, such arbitrator as may be agreed by the qualifying employee and the person to whom the complaint was made or, at the request of either of them, by a panel of three arbitrators appointed by the Secretary of State and consisting of—

(a)a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of employers in the railway industry;

(b)a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of employees in the railway industry; and

(c)an independent chairman.

(8) A scheme may make such incidental, consequential, supplemental or transitional provision as appears necessary or expedient to the person making the scheme.
(9) A scheme may make different provision for different qualifying employees or for qualifying employees of different classes or descriptions.
(10) A scheme shall not come into force unless it has been approved by the Secretary of State or until such date as the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the maker of the scheme, specify for the purpose in giving his approval.
(11) In the application of this section in relation to Scotland, any reference to an arbitrator shall be taken as a reference to an arbiter.
(12) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, for any reference to section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 there shall be substituted a reference to section 4(4) to (6B) of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965.
(13) In this section—
"qualifying employee", in the case of any scheme, means a person who, immediately before the coming into force of that scheme—

(a) is an employee of—

(i) the Board;

(ii) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or

(iii) a company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director; and

(b) is not assigned solely to duties in that part of his employer's undertaking to which he is, or is to be, assigned by that scheme;

"scheme" means a scheme under this section;
and expressions used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 228 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 233 and 314.
These amendments considerably amplify the employment protection measures in the Bill. Amendment No. 314 makes clear that the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE—in respect of transfers of undertakings made under the Bill are not affected by any provision of the Bill. Noble Lords will know that TUPE was recently amended by Section 33 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. As a consequence the references in the present Clause 92(1) of the Bill—which applies TUPE—to undertakings which are not of a commercial nature are rendered redundant.
We have discovered, however, that there are a number of people employed by BR who are not wholly employed by any of the undertakings into which it is to be divided. We expect that the same problem will arise in future if franchisees are reformed after the first and subsequent round of franchises. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 is inadequate to deal with that and Amendment No. 233 therefore deletes it.
I am sure the House will agree that it is most unsatisfactory to leave people in limbo like this. In order to deal with the situation, Amendment No. 228 provides BR or the franchising director, as appropriate, with powers to make schemes which make clear that people belong in one part or another of the organisation.
Finally, Amendment No. 228 also has the effect of removing Clause 92(2) which, in part, conflicts with TUPE, as amended by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, and which, in part, has been made redundant by the much more extensive provision in Schedule 10 on pensions.
I commend the amendments to the House. They provide a fair way of protecting the employees of BR and of future franchisees where the employees are being transferred. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation but I am afraid that it still leaves us feeling rather unhappy. Clause 92, as it
520
originally stood, is quite specific in its reference to the transfer of undertakings regulations and specifically applies them in relation to transfers and so forth.
The Government claim that Clause 92 is no longer necessary although they put it back again in Amendment No. 314. They claim that because of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act it is no longer necessary to have the provision spelt out in Clause 92. On the other hand, from information that I received late this morning from unions active in the area, there is a great deal of suspicion regarding what the Government are actually doing and I must tell the Minister that that is the situation.
The unions are extremely worried by the removal of Clause 92 and its replacement with a further clause which seems to give arrangements whereby individuals can be adversely affected. They say that there is a new power to assign BR employees to new subsidiaries and to modify their terms and conditions of employment. That appears to have been done without any consultation whatever. Moreover, we had the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill before the House as long ago as March and April of this year and the Bill itself became an Act before the Summer Recess. There has therefore been quite a long time for the Government to give thought to the provisions of the Act and how it affected Clause 92.
The new amendment appears to have been produced at an extremely late stage. Perhaps I can explain to the Minister just how suspicious are the employees in the industry. I can do no better than quote a statement handed to me a few moments before the debate began today. It is from the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, which represents a large number of people in the industry and says,
"[The] General Secretary of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association reacted angrily to the Government's last minute House of Lords amendment to the Railways Bill which could deprive staff of their rights to retain their current pay and conditions of service once the Railways are privatised. In effect the Government have withdrawn the clause in the Bill, affirming that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1991 would apply to any transfer of staff. Instead they have inserted a rather dubious clause providing for the modifying of the terms and conditions of employment of those employees transferred. … true the clause does include unspecified provision for compensation"—
and this is the point—
"but the Unions were promised in the Government White Paper of July 1992 called 'New Opportunities for the Railways' that (Clause 86) 'The trade unions in the industry will be consulted about matters affecting their members' employment. Employees' rights and terms and conditions of employment will be safeguarded on their transfer to new employment. Concessionary travel arrangements for employees and their dependants and for retired staff will also be safeguarded"'.
The statement continues,
"We are now seeing the Government breaking not only its assurances on the Memorandum of Understanding on pensions but now its assurances on the retention of pay and conditions for staff'.
It is important to realise that it is an extremely touchy area. People outside who are watching the progress of the Bill regard with extreme suspicion some of the activities of the Government. The reaction seems to be, "What are they up to now?" That attitude is reinforced when amendments of this kind are introduced at a late stage in the Bill. There appear to be arrangements in the

521
new clauses which allow for people to be transferred and assigned, and for their employment rights not to be adequately protected.
Moreover, I see that the new clause provides for a fairly extensive arbitration process. I have no objection to arbitration arrangements within legislation or within employment; it is all to the good. But as I understand it—I hope that it can be confirmed—the arbitration provisions will not extinguish rights which individuals may have under TUPE and which have to be reaffirmed by the Minister in his reply to the comments I have made today. I repeat that there is a great deal of suspicion regarding what the Government propose in the clause. I hope that some of those fears may be laid to rest in the Government's response.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is a sensitive point, as I am sure my noble friend appreciates better than anybody. The fact that at a late stage the provision in the Bill is being changed, apparently fairly substantially, could give rise to what I am sure is a wholly unjustifiable but understandable nervousness. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to give us a little reassurance and in particular indicate that between this stage of the Bill's progress and the final stage he will have discussions with the unions concerned and seek to reassure them, thereby leaving open the possibility of a Third Reading amendment—which I do not think will be the case—if there is a necessity for it. I am sure that my noble friend will understand the immense importance of preventing suspicion or nervousness and that the course of action I suggest may make good sense.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, this matter causes considerable anxiety. I am by no means an expert on the subject; the noble Baroness is. Subsection (1) (b) of Amendment No. 228 states,
"modifying the terms and conditions of employment of those employees".
I recognise that that is a serious matter and that it is bound to be viewed with gross suspicion by anyone involved in the industry.
We are up against serious problems with this amendment in terms of the procedures of your Lordships' House. We are now at Report stage. Were we at Committee stage we could discuss this backwards and forwards across the Chamber. Sadly, we cannot do that. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has suggested possible modification at Third Reading. But we know that the House on the whole turns its face against Third Reading amendments of any substantial kind. Perhaps this can be a fine-tuning amendment. Nevertheless, all I am trying to illustrate is the problem that we are faced with by the Government bringing forward amendments of this substantial nature at the Report stage of the Bill. I hope that we can have very substantial reassurance on subsection (1) (b) of Amendment No. 228.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. While it is true that the House might normally turn its face against discussing amendments of great substance in this matter, I am sure that one could depart from
522
precedent in relation to this Bill, a great deal of which has been amended virtually at the eleventh hour. I wish to ask the noble Viscount a few questions. Why did the department not wake up to this issue far earlier? After all, we were discussing these matters in Committee quite a long time ago. It was only on 12th October that this complicated issue was referred to in this amendment, giving the House very little time to be able to digest the issues in question. Why did the Government react so late to a matter of this significance? What consultations did they undertake, particularly with the trade unions concerned, before they introduced it? If they did not consult, why not, in the light of the undertaking that has been given?
I share the broad concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which are highly germane to the issues that we are currently discussing. I also share the anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lady Turner. I think it right that I should raise those additional points with the Minister. I hope that he can satisfy the House about them.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this is a very important area, but I hope that I can reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords on the concerns that they expressed.
The point of the amendments is to ensure that TUPE does apply to any transfers of staff not wholly engaged in any one particular undertaking so that their terms and conditions are protected. They should therefore he welcomed by unions because they enhance the protection open to employees. If it were not for the new amendments the conditions might be altered without the protection of TUPE. The arbitration arrangements will certainly not affect employee rights under TUPE. It should be noted that Amendment No. 314 makes it very clear that nothing in the Bill affects the way in which TUPE operates. That is emphasised by the amendment.
To answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, some changes may indeed be needed to negotiated employment contracts to achieve this. But where they are needed, the employee must end up in no less favourable a position than he was in before, with payments of compensation if necessary.
I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by the explanation that these amendments enforce the protection afforded to employees by TUPE. There is a particular instance whereby employees might not be covered by TUPE because they are not working for one particular entity. That is the problem that the amendments seek to address. There are some employees in British Rail, for example, who cannot be said to work wholly for any one part of the organisation. The best example is the drivers of the Gatwick Express trains who up to now have spent about 30 per cent. of their time so engaged but drive south-central trains for the rest of the time. It is unclear how a transfer would affect them and it is unclear to the management whether they can legally be transferred to other duties. The main amendment in this group, Amendment No. 228, seeks to deal with that.

523
I hope that in the light of that explanation noble Lords can be reassured about the benefit of the amendments. I would of course be happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, if she would like a meeting before Third Reading, to discuss this further.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with respect, and by leave of the House, that does not really answer the question about what discussions have taken place already. It seems to me that to include a provision like subsection (1) (b) in Amendment No. 228 without any consultation with the trade unions is bizarre and a recipe for problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, it may well me that there is no malice in this, but it is not good industrial relations and it will lead to trouble in the future. Can the Government give us some reassurance that, if they have not discussed this with the trade unions so far, they will get on and do so rather quickly?
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that consultations and talks will take place with the unions if they are not satisfied that sufficient talks have already taken place. The important point to note about this group of amendments is that they reinforce the protection open to employees. There is the particular instance whereby some employees might not be covered by TUPE and this raises the point that those employees might be vulnerable. The amendment seeks to cover that gap and provide TUPE protection for the workers who are in that position. It extends—it does not reduce—the coverage of TUPE and therefore I hope that noble Lords will welcome the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lucid explanation. He has put a good many of my fears at rest in regard to the operation of TUPE. I thank him very much for that. On the other hand, there is the consultation point. It is a great pity that this was not taken on board in a consultative manner with the trade unions responsible. I wonder whether it would be possible to enter into consultations or to ensure that consultations take place before Third Reading. The trade unions are extremely concerned. I have read out one letter, but I have had other letters of a similar kind. The trade unions have only just received the text of the amendment and they are suspicious as to what is intended here. I think that it would be enormously helpful if the kind of explanations that have been given to us this afternoon could be conveyed to the unions and their views taken on board. The example of Gatwick Express cited by the Minister is very interesting. Is there any trouble in persuading drivers to take those jobs? It may well be necessary to ensure that people in that situation realise that they have adequate protection. It is quite clear that they do not think that they have it now. I think that something should be done between now and Third Reading.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank the noble Baroness for her comment that some of her fears about the amendments have been
524
allayed. I can offer her an undertaking that the Government will meet and consult with the unions between now and another stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Accounting Provisions]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 103, line 47, after ("accumulated") insert ("realised").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 230 at the same time. These amendments are simply for clarification and are in no way controversial. They ensure that the expression "accumulated losses" is to be read consistently throughout the clause as meaning "accumulated realised losses". With that assurance, I commend the amendments to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 103, line 48, after ("accumulated") insert ("realised").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Power of the Secretary of State or the Franchising Director to require provision of information in connection with transfer schemes]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 105, line 29, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 231 to 239 have already been spoken to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Transfers by transfer scheme]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 232 to 239:
Page 161, line 30, after ("all") insert ("(or of all but so much as may be excepted) of the").
Page 162, line 42, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 4 on page 163.
Page 163, line 7, leave out from second ("transfer") to ("made") in line 10 and insert ("by virtue of a transfer scheme").
Page 163, line 22, leave out ("sub-paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (3A) and").
Page 163, line 23, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 25 and insert ("be transferred and vest in accordance with the agreement.
(3A) Any transfer effected in pursuance of an agreement under sub-paragraph (2) above shall have effect subject to the provisions of any enactment which provides for such transactions to be registered in any statutory register.").
Page 164, line 45, leave out ("(to the extent that the scheme was effective to do so)").
Page 165, line 40, leave out ("persons other than the transferor and the transferee") and insert ("a person other than the transferor or the transferee on the one hand, and the transferor, the transferee or a person claiming under either of them on the other,").
Page 167, line 45, at end insert:
("() If it appears to the transferor that a person is or may be entitled to compensation under sub-paragraph (3) above, he shall

notify that person that he is or may be so entitled, and

invite him to make such representations as he wishes to the transferor not later than fourteen days after the date of issue of the document containing the notification required by paragraph (a) above,

or, if the transferor is not aware of the name and address of the person concerned, shall publish, in such manner as he considers appropriate, a notice containing information about the interest affected and inviting any person who thinks that he is or may be

525
entitled to compensation to make such representations to the transferor within such period (being not less than 28 days from the date of publication of the notice) as may be specified in the notice.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 97 [Initial share holding in successor companies]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 240 to 245:
Page 106, line 6, leave out from second ("in") to end of line 10 and insert ("a successor company which at the time of the vesting is either—

a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or

Government owned").

Page 106, leave out line 25 and insert ("Government owned").
Page 106, line 28, leave out ("wholly owned by the Crown") and insert ("Government owned").
Page 106, line 32, leave out ("wholly owned by the Crown") and insert ("Government owned").
Page 106, line 35, leave out ("wholly owned by the Crown") and insert ("Government owned").
Page 107, line 3 at end insert:
("() In this section, "Government owned", in relation to any successor company, means wholly owned by the Crown, but not wholly owned by the Franchising Director.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 240 to 245, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 259. These are again essentially technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 240 to 245 amend Clause 97, which deals with the initial shareholding in successor companies, so as to prevent that clause applying to successor companies wholly owned by the franchising director. We do not think that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have a role in deciding on the shareholding of such companies. This can be left to the franchising director.
Amendment No 259 clarifies the definition of "successor company" used in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 100 [Target investment limit for Government shareholding in certain successor companies]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 108, line 39, at end insert:
("(za) which is a company limited by shares and formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985 (or the former Companies Acts, as defined in section 735(1) (c) of that Act);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Temporary restrictions on borrowings etc.]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 109, leave out line 21.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 [Extinguishment of certain liabilities of successor companies]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 248:
Leave out Clause 105.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Carmichael. In Committee this was dealt with rather briefly on 19th July. We hear a great deal in this House, in another Place and in the country generally about the alleged great benefits of privatisation in so many sectors. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, never
526
stops idealising these matters, although sometimes it is fantasy-land. But we do not hear much from the lips of the Minister and his colleagues about the debt write-offs in virtually every privatised industry.
Perhaps I may put on the record the extent of the write-offs: British Aerospace, public dividend capital, £60 million; National Freight Corporation, National Loans Fund, £100 million; British Transport: Docks Board, National Loans Fund, £81.29 million; British Telecommunications, National Loans Fund, £2,789 billion; British Airways, public dividend capital, £160 million; British Airports Authority, National Loans Fund, £43.5 million; British Steel, public dividend capital, £500 million; British Steel, borrowing under the Iron and Steel Act 1982, £3.48 billion:, water holding companies, National Loans Fund, nearly £5 billion; water holding companies, from the Public Works Loan Board, £55 million; Scottish electricity companies, over £1 billion from the National Loans Fund.
These figures are not generally related to the public and were wrung out of the former Chancellor, Mr. Lamont, in a Written Answer on 3rd March 1992. So I believe it is right that we should pay attention to that element of privatisation. When we discussed the matter on 19th July the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was courteous—as he always is but courteously evasive. He was even shy perhaps about the facts. He said:
"I have stated clearly that it is too early to say how much debt, if any, might be written off using the powers contained in the clause".—[Official Report, 19/7/93; col. 545.]
One might say that he was exercising his right of silence. These are important matters. I believe that the Government owe this House: and the country a duty to be a little more open about the situation. According to the 1992–93 BRB accounts, capital liabilities to the Secretary of State currently amount to very close to £1.9 billion. I believe that that may be the key to the answer for which the noble Viscount was so earnestly searching on the last occasion. We hope that on this occasion he will be a little more open.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke against Clause 99 in Committee and quoted an extract from the debate. He wanted then, as now, to elicit an estimate of the amount of the British Rail debt which will be written off as a result of privatisation. I pointed out that it was impossible to make such an estimate. Nobody knows how much debt will be written off and they cannot know until the restructuring and disposal of British Rail's existing businesses are far more advanced than at present.
This kind of provision is not unusual in legislation dealing with restructuring and the disposal of nationalised industries. Indeed, Clause 105 is modelled on Section 80 of the Electricity Act 1989. Clause 105 is not concerned with write-offs of the debt of British Rail itself. It enables the Secretary of State to secure any necessary capital restructuring of successor companies—for example, Railtrack when in the public sector—by converting public sector loans into securities.
The effect of removing the clause would be to take away the ability of the Government to write off debt of successor companies in return for the allotment of shares in that company or for some other forms of

527
security such as a debenture. The amendment would limit flexibility in restructuring or narrow the board's businesses, and to no good purpose. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is precisely because nobody can comprehend what has been the Government's thinking in this regard and because of the very dubious precedents that have occurred in other privatisations which have cost the nation so dear that I find the Minister's explanations less than convincing. Normally speaking, if it had not been for those precedents I might have been persuaded to leave things as they are. But in order to show our displeasure with the situation I must ask the House to divide.
4.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 248) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hooson, L.

Airedale, L.

Howell, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hylton, L.

Attlee, E.

Jay, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Barnett, L

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Marsh, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Palmer, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Richard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Eatwell, L.

Seear, B.

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ezra, L.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shepherd, L.

Foot, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Han worth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayter, L.

Warnock, B.

Healey, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Archer of Weston-super-Mare, L.

Abinger, L.

Arran, E.

Addison, V.

Astor, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Auckland, L.

Alport, L.

Barber, L.

Annan, L.

Bessborough, E.

528

Birdwood, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bruntisfield, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Manchester, D.

Cadman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Melville, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Middleton, L.

Carnock, L.

Milverton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clark of Kempston, L

Mountevans, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L,

Cornwallis, L.

Moyne, L.

Cox, B.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Newall, L.

Croham, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nome, L.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Davidson, V.

Onslow, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Donegal 1, M.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Downshire, M.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dundonald, E.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Prentice, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Richardson, L.

Elton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Rather, B.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B,

Goschen, V.

Selborne, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harrowby, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hemphill, L.

[Teller.]

Henley, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Terrington, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vivian, L.

Killearn, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kimball, L.

Knollys, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.37 p.m.
Clause 106 [Responsibility for composite listing particulars of certain licensed successor companies]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 112, line 30, leave out ("passenger licence") and insert ("licence under section 8 above").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 249, with the leave of the House I

529
should like to speak also to Amendment No. 250. These amendments provide greater flexibility as we come to dispose of the board's businesses. They will facilitate the flotation of any 1.icensed successor company, not just a successor company which holds a passenger licence, as in the Bill at present.
I must emphasise that we have no plans at present to float any successor companies. However, we think that it would be wrong not to allow for this now, if in future it was clear that a flotation would be the best means to effect a disposal. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 112, leave out line 33.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [Objectives of the Secretary of State and corresponding duties of the Board]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I should point out that there is a misprint in the Marshalled List. The heading "Clause 114" appears in the middle of the grouping. Those words should be deleted. All amendments in this grouping relate to Clause 112.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 114, line 24, after ("by") and insert ("competent public and").
The noble Lord. said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 251, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if we consider also Amendments Nos. 252 to 257. I shall deal with each amendment briefly.
The purpose of Amendment No. 251 is to recognise that at an earlier stage in our consideration of the Bill this House decided that publicly owned British Rail should be able to bid for passenger franchises. Currently, therefore, that stands part of the Bill. It would be interesting if the Minister could comment parenthetically at this stage on the closely guarded secret of what the Government are proposing to do in another place about that matter. However, the provision is part of the Bill at the moment and the Government must recognise that.
If British Rail were to win only one franchise we should retain a mixed public/private railway system. In any event, BR will remain the operator of franchises for which there is no private interest and will retain some of the freight activities for the time being. It is right, therefore, that the words "competent public and" should be inserted because that represents the Bill as it now stands.
Amendment No. 252 has been overtaken by an earlier debate and I need not dwell on the matter. Amendment No. 253 deals with:
"the social, environmental and economic benefits of maintaining and improving railway services in rural areas".
We are looking for a specific Government commitment that railway services in rural areas will continue and will be unharmed. The issue was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, when it was debated in Committee on 1st July. I regret that he is not available today, but on that occasion he said:
530
"The amendment seeks to ensure that facilities and resources which are at present used to maintain those rail services in rural areas will be maintained… I seek to ensure that those resources continue to be available and that the Government understand the importance of maintaining the economic viability of those areas. There is considerable anxiety in rural communities that the Bill may make the continuation of those services difficult if the Government do not ensure that the money continues to be available. We wish to see the franchises operated in the rural areas, but, in order to do so, they will clearly need Government support".—[Official Report, 1/7/93; col. 1022.1
Even after several months, it is evident from my postbag that there remains considerable suspicion on the part of those interested in rural areas about the Government's attempts to revise railway services. Although the Beeching closures took place a long time ago, the scars remain among many in the rural communities who were so adversely affected.
The Government are evidently reluctant to put any specific reassurances on the face of the Bill. However, we make a modest suggestion and I believe that it should commend itself to the Government. In no way is it a wrecking amendment, which is how the Government described the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, in relation to franchising.
Perhaps I may give an example to illustrate my argument. It concerns Lincolnshire. Major services cuts were introduced by Regional Railways on 4th October. They included the withdrawal of Sunday services between Lincoln and Sheffield and Newark and Cleethorpes; the loss of direct Sunday services between Lincoln and Nottingham; a reduction in the number of Sunday trains between Lincoln and Newark Northgate from seven to four in each direction, with the operating day reduced from 11 to fewer than six hours; and the reduction of the Gainsborough to Barnetby line to a Saturday only service, which is unprecedented. Lincolnshire presents a striking example because for a number of years the local authority, which is greatly pro-rail, has made money available for investment, station openings and support services. Therefore, if Lincolnshire is not safe, which county is safe?
At the conclusion of that short debate the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said:
"There are a number of issues which I feel he [the Minister] did not address. I still do not understand how in practice the franchisee will be structured to be able to afford to run a rural railway and to make use of the funding which now goes to British Rail".—[Official Report, 1/7/93; col. 1026.]
However, the noble Lord appeared to be satisfied. In order to make progress he invited his noble friend to contact him and to have a conversation with him about the matter. If that were satisfactory there would be no need to take it further. Of course, the rest of us remain uninformed about the nature of those discussions and it would be interesting if the Minister could cast some light upon them.
I wish to test the Minister about a comment that he made during that debate. He stated:
"That is why we have taken pains to make clear on a number of occasions the Government's commitment to continue to pay subsidy for socially necessary, loss-making services for as long as is necessary".—[Official Report, 1/7/93; col. 1025.]
What is the scope of that? The Minister's definition of "socially necessary, loss-making services" may not accord with the views expressed from time to time by the Treasury. Although the Government have made that

531
statement, based on past experience and anxieties which have arisen as a result of the example that I gave, there is still reason for concern.
I turn to Amendment No. 254. It requires:
"maintaining a railway network in Great Britain of broadly the same size and extent as existed on 1st January 1993".
On 30th March 1988 Paul Channon, then Secretary of State, directed the BRB to:
"operate their railway passenger system so as to provide a public service which is comparable generally with that provided by the Board at present".
That quotation comes from the BRB's annual report and accounts of that year. The amendment seeks to establish the bare minimum undertaking from the Government that the rail network will not be allowed significantly to contract as a result of the policies upon which they are about to embark and which I need hardly remind the House we consider to be totally misguided.
Amendment No. 255 is tabled with the intention of:
"encouraging public and private investment in new locomotives, trains, track and other railway equipment".
We all say that investment is of paramount importance as regards the future of the railways and that of any sensible transport system. When evidence was given by British Rail to the Commons Transport Committee it was stated:
"We currently estimate a long-run requirement, excluding 'mega projects"'.
It is as well if I add that "mega projects" are all too often included in the total amount which the Government are said to provide, which includes the Channel Tunnel. However, at Volume II, page 40, paragraph 11 the report states:
"We currently estimate a long-run requirement, excluding `mega projects', for an investment level for the passenger business of about £1 billion a year, of which over £650 million a year would be in infrastructure".
If we excluded the infrastructure element, franchisees would need to produce approximately £350 million worth of investment every year simply to maintain the present quality of passenger services.
Our amendment mentions private as well as public investment. We are not seeking to say by way of inversion, as do the Government, that private is always better than public. The private sector has invested heavily in rail freight facilities and wagons and on numerous occasions during the past few years we have stated that that is to be welcomed. Indeed, partnership schemes between British Rail and private finance are also to be welcomed. We cannot accept, however, that the fragmentation and privatisation of BR will itself generate investment.
The Commons Transport Committee said:
"If Ministers' expectations of increased private and public sector investment in the railways are not realised, it will scarcely matter what structure of ownership or management is put in place".
The Government have a duty to tell not only this House but also the country where the investment is to come from. They have been very coy about that until now. I believe that there is no certainty about the issue and that they privately entertain serious doubts about it. The Government are living on an amalgam of conjecture and hope based on very little evidence.
As regards the movement of a larger than hitherto proportion of goods and passengers by rail—Amendment No. 256—we seek to make the transfer of traffic from road to rail a specific ministerial responsibility. It is interesting to recall that in May 1991 the previous Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, said:
"I must declare myself, enthusiastically and unequivocally, as desiring to see far more traffic, both passengers and freight, travelling by the railways. This would help both relieve road congestion and take advantage of the capacity which exists on the railways".
He was a great railway enthusiast. Indeed, he was particularly enthusiastic about combined transport. He said that the Government would be working actively to bring forward further developments of combined transport. He was impressed by the CharterRail operation. I wonder whether the Government remain impressed by that. He said that further joint ventures were planned. Will the Minister indicate what joint ventures are being undertaken at present in order to speed the development of combined road-rail transport?
We say—and we have said it many times—that the Government have no coherent strategy for diverting traffic to the railways. Their concentration is on motorways. The current pollution is bad enough but the risk of pollution in the future is growing to such an extent that, frankly, the Government have no hopes of meeting their Rio commitments. We look to the Government to tell us today how they will go about pursuing and achieving that particular objective.
The last amendment in this group relates to the environment. It refers to,
"the environmental benefits of transporting goods and passengers by railway rather than by road".
The Department of Transport acknowledges that something like 20 per cent. of total carbon dioxide emissions, most of which come from road transport, are produced by private cars and lorries. They are one of the main sources of such emissions. There is only one industry which produces a larger share of carbon dioxide pollution, and that is electricity generation. However, the growth of emissions from transport far exceeds the level of growth from the electricity generating industry. That is extremely alarming. I believe therefore that the Government should acknowledge the extremely powerful environmental reasons in favour of rail transport. It is an issue which should be acknowledged on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this series of amendments gives the Minister a good opportunity to discuss the issues and to inform your Lordships about the Government's attitude on broad policy aspects of the changes. I hope and believe that my noble friend will be able to reassure your Lordships on a great many of those issues. That is the real purpose of the debate on the amendments.
I comment individually on only two of the amendments. Amendment No. 251 attempts to follow up the defeat which the Government suffered at an earlier stage of the Bill. If another place decides to reverse that defeat, then I believe that the noble Lord opposite will accept that that amendment now brought forward, would also, were it to be carried, have to be

533
reversed because it is merely complementary to the main issue which your Lordships discussed at considerable length some time ago, with the temporary result of an amendment to the Bill.
The same comment applies to Amendment No. 255. If the state is to remain in the railway industry, something on the lines of the amendment is satisfactory. But if the purpose of the Bill, as I understand it to be, is the privatisation of the industry as a whole, it is unnecessary to insert that particular provision. We shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says. I hope and believe that he will take the fuller opportunity given to him by these amendments to tell your Lordships about the Government's proposals.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will do just that. If he follows the view of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, he will say to us that the Government intend to wash their hands totally of any future connection with the railway system of this country. That is the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sees privatisation; that is, a complete distancing by the Government from any of those matters.
If that is not the case—and it is perhaps not quite the case that the Government have gone that far—then the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, remain relevant. If the Government are still interested in a future railway system, even if it is largely mechanically run by private companies, then some of the issues should be written onto the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, risks his arm on one or two matters which I should not rush to support. However, Amendment No. 253 on the social, environmental and economic benefits in rural areas is important and I support it. I believe that there is much to be said for pointing out the environmental benefits of transporting goods and passengers by railway rather than road. If that is not written on the face of the Bill, then we are in a situation where the Government are saying to the country at large, "No, we are really not interested in those issues. We will let the market work it out. The market in its wisdom will work it out and if rural railways collapse, that is the because the market says so." I hope that the Government have not gone that far. I trust that in responding to the amendments, the Minister will make their position clear.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for speaking to all the amendments in one group. They are not consequential on each other—each raises a different point—but it is helpful to have this general debate.
As many of your Lordships who have followed us through the proceedings on the Bill will recognise, these subjects are not new. We covered the ground at length in Committee and in our earlier discussions on Report. I was able to explain very fully the Government's position on those occasions and I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating exactly what I said, although I shall obviously recap to some extent.
I begin by answering the first point made by the noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davis. He asked what the Government have decided to do about the amendment in
534
the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton, which was carried in Committee. That is no secret. The noble Lord had not asked me until now. I have been poised on the edge of my seat since last Thursday waiting to give him an answer. I am now delighted to be able to say that your Lordships are of course aware of our reservations about the impact of allowing BR to bid for an operating franchise in competition with the private sector, including management and employee teams. We have been considering the issues in the light of comments made in Committee. The Government recognise that the House has asked us to look again at the arguments when the amendments return to the other place, and that is exactly what the Government will do. So far as concerns Amendment No. 251, Clause 112 has nothing to do with the award of franchises which fall under Part I of the Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the noble Earl seriously saying that he has been poised on the edge of his seat just to say that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have been concentrating on other issues as well, but it has not been far from the front of my mind. I had been longing to say that to the noble Lord for a day-and-a-half and I feel much happier now that I have been able to do so.
Clause 112(1) sets out the Secretary of State's principal objective when exercising his powers under Clauses 83 to 96 which relate to transfer schemes and disposals. Those clauses are intended primarily to transfer parts of BR to the private sector because that is the Government's policy. Railway services are already provided by the public sector and it would not be appropriate to extend the Secretary of State's principal objective to securing that they should be performed by public sector operators in the way that Amendment No. 251 suggests.
The amendment also raises the question of competence to operate railway services. I am most surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, does not feel that BR is a competent organisation. However, on reconsideration, I think that he will perhaps recognise that it is a competent organisation—after all, the word "competent" is mentioned in his amendment. The licensing system which we are introducing will ensure that future operators are also competent. That was a concern expressed by your Lordships and I hope that I was able to assuage such concerns at earlier stages. There does not seem to be any need to add to the Bill in respect of the Secretary of State's duties under the requirement in Clause 112(1) (a) that operators should be competent.
I shall now deal with the other amendments. They add to the list of factors to the desirability of which the Secretary of State must have regard in the exercise of his Clause 83 to 96 functions. I should like to remind the House that Clause 112 is relatively narrow in its scope. It applies to the exercise of the Secretary of State's restructuring and disposal functions under Clauses 83 to 96. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate to use the clause to further ends which are not specifically related

535
to the exercise of those functions and which are really for Clause 4 of the Bill, dealing with the general operation of the railway following privatisation. I believe that I would have received support on the latter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Renton, had they been in the Chamber.
I shall not dwell upon Amendment No. 252 merely because the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did not do so. Instead, I shall move on to Amendment No. 253. The duty in Clause 4(1) (a) to protect the interests of users of railway services, and that in Clause 4(1) (b) to promote the use and development of the railway network to the greatest extent economically practicable, are both relevant to the needs of rural areas. To add a specific reference to rural areas here might imply that we thought that urban areas were in some way less important, which I am sure cannot be the noble Lord's intention. As I have said to the House before, we are aware of the valuable role which railway services play in rural areas, but while I have sympathy with the aim of the amendment I cannot commend it to your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the relationship between our commitment to continue to provide subsidy for socially necessary services and the current PSO under which BR is required to maintain services at broadly the levels provided in 1988. I can only reiterate what I have said to the noble Lord on more than one occasion; namely, that I have made clear that when services are franchised, the franchising director will put forward that franchise on the basis of the timetable of the service operated by BR at that time. I must tell the noble Lord—and I am sure that, on reflection, he will agree with me—that when we bring in the franchising director who has a contract with a franchisee, the situation will be much stronger for the protection of rural services than it is under BR's obligation at present. That is a point that we discussed at earlier stages. I only stress it because I believe that it is relevant. If someone has a contract—for example, Clinton-Davis Railways—with the franchising director to provide services on those rural lines, he will be under a contract so to do.
I turn now to Amendment No. 254. I have just drawn attention to Clause 4(1) (b) which is the appropriate part of the Bill for the above concerns. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the use and development of the railway network to the greatest extent economically practicable. We have consistently said that we will continue to support socially necessary services which are reliant on subsidy. So there is no reason to believe that our proposals will lead to the closure of lines or to reductions in services.
One of the great advantages of our proposals is that they will allow the private sector to operate and invest in the railways. That is what is so badly needed. Such a situation will bring an additional source of funding to supplement the substantial amounts of government funding for the railways which we have made available in recent years and which will continue after privatisation.
536
Again, and sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that we were a department with no strategy which concentrated on motorways. Perhaps I may remind the House that about half of the department's budget is spent on public transport; indeed, in London for every £1 that we spend on roads, we spend £3 on public transport. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, does not really think that we are just a department for motorways.
Amendment No. 255 is, of course, just as important as the others. However, it is very similar to an amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, last Thursday when we discussed investment. I answered the noble Lord very fully on that occasion. I know that he was not entirely satisfied with my response, but I believe that he took the point that we are concerned about investment and that we believe in its importance.
Amendment No. 256 deals with encouraging the transfer of goods and passenger traffic to the railways. I spoke at length on the subject during earlier stages of the Bill's proceedings. I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to Clauses 133 and 135 which are tangible evidence of our commitment to get more freight traffic off the roads and on to the railways. Again, I answered the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, on that point more fully when I responded to Amendment No. 218 this afternoon.
I turn now to Amendment No. 257 which deals with the question of the environmental duty. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was most concerned on the issue and, as a former Minister for the Environment, I too am equally concerned. We discussed the matter in connection with his amendment in Committee and also in regard to the first amendment on Report. Again, I invite your Lordships to look at Clause 4(3) (b) where there already is an environmental duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator. Therefore, a further requirement in Clause 112 is unnecessary.
I sympathise with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is trying to achieve by way of the amendments. I know that the noble Lord will have listened with great care to what I said previously as regards how we support greater investment; how we wish to see the rural areas protected; how we wish to see the environment protected; and how we wish to see further transport on the railways—that is, both passengers and goods. However, I must tell the House that this is not the place to put such a provision in the Bill. I draw noble Lords' attention, once again, to Clause 4.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the noble Earl sits down. I asked him a specific question about combined road/rail transport to which he did not respond.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in order to give the noble Lord the answer that he would like, perhaps I may write to him on the matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Earl concludes, I wonder whether he is conscious of the fact

537
that, by a single unfortunate phrase, he may have blown the whole of the Bill out of the water. He referred to the possibility of "Clinton-Davis Railways". The shudder that ran around his Back Benches seemed to suggest that that was opening up a Pandora's box about which some of his noble friends had not even thought.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have mentioned Clinton-Davis Railways before on more than one occasion; indeed, I think that I referred to them only last Thursday. I am looking forward to the noble Lord submitting his tender to the franchising director.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I suppose that I must deal immediately with that notion. I should like to put the Minister's mind at rest. Clinton-Davis Railways will have better things to do than to tender for this ridiculous franchising operation. Perhaps we shall be able to get some money out of the European Community and the French railways. We may even amalgamate with the French railways. That would have a distinct possibility of success.
I shall deal briefly with the points which have been raised. I thank the Minister for his courtesy in dealing with everything save the question of combined transport. I know he said that he would write to me on that matter, but these secret missives that pass between the Minister and various noble Lords do not help others very much. I hope he will intervene again in this debate if that is at all possible.
The Minister seems to have a habit of trying to shoot down his friends. He said in effect that there was nothing in the suggestion I was making as regards Amendment No. 251. However, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that there might be something in it, although he was not prepared to say here and now that there was. However, the Minister declined to deal with that point.
I agreed entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said: rural issues and environmental benefits need to be addressed on the face of the Bill. The Minister said that such a course might give people the idea that there was a lack of commitment to urban areas. It is riot good enough for the Minister to say that. He said that he sympathised with the aim of the amendment, but time will tell whether his sympathy comes to anything.
As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, it would appear that the Minister has been on the edge of his seat for weeks, or at least for days, thinking of nothing else but that amendment. But what does he come out with? Apparently the Government will consider the amendment. We knew that months ago as that is what they said they would do. However, they are still extremely coy about what they intend to do. We all know, of course, what they are doing. They are consulting with their Back-Bench Members to determine whether there is a major risk of defeat on the issue. If there is a risk of defeat, somehow or other that wrecking amendment will cease to be known as a wrecking amendment and the Government will say that, after all, it is advantageous. The Minister cast a blinding ray of darkness on the. Government's intentions in that
538
regard. One has to ask what other great pieces of information he is poised to inform the House of over the course of the next few hours on such matters as pensions for example.
The Minister said that when services are franchised the position in rural areas will be stronger. However, the franchising director will have competing claims and priorities. He will have a limited budget. The impact of possible closures bears hard on those issues. As regards Amendment No. 254, the Minister has said that what he is proposing will enable the private sector to invest in the railways to a far greater extent and that half the department's budget is being spent on public transport. He also said that a much greater proportion of the budget was devoted to public transport than to roads. One must compare that position with the position among our competitors on the Continent of Europe. There it is far removed from the statistical sleight of hand that the Minister engages in in these matters. One knows that public transport there is infinitely superior and that governments on the Continent have invested substantially, through subsidy, in public transport. One knows too of the enormous benefits that flow to the travelling public on the Continent as a result. That is not happening on that scale in this country. To present the figures as the Minister presented them is not to give a completely accurate picture.
I shall not say anything more about Amendment No. 255 as it was dealt with earlier on. However, as regards the commitment to transfer more traffic from the roads to the railways, the Minister has said again that he is hoping that somehow or other the necessary investment will be provided from the private sector to ensure that that happens. However, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that that is happening. Indeed the position becomes worse day by day. I shall not say anything more about the environment, but I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to reply to the specific points I made about combined road-rail transport because of the specific commitment which was given by the Secretary of State's predecessor. It would be of value to the House to know what is happening in that regard because it is crucial to the issue of transferring traffic from road to rail.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that there is nothing secretive about the letters I write to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I have a standing instruction that a copy should automatically be placed in the Library of the House. The letters are also copied widely to those who regularly take part in the proceedings on this Bill. I said I would write to the noble Lord on this matter as I could thereby set out details more fully. However, I must point out one area where there has been much government approved investment. There has been some £450 million invested in the Channel Tunnel intermodal operations. The development of joint ventures is a matter for British Rail, but in the example I have mentioned intermodal operations will be enormously enhanced. The ability for freight users of the railway to tranship their goods under the: tunnel when it is open will offer enormous opportunities, particularly for those

539
in Scotland and the North West who do not have such a facility at present. They will be able to transport their goods to the Continent much more quickly and cheaply than at present.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the courtesy of his reply. We shall, of course, never agree about these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 252 to 257 not moved.]
Clause 113 [The Secretary of State, the Franchising Director and the Board not to be regarded as shadow directors of certain railway companies etc.]:
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 115, line 24, leave out ("securities of') and insert ("interests in").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 115 [Interpretation of Part II]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 115, leave out line 42 and insert:
(""successor company" means a company in which any property, rights or liabilities are vested in accordance with a transfer scheme;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 [Safety of railways and other guided transport systems]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 116, line 34, at end insert:
("() Where the Health and Safety Executive establishes procedures for the validation of the safety strategies of train operators either by itself or by a network controller, it shall be prohibited for a person acquiring a franchise or ownership of a former subsidiary of the Board to acquire the validation of the former owner of the franchise or subsidiary without the same scrutiny of his safety strategy as would have applied for a new train operator.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 260 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 261. They cover not exactly the same ground but deal with the same area. As regards Amendment No. 260, it is my understanding that draft regulations are currently under discussion between the Health and Safety Executive and interested parties. These discussions aim to give effect to a 37-point plan devised by the Health and Safety Commission in anticipation of the passage of this Bill.
A key element of the plan drawn up by the HSE is the validation of train operators' safety cases by Railtrack—which is, I understand, the appropriate organisation—prior to operations beginning. Surprisingly it appears that the draft proposals for the railways' safety case regulations suggest that a new operator might be able to adopt the safety case of a previous operator. It is felt that such an arrangement would breach the principle that the operator should fully understand every component of safety strategy before running a train. I am sure the Minister will understand our concern that safety standards are maintained following privatisation. It is important that new operators develop safety strategies
540
designed to ensure that this occurs. It may well be that steps are already being taken through consultations which we know are proceeding. However, we would welcome some assurances from the Government on this issue, even if wording of this kind does not find its way onto the Bill.
The purpose of Amendment No. 261 is to ensure that the safety cases of train operators are scrutinised by trade union health and safety representatives prior to the acceptance by Railtrack or the Health and Safety Executive. As I understand it, under the safety strategy proposed by the Health and Safety Commission, train operators will have to prepare a safety case covering all aspects of their activities and the safety case must be validated before the operator runs any trains. Validation will usually be undertaken by Railtrack.
Trade union health and safety representatives elected from the workforce and approved by their trade unions play an essential role in maintaining the safety of both staff and passengers in the existing railway industry. The amendment is intended to ensure that their function will not in any way be diminished as a result, for example, of the commercial confidentiality of new train operators. The draft regulations published by the HSE with the aim of implementing its safety strategy envisage consultation with health and safety representatives. It would help to tie that down if there were something to that effect on the face of the Bill.
One of the best features of health and safety regulations in this country, as I am sure the Minister would agree, is the emphasis that we lay on the involvement of the workforce, and in particular involvement through the election of workplace safety representatives, for whom it is normal to have training provided by the unions. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that it is intended that that will continue after privatisation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the importance of safety on the railways is a matter on which I am sure we all agree. I totally agree with what the noble Baroness said in that regard. I have said that before. We have accepted the 37 recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission's report, which have also been accepted by the chairman of British Rail.
In relation to her first point, I take careful note of what the noble Baroness said. There is certainly no intention that privatisation should lead to a diminution in safety on the railways. Quite the reverse. Any of your Lordships who have been involved in any way with an accident on the railways, or in aviation or shipping, will know full well that safety is one area on which we cannot stint. It is very important.
I hope that the noble Baroness will raise her point in the consultation or that it will be raised by the unions. That is exactly the purpose of the consultation. We want to hear views. It is a detailed point and it is perhaps best dealt with in that forum. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that I have noted the point and I shall make sure that we look at her particular concern.
I turn now to Amendment No. 261, which would provide for employee representatives to scrutinise a railway safety case prior to validation taking place. This

541
seems to suggest that the noble Baroness believes that employee representatives will not be involved in the preparation of the safety case. Let me make it absolutely clear that the draft regulations require consultation with safety representatives appointed by trade unions under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations on the preparation of the safety case. High standards of safety and health performance cannot be achieved without the positive and informed commitment of the workforce, and particular emphasis is placed on the draft regulations and guidance on consultation with the workforce.
I hope that those remarks provide the reassurance which the noble Baroness sought. We believe that that is very important and we wish it to continue.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances he gave on both amendments, in particular his assurance in relation to Amendment No. 260 that he will look into the matter very carefully himself. I am also gratified to learn of the consultations now taking place and that it is a point of government policy to ensure that safety arrangements are continued at the same level as or perhaps even better than at present.
Having listened to those assurances, which will of course appear in Hansard, I believe that I may safely withdraw the amendments. I am grateful for the assurances that have been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 117, line 45, at end insert:
("() Nothing in this section shall be deemed to permit any persons who provide railway services from allowing themselves or their employees, in other than emergency circumstances; to work—

(a) more than seventy two hours per week;

(b) More than twelve hours per turn of duty;

(c) more than six days per week;

(d) without a minimum rest period of twelve hours between turns of duty.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that after privatisation safety will not be put at risk because of increased working hours.
The railway industry is one in which traditionally working hours have been long, often with a great deal of overtime. That is because of the need to provide a service from early in the morning until late at night and sometimes overnight. British Rail carries out a census of pay and hours each year, normally in October. This covers the majority of staff, excluding managerial staff, and includes most of the safety-critical posts which caused so much concern during the major inquiry following the railway accident at Clapham Junction on 12th December 1988. Your Lordships will perhaps recall that in that accident 18 people were killed and others injured. It gave rise to widespread concern about railway safety.
Weekly paid staff in BR work a basic week of 39 hours and salaried administrative staff work 37 hours. I
542
am told that overtime is commonplace, and. I am advised that some staff have worked as much as 80 hours a week. There have been significant reductions in staffing since 1987. Some of us would probably say that there has been too great a reduction. I personally am not happy that stations should frequently seem so deserted, particularly at night, and I am sure that I am not the only woman to find that rather scary. Perhaps that is another issue, but I felt that I had to put the point across because it is something about which I feel strongly. The fact remains that reductions in staff mean that average working hours remain high.
As a result of the recommendations of Anthony Hidden QC following the Clapham disaster, BR established the guideline of a maximum of 70 hours per week for staff in safety-critical posts. That is now being applied to all staff, whether or not they are in safety-critical jobs. It was also recommended that BR should ensure that overtime is monitored so that no excessive overtime is worked by anyone. I am told that BR is doing that.
The unions are concerned lest private operators, intent on maximising profits, may not observe the guidelines which have already been established. Needless to say, it would be extremely dangerous were that to happen. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to see that it does not.
Travel by rail is rightly regarded as one of the safest means of transport, but when an accident does occur the results can be quite devastating because of the relatively large numbers of people being transported, so that there are sometimes large numbers of casualties. Such accidents, when they occur, give rise to widespread public concern.
It is freely acknowledged that the use of alcohol and drugs is inimical to safety. The same is surely true of fatigue resulting from working long hours. Recently BR introduced a very tough alcohol and drug abuse policy as a result of the Transport and Works Act 1992. One of the features of BR policy is that all staff, whether or not in safety-critical posts, should adhere to the same alcohol restrictions on the basis that it is necessary to create an alcohol-free regime, particularly at lunchtime and before reporting for duty n the early morning. The trade unions accepted that approach in the spirit of fairness. They therefore suggest that the same conditions should apply to all staff in the matter of working hours.
I repeat that there is an obligation on government to ensure that privatisation does not mean a falling off in safety standards. Unless requirements of this kind are written on the face of the Bill, private operators may he tempted to cut corners in the search for profits. They should not be allowed to do so. Therefore, I hope that the Government will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is an interesting amendment, not least because it proposes to impose restrictions on working hours not only on the employees but also on the people in charge—the chairman and others—of the organisations; which will be running the railway. While it is usual to lay down

543
limits on working hours for employees, it is very unusual indeed to seek to lay them down for the heads of organisations. Indeed, having watched the progress of this Bill, I am quite sure that my noble friend the Minister has exceeded these limits during the past few weeks by a considerable amount. Nonetheless, he does not seem to be any the worse for it. Therefore, one has to be careful about legislating in this way.
I believe that the provision is too rigid. The operation by railways of long distance services might well prove inconsistent with some of the restrictions. In any event, the major issue which the amendment raises is whether we should put such figures, well conceived or not, into the Bill. I have grave doubts. The amendment introduces unnecessary rigidity. It is very unusual to seek to apply such limits to the heads of organisations.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may intervene. Does he recognise that road haulage, drivers' hours and rest periods are dealt with specifically by a European Community directive or by regulations? Those provisions are, however, unsatisfactory because of the difficulties of policing them. That should not apply to the same extent to British Rail. It is doubtful whether people will seek to avoid regulations in quite the same way as is practised with regard to road haulage. However, in that regard one has definitive rules laid down which the Government supported.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has missed the point that I sought to make. Drivers' hours are one thing; the hours of the chairman of the company employing the drivers are another. The amendment proposes to apply the limitation to everyone including the chairman, managing director, or whoever he may be, of the railway companies involved.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that if the provision were to be applied to those engaged in manning trains he would support the matter in principle?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, first, the matter goes too wide. Secondly, I am doubtful as to the desirability of legislating on hours of work. It may well be necessary to have some more flexible limitations imposed administratively. But to legislate in that way for all is a mistake.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may say this. The amendment states,
"in other than emergency circumstances".
There is therefore a provision for emergency circumstances.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Baroness's point. The amendment states:
"Nothing in this section shall be deemed to permit any persons who provide railway services from allowing themselves or their employees, in other than emergency circumstances".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am almost tempted not to intervene in the debate between my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will thereby be able himself to comply with the restrictions on working hours which the amendment proposes to impose.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if I complied with the restrictions in the amendment I should not have a job after tonight. The amendment seeks to impose specific statutory maximum limits on hours of work and minimum rest periods for those who work on or with the railway. I was interested to hear the points that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter raised. He agrees that fundamentally the noble Baroness had a point for the operators of the service of trains. Let me reassure the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter immediately that it is an issue already addressed by the regulations being prepared by the Health and Safety Executive to implement the new safety regime for the privatised railway. The Government's general concerns in respect of the last two amendments about dealing with specific aspects of the safety regime in the Railways Bill apply equally to this amendment.
The House will recall that we discussed the question of railway workers' hours at Committee stage. I explained during that debate that the HSE was consulting on draft regulations which propose a new general duty on operators to ensure that safety critical staff do not work excessive hours. In addition, the draft regulations proposed for consultation purposes specific limits on the hours of duty to be worked by train drivers. Responses to the consultation on that and other issues are now being considered by the HSE.
I would prefer to await the further advice from the Health and Safety Executive in the light of its consideration of those responses. It is clear that the issue of workers' hours on the railway will be covered by the safety critical work regulations and I have no doubt that the views expressed by the noble Baroness today will be heard by the Health and Safety Executive. I add to that. I will ensure that its attention is drawn to what the noble Baroness said in the debate. However, having said that, and since the matters are being considered at present by the Health and Safety Executive, I believe that it would be wrong for the House to pre-empt that process.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he be more specific on the Government's view? I am glad to note that the HSE is considering the issue and that he will bring my views to its attention. However, what are the precise views of government in relation to the suggestion made in the amendment? Do they consider that people should not work more than 72 hours per week? I do not refer only to people in safety critical posts. The unions believe that there should be an overall restriction in relation to people providing those services except in emergency circumstances. I should be grateful if the noble Earl will tell me precisely what the Government believe.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I had thought that I was more on the receiving than the serving end. That is exactly why we have a Health and Safety Executive. When the Health and Safety Executive recommended the 37 points with regard to safety, it was right that we left it as the independent body to advise the Government. That body advised the Government. Together with the chairman of British Rail, the Government said "yes" 37 times in response.
I do not wish to appear unable to answer the noble Baroness. I believe that on this occasion it is right for the Health and Safety Executive to come forward with its advice to the Government.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I note what the Minister says. I wish to consider it and to assess the position at Third Reading. I know that there is much strength of feeling about hours for everyone, not simply those people working in safety critical posts. I am glad that the HSE is considering the matter and that my views as expressed today will be brought to the attention of the HSE. In those circumstances it is not my intention to press the issue to a vote today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall watch developments closely.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 117 [Control of railways in time of hostilities, severe international tension or great national emergency]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendments Nos. 263 to 267:
Page 118, leave out line 9.
Page 118, line 22, leave out ("or an ancillary service").
Page 118, line 31, leave out ("or an ancillary service").
Page 118, line 38, leave out ("or an ancillary service").
Page 118, line 43, leave out ("or ancillary service").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 118 [Security: power of Secretary of State to give instructions]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 121, line 32, at end insert:
("(8A) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to do anything required of him by an instruction is guilty of an offence and shall be liable

on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or to both.

(8B) No proceedings shall be instituted in England and Wales in respect of an offence under subsection (8A) above except by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment makes failure to comply with an instruction issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 118 a criminal offence. It follows the precedent established in the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (AMSA) and gives the Secretary of State additional powers to protect the railways.
Clauses 118 and 119 presently allow the Secretary of State to issue instructions specifying security measures which must be undertaken. In a case of non-compliance the Secretary of State may issue an enforcement notice. After further consideration, we have brought forward
546
this amendment to provide a strong power should an operator deliberately and blatantly fail to comply with the important security measures set out in an instruction. That will allow for a more effective sanction when speed of action is essential. Without the amendment the Secretary of State would have no adequate sanction if a failure to comply with an instruction contributed in some way to an incident before an enforcement notice had been served.
We anticipate that the risk of prosecution will provide the strongest possible incentive to comply with an instruction. Indeed, since the Aviation arid Maritime Security Act came into force there have been no prosecutions for failure to comply with a direction, which is the AMSA equivalent of an instruction.
We intend to retain the ability to issue an enforcement notice. Instructions could be issued which would prescribe a number of different measures. If an operator failed to comply with just one measure., it might, for example, be appropriate to target an enforcement notice at that measure. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, on the first class of events, on summary conviction a person will be liable:
"to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum".
What is the statutory maximum?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I knew that my noble friend would bowl me middle stump. I am afraid that I do not know. I shall find out and let him know.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 269:
After Clause 120, insert the following new clause:
("Statutory authority
Statutory authority as a defence to actions in nuisance etc
—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section—

(a) any person shall have authorityx2014;

(i) to use, or to cause or permit any agent or independent contractor of his to use, rolling stock on any track, or

(ii) to use, or to cause or permit any agent or independent contractor of his to use, any land comprised in a network, station or light maintenance depot for or in connection with the provision of network services, station services or light maintenance services, and

(b) any person who is the owner or occupier of any land shall have authority to authorise, consent to or acquiesce in—

(i) the use by another of rolling stock on any track comprised in that land, or

(ii) the use by another of that land for or in connection with the provision of network services, station services or light maintenance services,

if and so long as the qualifying conditions are satisfied in the particular case.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the "qualifying conditions" are—

(a) in relation to any use of rolling stock on track—

(i) that the track is comprised in a network, station or light maintenance depot, and

(ii) that the operator of that network, station or light maintenance depot is the holder of an appropriate licence or has the benefit of an appropriate licence exemption; and

(b) in relation to any use of land for or in connection with the provision of network services, station services or light maintenance services, that the operator of the

547
network, station or light maintenance depot in question is the holder of an appropriate licence or has the benefit of an appropriate licence exemption.
(3) The authority conferred by this section is conferred only for the purpose of providing a defence of statutory authority—

(a) in England and Wales—

(i) in any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in nuisance; or

(ii) in any civil proceedings, other than proceedings for breach of statutory duty, in respect of the escape of things from land;

(b) in Scotland, in any civil proceedings on the ground of nuisance where the rule of strict liability applies, other than proceedings for breach of statutory duty.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as excluding a defence of statutory authority otherwise available under or by virtue of any enactment.
(5) The owner or occupier of any land shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as "acquiescing" in

any use by another of rolling stock on track comprised in that land, or

any use of that land by another for or in connection with the provision of network services, station services or light maintenance services,

notwithstanding that it is not within his power to put an end to that use by that other.
(6) For the purposes of this section

any reference to the use of rolling stock on track includes a reference to the carriage of any passengers or other persons, or any goods, of any class or description for any purpose on or by means of that rolling stock on that track; and

rolling stock shall be regarded as "used" on any track at any time when it is present on that track, irrespective of whether the rolling stock is comprised in a train or not, whether the rolling stock is moving or stationary and, if moving, irrespective of the means by which the motion is caused.

(7) In this section
"appropriate licence", in relation to the operator of a network, station or light maintenance depot, means a licence which authorises him to be the operator of that network, station or light maintenance depot;
"appropriate licence exemption", in relation to the operator of a network, station or light maintenance depot, means any such licence exemption as exempts him from the requirement to hold the licence that would otherwise be the appropriate licence in his case;
and expressions used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Railway heritage]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 124, line 1, leave out ("A publicly owned") and insert ("Any").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to take with Amendment No. 270, Amendments Nos. 274 to 276. In the debate that we had earlier at the Committee stage on the role of the National Railway Museum, the Minister expressed sympathy with the view that the work of the National Railway Museum must not be impeded by the transfer of ownership of many railway artefacts in the private sector.
There are several key conditions in these amendments which would facilitate the work of the National Railway Museum. First, the committee must be able to claim items from the private sector. That has been debated before, when a misapprehension about claims without compensation seems to have been formed. One
548
of the amendments in my name allows for payments to be made under the direction of subsection (2) (c) of the clause.
Secondly, the new subsection in Amendment No. 274 requires the basis of compensation for any claimed item to be independently determined, the choice of value being a matter to be laid down in the terms of reference for the committee to be drawn up under subsection (4) (c) of the clause.
Thirdly, priority is given under the new subsection in Amendment No. 275 to the pre-eminent role of the National Railway Museum at York which, as we sometimes forget, is a branch of the National Museum of Science and Technology and it is at the heart of railway heritage in this country. The National Railway Museum works closely with other museums and privately owned railway companies already, and its pre-eminence must not be taken as equivalent to automatic pre-emption.
Finally, the new subsection in Amendment No. 276 adds an important role for the National Railway Museum as a principal adviser to the committee. I hope that those arrangements and their operation will help the Minister to realise that we have tried to find a way out of the problems which arose in earlier amendments at the Committee stage. We hope that he will accept the amendments, or at least their spirit. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, at an earlier stage in the proceedings in your Lordships' House I had a conversation with the head of the National Railway Museum mentioned in Amendment No. 275. On Amendment No. 276, I had understood, from the conversations I had in the summer with the National Railway Museum, that there was little between the requirements of the museum and the department as regards acquiring assets. I know that my noble friend's department had a fruitful and useful meeting with the representatives of the National Railway Museum. I wondered, if there is a gap, whether the amendments will close the gap or whether the fruitful discussions with the department at an earlier stage had been closing the gap on a separate issue.
I am sure that my noble friend and your Lordships agree that the National Railway Museum is one of the best in Europe, if not in the world, in its category. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as with many of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I have considerable sympathy with what he is trying to achieve. Noble Lords will recall that I advised your Lordships in earlier proceedings that we were looking carefully at the heritage clause with a view to extending its scope to cover artefacts at present in the public sector but due to be transferred into the private sector. I explained that that presented the problem that, unless fair compensation was available, the provisions could amount to confiscatory legislation and would be in breach of human rights provisions.
The present Clause 122 allows for the creation of a scheme by order to cover artefacts owned by the BR

549
Board and its subsidiaries. We shall be discussing with the National Railway Museum and others how we can best encourage the creation of voluntary arrangements under which private owners can be made aware of the interest of collecting institutions in acquiring particular items at the point of disposal. Since we recognise that, in the case of private sector assets, any acquisition by the collecting institutions will in any event have to be on fair terms, we think that such voluntary arrangements should suffice.
Amendments Nos. 270 to 274 would extend the scope of Clause 122 to cover all items owned by private companies. However, there is no statement of the need for fair compensation and no mechanism for review of the payments offered. Such provision is essential if we are to avoid the charge that the legislation is confiscatory. Also, if the provisions were to be extended to cover private sector artefacts it would not be appropriate for the board to be involved so closely in the creation and funding of the committee, as Clause 122 provides at present.
For these reasons, I cannot accept these amendments, but I hope noble Lords are reassured that we can create an effective climate for the acquisition of privately owned railway artefacts by the National Railway Museum and other collecting institutions through a voluntary administrative scheme.
Amendments Nos. 276 and 277 relate to the role of the National Railway Museum. While I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to see the position of the National Railway Museum safeguarded, I find difficulty with these two amendments.
Dealing first with Amendment No. 275, I do not agree that the museum should have an automatic right of priority in the considerations of the heritage committee. The Government's primary concern underlying Clause 122 has been to ensure that the railway heritage of the nation is adequately protected.
We hope to create a committee which will be dedicated to ensuring that railway artefacts and archives are preserved for the study and enjoyment of future generations. The National Railway Museum commands great respect in the railway community. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Lyell said on that point. We would therefore expect the views of the museum to carry great weight in the Committee. Circumstances will occur, however, where it may be more appropriate for an item to be deposited in a different institution. For instance, the Public Record Office currently acquires a large proportion of British Rail records. To give the National Railway Museum statutory priority within the Committee would be unhelpful and—I think the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would agree with me on this—potentially divisive within the railway community.
Turning to Amendment No. 276, I believe that it is also unnecessary. It provides that the National Railway Museum is to give advice to the heritage committee on the historical interest or suitability for preservation of any record or artefact, when required. However, I can give this reassurance. It is already our intention that those invited to serve on the proposed committee will be
550
knowledgeable in railway matters and, where expert advice is required, I am sure that it will be sought from all relevant quarters and will be freely given.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that the National Railway Museum is much respected within the railway community for its expertise. I cannot imagine that it would refuse to give advice where sought. It is for that reason that we feel that a statutory duty is unnecessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the time that he has taken to reply and for his sympathy in the amendments. But I am rather disappointed. He has not been as helpful as I had hoped. For instance, he said that it looked as though these amendments might make it possible to confiscate artefacts, whereas Amendment No. 274 quite clearly says that such items as are to be purchased by the National Railway Museum would be,
"independently valued before determining any payments which are to be made under a direction made under subsection (2) (c) above".
I should have thought that that would be sufficient to make him realise that there was no confiscatory suggestion at all. Of course we should have regard to the question of public records. But from my visits to the museum I felt that it would be only too pleased to hand over the vast mass of the paperwork to the Public Records Office as being the best place to look after it. The Minister has almost certainly been at the museum and will have seen the enthusiasm that people there have for maintaining railway artefacts. They do not want to have any records that would be better fitted into the Public Records Office with other records of the same period.
My worry is whether there will be the same control over railway artefacts as exists at present over works of art? Will it be possible to stop them going abroad for a certain period of time to see whether it is possible to raise enough money to purchase them? This country started the railways. It would be a shame if we were to lose artefacts that were essential. There are an enormous number of railway artefacts. There is plenty of room for some of them to go abroad or to other places. But one or two items may very well come up which are so important to the memory and the history of the railway system in Britain that it would be unfortunate if they were to go abroad. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether there will be any protection in that respect?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do riot believe that there is the protection that the noble Lord seeks—which is a protection somewhat similar to that for works of art. The two are of a different order. I understand the noble Lord's concern, which I am sure many noble Lords share, to preserve these good items, but I do not believe that I can offer him the assurance that he seeks.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If the Getty Museum decided to buy Stephenson's "Rocket", what would be the reaction? Would there be any power to stop that happening? From what I read about the Getty Museum,

551
it could buy it quite easily. That is the sort of point I was trying to make. However, I thank the Minister for his efforts, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 271 to 276 not moved.]
Clause 123 [General duties and powers of the Board]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 125, line 32, at end insert ("are, or have at any time since the coming into force of this subsection been,—
(za) provided by the Board, or a subsidiary of the Board, pursuant to any agreements or arrangements falling within subsection (1B) of this section; or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 277, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 278 to 283 inclusive and to Amendments Nos. 326 and 335.
These amendments clarify the way in which the board's duty to provide railway services under Section 3 of the Transport Act 1962 is to be disapplied as other operators take over services currently provided by BR. They do not affect the principle of the clause: that BR's statutory duty to provide railway services should cease when those services start to be provided by another party.
Amendments Nos. 277 and 279 disapply the board's statutory duty to provide railway services where the board or a subsidiary has entered into certain agreements or arrangements under the Bill. In such cases BR's duty to provide services will be a contractual one to the other party to the agreement. There is no need for a statutory duty as a result.
However, Amendment No. 279 ensures the continued application of that part of BR's statutory duty which requires it to have due regard to efficiency, economy and safety where it is providing services as a party to these agreements. This is over and above any contractual duties of the board in these matters.
The other amendments in this group simply tidy up various loose ends. With that assurance, I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 278 to 283:
Page 125, line 33, leave out ("are, or are to be,").
Page 125, line 35, leave out from ("subsidiaries") to end of line 37 and insert:
("but, notwithstanding anything in this subsection, it shall be the duty of the Board to have, as respects any railway services provided as mentioned in paragraph (za) of this subsection (and any other services or facilities provided in connection therewith) due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
(1B) The agreements or arrangements mentioned in subsection (1A) (za) of this section are as follows, namely

(a) an agreement or arrangement made pursuant to the Railways Act 1993, to which the Franchising Director and the Board, or a subsidiary of the Board, are parties;

(b) an agreement made between—

(i) the Board or a subsidiary of the Board, and

(ii) a person who is the owner or operator of a railway asset or track,
552
being an agreement under which the Board or a subsidiary of the Board operates that railway asset or track or uses it to provide network, station or light maintenance services.

(1C) For the purposes of subsection (1B) above and this subsection—

any reference to a railway asset includes a reference to any part of a railway asset;

"operator", in relation to a railway asset or track, means the person having the management of that railway asset or track for the time being;

"owner", in relation to a railway asset or track, means any person—

who has an estate or interest in, or right over, the railway asset or track in question; and

whose permission to use that railway asset or track is needed by another before that other may use it;

and, subject to that, expressions used in either subsection and in Part I of the Railways Act 1993 have the same meaning in that subsection as they have in that Part.").
Page 125, line 43, leave out ("has") and insert: ("(a) have").
Page 125, line 45, after ("section") insert (", or (b) have ceased to provide such services otherwise than as mentioned in subsection (1A) (za) of this section,").
Page 125, line 47, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of that section").
Page 126, line 4, leave out ("in any enactment") and insert ("of or in this section or any other enactment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 124 [Power of the Board to provide business support services for other operators]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 126, line 11, leave out from ("provide") to end of line 16 and insert ("business support services for—

the Regulator;

any person who provides, or secures the provision of, railway services; or

any person carrying on any undertaking which was, immediately before 1st April 1993, carried on by the Board or any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 284, I should like with the leave of the House to speak to Amendments Nos. 285 to 287.
Before speaking to those amendments, perhaps I may, with the leave of the House, answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter which bowled me. I can now tell my noble friend that I have repaired my wicket: the statutory maximum fine is £5,000. It will be fixed under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
I turn now to the main amendment in this group, Amendment No. 284, which widens the group of persons to whom British Rail can provide business support services during the privatisation process.
In the next few years, we shall be moving from a position where BR performs practically every function associated with the railway to one where we expect that many of those functions will be provided by the private sector. In the transitional period, it is important that we give BR the powers to be able to provide business support services to all those who will need them.
As it stands, the clause is too restrictive in the range of persons to whom it allows BR to provide business support services by virtue of subsection (1). The amendment remedies that by adding references to the regulator, any person providing or securing the provision of railway services and persons carrying on

553
undertakings recently carried on by the board or a board subsidiary. This would, for example, allow BR to contract to provide temporary assistance in dealing with staff wages and salaries for parts of its business which it had recently sold off. The amendment also confirms that BR will be able to sell tickets on behalf of other operators. The other amendments in this group improve the drafting of the Th11, or are consequential on the main amendment.
In this transitional period, we would not want to deny other railway operators, or existing BR subsidiaries which are subsequently privatised, access to services which the board was best placed to provide. I am sure that the whole House would agree that that would be nonsensical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 285 to 287:
Page 126, line 22, at end insert:
("() the issuing of tickets;").
Page 126, line 34, at end insert:
("() The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (3) above is exercisable in relation to any power of the Board to provide business support services, whether under this section or otherwise.").
Page 126, line 39, leave out (""railway" and "railway services" have") and insert (""railway services" has").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 288:
After Clause 124, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 13 of the Transport Act 1962
—(1) Section 13 of the Transport Act 1962 (which confers on the British Waterways Board and the Board powers to manufacture and produce items for business purposes) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) After subsection (1) (which confers on the Boards power to undertake activities for the purposes of any business falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection), there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall have effect, in relation to the Railways Board, with the insertion after paragraph (c) of the following—
"(d) of the Rail Regulator,
(e) of any person who provides, or secures the provision of, railway services, within the meaning of Part I of the Railways Act 1993, or
(f) of any person carrying on any undertaking which was, immediately before 1st April 1993, carried on by the Railways Board or any wholly owned subsidiary of that Board,";
and with the omission of the word "or" immediately preceding that paragraph."
(3) At the end of that section, there shall be added—
"(9) If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary, or no longer desirable, for the Railways Board to conduct any of the activities mentioned in subsection (1) above for the purposes of the business of any persons, or of persons of any class or description, mentioned in that subsection, he may by order provide that, as from the date on which the order comes into force, that Board shall cease to have power to conduct the activity in question in relation to the person in question.
(10) An order under subsection (9) above may make such consequential amendments or repeals in any enactment as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the order.
(11) Any order made under subsection (9) of this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(12) Any reference in this section to "business" includes, in the case of the Rail Regulator, a reference to the carrying on of any activity in the exercise of his powers or the performance of his duties.'"').
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 288, I shall with the leave of the House speak to Amendments Nos. 315, 327 and 330.
Amendment No. 288 introduces several new subsections into Section 13 of the Transport Act 1962. As currently framed, Section 13(1) gives BR the power to construct, manufacture, produce, purchase, maintain and repair anything required for its business, or that of the British Waterways Board (the other board surviving from the break-up of the British Transport Commission) or any subsidiary of either of the boards.
The new subsection (IA) will enable BR to use its power under Section 13 for the purpose of the businesses of those persons to whom the board can now supply business support services; that is 1:o say, the regulator, any person who provides or secures the provision of railway services, and, in effect, existing parts of BR which are disposed of in the future.
As I said earlier, in the transitional period during which constituent parts of 13R are transferred to the private sector, we would not want to deny other railway operators, or existing BR subsidiaries which are subsequently privatised, access to goods arid services which the board was best placed to provide. Amendment No. 288 is therefore intended to amend Section 13 of the Transport Act 1962 to bring it broadly into line with Clause 124 of the Bill as amended. By virtue of Government Amendment No. 315, Section 48 of the Transport Act 1968 ceases to apply so far as BR is concerned. Section 48 is considered no longer necessary in the light of Amendment No. 288 to Section 13 of the 1962 Act.
Amendments Nos. 315 and 327 also repeal Section 45 of the Transport Act 1968. We consider this provision, which imposes a duty on BR periodically to review its organisation, to be no longer necessary. Amendment No. 330 is a consequential repeal. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [Bye-laws]:
6 p.m.
The Earl of Dudley moved The Earl of Dudley moved Amendment No. 288A:
Page 126, line 41, at beginning insert:
("() No owner or operator may make bye-laws having the effect of imposing a charge for access to or from a train through a station upon the holder of a ticket or other authority to travel by, be present on, or leave trains, unless so authorised by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall address myself to Amendments Nos. 288A and 288B, since 288B is a drafting amendment dependent on the success or failure of Amendment No. 288A.
The question of rights of access to passengers through stations and to and from trains is clearly a matter of public concern, not only to all rail users but

555
especially to many thousands of commuters in the South East. Clause 125(2) permits a person having management of a station, network or other rail asset, to make by-laws with respect to tickets and regulating the use and working of stations, tracks and railways. I believe your Lordships will agree that, taken in conjunction with other powers in the clause, there are wide powers in this proposal.
I was not present when Clause 125 was agreed to in Committee. But if I have found all the relevant Hansard columns it attracted surprisingly little attention. There were no amendments and no debate. Yet Clause 125 seems to provide a station operator with the necessary powers to issue tickets for the use of a station by rail passengers and if he can issue tickets, he can make charges. At this point I should tell the House that today I received a letter from my noble friend Lord Caithness, aimed at setting my fears at rest. I am grateful to him for taking so much trouble. No doubt he will expand on his letter in his reply.
My noble friend states that the terms of the access agreement between a train operator and station owner, which will be subject to approval by the regulator, will safeguard the rights of passengers as regards access to and from the trains through a station. The relevant clause and subsection of the Bill is Clause 16(1) (b) and it says nothing about passengers. If I am right, there is nothing in that clause, nor in Clause 125 so far as I can tell, nor in the Bill to prohibit in law an additional charge to a valid rail ticket holder for passage through a station, nor to compel arrangements to be made with a network operator to include or absorb relevant station charges in network costs setting the price of the rail ticket. In fact, passengers with rail tickets seem in this Bill to have no right whatsoever of access to and from trains.
My noble friend may know—I do not—whether such a right ever existed in past or present legislation affecting railways. I know that it was irrelevant and unnecessary when station and network were part of the same entity. The Bill changes that scenario. It creates a new situation in which station and network can and probably will be with different ownership.
The question seems to me to be quite clear cut. Can the rail operator be relied upon to make adequate arrangements with the supervision of the regulator under the access agreement for the free passage to and from trains of rail users holding valid rail tickets; or is there a need for that right—that protection for passengers—to be written into the Bill?
I look to the Minister to say that the access agreement will be so dependable and so cast iron as to render my amendments unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not want to dwell specifically on the amendment, although the noble Earl made a very interesting point. I just want to take noble Lords back to the Committee stage, when I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, about model by-laws. That bears on the subject under this clause. I suggested
556
that it would be useful if model by-laws were produced in order that there should be some conformity across the whole field.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for writing to me saying that that was unnecessary because of the various bits and pieces (which I shall not go into) in other parts of the regulations. Having heard what has just been said, I wonder whether perhaps a model by-law might be useful.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, for raising this point. We made clear in earlier amendments and discussions that, even when railway stations are privatised, the priority must always be for the travelling public to be able to move through them. But there are problems, particularly in some older stations which could become rather awkward and inconvenient for passengers. I think of some of the older stations with various entrances and exits, some of which are not very salubrious areas, particularly the exits. During the day there may be no problem but at night one may arrive at a station and discover that the main gates of the station have been closed so that passengers must be taken down tunnels and around corners. I can take noble Lords to stations where that could very easily happen.
What right would the travelling public have? It has always been my view and that of other people also that, if I take a train from London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, I am not in Edinburgh or Glasgow when I am held up for some reason or other on platform 10 while (as happened in the old days) someone meticulously examines the tickets and reads every word to make sure that everyone has the proper ticket.
It is important that the amendment be looked at seriously by the Government, whether or not by-laws are to be used. The importance of the traveller being given easy and convenient access, except in very special circumstances, should be emphasised.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dudley for explaining his amendment. I hope that what I shall say in a moment will put his mind fully at ease. Let me deal with the first part of his amendments and reassure him that no by-laws can be made under Clause 125 without the Secretary of State's approval. That is already the position under the clause as drafted. If my noble friend would care to look at subsection (4), he will see that various provisions of Section 67 of the Transport Act 1962 are applied in relation to by-laws made under this clause. These include Section 67(5), which states clearly that no by-laws can come into operation unless and until confirmed by the Minister. I say to my noble friend that his amendment adds nothing to that because the position is already taken care of.
On the more general point, let me also say that there is no suggestion that station owners or operators should be able to levy additional charges on passengers already holding valid tickets for travel on train services operating from the station. The terms of the access agreement between the train operator and the station owner (which will of course be subject to approval by the regulator) will safeguard the rights of passengers as

557
regards access to and from trains, through the station. Access agreements will provide for appropriate charges to be made by the train operator to the station operator, but not, I stress, for additional charges to be imposed on passengers simply for the privilege of crossing the station concourse.
1 am in the happy position of being able to say to my noble friend that, although I am grateful to him for raising this point, there is no need for his amendment.
The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, I am not sure to what extent I followed the argument of my noble friend. The problem with which we are faced is whether or not there should be statutory protection for passengers rather than purely administrative or "between party" agreements protecting and giving right of access to the passenger.
The weakness of my argument is that if one intends to run a train one cannot do so without passengers; if one intends to make adequate arrangements to run the train properly, one must presumably make adequate arrangements for the passengers to reach that train. I am not entirely satisfied that there is enough in the Bill to ensure that those arrangements will be made or that the station operator could not impose charges if he felt it was in the interests of shareholders so to do. However, I shall go along with the argument of my noble friend and, in the light of his explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 288B not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 289:
After Clause 127, insert the following new clause:
("Application of building regulations
Part M of the Building Regulations 1991 shall have effect in relation to railway premises.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 289 proposes a new clause to the Bill which is required to ensure the accessibility of railway premises to disabled people.
The law relating to the building standards required of railway premises is rather complex. The Bill currently adopts health and safety at work legislation and a number of special Acts in order to safeguard the safety of railway users and employees with regard to the proper construction and safe operation of transport systems. I am advised that the current provisions may well he inadequate to meet the needs of disabled passengers and the amendment is required to ensure that railway premises are brought unambiguously within the scope of building regulations.
Part M of the building regulations makes provision for premises to comply with a number of standards to meet the needs of disabled people. They apply to any new construction and any major alteration or refurbishment. Areas which would be of relevance to railway premises include alteration to platforms, ticket barriers, entrances, exits, changes of level and alterations to passenger facilities such as lavatories, waiting rooms, refreshment areas and ticket offices.
The regulations have been successfully operated for a number of years and have made a significant contribution to the increased mobility of disabled people in relation to public buildings, but not in relation to
558
railway premises. I consider that either Railtrack or franchised train operators should be required to comply with the regulations. At present, Section 4 of the Building Act 1984 statutorily exempts undertakers such as British Rail from compliance with the regulations. I believe that provisions in the Bill which allow railway premises to be owned and operated on a commercial basis should lead to railway premises being subject to the same requirements as all other commercial premises in terms of disabled access.
I am advised that recent construction of the new station, Waterloo International, and major alterations at Liverpool Street station provide examples of the problems which exist at the present time. The stations fail to provide features which are required by the regulations. For example, steps are not highlighted at the edges; there are no tactile warnings at the tops of stairs and the handrail design is not appropriate to the needs of disabled passengers.
Although the Bill makes provision for consultation with DPTAC and other groups, recent experience involving the construction of Manchester Airport station suggests that such advice is unlikely to be followed. The report, which details the shortcomings, has been produced by the British Rail Advisory Group. All three buildings that I mentioned are unsatisfactory from the point of view of disabled access. I am concerned that the situation may be repeated in future major developments such as the rail link to Heathrow Airport and the refurbishment of other stations. The amendment therefore is required to safeguard the future use of the railway system by disabled passengers. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment most warmly. As the noble Lord said, it only applies to new constructions or ones undergoing major alterations or refurbishment. Therefore it is not asking for vast amounts of money to be spent on old premises not already undergoing rebuilding. But it will save much money if things are done right in the first place or when the building is being refurbished.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, mentioned three places which are unsatisfactory. A year or two ago Oxford Station also was totally refurbished and would have come under Part M. The planners got it completely wrong. One could only reach one side of the line by going over a footbridge, which was totally inaccessible to wheelchairs. A large lift had to be built to take people up to the footbridge to take them over the line. I wonder how much money could have been saved if it had been done right in the first place.
There have been reports that approved document M may be deregulated. Would that mean that it would be only an advisory document? I hope that the Minister can say something on the proposed status of document M and reassure us that there are no plans to deregulate it. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it has been an extremely useful document and we are grateful for it.
I support the amendment wholeheartedly. It is important that the approved document M applies to railway stations and retains its teeth.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I too support the amendment. The evidence disclosed by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is extremely disturbing. Here we have a number of brand new stations and yet they are deficient in many material respects with regard to provision for people suffering from disability. I ask the Minister to comment on how such a situation was permitted to evolve.
It would not be a strong response for British Rail to offer in rebuttal the explanation that it is exempt from compliance with the regulations. There is a moral duty to make provision of this kind and British Rail has omitted so to do. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness were therefore right to table the amendment. They are right also to anticipate that there may be major problems which need to be addressed in regard to future developments.
Of course, even if it was right to exempt British Rail from compliance with the regulations—I am doubtful whether that should have been done in the first place, but it is a fact of life—it is important to remember that we are now dealing with a different regime. The new regime will be involved in the pursuit of commercialisation and profit. I do not complain particularly about that. But if that is right, it is all the more imperative that existing exemptions should no longer apply. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), have done a great service to the House in raising this matter and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation.
British Rail, along with other statutory undertakers, currently enjoys exemption from the building regulations in respect of buildings belonging to it and used for the purposes of its undertaking. This exemption for statutory undertakers is of long standing. I understand it dates back at least to the Public Health Act 1936. It recognises that the buildings of statutory undertakers are largely specialist structures to which many of the provisions of the building regulations would not be appropriate. My noble friend's amendment would remove the exemption in future as regards all railway premises so far as concerns Part M—access and facilities for disabled persons. The intended effect is to bring all railway premises within the requirements of the relevant part of the regulations. These relate to such matters as provision for access to, and use of, premises by people in wheelchairs, and provision of wheelchair-accessible toilets.
Indeed, we see no reason at this time why the present situation should be changed. Railtrack will be the natural successor to BR in terms of the rights and obligations of statutory undertakers, both in this field and others. It will step into BR's shoes, so to speak, in this area. Any necessary consequential amendments to the definition of "statutory undertaker" in the Building Act 1984 to ensure that Railtrack is a statutory undertaker for the purposes of the Building Act can be made by order under Clause 148.
I hope my noble friend will not feel that my response so far has been unduly negative. The Government do not
560
rule out the possibility of reviewing the exemptions under the Building Act 1984 at some time in the future. But such a review would be better carried out, I am sure your Lordships would agree, across the board since, as I have said, the exemptions apply to all statutory undertakers.
Meanwhile, of course, and notwithstanding its statutory exemption, British Rail has made considerable efforts in making its stations accessible to disabled people and it is to be commended for doing so. But we must accept the realities, both practical and financial, which constrain what can be done. However, as mentioned earlier in our proceedings, the Bill places a duty on the regulator in Clause 4 to have regard to the interests of persons who are disabled, and in Clause 68 to prepare and publish a code of practice for protecting the interests of disabled users of passenger and station services and to encourage its adoption and implementation in consultation with DPTAC. So there is already good provision in the Bill to ensure that these matters will be kept well to the fore.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend had to say about DPTAC. I wonder whether, on reflection, and in view of what I have said about Clauses 4 and 68, the situation in the future will not be as gloomy as my noble friend has portrayed it to be in the past. I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), had to say about Oxford station. I agree with her. What a wasted opportunity of a redevelopment. I wish that something better had been done there. Perhaps I may take up her other point about deregulation of document M. My information is that no decisions have been taken as to whether the current provisions of Part M of the building regulations should be deregulated. The matter has been reviewed from time to time but no proposals are currently under consideration.
Lord Clinton-Davis:My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he impart to the House any information about the points which he has just addressed? First, he said that a code of practice would be applied. How far are the Government advanced in dealing with that issue? Does he not feel that there was a moral obligation on British Rail to deal with the kind of issues which were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and about which British Rail was either careless or omitted to do anything?
I agree with the noble Earl entirely. Where British Rail has addressed these issues it has done very well and needs to be complimented. The Minister said that it would be better to deal with questions of exemption right across the board. He did not give an undertaking that that would be done. Is he prepared to give an undertaking that this matter is currently being addressed by the Government? Can he also give a timescale, if that is the case, within which that is likely to be completed? Otherwise one can envisage the situation going on for a very long time and persisting in a way which enables construction works to be undertaken in the manner exemplified by Liverpool Street and the other examples cited during the debate. I feel that more precise information should be given. Time is of the essence. When one is dealing with new developments of this

561
kind it is extremely disappointing, to say the very least, that such a situation should have arisen. One hopes that it will not be repeated in the future. Leaving the matter to one side for rather a long time while codes of conduct are worked out is unsatisfactory.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will he be kind enough to tell the House what other statutory undertakings are generally accessible to vast numbers of the general public?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, it is the regulator in Clause 68 who will have to draw up the code with regard to protecting the interests of disabled passengers. He is under a duty under Clause 4 to have regard to the interests of persons who are disabled. But the regulator can only be appointed after the Bill has become an Act. I would stress the point—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will appreciate this—that the code will be drawn up after consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. I am sure that DPTA.0 will make strong representations and that careful note has been taken of the feeling of your Lordships' House on the issue.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves this point, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that DPTAC was ignored in relation to Manchester Airport station. It was news to me but that is what he alleged. If that is the case, why should not DPTAC be ignored in the future? What the noble Lord seeks is some reassurance on the face of the Bill. I can see why. If DPTAC, which is a very worthy organisation, of which I approve tremendously, is being ignored by statutory undertakers, it is about time we put something on the face of the Bill to force these people to do as they ought to do.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is why I said in my earlier reply that I hoped that the situation in the future would not be as gloomy as my noble friend Lord Swinfen had portrayed it to be until now. It is because of the duties on the face of the Bill and the preparation of the code of practice in consultation with DPTAC that I feel that the situation will be better in the future.
With regard to a possible review of the whole of the building regulations, I cannot give a firm assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the timing of a review. However, I can give him this reassurance. I shall pass on his comments to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about his concern on this matter.
562
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked me about other statutory undertakers that have the same amount of public access as British Rail. At the moment I cannot think of one offhand. If I can think of one, shall let my noble friend know.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, it was never my intention this evening to press this amendment to a Division because it is the first time that I have raised it during our discussions on the Bill. However, I give fair warning to my noble friend that when I have read Hansard, and digested it, I may well come back to the matter at Third Reading.
The arguments put forward by my noble friend in attempting to reject the amendment have in my view been all in favour of it. He has told the House that he knows of no other statutory undertaking that has such access for so many members of the public. We have a duty in this country to the public at large, to those with disabilities, which in many respects includes the elderly, and to those with small children and large quantities of luggage moving from place to place.
The facilities that I am suggesting—the regulations that I should like to have put on the face of the Bill—would help far more than just physically disabled people. They would help my noble friend to carry his briefing material home at the weekend. I am sure that he does take his work home at the weekend, as do most other Members of the House. My noble friend commented on Oxford Station. I could have said nothing better myself in favour of the amendment.
I hope that between now and Third Reading my noble friend and his advisers will give this matter serious consideration. I would like to see an amendment—possibly better drafted than my own—brought forward by the Government at the next stage of the Bill to achieve exactly the same ends.
The regulations that I want enforced on stations say that they will not apply unless there is a complete rebuild or a major alteration. They will not be brought into effect very often. But I believe that by not accepting this amendment, or bringing forward another, the Government are once again shooting themselves in the foot. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before seven o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 4th AND 5th OCTOBER
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 4th AND 5th OCTOBER
  HARBEL, LIBERIA, MASSACRE: REPORT
  HARBEL, LIBERIA, MASSACRE: REPORT
  MR KEVIN COLLINS
  MR KEVIN COLLINS
  CYCLING
  CYCLING
  M.4 MOTORWAY: CLOSURES
  M.4 MOTORWAY: CLOSURES
  BATTLE HONOURS
  BATTLE HONOURS
  VETERINARY MEDICINES DIRECTORATE: ANNUAL REPORT
  VETERINARY MEDICINES DIRECTORATE: ANNUAL REPORT