Sitting of 14 February 1994

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

    COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Richard Tracey be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Andrew MacKay be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Tourism
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Welsh tourism industry.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Despite difficulties for the tourism industry as a whole and a reduction in overall visitor numbers, expenditure by visitors to Wales has remained constant at around £1.3 billion in recent years.
    Prospects for growth in the overseas market are good. The Wales tourist board's new Tourism 2000 strategy, to be launched later this year, forecasts a significant rise in overseas visitors to Wales.
    I am sure that, with the benefit of current efforts to improve marketing and to provide better-quality attractions and training and the industry's concern to ensure value for money, the prospects for Welsh tourism are excellent.
    Mr. Coombs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most helpful answer. Is he aware that, under the five-year development strategy for Welsh tourism which ends next month, the private sector has invested £150 million in response to public investment of £22 million? What targets does he feel would be appropriate under the new Tourism 2000 strategy to continue that excellent work?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. Section 4 grants have certainly attracted a great deal of private sector money. In 1992–93, for example, some £4.9 million spent on 489 projects attracted £27 million-worth of investment. I cannot reveal the details of the new strategy, but I can tell my hon. Friend that it is estimated that it will mean an extra 10,000 visitors to Wales by the year 2000.
    Dr. Howells: The Minister will be aware that in tourism first impressions are important. He will know that most people coming to south Wales come up through the Taff gorge, just to the north of Cardiff, and that Redland, which owns an extensive quarry there, plans to add an asphalt
    648
    plant to a skyline already cluttered with industrial ruin. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the company does not build that asphalt plant on the skyline and does the best for Welsh tourism by spending a little more money on that plant and concealing it?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to consider the employment aspects of the Redland development. Moreover, he will realise that, in the first instance, this is a matter for the local authority to consider.
    Mr. Llwyd: Given that tourism is by far the largest single employer in Wales, may I ask whether the Welsh Office has undertaken any survey into the likely effects of the further downgrading of railway services in Wales—especially as railway lines are vital to the rural economy in areas such as Aberconwy and the Cambrian coast? May I urge the Welsh Office to undertake such an investigation as a matter of top priority?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows that the services provided are a matter for British Rail. I am sure that BR takes into account its capacity to take tourists and deal with the regular influx into Wales by rail at various points.

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the political affiliations of those people he appoints to public bodies in Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): Some of the people whom I appoint to public bodies in Wales have well-known associations with individual political parties—the chairman of the Welsh Language Board, for example. Information is not, however, available on the views of all such appointees and is not collated centrally by my Department.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does not the Minister realise that, with all the attendant unfavourable publicity about the sleaze associated with many of the quangos to which public appointments are made, it is about time he recognised that in Wales those from his own party appointed to quangos outnumber by at least 5:1 those appointed from other parties in Wales? I refer only to the known political affiliations. He should come clean, have a proper list of political affiliations, where known, and make arrangements as soon as possible for all those quangos to become democratically accountable.
    Mr. Redwood: I resent the implication that there is sleaze or that the wrong people are appointed. The chairman of the Welsh Development Agency was appointed for his business skills and is a fine asset to Wales. I hope that the Labour party will get behind his work.
    The Labour party forgets that, when it was in power, the Wales tourist board, for example, had two Labour parliamentary candidates as successive chairmen and that the first WDA chairman was a former national executive member of the Labour party. The Labour party forgets the many Labour and Plaid Cymru representatives whom we appoint to public bodies in Wales, where we think that their presence would help. What about the four councillors on the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the two Labour

    649
    councillors whom I have recently announced as having been appointed to the Land Authority for Wales, and many other appointments? There are fair shares for the other parties, but, above all, we appoint people who are right for the job, regardless of their political affiliation.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of people's political views, where there is incompetence—financial incompetence or even a lack of accountability—it should be exposed and condemned? Will he join me in condemning the remarks at the weekend by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, in seeking to defend the incompetence of the Labour leader of the South Wales police authority?
    Mr. Redwood: I quite agree. It is for the House and Ministers to set out the standards of conduct that we expect. In the case of quangos, it is for the accounting officers to be responsible for regularity. In the case of local authorities, it is the Labour party's duty to ensure that it enforces proper standards in every authority that it controls.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does not the Secretary of State accept that a disproportionate number of any political party's supporters on public bodies in Wales diminishes the reputation of Welsh public services? Will he consider the establishment of an independent commission along the lines of the Civil Service Commission to deal with all appointments to public bodies in Wales so that we can be sure that jobs are matched to talent, not to opinions?
    Mr. Redwood: It is a novel idea for the Liberal party to have another quango to deal with what it sees to be the problem with quangos. That is typical of the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats. I will not set up such a body. We have advertised and invited the people of Wales to write in with their suggestions for those bodies. Officials are involved in sifting through the talent. They produce recommendations to Ministers which, of course, we look at carefully. The purpose of those recommendations from the official system is to ensure talent and the right skills for the job. We are looking not for a group of party placemen but for talented people who believe in Wales and do a good job for Wales. If Opposition Members want to help, they can be far more constructive and supportive when a good job is done.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State might not look for party placemen, but he always seems to find them. Does he not realise that it is his party's abuse of the quango system for self-serving party political ends—the Conservatives are a minority party at that—that now makes the case for disclosure of political affiliation so overwhelming? The sleaze and corruption that are now the hallmark of his Government are poisoning Welsh public life.
    I ask the Secretary of State publicly, will he accept the Labour party's offer of co-operation to set up new systems to ensure public scrutiny? Forty per cent. of the Welsh Office budget is spent by quangos. They must be subject to closer democratic control and not left to the whims of party political interests.
    Mr. Redwood: The biggest budgets in Wales are controlled by Welsh local government, which is why the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and
    650
    Radnor (Mr. Evans) was relevant. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that Welsh public life is subject to sleaze and corruption, he must account for the fact that so much of the money is spent by Welsh local government. His remarks are a slur on Welsh local government, as they are a slur on the Welsh Office and on the many people working in Welsh public bodies and doing a good job.
    Of course I wish to see high standards in Welsh public life. I shall offer leadership with that in mind and I ask for co-operation from all parties and from all those involved in Welsh public life to ensure that those high standards are upheld and maintained. It is the duty of each person on a board of a local authority or elsewhere to ensure that those standards are upheld. I shall, of course, look carefully at the hon. Gentleman's statement that he would like to co-operate. I am happy to talk to him privately if he wishes to co-operate in taking forward the issue.

    Housing Grants
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on corruption in local government in Ynys Môn involving housing grants.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): It is for the police and the council's monitoring officer to investigate allegations of corruption or fraud.
    Mr. Richards: Is my hon. Friend aware that the director of housing of Ynys Môn borough council has delegated powers from the housing committee to allocate large discretionary grants? Details of those grants, such as the names of applicants, the sites and the amounts, have been withheld from some committee members whereas other committee members are directly linked to beneficiaries of the decisions by the director of housing. All that is taking place with the full knowledge of the chief executive of Ynys Môn borough council. Does my hon. Friend agree, as I do, with the view of Ynys Môn council tax payers that that scandal has now been dubbed Angleseygate?
    Mr. Jones: I can appreciate the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. It is, of course, for local authorities to set their own powers of delegation. I would trust and expect the council's monitoring officer most carefully to consider all such allegations.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister agree that any allegation of corruption against any local authority must be thoroughly investigated by the proper channels? Those allegations have been circulating privately since 10 January. The people of Ynys Môn would take them far more seriously if they had been made openly, without delay and without the cover of parliamentary privilege. To prevent political manipulation of the file to which the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) referred, will the Minister ensure that the allegations are handed over by the Welsh Office to the appropriate statutory authorities so that if they are proved they can be dealt with properly?
    Mr. Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about ensuring that these allegations—any such allegations—are thoroughly investigated. Any evidence that is available can

    651
    be given either to the police or to the monitoring officer. I am sure that that would greatly assist either or both in pursuing the allegations.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the post of chairman of the Welsh Development Agency.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have received one letter from a member of the public.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that, as we now have more quangos in Cardiff than there are gondolas in Venice, it is high time that Conservatives agreed with us and gave assurances to the House that they can now clean up their act as regards appointments to these top jobs? Does he agree that the Secretary of State has been exceedingly badly damaged by what has happened over the appointment of the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency? That is, no doubt, why he has asked his junior Minister to answer this question.
    Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is time that he gave us an assurance that there will be no political croneyism or nepotism in appointments to the posts of chief executive, finance director and, if there is a vacancy, deputy chairman of the Welsh Development Agency? That would assure us all that, from now on, quangos in Wales will not used as a dumping ground for those who cannot win elections in Wales by normal democratic means.
    Mr. Jones: No, I certainly do not agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sought to respond earlier this afternoon on that very issue. He has not been damaged by the allegations. It is the sleazy who perceive sleaze in everything. My right hon. Friend always seeks to appoint the best person to the job.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most recent figures for unemployment in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redwood: The December 1993 seasonally adjusted figures show 126,100 unemployed—7,900 fewer than in January 1993.
    Mr. Luff: What does my right hon. Friend think would do more to continue the reduction of unemployment in Wales—the continuation of the Government's policies of open markets and free trade, resistance to the imposition of the social chapter, which would have done so much to boost inward investment in the Principality, or the continuation of the rather unpleasant witch hunts of quangos in Wales that we have seen from Labour Members and the implementation of proposals in the European Socialist party manifesto?
    Mr. Redwood: That was not too taxing a question. I agree that it is the continuation of our policies of low interest rates, low inflation, going for growth, backing Wales and believing in Wales that will deliver the jobs that we need and the prosperity that we want. It is exactly the failed policies that we hear from Labour Members that will cause trouble, run Wales down and do damage. The
    652
    European Socialist party manifesto would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs across Europe if it were ever adopted.
    Mr. Rowlands: Although many good things have been done in the valleys initiative over the past five years, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during that period there were 3 per cent. fewer people in employment in the valleys, although the number went up by 4 per cent. in Wales as a whole, 6,400 fewer manufacturing jobs and more than 20,000 fewer mining jobs? Whatever good has been done, much more needs to be done. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to improve the situation in our communities?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree that more needs to be done. The hon. Gentleman would also agree that there has already been a massive transformation in the valleys and that the employment position is a lot better than it would have been without those initiatives and without the action that we have taken over several years. I have launched the next phase of the valleys initiative. I wish to see more land cleared, more investment attracted and more action taken to create jobs in those valleys communities, and that is exactly what I pledge to continue doing.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most important factors in attracting more jobs to Wales is to maximise the benefit that we get from the European Community? In that context, does he recall the article in last Monday's Glasgow Herald in which it is reported:
    "Among his other nutty notions is a fancy for shutting down the Wales European Centre"?
    Can he give a categorical assurance that he has no intention whatever of closing down the Wales European centre in Brussels?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree that we need to get the most out of our membership of the European Community. I certainly have not asked to close that centre, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will visit later this week.
    Mr. Murphy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, during the past year, more than 1,000 of my constituents have lost their manufacturing jobs at Parke Davis, Du Pont, Royal Ordnance, Ferranti and Lucas-Girling? Does he realise that the prospect of those people returning to full-time employment has been dramatically reduced by his Government's planned tax increases in April, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already admitted will damage the British economy and, therefore, the Welsh economy?
    Mr. Redwood: The Treasury has forecast good growth for the United Kingdom as a whole and, within that, for Wales. Of course, those figures took full account of the tax rates that will apply across the year of that forecast. The good news is that Wales and Britain are leading Europe out of recession. We are growing when other countries are not growing and we are generating jobs when they are not generating jobs. I regret any loss of jobs and I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but we are creating new jobs to replace them. There are good signs, and the best news of all is that since 1986 long-term unemployment in Wales has fallen by 40 per cent.

    Employment
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to increase the percentage of the Welsh work force who are in full-time employment.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The best means of increasing employment in the longer term is through low inflation and sustainable growth, which are being achieved by the Government's economic policies.
    The number of full-time employees in employment in Wales increased between March and September 1993 by 3,000. The number of self-employed people in Wales increased by a massive 14,000 over the same period.
    Mr. Flynn: How will that process be helped by the decision at the weekend to throw to the wolves and auction off to the highest bidder the jobs at the Accounts Services Agency? In the darkness, not of the implications but of the proof of the sleaze and corruption in Welsh society, why are the Government commercialising an agency that handles £10 billion of public money? Why do they persist in wrecking the civil service and vandalising and degrading the civil service ethic, which can never be replaced once it is destroyed? It is not "back to basics" but forward to degradation. Have the Government gone mad?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman discussed the matter with me last week, and we also discussed the Patent Office and other matters concerning his constituency. Not once during that encounter did the hon. Gentleman refer to sleaze in Wales or attribute any possible change in the status of those establishments to such factors. He knows, as well as I do, that matters concerning the Accounts Service Agency are for the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the percentage of women and men in the work force in work throughout the UK, particularly in Wales, is high? Is it not probably the second highest percentage in the European Community? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that comments about sleaze in Welsh employment will do nothing to create jobs in Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend's final point. He is absolutely right in saying that women play a far more important role in the work force than they did formerly. We have seen a transformation in the economy in Wales and, as a result of the new economy, women are more prominent in the work force.
    As for Gwent, a great deal is being done in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). The Imperial Park development is in his constituency, and the WDA is also active there. There has been investment of some £925,000 in the urban programme and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has allocated some £1.9 million for next year under the strategic development scheme. There is no doubt that the economy in Wales is recovering and the pace is quickening.
    Mr. Ron Davies: There is really no excuse at all for the Government's complacency on the matter. There are 150,000 fewer men in employment this year than when the Conservative party took office. Does not the Minister understand that the cost of lost production and the tax and insurance revenues forgone through the Conservatives' basic policy of high unemployment are themselves holding
    654
    back economic recovery? Taking into account indirect taxes, the average family in Wales will be paying £14 a week more in taxes from April this year and will be paying a total of £19 a week on unemployment alone. How does the Minister expect the Welsh economy to recover when it must shoulder such waste?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Welsh economy is recovering, and the hon. Gentleman need only read the business section of this morning's Western Mail to see that there has been yet another forecast of the quickening pace of recovery.
    I well remember 1979 when the Conservative party came to office. One of our major concerns at that time was the number of people who were in jobs in Wales and who were subsidised in those jobs. As for taxation, it is absolutely clear from what the hon. Gentleman says that his Government would increase spending, and that the day would come when they would have to increase tax to pay for that spending.
    Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I give notice that I wish to raise this subject on the Adjournment because of the amnesia of the Minister of State.
    Madam Speaker: I do not need any reasons from the hon. Gentleman, but I have taken his point.

    Religious Education
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on religious education in Welsh schools.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall shortly be issuing a circular on the provision of religious education and collective worship in schools, which incorporates guidance on new measures introduced by the Education Act 1993 and consolidates guidance issued since 1989.
    Mr. Greenway: Did not Dylan Thomas, Gwyn Thomas and other Welsh writers—[HON. MEMBERS: "George Thomas."]—and not forgetting George Thomas, teach us that the Baptist Chapel, the Church of Wales and the Roman Catholic Church were the heart of religion in Wales and that Christianity should be central to children's religious education in Wales? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a whirlwind tour of the major world religions, in an attempt to teach children aged between five and 16 about five or six of them, would leave them knowing nothing about anything?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Of course I agree with the poets and those whom my hon. Friend has mentioned, some of whom were great friends of mine. Let me remind him that the statutory requirement is clearly set out in the Education Reform Act, which states that the syllabus
    "should reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain."
    Of course we shall place proper emphasis on Christianity when we issue our circular in Wales.

    Housing
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been his Department's expenditure on housing through the basic credit approval for each of the last five years; and what proportion has been directed to disabled facilities grants.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Between 1990–91 and 1994–95, the total provision for housing provided through basic credit approvals amounts to over £283 million. The provision for disabled facilities grants for the same period will be £35.9 million.
    Mr. Wardell: What advice does the Minister have for people throughout Wales who are being discharged from hospital back into their homes without basic provisions such as showers, toilets and handrails? What advice does he have for them to ensure that the deprivation that they face will end?
    Mr. Jones: I hesitate to give direct advice to individuals in the hypothetical situation that the hon. Gentleman has described, but I draw his attention to the action that we are taking in the forthcoming financial year to increase the amount of money available for mandatory renovation grants and the other steps that we have already put in place. We expect to see more people being helped and more grants being given to those who need them and our provisional target for the year is 9,600 further grants.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the level of inward investment in Wales in the past five years.
    Mr. Redwood: In the past five years, there have been 800 inward investment projects, creating or safeguarding 70,000 jobs and accounting for more than £4,000 million of investment.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that firms come to Wales because they have access to the European Community, without suffering the handicap of a national minimum wage, a social charter or the suggestion of a four-day week? Does he agree also that another attractive factor is that corporate taxes in Wales are lower than in other European Community countries?
    Mr. Redwood: That is absolutely right. Firms come to Wales for the low taxes and the good environment for carrying out business activity and because they welcome the flexibility and skills of the Welsh work force. They have always told me that. It is the absence of the sandbags that the Labour party would place on the Welsh economy which is particularly attractive to them. That just shows how important it is to carry on with our methods for greater progress.
    Mr. Ainger: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if the hypothesis of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was correct, the county of Dyfed, with the lowest earnings in the whole of Wales—some would argue that it has the lowest earnings in the United Kingdom—would be filled with Japanese factories? It is not. Is not it a fact that the communications problems of rural Wales and its problems with rail and motorway links, are a disincentive
    656
    to inward investment and that, over the past few years, the Government have failed lamentably to improve those communications?
    Mr. Redwood: People do not come for low earnings; they come for good value from the work force, unencumbered by high social taxes and other impositions. They certainly would not come if there were a special tax on being Welsh, imposed by a Welsh assembly. It is important to bear that in mind.
    However, I accept that more remote regions need special assistance, especially help from the Government in improving transport links. That is exactly what I intend to provide.
    Mr. Biffen: What is the most recent assessment that my right hon. Friend is able to make of the likelihood of the New Zealand firm Fortex establishing a meat processing plant on the Montgomeryshire-Shropshire border?
    Mr. Redwood: I have no recent intelligence, but I was aware of the project some weeks ago. I believe that discussions are continuing.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received regarding the resources allocated to training and enterprise councils in Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I have received no recent representations on that matter.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister will be aware of the contents of the London School of Economics report on the future of training and enterprise councils in England and Wales. Is he also aware that although the budgets of TECs have remained broadly the same during the past few years, the proportion allocated for direct training has been cut for three or four years? Will it be the Government's policy to ensure that direct training programmes are properly funded? Will the Minister persuade his colleagues in the Government to change the rule whereby newly unemployed people receive training in the first six-month period but not after six months have expired?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend announced a training and enterprise package of more than £147 million for next year. That compares favourably with the planned figure for this year. This year, the outturn will be rather greater and that is in part because of the Budget measures. I assure the hon. Gentleman that sufficient moneys will be allocated to meet the youth training guarantee. We also want better-quality training. There will be money for engineering apprenticeships and an extension of the youth credit scheme. I remind the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he will be aware—that the numbers of people entering training are now decreasing because more young people are staying on at school.

    Tax Increases
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the tax increases due in April on economic recovery in Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I share the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who calculated that the recovery in the economy that has been under way since the middle of 1992 would not be prejudiced by the tax increases that are necessary to bring the public finances back into balance in the medium term.
    Mr. Williams: In the context of the Government's "back to basics" policy, does the Minister agree that one of the basic virtues should be honesty? The Prime Minister said in the 1992 election campaign that there was no need to raise value added tax and spoke of tax cuts year on year. How does that square with the tax increases that are due in April, which will cost the average family £10 a week—the largest tax increase in our history? Were those promises at the time of the last election just lies?
    Mr. Jones: I will take no lectures on honesty from the high-taxing, high-spending Labour party. It would not come clean with the electorate at the last general election. It still will not come clean with the electorate. It will never be believed on that subject.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a simple explanation for the necessary tax increases in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget—a recession which went on a great deal longer and was much deeper than anyone forecast, including every Opposition Member?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The taxation that we are imposing is the minimum necessary because only the Conservative party is committed to the lowest possible level of taxation.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that the recession referred to by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) was created by the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Jones: I am amazed. There speaks a Member of the European Parliament. One would expect someone who travels so frequently outside his country at public expense to know that it was a world recession.

    Roads
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total spending by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk roads have been laid since that year.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Since 1979, total spending by central Government on the roads programme in Wales is over £2.4 billion, including £434 million transport grant. Twenty-five miles of motorway and 154 miles of trunk road have been completed. Ten major improvement schemes totalling almost 30 miles are under construction.
    Sir David Knox: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the level of road building in Wales since he became a Minister almost 15 years ago. What are his plans for the coming year?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that a start on the A40 Llandeilo northern bypass is being made today. Tenders have also been invited for the A470 Pentrebach to Cefn Coed bypass and the A5 Glyn Bends schemes. We are also active with the A40 Whitland bypass and four new starts are expected using transport grant: the
    658
    third Dee crossing, the Rithland bypass, the Swansea valley dualling of the A4067 and the Bridgend cross-valley link.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Freemasonry
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with other Departments regarding freemasonry in public life; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): My officials have consulted other Departments about the way in which codes of conduct in the wider public sector deal with freemasonry.
    Mr. Mullin: Is it asking too much from Ministers who say that they believe in open government to require magistrates, police officers, civil servants and local government officers who are freemasons to declare that fact? How is it possible to maintain public confidence in public institutions when members of those public institutions belong to a secret society, one aim of which is mutual self-advancement?
    Mr. Davis: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when the civil service code was revised in May, it required freemasons and to disclose their membership when there was a conflict of interest. Specifically with regard to the police, police rules make it clear that private interests should not conflict, or be seen to conflict, with the impartial performance of duty. That message is reinforced by specific reminders from some chief constables that officers should consider whether freemasonry and perceived impartiality are compatible. Ultimately it is for individuals to decide, so long as there is no breach of police discipline.
    Mr. Meacher: Is not the basis of corruption that decisions are taken in public life, not on arm's-length merit, but because of hidden and partisan relationships? If so, why are the Government so feeble about all this—whether it is freemasonry in public life, or banning tobacco advertising, or gongs and honours for secret services rendered, or the award of large foreign contracts to a small clique of favoured companies without tender and subsidised improperly by the aid and trade provision? Is not that because the finances of the Tory party, and so much of the power of this Tory Government, are built on a wholesale corruption machine?
    Mr. Davis: If I can find my way through that little homily to the question, I assume that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we should have some kind of legal requirement.
    Mr. Garrett: On what?
    Mr. Davis: On the disclosure of freemasonry. If that is the case, I cannot agree that a legal requirement for disclosure would help. It would simply create a vast bureaucracy and legislative framework which would be avoided by precisely the people whom we are trying to catch—those who are corrupt or misusing public office or public money.
    Mr. Burns: Has my hon. Friend had any discussions on this subject with local authorities? For example, has he had any discussions with Derbyshire county council?
    Mr. Skinner: That should get me in.
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) tempts me. I suspect that there are fewer freemasons in the Government than there are members of the hon. Gentleman's family on the payroll of Derbyshire county council.
    The local councils have guidelines that cover this matter.
    Mr. Skinner: One of the problems about freemasonry, even more so than in the past, is that, as the Government are running organisations on the basis of quangos, patronage and preference, it is pretty clear that thousands and thousands of jobs that used to be done by councillors accountable to the public will now be done by people nominated, in the main, by the Tory Government and their local apparatchiks. The net result will be even stronger freemasonry. That is why Members of Parliament who are freemasons should have their membership recorded in the Register.
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is wrong—again. Since 1979, the number of quangos has been reduced from about 2,100 to about 1,400. The hon. Gentleman is adding all sorts of bodies, such as the boards of grant-maintained schools, which are now more, rather than less, accountable to the public than they were previously. As for appointments to quangos, we hear much heckling from the Opposition Front Bench, particularly from the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who, if I remember correctly, was appointed to the West Midlands Enterprise Board—a Labour placeman on a quango that has done nothing but lose the public more than £6 million in the past few years.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department intends to spend in 1994–95 on publicity publications and public relations relating to the citizens charter.
    Mr. David Davis: The charter unit has no separate publicity budget. Media, production and distribution costs for projects carried out by the charter unit are expected to be just over £1.6 million in this financial year. The budget for 1994–95 will be finalised shortly.
    Mr. Raynsford: On the day when thousands of my constituents and millions of people throughout the country suffered long, cold waits and delays—presumably, once again, because the wrong type of snow was falling on our railway lines—will the Minister admit that what is required is investment to improve our public services, rather than the production of yet more charter brochures, which, as everyone knows, are simply not worth the cost of the paper on which they are printed?
    Mr. Davis: Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of British Rail, rather than take his view, I shall take the view of Michael Patterson, the secretary of the British Rail passengers watchdog body, the Central Transport Consultative Committee. Mr. Patterson has said:
    660
    "The charter is definitely a good thing. The right to claim refunds when trains are late, or the giving of discounts on season tickets on lines where trains are unpunctual wouldn't have happened without the Charter."
    That puts pressure on the management of British Rail to run the service properly and to make sure that trains are on time.
    Mr. Dickens: Was not it the Conservative party which gave workers their rights, tenants their rights, parents their rights, passengers their rights and hospital patients their rights? This is the only party which has had the guts to come up with legislation to ensure that people are provided with the services to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Davis: As ever, my hon. Friend is exactly right. I should add that the Labour party is always happy to talk about rights, but is never happy to do anything about delivering them. These charters give information about the rights that people, in their dealings with public services, can expect. They encourage improved performance and they are worth the very small amount of money that goes into supporting them.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the Conservative Government's appalling record—an all-time low—what will the hon. Gentleman's Department do to improve their reputation? Bearing in mind the fact that the Department is responsible for public relations, may I ask why it has so miserably failed the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Davis: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is even less well-informed than members of his own Front Bench. We are not responsible for public relations.

    Science and Technology White Paper
    Mr. Day: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps have been taken so far to develop proposals set out in the science and technology White Paper.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): The orders for the new research councils have been approved and I have appointed all but one of the new chairmen and chief executives. Sir John Cadogan has started as Director-General of Research Councils and, on his advice, I have allocated £15.5 million of the science budget in 1994–95 for special initiatives in support of White Paper policies. The Council for Science and Technology has met twice. I expect shortly to announce details of our technology foresight programme. The first forward look of science and technology policy will be published in April.
    Mr. Day: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of that White Paper to my constituency, with its deep involvement and that of surrounding constituencies in high technology industries. Does he agree that the recent speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee set out clearly the Government's commitment to the future of science and technology as set out in the White Paper? Does he further agree that it is vital to industries not only in and around my constituency but throughout the country that the White Paper and scientific and technological development are successful in future?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I firmly agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend's important speech to the

    661
    Parliamentary and Scientific Committee was well received. There is general all-party agreement that we need to apply science and technology more effectively to wealth creation and to the improvement of our people.
    Mr. Miller: When will we see real progress with the foresight programme? The Minister says that there is broad agreement for the need to make progress, but we really need action. Otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman will just go down as being the Minister for the "foresight saga".
    Mr. Waldegrave: The technology foresight programme must involve real consensus among its partners from industry, academia and Government. I shall announce towards the end of this month or early next month the conclusions of the widespread consultations that we held. The programme will be in action this year.

    Science and Technology
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to give prominence to the national week of science and technology.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My office is providing funds to the British Association for the Advancement of Science to promote the first national week of science this March. More than 1,000 events will take place throughout the United Kingdom and I am sure that many right hon. And hon. Members will want to take part and to help make the week a success.
    Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent initiative to improve public understanding of science. Does he agree that is a basic objective of the excellent White Paper that he published last July?
    Mr. Waldegrave: One point that came across most strongly to me when I talked to scientists at the bench was that they did not begrudge the expenditure of a little money from the science budget for that purpose. At the weekend, we saw the publication of the rather depressing results of a European Commission poll, which showed that Britain's population is less well-informed scientifically than any other in the European Community. I take that with a pinch of salt, but it was depressing news. There is much work to be done.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: While Britain has 118,000 research scientists and engineers, Japan has 583,000. Japan has twice our population but five times the number of research scientists and engineers. Although the number of British students in higher education has increased from 122,000 to 200,000 since 1987, only 3,000 of them are studying science. Does the Minister agree that there is a manpower problem—and, if so, what is he doing about it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government have put in place perhaps the most fundamental series of reforms, including the national curriculum reforms, to improve the position. The overall comparison between this country and the average for OECD countries shows that we score pretty well for scientifically and technically qualified people. However, there is no room for complacency. I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that we must do better.

    Next Steps Agencies
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what number of civil servants are now employed in the next steps agencies; what was the figure a year ago; and what forecast has been made for the next 12 months.
    Mr. Waldegrave: More than 346,000 civil servants, 60 per cent. of the total, are currently employed in executive agencies or other organisations working on next steps lines. That compares with 298,000 a year ago. Functions covering a further 88,000 civil servants are under consideration for agency status.
    Mr. Martin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the next steps programme is probably the most radical reform of the civil service for about 100 years? Will he continue to emphasise not only the value for money, but the ways in which accountability is improved, especially in the devolving of decision-making nearer to those affected by decisions?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am a strong supporter of the principle of devolution to decision-takers nearest to the action. That is the principle involved in the agencies. I believe that the agencies are a great step forward and they will be shown to provide better service for people who rely on their services and better value for money for the taxpayer.
    Mr. Flynn: Is not the problem that the next step after these next steps is privatisation, contractorisation and management buy-out—the effective destruction of the civil service? As there are 31,000 civil servants in Wales, with more in my constituency than in any other Welsh constituency, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster consider what is happening at DVOIT—the Driver, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology agency—and at the Accounts Services Agency? While those firms are offered to the highest bidder, will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that if they are bought out, they will not be relocated in other parts of the United Kingdom, or in Dusseldorf or Taiwan? Will he make it a condition that if those jobs are sold off, as is currently happening, they cannot be relocated out of Wales?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Where better service can be provided more cost effectively, it is right for the Government to look to outside contracts and, where it is right, to privatisation. The Government have been right to pursue that course. I do not believe that it would be legal in the European Community directive to specify where the work should be done when a job is put out to contract. However, the efficiency of many of the organisations in Wales to which the hon. Gentleman refers means that they will be strong competitors for work where it is market tested.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend recall that we are currently looking at the next steps possibilities for AEA Technology in Winfrith in my constituency? Will he reassure my constituents who are employed there that an early decision will be made? That early decision would enable the firm to create more jobs and to expand its excellent science base.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Any decision on the future organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority would be aimed at securing a wider market for the very skills to

    663
    which my hon. Friend refers. Those skills are great and may, although I do not want to pre-empt any decision, gain from being allowed to compete in a wider market.

    Civil Service (Market Testing)
    Mr. Garrett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the savings from market testing civil service functions.
    Mr. David Davis: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made clear to the House on 4 November, provisional figures for the Departments indicate that savings are considerable. That is why we are pressing ahead with a further programme. Full details and savings from the "Competing for Quality" initiative are being compiled and will be published shortly in the citizens charter second report.
    Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister confirm that those savings never include the departmental costs of preparing for market testing and that, for example, the Department of the Environment spent £250,000 preparing to market test its information technology section and has since dropped the idea? Will he also confirm that the largest single contractor under market testing, EDS, which has taken on the Inland Revenue information technology and computing facilities, is demanding an extra £50 million to pay for the proposed redundancies?
    Mr. Davis: The original savings did not include the EDS Scicon report. My understanding is that the savings are net of the redundancies and the attributable market test consultancy.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the overall benefits of market testing and state how many more posts will be market tested?
    Mr. Davis: The first benefit of market testing is a £100 million saving this year, which could be used to provide some 10 schools or a couple of hospitals or 50,000 primary school places, all of which are important. It also ensures that we have persistently high quality. In all the cases that we surveyed, the quality was at least as good as it was before and, for 30 per cent. of cases, it had improved.

    Duchy Council
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to make the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster more representative of the population of Lancashire in terms of gender, race and social class.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Council of the Duchy of Lancaster acts as an advisory body to me, as Chancellor of the Duchy, as it has to my predecessors. Members of the council are selected for their specialist expertise in the matters on which their advice is sought.
    Mr. Prentice: Has the Chancellor seen early-day motion 599? It calls on him to open up meetings of the council, which are currently held in secret, and to publish minutes and make them publicly available. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is faintly ironic that the Minister for open government should preside over secret meetings? Is not it about time that he let some light shine in on this murky, shady corner of the establishment?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is foolish language, which I think would offend the many distinguished members of the Labour party who have held my office on exactly the same terms. The council advises me and I am accountable for the decisions that are made.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr Prentice) appears to have a bee in his tam o' shanter in regard to the Duchy fund? Have not the citizens of Lancashire done a great deal better from the fund than did the citizens of Hammersmith when the hon. Gentleman was leader of that council and lost a lot of money?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It does not behove me to give advice to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr Prentice), but I urge him—as a Scotsman and as a former distinguished leader of a London borough council—to go a little slow on telling the people of Lancashire how to behave until he has my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) a bit more onside.

BILL PRESENTED
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (GIBRALTAR)
  Mr. Jeff Rooker presented a Bill to entitle residents of Gibraltar to vote as electors in an English constituency in elections to the European Parliament; to amend the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Airports (Northern Ireland)
3.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
The principal purpose of the order is to enable the Government to privatise Belfast international airport. It also takes the opportunity to introduce certain amendments to current Northern Ireland airport legislation to bring it broadly into line with that which already applies in Great Britain. I shall deal with the two elements in that order.
The privatisation provisions are contained in part V, which, when enacted, will enable Belfast international airport to be sold into the private sector. The Government believe that the airport company, as a public body trading on a consistently successful basis over a number of years, should now be allowed to develop further, free of public-sector financial constraints and with the ability to grasp the opportunity offered by private-sector markets for capital and other resources.
Over the past 18 months—since the Government announced their intention to privatize—we have been working to ensure that, in legal and commercial terms, the airport is sold in a manner that will bring the maximum benefits to both the taxpayer and the travelling public. In that respect, Belfast international airport will follow in the footsteps of the former Government-controlled Great Britain airports which were sold in 1987 as part of the successful British Airports Authority privatisation.
Part V provides for the creation of a wholly owned Government company—a successor to Northern Ireland Airports Ltd., the public body which operates Belfast international airports—clears the way for the trasferred assets and liabilities to be sold on the private sector. Those powers are contained in articles 51, 54 and 58. The Government intend to privatise by means of a trade sale.
Before the sale takes place, however to ensure that there are no contingent tax liabilities as a consequence of privatisation, the property rights of the airport will be restructured in such a fashion as to avoid any adverse tax consequences. I draw the House's attention to articles 52 and 53, which deal with this necessary and important reorganisation scheme.
The remaining provisions of the order update current Northern Ireland airport law, largely to match the position in Great Britain. The new provisions also reflect developments that have taken place in the Northern Ireland airport industry over the past 20 years. The existing statutory responsibility of the Department of the Environment to promote the provision of airports in Northern Ireland is to be repealed.
That duty was considered necessary when the Aerodromes Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 was introduced, but, with the privatisation of the main regional airport and the emerging growth of other airport facilities in Northern Ireland, it is no longer considered necessary. The full list of repeals is contained in schedule 10 to the order.
There are a number of provisions in part II of the order dealing with land, which afford certain rights to airport operators, for example, in relation to compulsory purchase and the protection of property. Part II also updates the present law in relation to certain aspects of airport safety.
666
Part III has a number of important features in relation to the management of airports, including improved arrangements for the making and enforcing of airport byelaws. I draw attention specifically to article 20, a new provision whereby certain designated airports will be required to provide facilities for consultation with airport users, the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, district councils and other interested parties. The system of airport consultative committees at mainland airports has evolved from similar legislative provisions introduced earlier in Great Britain and the committees have proved a successful forum for interested groups to discuss airport issues and problems with the operators.
Mr. David Winnick: There is, unfortunately, rarely agreement about Northern Ireland issues among the political parties. Is it not odd, therefore, that when there is unity the Government seek to undermine it by pressing ahead with a privatisation measure which is greeted with little enthusiasm by the parties representing the Northern Ireland electorate?
Mr. Smith: We shall have to wait and see, but, even if the hon. Gentleman is right, I believe that the arguments for privatisation in Northern Ireland are as strong as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. In this particular case, privatisation will bring two particular advantages. The first is that management will have much greater freedom to manage and will be free from the interference that automatically comes with Government control. The second is that airport management will have access to private capital markets to gain further investment, a facility not at present available to them.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister is a Minister with a difference because he has—if I might put it this way—matured politically on the Public Accounts Committee where he has spent much of his time criticising the Government for the failures of privatisation and the way in which it has been handled. Will he assure us that he will apply all the lessons that he learned in the many hundreds of hours of deliberations and that this project will not come before the PAC in the future with a critical report?
Mr. Smith: I hope that the PAC will continue to examine all privatisations with not only a critical eye but a constructive approach to suggest ways in which we might do better in future. All the lessons learned by the PAC have been fully taken into account in this privatisation. Hon. Members and others have queried whether we should tackle the issue by way of a flotation or a trade sale. I have examined the circumstances extremely carefully and concluded that, in this case, the taxpayer will get the best value for money if we proceed by way of a trade sale.
Part III of the order contains a number of important features in relation to the management of airports, including improved arrangements for the making and enforcement of airport byelaws. I draw specific attention to article 20, a new provision whereby certain designated airports will be required to provide facilities for consultation with airport users.
Article 19 enables the new owner of the airport to obtain authority from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to appoint constables. The Secretary of State may grant this authorisation subject to such conditions as he may think fit. In effect, the existing Northern Ireland airport police will

667
transfer en bloc to the employment of the new owner. Under current arrangements, the airport constabulary is under the direction of the commercial management of the airport. That will continue to be the case post-privatisation.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay rose—
Mr. Smith: I should like to develop the arguments before giving way. I am about to explain why we think that these are the appropriate arrangements.
There are precedents for those arrangements. When, for example, the Port of London Authority and Tilbury docks were privatised their respective police functions were retained without any loss of effectiveness. The key point is that the present arrangements work well in practice. For 23 years, the airport constabulary has operated successfully as a discrete organisation under the exclusive control of a commercially driven management, and the Government see no reason why privatisation should be a catalyst for change.
Finally, and very importantly, I have taken into account the views of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of other Government security advisers, who are satisfied with the proposed arrangements for airport policing after privatisation. Hon. Members should note particularly that members of the airport constabulary are already trained by the RUC and will be continuously monitored for performance by the RUC as part of its regular review of security arrangements at the airport. Should policing standards not be maintained to a satisfactory level, powers are available, under aviation security legislation, to allow the policing role at the airport to be taken over quickly by the RUC.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is not the Minister a little confused about how the force is currently looked after? As the airport holding company is a public company, is not the police force under the control of the Secretary of State? We cannot compare the present position with what will happen in the future. Is the Minister saying that the present position will continue? Will the Secretary of State still have a responsibility for the airport police?
Mr. Smith: I am saying that privatisation will not have any practical consequences for the policing of the airport. The key argument is that the constables will be employed, as they are at present, by the airport and will continue to be trained and supervised by the RUC. They will be closely monitored, as they are at present. Furthermore, if the Secretary of State, on advice, is dissatisfied with the arrangements, he will be able to step in and deal with the matter promptly.
Mr. Mackinlay: Will constables have to be resworn on the vesting day of the private company, when they will become its employees? What is the Northern Ireland Airport Police Association's view on the privatisation proposals?
Mr. Smith: The police will not have to be resworn, because there will, I believe, be continuity of all employment arrangements, but I will look into the matter. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's other question when I reply to the debate.
Airport constables who are already authorised to be armed will continue to carry sidearms when the airport is privatised. The Government are satisfied that continuation
668
of that arrangement raises no significant or insurmountable difficulties. The important point is that the RUC is content with the proposals.
The history and reputation of the airport constabulary are satisfactory and, for all practical purposes, its responsibilities and capabilities will remain unchanged by privatisation.
Part IV of the order deals with the economic regulation of airports. It includes new provisions that mirror the system that has operated in Great Britain since its introduction under the Airports Act 1986. The relevant articles are drafted with the twin purpose of ensuring fair competition between airports and fair trading within them. Airports, unlike most service providers, are recognised as having certain monopolistic characteristics in the provision of air transport services in their region. For obvious reasons, those services are not likely to be duplicated on the site next door.
The Government are concerned to ensure that such monopolies should not be exercised to the disadvantage of airport customers. Airports trading above a certain threshold—in this case, a turnover of £1 million—will have certain requirements on the levying of charges placed upon them. That new system will be handled by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as it is in Britain. It will effectively be identical to the regulatory model that applies to all other United Kingdom airports.
Let me touch on the responses received by the Government during the draft order consultation period. The process prompted 32 formal responses. As a result, a number of minor changes have been made. They include the additional requirement now contained in article 20 that designated airport operators consult the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. Following representations by the Belfast harbour commissioners, it was also decided to tighten up certain provisions relating to compulsory purchase of land by airport operators.
The consultation period promoted lively debate about the method by which Belfast international airport should be privatised, with some support for the flotation option. The Government reconsidered that matter most carefully and concluded that the arguments in favour of privatisation by trade sale remained more compelling and offered the most cost-effective method of disposal.
Curent forecasts suggest that there will be significant growth in air traffic over the next decade and beyond. I believe that a privatised Belfast international airport, freed from the constraints of Government, with greater freedom to manage itself, will be in a position to grasp more effectively the exciting opportunities thus offered. I commend the order to the House.
3.45 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: It is ironic that, if the proposed legislation applied to anywhere else in the United Kingdom, we should be having a Second Reading of a privatisation Bill, followed by a Committee and Report stage, Third Reading and consideration in the Lords. I make no apologies for saying yet again that this is the most undemocratic way of dealing with a major piece of Northern Ireland legislation.
The Order in Council procedure is the most unsatisfactory way imaginable of dealing with important issues in Northern Ireland. However, as Ministers have

669
pointed out over the years, the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland will not be restored until the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland can agree on some form of devolved power; I hope that that will happen sooner rather than later.
I note that the Finance Bill, currently being debated in Committee, contains clauses relating to the privatisation of Belfast international airport. The Minister will no doubt be aware that that Bill has been guillotined, which means that, if the debate on stamp duty, which precedes the debate on the privatisation of Northern Ireland's airport, is protracted, the guillotine will fall before that debate is reached, again depriving hon. Members of a chance to debate and interrogate the Government about the reasons for privatising the airport. In short, we have before us a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The order provides for the privatisation of Belfast international airport and gives rise to a series of important questions to which I hope the Minister will reply. The hon. Gentleman will know that the explanatory note issued by the Northern Ireland Office says:
"The Aerodromes Act imposed a duty on the Department to promote airport development and extended the powers of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company enabling it to establish a subsidiary company."
The order represents a total abrogation of that responsibility. The very fact that Northern Ireland sits on the periphery of the European Community should lead the Government to play a full and active role in promoting airport development and developing transport links with the rest of the United Kingdom, the island of Ireland, the European Community and the north Atlantic routes.
The Minister pointed out that, to date, the record of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. has been a good one. Operating profits at Belfast international airport soared to almost £4·5 million in 1992–93—an increase of 71 per cent. on the previous year's profits. Given such a glowing testimony, it seems crazy that the Government should be seeking to jettison one of the few economic success stories of their 15 years in office.
In the Government's desperate attempt to claw back some of the deficit that they have accumulated, they appear to be flogging off the last bit of family silver. The hon. Gentleman, in his consultation paper, believes:
"It is no longer considered necessary for the Department to have a statutory duty to promote and provide airports."
I invite the House to consider one point. It might not be considered necessary now for the Government to have those powers, but that was not their view when they were accepting taxpayers' money from the European Community for investment in the infrastructure of Northern Ireland international airport. From 1990 to 1993, a total of £7·5 million of grant aid was received from the European regional development fund transportation programme, all of which will now benefit the private company that takes over the airport.
During the debate in another place, the Minister, Lady Denton, stated:
"There will be no clawback of the grant on ERDF. That has been confirmed by Brussels."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1166.]
I wrote to EC Commissioner Bruce Millan last year, when it was clear that the Government would go ahead with the privatisation of the airport, suggesting that, on privatisation, there may well be a clawback of the grants that the
670
Government received. For greater accuracy, I have photocopied the Commissioner's letter for the Minister. It says:
"The question of clawback could arise in the event of privatisation. It has been reported recently that the government intends to dispose of the airport by a trade sale. If the purchaser paid the full market value of the business, the proceeds accruing to government would represent the full grant-aided assets, including ERDF aid, and in those circumstances the Commission might seek to clawback a proportion of the aid from the Government."
That is a different story from what was said in the other place. The letter emphasises that the purchaser would have to pay the full market value of the airport. Although the Labour party does not like what the Government are proposing, I hope that that is the case.
We know from recent experiences, however, that to get their hands on fast cash, the Government are perfectly happy to sell Britain's public assets at bargain basement prices. Will the Minister therefore outline any assessment that his Department has undertaken to ascertain the market value of the airport? Will he further assure hon. Members this evening that his Department will only sell Belfast international airport at its full market value?
The Minister has a problem. If the airport is sold at its full market value, the European Commission may want some of its money back. If the Government sell it at less than its market value, the Minister may well be accused of doing that in order to avoid paying the Commission its money back. He has a problem on both those counts. Whatever price the airport eventually fetches, it is clear that the people of Northern Ireland will not benefit from the sale.
We oppose the privatisation of Aldergrove airport. If the Government truly believe that the offer is attractive and that the sale will benefit the people of Northern Ireland, why is the Minister not letting them share such a golden opportunity? Selling the airport by means of a trade sale will do nothing to extend the share-owning democracy that the Conservatives have so often hailed in the past. Yet again, we witness the Government favouring big business above the individual, and private profits above public interest.
The Minister may be aware that I, along with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and representatives of the airport police, met his predecessor to raise a number of important issues relating to the future of police operations at the airport. I regret to say that the outcome of that meeting did not allay our concerns or those of the airport constabulary.
I understand what the Minister has said about the police at the airport, but I believe that most members of the public in Northern Ireland and elsewhere will be asonished to learn that the Government plan to vest police powers in a private operation at Belfast international airport. We support the request from the airport police that they should retain their operational independence. Especially in the Northern Ireland context, it would be highly dangerous for security and policing levels to be decided by managers who were motivated by profit.
Mr. Winnick: What my hon. Friend has said is much appreciated by Opposition Members. Does he know of any Northern Irish political party represented in the House of Commons that favours the order?
Mr. Stott: My information is that there is none. I have no doubt that we shall be able to reinforce that point later when we divide the House on this important matter.
I was talking about the problems faced by the police and about their operational independence. Can the Minister explain what specific policing requirements a successor company to Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. will be asked to meet? Section 2.6(e) of the explanatory document states that the authorisation to appoint airport constabularies
"may be granted subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State sees fit."
I should be obliged if the Minister would enlarge on that matter.
Will the Minister tell us whether the requirements include minimum police levels? If so, what are those levels to be? Will they be regularly monitored and reviewed by the Secretary of State or, once the airport has been privatised, will policing become a matter for the successor company, although that company's raison d'etre is maximising profits? Despite the independence of the police at Aldergrove airport, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as the Minister has pointed out, plays an important role in training the officers at the airport. How will the sale affect the present working relations between the two groups? Who, if anyone, will be responsible for assessing training and safety standards, especially with regard to firearms?
The police, who have done a marvellous job at Aldergrove airport for the past 23 years, have asked their elected representatives to pursue the matter. We have given them our support in their wish to maintain their operational independence and their integrity. They are very concerned about the transfer of the airport to a private company whose motivation will be rather different from that of the current holding company.
What about the other workers at the airport? Will their current terms and conditions be honoured by the new company? Will the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 still apply? Will their pension provisions remain the same? Will their trade union recognition and negotiating rights be acceptable? Those issues are important to everyone who works at Belfast international airport.
Last week in another place, my hon. Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, together with many of their Lordships, questioned Lady Denton about the implications of the privatisation of Northern Ireland international airport and how it would affect the current defence and security systems. Security at airports on this island is provided by county forces or regional police forces. At Aldergrove international airport, the position is more complicated, because the security facilities are shared with the airport authority and the Ministry of Defence. Regrettably, there still remains a continuing need for that sort of high-level security to be provided. Therefore, one needs to be satisfied that that level of security will continue.
One is bound to ask two simple questions. First, who will be responsible for security at the airport once it is sold? Will it be the new company, the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or a combination of all three? Secondly, who will be responsible for paying for that security once the transfer has taken place? Clearly, security is an expensive operation. Will the cost be borne by the new owners, or will taxpayers be asked to pay, as they do already because of the problems that we have in Northern Ireland? There are two questions that the Minister must
672
address: who will pay, and who will have the overall responsibility for security at Belfast international airport once the sale has been effected? I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that those extremely important questions deserve an answer today.
Earlier, I said that the Labour party is opposed to the order and will oppose it in the Lobby tonight. I could not put a better case for our opposition to the order than was put by Lord Cooke, a native of Northern Ireland, speaking in another place last week at column 1161. He said:
"We have in place at Belfast International Airport a management"—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase. If he is quoting the Minister, it is perfectly in order, but if he is quoting a Back Bencher, he must paraphrase.
Mr. Stott: The noble Lord was saying that we have a good international airport in Belfast. It is well managed, and makes a good profit. If the Treasury is concerned about the public sector borrowing requirement, Lord Cooke felt that methods could be arranged whereby the airport, under its current ownership, could have the right to borrow money on the commercial market. I agree with him. All those things could be put in place—all those things could happen at Northern Ireland international airport.
The only reason why this matter has been brought to the House today, and the only reason why the Government ate privatising Northern Ireland international airport, is the incompetent way in which they have managed the affairs of this country over the past 15 years. They must flog off every bit of public assets. They are putting up taxes to reduce the deficit that they created. That is why they have come to the House and asked for parliamentary permission to sell this valuable asset. It is not for any operational reason, or any other reason; they want the money to get themselves out of the mess that they created. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to join me in opposing this appalling measure.
4.3 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: It is the policy of our party to consider each privatisation proposal on its merits. If we find that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, we will generally support the proposal. Of course, if we find that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, we will oppose the proposal.
From a personal point of view, the order has certain advantages. If it is passed, at least we will have one fewer quango in Northern Ireland. However, we are totally opposed to the way in which this vital legislation is going through the House—by order. That alone would perhaps. push us into opposing the order. I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Scott) that the matter is not getting a fair crack of the whip in the House, and it is also not getting a fair crack of the whip in Committee on the Finance Bill. That surely cannot be good for democracy.
Before considering the contents of the order and the principle behind it, I wish to thank publicly the officials in the Department of the Environment who are looking after the privatisation for their co-operation and their consideration of my views during the consultative period. I also thank the former Ministers who saw myself and the hon. Member for Wigan earlier. I should like that to be put

673
on the record because hon. Members certainly criticise departmental officials and, out of courtesy, we should thank them when that can be done.
Belfast international airport is of great importance to Northern Ireland. Lord Cooke—one of the original board of directors, if I can put it in those terms—certainly made that clear in another place. He also stated that the airport was to be run for the benefit of business and ordinary passengers, but in a commercial manner. The view of the former Prime Minister, Brian Faulkner, has been justified over the years.

The airport is the main gateway into Northern Ireland, even taking into account the ports and so forth. The number of people who travel through the international airport suggest that it is the main gateway. The people of Northern Ireland believe that it should be left in their hands.
It would be possible to change the control of the airport from the present quango situation to a different system, which would put it under the democratic control of elected representatives. Those representatives would be responsible to the voters each time they went forward to be elected. Such legislation would be acceptable, even if it did go through by Order in Council of the House, because it would provide a little more democracy.
As has been said, millions of pounds of European and Treasury money have gone into the airport. That has been matched by the high standards of service and the hard work of the staff in the airport, which reflects great credit upon them. I refer to the workers at all levels, and the citizens of Northern Ireland are proud of the valuable asset which we have in that airport. That asset should be left in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. It certainly should not be sold to what we suspect will be the highest bidder, particularly when the economic situation is at such a low level. We may not get the exact figure that we would be looking for in the best circumstances.
The airport has been run efficiently and economically, and the security service has been given high importance. Sadly, profit will be the paramount motive under privatisation. While I agree that investors should expect a return on their investment, I must condemn the undue haste in auctioning off Northern Ireland's resources.
The privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity is a sorry example. It was presented by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), as essential to lower electricity prices in Northern Ireland. Now even large users of electricity—the only ones who supported the Minister in privatising Northern Ireland Electricity—all Opposition parties and all Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland totally oppose the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. We now know the truth about whether we will have lower prices.
I do not accuse the present Minister. He has only just been appointed to his position, but, unfortunately, he has the job of steering the measure through the House.
At least there was a share flotation in respect of Northern Ireland Electricity and shares were bought by Northern Ireland citizens. Unfortunately, although share owners have profited because the share price is quite high, those who were too poor to buy shares still face very high electricity prices. Belfast international airport is now in line for privatisation, and next in the wings is Belfast harbour. They are some of our assets in Northern Ireland.
674
We disagree with the decision to refuse to issue shares, but, as a Member for the area, I see a ray of sunshine showing through the Tory ideological mist—that is, the management-worker buy-out offer. I hope that it proceeds. Each of us should wish the application well. If it is successful, people who have worked for years to make the airport such a successful operation might reap some reward for their hard work. Of course, it will also retain Belfast international airport in local hands.
Why was it necessary to include an airport official in article 18(3)(i)? Such matters should have been left in the hands of a constable of police. Article 20, which refers to the consultation of which the Minister made such a point, states that there will be
"adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the airport which affects their interests."
Why are the four words "which affects their interests" needed? I should have thought that they would not be required. Does that mean that internal airport matters cannot be discussed, even when they indirectly affect the interests of people using the airport?
A consultative committee is only a consultative committee; what sanctions does such a committee have in respect of getting things done and resolving problems at the airport?
Can the Minister tell us whether a new pension scheme will be introduced? If so, will sufficient funds be transferred to ensure that members enjoy a full pension when the correct number of service years have been achieved? Is there a surplus in the pension fund? If there is, how will it be handled? Will it be used to give a pension holiday to the new company, as happened in the case of Harland and Wolff? Have the present pension fund members been consulted about the proposals to set up a new pension scheme? Have the present fund pensioners and deferred pensioners been kept informed? What arrangements have been made to give pensioners and deferred pensioners a say in the present or future schemes?
As a member of the Social Security Select Committee, I assure the Minister, the scheme members and the Department that the Committee views such matters very seriously indeed.
I shall now discuss airport policing—not security, but airport policing, because there is a distinct difference between security at the airport and policing at the airport. As the hon. Member for Wigan said, we met the Minister. We were accompanied by members of the Belfast Airport Police Association, and we discussed the worries of the association. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I look after the interests of all airport workers, but, having been specifically asked by BAPA to look after its members' interests, I wish to make several arguments to the Minister.
First, the BAPA should remain under Northern Ireland Office control. The Minister almost convinced me that that would be the case, because he said that the Secretary of State would be ultimately responsible in certain circumstances. I also explained that the association was at present under the Secretary of State's control.
For about 22 or 23 years, BAPA members have successfully policed the airport and defended it from terrorist attack. Several members have received honours for gallantry; others have received honours for dedication to duty. As the Minister said, they are trained to Home

675
Office standards by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the association is rightly regarded as a responsible, professional organisation.
However, under the proposals, in spite of all of those facts and all the nice things that have been said about the police and about the association, federated status and rights of representation are still refused to the association.
It does not follow that 22 or 23 years of co-operation between the present public company—for that is what it is—and BAPA will necessarily continue under any new company. If a private company is in control, conflicts may arise between policing and profit.
For instance, I ask the Minister whether, in a scenario that I shall suggest, the company could force a policeman to admit a key worker if that worker has no identification. There could be an immediate conflict of interest between policing and the ownership of the airport. Because of his instructions, a policeman may say that no one can gain admission without a pass. If the policeman receives a phone call from management saying,"That is a key worker and he must get in to do his business or we will lose money and our profit, so you will admit that man," there will be a conflict of interest. Under such a conflict of interest, will the company be able to discipline the constable?
Will policing and security under a private company be maintained at the very highest level? I am sure that the Minister will say, "Of course it will", but I ask that anyway. Specifically, will the Secretary of State retain the power to make a direction requiring owners to meet security standards? More important, will that be incorporated into the conditions of the sale?
Will the proposed security committee, which has not been discussed yet, so I suppose that we should not really debate it at great length, have its recommendations enforced by the Secretary of State or with the support of the Secretary of State? Will those recommendations continue to update and improve the present security standards at the airport and on the approach roads? Will the Minister assure me that, as the constituency Member, I will have a right of access to that committee? Will he take this opportunity to announce the name of the chairman of the security committee?
If the order is approved, will the Minister tell us what title he has selected for the present force when it is taken over by the new owners? Will he confirm the undertaking given to me by his predecessor in a letter 20 October 1993, in which he said:
"I will ensure that the airport company, at the appropriate time prior to privatisation, enters into a formal agreement with the Association"—
that is, BAPA—
"recognising its rights to represent the employment interests of its members"?
I await the Minister's reply on that issue.
As the order replaces the Aerodromes Act (Northern Ireland) 1971, I want to draw the attention of the House to the lack of an airports policy in Northern Ireland. The Minister and his predecessors have made no effort to ensure that Northern Ireland airports are complementary and not confrontational to each other. For example, I am very concerned about the position of Belfast city airport. Over a short period, there has been a tremendous growth of 40 per cent. in passenger traffic at that airport. In 1993, passenge traffic rose from 600,000 to 840,000. The company confidently predicts that it will increase to 1·2 million in 1994.
676
In view of those figures, will pressure be exerted on the airport authority to relax the current self-imposed flying curfew which prevents aircraft from landing or taking off between 9.30 pm and 6.30 am? It is almost certain that noise levels will rise, so the whole situation will have to be examined. I hope that any examination will be undertaken in the context of the recommendations made by the inspector who conducted the inquiry arising from the local plan for Belfast harbour for the period 1990–2005. Those recommendations were aimed at containing airport growth on the basis of noise parameters.
Inevitably, every increase in the number of flights over that densely populated area raises questions of civil aviation safety. It must be remembered that the houses around the Belfast city airport were there before the airport. I am quite sure that the quantity of aeroplane fuel being dispersed over the area will give rise to concern about the health and other effects of such emissions.
It is hardly necessary to draw anyone's atteiton to the difficulties with regard to road access to the city airport. Perhaps some hon. Members do not know about them, but everyone in Northern Ireland certainly does. The situation can only get worse. If the problem is not addressed we shall have a major road hazard on our hands. It would prejudice the safety and convenience of traffic on the Sydenham bypass. Indeed, press reports are already calling attention to the danger.
I have here two cuttings from the Belfast Telegraph. One of them is headed
"Lights plea as bypass crash fears grow".
Jim Rodgers and Ian Adamson, who are Ulster Unionist councillors for the area, have written to the Department of the Environment, and Mr. Rodgers is reported to have said:
"Drivers simply can't cross this road during the rush hour to get in and out of the airport. People are taking terrible risks, and someone will be killed if something isn't done immediately."
Hon. Members hearing those words may conclude that roadworks are necessary. The point is that if the airport has to cope with more flights, passengers and road traffic than were envisaged at the time of the inquiry the problem lies in the lack of an airports policy in Northern Ireland.
Another edition of the Belfast Telegraph carried the headline:
"Concern grows over traffic tailbacks at City Airport entrance: hazard fears on bypass".
A person who drove to the airport to drop off a passenger is quoted as having said:
"People were having difficulty getting into the airport, and the traffic was tailing back out on to the Bangor-bound side of the bypass."
Another man, who regularly travels on the Sydenham bypass on his way to work, is reported to have said that he often saw cars tailing back from the airport out on to the road. One of the newspaper articles says that there have been several car pile-ups outside the airport; that passengers, having waited up to half an hour to cross the bypass, have missed their flights; and that taxi drivers are reluctant to go to the airport because they cannot get in or out.
These reports, as well as rumours about airlines setting one airport against another with regard to costs and discussions with airlines, highlight the confrontation that is caused by the lack of an airports policy. What we need is a policy through which the airports would complement each other. We have an international airport right out in the country, away from built-up areas. It has magnificent facilities, provided by public money. Why should not we

677
have a policy to ensure that the airports complement each other and that each concentrates on what it is best equipped to do? Only in that way will Northern Ireland be best served by its airports—and the taxpayer will get a proper return on the grants provided for a co-ordinated, complementary system.
I object to the way in which this order to privatise Belfast international airport is being considered by the House. The Minister is new to the job, but I travel more in hope than in certainty that, one day, the House will treat Northern Ireland like the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of legislation.
The proposed privatisation has more disadvantages than advantages for the citizens of Northern Ireland. Accordingly, I shall recommend to my parliamentary colleagues that they vote against it.
4.20 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I apologise to the Minister for missing the first few minutes of his speech. If I ask a question on a point with which he has already dealt, I hope that he will forgive me. The reason for my lateness is germane to the debate, in that aeroplanes waiting to land at Heathrow were considerably delayed by two or three centimetres of snow on the runway. Snow ploughs were clearing those few centimetres of snow all morning. We had no such problems in Northern Ireland—everything was in order at Belfast international airport when we left there.
In common with most Northern Ireland Members, I wonder whether it is worth while participating in a debate such as this. It is like sending for the doctor to attend the wake. Nothing that we say today will influence the decision that the Government have already reached, which is being made law by the infamous Order in Council procedure. From time to time, the Government give reasons why that mechanism must be used—such as trying to bring together the political parties of Northern Ireland to debate their legislative future, but that is not a valid reason. Bills on other matters affecting Northern Ireland are properly presented to the House, and are subject to a Committee stage so that they may be open to detailed debate and amendment. Often, sensible proposals are taken on board and incorporated before a Bill is passed.
However, we are unable to change by one iota the content of this measure. None of the good advice that the Minister will be given this afternoon—mainly from this side of the House—will impinge on the order. Debate is ended, the door is closed and nothing can be changed. Anything that we say today will be retrospective to the consultation that ended some time ago. None the less, one must put down a marker of one's objections.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I support the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He and others who participated in the group talks and in the major consultation that ranged over three years became familiar with the phrase, "Nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed." Apparently, now that we have all agreed, it is not to be done. In other words, the phrase is meaningless.
Mr. McGrady: I shall not be trapped into making a political statement on an order relating to Belfast international airport. The Government have simply
678
decided that they do not require the agreement of the parties in Northern Ireland. Procedures of the House are necessary to deal with matters of grave importance, such as the privatisation of the public assets of Northern Ireland and it should have been done in a Bill. There was a Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, a Northern Ireland Employment Bill and others. It is not the fault, as is sometimes alleged, of the Northern Ireland parties that such methods are used.
As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said, the political talks were about institution and arrangements and were not about the subject matter of the various orders. We are all doctors prognosticating the life span of a dead body.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party, let me say that I am totally opposed to the privatisation. Therefore, I welcome the conversion of at least one wing of the Conservative and Unionist party to the anti-privatisation lobby today. Perhaps the conversion will gain momentum in that party in the foreseeable future. It was unfortunate, however, that it supported many of the previous privatisations.
We are opposed to the privatisation of the airport and of other assets of Northern Ireland because it is putting into private ownership that which we believe is essential to provide good service to the people of Northern Ireland. Such assets should be retained in the public sector, to be fully accountable to the public and to avoid the excesses which profit making is inclined to drive the sector towards—cost cutting, safety cutting, security cutting and many other aspects which have been mentioned.
A second reason for opposing privatisation, which has been touched on, is the question of real competition. It has been said that Belfast international airport is the gateway to Northern Ireland. That is true, without in any way looking down on the other points of access, be they airports or harbours. Belfast airport is the main thoroughfare through which most of the economic relationships with the rest of the world are conducted. It is the vehicle through which most of the Northern Ireland tourist business is conducted and it is important that it should remain in public hands so that the best possible facility, our window to the world, can be sustained in a fashion that makes it attractive and not the subject of unnecessary cost cutting from a profit motive point of view.
The third reason why I am concerned about privatisation of the airport, as with the other assets, is the question of lack of competitiveness. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) referred to the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. It has been a scandalous failure from beginning to end. The Committee which dealt with the Bill was told time and again that competitiveness and alternative supplies would increase and that prices would be cut, not only for the industrial consumer, but for the private consumer as well. That has not happened. It was pointed out at that time that competition was not possible and would not occur. The fact that it was admitted that there would be no other distribution agency made competition impossible.
No matter where one looks, it is the same. For example, in Northern Ireland, we have no alternative but to buy our telephone services from BT. We must buy our electricity from the privatised Northern Ireland Electricity company. Again, we have no alternative—apart, perhaps, from chopping wood. We were promised the safeguard of a

679
regulator, but I do not think that regulators have been very effective in other fields; certainly they are no substitute for the ability to shop elsewhere.
Over the past few years, Belfast international airport has received substantial capital investment and has been much improved: that has made it one of the most attractive airports that I, at least, have visited in many years. As the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) pointed out, its friendly atmosphere would be difficult to replicate. I, as a constant user of the airport, have noticed that atmosphere; but first-time users have also remarked on it.
The value of its ethos to Northern Ireland cannot be measured in purely monetary terms. The first impression gained by visitors to Northern Ireland—industrialists, investors, tourists and ordinary travellers—is that of an important "window", and the way in which that window is dressed is also important. I do not believe that a private company will be able to sustain the airport's ethos, or will even care about it, given that it will not put coins into the till at the end of the day.
There was mention of the possibility of a clawback of the public funds used for the redevelopment and refurbishment. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply; it is evident that substantial amounts were invested well after the decision to privatise was made public.
Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman shares my view that the Government seem to see a conflict between the public accountability of an airport and its economic success. Belfast international airport is publicly accountable; it is also very well managed, and is proving very profitable. The same applies to Manchester international airport: it, too, is very well managed, hugely profitable and publicly accountable—because it is owned by the city of Manchester and the 12 district councils, one of which is mine. I see no conflict between public accountability and profitability in an effectively managed airport.
Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman has emphasised my point, perhaps more eloquently than I could have done. Belfast international is a first-class airport whose profits have risen over the past three or four years as a result of its refurbishment at the taxpayer's expense. Now the fatted calf is ready for slaughter at the altar of privatisation. We shall await the outcome with interest: if it follows the lines of the "parallel 2" privatisations that have taken place in Northern Ireland so far, customers and cargo traders can anticipate a much less satisfactory service.
I should like to know more about the method of privatisation. The Department set its face against flotation or management buy-out at an early stage, without giving any good reasons. Some of the reasons advanced in favour of flotation seemed reasonable to me—for instance, the improvement in the company's profitability since the original decision to privatise. It was suggested that that would encourage wider share ownership in Northern Ireland, or encourage local involvement in a management buy-out. The prospect of improved trading and sales was well established.
The Department—including the Minister's predecessor—fell back on the argument that the company was too small to be floated. Can the present Minister—who is also a chartered accountant—explain how Belfast international airport can be too small to be floated as a public company? I see no bar to such action. It must have been decided at
680
some stage that there was a line above which a company could be floated, and below which it could not, on economic grounds. Where was the line in this case?
In a press release issued on 12 August 1993, the Minister's predecessor stated:
"Whilst it is hard to define precisely the floor below which a flotation becomes inadvisable, I am satisfied that this company is too small to float satisfactorily."
Note the wealth of argument and debate in that sentence; note the step-by-step logical process that brought that Minister to his conclusion! In fact, he did not give a single reason for his decision.
I know that the Minister perceived certain inconveniences in flotation, which turned him away from that course. I should be interested to know what value he places on the company; it appears from what was said to justify the decision against flotation that the Government will sell at bargain-basement prices. The Minister continued:
"there are two complications; first, the number of shares to be issued would mean either that many applicants received none, or that each allotment was very small…Secondly, because the company is relatively small"—
this is like hiding behind a bush and shaking it at the same time—
"the aftermarket in its shares would be low in volume and hence difficult to manage; selling shares in the company would not be an easy or straightforward process. Again this would disenchant shareholders. Overall, whilst I totally support the general policy of broadening share ownership, I believe in this specific case that the flotation of the company would not serve that policy well."
I am sure that the Minister took good advice on that. I note from the same handout that several consultants were appointed to give that advice, and wonder whether they are putting their names to the statement. I refer to Touche Ross, Alan Burnside Communications and Citigate Communications. It would be interesting to know, incidentally, whether competitive tendering was involved, or the old boys' network. Competitive tendering has been forced on everyone else; why not force it on the Government?
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: In the event of a management-worker buy-out, would shares be offered to management and workers? Would there be no share issue even in those circumstances?
Mr. McGrady: In any flotation, trade sale or management buy-out involving a shareholding company, shares will be involved. They will be passed to the new owner—whether that owner is a corporate body, an individual or a group of individuals, as would obtain in a management buy-out. I see nothing in the Minister's statement rejecting flotation that justifies his decision.
I do not pretend to have a detailed knowledge of this particular case and there may be genuine reasons which can be qualified and quantified. It would be interesting if the Minister gave us the figure above and below which it was decided that a flotation would or would not have succeeded. Will he tell us that, because of X, Y and Z, there should be a trade sale rather than a sale to, as it were, the people of Northern Ireland—either directly to shareholders or through a management-employee buy-out? A sale to the people of Northern Ireland would at least mean that the airport would continue to be operated by the people in the interests of the people.
I read again from the Minister's predecessor's press release and frame a question from the quotation. In relation to encouraging local interests, the press release states:

681
"whilst I will not in any way rule out bids from outside Northern Ireland, I am announcing today"—
13 August 1993—
"that I will be asking all bidders to include in their proposal what plans they have for local management and control, were they to acquire the airport."
What has been done by way of asking possible bidders about their proposals for local management control were they successful in buying the airport?
Another issue that has taxed and will continue to tax many hon. Members is the problem of policing and security. Those more experienced than I in this respect have already articulated their grave concerns. I have no detailed knowledge, but I know that changes have already taken place. At one time, all airport security was carried out by the airport police. As recently as last summer, the airport police controlled the periphery and the building itself was controlled by a security firm. I do not know whether the security firm has the same rights as the police to stop or hinder me in my progress without my claiming diplomatic or parliamentary immunity, or whatever it is that one does. It is sometimes perplexing to know who is in control of what.
The airport police rightly have responsibility for the security of access to the airport, but, as one trundles through the access gateway, one finds that a security firm takes over responsibility. At the end of the day, however, someone controls those patrolling the area, which was one of the most interesting questions asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, South. He wondered whether there would be a private company police force in addition to the security firms which have sprung up all over the place. Will there be a private company police force that is not accountable to anyone? This is the crunch question that must be answered, but the Minister dealt with it only in passing.
The Minister has made much play of the good relations and efficient service at Belfast airport, and I can certainly vouch for the courtesy of the airport police. The Minister appeared to say that the transition would not cause any problems vis-a-vis the police. Last summer I spoke to a couple of policemen; I did not do so in an official capacity as I was merely passing through. One of them told me that 23 of his colleagues had applied for early redundancy because of the changes, because of their total dissatisfaction with their lot and with the security companies being brought in and because their future was a wholly unknown quantity. It is important that this aspect of the order is explained before we are asked to pass judgment.
Belfast international airport has a good reputation. It is an attractive, easy and open place and has all the things which an airport should have but which many of them do not have. If the order is passed, I fear that all that is good about the airport will be lost to the people of Northern Ireland for the sake of a balance sheet exercise by a company that is interested only in making a profit.
The airport is a public utility. No matter what legislation is passed, it can never be a private concern. If privatised, it would be a public utility run by a private company, and a public utility must always take account of the needs of the people. The privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity was a mistake because it failed the people, as did privatisation of British Telecom and other privatisations.
682
I fear that that will happen in this case, and for that reason, I and my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party will oppose the order.
4.55 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I, too, hope that the House will reject the order. In the coming minutes, I hope to explain the objectionable nature of the order, which has serious implications not only for the people of Northern Ireland but for everyone in the United Kingdom in relation to employment rights and policing.
It is nonsense that we should examine extensive and detailed legislation in this way. This must be the only country in western Europe in which major legislation can be passed after only a brief debate in the legislature without hon. Members having the opportunity to amend or scrutinise it. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) who drew attention to article 18 which has serious implications for civil liberties and also empowers an airport official—not a policeman—to act in such a way as to put him in danger.
In addition, it is simply bad policy. If the legislation were to receive a proper Second Reading or Committee stage, either here or in some devolved Assembly, we could not only probe the Minister's thinking but perhaps persuade him to accept amendments. However, that is not possible because of the crackpot way in which we deal with Northern Ireland legislation. If the order is passed, we shall be making bad law and we shall not be serving the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
The order will permit or trigger the sale of Belfast international airport. I oppose the sale in principle because the airport is the gateway to the Province. It is a public utility and should be legitimately exploited on behalf of the economy and the people of Northern Ireland and retained in public ownership. I have been pleasantly surprised by the amount of pride felt in Northern Ireland for the airport, which is a prestigious enterprise.
Other hon. Members have referred to the lack of an airport policy for Northern Ireland. I can only say, "Hear, hear," but it fits in with the absence of a coherent airport policy for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is crazy that there are no plans for the growth of airports in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. That absence reflects the Government's general lack of interest and will create problems not only in my part of the country—the south-east of England—but in Northern Ireland.
Belfast city airport is a growing enterprise and there will soon be a prestigious and worthwhile development at Derry. I wish both projects well. The growth in airport provision, however, must be planned if it is not to cause problems for users and workers. To let airports grow willy-nilly is profoundly foolish. The absence of a coherent strategy will cause difficulties.
Madam Speaker, the order is a precursor to the sale of Belfast harbour seaport, which is provided for under the Ports Act 1991. I fear that, relatively soon, we shall have a similar debate in which we shall protest about the arbitrary way in which the Government will trigger the sale of the seaport without any examination by Parliament of the ramifications for workers and the community of Northern Ireland and its effect on the economy of the United Kingdom and of Ireland. I regret that. Even at this

683
stage, the Government should consider introducing a substantive Bill that includes their proposals for the sale of the airport and the disposal of the seaport.
Madam Speaker, the Minister—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has referred to me as Madam Speaker rather a lot. It is gracious of him, but I am a Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mackinlay: I apologise. Such was my anger and passion that I had failed to notice that you had occupied the Chair, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] I mean Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister prayed in aid the sale of the port of Tilbury, which is in my constituency. It will not surprise hon. Members to hear that I know something about the history of the legislation that led to that sale and its consequences for the port's work force and police officers. The Government preferred and encouraged a so-called management-employee buy-out. They said that, even if they received a bid that was superior to that of the management and employees, they would, within certain limitations, discriminate in favour of the management-employee bid.
Subsequently, there was a management-employee buy-out at the port of Tilbury and, under the same legislation, a similar sale occurred across the river at Medway. The work forces of those ports were given shares, as part of the supposed "democratic process" of encouraging people to have an interest in the enterprise of their company. They were also encouraged to purchase further shares. I see that the Minister is acknowledging that that is probably what the Government also have in mind for the sale of the Northern Ireland international airport.
Many of the workers who purchased shares have since been made redundant. They feel deceived because, under the provisions of the sale and the ground rules on the purchase of shares, they had to sell them back immediately on redundancy, despite the fact that some had borrowed and others had invested their savings to acquire the shares. If the Minister believes that I am wrong to suggest that that strategy may be followed for the sale of the airport, he should give an assurance that if employees buy shares in Belfast international airport, and leave its employment or are made redundant, they will continue to hold the shares under a scheme created by the order.
The Minister said that the order would bring practices at the Northern Ireland international airport in line with those at airports in the rest of the United Kingdom, which had been disposed of some years previously. That assurance does not extend to policing. Policing at airports under the private ownership of BAA is still provided by public agencies. BAA is required to purchase the service of the police. At Heathrow airport, the service is provided by the Metropolitan police, at Gatwick by the Sussex constabulary, at Stansted by the Essex constabulary and at Glasgow by, I understand, Strathclyde police.
Mr. Stott: What about Greater Manchester?
Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reminds me that Greater Manchester police provide policing at Manchester airport, which used to have a separate constabulary. It was deemed proper—I agree with this as a matter of public policy—that it should be merged into the Greater Manchester police because, for security
684
reasons and to maintain the operational independence of the police, it should not be controlled by people who had a commercial interest in promoting airport enterprise.
The Minister is not bringing policing of the international airport into line with that at other airports but, unfortunately, he will bring it into line with the position at the port of Tilbury. The Port of London Authority police, a proud force and the second oldest police force in this country, which used to police the port of Tilbury, was privatised and is now under the ownership and control of the Port of Tilbury company. That was most distressing to police officers. I know from conversations with officers at the Northern Ireland airport that the suggestion that they should be sold like chattels and a piece of airport equipment is repugnant to them. They are proud of their public office of constable. It is barmy and wrong as a matter of principle that they should be controlled by a private company.
Officers at Northern Ireland airports have seen what has happened at the port of Tilbury and realise that they will lose out in terms of pay and conditions. After a year or two, the Port of London Authority police lost their linkage with the pay and conditions of service of the county constabulary. The pay and conditions of service of the Northern Ireland airport police are linked to those of the RUC. As night turns into day, I am sure that that link will be lost. I hope that the Minister will reassure the police in Northern Ireland that I am wrong and that pay and conditions of service will continue to be linked to those of the RUC.
The Government have totally disregarded the work force of Belfast international airport and its police officers. There has not been any meaningful consultation. Discussions have been prompted by and held under the auspices of the hon. Member for Antrim, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who took the initiative of taking police officers to see the Minister to discuss the matter. So far as I am aware, however, there was no direct consultation of representatives of the police apart from that discussion. Moreover, from what I can ascertain, there has been a total absence of consultation with the trade unions representing the work force at the airport.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no plan to include on the new security committee any representative from the police association at the airport?
Mr. Mackinlay: I am, indeed, aware of that. Even if the Government are determined to privatise the police force at the airport, I find it amazing that they do not propose to allow police association representation on the security committee. Moreover, so far as I am aware, the chief officer of police will not be an ex officio member of that committee. I find that both breathtaking and profoundly foolish.
There is one other matter that I believe would have been examined in greater detail had the contents of the order been taken as a Bill; indeed, I suspect that the Government might have reflected on it and amended the legislation. I refer to the position of the representative body of police officers. At present, the Northern Ireland airport police officers have an association. They have sought the status of

685
federation but, for reasons which I do not understand, the Government have declined to grant it in statute. That is bad enough.
By the same token, however, the Northern Ireland Airport Police Association does not have the status of a trade union. There is, therefore, a massive void in respect of not only the status of the police officers' representative body but its legal position and capacity to protect and promote the interests of its members collectively and individually. I suspect that the Government are not being malevolent in this; they are simply incompetent. The parliamentary draftspersons and Ministers have not examined the issue sufficiently. I fear that a degree of arrogance may be involved as well. It is wrong that these police officers should have the protection neither of a federation nor of a trade union. I suspect that that situation is unique not just in the United Kingdom but among advanced western democracies.
It is within the Government's capacity to give the airport police proper status, preferably as a federation.
The Minister implied that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was happy with the policing arrangements. I venture to suggest that that is not so. I think that the RUC was asked, "If the police force at Northern Ireland airport is privatised, will you help to monitor police standards to ensure that they are adequate?" One would expect the Chief Constable to say, "Yes, I will do my best." But there is no evidence to suggest that the RUC considers the privatisation of a police force to be a good thing. It is a breathtaking suggestion.
Every police officer in the land—from constable to chief officer—is appalled at the suggestion that any police force should be privatised. It is bad in principle; it is bad as a matter of public policy; and it misleads the public who, not unreasonably, assume that someone in a police uniform is a public servant and independent. Any police officer in the United Kingdom would regard privatisation as a regrettable departure from the traditions of British policing, which have endured for 170 years. The police will fear that the privatisation of the police at the port of London in Tilbury and at Northern Ireland's international airport constitutes a dummy run for the privatisation of other police functions elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is a real danger, and I believe that that will be the view of police officers everywhere.
The Minister has not told the House—but I will—that the chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, which represents the RUC, wrote to the Minister's predecessor in June 1993:
"My Central Committee have voiced concern about the future of the Belfast Airport Police with the prospect of an armed and trained Police service coming under the control of a civilian Board of Directors … Once privatised, the Airport will be completely commercially driven in its priorities and, not unnaturally, we cannot help but be anxious about the maintenance of the quality and scope of the Police service at the airport."
That sums up the legitimate fears not just of police officers in Northern Ireland but of any sensible member of the public, who would be horrified to know that a privatised police service was armed. We are being run by a barmy army, which proposes to privatise an armed police force in an area that is critical in security terms. Will the Minister even now pause to reflect on whether the order should be withdrawn so that the issue of policing can be the subject of further consultation and consideration?
686
Who will decide what is the correct operational strength and rank structure for the force at the airport after privatisation? Will it be the company or the RUC? How will that structure be enforced? I understand that, at present, the Northern Ireland airport police can check out vehicles via the police computer. They do not have direct access but can go through the proper channels at the RUC. Will the airport police still have comparable access to the police computer after privatisation? If so, I am not sure that it is good public policy. If not, how can they police properly? Either situation is undesirable and reinforces my argument that we should not privatise the police and that they should remain independent of the airport operators.
I have already referred to the police officers' pay and conditions of service. Unfortunately, there is evidence to show that there will not be protection. Will the pay and conditions of police officers employed in the force continue to be linked to those of the RUC?
I asked in an intervention whether the constables would have to be resworn. That is not an insignificant point. Article 19 of the order states:
"An airport operator authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State may appoint any person employed by the operator to be a constable on the airport managed by that operator."
That seems to suggest that existing police officers, who are proud of their office of constable and many of whom have given lengthy service to the police force at the airport and to the RUC before, will suffer the indignity of having to swear again when the privatised company takes them over as part of the airport furniture and fittings.
The draftsmen have not taken account of that point. I suspect that, unless the provisions are clarified, embarrassment may arise and the powers of police officers who act as constables after privatisation may be challenged if they have not resworn. That illustrates the clumsy and sloppy way in which the order is presented to the House. There is certainly no clarity on that point. I am told that, as part of the exercise leading up to the order, there was a so-called "keypoint" survey to examine what should be the policing needs in terms of location, numbers and costs at the airport after privatisation.
I realise that, by definition, such a document must be kept confidential, but I had hoped that the Minister would make that document available to the Northern Ireland Airport Police Association, because its officers and members will have to fulfil the policing functions. That is a further area where a moral obligation is not being fulfilled by the Government—to consult the people who will have to carry out the policing functions at the airport. It is wrong that there has been no disclosure at least of some of the main points in that survey to the police officers' representative body.
There is a danger with the method of sale that the Minister prefers. Although I am opposed to privatisation, I believe that a floatation would have been more appropriate, because at least the people of Northern Ireland would have had a slice of the action. One could argue that, after a flotation, the airport would still be partly within the ownership of the people of Northern Ireland. Under a sale, which I think the Minister proposes, there is no guarantee that there will be a maintenance of any Northern Ireland interests in the ownership and control of that airport. What is more worrying is that we have no idea who will purchase the airport.
I have expressed some concern and scepticism about so-called management-employee buy-outs, because my

687
experience at Tilbury is that the employee part of the buy-out is really a sham or a cosmetic exercise and not worth a bag of beans. Many people painfully found that they lost their jobs as well as their shares after a while. Nevertheless, such a buy-out has some continuity and identity with existing arrangements. At Belfast, things might not work out as the Minister intends. Some other enterprise or entrepreneur without loyalty to Northern Ireland, this country or western Europe might purchase the airport. What guarantee is there about the people who might purchase or own and control the airport? if it is purchased initially under the auspices of a management-employee buy-out, it could be sold again in the not-too-distant furture to another party.
The recurring theme of the debate this afternoon is about what will happen to the police. Heaven forbid, a Robert Maxwell type could purchase the airport. I would not want him to have ownership and control of a police force. One can think of other people. The mind boggles at the idea that they should be able to control and maintain a police force. Quite apart from the dangers of impropriety and undue pressure put on police wishing to maintain their independence, there is also a danger that they will be demeaned and abused, for instance as little more than commissionaires, as a front to the enterprise rather than as professional police officers.
What the Minister has so far rejected—I think that he should reflect on this—is that there are alternatives to the sale of the police force. The alternatives are to maintain the force within the ownership and control of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment and for the officers to be leased out, as happens at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Glasgow and Manchester. They should stay under public control—Government control—and the costs should be charged to the new airport operators, thus maintaining their independence.
The airport police could have been absorbed into the RUC. Parallels occurred some years ago at Heathrow when the British Airports Authority police merged with the Metropolitan police and at Manchester when the airport police merged with the Greater Manchester police. The Government have spurned those alternatives. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will reconsider and see that that is in the interests of the Government, the people of Northern Ireland and the proud police officers who feel insulted about the way in which they will be treated should privatisation go through.
I return to a point which concerns me and other hon. Members. If the Government glibly sell off the professional police officers at Tilbury in Essex and in Northern Ireland, who are proud of their office, are those not dummy runs for the sale of police officers' functions elsewhere in the United Kingdom, such as the motorway police? Would not there be a replacement of police officers in public control by static security guards elsewhere? The Minister cannot pretend that that fear is not being uttered by police officers throughout Britain. There is a profound fear that that will happen unless the Government are prevented from going ahead with privatisation of the police force under the order. For those reasons, I hope that either the Minister will take the order back or that the House of Commons will throw it out.
5.25 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: But for world war two, the part of the airfield that was vested from my grandfather would have eventually passed to me. That might, in certain circumstances, have meant that I would have had to declare an interest. Now my hands are clean. I am not the landlord of the airfield. I hope that that does something to relieve the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe).
I derive some satisfaction from article 17 of the order, which no doubt echoes the Aerodromes Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. The article confers on district councils various powers, such as the acquisition of land, planning restrictions on structures in line with flight paths and—this is important—providing or improving road links.
I know that the present Minister, whom we are delighted to welcome to the Northern Ireland debate, even if it is only on an Order in Council, will not mind my mentioning that a predecessor of his in 1977 gave a solemn undertaking on behalf of the then Government that the missing link to the present airport would be completed within some six months. That was when the original road was closed for security reasons. It was not until my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South took over that area from me—and, therefore, represented it far more effectively—that the Department of the Environment got round to constructing the link after all those years.
I do not know whether the Minister has been there ceremonially to open it, but he would have been able to drive along it on the way to the airport. It is commonly known as the Killeen bypass. It is a great consolation to know that the district councils will have an important role, if not all the say, in providing and improving the road links.
Article 20 brings district councils into the picture, because it specifies and interprets the meaning of a district council in terms of the order. Article 20(2)(c) says:
"the district council in whose district the airport or any part thereof is situated or whose district is in the locality of the airport"
will have certain roles to play in the consultation at least. If consultation is to be effective, that means that adjacent district councils will have some input into the working of the airport under the new management. I freely concede that that will mainly mean Antrim borough council. However, may I put in a commercial for my Lisburn borough council which, like Newtownabbey borough council, is covered by the phrase
"or whose district is in the locality of the airport".
I suppose that Lisburn and Newtownabbey could claim that they are under the flight path. Aircraft taking off from either set of runways pass over those two districts in a short time, even before they retract the undercarriage. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South does not have a monopoly on consultation here.
Article 20 deals with consultation. I have mentioned the district councils and the Minister mentioned the provision for consultation with the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. I am especially interested in article 20(2)(a), which refers to consultation with "users of the airport". That might seem to be a very natural concession because without users, it would be difficult to justify the existence, never mind the policing, of an airport. However, we are setting up a body that in some ways resembles the controlling authority at Heathrow; it is not an exact replica,

689
but it is near enough for the purpose. My next point has a direct bearing on the effectiveness or otherwise of consultation with users.
I sought to engage in consultation when the Belfast lounge was moved from gate 49 to gates 8 to 10, which is a much more remote location in the Heathrow complex. At the time, only one little insignificant sign was provided to indicate where the new Belfast lounges and gates were. Such was the volume of complaints from constituents—my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South and others had a similar volume of complaints—that I wrote to the authority pleading that signs be provided similar to those indicating Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester, which was not an unreasonable request.
I received a rather high-handed reply which stated that it was considered that the signposting was adequate, but that, in the light of my representations, it would be reviewed. It was reviewed and the result was that the one remaining sign was removed entirely, leaving no signs—a situation which still exists. In the spirit of Christmas, I volunteered to purchase 20 posters if the airport authorities would put them up. They declined that offer and we still have no indication for first-time travellers of where they can find the aircraft heading for the airport that we are now discussing.
The British Airports Authority, as a result of other representations made by the Aldergrove airport authorities, various institutions and trade organisations in Northern Ireland, retaliated by making the situation worse. I do not imagine that the British Airports Authority will bother to read Hansard. If it does, it will take a delight in ignoring the wishes of the majority of users. However, I hope that the consultation process provided for Aldergrove airport will be much more effective. I hope that the Minister and his Department will ensure that the users' wishes and views are not ignored as they are currently being ignored at Heathrow.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) apologised for his late arrival. I had the problem of being delayed for a few hours this morning. Others of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues may be late and some of my colleagues will be late. A telephone message from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) was passed to me a few minutes ago. He was engaged this morning in consultations about the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 and left shortly after lunch to get here.
All those hon. Members have been delayed because of what I can only describe as imaginary snow at Heathrow. My flight was delayed for nearly two hours and we were told that the delay would last until the Heathrow runways were cleared of heavy snow. Hon. Members can imagine our surprise as we descended from west of the airfield and we saw that all the roads, even little country roads, were absolutely clear, as was the M25.
What sector of that cumbersome, incompetent authority decided, with no justification, to cancel flights, to divert flights and to delay flights, thus throwing the whole pattern of the day into utter confusion? I imagine from the signals being transmitted in various parts of the Chamber that a little confusion has also affected various Whips Offices.
We can only hope that the equivalent authority created by the order will be more realistic, more competent and
690
more considerate of users than is the present Heathrow body. We can hope—I hope not in vain—that Aldergrove's reputation for efficiency and user friendliness will not be damaged by the legislation which we are being asked to endorse, but which we shall not willingly endorse.
5.35 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: We have had a useful and constructive debate—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he needs the leave of the House to speak again.
Mr. Smith: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to the debate.
We have had a constructive and useful debate. I have listened with great care to all the contributions. I understand that some hon. Members oppose privatisation in principle. There have also been a large number of detailed questions which I shall do my best to address. If, when I examine the Hansard report in more detail, I find that I have not addressed any specific questions, I shall write to the hon. Member concerned.
I share the reservations that have been expressed about this procedure. I share the reservations about the fact that we have to consider a privatisation measure by means of the Order in Council procedure. I share the concerns about the consequences that flow from that and about the fact that it is not possible for hon. Members to table amendments, which makes it difficult for us to discuss matters of detail. However, I am afraid that it is not practical in every case for the Government to introduce Bills to cover such provisions. I am sorry about the fact that it is just not a practical proposition.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) talked about airport development in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, with its population of 1·5 million, is remarkably well served. We could have a rather interesting debate about whether Belfast city airport and Belfast international airport are complementary or in competition. I suspect that there is an element of each in the service they afford to customers. The provision for a population of 1·5 million is rather satisfactory and offers customers considerable choice.
The hon. Member for Wigan was concerned about the European regional development fund money. I had not seen the letter from Bruce Milian, although I have now read it with care. On the face of it, it appears to conflict with the advice that we have received from the Commission. I believe that the explanation is as follows. The ERDF grant was paid at the rate of 50 per cent., which is the rate that is paid to private sector operators. It will be open to the airport to claim grant at that rate when it is privatised. In practice, although there may be a potential threat, I do not believe that there is any real threat of the money being clawed back by the Commission. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
The hon. Member for Wigan talked about the market value of the airport. That value is what someone is prepared to pay for it in an open market. We have had 10 serious expressions of interest, so there is no shortage of interest. What we cannot do is to meet all the different concerns that have been expressed. Price will obviously be very important. I was pressed earlier by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who said that we

691
should get the best value for money for the taxpayers and that, if we did not, we would be in trouble with the Public Accounts Committee.
Other hon. Members pressed me on other considerations, such as the need to ensure that there is a local interest and consideration of a management-employee buy-out. We shall have to weigh up all the different factors and make the best decision. I should like a bid to succeed which has some local interest. We have encouraged a management-employment buy-out to the extent of providing it with some help. That bidder will be considered along with all the others.
We have heard a lot in the debate about policing. At present, policing levels at the airport are determined by management. They will continue to be determined by management when it is privatised, but under the supervision of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There cannot be any question of management suddenly deciding to make a 50 per cent. cut in policing at the airport. That would not be acceptable to the RUC, which will continue to have a supervisory role.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. MacKinlay) suggested that there may be a conflict—that perhaps an instruction given to a police constable may be based not on the best policing but on the convenience of management. Frankly, if that sort of thing happened, the RUC would take a considerable interest in it. If it continued, the Secretary of State would have to step in. As I said, he has considerable powers to step in and, indeed, take over policing of the airport if necessary. The existence of that sanction, and the knowledge that it exists, will deter any private sector operator from behaving in that arbitrary way in the first place.
Mr. Mackinlay: The scenario described by the Minister does not protect the individual police officer. At the moment, if he is given an unlawful or improper instruction he is put in a most invidious position. As I said, police officers do not have protection that is comparable to that of other workers—a federation or a trade union. The Minister is not providing the capacity for an individual police officer to behave with the utmost propriety, as is his wish, if an employer wishes to give an improper instruction.
Mr. Smith: I understand that, but it is the situation which prevails at present. It would be equally possible for the present management to behave in that way, but they do not do so because they know that it is not acceptable—it would not be acceptable to the RUC. I do not believe that a policeman is likely to be put in that position, for the reasons that I have given.
The hon. Member for Wigan asked about other workers at the airport. The answer is that the TUPE provisions will apply and their pension rights will be preserved. They will be transferred when the company is privatised.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) asked about pension arrangements, so perhaps I can deal with that matter now. There is a small deficit in the pension fund at present which is being made up by increased contributions from the employer. The pension scheme will be transferred to the new company and the pension rights of existing employees will be preserved in the process.
The hon. Member for Wigan asked who has the ultimate responsibility for security at the airport. The answer is that the airport operator has responsibility at present, and will
692
do so when the airport is privatised. The hon. Gentleman also asked who will pay for security. The answer is that the airport operator pays for security at present, and will be required to do so in the future. There cannot be any question of the airport operator cutting back on security costs simply for commercial reasons in an attempt to increase profit. That will not be acceptable. The operator will have to provide the level of security that is agreed with the RUC.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South was good enough to thank my Department's officials and, indeed, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), for the detailed discussions that have taken place and I am grateful for what he said. He wanted to know whether we would simply sell the airport to the highest bidder. As I said, price will obviously play an important part, but there are other considerations, and one of the most important is the question of a local element. A management-employee buy-out will be considered carefully, together with all the other bids.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some specific provisions in the order, including article 18(3)(i), which refers to an airport official or a constable requiring a person to leave the airport. That is a repetition of what we already have in law both in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, so there is nothing special or peculiar about that. It applies to all airports—there is nothing special about it in this case.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to article 20(2)(c) and the words "which affects their interests". One should not read too much into that. Obviously, we want to establish good consultative arrangements with everyone who has an interest in the operation of the airport, whether it is the users or the district councils representing those who are affected by its operations. We want to find the best way forward, and it will be for the airport operator to establish satisfactory relations. Obviously, it will be in the operator's interest to have good relations with all these interests. That is not particularly limiting because, obviously, people will be put on bodies because they represent specific interests in the community.
I have dealt with the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman about the pension scheme. Perhaps I can move on to his points about policing and the control exercised by the Northern Ireland Office. He talked about a conflict. As I said, a conflict could arise at present. However, I do not believe that it will arise, for the reasons that I have given. The hon. Gentleman asked whether security will be maintained at the highest level. It will be maintained at the level necessary to ensure that the airport is properly protected, just as it is at present. In that sense, I do not believe that there will be any change in the arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Secretary of State would have power to direct the owners to meet security standards. Effectively, I believe that that will be so. Indirectly, the Secretary of State will have that power. The hon. Gentleman asked whether he might have access to the security committee. The answer is yes. I cannot give a lot of details about the security committee, but, certainly, the hon. Gentleman will have access to it. I do not know what the committee will be called. The question about the name did not apply to the committee—it applied to the name of the police force. I am not able to say whether there will be a new title for the police force; it will be a matter for the operator.
I was asked whether there will be a formal agreement with the union representing the airport police. The answer

693
is that there will be a contractual arrangement which will be put in the prospectus, so it will be a clear condition that any bidder must accept as part of making a bid.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am sorry to labour this point, but the police officers do not have a trade union or federation. Their representative organisation is the association, but it has no statutory base. The police have asked the Government to give the association a statutory base, but they have failed to do so. It is grossly unfair, inept and dangerous to the police and, ultimately, the Government and the airport operator.
Mr. Smith: I am sorry if I called it a union—it is the association. It will be protected in the way that I have described: there will be a contractual arrangement which will be set out in the prospectus, and any prospective bidder will have to accept it. That is how members of the association and their interests will be protected.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South asked about Belfast city airport. I understand that. Although it is not what we are discussing today, it is relevant. The hon. Gentleman was right to point to the success of that airport and the fact that it has forecast 1·2 million passengers this year—a substantial rate of growth.
Obviously, that airport has produced some problems. If there are problems with noise levels, we will need to look at that issue. Certainly, there are problems with road traffic and the hon. Gentleman described some of them to the House. The problems of access to the airport and so on are already the subject of discussions at an official level. We must consider precisely what we will do about that, because there have been problems with the traffic recently. Those who are responsible for roads are examining the problem to see what we can do about it.
Mr. Stott: On the subject of Belfast city airport, I am not pressing the Minister to disclose at the Dispatch Box whether the owner of the city airport, Bombardier, could be a potential bidder for the international airport. However, will the Minister state whether the bid would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if that were to be the case?
Mr. Smith: I can help the hon. Gentleman on that point. At one time, Bombardier considered making a bid, but it is not doing so. I think that it understood that it would have the kind of difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Before the Minister leaves the issue of the security committee, can he tell the House who the chairman of that committee will be?
Mr. Smith: I am unable to do so at the moment. I do not think that it would be appropriate to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is he a Tory?"] One must be cautious with security issues. I will see whether I can provide more information on the matter for the hon. Gentleman later.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was also concerned about the Order in Council procedure, which I have tried to deal with. He does not like privatisation either, and he said that Northern Ireland had not benefited from it. It is a little too early to judge the success or failure of Northern Ireland Electricity.
694
British Telecom was privatised in 1984 and subscribers in Northern Ireland have benefited from that privatisation, as have subscribers in the rest of the United Kingdom, even if there is no competition. Telephone bills have come down by 20 per cent. in real terms and further cuts were announced the other day. A result of those cuts is that the peak morning rate has been abolished.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) does not like good news, but this is good news for the consumer and it has come directly as a result of the Government's privatisation policy and increased competition.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Are the Government saying that electricity bills in Northern Ireland will go down by 20 per cent?
Mr. Smith: I am certainly not saying that—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we continue, I should point out that this matter is not really germane to the debate. Passing reference to the subject may be made, but it should not make up the substantial part of the debate.
Mr. Smith: I am simply saying that it is too early to judge, as far as Northern Ireland Electricity is concerned. I will leave it at that.
The hon. Member for South Down also referred to the fact that the airport is first class, and that it had had major refurbishment. I agree with that, and it will be even better when it is privatised. Those involved will be even more concerned to provide good service to the customer, without which one cannot maximise profits. The airport will have access to private capital markets to increase investment, and there will be more management freedom. As a result, everybody who uses the airport will benefit from privatisation.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the method of sale and I understand that he would have liked a flotation. It was a difficult judgment to make, and we were concerned with the size of the proceeds of the sale. That will be examined carefully by the Public Accounts Committee. I could point to a number of trade sales—for example, Sealink and Royal Ordnance—which have raised considerably more than the Belfast airport is likely to raise. it is impossible to say exactly what the threshold is. A different judgment has to be made in each case. This case was carefully considered, and the judgment was reached that a trade sale was the most appropriate means in the particular case.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about consultants, and I can assure him that a competitive tender was engaged in for each appointment, as is always the case in such matters.
Mr. McGrady: May I refer to a matter to which I thought the Minister would return concerning security? He is aware that the police at Belfast international airport do not now service the building area, and that that has been taken over by a security firm. What responsibilities previously exercised by the police are now exercised by the security firm? Is the level of security the same where the police are no longer involved? Are the police or the security firm responsible to the present employers in exactly the same way?
Mr. Smith: The police are responsible for the security of the entire airport; that situation has not changed. It will not change following privatisation, even if a private firm is

695
operating in a part of the airport area. I will certainly provide the hon. Gentleman with more details on that matter if necessary.
The hon. Member for Thurrock talked a great deal about policing at airports in Great Britain, but I think that he misunderstood what I said. I did not suggest that arrangements would be the same in Belfast international airport as they are in Great Britain. I have gone to great lengths to try to explain why that is not the case. We have satisfactory arrangements, and all we are doing is transferring them during the privatisation. I am riot in favour of change for change's sake. We have good arrangements, and they will be continued.
The hon. Gentleman was, on the whole, rather inclined to exaggerate the consequences of the matter. I understand his concern about the pay and conditions of people who work at the airport, and in particular the police. Those are presently matters for the management, as they will continue to be after privatisation.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned that the association does not have trade union status. It does have negotiating status, and surely that is important. That negotiating status will come by virtue of a contractual arrangement, and its rights are enhanced by the order. If the hon. Gentleman looks at clause 19(5), he will see that that is the case.
The hon. Gentleman asked about future owners, and what would happen if the purchaser were to sell the airport to another owner. We have full protection. In the prospectus, we will have effectively a golden share, so we have control. It is vital for security reasons that we have that control.
The right hon.Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to the "missing link". I am glad that we have, as a result of his efforts, the missing link to the airport. He also talked about the consultation process and the importance in particular of consulting the users of the airport. I agree with him, and I sympathise with his experience at Heathrow. I hope that we will be able to do better at Belfast international.
It is in the interests of any airport operator that it should properly consult the users. They are, after all, the customers of the airport. Those customers have a choice of which airport to use on some routes, and we will want to ensure that users are properly represented on any consultative committee and that their views are properly considered.
I hope that I have answered all the points raised in the debate. The Government strongly support the concept of privatisation. In this case, it will bring great benefits to the customers of the airport. The airport will have access to the private capital markets, and it will have the freedom to manage. That will be in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, and of all those who use the airport.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 224.

Division No. 121]

[5.57 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Ashby, David

Aitken, Jonathan

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Alexander, Richard

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Amess, David

Baldry, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

696

Bates, Michael

Garnier, Edward

Batiste, Spencer

Gill, Christopher

Bellingham, Henry

Gillan, Cheryl

Bendall, Vivian

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Beresford, Sir Paul

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gorst, John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Booth, Hartley

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Boswell, Tim

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Hague, William

Bowden, Andrew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bowis, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Hannam, Sir John

Brandreth, Gyles

Hargreaves, Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Harris, David

Bright, Graham

Haselhurst, Alan

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Hawksley, Warren

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Heald, Oliver

Burns, Simon

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Burt, Alistair

Hendry, Charles

Butler, Peter

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Butterfill, John

Hicks, Robert

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Carttiss, Michael

Horam, John

Cash, William

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clappison, James

Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Colvin, Michael

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

Congdon, David

Hunter, Andrew

Conway, Derek

Jack, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Jenkin, Bernard

Cormack, Patrick

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Couchman, James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cran, James

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

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

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Key, Robert

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Day, Stephen

Knapman, Roger

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Dicks, Terry

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

Dorrell, Stephen

Knox, Sir David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Dover, Den

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Duncan, Alan

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Dunn, Bob

Legg, Barry

Durant, Sir Anthony

Leigh, Edward

Eggar, Tim

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Elletson, Harold

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lidington, David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Lightbown, David

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lord, Michael

Evennett, David

Luff, Peter

Faber, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fabricant, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Maclean, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

McLoughlin, Patrick

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Forman, Nigel

Madel, Sir David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Forth, Eric

Malone, Gerald

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Mans, Keith

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Marland, Paul

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Marlow, Tony

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

French, Douglas

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gale, Roger

Mates, Michael

Gallie, Phil

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Merchant, Piers

697

Mills, Iain

Spring, Richard

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Sproat, Iain

Moss, Malcolm

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Needham, Richard

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Nelson, Anthony

Steen, Anthony

Neubert, Sir Michael

Stephen, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stem, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Stewart, Allan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Streeter, Gary

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Sumberg, David

Norris, Steve

Sweeney, Walter

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Sykes, John

Page, Richard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Paice, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Patnick, Irvine

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Pawsey, James

Temple-Morris, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thomason, Roy

Pickles, Eric

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thomton, Sir Malcolm

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Powell, William (Corby)

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

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Tracey, Richard

Richards, Rod

Trend, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Robathan, Andrew

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Walden, George

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Waller, Gary

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Ward, John

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sackville, Tom

Waterson, Nigel

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Watts, John

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Whitney, Ray

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Whittingdale, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Widdecombe, Ann

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wilkinson, John

Shersby, Michael

Willetts, David

Sims, Roger

Wilshire, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wolfson, Mark

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wood, Timothy

Soames, Nicholas

Yeo, Tim

Speed, Sir Keith

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Michael Brown.

Spink, Dr Robert

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Ainger, Nick

Cann, Jamie

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Allen, Graham

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Armstrong, Hilary

Clelland, David

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Barnes, Harry

Coffey, Ann

Barron, Kevin

Cohen, Harry

Battle, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Corbett, Robin

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Corston, Ms Jean

Bell, Stuart

Cousins, Jim

Bennett, Andrew F.

Cox, Tom

Benton, Joe

Cryer, Bob

Berry, Dr. Roger

Cummings, John

Betts, Clive

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Blair, Tony

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Boyes, Roland

Dafis, Cynog

Bradley, Keith

Dalyell, Tam

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Darling, Alistair

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Davidson, Ian

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

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Burden, Richard

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Byers, Stephen

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

Caborn, Richard

Dewar, Donald

Callaghan, Jim

Dobson, Frank

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Dowd, Jim

698

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McLeish, Henry

Eagle, Ms Angela

Maclennan, Robert

Eastham, Ken

McMaster, Gordon

Enright, Derek

McNamara, Kevin

Etherington, Bill

McWilliam, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Maginnis, Ken

Fatchett, Derek

Mahon, Alice

Faulds, Andrew

Mandelson, Peter

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Fisher, Mark

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Flynn, Paul

Martlew, Eric

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Maxton, John

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Meacher, Michael

Foulkes, George

Michael, Alun

Fraser, John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fyfe, Maria

Milburn, Alan

Galbraith, Sam

Miller, Andrew

Galloway, George

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Garrett, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

George, Bruce

Morgan, Rhodri

Gerrard, Neil

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Godsiff, Roger

Mudie, George

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mullin, Chris

Gordon, Mildred

Murphy, Paul

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Grocott, Bruce

O'Hara, Edward

Gunnell, John

Olner, William

Hain, Peter

O'Neill, Martin

Hall, Mike

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hanson, David

Paisley, Rev Ian

Hardy, Peter

Patchett, Terry

Harman, Ms Harriet

Pickthall, Colin

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pope, Greg

Henderson, Doug

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hendron, Dr Joe

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Heppell, John

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Prescott, John

Hinchliffe, David

Primarolo, Dawn

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Purchase, Ken

Home Robertson, John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hood, Jimmy

Radice, Giles

Hoon, Geoffrey

Raynsford, Nick

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Redmond, Martin

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Reid, Dr John

Hoyle, Doug

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Hutton, John

Rogers, Allan

Illsley, Eric

Rooker, Jeff

Ingram, Adam

Rooney, Terry

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

Rowlands, Ted

Jamieson, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Janner, Greville

Shearman, Barry

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Skinner, Dennis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C& S)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)

Khabra, Piara S.

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

Kilfedder, Sir James

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Snape, Peter

Leighton, Ron

Spearing, Nigel

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Spellar, John

Lewis, Terry

Steinberg, Gerry

Litherland, Robert

Stott, Roger

Livingstone, Ken

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Llwyd, Elfyn

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Turner, Dennis

McAvoy, Thomas

Vaz, Keith

McCartney, Ian

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Macdonald, Calum

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McFall, John

Wareing, Robert N

McGrady, Eddie

Watson, Mike

McKelvey, William

Wicks, Malcolm

699

Wigley, Dafydd

Wright, Dr Tony

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Winnick, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Worthington, Tony

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Don Dixon.

Wray, Jimmy

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret to say that I missed the last Division and the reason for that is simple. My office is on the farthest point of Millbank and, as I came straight out of my office after the Division bell went, the lifts were not working properly. I had to walk all the way down the stairs. I came straight here, to find that the doors were locked. Can I ask you to inquire into whether it is practical for Members who have to come from Millbank to do so within eight minutes?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Member and anyone else caught in that way. I will ensure that that point is passed on to the proper authorities.
Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also noticed that tonight two Members rushed through the counted Lobby when the doors were being closed on our side. As I was the Whip responsible for the counting on the Opposition side, the doors were closed, and therefore Members on the Opposition side were denied the opportunity to vote and made no attempt to walk through the counting area. I hope that the hon. Members who had gone through the counted area in the Aye Lobby were not included in the vote, because it denied the right to Members coming in late to the Opposition Lobby.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes. It is obviously not in my personal knowledge because I cannot see what is happening. If, however, doors are open and people walk through them, obviously they will have been included in the vote. I cannot make further comments without greater knowledge than I now have. I thank the hon. Member for mentioning the point.

Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland)
6.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
My noble Friend Baroness Denton, who has responsibility for health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, introduced the order in another place on 31 January and it is my pleasure to introduce it to the House this evening.
The purpose of the draft order is to enable health and social services trusts in Northern Ireland to carry out certain statutory functions which, at the moment, are the legal responsibility of the health and social services boards. The order is a local solution to a local problem. Hon. Members who were present at the Northern Ireland Committee debate on 20 January may recall that some of the issues involved were mentioned on that occasion.
It may be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the background to the order and the present organisation of the services in the province. Both those points are important if one is to have an understanding of the need for the legislation.
In Northern Ireland, health and personal social services were integrated into one structure in 1973. We have therefore had an integrated service for more than 20 years. During that period, the services have been provided by four health and social services boards. That integrated system has served Northern Ireland well through 20 turbulent years and the people of the Province are—quite justifiably—proud of that unique service. The draft order seeks to preserve that integration and to enable services to continue more or less in their present form. It is needed only to remedy a weakness in the existing law and not because the present services are deficient in any way.
The Government's reforms for health and social services provided for the separation of the purchase and provision of services. The Health and Personal Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 redefined the role of the four boards as being responsible, primarily, for assessing the needs of their populations and commissioning services to meet those needs. The order provided for units to be established as health and social services trusts—fully independent of board management, but wholly in the statutory sector.
However, although the 1991 order enabled trusts to be established and allowed boards to contract with them for services, it did not permit trusts to carry out certain functions associated with those services, except for mental health functions, for which specific provision was made. Those functions flow from a range of existing legislation, such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1968 and the Adoption Order 1987. Some are sensitive powers, involving the restriction of civil liberties—the taking of a child into care, for example. That legislative weakness prevents some units, such as those providing personal social services, from becoming fully operational as trusts. The order is concerned with putting that right.
In bringing forward the order, we have aimed to provide a legal framework for the discharge of functions by trusts which ensures clarity about where responsibility lies and

701
secures full accountability for the work undertaken by trusts. Within that framework, the order enables boards, with the approval of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, to delegate certain statutory functions, which will be specified by the Department, to health and social services trusts. The functions involved were set out in the explanatory document published last summer, along with the proposal for legislation. A copy of the draft regulations dealing with them were placed in the Library when the order was laid on 9 December.
The order allows trusts to carry out those functions and makes provision for schemes to be agreed between trusts and boards on the way in which the functions are to be carried out.
Since the proposal for legislation was published last June, many people have voiced concern about its effect on services, particularly in relation to the protection of children. Some have expressed doubts about the accountability of trusts within the new arrangements. Questions about fragmentation and inequality of provision have also been raised.
My noble Friend Baroness Denton and her predecessor Lord Arran considered very carefully the concerns raised and devoted much time and effort to explaining the issues to people. It is fair to say that many of the concerns stemmed from a misunderstanding about the role of trusts and about the new role of the boards to which I have already referred. Perhaps I can clarify these points for the House.
Health and social services trusts are state bodies established firmly within the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. They are fully accountable for all that they do and they are closely monitored by the Department and by the boards. They are not independent companies and are bound by the same guidance as governs the operation of boards at present.
For their part, the boards—freed from any involvement in the day-to-day management of the services—can concentrate on improving the health and social well-being of their populations through the contracts they agree with trusts and setting the agenda for them in terms of quality of service, standards of care and equity of provision.
The Government accept that people have anxieties and concerns. They are genuinely held, but they have not been ignored. Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, we have one thing in common: concern for the welfare of children and other vulnerable groups in our society.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister discuss the financial implications of the proposal? The matter has been raised in the Lords and it has also been raised by many people in Northern Ireland. According to the figures that we have been given about the 12 trusts, the chairmen of the trusts will receive £15,000 a year and each of the five board members will receive £5,000 a year. We have been told that that amounts to between £1 million and £2 million which will be required to finance the procedure. Would not that money be better used to keep the present structure, which has provided such a good service to the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Smith: I agree that the present structure has provided an excellent service to the people of Northern Ireland. However, there is always room for improvement.
702
The right way to achieve that is by making a clear distinction between purchaser and provider. Of course, the members of those boards and the chairmen will be remunerated, but the costs will not be substantial when one considers the huge scope for securing improvements in value for money and better service delivery to patients. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) must be placed in the context of total health spending in the Province.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Surely the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North should be pursued on the basis that the 12 new quangos are in addition to the existing personnel who will be retained in the various boards dealing with personal and social services? There must be an enormous increase in the establishment costs appertaining to this exercise.
Mr. Smith: I was not seeking to suggest that there was not an increase in costs. I accepted the figures given by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. However, I said that I thought that that cost was fully justified in securing better value for money and better quality of service for patients and other users of the social services. I strongly believe that to be true, just as it is true in the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to the Government's national health service reforms.
Before the interventions, I said that the thing that we have in common is our concern for the welfare of children and other vulnerable groups in our society. For that reason, the trusts and boards concerned have been working very hard to establish procedures that will ensure that those who are entrusted with the discharge of statutory responsibilities at local level will be clear about their role and fully accountable for all that they do.
Baroness Denton has, for her part, met representatives from the British Association of Social Workers to hear at first hand their concerns. She has visited units which are preparing for trust status and she has talked to people who are directly involved in providing services and who are preparing the ground. From the conversations that my noble Friend has had with managers and professionals alike, and on the evidence that she has seen, there can be no doubt that the schemes being developed between boards and trusts will address clearly and comprehensively the key issues that have been raised. Under the terms of the draft order, they will have to be approved by the Department of Health and Social Services.
I shall refer briefly to two other important issues which, although not technically part of the legislation, are intended to underpin it. Trusts which will be providing personal social services will need to have access to expert advice and guidance in providing those services and carrying out the functions that I have mentioned. To ensure that they have that, we are making it a legal requirement for any trust providing those services to appoint a qualified social worker as an executive director. At the same time, we will make it mandatory for each health and social services board to appoint a director of social services if they have not done so already. Guidance on the roles and responsibilities of both posts will be issued.
Those changes taken together represent a significant strengthening of the structures involved in the delivery of personal social services in Northern Ireland. Chief

703
executives of trusts have gone to great pains to build in safeguards for existing social work structures, both organisationally and professionally within trusts.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister has just informed us about the appointment of a full-time, qualified social worker and a director of social services. How much will that add to the present bill?
Mr. Smith: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a figure, but I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that we are to appoint professionals as executive directors. That directly meets the concern that the management should incorporate at least one person with direct knowledge and a qualification as a social worker.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What consultation has the Minister initiated, and what observations has he received, in respect of the trade unions which represent the employees in the area of social work about which we are concerned?
Mr. Smith: I mentioned that my noble Friend Baroness Denton had met representatives of the British Association of Social Workers—
Mr. Mackinlay: That is not a trade union.
Mr. Smith: Well, my noble Friend met association representatives. I will let the hon. Gentleman know later whether she met trade union representatives. However, since her appointment, my noble Friend has gone out of her way to meet those who are principally concerned about the implications and consequences of the order.
The order contains three other changes to Northern Ireland health and social services legislation. First, it amends existing law on the audit of health and social services bodies. The law in that area is no more than adequate at present and the order is designed to modernise and strengthen it. Secondly, the order amends the law on the registration of pharmaceutical chemists by requiring people seeking registration to satisfy prescribed conditions as to character, health and other matters. That will bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with that in other countries. Finally, the order repeals an existing provision in relation to the employment of nurses which is no longer needed because of changes in the way in which nurses are recruited and trained.
The proposals are about ensuring that our services in the area are structured and organised in a way that maximises their capacity to respond to the needs of people quickly and effectively while at the same time safeguarding the interests of the public and those vulnerable people in our society who need the protection of the state. I commend the order of the House.
6.29 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State referred to the Northern Ireland Committee's debate of 20 January. I should like to refer to some of the points that were made by the Minister of State on that occasion. We have been told that the people of Northern Ireland are proud of the existing system. If that is the case, why do the Government want to change it? If the people of Northern Ireland are satisfied with their system, what is the need for this order? I put it to the Under-Secretary and to the House that the intention of the
704
legislation is not to improve health and social services but to fulfil the political dogma of the Conservative party, which is intent on dismantling the national health service.
The Under-Secretary of State referred to a debate that had been held in another place. Hon. Members will know that on that occasion an amendment calling on the Government to withdraw the legislation was defeated only very narrowly. It cannot be right to plough on relentlessly against such opposition from the upper House and against the opposition that will be expressed tonight by Labour and Northern Ireland Members. This order is premature. It should not be before the House, and we shall oppose its substance and the principles that underlie it. I hope that Ministers, rather than driving hon. Members into the Lobbies, will wake up to common sense and withdraw the order.
This legislation, which delegates statutory responsibilities to further private quangos, should not have been introduced in advance of legislation affecting the care of children. The first piece of legislation mentioned in schedule 2 is the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. It is totally unfair and unreasonable that this order should be introduced before the House has had a chance to debate the forthcoming amendment to the legislation on children. We want to know how Parliament will be able to influence the scrutiny of child care in Nothern Ireland. That information will not be forthcoming in advance of the amending legislation to which I have just referred. The order that we are debating now ought to be withdrawn if the Government believe that people should have a say in matters of serious significance to Northern Ireland.
These trusts, to whose creation the Minister of State referred during the meeting of the Northern Ireland Committee on 20 January, will do nothing to improve health care in Northern Ireland. The Minister said:
"The creation of social services trusts is of particular significance. The management freedoms which come with trust status are designed to devolve decision-making to those responsible for delivering services, offering them the opportunity to be imaginative and responsive to local needs.—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 20 January 1994; c. 4.]
On 19 April 1993—less than 12 months ago—I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
"what Department will make the necessary assessments under the community care reforms for people applying for residential arid nursing home care in Northern Ireland?"
The reply was as follows:
"Health and social services boards, through their units of management, are responsible for carrying out an assessment of need for any individual who lives within their area who requires community care services, including residential care and nursing home accommodation."—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 18]
Are we to take it from what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has said tonight that that answer will no longer apply and that assessments will now be made by those administering the trusts? In other words, will what we were told 10 months ago be changed by this order? Is this what the Government call forward planning and forward thinking?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a right that public representatives enjoy under the current law—the right to question a course of action—is to be removed? Does he agree that the distancing of public representatives from the boards that is taking place already will be increased, thus reducing opportunities to question and to call to account?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The democracy that is necessary in the administration of Northern Ireland's health and personal social services is being further diminished. Local communities will have their input into the question of quality of service reduced further.
The foreword to a document published last year by the Eastern health and social services board says:
"The future role of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board is to purchase services to meet the health and social care needs of its resident population within the boundaries of Government policy. Chief among these must be the needs of the population illustrated, as far as possible, by objective information, the views of the people themselves, the views of general practitioners and others. Professional advice, particularly from those in the caring professions, must also continue to influence the decisions of the Board in the purchase of health and social services care."
In other words, we are witnessing a reduction in the management of the services. Through this order, the people of Northern Ireland are being offered less time spent on patient care and—much worse—pressure on a service that is already under pressure. The Eastern health and social services board has declared its future role as being the provision of services in line with Government policy. This order will reduce the role of the health and social services boards and will result in lessened health and community care services for the people of Northern Ireland.
There will be no difference in the lines of responsibility. The health and social services boards are currently responsible to the Minister and the Department. The new trusts, too, will be responsible to the Minister and the Department. Indeed, the Minister of State told the Northern Ireland Committee:
"The vast majority of functions to which the hon. Gentleman referred are already carried out by the board staff at local level. The only difference is that the staff carrying them out in future will, in many cases, work for trusts instead of boards, but they will essentially be the same people carrying out the same jobs."—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 20 January 1994; c. 32.]
If the same people will be performing the same jobs and be responsible to the same Minister and boards, why is the order needed? It will only add to the expense of managing Northern Ireland's health and personal social services.
The trusts will be fully accountable to the Department for the discharge of delegated functions, but what will happen with training? At present, the requirement for personal social services training through a working partnership with employers and education institutions provides positive training at all levels. Since 1990, qualifying and post-qualifying social work training throughout the United Kingdom has been delivered through partnerships between employers and teaching institutions. In Northern Ireland, such partnerships currently operate at area health and social services board level, not unit trust level. The Minister should address that point in considering the provision of qualified people. Will trusts be responsible in future?
The people of Northern Ireland do not want the changes that the order will bring. Will the Minister confirm that 95 per cent. of those asked for their opinion of the order opposed it? The order will extend the Tory obsession with privatising and commercialising health and social services care. The Government are using the language of the market place to sell ill health and rationalise the sick. That philosophy underpins the order.
Mr. William Ross: If 95 per cent. of people canvassed were against the order, it would be revealing to know who accounted for the 5 per cent. in favour.
Mr. O'Brien: I assume that they were Government supporters, as is usually the case. Ninety-five people out of every 100 canvassed totally opposed the order. I hope that the Minister will take note of the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Government seem intent on creating more managerial posts and bureaucracy, rather than more hospital beds. Nothing better illustrates that than the creation of 12 management units providing personal social services. The order will bring Northern Ireland in line with some of the sweeping changes already made in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tim Smith: I have been reading the Labour party document "Health 2000". Does not Labour now accept the purchaser-provider split?
Mr. O'Brien: The proposals contained in that document are significantly different from those in the order. We argue for more local input into the future provision of social services. The order will deny local input in health and personal social services care in Northern Ireland. If the Minister accepts our proposals, he should withdraw the order.
The Minister would be the first to agree that there is a vast difference between the regions. In other parts of Britain, social care for the elderly and mentally ill and children involves considerable local input through local authorities. If the Minister has read "Health 2000", he will know that we intend to continue with that approach. In England, locally elected representatives have a say in care provision which directly affects the quality of life of the elderly, children and the mentally ill.
Funding is equally important. It is abundantly clear that in the English regions local authorities are underfunded in the provision of community care. Although it may be the Minister's intention to allow individuals who want to do so to live independently or semi-independently, his promises will be empty if back-up resources are not available to provide the services that the elderly and mentally ill require. Caring for such people in the familiar surroundings of their own homes costs money. If the Government intend to offer wider choice and genuine opportunities to the weaker members of Northern Ireland society, they must be prepared to underpin their stated intentions with adequate resources.
In extending choice, will the new community care trusts in Northern Ireland be instructed, as English local authorities are at present, that a fixed proportion of their funding for the care of the elderly must be directed at providing private care? If so, will the Minister explain how the top-up payments required of close relatives will be obtained? Can the Minister give an assurance that families caring for an elderly parent or other relative who enters a private nursing home will not be turned out of their homes so that the houses can be sold to provide the top-up money required for private nursing care for those whose mental or physical disposition requires it? That is an important matter which the Minister should address. Many people are concerned about the demand for top-up payments for families who live in private sector homes.

707
In extending the new choice, to which the Minister referred, will he give some indication of how the elderly will be looked after with regard to the financial provisionsin private nursing homes? Will he also give some indication that those who work in the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, many of whom have a sound record of developing new and important welfare initiatives, will be allowed to continue providing those initiatives? Will they be encouraged to develop those initiatives and innovations in community care into the next century? Will voluntary workers be given the same incentive to do their work under the trusts as they have under the health boards? I make that point specifically because the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 has no equivalent in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, I return to the issue of accountability. The Minister, Baroness Denton, recently stated in another place:
"Accountability is to boards, to the Department and then to me."
In other words, accountability is restricted by Government influences. Baroness Denton also said:
"There is a line to the social work person on the board of the trust; a dotted professional line,"
and added:
"If something should go wrong, the trust … will be fully accountable and responsible."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1152]
Some red lights are flashing and the Minister should explain what Baroness Denton meant.
We should again consider what the Minister said in the Northern Ireland Committee. He said:
"The trusts will be fully accountable to the boards and, ultimately, to the Department for the discharge of delegated functions,"—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 20 January 1994; c. 32.]
There is some conflict between the views expressed in Committee and in another place. Therefore, the Minister should clear up some of the misunderstandings that have developed because of the debates on this order. I am afraid that those vague attempts at reassurance do nothing to make the position concerning accountability and ultimate responsibility any clearer.
Will the Minister tell the House who will finally be responsible for the taking of children into care? Who carries the professional responsibilities? Will it lie with the health and social services board or the trust board? Will it ultimately lie with the director of the board or the executive director of the relevant trust? Is the Minister ultimately accountable for the taking of children into care? As I pointed out, we ought to have debated the children's order before the order before us was presented to the House. Since we are seeking to amend the children's order, the Minister should answer those significant questions.
I remind the Minister that the patients and citizens charters, which were launched in a blaze of publicity and have all but fizzled out, emphasised the rights of people to personal services and related needs. How will the citizens charters apply in Northern Ireland? Will the Government make it compulsory for the new trust boards to employ approved social workers to care for the mentally sick and for people with disabilities? Will it be mandatory for the trust boards to employ qualified people in accordance with current legislation or will it be another sacrifice of the standards of so-called safety and efficiency? Will deregulation involving the provision of health and community care apply in Northern Ireland, reducing the quality of service?
708
There is a genuine and, in our view, justified concern in Northern Ireland about the future provision of personal social services and health care. Since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, one in five hospitals have closed and since 1981, one in three beds in hospitals have been lost. Those figures speak for themselves, but even worse is the £500,000—I am being a little generous to the Minister compared with the figure given by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) earlier—which will be required in order to pay the additional appointed chairman and non-executive members of the trust. That clearly shows that it is not the provision of beds and hospitals or of social workers that is the priority of the Government, but ensuring that bureaucracy in Northern Ireland is built higher and higher.
Salaried Government placemen, instead of treatment for the sick of Northern Ireland seem to be the order of the Minister's presentation. The order does nothing to redress that situation and the national health service has never faced a greater threat than it does today. I urge the House to reject the order, but I also appeal to the Minister to withdraw it before we enter the Lobbies in the light of the points I have made in my short address.
6.56 pm
Sir James Kilfedder: I listened to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) with great care. He spoke with sympathy and great knowledge of the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. I shall not repeat what he said because I could not do so with the same eloquence.
I intend to vote against the order for a number of reasons, but, because of the lack of time, I cannot list them all. However, all the reasons are valid and they are all important to the people that I represent. The order will be opposed by every representative of Northern Ireland. In view of such unanimity across the political divide in the Province, and in view of the considerable time that the Government spend urging the Northern Ireland politicians to co-operate, they should reward such united opposition to the order by putting it to one side. I join the hon. Member for Normanton in appealing to the Minister to withdraw the order as a gesture of good will to the Ulster people and to the united front presented by Ulster politicians.
According to press reports, the Secretary of State is about to launch—or, perhaps, has launched—another political initiative that entails the creation of a Northern Ireland assembly with power. The ideal time and the proper place for the discussion of the order before us is in such an assembly. In fact, the assembly, when established, will have to examine the health and social services provision in Northern Ireland and may wish to alter radically the present system.
I shall also vote against the draft order because it epitomises the lack of full democracy in the Province. Unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, we are denied the fundamental right to table amendments and to have a proper debate on Second Reading, in Committee, at Report and on Third Reading. Our debate is limited to 90 minutes, which means that I shall have to cut my speech short to allow other hon. Members from Northern Ireland to take part.
In addition, I shall vote against the order not only because I want it to be rejected, but as a protest—the only

709
form of protest that is available to me, as a believer in parliamentary democracy—against the undermining of health and social services provision in my constituency.
I have often made speeches in the House condemning Eastern health board's imposition of major cuts on Ulster hospital in Dundonald, Ards hospital and Bangor hospital. Bangor hospital serves at least 75,000 people, and the population is increasing each year as a result of new housing developments. Bangor should have a fully functioning hospital with acute facilities, a gynaecology ward and a casualty department. Having applied pressure, I was promised that services would be improved, but that promise has not yet been fulfilled. In the name of the people of Bangor and surrounding areas, I again demand the restoration of a fully equipped community hospital.
The order will lead to the creation of 12 trust boards for social services. There is no need for those boards, for reasons already catalogued by the hon. Member for Normanton. They will be costly manifestations of the bureaucracy that now dominates Northern Ireland. The Minister has admitted that the chairman and non-executive members will receive what I consider to be substantial salaries for the number of hours that will be put in—money that is desperately needed for the elderly, the young, the mentally handicapped and others who require community care.
Who allocates these lucrative posts to chairmen of trusts? Over the past year or two, we have seen examples in Northern Ireland—
Rev. Ian Paisley: Such as Albert Reynolds.
Sir James Kilfedder: A more immediate example is the appointment of the chairmen of the tourist board and the electricity company. Those and other appointments were made before privatisation by the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is patronage.
Sir James Kilfedder: It is patronage on a large scale.
Rev. Ian Paisley: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, under the legislation that brought in the iniquitous Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Dublin Government have the right to put forward names for all those posts. It is clear to anyone who examines those names that the current political representation in the House of Commons is not replicated on quangos. The official Unionists are not represented; nor are the popular Unionists, members of my own party or, indeed, members of the SDLP. Those who stand for the Conservative party or the Alliance party and are defeated, however, get on to all the boards.
Sir James Kilfedder: My hon. Friend has stated the position very frankly.
Each chairman is to receive between £15,000 and £20,000 a year. The Public Accounts Committee has expressed anxiety about the manner in which they have been appointed, and about their management of the trusts' affairs.
The Minister said that the present health and social services system had the backing of the people of Northern Ireland, but adduced no evidence to support his claim. I challenge that claim: who supports the order? Which political party in Northern Ireland supports it; which
710
organisation in Northern Ireland supports it; which indivdual supports it? Perhaps the Minister will also tell us whether the Conservative party in Northern Ireland supports it. There is widespread discontent about the present system. The new trusts, and the appointment of chairmen and non-executive members, have added to that grave concern. The system will largely remove the element of accountability to elected representatives of the people.
The people of Bangor have demonstrated conclusively that they want to retain both the Banks residental home for the elderly and Enler house, in Dundonald. Under the new system of trusts, however, the people of Bangor—people who believe in democracy—can be treated with contempt. Where is the democracy that this Parliament epitomises? I ask the Minister to take the order away from the House, and keep it away.
7.5 pm
Mr. William Ross: Two or three speakers have already said pretty much the same; no doubt we shall hear much more of the same before the debate is over.
The order breaks new ground in that, for the first time, trusts are taking responsibility for social services work. We are deeply concerned about that, and feel that it deserves much closer examination than it will receive in an hour and a half. In the other place, Lady Denton said that this was a local solution to a local problem; today, the Minister used the same words. That attracted my attention to the report of the debate in the other place, and I noted that the Minister read out whole slabs of what had been said there. He might at least have made some effort to update his material, in the light of experience.
Neither Lady Denton nor our Minister told us how the "local problem" to which they referred had been created. That might have been enlightening. Both said that the present system had served Northern Ireland very well for 20 years. In that case, why is change now needed? Has the present system been found to be deficient in some respect? Neither Minister suggested that it had, so we must assume that changes in health and social services provision created the "local problem" and that the Government had to make changes as a result.
The people of Northern Ireland have not asked for those changes. They are well aware that democratic input into every aspect of administration in the province has been diminishing steadily for many years. The order will move democratic control from one arm's length to two or three arm's lengths—a serious development that does not sit well with the Government's declared commitment to democracy. This is part of a process that has been going on for far too long, and should have been reversed long ago.
The mere fact that the Government are putting more and more buffers between the people and the delivery of service in itself creates a climate of suspicion, and makes people chary of accepting the Government's view that this scheme will secure public confidence. That is pie in the sky: in reality, the Government are not very widely trusted in Northern Ireland, where people feel that they are being used as guinea pigs in preparation for what will happen elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The House will recall that when the Government introduced the community charge—to give it its proper title rather than its more popular description—the rest of the United Kingdom was used as a guinea pig. They did not

711
get around to introducing the community charge in Northern Ireland as it disappeared before it got that far—thank God that we had the wit to object to it on various grounds. We were right to object and we have been right about many things relating to Northern Ireland. We now say that this is not the right time for the order—in fact, it may never be the right time.
We want answers to a number of questions. What is to be the legal status of the trusts? It is not spelled out as clearly as it should be. If the Government are to embark on this confidence-building exercise, such issues should be spelt out. Are the trusts to be agents of the Government or of the boards? For whom are they acting? How is the perforance of their duties to be monitored?
In one respect, the Minister went some way to clearing up an issue that was troubling me. He said that social workers would be introduced at trust level. Surely they will be doing a job that is already being done by someone else, so who will lose their jobs? If no one is to lose his job, why do we need the new folk? The Government should have done a great deal of thinking before the order got this far, but it seems that that was not the case.
The order will affect very vulnerable groups. One has only to read schedule 2 to see who will be affected. Schedule 2 states that the order will repeal various provisions of, among others the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979, the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. These Acts and orders deal with some of the most vulnerable groups in society.
I do not think that this is the way to proceed. Baroness Denton made it perfectly clear in another place that the functions that will be transferred to the trusts flowed from the legislation that I have cited. When people on the ground realise what is happening, their distrust of the Government's intentions will be greatly increased.
Article 92B deals with the improvement of the economy, services and so on. It states:
"The Department may appoint auditors to undertake comparative or other studies to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness"
in the provision of services. The first issue to be studied is the question of how effective, efficient and economical the present services are so that we shall at least have something with which to compare the new body when it is, unfortunately, established.
It is clear that the Government are intent on introducing the order and will whip their cannon fodder through the Lobbies this evening. Their cannon fodder comprises hon. Members who have not heard the debate and who know nothing about it. If they did, successive Governments would probably have suffered more defeats. When dealing with vulnerable groups, economics is surely not our prime concern—or is it? If we think only of economics, those who have been disadvantaged for whatever reason will suffer grievously. Such folk should not be treated as mere chattels. We are not talking about the efficiency of the provision of goods or groceries; we are considering the services that are to be provided for vulnerable people.
Social services provision in Northern Ireland has been integrated and has worked well for 20 years but is now being deliberately fragmented. I see no good reason for
712
that. If the order is passed, as I fear it will be, we need a truly independent and highly critical element—a bit of sand—to be introduced into the works. We need to ask the nasty questions which far too many people are willing to brush under the carpet.
The Government have set up shadow trusts and have proceeded as if the opinion of the House did not matter, because they know that they can win the necessary majority. They have also appointed the shadow staff. I wonder whether they are already being paid—I assume that they are. We are aware of the cost of the salaries alone, but that is not the only expenditure that will arise. A new bureaucracy is being created which must duplicate the existing system. If it does not, people in post will have to get the sack, no doubt with very large redundancy payments which are not mentioned in the order.
Article 6 deals with chemists. Why is the article included? Is this merely a convenient vehicle? What is the purpose of article 6? Why are these changes being made? The Minister should say a word about them.
My final comments relate to the need for proper ministerial accountability to the House or to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. The legislation highlights yet again the need for proper legislative processes in the House. Despite his chattering, the Minister knows perfectly well that if the order had to be dealt with in Committee, and if it were amendable, and if the Government had to answer probing questions and provide for Northern Ireland the information that they are required to give on legislation for other parts of the United Kingdom, the Government would have more explaining to do than could possibly be extracted from them in a one-and-a-half-hour debate.
Today's proceedings also highlight the need for a Select Committee on Northern Ireland—
Mr. Raymond S.Robertson indicated assent.
Mr. Ross: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding.
The Government will no doubt have the support of the Labour party. If members of the Social Democratic and labour party catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will also complain that they are unable to ask probing questions to find out what is happening. I advise the Labour party and the SDLP not to throw away this opportunity but to join those of us who oppose the order. Of course, a Bill would have been most welcome, but that is an idea to be pursued at some other time.
7.17 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: There are some issues to which we are all anxious to hear the Minister's reply. Those of us who have read the record of the proceedings in another place discovered that pertinent questions were asked and reference was made to a debate in the Northern Ireland Committee. It was reported that there was a consensus among the political parties about the issues that were causing grave concern to the people of Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister tell the House who responded when the draft order was published and what was their response? If 95 per cent. of the responses were against the order, should not that have been a warning bell to cease pressing ahead with it, or is the consultation process a charade and a farce?

713
The Minister has recently been appointed and we wish him well in his task. He may not believe this now, but when he has been in his job for longer and when he has listened to the people of Northern Ireland, he will find that many of them, including members of his party, have grave concerns about meaningless consultation. People may marshal their facts and lobby a Minister, who will listen but not heed anything they say because the decision has already been made. When Government Departments continue to behave in that manner, it causes grave resentment and bitterness in the hearts of people.
Why have a consultation period and ask people to make representations if, when 95 per cent. of people say no to a proposal, the Government say yes? The Minister's party preaches to us that it would be wonderful if we could only get the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to show unity. What is the Government response when Northern Ireland Members, whose opinions are diverse on many matters and between whom an unbridgeable and wide gulf exists on others, come together and agree on a proposal? They use their majority in the House to thumb their nose at the unanimous opinion of Ulster representatives and proceed with business. That is not the way to develop good relations in Northern Ireland and to give people confidence in the democratic process.
Accountability concerns all hon. Members and it has been mentioned in every speech tonight. The Minister's noble Friend spoke on the proposal in another place and I trust that he wii interpret what she meant, because I do not know what she meant. She said:
"Accountability is to boards, to the department and then to me. That position does not change. There is another line in the structure."
What did she mean by that? Does the line of accountability run from the boards to the Department and then to her? If so, why did she mention another line in the structure? Why did she not say that the line of accountability ran from the trusts, the boards, the Department and then to her? She left out trusts, but she described another line:
"There is a line to the social work person on the board of the trust; a dotted professional line, which is of benefit in this case."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1152.]
What has that to do with accountability? Will the trust be accountable in the same way as the boards, the Department and the Minister? We want that question answered tonight.
Hon. Members are aware that the taking of children into care is a serious matter. We have received phone calls from distracted parents saying that they have had domestic trouble and that their children have been "lifted", and that no one will now talk to them. Will we be able to discuss such matters with anyone? Has the line of accountability moved so far that there will be no way of bridging the gulf?
Dr. Joe Hendron: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems crazy and foolish for the House to be discussing this order today when on Thursday we shall discuss the proposal for a Children (Northern Ireland) Order? Many activities of the proposed trusts will be to do with the care of children. As we have not sorted out the proposals on the care of children, why should the order be passed tonight?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It would have been better to put the horse before the cart. The best way of achieving that would be to withdraw the order,
714
allow us to debate the other order and then return to this matter. I do not know what the Government were up to when they decided to debate the order today. Perhaps they decided that, as the House would be dealing with orders all day, they could throw in another for discussion by Northern Ireland Members, who would be present to discuss the order on the airport.
They may have done it for convenience, but it is not convenient to those hon. Members who work in difficult circumstances that are unknown to Ministers and who are the only elected representatives in contact with the Government. We have councils in Northern Ireland, but they have relatively little power. We are the elected representatives and we have to carry out all the duties that councillors on this side of the water carry out. We have to do everything and the Minister should help the public's representatives to stand up for their constituents and to bring their constituents' complaints to them as part of the process of accountability.
The Minister's noble Friend said that a trust was a "statutory body". Would the Government define that? Do the inverted commas around those words mean they are not really statutory bodies or that they have a higher breeding? Perhaps the Minister will explain the standing of these organisations.
Seven of the units will work in areas that have no acute hospital services and only five will work in areas that have acute hospital services. We do not know for how long those five areas will have acute hospital services. We have heard a cry from Bangor loud and clear tonight. I could raise a cry from the North Antrim hills and from the Lame area, which has been brought to the House's attention by the area's representative and myself on numerous occasions. We can all cry about what has happened to our hospital services. Will the Minister tell us what accountability we can expect?
The Minister in the other place continued:
"The draft order seeks to preserve this integration and to enable services to continue more or less in their present form."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1125.]
I do not understand that, because this is indeed a real change that demands the appointment of a chairman, executive members, a director and a social service worker. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said, there will inevitably be redundancies. Where will they begin and where will they end? We cannot establish the new structure without redundancies. The integrated system that we have at present is perfectly good and I do not see why we have to inject into it a new arrangement altogether.
Those are some of the questions to which the order gives rise. I have been able to refer to very few of the issues because our time is limited and I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) in saying that matters as serious as this, which have a bearing on the family and the civil liberty of the subject, should be discussed in a debate on a proper Bill, which can be amended. We cannot amend this order; we can only vote against it. That is not the way in which business should be conducted.
The Minister would do well to heed my advice tonight. He would then be lauded by the people who thought it worth while to make representations to him about their objections to the order, and by the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives in this House, all of whom are saying, "Take this order back. Let us have a debate on

715
the important order that is to be considered by the Northern Ireland Committee and come back to this order when we have dealt with that." That, more than anything else that the Government could do at the moment, would inspire hope and confidence in democratic principles. This is a personal matter—it has to do with persons, children, families and welfare. Let the Minister be a man tonight. Let him stand up and say, "Yes, I will consider the order further and withdraw it in the meantime."
7.31 pm
Dr. Joe Hendron: As someone who has spent the past 30 years in primary health care in the constituency of Belfast, West, let me first pay tribute to those involved in community care not only in that territory but throughout Northern Ireland. The past 20 years have been very difficult for all of them—especially for social workers who have to implement much of the legislation. I pay tribute to social workers, community and psychiatric nurses, medical practitioners and ordinary community workers on the ground who are not necessarily professionals.
The order has been introduced becasue the legislation introduced in 1991 was inadequate. We know about the trusts that we already have and about the trouble in relation to various hospitals, although that is not relevant tonight.
Like other hon. Members, I have studied the speech of the Minister responsible for health in the other place. On 31 January, Baroness Denton said:
"Since the proposal for legislation was published last June many people have voiced anxieties about its effect on services, particularly in relation to those for children."
Children are the most important subject that we are discussing tonight.
Baroness Denton continued:
"Some have expressed doubts about the accountability of trusts within the new arrangements. Questions about fragmentation and inequality of provision have been raised. My noble friend and predecessor and, more recently, I have considered very carefully the anxieties raised and have devoted much time and effort to listening and then explaining the issues."
I have devoted a fair amount of time to reading Baroness Denton's speech to establish exactly what she proposes.
The Minister's speech continued:
"I think it is fair to say that many of the anxieties expressed stemmed from a misunderstanding of the role of trusts, and perhaps t can clarify that point.
Health and social services trusts are state bodies, established firmly within the health and personal social services in Northern
Ireland … They are not independent companies and are bound by the same guidance and directions that govern the operation of health and social services boards at present. Like my noble predecessor, I recognise that people have anxieties".
That is true: all the people of Northern Ireland and all the professionals have great anxieties about the proposals.
"I appreciate their concerns. They are genuinely held, but they have not been ignored. Regardless of which side of the debate we are on, we have one interest in common—the welfare of children and other vulnerable groups in our society. For that reason, the shadow trusts and boards concerned have been working very hard"—
here are the key words—
"to establish procedures which will ensure that those who are entrusted with the discharge of statutory responsibilities at local level will be clear about their role and fully accountable for all that they do."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1994; Vol. 551, c, 1125–26.]
Baroness Denton used the words "establish procedures", but I am certainly not aware of any procedures that have been established. Earlier today I attended a meeting of the Eastern health and social services board to
716
discuss the order. The hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martyn Smyth) and the representative of the Alliance party were also there, as were representatives of the social work and legal professions and of Queen's university.
As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said earlier, the cart is being put before the horse. Some of the most important legislative proposals are contained in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order, which we are to discuss on Thursday. Not all the aspects of that proposal have been worked out. We shall have to address a great many questions to do with children in need and in care, sexual or physical abuse, and children who are in some way involved with paramilitary people. All those matters will have to be dealt with under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order, yet the trusts dealt with in the order before the House tonight will have to implement those provisions.
Baroness Denton and Baroness Faithfull both referred to accountability. Where is the accountability? We all know that, if a child tragically dies, everyone asks, "Where is the social worker? When did he or she last call?" Who should those on the ground speak to and seek guidance from? Is it the trusts? I am well aware that there will be a qualified social worker on the trusts. We must also consider the accountability of the trusts to the four boards and of the four boards to the management executive or the Department and eventually the Minister.
Rev. Martin Smyth: We are told that procedures have been put in place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great concern that, although a social worker is to serve on the directorate, there is no clear line management right down to grass roots level?
Dr. Hendron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that remark. There is no line management. I am not criticising the excellent professionals involved in shadow trusts because they themselves have not been given guidance. The boards do not seem to know where they are. As regards the Children (Northern Ireland) Order, anyone who has time to attend the Committee on Thursday—which I understand will sit for at least four hours—may glean some understanding of how complicated the problem is.
Another aspect relevant to the debate tonight and even more relevant to that on Thursday is the role of the police. Northern Ireland has many problems, similar to those in Britain but exacerbated by violence and by the fact that we have so many one-parent families. Children go before the courts, and the police are often involved. If we are to develop a comprehensive strategy for children and young poeple, we must involve the police. How on earth will we bring together the police force right across the north of Ireland, the 12 new trusts and four boards?
What we really need is a comprehensive system for dealing with child care. I sincerely believe—I have studied the order carefully—that it is a grave mistake on the part of Government to move it this evening. I do not want to repeat what other hon. Members have said, but I pay tribute to the British Association of Social Workers, Health Care in Northern Ireland, Barnardo's and various other bodies which have briefed us for some time. I ask the Minister to withdraw the order.
7.39 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: Much of the debate has focused on trusts. To some extent, we have had a rerun of the debate that took place in 1991 on the original order. There is a misunderstanding about the scope of the order. It is not unimportant, but it is relatively narrow. There was a misunderstanding by quite a number of those who responded during consultation who were inclined to criticise the concept of the trusts.
The concept of trusts in Northern Ireland was accepted when the House approved the 1991 order. That order provides for a clear distinction between the purchaser and provider and for the delegation of services from boards to trusts. What it does not do is provide for delegation of all functions of boards to trusts—only for some of them. I explained that mental health functions were transferred, but many other functions were not. I think that that was because at the time we were largely focusing on hospital trusts and not on the possibility of integrated trusts—combined health and personal social services trusts.
Frankly, it will simply not be possible for the trusts to operate most efficiently if those functions are not transferred to them. I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding about that point. There has not been a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. The matter is relatively straightforward if the principle on which the 1991 order is based is accepted.
Dr. Hendron: The Minister could resolve many of our problems if he explained in simple language. If there is non-delivery of a service within the ambit of the order, who is responsible? Will it be the trust, the board, the Department or the Minister, all four, or any of them?
Mr. Smith: I can deal with that because a number of hon. Members raised the question of accountability. It is important. The position is no different in England and Wales, where we have trusts. The trusts are responsible for the delivery of the service and they are accountable, but there is a clear line of accountability from the trusts—[HON. MEMBERS: "To whom?"' The chief executive. I would normally expect, if I had a complaint about the operation of a health service trust in my constituency, to write initially to the chief executive. If I was not satisfied with the reply, I would take it to a higher level. The higher level goes from the trust to the board, to the Department and, finally, to the Minister in charge of the health service. That seems to be straightforward.
Rev. Martin Smyth: This is an important point. As I understand it, health trusts are to provide the service and the health authorities purchase the service. In Northern Ireland, the community trusts will be responsible not only for providing services but for purchasing the service. There is a dichotomy. It is bureaucratic logic going astray to extend it to community trusts.
Mr. Smith: The whole point of the order is to achieve a total split between purchaser and provider. That is why we are proposing in it to transfer certain functions from boards to trusts. We shall achieve a total transfer only if we accept the order, otherwise we shall be left with something of a halfway house which will not enable the trusts that are due to come into operation on 1 April to operate satisfactorily. I am sorry that it has been so difficult to explain all this, but I suspect that it is based on the fact that some people have a misconception about what trusts are
718
really about. They are statutory public bodies. There is no question of them having any other constitutional status. They will be fully accountable for their actions and will be fully accountable to the boards, the Department and the Minister. It is vital that we should make the change in the order. I commend it to the House.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [11 February].
The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 266.

Division 122]

[7.44 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

Aitken, Jonathan

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Alexander, Richard

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Day, Stephen

Ancram, Michael

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Arbuthnot, James

Dickens, Geoffrey

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dicks, Terry

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dorrell, Stephen

Ashby, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Aspinwall, Jack

Dover, Den

Atkins, Robert

Duncan, Alan

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dunn, Bob

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Dykes, Hugh

Baldry, Tony

Eggar, Tim

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Elletson, Harold

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bates, Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Batiste, Spencer

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bellingham, Henry

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bendall, Vivian

Evennett, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Faber, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fabricant, Michael

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Booth, Hartley

Fishburn, Dudley

Boswell, Tim

Forman, Nigel

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Forth, Eric

Bowden, Andrew

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bowis, John

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Brandreth, Gyles

French, Douglas

Brazier, Julian

Gale, Roger

Bright, Graham

Gallie, Phil

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Gardiner, Sir George

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Burns, Simon

Gamier, Edward

Burt, Alistair

Gill, Christopher

Butler, Peter

Gillan, Cheryl

Butterfill, John

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Carrington, Matthew

Gorst, John

Carttiss, Michael

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Cash, William

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Churchill, Mr

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clappison, James

Grylls, Sir Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hague, William

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Colvin, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Congdon, David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Conway, Derek

Hanley, Jeremy

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hannam, Sir John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Harris, David

Cormack, Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Couchman, James

Hawkins, Nick

Cran, James

Hawksley, Warren

719

Hayes, Jerry

Oppenheim, Phillip

Heald, Oliver

Ottaway, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Page, Richard

Hendry, Charles

Paice, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Hicks, Robert

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Pawsey, James

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Pickles, Eric

Horam, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

Rathbone, Tim

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Richards, Rod

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Riddick, Graham

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

Robathan, Andrew

Hunter, Andrew

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jack, Michael

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jenkin, Bernard

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

Jessel, Toby

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Sackville, Tom

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Key, Robert

Shaw, David (Dover)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Knapman, Roger

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shersby, Michael

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

Sims, Roger

Knox, Sir David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Soames, Nicholas

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Speed, Sir Keith

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Legg, Barry

Spink, Dr Robert

Leigh, Edward

Spring, Richard

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Sproat, Iain

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lidington, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lightbown, David

Steen, Anthony

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Stephen, Michael

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Stern, Michael

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Allan

Luff, Peter

Streeter, Gary

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Sumberg, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sweeney, Walter

MacKay, Andrew

Sykes, John

Maclean, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Madel, Sir David

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Malone, Gerald

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mans, Keith

Thomason, Roy

Marland, Paul

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Marlow, Tony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thumham, Peter

Mates, Michael

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

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

Merchant, Piers

Tracey, Richard

Mills, Iain

Trend, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moate, Sir Roger

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Moss, Malcolm

Viggers, Peter

Needham, Richard

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Nelson, Anthony

Walden, George

Neubert, Sir Michael

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Waller, Gary

Nicholls, Patrick

Ward, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Waterson, Nigel

Norris, Steve

Watts, John

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Wells, Bowen

720

Whitney, Ray

Wolfson, Mark

Whittingdale, John

Wood, Timothy

Widdecombe, Ann

Yeo, Tim

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Willetts, David

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.

Wilshire, David

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Adams, Mrs Irene

Eagle, Ms Angela

Ainger, Nick

Eastham, Ken

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Enright, Derek

Allen, Graham

Etherington, Bill

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Armstrong, Hilary

Fatchett, Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Faulds, Andrew

Barnes, Harry

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Barron, Kevin

Fisher, Mark

Battle, John

Flynn, Paul

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Bell, Stuart

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foulkes, George

Bennett, Andrew F.

Fraser, John

Benton, Joe

Fyfe, Maria

Bermingham, Gerald

Galbraith, Sam

Berry, Dr. Roger

Galloway, George

Betts, Clive

Gapes, Mike

Blair, Tony

Garrett, John

Boateng, Paul

George, Bruce

Boyes, Roland

Gerrard, Neil

Bradley, Keith

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Godsiff, Roger

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

Golding, Mrs Llin

Burden, Richard

Gordon, Mildred

Byers, Stephen

Graham, Thomas

Caborn, Richard

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Callaghan, Jim

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gunnell, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hain, Peter

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hall, Mike

Canavan, Dennis

Hanson, David

Cann, Jamie

Hardy, Peter

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Chisholm, Malcolm

Henderson, Doug

Clapham, Michael

Hendron, Dr Joe

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hinchliffe, David

Clelland, David

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Home Robertson, John

Coffey, Ann

Hood, Jimmy

Connarty, Michael

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Corbett, Robin

Hoyle, Doug

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corston, Ms Jean

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Simon (Southward)

Cox, Tom

Hutton, John

Cryer, Bob

Illsley, Eric

Cummings, John

Ingram, Adam

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jackson, Helen (Shet'ld, H)

Dafis, Cynog

Jamieson, David

Dalyell, Tarn

Janner, Greville

Darling, Alistair

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jowell, Tessa

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dewar, Donald

Keen, Alan

Dixon, Don

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Khabra, Piara S.

Dowd, Jim

Kilfedder, Sir James

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Kilfoyle, Peter

721

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Pope, Greg

Kirkwood, Archy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Leighton, Ron

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lewis, Terry

Prescott, John

Litherland, Robert

Primarolo, Dawn

Livingstone, Ken

Purchase, Ken

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Llwyd, Elfyn

Radice, Giles

Loyden, Eddie

Randall, Stuart

Lynne, Ms Liz

Raynsford, Nick

McAllion, John

Redmond, Martin

McAvoy, Thomas

Reid, Dr John

McCartney, Ian

Rendel, David

McCrea, Rev William

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Macdonald, Calum

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

McFall, John

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

McGrady, Eddie

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

McKelvey, William

Rogers, Allan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Rooker, Jeff

McLeish, Henry

Rooney, Terry

McMaster, Gordon

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McNamara, Kevin

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

McWilliam, John

Rowlands, Ted

Madden, Max

Sedgemore, Brian

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Shearman, Barry

Maginnis, Ken

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Mahon, Alice

Short, Clare

Mandelson, Peter

Simpson, Alan

Marek, Dr John

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

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

Martin, Michael J. (Springbum)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Martlew, Eric

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Maxton, John

Snape, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Soley, Clive

Meale, Alan

Spearing, Nigel

Michael, Alun

Spellar, John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Milburn, Alan

Steinberg, Gerry

Miller, Andrew

Stevenson, George

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Stott, Roger

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morgan, Rhodri

Trimble, David

Morley, Elliot

Vaz, Keith

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mudie, George

Wareing, Robert N

Mullin, Chris

Watson, Mike

Murphy, Paul

Welsh, Andrew

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wicks, Malcolm

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Wigley, Dafydd

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

O'Hara, Edward

Wilson, Brian

Olner, William

Winnick, David

O'Neill, Martin

Worthington, Tony

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wray, Jimmy

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wright, Dr Tony

Parry, Robert

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Patchett, Terry

Pendry, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

Pickthall, Colin

Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Dennis Turner.

Pike, Peter L.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.

Return of Cultural Objects
7.58 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I beg to move,
That the draft Return of Cultural Objects Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
The statutory instrument is important. The regulations, a statutory instrument under the European Communities Act 1972, will implement the provisions of Council directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the terrority of a member state. This is an internal market measure providing an additional layer of protection for member states' national treasures.
Article 36 of the treaty of Rome allows member states to define and protect these national treasures, provided that the measures taken are not disproportionate to trade. It was feared by a number of states, particularly France and the southern states of the Community, that the removal of routine customs checks at the internal frontiers, following completion of the single market on 1 January 1993, would weaken national protection.
Important national treasures could be removed by their owners across internal borders without the permission of the member states from which they originated. One powerful motive for doing that would, it is maintained, be the drawing power of the international art market in London. It is fair to say that export controls on these countries are on the draconian side, with permission to export being the exception rather than the norm. As a result, the price that an owner can realise for his art object is largely a domestic market price as is it unlikely that a new owner would be able to export it lawfully.
It could well be argued—I have some sympathy with this view—that it should not be the business of the United Kingdom Government to police the export control systems of other member states. But we are a Community—a club where we should extend the hand of mutual co-operation and help. The United Kingdom argued that an informal agreement would achieve that, but the majority of states thought that the only effective way forward was a statutory system. They saw the problem as both an internal one, as I have described, and an external one at the external frontiers of the Community.
Member states decided that a consistent approach to both was essential. The result was a Council regulation, EEC 3911/92, which set up a system of Community export licensing based on categories and monetary thresholds set out in an annex. It is closely modelled on the United Kingdom's national system. Provision for national co-operation in identifying and returning national treasures was made in Council directive 93/7/EEC, again limiting the objects that could be subject to those provisions by the same annex.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the Minister clarify the question of monetary thresholds? Some of us think that the most urgent problem is the theft of religious and ecclesiastical art from Czechoslovakia and, even more, icons from Russia and elsewhere. The Minister knows that they can be sold for proverbial peanuts in eastern Europe. Where does the doctrine of monetary thresholds fit into this extremely difficult and thorny problem?
Mr. Sproat: As so often, the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. However, it is not a point which arises on the regulations that we are debating. I agree that countries in eastern Europe, especially Russia with its valuable icons, should find a way to prevent sales if the objects are unlawfully exported. But the matter does not arise in this debate. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write or talk to me about it, I should be glad to discuss it with him.
Mr. Dalyell: Following the all-party heritage group's visit to Czechoslovakia, some of us wrote to the Minister's Department—before his time—at considerable length and raised the matter with the Prime Minister, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) knows.
Mr. Sproat: I will certainly make a point of getting out the correspondence and seeing what can be done in a context other than the regulations that we are debating.
The House will recall that when the directive was debated in Standing Committee B in November 1992, hon. Members were critical of some of its provisions. The package of regulation and directives was due to be debated at the Internal Market Council the following week, and the Committee asked the Secretary of State to ensure that no common position was arrived at without several changes.
The United Kingdom was President of the Council at the time and that is always a delicate position in which to use a blocking vote. But in this case, our position was also influential. The United Kingdom's negotiators achieved all the improvements we sought. We shifted the burden of proof so that the courts of each member state could apply their own system and, most important, we removed the requirement for licences for thousands of minor archaeological and numismatic objects.
In the Government's view, we had arrived at the best compromise possible. The directive stirred up the nationalistic instincts of member states. The southern states wanted it to cover a much larger area of cultural goods. Some wanted no time limit at all for the period during which a member state could request the return of a cultural object removed unlawfully from a museum or religious institution. Greece passionately sought this, since to have it otherwise was contrary to its constitution. In the end, Greece voted against the directive, and Germany abstained.
Given the text that we had before us, the United Kingdom considered that to continue to block it would reopen issues that were not tolerable to the United Kingdom. But I will freely admit that the directive is far from perfect.
Dr. Robert Spink: Before my hon. Friend moves away from Greece, can he tell us whether there is anything in the regulations that would result in the Elgin marbles being returned to Greece? While he is talking about that part of the world, can he say whether anything can be done to prevent any further stripping of the valuable and historic items in the part of northern Cyprus that is now occupied by Turkey?
Mr. Sproat: I do not know about northern Cyprus. However, I can tell my hon. Friend, who asks an extremely important question, that nothing in the regulations would compel us to return the Elgin marbles. For the absolute avoidance of any doubt, we are not compelled by the directive to do so and we have no intention of doing so.
724
One important commitment won by the United Kingdom was to a review in 1995–96 of the operation of both the EC regulation and the directive. We are already assembling a number of issues and notifying the Commission and other member states of them. The art trade has been co-operative in applying for EC licences, and has drawn the disadvantages to our attention. The licensing unit in my Department has taken on two additional staff to deal efficiently with the extra licences. Applicants are kept waiting no longer than before for their applications to be deal with. But there is an extra cost, which must be balanced against our obligations to lend mutual assistance to other member states.
Whether the regulations will involve extra costs will rest entirely on the extent to which they are used. They will provide a mechanism for another member state to request the return from the United Kingdom of a cultural object that has been unlawfully removed from that state in breach of its rules for the protection of national treasures. They will also apply where a national treasure has not been returned following a period of unlawful temporary removal. But I must stress that this applies only to cultural objects unlawfully removed on or after 1 January last year. That point will give comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who asked an important question about the Elgin marbles.
Mr. Robert Banks: My hon. Friend will be aware that the regulations are retrospective; they go back to 1 January 1993. My feeling is that we should not pass retrospective legislation. It is much better for legislation to go from the time that it is passed by the House. Can my hon. Friend tell us whether any requests have been received for the return of any cultural objects that have been removed within the period covered by the regulations?
Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend asks a good question. I do not know the answer off the top of my head. Perhaps I can let him know later in the debate. As for retrospection generally, my hon. Friend is right—it is usually an objectionable principle. But in this case we had to deal with other member states of the EC which wished to go all the way back unprescriptively—that is, as far back as the object—
Mr.Patrick Cormackrose—
Mr. Sproat: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
We had some difficulty in stopping that. For instance, the constitution of Greece says that any object manufactured before 1832 belongs to the Greek Government. We had problems getting a date fixed, and we felt that 1 January 1993 was not a bad compromise to reach.
Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this country is a potential beneficiary? We have suffered greatly in the past few years from thefts from churches. Is not it true that objects stolen from an English country church in, say, June of last year would come under the regulations if they turned up in one of the other countries in the Community?
Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The great value of the London art market means that we tend to proceed in our arguments from the assumption that we are talking about cultural objects from other countries

725
being sold here. As my hon. Friend rightly said, many valuable cultural objects from this country are found on the market in other parts of the EC. We could request that those countries co-operate with us to return British cultural objects. My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point.
Although the directive allows an optional provision for member states to apply the directive to objects that were unlawfully removed before January 1993, we do not intend to apply that provision. The answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point needs not to be qualified, but borne in mind. Although we will not apply that provision, other countries may do so, and we may continue to get pressure for the return of the Elgin marbles and other objects. We have not accepted that, and we do not intend to apply the directive in that manner. We believe that it would introduce unacceptable uncertainty for purchasers of cultural objects and for members of the art trade.
Hon. Members will have noticed that the regulations have adopted the same meaning for expressions as those used in the directive, and that there has been no attempt at interpretation. That was deliberate, because it is important to ensure that the directive is correctly implemented while avoiding the imposition of burdens other than those required. The best way to achieve that was to follow the wording of the directive.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Minister explain how the definition of illegality is to be applied? Is it simply necessary for the member state applying to this country or to another for the return of a cultural object to assert that, in its view and by its law, the object has been exported illegally? Is there some objective test of illegality?
Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Each EC member state has its own definition of a national treasure. In Italy, that covers a wide range of objects, and Germany—I think I am right in saying—has specified 600 objects of national treasures. The hon. Gentleman would quickly see that if the manuscript of Beethoven's 10th symphony were discovered. It would not be included on the list, and therefore would not require an export licence.
The definition applies if an object that surfaces in London is defined as a national treasure by the home state, if I may put it that way, under article 36 of the treaty of Rome. For example, if an Italian national treasure surfaces in a catalogue at Sotheby's the Italian Government have to say within two months of the object appearing in the catalogue that they thought it had been unlawfully taken from Italy. The Italian Government must say that it is a national treasure which has been taken without an export licence. After that two months, they have no longer than 12 months to take the matter to court.
Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister saying that if objects categorised by a member state as a national treasure are exported, they have been per se illegally exported? Does that apply also to other artefacts or cultural objects which may be illegally exported—for example, objects which have been taken from an archaeological dig, illegally vandalised and taken into this country? A member state, say Greece, may say to our Government that those objects
726
have been illegally exported. Do we accept Greece's word on that, or is there some objective test of what is an illegal export? Can any country—ourselves included—nominate an export as illegal?
Mr. Sproat: The export cannot be nominated as illegal after it has been taken, say from Greece to the United Kingdom. However, the object may be on the list of national treasures as defined by the Greek Government. The list is published and we all know what is on it.
If the object has been stolen, that is quite different. There are objects that can be transported from Greece to the United Kingdom legally if the Greek Government issues an export licence. The original regulation applied to objects that required an export licence. If an object is taken out of Greece and surfaces in the United Kingdom or in any part of the EC without an export licence having been issued, that is contrary to the directive and the regulations that we are debating. Theft is, of course, different and can be prosecuted through the courts in the normal way. Presumably, the object would not have been exported with an export licence because a thief would not wish to draw it to the attention of the authorities.
Hon. Members will see that regulation 3(1) provides for the Secretary of State to seek a cultural object where there has been a request from another member state. That goes into part of what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central just asked. That means that we would expect to check an object with the full co-operation of the person on whose property the object is believed to be located.
Members of the art trade already co-operate in similar circumstances with the police, and I hope that that mutual co-operation will continue. In the few cases where it is considered necessary and appropriate for the Secretary of State to apply to the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or to the Court of Session in Scotland, for an order authorising entry and search, the official responsible for undertaking the search would normally expect to enter the premises at a reasonable hour of the day, unless it is anticipated that to do so would defeat the object of the exercise.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not doubt the impeccable taste of either the Secretary of State or the Minister. The hon. Gentleman says that the Secretary of State will check who carries that out, but presumably it will be transferred to someone in the British museum or a Scottish gallery. Will it be the appointee or the Secretary of State who carries out the check?
Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman asks a complicated question to which I will attempt to give a lucid answer. "Seeking to check" is the wording which forms part of the European directive which I said we have used. It would apply if, for example, the Greek Government told us that a certain cultural object designated as a national treasure by them was thought to have been exported to London, and was likely to appear in the British markets.
The Secretary of State, through the officials of the cultural property unit in the Department, would place advertisements in the various appropriate antiques journals. Those would be circulated among the various houses in London where it was expected the object might be sold. The auction houses would be informed that they should look out for the object, which the Greek Government had reason to believe was to be unlawfully sold in London. "Seeking to check" would apply in cases

727
where an object had appeared and we had no advance notice from the member state's Government that it was likely to appear. If the object appeared in a Sotheby's catalogue, we would be in touch with an appropriate expert at the British museum and ask him to go and check.
In some, perhaps many, cases, court proceedings might not be needed if the bona fide owner can agree appropriate compensation with the requesting member state, but in other cases, court proceedings might be needed to establish the good faith of the owner. The requesting state will have to satisfy the court that the object that is the subject of the proceedings for return is, in fact, the one that is sought and that it was unlawfully removed from the territory of the requesting state during the relevant limitation period. The court must also be satisfied that the proceedings were brought less than 12 months after the requesting state became aware of the location of the object and the identity of its possessor or holder. That is the point that I made to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
Mr. Bernie Grant: Is that the only way in which artefacts could be returned to their country of origin after the regulations are agreed? Could they be returned by normal negotiations and so on? For example, do the Elgin marbles have to fit into the categories that the hon. Gentleman stated?
Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. It is perfectly possible that an object will be returned by mutual agreement. Let us say that the hon. Gentleman bought an antique statue, believing, perfectly properly, that it had been exported from Greece with an export licence, and that he believed himself to be the bona fide owner. Let us say also that the Greek Government prove to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction that, unknown to him, it had been unlawfully exported from Greece.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman, as the bona fide owner—there is not the slightest besmirching of his name—would say, "Of course it should not have been taken; I gladly give it back," in which case the requesting Government would pay him compensation. It might be what he paid for the object, or a similarly negotiated price.That is how it would work. I imagine that, very often, it will work that way, because people will be bona fide owners of objects that turn out to be unlawfully exported.
I want to emphasise the modest nature of the provisions. We should not view the powers of entry and search and of seizure as striking at the innocent owner's right to enjoy his property. Perhaps the powers, which will require an order from the High Court, will never be used. We have carefully not created a new criminal offence. Contempt of the High Court or of the Court of Session is a serious matter, with stiff penalties. The regulations should be sufficient should a member of the public obstruct the competent authority in the exercise of searching for a requested national treasure of another member state. But it is innovative legislation in the sense that, for the first time, we are prepared to act on a statutory basis to provide a mechanism for the return of the national treasures of other member states.
We shall watch carefully how use is made of the measure. It is a developing aspect of international property law, and the United Kingdom Government and the art trade wish to influence it positively. We have vital economic as well as cultural concerns in the United Kingdom. They come together in the strong, open and legitimate art market
728
in London which, in its own code of practice, wants nothing to do with goods that have an unlawful provenance.
The problem of unlawful circulation of national treasures is worth tackling, just as we are tackling trafficking in stolen art and objects. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
8.22 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: The Opposition welcome the regulations. Any piece of legislation which polices and regulates the growing market in illegal works of art and antiquities is to be applauded and supported. That illegal market is said to be second only to the illegal trafficking of drugs. Quite how that figure is arrived at, I am not sure, but nobody has refuted it. Indeed, it has been quoted several times recently, not least by Lord Renfrew. If the scale of illegal trafficking is as large as that, it is a very large part of international crime and one which, at least in the European context, it is a good thing that we are tackling. The Opposition commend the Government on adopting the regulations.
In accepting, I hope, the support of the whole House for the regulations, the Government need to answer more questions than the Minister has addressed, especially as I detected, particularly in his opening remarks, some slight personal scepticism or reluctance when he referred to acting as policemen for the imperfections of other countries' policies. He referred to "a view with which I have some sympathy." If the Minister is a little sceptical about the regulations, we need to probe the Government's view of them and their commitment to implementing them.
How big is the problem for the United Kingdom and what research has the Department done to establish the scale of the problem for the United Kingdom? What percentage of the art market will be affected? The Minister said that the art market did not wish to traffic in goods which do not have good provenance, but he knows very well that many objects that are sold on the art market have doubtful provenance or no provenance at all and that, without those objects, the art market would be severely damaged. It would be very interesting to know what the scale of the problem is and what percentage of the market will be affected.
Also, in other matters, the Government rightly stress that they should set themselves targets so that their performance can be evaluated. What number of successful search and finds and, therefore, prosecutions will the Government consider adequate? Will the Minister give some targets about the performance of the regulations? The Minister needs to tell us more about the steps and the mechanisms that the Government will take. Will his Department need to take on new staff and train them? If so, how many, and what expertise will they have and what training will he provide for them?
Presumably, the Minister will need help from the Inland Revenue and the police in implementing the regulations. What training will there be for police forces? If, say, Italy asks us to search for a work of art that it suspects is in Glasgow or Liverpool, it will be no good if the number of police officers in this country is so limited that we cannot meet the request from the member state and therefore cannot implement the regulations.
I was slightly worried by the Minister's response to how a check will be made. He seemed to say, "We will leave it

729
to advertising in the art press that an illegal object is loose or is suspected of being loose in the London market." Is he saying that his Department would not be responsible if there is a request from, say, Greece because it believes that there is such an object here? Will it be sufficient for the Government to ensure that an advertisement is placed in Apollo or elsewhere? Is it not his Department's responsibility to ensure that either the Inland Revenue or the police search out that object? An advertisement would not fulfil the spirit of the regulations.
In particular, the Minister must say something more about the definitions. We understand that the regulations apply only to national treasures and the inventories of public collections or ecclesiastical institutions. The example that I gave when he kindly gave way to me was the pillaging of archaeological sites. It is unlikely that a new archaeological site or a site that has not been excavated before will be on an inventory of national treasures. It will certainly not be part of a national public collection.
If something is ripped from an archaeological site—this is exactly what Lord Renfrew is rightly concerned about, and the implications for international archaeology and our understanding of our cultural heritage in Europe—and it is not designated a national treasure, will it be covered by the regulations? That could leave a huge hole in the regulations.
What protection to the regulations give us? Many works of art are undoubtedly extremely important to the culture and cultural heritage of this country. We do not have a designated list of national treasures, but we have public collections and ecclesiastical institutions. We have many important works of art which are absolutely central to the way we see our heritage, tradition and view of our culture but which are not in public institutions, public collections or ecclesiastical institutions. Will they not be covered?
For instance, if they are stolen from a private collection or a national trust and they turn up—or we believe that they have turned up—in Rome, will we be unable to apply to the Italian Government for the return of those objects even though we know that they have been stolen from a private collection in Britain and are important works of art or artefacts? If so, there is another huge loophole, which the Government should seek to close. I am sorry, if that is the loophole, that they have not closed it in advance.
Can the Minister give some more assurances to the House about the way in which the regulations will be effective in helping us to gain possession of objects in the way that I have described, and will he especially give some consideration to the effect that that will have on the London art market? He referred to that subject briefly in his concluding remarks, but will he tell us what co-operation the Government had had from the art market and from museums and academics in their negotiations?
I understand that a committee has been set up to advise the Government, but in the debate recently in the other place the noble Lord Gowrie said that it had met only three times and he seemed at that stage to be extremely critical of the way in which we were proceeding to the regulations. Have those fears been assuaged? What has changed? Are the Government happy with the regulations that they are putting before the House?
730
Those questions need to be asked because the House needs to be reassured, not only that the regulations in their present form will be on the statute book, but that the Government have a real commitment to making them work. Though the Minister's remarks were very interesting and helpful to the House, I think that they were a trifle cautious or lukewarm in their enthusiasm. That causes—in my mind at least—some worry about the Government's commitment. The Government's record in that sector over recent years fuels that doubt and fear about commitment.
The problem has been around for many years, although it has grown enormously recently, and it has caused worry to everyone in academic circles, in museums and in the art world generally. A great deal of work has been done on regulations of that type in a European and an international context. Internationally, those date back to the 1950s, with The Hague protocol on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict 1954 and the New Delhi recommendations on international principles applicable to archaeological excavations 1956—both of which were drawn up by UNESCO.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Is the Labour party still committed to the return of the Elgin marbles?
Mr. Fisher: The Labour party views that subject in the context that I am describing now—the Elgin marbles should be multinational agreement. That is is why the Labour party, unlike the Government, is committed to ratifying and being an active signatory to the UNESCO convention of 1970. If we were—Greece is a party to the UNESCO convention—we would be able to work out the orderly return, not only of the Elgin marbles, but of the Benin bronzes and many other cultural treasures. We should not handle it as a one-off bilateral agreement with Greece on an individual artefact or set of artefacts, but as part of an international agreement.
The problem is not only between ourselves and the Greek Government; it is a major international problem. The Government should say tonight why they will not ratify and be an active signatory to the UNESCO Convention 1970. They ought to do that. They should be serious about tackling the problem.
The Government ought also to be active in the European dimension because the regulation that we are debating is not sufficient. The Minister knows very well that work is going on at this minute on UNIDROIT, the convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects, which was basically concluded in 1992 and will be submitted to a diplomatic conference this year. Why do the Government not actively support UNIDROIT? The Attorney-General has said that he does not close the door on the Government signing UNIDROIT. What is the problem with UNIDROIT? It would greatly strengthen the regulations before us tonight. If the Government expect to be taken seriously in connection with the regulations, they should give a commitment to be active in their support for UNIDROIT at the conference next year.
The Government also need to explain why they are not supporting the Commonwealth convention which has recently been concluded. Every other Commonwealth country has been active in that. A decade of campaigning by New Zealand has brought the Commonwealth Mauritius protocol to completion. Eleven countries contributed to that working party; they have been drafting it for seven years and Australia has now offered to draft

731
legislation for other Commonwealth countries. Why are the Government dragging their feet on the Commonwealth initiative? Will they go further, as the Attorney-General said last year, and not just not close the door but open the door and be an active supporter?
The Minister must explain the Government's problems about the wider international context for the regulations that we are debating tonight—the UNESCO treaty, the Mauritius Commonwealth protocol and UNIDROIT. Taken together, those three agreements and the regulations would provide some context in which to tackle illegal trafficking in art artefacts, which no Member of the House can support.
The Government have taken the first step, and we welcome it, but there are three other steps waiting to be taken if the Government are serious about tackling that illegal traffic. The Minister must address himself to that.
What is the problem? Is it that the Minister fears that legislation will hurt London's art trade? If so, he should be open about that and discuss it. That was the burden of the debate on 3 November 1992 in the other place, when the noble Lords Gowrie and Carrington—the latter a former Member of this House, and both of them chairmen of major art auctioneers and art houses—mentioned severe fears and worries about the regulations and this action. Those Members of the House who, like me, are not experts on the subject, do not know whether the worries that those noble Lords expressed are well founded.
The Government have to answer that. Lord Gowrie said that it would threaten our position in the art trade; that it would be a smugglers' charter, and that we shall be acting as customs, civil servants, tax gatherers and policemen for other countries which will not police their own laws. He went on to say that the Government were under pressure to complete the legislation by January last year, that it was too quick, that there was too little consultation and that the consultative organisation met only three times. That was 15 months ago, so perhaps it met several times last year. We ought to hear about that. The noble Lord Carrington said that those things would be damaging and unworkable and would increase bureaucracy.
Those are charges by two people who have worked in that sector and who know about it. The Minister ought to respond. Are they right in having those fears? Have things been changed? Have the Government managed to secure negotiations and change the regulations in a way that would satisfy those fears? He said tonight that, basically, we were adopting the regulations as they were in the European directive. Is so, are the fears of the art trade still justified? Are the regulations likely to damage the art trade in this country? That is an important part of our cultural industries and a profitable area for this country.
We therefore have two different problems. It is good that the Government are doing something, even if it is rather cautious and tackles only part of the problem, but are they committed to it and have they got it right and achieved what, I accept, is a difficult balance between not damaging an important industry in the United Kingdom and doing right by the international market and protecting our national treasures? The Minister will say that, because he is being criticised from both sides, perhaps he has got it right, but when one is criticised from both sides one may equally have got it wrong from both points of view. There is no security in that argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) has suggested a way of squaring that circle. We should opt
732
for a wider international agenda which does not simply protect European artefacts and the relationships between member states. Lords Gowrie and Carrington were concerned that as the regulations are purely European the art market would go elsewhere to areas not covered by UNESCO or other international agreements.
To calm those fears, we should not run away from or be soft on the issue. Instead, we should sign up to UNESCO and pressure the United States Government to ensure that there is effective international regulation. The Government have done that reluctantly in the past in respect of issues such as copyright, patents and designs with the Berne convention. If the Government are serious about tackling international crime, they have an opportunity to take the lead in respect of international regulations.
The Government are in a dilemma. They want to talk tough on crime, but I do not believe that they are certain that what they are doing will be effective. I am not sure whether they know the effect their actions will have on the art trade. The Government must decide whose side they are on and how best to protect our art treasures and our art trade and also how to tackle international crime.
The Opposition support the regulations. We are pleased to do that and we congratulate the Government on them. However, the crucial point is what the Government do next. Will they police the regulations with real rigour and determination? Will they go further in respect of an international perspective? If they will not do either of those things, when we next debate the issue at Question Time or in Adjournment debates in a year's time, if the regulations have not been effective it will be clear that the Government have been prepared to go through the motions but not to back the legislation with action or to seek an international solution.
If that happens, the aim behind the regulations to get to grips with a culturally dangerous and unpleasant form of illegal international trafficking will not have been observed. We will not have done right by that problem. The Government must convince the House that they are really committed on this and that they intend to do something about it.
8.42 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister about the Elgin marbles. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) put a similar question to his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
With regard to the Elgin marbles, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say to his opposite number in Greece, Mrs. Melina Mercouri, "Never on Sunday, nor on any other day of the week." I am happy to remind the House that those words were first spoken by our former colleague Sir David Price, and never have truer words been spoken. He was absolutely right.
Nations, like individuals, cannot always have what they want. I hope that we will never accept that we should be told what to do by UNESCO, the European Union or any other international organisation. I remind the House that the Elgin marbles are not owned by the British Government; they are owned by the British museum which is an independent charitable foundation run by trustees. That should be understood in countries like Greece. Such countries should not be distracted by the word "British" in

733
the title into imagining that the British museum is run by the Government. Returning the Elgin marbles would, in effect, involve confiscation of the trustees' private property.
My hon. Friend the Minister introduced the debate with admirable lucidity. However, I should like him to enlarge on what happens in respect of a country that has not yet joined the European Union but might join it in future. In that respect, I think of Norway.
Let us suppose that Munch's "The Scream", which was pinched from the Oslo museum over the weekend, were to turn up in four or five years' time in Bermondsey market or in the market in the Portobello road. Although I think that it is unlikely, suppose Norway joined the European Union in four or five years' time. What would be the legal position under the regulations with regard to returning the picture to Norway? Criminal law could be invoked and the picture could be returned as stolen property. However, I should like to know the position in respect of the draft regulations.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the scope of the regulations is limited. I am not sure how much good they will do. Are they permanent? If they are approved, how effective will the review be? My hon. Friend said that we must carefully monitor the way in which the regulations work.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said that he would welcome the control of illegal traffic. However, much of the trade in objects is perfectly legal at present. I am not sure whether we want to place a stop on that.
The spread of cultural treasures is good. If the regulations had been passed 50, 100 or 200 years ago, we would not be able to view any of the great foreign paintings that are on view today in the national gallery, the British museum or the Victoria and Albert museum. We would not see French impressionists or Dutch, Italian, German and Spanish paintings. Foreigners on the continent would not be able to see paintings by Turner, Reynolds or Gainsborough.
There seems to be a doctrine that any great work of art should remain permanently in the country in which it was created. That is nonsense. Are we really saying that the national gallery in Washington should return all its Rembrandts to Holland or that the French should whisk the Mona Lisa from the Louvre and send it back to Italy?
A great international collection in any country enables visitors to that collection, whether they are old or young, to compare and contrast paintings, furniture or other objects of different countries and different civilisations. The regulations could stop the international movement of fine works of art.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central wondered whether the regulations would affect the art trade. Obviously, they would if the movement of great works of art were stopped. London and New York are pre-eminent in the art trade and the art market. The world's greatest auctions for art objects are held mainly in London and New York.
My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has just succeeded in negotiating an agreement with the European Union which will help to preserve the art auction market in
734
London. There has been a threat that the market will move from the European Union to New York, Geneva, Hong Kong and other places outside the European Union.
It would be a great pity to stop the movement of all important works of art within the European Union. That would damage the auction trade in London. We are prominent in that trade, which helps to pull into this country overseas visitors who visit the auctions or make use of them by telephone. When those people come to London, they spend money in hotels and restaurants, on shopping and on internal travel. All that helps to generate trade and employment in the United Kingdom and to improve the tax return to the Government. We should be crazy if we were to knock the international art market in London.
It seems to me that these regulations give any country within the European Union the power to state unilaterally that any object—any painting or piece of furniture, for example—is a national treasure. There appears to be no obligation to produce any evidence or to make any kind of case. It seems that the process is purely arbitrary.
We shall have to wait a few years to see how the regulations work. My reading of them is that a state can simply claim that something is a national treasure, thereby preventing its movement. Other states do not stick to the rules as the United Kingdom does. The British tend to follow to the letter the European Union's rules in respect of trading matters. We are all aware that many continental countries are not equally conscientious. That could place us at a disadvantage. I hope for an assurance that the operation of the regulations will be subject to a thorough review.
8.50 pm
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), I support the regulations, so far as they go, as a step in the right direction. I shall cite in a little detail—although not at length, I promise—a particular case to illustrate what can happen. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) referred to the looting of churches, particularly in northern Cyprus.
A cause celebre is the Panayia Kanakaria mosaics from the church of Panayia, Kanakaria in Lythrangomi, which was overrun in the northern Cyprus invasion of 1974. These were still being used for religious observance until 1976, but then abandonment was necessary. It was reported in 1979 that the church was being used as stable and that some rather precious glass mosaics dating from the 5th century BC had been stolen. They depicted Jesus in the lap of Mary with the 12 apostles. They had been located in the apse, but they were lost.
Eventually—in 1988—they surfaced on the international market. They were on offer at $3 million, I understand, and were eventually acquired by an American art dealer. I understand that $1·2 million, cut various ways, changed hands. The American art dealer, as one would expect, attempted to market the mosaics. That was reported to the Getty museum and, to her credit, Dr. Marion True informed the Cyprus Department of Antiquities that they had surfaced on the black market in art works. Their return was requested, but the request was refused. The matter was taken to court and was eventually settled in the south district of Indiana in

735
October 1990. The mosaics are now being restored for display in a museum in Cyprus. That is just one example of desecration and systematic looting in northern Cyprus.
I stress that, in citing this case, I do not make any political point in connection with the invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus. I accept that the administration there does much to control the situation. Self-evidently, however, it is not doing enough, as that kind of thing is still going on.
I am not attacking the Turks as Muslims desecrating Christian churches and artefacts. Indeed, I have great respect for what the Turkish Government have done to preserve a cultural heritage that predates their arrival in that part of the near east. I think of the Ayix Sophia, and, in the case of modern times, the first world war cemeteries of Gallipoli. The authorities deserve much credit for that. Indeed, they themselves have much at stake, as they have their own rich heritage of unexcavated or undeveloped archaeological sites. In fact, some of the richest sites of classical archaeology are in mainland Turkey. The country has an embarrassment of riches and a vested interest in protecting them, and it takes rigorous steps to achieve that end.
We are dealing not just with northern Cyprus and Turkey. Hon. Members have mentioned churches in this country from which valuable artefacts have been taken. There are also the churches in rural Italy, and the hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned Czechoslovakia and icons that are systematically looted from churches in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. All of us have an interest in this matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this debate is restricted inasmuch as it relates to the countries of the European Union.
Mr. O'Hara: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I am grateful to you for allowing me to depart from the debate to such an extent. I was about to return to it.
This is not a matter of narrow national interests. It transcends national interest. It is a matter also of international scholarship. I should like to highlight an aspect of the subject that has not been mentioned so far. There has been mention of looted objects without provenance that appear on the art market. "Without provenance" is not just a term used in a catalogue. Archaeologically, it is a very important term; it means without associations in space, time or cultural and artistic affinity. When a professional archaeologist discovers an object, he or she notes its location, its level, what other objects have been found with it and where similar objects have been found.
I use this opportunity to take up a general observation by several hon. Members about the respect that nations in general owe to each other with regard to their cultural heritage. I shall try to stay within the European Union. I hope that, in the course of time, former imperial powers, such as the United Kingdom, will be more willing to return to their rightful homes artefacts that may, in their present locations, be objects of curiosity, as well as of love and appreciation. I am thinking, for example, of items in the British museum, the Victoria and Albert, the Louvre, the
736
Glyptothek, the New York Metropolitan and even the Getty, which would be of immeasurable cultural significance in their places of origin.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) suggested that there should be the mass emptying of museums and the return of every object to its place of origin. That is neither necessary nor desirable. If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, let me say that there was an element of reductio ad absurdum in the case that he put.
Mr. Jessel: Does the hon. Gentleman think that every important art object ought to be returned to its country of origin? If not, how would he distinguish between important and not so important objects?
Mr. O'Hara: I was about to say that that would not be necessary or even desirable. Cross-cultural exchange is important, for it makes for cross-cultural understanding. However, some artifacts transcend such considerations. Mention was made of the Elgin marbles—or the Parthenon marbles, as I prefer to call them. They are symbolic of the triumph of Greece over Persian aggression, of the triumph of freedom of thought, artistic expression and political institutions and of that classical tradition which we may take for granted now but without which we would not be as we are. Inferior as we are, we would be measurably worse off without that tradition.
The Elgin marbles should be with the Parthenon and the other great monuments dating from the third quarter of the 5th century BC. It is grotesque that we should be able to see the originals in the British museum while visitors to the Acropolis museum must make do with plaster copies. The British Government would do a great service internationally if they made the gesture of offering to return the Elgin marbles to Athens.
I ask those who bang a jingoistic drum to consider hypothetically what would be their reaction if Nelson's column had been removed from London by an invader and was displayed elsewhere—and I wonder how the Americans would feel if the statue of liberty had been similarly removed.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Would the hon. Gentleman return only the Elgin marbles?
Mr. O'Hara: I used them as a specific example, in response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham. I referred to objects that transcend normal considerations, and the Elgin marbles fall into that category.
I welcome the regulations as far as they go. I mentioned the damage done to scholarship if objects are looted and sold on the black market without provenance. Collectors share in that damage to scholarship.
The House will be aware of the controversy surrounding the Ortiz collection on display in the royal academy. I know, from what has been broadcast and published, that that exhibition presents many beautiful objects—but many shown in the catalogue are without provenance. They may speak to us directly with their beauty, but there is so much that they do not tell because they are displayed in relative isolation from their historical and cultural context. The more they say directly to the practised artistic or archaeological eye, the greater the frustration at what they could say, if only their provenance were known.
We should welcome the regulations in that they go some way towards protecting the cultural heritage of

737
member states and international scholarship. They rightly include compensation where it is due, and rightly also offer a salutary deterrent to wanton looting and collection—without which the looters' market fails. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central the hope that the Government will go further down that road, but we can applaud the first faltering steps that the regulations take.
9.3 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) made a thoughtful speech, and I can associate myself with many of his remarks. We all agree that the proposals are modest, but they put down a marker in more ways than one.
There is universal condemnation of those who, without regard to context and true ownership, rob, pillage and sell cultural objects and view them merely as money. That is deeply to be deplored. Commercialism has done great damage in many walks of life and certainly has not over the years enhanced many people's artistic appreciation. There cannot be a single hon. Member who would not wish to deal vigorously with those who rob ancient sites, English churches or any other historic setting of its objects.
Rightly, Madam Deputy Speaker, you called the hon. Member for Knowsley, South to task when he strayed a little beyond the bounds of the European Union. Briefly, if I may, I shall make a couple of comments. I was indeed with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in Czechoslovakia with the all-party heritage group a few years ago. We were deeply dismayed at the way in which churches especially, but many other historic buildings, had been robbed and desecrated by those who had regard only for the monetary value that the objects could obtain.
In a European Union context, we were told that most of those objects were finding their way on to the international market through Germany, Holland and the United Kingdom. Anything that can curtail that must be good. We all want to congratulate the Minister and Her Majesty's Government on recognising in legislative form that that must be tackled.
Of course, that is only a small beginning. Later in the parliamentary Session I shall present a Bill on market ouvert that has now completed all its stages in the House of Lords. There are a number of markets in the country, of which Bermondsey is one, where, when an object is bought, the title automatically passes to the purchaser.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It depends on the hour.
Mr. Cormack: Most people who go there to buy—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It depends on the hour.
Mr. Cormack: Would the hon. Lady contain herself? I know that it is difficult—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not all day—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that I deplore seated interventions.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Cormack: Oh, all right.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was simply making the legal point that it is crucial that the transaction is done between the hours of daylight and sunset. Otherwise it does not transfer the title. I was not seeking to criticise the hon. Member, but simply trying to make the point absolutely clear.
Mr. Cormack: Of course, that is an extremely helpful intervention. For most of most days, when whatever object is sold at Bermondsey or at a number of other markets in the country which benefit from the same medieval exceptions, the title passes to the purchaser. However innocent the purchaser may be—like a lot of innocent purchasers, I bought a number of my Christmas presents there in the past year—and however honourable the people are who go to such markets, it is nevertheless clear that they are a channel for stolen goods from the United Kingdom and beyond.
If the Government are determined to build on the foundation stone of the motion, they must pass as quickly as possible the Bill introduced by the noble Lord Renton in another place. The Bill is necessary to deal not with the market, which is a most delightful institution where I am sure every hon. Member would like to go, but with the loophole to which I have referred.
I wish to be brief because other hon. Members want to speak, and will pass to the other subject which has cropped up in almost every speech—great national treasures. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South said that he would not wish to empty the great museums of the world, if I may paraphrase him. We would all agree, because art is universal and its message is universal. Anyone in France who does not have the opportunity to learn about the art of Flanders or Italy, or to see African sculpture at its best, or to be able to consider some of the extraordinary creations from Polynesia is impoverished. The same applies to people in this country who do not have similar opportunities.
I agree that some objects are so tremendously important, so integral to the context in which they were created, that they fall into a different category. I confess that in the past, whenever the Elgin, or Parthenon, marbles were mentioned, I fell back on the orthodox defence. Repatriating the Elgin marbles would open the floodgates: what would happen to all the treasures in Apsley house that were gathered by the Duke of Wellington, and all the pictures in the national gallery that were obtained by various means? I have rehearsed my arguments parrot fashion—and, indeed, believed them; but I have begun to have second thoughts.
Politicians must be prepared to examine long-held beliefs critically, and—sometimes—to admit that they may have been wrong. I am not attacking Lord Elgin: it is clear that he acquired the marbles legitimately, and paid for them. It is equally clear that they are beautifully displayed and magnificently cared for in the British museum, and that they are seen by millions of people. It would be cussed and contrary to send them back to Greece without a guarantee that they would be seen in equally advantageous conditions, conserved in the same manner and looked after properly.
Times change, however. It is beyond doubt that even to have contemplated the return of the Elgin marbles before or during the 1960s would have been entirely wrong, but

739
I now believe—I say this with some hesitation—that perhaps the matter should be reconsidered. I certainly think that the marbles fall into the supreme category referred to by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South. I also think that there is a strong case for saying that such magnificent—no, that word is not sufficient to describe them; these supreme—objects of European culture, which really set the tone for civilisation in our continent, should perhaps be where the ruined but noble Parthenon still stands.
I had the great good fortune to take a party of colleagues to Greece last year, in the company of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We were not lobbied on the subject of the marbles—no one sought to make any case to us—but, looking at the Parthenon and being bowled over by it, I could not help wondering whether the time had come for us to consider returning them. I am not being dogmatic; I am not saying that we should not keep them in any cirumstances. Certainly no one in this country has any reason to be other than proud of the way in which they are conserved and displayed by the British museum.
Mr. Jessel: I am sure that I do not need to remind my hon. Friend that the Greeks would have no intention of putting the Elgin marbles back on top of the Parthenon where they originally belonged but would instead put them in a museum in another part of Athens.
Mr. Cormack: Not in another part of Athens but hard by the Parthenon. I do not dispute that, but if the west front of Wells cathedral were in a museum in Malibu, or if the west front of Lincoln cathedral were in a museum in Germany, we might suggest that it would be better if those great carvings were brought back and displayed close to their original setting. That is all that I am saying. If one has second thoughts, I believe that one should express them to the House.
I have been slightly led astray by interventions, but I conclude as I began, by saying that this is a modest proposal and one that I warmly welcome. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the way in which he introduced it, and I am delighted to learn that the Opposition will not press the motion to a Division.
9.15 pm
Mr. Bernie Grant: I had not intended to speak, but the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) aroused my anger. He said that, if artefacts were returned to their country of origin, the number of visitors and the income that they bring to this country would disappear. Perhaps the countries from which the artefacts came should receive that income instead of us.
He also said that some countries are not as conscientious as we are in the preservation of some works of art. I do not know much about European artefacts, but I know that a number of African objects currently in the British museum and elsewhere were made to fade away. They are religious artefacts and were supposed to turn to dust. By preserving them we are acting against the religious convictions of the people who created them, a matter that should be taken into account.
The regulations are to be welcomed. I hope that they set a precedent in terms of international co-operation. Some artefacts have been stolen or acquired in very strange ways by British collectors, the British museum and other institutions. Some were stolen from Africa during the
740
period of enslavement and colonisation. For example, the Ghanaians had to hide the sacred Ashanti stool from the invaders in case it was stolen and brought to this country; several obelisks are being kept here against the will of their owners in Africa; and the ivory mask of the Ino of Ife, which is a sacred object from Nigeria, is being held by the British museum which refuses to return it. I was once told that the nose of the Sphinx was in the British museum, so I contacted the curator who said that the museum did not have the nose but had part of the beard. I am sure that the Egyptians would like to display it and benefit from the revenue from students and those wishing to study it.
Dr. Spink: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the British museum has been a party to any illegality.
Mr. Grant: Far be it from me to suggest such an appalling thing, but there are those who will say that the ways in which certain articles have been acquired leave a lot to be desired. The House would do a great service to people around the world if it were to investigate the ways in which some artefacts were gathered and came to be displayed in the British museum. I also mention in passing the Crown jewels—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be pleased to know that I do not intend to dwell on them today—and some of my favourite pieces, such as the Cullinan diamonds or the Stars of Africa, which should be returned to that country.
What is meant by "British territory" in the regulations? Would an artefact that had been taken away from a Caribbean dependent territory such an Anguilla qualify to be returned? This is an important subject and it creates a lot of anger and emotion, certainly among people of African origin. I hope that the House will have an opportunity to have a wider debate on the issue which is not restricted only to Europe.
I thoroughly support the right of the Secretary of State to intervene and to be able to enter people's houses to chase up stolen objects. I hope that that right will apply to international objects. I hope that the regulations are merely the beginning.
9.20 pm
Mr. Fisher: With the leave of the House, I wish to make one or two remarks.
This interesting debate has tested the scope, the implementation and the likely effectiveness of the regulations. The Government have received congratulations from hon. Members on both sides of the House on introducing the regulations, but the debate has been rather like going to the dentist because it has tested the regulations, which have winced at certain points.
Will the Minister comment on how the scope of the regulations will affect British cultural treasures? The regulations may not cover much of our heritage that is in private collections or in archaeological sites because the Government do not have a designated list of national treasures. If we are to benefit from the regulations, will the Minister confirm that his Department will now set about the task of drawing up a list of national treasures? Without it, we shall not benefit and much of our heritage will not be protected by the regulations.
Will the Minister comment on how his Department will implement the regulations? He will know that only nine of

741
the 52 police forces have antique liaison units. Without trained staff and officers, how will be fulfil the obligations that the regulations place on the Government?
Will the Minister comment on the effectiveness of art smuggling? He will know of press reports that works of art have been stolen from this country and have gone, via Switzerland, to France and are now on France's list of designated national treasures. That smuggling must be tackled, but it will not be unless there is much more commitment from the Government.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to the Government for introducing the regulations and have agreed, in the words of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, East (Mr. Cormack), that they are only a marker. Criticisms have been voiced about the Government's commitment to make them effective.
As I said earlier, the Government must implement the UNESCO treaty, UNIDROIT and the Mauritius Commonwealth convention. If they do so, they will give teeth to the regulations, which have the support of hon. Members. Severe doubts have been raised, however, about the Government's commitment to them.
9.23 pm
Mr. Sproat: Many interesting points have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr.O'Hara) was pulled up for straying a bit wide of the subject, but I hope that we shall be able to return to the important points that he and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) made, which do not fall within my competence in this debate. So many important points were raised that I doubt whether I shall be able to do justice to all of them in the few moments remaining. I shall go through them in chronological order and if hon. Members wish to raise matters for me to deal with in correspondence I shall gladly do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) asked me how many requests had been made for the return of objects that had been here since 1993. I can tell him that no such requests have been made so far.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) launched an attack on the Government's case—rather, he said that, if there was a weakness in it, it was that we did not have any commitment to the measure. I can certainly assure him that we have a very real commitment to it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned various other bodies, which I cannot really go into in great detail here. They included UNESCO, UNIDROIT and others. At some stage, we may have a
742
debate on the whole question of cultural objects from around the world and what we should do about an object that unlawfully finds its way on to the New York market, but such matters are unfortunately not within the competence of this debate.
We do not agree with a number of central aspects of what UNESCO has suggested and do not therefore seek to incorporate them into the regime that we propose to establish. For example, UNESCO would like a specific certificate for every single cultural object. We believe that that would create an appalling bureaucractic nightmare and thus render the whole exercise totally impracticable.
Of course we are dedicated to ensuring that only lawfully exported goods find their way out of the country where they lawfully are into another, but there are ways and ways of doing that, and we believe that the regulations represent the best practical way and certainly the best compromise that we could find. It is entirely wrong to think that we are sceptical about the regulations. That is truly not so. We are extremely keen to make them succeed. We shall review their success in 1995–96. We will return to all these matters and see whether the regulations have done what we want them to do and, if not, how they can be improved.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked me a straightforward and fair question about whether we would take on any new staff. The answer is that we do not think that we shall have to. We have taken on two new staff already so that applications for export licences can be dealt with as quickly in the future as they have in the past. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question really depends on the amount of work arising from the regulations. Clearly, if we receive an absolute flood of requests from other EC member states saying, "Please follow up what we believe is an unlawfully exported object," more staff may be required, but our present view is that extra staff will not be needed.
Let me make it clear that we are not talking about objects that have been stolen, which rightly have to be dealt with and already can be dealt with through the courts. We are talking about objects that are unlawfully exported because they do not carry an export licence. An hon. Member might own an object perfectly legally and want to sell it in Rome. If he did not get an export licence—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [11 February].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Return of Cultural Objects Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.

Housing Support Grant (Scotland )
9.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.
I propose to keep my opening remarks brief. This is the seventh successive annual housing support grant order that I have laid before the House. Hon. Members will by now be familiar with the housing support grant system, but it may be helpful if I remind the House that housing support grant is a deficit subsidy paid to local authorities that, on the basis of reasonable assumptions about income and expenditure, would otherwise be unable to meet the costs of council housing from their rental income.
Full details of the grant settlement for the next financial year are set out in the order and the accompanying report. As always, I wish to express my thanks to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with whom the grant settlement was discussed. Although the convention has reservations about certain aspects of the settlement, I am grateful for the constructive and helpful approach that it takes in our annual discussions on these matters.
The draft order provides that the total grant payable next year will be £25.7 million. Broadly speaking, that sum represents the difference between the eligible expenditure and the relevant income of the authorities that, in the absence of grant, would have a deficit on their housing revenue accounts. Eligible expenditure consists mainly of loan charges and of management and maintenance spending. The loan charges that we estimate local housing authorities will have to meet next year are, as usual, based on a projection of each authority's capital debt to the mid point of the financial year, taking account of new borrowing and debt redemption.
To calculate interest charges, we applied to those projections of capital debt the pool interest rate expected for the local authority debt next year. Our present estimate of that rate is 9·2 per cent. Interest rates may fluctuate, however, and I can assure the House that, if there is a significant change in the estimate of the pool rate, the Government will, in line with usual practice, introduce an appropriate variation order to adjust the amounts of grant payable. For the moment, our estimate of total loan charges to be met from local authority housing revenue accounts amounts to £494 million.
The other main item of eligible expenditure is that on the management and maintenance of housing stock. Our estimate of eligible management and maintenance spending in 1994–95 is based on an assumed average spending level of £696 per house. That represents a 15 per cent. increase over the equivalent average for the current year. Although that is a generous increase, I consider it justified by the additional demands being placed on local authorities' housing management services, particularly as a result of the tenants charter. I would add that it is further evidence of the commitment of the Scottish Office to the maintenance of the physical condition of Scotland's housing stock.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In relation to the housing support grant that is given for the repair and building of hostels, what guidelines has the Minister issued to local authorities in
744
terms of the need to participate, to consult and have discussions with those who run and manage hostels? Will he ensure that those who run hostels have the right to determine or be involved in the way in which the money is spent?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is taking me slightly out of sequence. I am coming to that point. I am glad to say that some 20 district councils receive housing support grant for the hostels portion. The sum this year has gone up considerably as a result to £2,066,339, which is a substantial increase. I genuinely believe that local authorities are fully aware of the possibilities in that connection and it represents an indication of the co-operation between authorities and the Scottish Office.
On the other side of the equation—the estimated relevant income—the assumed average standard rent for next year has been set at £34·86 per house per week. I stress that that figure is not a forecast, guideline or recommendation. It is the average rent which, for the purposes of the grant calculations, we consider that the authorities should reasonably be expected to achieve. The actual rents charged by authorities may be higher or lower, according to their own decisions about income and expenditure.
I shall discuss the implications of the subsidy settlement for actual rents in a moment. Before doing so, I should mention the hostels portion of the housing support grant, on which we touched a moment ago. Since we decided three years ago to extend the hostels grant to all authorities with hostels, rather than limiting it to authorities that qualified on the basis of their housing revenue accounts as a whole, there has, as I mentioned, been a welcome increase in the number of hostel places made available by authorities from 1,796 in 1990 to 2,126 in 1993.
As I mentioned, the amount of grant has increased from £1·3 million to more than £2 million next year. I recognise, of course, that hostels are far from being the complete answer to homelessness, but I believe that they make a significant contribution to dealing with the single homeless. I am pleased that the partnership between the Scottish Office and local authorities in this area is definitely producing worthwhile results.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Is the Minister suggesting that any Scottish housing authority that applies for a hostels grant is likely to get it? The need for hostels for the homeless is widespread throughout Scotland and is not confined to local authorities that happen to have been given a grant this year.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Authorities have received a hostels grant in response to representations. There is one case within my knowledge in which the costs were far greater than was the case for the rest of Scotland. As the costs were considered excessive, the grant was not allowed. In general, authorities that are eligible and apply get the grant.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of Landsborough house in Ayr, which is provided by Kyle and Carrick district council? It was named in honour of a former councillor, the late James Landsborough, and is an excellent provision for the single homeless in Ayr. Is the Minister also aware that, due to the lack of foresight and to the inept planning of

745
Tory-controlled Kyle and Carrick district council, that newly equipped hostel will have to be knocked down? Is not that completely ridiculous and a waste of public expenditure? Will the Minister tell us exactly how he will deal with that in relation to the expenditure that will be required to replace Landsborough house and to provide sufficient alternative accommodation?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Kyle and Carrick district council is receiving the hostels portion housing support grant of £50,032, if I have read the order correctly. The priorities chosen by the council are a matter for it. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the details, because I have not been directly involved and it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Office to be involved in choosing local priorities, which should more properly be a matter for local democracy. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I am prepared to look into that point. Perhaps he will give me a note of the circumstances. I shall, of course, reply to him fully.
Mr. John McAllion: The Minister said that there would be about 2,000 places for the homeless in hostels. What is the current level of homelessness in Scotland in terms of individuals registered as homeless with local authorities?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The numbers of homeless people have increased. Two thirds of the applicants have given as the immediate cause of homelessness the fact that their family or friends are no longer willing or able to accommodate them. Shelter's figures show a 15 per cent. increase in homelessness. The Government have seen the figures. As Shelter has said, most of the increase related to Glasgow and at least part of the increase seems to be due to under-counting in previous years rather than to a real increase in 1992–93. Scottish Office statisticians have discussed the figures for Glasgow with a view to publishing more accurate estimates shortly. In my winding-up speech, I shall give the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) our best estimate of the numbers.
General fund contributions represent a subsidy from council tax payers to council tenants. This sort of subsidy is indiscriminate because it benefits all tenants regardless of their circumstances, and it is unnecessary because tenants who are unable to meet the costs of their housing receive assistance in the form of housing benefit. Therefore, I make no apoligy for the proposals in the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1994 to bar authorities from budgeting to make general fund contributions next year.
Authorities were consulted individually about these proposals and only nine of them saw fit to make representations on the matter. I have examined those representations carefully and concluded that none of them presents a case that is strong enough to justify allowing them to make a general fund contribution.
Mr. Thomas Graham: When the Government previously allocated funds to the homeless in Renfrew district, the council was allowed to buy four houses in the private sector. When the local folk complained about that, the information that they received from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Under-Secretary, was that the district council
746
could have used the money to improve flats. When Renfrew district council received the money, what information did it receive about how to spend the money—whether it could be used to refurbish council flats for the homeless or whether the council was forced to buy private houses?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We issued a special allocation of more than £20 million for special projects. The hon. Gentleman may have a point in saying that it could have been done better. An enormous amount has been achieved throughout Scotland as a result of those special projects, and that is the view of Shelter as well. We are learning all the time. If the hon. Gentleman has recommendations to make, they will be taken into account in the future.
Mr. Graham rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am tempted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to develop this point.
The effect of the subsidy proposals on authority rent levels will vary. Decisions on such rent levels are a matter for authorities, but I accept that some of them will be influenced by the levels of subsidies. We should not, however, exaggerate the extent of that influence.
A large majority of authorities in Scotland do not receive housing support grant in respect of their mainstream council housing or make general fund contributions. Clearly, the subsidy proposals will have no impact on the rent decisions of those authorities. For the 17 authorities that currently receive grant in respect of their council housing, the effect of the change in the level of grant from this year to next will vary. In most cases, the grant is a relatively minor component of housing revenue grant income and the impact of the change in grant levels is likely to be outweighed by the decisions of authorities on such matters as management and maintenance spending.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will know that many tenants who are on co-operative or district council waiting lists are offered community-based housing association properties. Is he concerned that many of the community-based housing associations where tenants find housing are facing rent increases of 30, 40 or 50 per cent? Surely he should be concerned about what is happening in that area, because hardship is being created.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Many of those matters must be discussed at the local level. Certainly, the levels of housing association grant in Scotland are on average higher than those south of the border. The purpose of that is to ensure that housing associations continue to cater for their traditional clients.
The amount of housing benefit that will be paid this year is likely to be more than £750 million. Of that amount, it is estimated that more than £500 million is likely to be paid to local authority tenants—and paid by the Department of Social Security to local authorities. That is a significant factor in relation to rents. As I have made clear, decisions on council rents are matters for local authorities, and the Government's influence on those decisions is limited. Nevertheless, it has become a tradition—
Mr. Dennis Canavan rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will develop the point, and then give way to the hon. Gentleman. It has become a tradition at my meetings with the convention for me to forecast the overall average rent increase for the coming year, despite the Government's subsidies forming such a small proportion of the housing revenue account income. That makes it extremely difficult to forecast average rent increases with any accuracy.
Despite that, I advised the convention this year that I expected rent increases for 1994–95 to average between 4 and 5 per cent. That remains my best estimate, although I note that a number of authorities, including Glasgow, have already announced average rent increases for next year that are well below my estimate of 5 per cent.
I know that Opposition Members will consider that, when compared with current rates of inflation, a rent increase of 5 per cent. is too high. I must remind them that year by year, local authorities are making real improvements in the management and maintenance services that they provide to their tenants. It is right that those extra costs should be met by those tenants who can afford to do so. Tenants who cannot afford to meet their housing costs receive housing benefit and are fully protected against rent increases.
Mr. Canavan: The Minister will recall that he and I were elected to Parliament on the same day. At that time, the Labour Government had introduced the whole system of housing support grants and virtually every housing authority in Scotland qualified for assistance under that system. We now have a situation where virtually none of them do. My local authority gets no support at all, except under the hostel agreement.
The flagship of the Government's housing policy seems to be Scottish Homes, the national housing authority. The authority announced a 6 per cent. increase in rents early this week, which is more than twice the rate of inflation. How can the Minister justify that increase, at a time when he is imposing a limit of a 1·5 per cent. increase on public sector workers' wages? That is a disgrace, and it is a cut in the living standards of working-class people and their families. Is it not about time that the Government, and the Minister in particular, recognised that and took action to give housing authorities, including Scottish Homes, sufficient resources to improve the housing stock, as well as recognise that a reasonable level—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The decision on rents was a matter for the Scottish Homes board and, as a result, more will be spent on Scottish Homes' stock and on the public sector tenants who are living within that stock.
There has also been a movement away from generalised subsidies towards personalised subsidies, through housing benefit. I mentioned the sum of £750 million which is to be spent on housing benefit in Scotland. I defy any hon. Member to say that that is a small sum. It is an enormous sum, and justly so. In that context, the proposals before the House make up a fair and reasonable subsidy package. They balance the interests of tenants, the council taxpayer and the national taxpayer. I commend the order to the House.
9.48 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Here we are once again, having our annual February debate on the housing support grant order. The needs are greater once again, and the amount of cash keeps getting smaller. I notice, incidentally, that there are no nationalists in the Chamber; nor were there any in the Committee room upstairs where we were discussing sheriff court fees. We must conclude that the homeless and the state of Scotland's housing are matters far too unexciting for the three stooges to bother with.
I took a bet with myself on how long it would take for a Conservative Member to mention the irrelevance of housing benefit. I did not think that the Minister himself would introduce it so early in his speech. As Opposition Members have pointed out, housing benefit is obviously aimed at householders; it has nothing to do with building and repairing housing stock.
Today, we learn of the housing support grant—the only direct Government support for council housing—for 1994–95. Once again we see a drastic fall, from £36 million to £25·7 million, to be shared among just some of our housing authorities while others will receive not a penny. That is a cut of 28·4 per cent. As was pointed out, in 1980 the figure was £228 million, which was shared among all housing authorities. In that year, general fund contributions provided a further £100 million or thereabouts for housing.
This year, Glasgow's housing grant will be cut from £11 million to roughly £1·5 million. Edinburgh, the capital, will receive £0·5 million for hostels and nothing at all for its mainstream housing. It is hard to credit that our capital city is receiving not one penny for its mainstream housing.
Incidently, I wonder why the Minister does not have printed on the order, which is available from the Vote Office, a table showing each authority's housing support grant for mainstream housing and for hostels, showing who receives what, what they received last year, and who receives nothing at all. Would that not be a useful piece of information under the tenants charter?
How does the Minister come up with such an absurdly irrelevant, useless, out-of-touch, global figure of £25·7 million and such unfair and inadequate grants for some authorities and nothing at all for others? Believe it or not, one thing he does is to create a grant formula based not on actual levels of local authority income and expenditure but on notional levels of money spent and money coming in.
When I describe how the general portion of housing support grant alone is made up, hon. Members will see for themselves the scope for cheating homeless people and council tenants out of their rights. The Scottish Office's own document states:
"the amounts by which the sum of estimated loan charges, estimated management and maintenance expenditure, estimated rents lost, estimated capital expenditure funded from current revenue and estimated other expenditure exceeds the sum of estimated rental income, estimated general fund contributions, estimated balances brought forward and estimated other income."
There are eight items to estimate, but hardly a hint of reality to be seen in any of them.
Let us consider rents lost. If a council decides to redevelop some of its houses, as happened in Glasgow and in other parts of Scotland, which it does with the full knowledge and co-operation of the Government, is it not farcical and unfair if it loses housing support grant because houses are standing empty and earning no rental income?

749
Instead of assuming 3 per cent. or any other percentage of income lost, why does the Minister not act on the reality of the actual rents lost?
When discussing this matter with local authorities, the Minister had the cheek to put the tenants charter on the agenda. He mentioned the right to repair. Remembering the year-on-year reductions in housing support grant and the number of eligible local authorities, we might ask "What with?"
The Minister builds in groundless assumptions all over the place. In his calculations he began by grossly overestimating income from rents. He anticipated an average increase in rents from £26·51 to about £34·86 a week. In support of that, so he said, he called in aid the rents for Scottish Homes. Considering that his decisions affect the rents of Scottish Homes, is that not like a burglar telling people they have no right to complain as he took even more from the house across the road?
Even if actual rents rise by 5 per cent. next year, the Minister's estimate of rental income will still be £236 million higher than the reality, and that fairy tale helps him to reduce housing support grant. The Government's assumed figure for management and maintenance for 1994–95 is less than the amount that authorities have told the Minister that they need to plan to spend. The Minister has increased the assumed figure per house by 15 per cent.Nevertheless, he comes nowhere near closing the gap between his notional figures and the reality—assuming that the local authority receives any housing support grant.
At present, only 29 housing authorities receive a grant of some type. Of those, 12 only do so as a result of receiving hostels grants. Just 17 out of a total of 56 receive housing support grant for their mainstream houses, and next year even fewer will do so—13 only will receive even that grossly inadequate support.
The settlement per house gets less and less every year. It is important to realise that fact when considering housing support grant figures each year. Not only are fewer authorities made eligible every year, but the amount per house, when one considers the remaining housing stock in the local authority sector, gets less year on year. In 1992, 697,000 houses received housing support grant of £47·5 million, or £68.10 per house. In 1993, the housing stock was down to 668,000, and £53·69 was received per house. In 1994, 646,000 houses are to receive £39·74 per house. That illustrates the way in which the Government, far from responding to the housing need in Scotland, on that per house basis are demonstrably worsening the condition of Scotland's public sector housing stock.
Last year, in the debate on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1993, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked the Minister what news he had for those people managing women's refuges to meet the growing demand for such hostel accommodation. The Minister replied that they are financed, not from housing support grant, but from the aggregate external finance. He did not commit himself to meeting the needs, but simply contented himself with a bureaucratic and technical answer—and still the refuges turn away many women whom they cannot help.
I ask the Minister, why do only a minority of housing authorities in Scotland qualify for hostel accommodation grant? Does the Minister think that homeless people,
750
people needing hostels under care in the community, and battered wives needing shelter, live only in certain parts of Scotland but do not exist in others? Should he not organise a grant system which meets the needs of the most desperate of our people?
Last year we pointed out that children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are more likely than others to suffer ill health. We emphasised the need for housing adapted to suit people with disabilities. We told the Minister of overcrowding in our constituencies. Since then, in addition, we have had the damning evidence of the Scottish Homes survey—the Minister may not remember its existence—commissioned by the Scottish Office about the condition of Scottish housing. Last year, in the debate on the Housing Suppoort Grant (Scotland) Order 1993, the Minister said that the survey
"will be enormously helpful in pointing the way to effective targeting of resources in the future"—[Official Report, 17 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 445.]
Where are those extra resources? Why is the money being cut instead of increased?
At the current level of funding, by 2000 some people will still live in the damp houses that they now occupy. Where is the serious money to treat damp houses and prevent so many of our nation's children from growing up with asthma and bronchitis due to the damp and difficult-to-heat housing in which their parents are forced to live.
Hon. Members have pointed out that rents are increasing inexorably. In 1979, the average council house rent was £4·92 a week. Under the present Government, tenants will pay about £28 next year. Those rents have increased well in excess of inflation. Tenants are paying more and getting less for their money.
Thirteen years ago, Scottish housing authorities built 7,000 houses for rent in one year. In 1992, they could build only 1,650. They have even had to pull down housing of sound construction which has deteriorated as a result of lack of investment. The Government have created a shocking waste of public money.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out at Labour's local government and European conference a week ago, we have called time and again on this dogma-bound Government to allow local authorities to embark on a new programme of house building for the thousands of homeless families in our communities and the thousands more young couples who desperately need homes of their own. We should provide jobs for building workers and suppliers across Britain who are crying out for new orders.
Once again, the housing support grant is an abysmal failure. It is a smack in the face and a sneer of cold disdain to every one of our people who is inadequately housed from a Government who long ago lost any sense of being a Government for all our people.
I call on my hon. Friends to vote against the order. We should tell the Government to tear it up and come back with an order that addresses the problem. In future, the Government should not come to the House with such grossly inadequate funding for local authorities when they know so well the size of the crying need.
10 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Glasgow, where I was this afternoon, is experiencing one of its worst days of winter and we are experiencing similar

751
conditions down here in London. I am grateful to organisations such as the Simon Community, the Salvation Army, the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church for doing something to help our homeless people. The Government stand condemned for failing to do what those charitable organisations are trying to do. How can the Government claim that, with housing support grant, they are helping to build more hostels when they are aware of the terrible pressures that local authorities face?
My native city of Glasgow has an excellent record in respect of helping the single adult homeless. The Government have done nothing but try to hinder the city. Without finance, local authorities cannot help the single homeless.
There have been two by-elections in my constituency. Like many other members of the Labour party, I had an opportunity to canvass and meet people on housing estates. It is a sad indictment on us that some of those housing estates are worse than they were 30 or 40 years ago.
Tenants remember when some of those housing estates were excellent places in which to live. As a result of the Government, who claim to be the Government of law and order, turning a blind eye to the antisocial behaviour of some tenants, other tenants are living in fear. They are not secure in their own homes.
Head teachers have reported that children are taking it in turns to stay away from school because at least one child in a family has to remain at home to stop the home from being burgled. The Government are simply taking finance away from local authorities. If the Government are serious about law and order, they should ensure that every tenement flat has a security entry system. The Minister should provide money for such systems.
If tenement flats had security entry systems, elderly and young people would know that no one was prowling around the back door, on the landing or up the close trying to see whether anyone was at home. Those systems would help to reduce crime. They would also help tenants who take pride in their properties, who wash the stairs and keep the gardens clean. They would know that no passer-by could get in to destroy what they had worked hard to achieve.
Years ago, if tenants—possibly elderly people—were standing around, strangers were not able to enter. Nowadays, elderly people are frightened to tackle strangers, so they need a secure system. The Minister ought to give serious consideration to that matter in the case of every council property and, indeed, every private property. Grants are available.
I am thinking especially of multi-storey flats. I have heard Conservative Members criticise local authorities for building such flats. Actually, some of them are beautiful and a joy to live in. I wish there were one in London that I could use four days a week. There are several such buildings in my constituency. The Government of the day forced the local authorities to construct multi-storey flats, threatening to withdraw grant from those refusing to build non-traditional housing. That is the type of thing with which the House concerns itself at present.
If the Minister seriously wants to secure an improved quality of life for the tenants of multi-storey flats, he should make provision for a concierge service and for camera surveillance at points of entry. In my constituency we have what are the equivalent of three streets rising into the sky. In some cases, anyone can gain entry—drug
752
addicts and burglars, for example. There is evidence that a block of flats with a concierge service is a much better place in which to live.
Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman will have his own opportunity to speak.
The Minister mentioned Scottish Homes. I realise that this debate is about local authorities, but there is a comparison to be made here. I suspect that the Minister is more interested in looking after Scottish Homes than in looking after local authorities. After all, that is where his placemen are. The Minister can pick the Sir James Mellons of this world, but he cannot pick the democratically elected local authorities and the housing convenors. It must be said that most of the Scottish Homes property in my constituency is excellent. It is well looked after and is a credit to tenants and management.
The Minister is aware, however, of my deep concern about some of the community-based housing associations, some of which are getting too big for their boots. An association in the constituency of Hillhead increased rents by 50 per cent. What would happen if a local authority did that? When an increase of £1 a month was proposed for dwellings in Glasgow, there were almost riots in George square. Trade bodies, the tenants' association and everyone else turned out.
In my constituency, some rents have increased by 30 per cent. What makes the situation worse is the fact that 75 per cent. of the rent income of some community-based housing associations is spent on administration—paying for officials. Thus owner-occupiers in the catchment area are not contributing as much as those who pay rent, resulting in an unfair burden on the latter. The agency responsible is none other than Scottish Homes.
Many tenants who have been with a community-based housing association for 15 or 16 years find, when they apply for a house or a flat in another part of the association's area—perhaps because of arthritis or some other disability—that they are granted a change of dwelling only if they opt for an assured tenancy instead of a secure tenancy. The Conservative party talks about citizens charters and people's rights, but every day of the week in my constituency tenants are losing their right to appeal to a tribunal. I hope that the Minister will examine that aspect.
One terrible case with which I am dealing concerns a woman whose husband left the matrimonial home. She has been told by the housing association—which is an agent for Scottish Homes—that she can remain in the property, but on an assured tenancy. That is the worst kind of discrimination. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House fought for women's rights and now those rights are being lost.
There is no sheltered housing in the Haghill and Germiston communities in my constituency, yet the houses there were built before the war—under the John Wheatley legislation. Some tenants have lived there since they were two or three years old, after leaving the slums and other parts of the city. Now that they are of advanced years, there is no sheltered housing for them. To obtain that, they must leave the friends and relatives with whom they have lived all their lives. Why should not those who have put something into society get something back at the end of their days?

753
There have been many debates about council house sales. I am on record as saying in Glasgow district council in 1974 that we should experiment before the Government moved in and forced a local authority to sell its housing stock. Some of my hon. Friends were also councillors at that time. Perhaps that is how I got a reputation for being a so-called right winger. The sale of council houses may be successful in desirable areas, but young couples are not getting the chance that their mothers and fathers, and even their grandparents, had of obtaining a better house.
How can the Minister say to young couples who have been paid off by the railway workshop or the cigarette factory in my constituency, "You can buy your council house"? They do not have two ha'pennies to rub together. They cannot even afford to send their children to the Christmas treat at school. How can the Minister say, "If you want a nicer house, buy one"? Local authorities must have the flexibility to give a chance to young couples who have served their apprenticeship in bad housing.
The Minister sold off decent housing. It was a popular move. In my constituency, some local authority houses that were bought at a discount for £10,000 have changed hands several times and are now on the market for £40,000. Some people have done very well, but unless the Minister gives local authorities the money to buy two, three, four and five apartment houses, there will be losers. Those people who will lose deserve something better than they have now.
10.13 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I may say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), as one right winger to another, that I agree with him on the voluntary bodies issue. We are fortunate that there are such bodies, which show that they care and take action.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about what I would call realistic rents. I have always believed that local authorities should charge realistic rents, which would ensure that properties were maintained in a viable condition. If we had done so many years ago, we would have had funds available through the rents system to deal with the massive problems of dampness and so on. Housing benefit takes care of those who cannot pay, and it should be the vehicle through which funds are used to ensure that local authorities maintain their stock in a viable condition.
While I am sure that the hon. Member for Springburn is right in saying that some multi-storey buildings are nice places in which to live, he must agree that most people, given the option, would prefer to live in a different kind of property. That is my experience of people wishing to obtain housing.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) referred to the security of some of those properties and to the security systems on the doors. Does my hon. Friend agree that such matters are for the local authority rather than for the Government? Is he aware that in the city of Aberdeen many local authority properties are having such systems fixed?
Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend. If local authorities had had realistic rents from the outset, all those
754
things would have been funded adequately and properly. The hon. Gentleman's reference is another example of insufficient cash to deal with problems.
The hon. Member for Springburn mentioned housing associations. I am sure that he is right in believing that some housing associations may have caused problems. In my constituency, the vast majority of the housing associations do a good job and I commend them.
However, the hon. Gentleman highlighted something that should be examined—the incidents in which individuals, for a variety of reasons, are forced into a transfer of tenancy. They should not be forced from a secured tenancy, with all that that means, into taking an assured tenancy with the resulting changes in the parameters. That question needs to be examined and perhaps the Government will take it on board.
In conclusion, as I know that many hon. Members want to speak, may I say that I am delighted that at long last we are beginning to talk in a sane way about how we fund local authority housing.
10.17 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: I, too, recall speaking in the same debate on 17 February last year. It seems that, one year on, matters have not greatly improved. As we heard, rents have continued to rise and, according to Shelter, homelessness in Scotland has risen by 15 per cent. in the past year. Of Scotland's housing stock, 4·7 per cent. is still below a tolerable standard.
As the Minister knows, I have a special interest in housing in rural areas, where the problem is especially acute. Again, homelessness has increased and the proportion of housing of a low standard is larger than in other areas. In 1991, according to Scottish Homes figures, 6·6 per cent. of rural housing was below tolerable standard as against 4·3 per cent. in urban areas. Low wages, which tend to prevail in rural areas, especially in the highlands and islands, mean that, usually, local people cannot afford to pay market prices for housing. In 1990, Market Research Scotland found that 83 per cent. of people living in rural areas could not afford to pay more than £30 a week. Those people are not only facing that problem of hardship, but face higher living expenses than those in the rest of the country.
In many areas, the situation is exacerbated by the demand for holiday homes. I spoke about that last year and the Minister wrote to explain the Government's thinking behind the 50 per cent. council tax discount for holiday homes in Scotland and in England, especially in places such as the Lake District, but, of course, not in Wales. I am still worried about the lack of any attempt to secure a population balance in small communities which can so easily end up lifeless. I have seen it all too often: every second house has become a holiday home, people have left and the place is dead.
As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), Scottish Homes has just announced an average rent increase of £2·07p a week—6 per cent.—from 1 April. The Minister said that that was not a matter for him: I think that we shall hear the phrase "not a matter for me" more and more in this place. But whatever gloss the Minister puts on the housing position and whatever figures are bandied about, I still receive far too many letters about housing problems in rural parts of my constituency. Let me give two examples.

755
An ambulance man employed in accident and emergency services, and restricted to a certain rural area—albeit quite a large one—by operational requirements, has been on the housing waiting list since 1991. Although that man plays an important part in the community, he has to live in a caravan: to me, that means that he is homeless. It is dreadful that someone who gives service to the community cannot obtain a home. I wonder what he thinks as he passes all the empty holiday homes; I am sure that he is not too happy.
I received a letter about a man with two children, whose wife is pregnant again. He lost his job when the company for which he worked went bankrupt, through no fault of his. He was unable to keep up the mortgage payments; all four lived in one room—lent by a friend—for six months or so and then in a box room in a relative's house. Eventually, the man managed to get another job, which took him away for two out of every three weeks. That relieved the situation somewhat, but the stress and anxiety took their toll on his wife's health. I am glad to say that, after a year, Argyll and Bute district council housed the family, but it was a long and difficult year for them.
According to the district council's housing plan for 1993–98, the housing condition survey found that much of the stock in my constituency—in both the public and the private sector—was in urgent need of repair. The cost was estimated to be some £163 million and that was based on 1989 prices. Where on earth will the council find that kind of money?
Mr. Brian Wilson: I am sure that in the hon. Lady's constituency—as in parts of mine, such as the islands of Arran and Cumbrae—there is support across the political spectrum for allowing the council to stop selling houses in areas where there is high demand and little supply. The Scottish Office, however, will not even make the concession of allowing the council to stop selling at any point in the decline of the stock. Surely, in rural communities experiencing the circumstances described by the hon. Lady, the least that the Government could do would be to allow authorities that discretion, given that it is not even a matter of local political contention.
Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. Over the years I have advocated that local authorities should be allowed to stop selling because they know what the problems are. How can it be regarded as dreadful that some thought should be given to a change of use being granted before family houses are turned into holiday homes and thus adding to the numbers that are left empty.
I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to hear that I intend to finish on a positive note—
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the hon. Lady agree that the capital debt overhang afflicts housing in many Scottish councils, including the central belt and the rural communities? The position is especially bad in the rural areas because more housing stock there has been sold. Is she aware that the entire rental income of at least one council in Scotland is not enough to cover the interest payments on the accumulated capital debt? In such circumstances, how on earth is it possible for a council to invest in its housing stock?
Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has reinforced my argument. I remarked that Argyll and Bute district council was asking where it would get the money to tackle its housing problem.
As I was saying, the Minister will be delighted to know that I shall finish on a positive note. Some harsh words have been said about Scottish Homes and in the past I have accused it of not honouring its promises. However, I welcome the joint announcement that was made last week by Scottish Homes and Highland and Islands Enterprise that they are carrying out a major study of the link between rural housing availability and economic development.
The population of the highlands and islands has been rising steadily over the past 20 years and is currently about 370,000. Although people are arriving, many indigenous people are having to move away and the lack of housing in rural areas is seen as a major constraint on the economic and social development which is so necessary if local people are to have the opportunity to stay if they so wish. I know that there are particular problems in the western isles and north-west Sutherland where the reduction in population is a cause of great concern.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise said:
"Economic development creates demand for housing, while a lack of suitable housing is a block to the creation of employment which underpins communities. This is particularly true of remote rural areas, where the gain or loss of a few households or jobs c an make the difference between a community progressing or declining."
I wholly agree with that statement. I am glad that the study will include the remoter parts of the highland region, the Western Isles, Shetland and my own constituency of Argyll and Bute. I want to put it on record that the joint study is being undertaken. I hope that it will be carried out in good time and that any recommendations will be acted on speedily. I shall certainly be watching very carefully to see that they are carried out.
10.28 pm
Mr. Sam Galbraith: When some of my colleagues became aware that I might try to catch your eye to be allowed to speak on housing, Madam Speaker, they queried whether I should be allowed to do so, bearing in mind that I represent Strathkelvin and Bearsden, a constituency usually associated with leafy suburbs in which the majority of the population own their own homes. However, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) knows, that is not quite a true picture. It has been suggested that the Government recession has brought us to such a state that even the good burghers of Bearsden are in difficulty over council housing.
There is little council housing in the Bearsden part of my constituency—a small sheltered housing development—but that is not the case in Strathkelvin. In Strathkelviln, of which I represent a part, there are 8,055 council houses, of which 4,834 are in my constituency. The majority of those, just over 3,000, are in Kirkintilloch, there are some in Bishopbriggs and the rest are in Lennoxtown and Torrance. Those are looked after by an excellent district council with a tip-top housing department.
The housing stock is kept in good repair. The council has just completely replaced all window frames and installed insulation. It has a devolved, democratic system of fulfilling the wishes of the people of Kirkintilloch, Bishopbriggs, Lennoxtown and all other areas. It is responsive to people's wishes and needs in this important

757
area. Lest anyone persists in the notion that my constituency consists of leafy suburbs, let me say that that is not the case.
Once again, the Government have given nothing by way of housing support grant to Strathkelvin. Does that mean that there are no problems in my area? Certainly not. My surgery is regularly filled with people looking for houses. They have been looking for many years, but are making no progress. Many of them want exchanges. Homelessness is a problem in my constituency. The homeless write to me and come to my surgery, but they have been given nothing by the Government.
The Minister will tell us that the housing support grant is basically deficit-based. He will say that it is based on estimated relevent income, eligible maintenance, relevant accounts, estimated this and estimated that. That means that it is plucked out of the air. Is all that estimation relevant or in any way related to the needs of people in the area? It should be related to those needs, but in my area it clearly is not. How can it be, when the Minister gives no housing support grant to combat major homelessness and help people who have been waiting six or seven years for council houses?
It is clear that the method of calculating the formula is wrong and it is time to return to the drawing board and reassess the calculation so that it relates purely to need. I hope that the next housing support grant proposals will relate to that and will give my district authority, which spends money wisely and well and looks after its housing stock, a greater amount.
My housing authority is so highly regarded in the district that residents of Scottish Homes who are being offered new landlords wish the district authority to take over. There are 488 houses—
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Galbraith: I shall certainly give way to my hon. and learned Friend.
Sir Nicolas Fairbairn: Local authorities hold 100,000 unoccupied houses. If they were occupied would not that do something for the homeless?
Mr Galbraith: If they were occupied there would be people in them! That would certainly do somethng for those people. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are often good reasons for such houses being unoccupied. I shall not abuse my hon. and learned Friend any more. He is a splendid friend of mine and we have spent much time together.
The issue has been raised many times. My constituents who currently reside in Scottish Homes wish the district authority to be their new landlord. Yet that choice has not been open to them, because of the connivance and instruction of the Government, who spend all their time talking about choice, freedom of the individual and devolving power, which we all realise is a complete fallacy because they give choice only when it suits them.
This is an issue of which the Government should be ashamed. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will use his good powers with Scottish Homes to allow it to conduct a ballot and thereby give my constituents who live in its housing the opportunity to propose Strathkelvin district as
758
its landlord, because it has shown itself to have a highly efficient, effective, devolved and accountable housing management system which is a credit to the area. I trust, therefore, that, when the Minister proposes the housing support grant next year it will adequately recognise the needs of my community.
10.35 pm
Mr. Mike Watson: From those who have participated in the debate, it is clear that the housing problems of the city of Glasgow are desperate.
I held a surgery last weekend. Thirteen constituents attended, 10 of whom raised issues related to the standard of their housing in one form or another—repairs, overcrowding, dampness and similar problems. Hon. Friends who represent constituencies not only in Glasgow but in conurbations throughout Scotland receive such complaints regularly.
The housing support grant figures that the Minister gave this evening betrayed once again the lack of grasp that he and his fellow Ministers have of the housing needs of Scottish people. The figures were not based on local authorities' estimates of their needs. The Scottish Office, contrary to those estimates, ignores the actual income and expenditure of local authorities. It regularly meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the larger local housing authorities, but continually ignores the advice and information that it is given.
Housing support grant has dropped from £47·5 million in 1992–93 to £35·9 million last year and to under £26 million this year. Grant for Glasgow, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, has the most severe housing problems in Scotland, has decreased from £11 million to just over £1·5 million. That is woefully inadequate. The Minister has been told time and again by Glasgow district council and by housing authorities that considerable additional resources are necessary and that the problems will be addressed only by debt write-off. He continues to ignore that, and the problems continue to mount.
At present, 60 per cent. of the housing revenue account, of which housing support grant once provided a major part but now provides only a minor part, is spend on repaying local authorities' loans. Tenants are more likely to be paying off interest on those loans than getting any improvement in the housing stock in return for their rent.
Housing support grant is now under £26 million for the whole of Scotland, but only 13 years ago it was £228 million. If the Government convince my hon. Friends and me that the situation is improving, they will have done a remarkable job because we all know from our surgeries that the problems are getting worse rather than better.
COSLA calculates that, on a cumulative basis, about £1·8 billion has been taken out of housing resources in Scotland in the past decade. That direct Government support would have been available if funding had continued at anything like its level when housing support grant was introduced. That is a massive amount and I invite the Minister to comment on what it could have done in terms not only of building new houses, treating dampness and repairing leaking roofs and ill-fitting windows, all of which can contribute to the incidence of chronic illness throughout the central belt of Scotland, but of providing shelter for homeless people.

759
When I spoke in the debate a year ago I highlighted the plight of homeless people in Glasgow and mentioned some of the organisations seeking to help them. Their situation is worse now than it was a year ago. The resources of the Glasgow Council for Single Homeless have been slashed, and the Stopover project, a vital refuge for young single homeless people, has been closed for the past three months, with no sign of when it will reopen although it was supposed to do so at the beginning of the year.
The situation continues to get worse. In the meantime, the Government's answer, which is highlighted in the figures put before the House today, is grossly to overestimate the rent increases that can be charged and grossly to underestimate the management and maintenance costs that local authorities will face. It would be interesting if we could reverse that equation even once, to try to pull back some of the ground that has been lost over the past 10 years.
There are many appalling homes, particularly throughout the central belt of Scotland, and thousands of people without any home at all. According to the figure that the Minister cited, the total number of places being made available in hostels throughout Scotland is just over 2,000. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that hostels are not the answer to the problem of homelessness, but when set against the total number of homeless in Scotland that figure comes nowhere near to addressing the problem.
Over the past few days, there have been comments about the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), the most interesting of which was that the hon. Gentleman has three homes. I do not know what anyone does with three homes. I continually meet people who would do anything to get one home. [Interruption.] I will gladly give way to the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), if he wants to intervene. Apparently he does not.
The problem of home ownership needs to be looked at. The Government say that they are trying to deal with the problem, yet their supporters include the hon. Member for Finchley, who quite happily owns three homes. The hon. Member for Stirling sees nothing wrong in that. Other hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) think nothing of trading with council houses as though it were an excellent way of making extra money.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Watson: Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman is always amusing.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I presume that the hon. Gentleman has a home in Scotland; and, as he lives down here, he will also have one in London. That is two.
Mr. Watson: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has managed to put one and one together and make two; for this evening, that is a quite remarkable achievement. Of course I have a home in London and a home in Glasgow. But the hon. Member for Finchley has his constituency in London, so he should require no more than one home.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We are talking about housing in Scotland, not Finchley.
Mr. Watson: I agree that this is a debate on housing support, Mr. Morris, and I do not suppose Finchley gets much housing support. I drew attention to it merely to contrast the situation with the problems that I meet daily in Scotland.
Many Scottish local authorities have a number of houses lying empty and unable to be let to tenants. There are reasons for that. There is certainly no lack of demand for them and no lack of will on the part of local authorities to repair them and make them habitable. The local authorities lack the resources to enable them to make those houses habitable and secure and to re-let them. The Minister has had this point put to him on countless occasions, especially in relation to Glasgow, but has refused to take the arguments on board.
The level of housing support grant has continued to diminish as a result of the Secretary of State once again making those totally unrealistic assumptions, overestimating the amount that will be raised from rents and underestimating the appropriate level of repairs and maintenance. When will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Scottish Office figures that he uses to calculate both those figures are well wide of the mark?
The question of rents was referred to earlier. In respect of income from rents, the Minister has told us that he is assuming that rents will be £34 and above per week next year. That is about 31 per cent. higher than the present average rent. The figure of 5 per cent. was used earlier, and it was pointed out that even that is well above the current rate of increase in the cost of living. The Minister anticipates a figure of approximately six times that. Even if rents rose by 5 per cent., rental income in Scotland would still be about £235 million short. The Minister must be more realistic in his assumptions.
It bears repeating that housing support grant is now the only direct Government support for council housing in Scotland. For next year, projected income has been overstated by about £235 million, with maintenance expenditure overestimated by £18 million. [Interruption.] The Minister may think that that is a matter for some amusement. Those I meet weekly in my constituency do not. They are desperately concerned and the housing department in Glasgow is equally desperately concerned.
At the Minister's December meeting with COSLA, he stated that any authority which faced an above average rent increase for the next year, based on his assumptions, would be treated sympathetically when it applied to receive recognition of the requirement to make a general fund contribution. He said in his opening remarks that, of the nine authorities that had applied, apparently with his encouragement, not one had been permitted to do so. The Minister rejected all the submissions and he did not say why. I hope that he will take the opportunity to give his reasons when he winds up. What is the point in encouraging local authorities to make use of the general fund contribution when none of them has been allowed to do so?
We must look at the picture across Scotland as a whole. It has already been said that only 13 of the local authorities are getting the mainstream grant from the housing support grant, only 21 are getting the hostels grant and, astonishingly, only 6 per cent. are getting both. Those figures include major conurbations. The city of Dundee gets nothing. Edinburgh gets nothing for its mainstream

761
grant. Other major conurbations, such as Motherwell, Renfrew, Inverclyde and Aberdeen, get nothing in either category. I invite the Minister to justify that.
We have seen the housing conditions survey and the figures that it produced on the standards of housing throughout Scotland. The Minister is living in a different
762
world, and so are those of his hon. Friends who think that there is nothing wrong in owning a number of houses. I want to deal with the problems of people who either have no home at all or who live in totally inadequate housing. That is what this debate should be about, but it is not, because the funding has been consistently cut. That can only mean poorer housing for many of those whom Scottish Labour Members represent.
10.46 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: If we look at the details of the financial provision about which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) was speaking, we see that, 13 years ago, the housing support grant stood at £228 million and the general fund contribution at £100 million. Next year, the combined total of both will be a mere £26 million. On a cumulative basis, that represents the £1·8 billion loss of revenue for housing over the past decade that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central specified.
No other aspect of social provision can have such a direct impact on people's lives as the lack of housing finance. The problems of dampness, inadequate housing and homelessness are rife throughout Scotland. I know that the Minister is a compassionate man. I hope that he will deal with those aspects in the debate and show that he recognises that the lack of housing finance over the past decade is causing real problems for people throughout Scotland.
The basic limitation on housing finance in Scotland is the capital debt overhang. In fact, 60p to 65p of every pound of rent paid in Scotland goes to refinance the interest payment on the housing accumulated capital debt. In many councils, the figure is almost 100 per cent. For Gordon council, in north-east Scotland, the figure is more than 100 per cent. In those circumstances, it is simply impossible for councils to reinvest adequate sums in the maintenance of houses, never mind in any building programme. I would like the Minister to tell us directly how on earth finance can be injected into housing when individual district councils face such a financial problem.
I suspect that the Government's attempt to diminish public housing in Scotland was sourced in two hopes. First, there was an ideological drive against public housing—and perhaps the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) was the main protagonist. The argument was that if public housing was reduced in Scotland, people would be more amenable to the idea of voting for the Conservatives. Over the past decade, public housing in Scotland has been reduced, but there is no sign that the social engineering favoured by the hon. Member for Stirling has had any impact on the Conservative party's fortunes.
Secondly, it was argued that public housing was an economic problem for Scotland and that it was an inhibition on economic development. It is clear from studying the situation throughout the United Kingdom over the past few years that, in many ways, the housing market in the south of England has been much more of an economic problem for that area than the housing market in Scotland has been for Scotland. The preponderance of private housing in the south, with all the emphasis that that gives to a boom-bust cycle in the economy and over-investment in property, has been much more of a problem in terms of economic management than the degree of public housing has been in Scotland.
I ask the Minister to move away from the campaign against public housing in Scotland. He must realise that hundreds of thousands of Scots are entitled to live in good quality, rented accommodation in the public sector. If we are to get back to basics, let us get back to the basic provision of high-quality council and other public housing in Scotland. Any ideological Government drive against the public sector in Scotland should now be abandoned as not having fulfilled the political aspirations of the hon.
764
Member for Stirling but having condemned hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland to the abject misery of substandard housing over the past 10 years.
10.50 pm
Mr. John McAllion: This document: is largely technical. Anyone in Scotland who happened to read it would not find out much about housing in Scotland because it is deliberately designed to be difficult to understand and interpret. The Government hope that they will be able to slip this document through the House without too much press coverage or awareness in Scotland of the way in which they are treating council housing.
This represents one of the few occasions when the House can debate council housing in Scotland; therefore, we should take advantage of this occasion and try to interpret the document. We should never forget that although few hon. Members live in council housing, hundreds of thousands of our constituents do so. The council housing sector remains important to constituents, although it may not be so important to hon. Members who represent them.
The experience of my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate, and who continue to speak about their surgeries in their constituencies, is one that almost all Labour Members can repeat. Every surgery that I have held in Dundee since 1987 has been dominated by the issue of council housing and the lack of decent, affordable council housing for those who need it. The Government have ignored that forum in Scotland for a considerable period.
Mr. Norman Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about Dundee. Does he conclude that the housing needs of the people of Dundee were a major factor in the recent by-election which we won so spectacularly?
Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The Labour party in Dundee won a council seat back from the Scottish National party, which had held it for a considerable time. We won it back with a convincing majority. Indeed, the turning point in that by-election was when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) graced Dundee with his presence. Thereafter, the votes haemorrhaged towards the Labour party and away from the SNP. I invite the hon. Gentleman to return to east Dundee any time he wants to come—he reinforces Labour's position in that city every time he visits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) made an interestng point about the impact of council by-elections and the experience of hon. Members taking part in them. I remind him of the importance of debates on council housing, especially on the periphery of Scottish cities where council housing is predominant and of such a poor standard, where unemployment is high, where the crime rate is high and where the problem of drug abuse is common. My hon. Friend said that one of the most important things that can be done in terms of Government support for council housing in Scotland was to make funds available for various security measures to make council housing more secure for people who live in it.
In Hilltown, and especially the Maxwelltown area where there are such problems, Dundee district council must now spend part of its housing revenue account on putting in security cameras, security entrances, concierge systems and so on. That is the sort of thing with which the

765
council should be given direct assistance by the Government, but it gets absolutely nothing in housing support grant. It receives no help whatever to deal with all the problems that it faces. That is an absolute disgrace.
Given the condition of the housing stock in Dundee, it is a disgrace that we must divert part of the money which should be spent on the housing stock into security measures so that people can feel a bit safer in their homes. An even bigger disgrace is the fact that the local council gets no help from the Minister, or from the Government who are responsible ultimately for housing in Scotland.
Schedule 3 to the order refers to what we call the hostel portion, and those councils that will qualify for it in 1994–95. Twenty-one local authorities in Scotland qualify, but Dundee is not one of them. I remind the Minister that I intervened during his speech to ask what the level of homelessness in Scotland was. He replied that he would give the answer in a minute, but two, three, four and then five minutes passed, and the Minister sat down without giving the answer.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some 42,500 households applied to local authorities in Scotland to be considered as homeless. Some 72 per cent. of those households found permanent or temporary accommodation. Local authorities have statutory responsibility, especially for priority cases. Some of the other cases lost contact.
Mr. McAllion: I thank the Minister for those figures. Is he not ashamed of his boast that he is making about 2,000 places in hostels available to the homeless in Scotland? That is in no way adequate to meet the problems facing councils across the country. He says that Dundee council has a statutory responsibility to deal with the priority homeless cases. Why is he not giving Dundee any of the hostel portion? Why is Dundee not getting assistance from the Government to help with the homeless problem?
The Minister should go to some of the agencies that work with the homeless in London, particularly young homeless Scots. He would discover that the young homeless Scots who head towards London because they cannot find housing back in Scotland mainly come from Glasgow; in second place after Glasgow comes Dundee. What assistance is Dundee getting from the Minister next year in terms of support for the homeless? Absolutely nothing.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I set up a firm in Dundee recently, and all the 800 staff had no difficulty in finding housing. How extraordinary.
Mr. McAllion: What is extraordinary is that anyone in the House could begin to understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said. I did not understand a word of what he mumbled across the Chamber to me.
The idea that apportioning £2 million to 21 difficult local authorities in Scotland is in any way commensurate with dealing with the problem of homelessness is put in context by remembering the amount that local government reform will deny the new Dundee council. It will lose £2.25 million in terms of grant aid and expenditure. The Minister for Local Government and Planning tells me that that is not a significant sum. If £2·25 million is not a significant sum, neither is the £2 million that the Minister
766
has allocated to 21 different authorities across Scotland to help them tackle the homeless problem. The Minister should begin to take that on board.
The order deals also with the different authorities in Scotland that get housing support grants from the Government. The Minister knows that there are 56 different housing authorities in Scotland. Only 29 of them—just over half—will receive any housing support grant from the Government. That means that 27 different housing authorities in Scotland will get absolutely nothing, among them Dundee. Dundee has had nothing from the Government during the past 10 years in terms of housing support grant.
Owner-occupation in Scotland is heavily subsidised through mortgage tax relief, and other forms of tenure are heavily subsidised through right-to-buy schemes, rent-to-mortgage schemes and stock transfers. Even the private sector is heavily subsidised through gro-grants. With that mind, does not the Minister think that it is an absolute disgrace that 27 different councils in Scotland do not receive a penny in subsidy from the Government for the council housing for which they are responsible?
The Minister was in Dundee recently when Wimpey opened the new private housing development in Mid Craigie. He and other Ministers authorised a grant of more than £2 million to Wimpey Homes to allow them to build private houses for sale on the market and to make a big profit for Wimpey Homes in the process. Is it not a disgrace that the Minister can subsidise the profits of private house builders at a time when he gives nothing to 27 councils across the country? If he does not think that that is a disgrace, it is time he recognised that it is and it is his responsibility to do something about it.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the taxpayer directly provides housing support to pay for people's rent, that money is paid indirectly to the individual and that it goes into the coffers of the housing department? Does he agree that that amounts to many millions of pounds?
Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman is referring to housing benefit, not housing support. I shall tell him of my experience with housing benefit. One of the cases at my recent surgery was about housing benefit. It involved a constituent, who was a single parent with three children, who had a private flat in Dundee because access to council housing had not been available to her. She had been living at the address for three and a half to four years. The Government changed the regulations and qualifications for housing benefit. She received notification that she no longer qualified for housing benefit in private accommodation because the rent was too high and that she should move out of the private accommodation and into council accommodation.
My constituent appealed against the decision. Because her landlord got wind of the fact that the council was challenging her right to housing benefit, he has given her notice to quit. She will have to get out of the home that she and her family have known for the past four years and move into the council sector—and not into good housing in the council sector, because the good council housing has been lost through the right to buy and other measures that the Government have introduced.
She will be asked to move into areas of Dundee that are euphemistically called areas of low demand—areas where

767
nobody wants to live, where crime, vandalism, unemployment and drug abuse are prevalent. She and her family have been put at risk because the Government are denying them housing benefit. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) should not tell me that everybody's needs are looked after. Those who depend on the council sector do not have their needs looked after by the Government.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am not aware of the situation in Dundee, but I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with much interest. What about the father of those children? Is he responsible for their upkeep?
Mr. McAllion: You would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I started on the Child Support Agency. The fathers who are being chased are those whose wives depend on income support. Anyone who does not depend on income support is not chased by the Child Support Agency. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that that is the case, he does not have any working-class constituents.[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the debate.
Mr. McAllion: I shall follow your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and get back to the debate and not pursue that matter any further.
Before the hon Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) sneers, let me say that the father could have been dead; I have no idea about him. The hon. Gentleman should not
As the Minister will be aware, Inside Housing, which is read by all housing professionals in Scotland and is regarded as one of the most prestigious magazines dealing with housing in Scotland, dealt with the order in its issue of 28 January. It stated:
"Scottish local authority tenants face steep rent rises next year following the government's anouncement of a £10 million cut in housing support grant last week."
Hon. Members should not be under any illusion as to what the order represents. It represents a £10 million cut in housing support grant to be made available to local authorities. This year, there was £35·9 million in housing support grant; next year, there will be only £27·5 million. As Inside Housing says, that means an average increase of 5 per cent. in council sector rents next year, and the Minister has admitted as much.
It is a case of double standards, not "back to basics". The Government parade around the country, boasting about low inflation, but they then increase inflation by putting up rents at twice the level of inflation. Why is it that only council sector tenants have to pay higher rents when everybody else's rents have been kept in line with inflation? It is because of a vile, anti-council tenant policy which has been pursued by successive Ministers.
Mr. Barry Porter: I seek some information, because a question was asked some time ago and it was not answered. Perhaps, in relation to Dundee, the hon. Gentleman will say how many void houses there are, how long they have been in existence—
Mr. Canavan: Empty houses.
Mr. Porter: They are called void in England.
768
Will the hon.Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) also say what monetary effect that has on the Dundee local authority? Before I cast my vote, I should very much like to know what the local authority is doing.
Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman would do better not to intervene in Scottish debates because he shows his ignorance of the reality of housing conditions in Scotland. It is that some district councils have houses which they cannot let—houses which are available to be let but in which people are frightened to live as a result of the general conditions in the district in which they are located.
If Conservative Members do not understand that there are vast tracts of cities in this country in which people are frightened to live because of the state to which the Government have reduced those districts, it is time that they began to do so, instead of trying to score cheap debating points. We are speaking about real conditions in which people have to live, not making pure debating points, as Conservative Members try to do with their debating skills.
Earlier, the Minister spoke about the Government's commitment to maintaining the physical condition of Scotland's housing. Has he not read the national housing conditions survey which was carried out by Scottish Homes on his behalf, which showed that 423,000 dwellings in Scotland suffered from damp, serious condensation or mould and that 3·5 per cent. of that number—nearly 15,000 houses—suffered from all three conditions at the same time? Yet he speaks about the Government's commitment to maintaining the physical stock of housing in Scotland. Let him try to tell the people who live in that housing that the Government are committed to maintaining the stock of the house in which they live. The Government are not committed and I will never be convinced that they are.
I have spoken for long enough and I do not want to give the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) a heart attack. I would not want to be responsible for any further by-elections. I must, however, tell the Minister that the difference between the people who live in the council housing sector in Scotland and everyone else is simply that they do not vote Tory, and for that reason they are not a priority for the Government. Unlike the tenants of Westminister city council, there will be no designated housing policy for them because there is no reward to be had from that for the Conservative party in Scotland.
The Government are simply writing off council housing in Scotland because they believe that council house tenants vote Labour. The Government want to change people's voting patterns so they are trying to destroy council housing. Their priority is tenure change instead of the priority that will be the priority of the next Labour Government when a Scottish parliament is set up, and that is to ensure that everyone in our country gets a decent house which they can afford, and which is a decent place in which to live.
11.6 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words, especially after the robust and sincere speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I think that the only mistake that he made was in giving way to some of the Conservative Members who have riot been sitting through what has been an interesting debate, to

769
which, to be fair, the Minister and some other Conservative Members from Scottish constituencies made useful contributions. It is a pity that it has been spoiled by some sedentary interventions and one or two standing interventions.
As in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Dundee, East, concern about housing features as a major issue at the surgeries that I hold every week in my constituency. The second most urgent subject mentioned by constituents is problems arising from the Child Support Agency, which is astonishing. Until a few years ago, it used to be the poll tax but, thankfully, we do not have that any more and now the agency has taken the place of the poll tax in the extent of the problems that it causes. It is taking the place of the poll tax in the way in which it is making Conservative Members, and especially members of the Government, unpopular, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.
I find that, apart from maintenance problems, many difficulties are experienced by people who seek transfers to smaller houses or to larger houses—in most cases, families to smaller houses. Throughout Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley the sale of council houses has distorted the available stock. As no replacement stock has been provided, it is difficult for even the most sensitive and understanding local authority—I have that in Cumnock and Doon Valley, although not in Kyle and Carrick—to find appropriate houses for people seeking transfers. That causes great hardship.
The problem could be solved overnight if the Government would release the money that is available from council house sales for the building of new council houses. That would be the sensible thing to do. It would also provide jobs for people in regions of high unemployment. Housing and unemployment problems could be dealt with substantially overnight.
My next point relates to an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). Many of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend, live in houses owned by Scottish Homes. Whenever people are asked their preference, they say that they want Scottish Homes to continue as their landlord or, if that is not possible—as unfortunately appears to be the case—they prefer the local authority to take over
Those people particularly do not want to be part of housing associations. They do not want to be part of a housing authority black hole or to be under a private landlord, especially when it is unclear where accountability lies. To whom are housing association members accountable? Technically, in some ways they are accountable to Scottish Homes, to the funding body or to the Government. However, in reality, they have no direct accountability in the way that local authorities have accountability.
Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden rightly said, the tenants are not given the opportunity of exercising those options. Scottish Homes says that it wants to get out of house ownership so that that option is unfortunately not available. I pressed Sir James Mellon on that and he said that his board would not accept that option. He said that Scottish Homes was going to get out of house ownership and house rental.
770
The option of local authority ownership is also not available. Council tenants are left with Hobson's choice.
I want to amplify the point I made earlier about the homeless hostel in Ayr. It is astonishing that a great deal of money—thousands of pounds—has been spent on Landsborough house; and the Secretary of State should be aware of what is happening as he lives near by. The house was named in memory of the late James Landsborough, who was an excellent councillor on Kyle and Carrick district council. However, Tory-controlled Kyle and Carrick district council is showing its lack of foresight by saying that all that money will be wasted because Landsborough house is to be demolished for new commercial development which the council has proposed for the site.
What is to happen to that expenditure? Surely there should be reference to the district auditor. Surely the Secretary of State should examine the matter. We hear criticism of other councils, but we seldom hear Kyle and Carrick taken to task, and I suspect that I know why.
Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) wishes to raise a point of order because she is wearing a hat. Is that the case?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any hon. Member who wants to raise a point of order can do that. It is entirely up to the hon. Member.
Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The remarks of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) are impertinent, improper and insulting to a colleague in the House. The hon. Gentleman should be a gentleman and withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Robathan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a new Member of the House, I thought that one wore a hat in the House only if one wished to raise a point of order. I did not think that my remarks were at all disrespectful.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I inform the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that the hat is used if a Member wishes to raise a point of order during a Division. To the best of my knowledge, we are not in the middle of a Division at the moment.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) shows how green he is—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to the debate.
Mr. Foulkes: Indeed. The hon. Member for Blaby is not just disrespectful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey); he is disrespectful to all the people in Scotland who are concerned about housing because he has intervened in such an infactile way on several occasions during the debate.
It is ridiculous and it will create a great deal of hardship—
Dr. Godman: I have never seen the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) before.
Mr. Foulkes: Well, unfortunately, my hon. Friend will see a lot more of him. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will not dignify the hon. Member for Blaby by continuing to refer to his infantile interventions.

771
What is far more important is the question of rents in Scotland. At present the average is £26·51 per week, yet the Government assume that the figure will be £35·86 in the next financial year, despite the fact that, in the calculation of the housing support grant, they are assuming an increase of 5 per cent. Anyone who can do the simplest arithmetic will realise that the difference between the two figures that I have just quoted is much more than 5 per cent. The local authorities will have to find a great deal of money to make up the difference. They will be underfunded by many millions of pounds.
I should like to conclude with a brief reference to the Cumnock and Doon Valley district council. The council, whose area has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the whole of Great Britain, will receive no housing support grant and no hostel support grant for this year or next year. That is an absolute disgrace. In addition to its high unemployment rate, the area is the home of people on very small incomes. Its residents work in the textile and other industries in which wages are very low indeed.
The whole tenor of this debate has been meanness on the part of the Government—the worst meanness in housing that I have known for a very long time. The provision of affordable decent housing is a basic right, and it is about time the Government understood that.
11.15 pm
Mrs. Fyfe: I should like, by leave of the House, to wind up on behalf of the Opposition. Seven Opposition Members have spoken in the debate, but we have had a contribution from only one Conservative—the uncharacteristically brief speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
I have to say that it was utterly trivial and childish of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) to make the point that he made when my colleagues were dealing most sincerely and passionately with the needs of their constituents, who worry deeply about the state of housing in Scotland. People outside must despair of Parliament and must wonder how aware are some of its Members of the needs of their people.
As I want to leave the Minister time to answer some of the important questions that have been put to him, I shall be brief. Will he please answer the question about assured tenancies and secure tenancies and the rights of women who are separated from their husbands? That question was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).
The Minister should stop making ludicrous overestimates of rental income and ludicrous under-estimates of management and maintenance costs. That is his way of distorting the housing support grant calculations. Will he, in future, print a detailed and informative housing support grant order and, while he is about it, stop talking about capital allocations—a term meant only to confuse?
Does the Minister intend to fund a programme to ensure that homeless youngsters and battered women have somewhere to go—that there is adequate hostel accommodation?
As time is short, I shall not quote the Scottish Homes survey, as I intended to do. The Minister commissioned Scottish Homes to undertake the survey. He has only to go back and read it again. Last year, he warned us not to vote against the corresponding order, saying that if we did, the housing authorities would get nothing.
772
I have heard nothing to make me change my mind about urging my hon. Friends not to vote for this order. Let them vote against it and tell the Minister to meet COSLA again and to re-read his own housing survey so that some realism may be built into his estimates. Only then shall we see some sense and humanity in the funding of our housing.
11.18 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am very glad of the opportunity to respond to this debate.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked why Dundee did not receive the hostels portion of the housing support grant. The answer is quite simple: Dundee does not have any housing department hostels. If it were to provide such hostels, it would certainly qualify for that portion. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 5·5 per cent. of the council housing stock in Dundee is empty. I hope that the hon. Member will use his good offices to encourage the council to bring more of its stock back into use.
Mr. McAllion: I will use my good offices to make that 5·5 per cent. of housing stock available for rent, if the Minister will give the council the money to put it in a fit condition to rent.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We will certainly bear in mind Dundee's bids before the final allocations are made in a few weeks' time.
As the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), much is happening in respect of rural Scotland. Scottish Homes has produced 1,700 additional homes in rural areas, and £3·3 million was provided for that purpose during 1992–93. An evaluation of the rural demonstration areas has been undertaken and the results will be published later this year. Per capita, rural areas receive more in local authority allocations that the average for the rest of Scotland.
Scottish Homes is looking carefully at how it may bring vacant stock back into use. It held discussions with the Forestry Commission and the Scottish Landowners Federation. I repeat that an additional £3 million was made available to Scottish Homes to enable further progress to be made.
Mr. Adam Ingram indicated dissent.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must be realistic. Many vacant houses in Scotland are in the private sector.
Mr. Ingram: Rubbish.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." I know that a great many public sector houses should be brought back into use.
Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware that not one tenant has been placed in any of the 80 brand new houses in my constituency built by East Kilbride development corporation and available for occupancy since last November? Why? Because the Government are trying to force housing associations into the town. Those houses should be allocated now. They have been empty since November.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is the Minister responsible for new town housing, is in his place and will

773
have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have little doubt that there will be rapid progress in the coming months, in relation to those houses.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked for the release of council house receipts. They are already released to public authorities in Scotland. We estimated that £230 million would be raised from council house receipts this year. In fact, the figure is £268 million—and those entire receipts go the public sector, which will be greatly to its benefit. That sum increases the overall sum to be spent on public sector stock to £440 million.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) put the case for Glasgow. Last year, Glasgow's housing revenue account produced a surplus of more than £60 million. In those circumstances, there is no need for additional Exchequer support. Housing support grant is a deficit subsidy. Glasgow is projected to have a relatively small deficit next year.
Mrs. Fyfe: The Minister visited Glasgow and saw its housing need. Does he really believe that level of housing support grant comes anywhere near meeting the needs of the people of Glasgow for decent housing?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. The housing support grant is perfectly fair, when one bears in mind that Glasgow set an average rent increase for next year of only 2·8 per cent.—which we estimate is well below the national average.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) spoke about security. In urban regeneration schemes, we give priority to installing strong security systems—and Glasgow district council has been doing so in the multi-storey flats at Castlemilk. I support that policy, and the hon. Gentleman's comments will not be lost on that district council.
The hon. Member for Springburn said that a housing association had increased rents by 50 per cent. I am aware that in certain circumstances—for example, on a change of tenancy—rents may be substantially increased, but secured or assured tenants would not pay such increases. That would be contrary to the terms and conditions of their tenancies.
I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Springburn would give me the details in writing and I shall consider them thoroughly.
We have been consulting on the question of changing from a secured tenancy to an assured tenancy, because there has been an inconsistency in the way in which housing associations have interpreted the law. We have received responses to that consultation, but there is a case pending. Milnbank housing association is challenging the rent officers and we are awaiting the outcome of that case. We shall bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and if he will give me the details, I shall look into it.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Milnbank housing association is in my constituency. Scottish Homes is leaving Milnbank to take the legal action through the courts and Scottish Homes is willing to pay part only of the legal costs. I hope that if that is a test case in which the Government are interested, they will take all the costs on boards and not
774
burden the rent payers of the Milnbank housing association, which operates in only a small part of my constituency.
I shall be able to furnish the Minister with cases in my constituency where rents have been increased substantially and I hope that he will look into them.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the case that he mentioned of the increase of more than 50 per cent. As I said, the Government will not make a decision until after the outcome of that case. On the issue of homelessness—
Dr. Godman rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have taken a large number of measures to deal with homelessness. We have provided some £27 million for extra capital allocations, we have provided more than £10 million for homelessness under the urban programme and, of course, we have provided the hostels portion of the housing support grant, which has been debated tonight. We have also provided cash incentive schemes and we are providing substantial support to the voluntary organisations.
In the past week, Scottish Homes has announced that it was promoting lead tenancy arrangements, whereby empty private property is leased to housing associations for letting to homeless families, and that it was using new, furnished accommodation grants for housing associations to encourage provision of accommodation for the homeless.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. A. Godman), whose constituency I shall be visiting before long.
Dr. Godman: May I say how pleased I am that the Minister has accepted my invitation to visit certain housing schemes in my constituency.
If a housing association threatened a tenant with an assured tenancy, what powers would the housing association ombudsman have to overturn such a decision?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The housing association ombudsman is in post and his recommendations in cases of maladministration will be carefully considered by the Scottish Office as soon as it receives them. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is free to refer cases to the ombudsman.
As the House will know, the housing scene has changed dramatically over the past few years.
Mr. Canavan rose—
Mr. Watson rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I still have a lot to say—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is too much noise.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If I give an obvious example, Scotland has overtaken England in the percentage of public sector houses sold to sitting tenants. There is 0·5 per cent. more in Scotland.
We all know that the scene is changing greatly. More and more local authorities are accepting that their role need not be confined to the direct provision and management of their own housing stock. Increasingly, they are realising

775
that housing needs may be met most effectively by acting in an enabling role and by co-operating with Scottish Homes, housing associations and the private sector to jointly plan investment and provide homes for their areas. There are now some 42 strategic agreements with local authorities and those are bearing fruit. Only this morning, I was in Falkirk, from where the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) comes, and saw a successful development which involved the district council.
Mr. Canavan rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. When I stand, the hon. Gentleman must sit.
Mr. Canavan rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the debate should end in such confusion. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, others must resume their seats. Does the Minister wish to give way or not?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West, his constituent, the district council, Scottish Homes and the developer had an extremely successful housing development in the small urban renewal initiative. Conservative Members warmly welcome partnerships such as that: it is working, and it will continue to work. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 250.

Division No. 123]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Burns, Simon

Aitken, Jonathan

Burt, Alistair

Alexander, Richard

Butler, Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Butterfill, John

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Ancram, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arbuthnot, James

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carttiss, Michael

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Cash, William

Ashby, David

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Aspinwall, Jack

Chapman, Sydney

Atkins, Robert

Churchill, Mr

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Clappison, James

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Baldry, Tony

Coe, Sebastian

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Colvin, Michael

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Congdon, David

Bates, Michael

Conway, Derek

Batiste, Spencer

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Bellingham, Henry

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bendall, Vivian

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Beresford, Sir Paul

Cormack, Patrick

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Couchman, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cran, James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

Booth, Hartley

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Boswell, Tim

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Day, Stephen

Bowden, Andrew

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Bowls, John

Dickens, Geoffrey

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Dicks, Terry

Brandreth, Gyles

Dorrell, Stephen

Brazier, Julian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bright, Graham

Dover, Den

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Duncan, Alan

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Dunn, Bob

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Budgen, Nicholas

Dykes, Hugh

776

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Elletson, Harold

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Knox, Sir David

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Evennett, David

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Faber, David

Legg, Barry

Fabricant, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lidington, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lightbown, David

Fishburn, Dudley

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Forman, Nigel

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lord, Michael

Forth, Eric

Luff, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

MacKay, Andrew

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Maclean, David

French, Douglas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gale, Roger

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gallie, Phil

Madel, Sir David

Gardiner, Sir George

Maitland, Lady Olga

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Malone, Gerald

Garnier, Edward

Mans, Keith

Gill, Christopher

Marland, Paul

Gillan, Cheryl

Marlow, Tony

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gorst, John

Mates, Michael

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Merchant, Piers

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mills, Iain

Grylls, Sir Michael

Moate, Sir Roger

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Moss, Malcolm

Hague, William

Needham, Richard

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Nelson, Anthony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hanley, Jeremy

Nicholls, Patrick

Hannam, Sir John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Harris, David

Norris, Steve

Haselhurst, Alan

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hawkins, Nick

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hawksley, Warren

Ottaway, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Page, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Paice, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Patnick, Irvine

Hendry, Charles

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Pawsey, James

Hicks, Robert

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Pickles, Eric

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Horam, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Richards, Rod

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Riddick, Graham

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Hunter, Andrew

Robathan, Andrew

Jack, Michael

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jenkin, Bernard

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jessel, Toby

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sackville, Tom

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Key, Robert

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kilfedder, Sir James

Shaw, David (Dover)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Knapman, Roger

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

777

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Thurnham, Peter

Shersby, Michael

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Sims, Roger

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

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Tracey, Richard

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Trend, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Soames, Nicholas

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Speed, Sir Keith

Viggers, Peter

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Walden, George

Spink, Dr Robert

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Spring, Richard

Waller, Gary

Sproat, Iain

Ward, John

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Waterson, Nigel

Steen, Anthony

Watts, John

Stephen, Michael

Wells, Bowen

Stern, Michael

Whitney, Ray

Stewart, Allan

Whittingdale, John

Streeter, Gary

Widdecombe, Ann

Sumberg, David

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Sweeney, Walter

Wilkinson, John

Sykes, John

Willetts, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wilshire, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wolfson, Mark

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Yeo, Tim

Temple-Morris, Peter

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Thomason, Roy

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ainger, Nick

Corbett, Robin

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Allen, Graham

Corston, Ms Jean

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cousins, Jim

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cox, Tom

Armstrong, Hilary

Cryer, Bob

Ashton, Joe

Cummings, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Barnes, Harry

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Barron, Kevin

Dalyell, Tarn

Battle, John

Darting, Alistair

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Davidson, Ian

Bell, Stuart

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bennett, Andrew F.

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

Benton, Joe

Dewar, Donald

Bermingham, Gerald

Dixon, Don

Berry, Dr. Roger

Donohoe, Brian H.

Betts, Clive

Dowd, Jim

Boateng, Paul

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bradley, Keith

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Eastham, Ken

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Enright, Derek

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

Etherington, Bill

Burden, Richard

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Byers, Stephen

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Caborn, Richard

Fatchett, Derek

Callaghan, Jim

Faulds, Andrew

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Canavan, Dennis

Foulkes, George

Cann, Jamie

Fraser, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Fyfe, Maria

Clapham, Michael

Galbraith, Sam

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Galloway, George

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gapes, Mike

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Garrett, John

Clelland, David

George, Bruce

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Gerrard, Neil

Coffey, Ann

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Connarty, Michael

Godman, Dr Norman A.

778

Godsiff, Roger

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Milburn, Alan

Gordon, Mildred

Miller, Andrew

Graham, Thomas

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Morgan, Rhodri

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morley, Elliot

Grocott, Bruce

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Gunnell, John

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hain, Peter

Mudie, George

Hall, Mike

Mullin, Chris

Hanson, David

Murphy, Paul

Hardy, Peter

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Henderson, Doug

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hendron, Dr Joe

O'Hara, Edward

Heppell, John

Olner, William

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Neill, Martin

Hinchliffe, David

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hoey, Kate

Parry, Robert

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Patchett, Terry

Home Robertson, John

Pendry, Tom

Hood, Jimmy

Pickthall, Colin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Pike, Peter L.

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Pope, Greg

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hoyle, Doug

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Prescott, John

Hutton, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Illsley, Eric

Purchase, Ken

Ingram, Adam

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Radice, Giles

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Randall, Stuart

Jamieson, David

Raynsford, Nick

Janner, Greville

Redmond, Martin

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Reid, Dr John

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Rendel, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Jowell, Tessa

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rogers, Allan

Keen, Alan

Rooker, Jeff

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Rooney, Terry

Khabra, Piara S.

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rowlands, Ted

Kirkwood, Archy

Salmond, Alex

Leighton, Ron

Sedgemore, Brian

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Sheerman, Barry

Lewis, Terry

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Litherland, Robert

Short, Clare

Livingstone, Ken

Simpson, Alan

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

Lynne, Ms Liz

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McAllion, John

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

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McCartney, Ian

Snape, Peter

Macdonald, Calum

Soley, Clive

McFall, John

Spearing, Nigel

McKelvey, William

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Steinberg, Gerry

McLeish, Henry

Stevenson, George

McMaster, Gordon

Stott, Roger

McNamara, Kevin

Strang, Dr. Gavin

McWilliam, John

Tipping, Paddy

Madden, Max

Turner, Dennis

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Vaz, Keith

Mahon, Alice

Wallace, James

Marek, Dr John

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Wareing, Robert N

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Watson, Mike

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Welsh, Andrew

Martlew, Eric

Wicks, Malcolm

Maxton, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Meacher, Michael

Wilson, Brian

Meale, Alan

Winnick, David

Michael, Alun

Worthington, Tony

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wray, Jimmy

779

Wright, Dr Tony

Tellers for the Noes:

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Jack Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.

Housing Support Grant (Scotland )

  ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Energy Conservation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses of any Minister under the Act, and

  (b) any increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That Mr. Robert Jackson be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Richard Tracey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Meigle Cottage Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
11.43 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome this opportunity to speak about Meigle cottage hospital, which is a popular cottage hospital in my constituency. Consequently, it would be against Government policy for it to be closed—unless, of course, the Government can demonstrate that there are conclusive and undoubted logical reasons for the closure. I hope clearly to demonstrate that according to, first, the regional council, secondly the district council and thirdly Scottish Enterprise, Tayside, that the population projection figures used by the health board are neither conclusive nor undoubted.
I shall show that, contrary to the health board's claims, Meigle as it stands is a perfectly satisfactory clinical hospital.
The hospital was a gift from Mrs. Cox of Cardean and was built in memory of her late husband. Sadly, the hospital suffered a fire soon after it was built and had to be built a second time. Mrs. Cox had the hospital rebuilt. No one can dispute that it was a memorial gift to the community.
Mrs. Cox gave an endowment that guaranteed the financial viability of the hospital. There was no public subscription and no public sector funds were involved. Indeed, until the national health service was created there was no need for public money to be involved in the hospital. I shall read from a letter that appeared in the Dundee Courier on 4 February 1994, which I believe sums the hospital up. It is headed
"Meigle Hospital—desecration?
Sir,—As the oldest surviving grandchild of Mrs. Cox of Cardean who gave the Meigle Cottage Hospital to the community, I note that very little has been said about the fact that it was built in memory of her late husband.
Surely the Government action in closing it is akin to the desecration of a gravestone?"
That is signed by Betty Ogilivy-Wedderburn.
The ground conditions, the gift conditions and the absence of public financial input make Meigle a unique and special case. The building and ground may not be used for any other purpose. I have a copy of the ground title, the disposition by Sir George Kinloch Bt. of 4 May 1915, from which I shall read an extract.
It says that the ground may not be used as a
"tavern or public house or for the manufacture or sale of any ale beer porter wine whisky or other spirituouse or malt liquors or for the carrying on of any trade manufacture or business or for any purpose that might affect or deteriorate the vale or amenity of the adjoining lands".
The heirs are determined to enforce those provisions.
This popular cottage hospital is supported by all the GPs in Meigle, Alyth, Coupar Angus, Neutyle, Muirhead, Birkhill and Blairgowrie. It is supported by the churches, the health council for the whole of Tayside, the regional council, the district council and the community councils, all of which believe that Blairgowrie cannot cope. There will be too few beds to handle the demand from the Blairgowrie and Meigle catchment areas. The new extension at Blairgowrie, which is being constructed, provides eight extra beds.
Meigle has 12 beds, so there will be four fewer beds after the extension, in a catchment area where the

781
combined population is growing and continues to grow. The Meigle occupancy rate is very high—more than 80 per cent. I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) because of his interest in these matters. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that in summer and winter we have a huge transient population in the catchment area.
I will read from one letter of the many hundreds that I have received, but it explains clearly the situation:
"My father, a widower living alone in Darkfaulds, Blairgowrie … was rushed to Ninewells hospital in December 1993 for major bowel surgery …which left my 73-year-old father extremely weak and traumatised.
Several days after the operation I received a telephone call from his Ninewells ward at 9.45 pm to advise me that his bed was required to enable them to carry out more operations before Christmas. They had inquired at Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital but they had no beds so they would like him to go home where the District Nurse could carry out bed baths, a home help could pop in and could we arrange for someone to keep an eye on him! I was stunned. Here was my father unable to get out of his chair himself, having to be supported when he walked to the toilet, having an infection in his arm where the drip had been and suffering from shock, being asked to go home to live alone.
Unbelievable!"
The daughter who was writing to me does not live near him at all, as is true in so many rural constituencies.
The letter continued:
"The next day I telephoned his family doctor (Dr. Sandy Young) who arranged for him to get a bed in Meigle Cottage Hospital. In Ninewells that day, the staff explained to me that they were only there to carry out operations, not for the recuperation of patients!!
My father cannot remember the journey from Dundee to Meigle due to his state of shock. The staff at Meigle were excellent, and after two and a half weeks there, he was able to go home and cope for himself. While he was in Meigle, the staff assured me that he would not be discharged until he was fit enough to go home. What a relief that was for us.
I should add that my father is a diabetic and had been seriously ill on three occasions during 1993 so it would have been very worrying to us if Meigle Cottage Hospital had not been able to admit him."
That letter is typical of many that I could produce.
Is it any wonder that the people and general practitioners in the Blairgowrie and Meigle catchment areas are questioning the clinical judgment and population projections used by the health board, which until now have been accepted by the Government? The population projections of the general registrar's office are suspect. They do not take adequate account of the large number of planning approvals given or of the number of houses that are currently under construction. For example, Perth and Kinross district planning department advises me that, between 1981 and 1991, there was a 7·2 per cent. increase in population—from 15,499 to 16,613—in the Blairgowrie, Coupar Angus, Alyth and Eastern Landward area, all of which Blairgowrie copes with.
It is true that, in the small village of Meigle itself, there was a small decline in population, from 908 to 874, but Meigle's catchment area of Airlie, Eassie, Newtyle and Ruthven, experienced an increase of 4·8 per cent., from 1,401 to 1,469. The combined population figures for the catchment areas, excluding Muirhead and Birkhill, show an increase of 6·44 per cent.—or 1,148 people—in the period during which the health board has been determined to close the hospital. There has been a massive increase in population. The Muirhead and Birkhill practice, which also
782
uses the hospital, has increased its patients by 320 in the past three years and as of today has three patients in Meigle Cottage Hospital.
It is amazing how bits of paper arrive on one's desk. I have been advised today that 66 new accommodations are to be built by the East Perthshire housing association in Blairgowrie. Every week I am being advised of additional houses being built. In Dundee, figures cited by Scottish Enterprise Tayside—another independent body—show clearly that, although there has been a decrease in population in Tayside, with a minus figure of 8,074, in the Perth and Kinross area there has been an increase of 4,275, well over 1,000 of which—1,700—were in the Meigle-Blairgowrie catchment area. The age distribution figures show clearly that that area has a lot of young families who use hospital facilities and a lot of elderly people.
More than 500 houses with planning approval are to be built in Blairgowrie alone. If Alyth, Newtyle and the others are added, we can expect an increase of another 1,500 within the next couple of years or so. Over the past five years, during what can only be described as difficult building industry conditions, the following houses have been completed: in Blairgowrie, 50 per annum; in Coupar Angus, two per annum; in Alyth, four per annum; in Eastern Landward, 20 per annum; and in Newtyle, six per annum. I suggest that, as the market improves—and it is improving—those figures will substantially increase and we will get nearer the figures that we had in the mid-1980s.
In that case, Blairgowrie and district, which has become a commuter area, will again demonstrate clearly that young families want to come to live there. The number of expensive houses that are planned or are being built will mean that a larger number of elderly people will retire to the area. The young and the elderly require hospital facilities.
The number of beds in the Blairgowrie and Meigle areas and the cost per patient per day are important factors. I shall not disturb the House tonight with all the figures other than to say that Meigle, if we had two extra beds there, could have a cost of about £90 per patient. We need those beds, which would give us the lowest figure for bed occupation costs in the whole of Tayside region. What is the real cost of retaining Meigle? It is less than 0·2 per cent. of the Tayside health board's revenue budget. I firmly believe that we need all the beds at Blairgowrie plus those at Meigle, and probably more.
My case is not built on the popularity of the hospital alone; it is built on the reality of the population growth since 1981, when I first had to do battle with the health board. My case is built on the reality of house building and planning consents over the next five to 10 years. It is built on the fact that neither I, nor the doctors, my constituents and the local authority officials accept the logic of the health board's case. I shall not be deterred from pursuing the matter further.
The Minister responsible, my noble Friend Lord Fraser, tells me that he did not receive my letter requesting a meeting. I cannot forget that there have been other problems within his Department; Glasgow is just one example. It is with deep sadness and without any malice that I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that this matter is so important to me and my constituents that I will use every parliamentary device available to expose the flaws within the Department and

783
the ghastly way in which the health board has ridden roughshod over the clinical judgment of the GPs and the wishes of the people.
If the hospital closure goes ahead, the way in which I shall deal with the matter could lead to demands for resignations, especially in view of the letter I received from my noble Friend Lord Fraser on 13 January. He tells me that almost £500,000 will be needed to bring Meigle up to standard. So what? What about all the money spent when the hospital was first built? At today's values, that is an enormous amount.
My noble Friend goes on:
"Enhanced accommodation and a wider range of services are available in Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital situated only 8 miles away."
If the matter was not so tragic, that could be funny. That must be the distance as the crow flies. I invite the Minister to walk that eight miles; he will not get anywhere near the hospital. The Minister's letter refers to the
"split between the 2 closely situated hospitals".
They are not closely situated. By public transport, the distance between the hospitals at Meigle and at Blairgowrie is nearer 15 miles.
The letter says that one site offers
"better accommodation and a wider range of service provision."
I believe that Meigle is perfectly adequate. The letter continues:
"The Health Board has in particular undertaken to ensure that people will have a choice of recuperating in Blairgowrie rather then remaining in Perth or Dundee if they wish to be closer to home."
What about all the letters I have received which ask where, if Meigle closes, people are to go? I have not referred this evening to just one isolated letter.
The matter is out of all proportion to the size of the hospital. My constituents, without exception, feel that the proposed closure is wrong and mistaken, that it borders on being malicious and that it desecrates a memorial that was funded adequately at the beginning and which would have been functioning adequately today if it had not been acquired by the national health service. All that must be answered for. That is why, in the final analysis, my right hon. Friend is given the opportunity in law to make the judgment. Only he can take into account all aspects of the background to the case. I am confident that he will.
11.58 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in securing a debate on the closure of Meigle cottage hospital. I understand the importance that he attaches to the matter, and the strong attachment to the hospital that has developed locally.
The services provided by Meigle hospital have, over the years, been much valued by local people who have appreciated the ready access to acute care or the choice of convalescing close to home after treatment in Dundee or Perth. This debate gives us an opportunity to consider the planned transfer of those services to Blairgowrie and to address the concerns that have been raised by local residents recently since my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State announced the planned closure of Meigle cottage hospital.
What I hope to do tonight is explain the background to the planned transfer of services, the implications for patients and visitors and the adequacy of planned bed numbers in Blairgowrie in the light of projections of the
784
growth of the population in the area to which my hon. Friend referred, and especially growth in the population of the elderly.
Two main factors lie behind the decision to approve the health board's plans to transfer services from Meigle to Blairgowrie. First, with continuing medical advances and new techniques and technologies, Tayside health board has found, in common with all other health boards, that fewer acute beds are needed to deliver the same or an increasing level of care.
Secondly, Meigle cottage hospital is not suitable to deliver modern acute care. The health board faced a choice of investing £500,000 of capital to bring Meigle up to standard, and even then being left with a hospital with a poor lay-out and high running costs, or investing a similar sum at Blairgowrie cottage hospital to extend it to take on the work from Meigle and releasing about £280,000 of overhead costs which are currently tied into running services from two sites in close proximity for other health purposes.
In the light of those considerations, the health board, after much careful thought, decided to seek approval to close Meigle and transfer services to Blairgowrie. Blairgowerie has a wider range of services than Meigle and can offer better integrated care for patients. The health board canvassed widely for views on the proposed closure of Meigle and got the clear message form local residents that extended stays in Perth and Dundee were not an acceptable alternative to local care.
The health board has therefore made provision at Blairgowrie to ensure that anyone who would have expected to receive treatment or convalesce at Meigle will be offered the choice of care at Blairgowrie as an alternative to Perth or Dundee, and that the 56 general practitioner acute and long-stay beds at Blairgowerie will be used flexibly to meet local needs. There should therefore be no need for people to travel to, or remain in, Dundee and Perth longer than necessary.
That was taken into account when my noble and learned Friend and I considered the health board's proposals alongside the views expressed by the local people. We decided that, on balance, the benefits to patients of the more extensive range of care available at Blairgowrie outweighed the inconvenience to visitors of travelling to Blairgowrie. We therefore approved the health board's plans to close Meigle and transfer services to upgraded facilities at Blairgowrie.
As for the implications of the planned transfer of services for patients and their visitors, current trends show that in general four fifths of Meigle patients are directly under the care of local GPs. Those people will, under the planning new arrangements, be transferred to Blairgowrie.
Mr. Bill Walker: I understand clearly what my right hon. Friend is saying: there will be four beds fewer. If they cannot cope now, how will they cope with four beds fewer?
Mr. Lang: I have already covered my hon. Friend's point. I made it clear that the health board estimates that there will be a reduction in the need for beds as a result of changes in the length of stay of average patients. I can assure my hon. Friend that the health board has gone into this very carefully—as, indeed, has my noble and learned Friend.

785
I was referring to the implications of the transfer of services to patients of visits. The one fifth who presently use Meigle to convalesce prior to discharge will be given the choice of remaining in Perth of Dundee or convalescing at Blairgowrie. My hon. Friend referred to mileage, and those matters can be easily checked. My officials have been told by the health board that the distance between Meigle and Blairgowrie is seven miles along a bus route. They were informed that it takes around 25 to 30 minutes by bus and under 20 minutes by car to travel between Meigle and Blairgowrie.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lang: I must reply to the other points raised by my hon. Friend. I must press on, if he will forgive me.
Mr. Walker rose—
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend has made his point. I am telling him what the health board told my officials. The matters can be checked and if, of course, it turns out that the information which I have been given is incorrect, I will correct it with my hon. Friend.
I understand that buses run hourly from Monday to Saturday, and two-hourly after 7 o'clock in the evening. Buses also run every two and a half hours on Sundays.
The average length of stay of a patient at Meigle is about 19 days. On average, about 190 people a year receive in-patient care and around 150 receive outpatient treatment in Meigle. I accept that, for those people and their visitors, there will indeed be the added inconvenience of travelling to Blairgowrie. In most cases, however, we are talking about a period of only two or three weeks offset against the ready access to X-ray, out-patient, geriatric and occupational therapy services, in addition to the full range of services provided from Meigle. In terms of the level care that can be provided, this is Worth the extra inconvenience for a couple of weeks.
Moreover, by withdrawing current services from Meigle, there is the opportunity to use the building as a community resource, and as a focus for day care and health and social care in Meigle. In September 1993, health board officers met the chairman of the local community council and the local regional councillor to discuss alternative uses for Meigle hospital, in the event that the board's proposals were accepted. Those discussions raised the possibility of various community care uses which might involve local community voluntary effort should they wish to be involved.
An approach to the social work department following those discussions progressed the possibility of using Meigle as a day care facility. I understand that subsequently both region and health board are now planning for this development. My hon. Friend mentioned costs. I should point out that Meigle now costs around £100 per in-patient day. Even with two extra beds at £90 a day, Meigle is still more expensive than Blairgowrie, whose costs are £76 per day.
The third main issue on which there has been much debate in recent weeks—my hon. Friend also raised it tonight—is whether the planned bed numbers at Blairgowrie cottage hospital are adequate to cope with the influx of activity from Meigle. Last week, my hon. Friend drew to my attention the detailed population statistics of
786
Perth and Kinross district council. My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State undertook to re-examine the population figures in conjunction with the projections used by Tayside health board. He also undertook to take into account the planning approvals granted in the area.
The main population trends in recent years have been a decline in the population of Meigle of between 3 and 4 per cent., and an increase in the population of Blairgowrie of around 8 per cent. In 1991, the district council issued building warrants for 200 homes in Blairgowrie on a phased programme of development which is on-going. That is likely to attract families to Blairgowrie, and to continue the trend of population growth in that area.
No similar developments are planned for Meigle and, if current trends continue, the population of Meigle is likely to continue to fall. In assessing the number of beds needed at Blairgowrie to provide for the transfer of services from Meigle, the health board took into account recent trends and the registrar-general's projections for the population of Perth and Kinross.
The health board's estimates indicated that the population of Blairgowrie and surrounding areas would rise from 14,500 to 18,500 by the year 2001. Those projections, on which health board plans were based, overestimate the population number significantly. The district council's statistics provided by my hon. Friend indicate that the current population is only 13,300, rather than 14,500 used in health board calculations. The health board paid particular attention to the projected growth in the number of people over 75, because older people tended to be heavy users of health services. Over the next 10 years, projections indicate that there are likely to be around 400 more people in the Blairgowrie/Meigle area.
Of those, between 50 and 60 will be over 75. The health board assesses that the health needs of those people, along with those of the existing residents of the area, can be met comfortably within the 56 beds to be provided at Blairgowrie.
Recent trends in both the acute and long-stay sectors of the health service show declining bed occupancy rates and shorter lengths of stay, with more people receiving care in their own homes or in a primary care setting. That is as much a trend in Perth and Kinross as elsewhere in Scotland, and it means that fewer beds are needed to provide the same level of care. Neither Meigle nor Blairgowrie hospitals are fully used at present. On average, there are two empty GP beds at Meigle and four at Blairgowrie. The health board assesses that the increased demand from the increasing population in the area will be more than offset by the continuing trends in bed usage.
The health board, however, has assured me that if its projections of bed use prove to be wrong and further beds are required, appropriate arrangements will be made at Blairgowrie to provide additional beds.
My hon. Friend also referred to the origins of Meigle cottage hospital and, in particular, the generous donation by the Cox family. As I mentioned, the health board and the regional council are planning for Meigle to be used to develop community day-care facilities and also respite care which will help people to remain at home in the local area. My present understanding is that that would meet the broad objectives of the original endowment. It would be the board's intention to seek to recommemorate the Meigle site when it transfers to a new community care use, thus allowing continuation of the association between the building and the local community.

787
In summing up, I compliment my hon. Friend on the close interest that he has taken in an important constituency interest. I can understand the concern that might be felt in some quarters at the recent announcement. I hope that what I have said will to some extent reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents, but I emphasise that my noble and learned Friend and I are presuaded that the health board has fully taken into account the likely changes in the population of Meigle and Blairgowrie in its planning and that it has planned adequate provision at Blairgowrie to provide for the transfer of services from Meigle.
We believe that local concerns to retain a valued local service have been met by Tayside health board in arranging for the transfer of services to Blairgowrie and that significant benefits to patients will result from the transfer of services which outweigh the inconvenience to visitors of
788
additional travel. Moreover, the planned changes pave the way for new community care developments and the provision of day-care facilities in Meigle, which will be of particular benefit to older people in the area.
I will, of course study further the Official Report of what my hon. Friend has said. I know that my noble and learned Friend intends to follow up his recent meeting with my hon. Friend and will write to him about the various points that were raised. I hope that, thereby, what I have said this evening and what is being followed up by my noble and learned Friend will help to put matters into a fuller perspective for my hon. Friend, and I again compliment him on securing the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Legal Aid Advisory Committee and legal services conference.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The members of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee are Elizabeth Filkin (chairman), Dr. Bill Bishop, Rosemary Day, district judge Greenslade, Jan Luba, Mavis Maclean, Graham McGrath, June O'Dell OBE, Christine Thornton, Anna Turnbull-Walker and Nick Warren. From time to time the committee holds conferences, for which there is no formal membership.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to each of the advisory committees on the Juvenile Court Lay Panel for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: There is only one advisory committee on the Juvenile Court Lay Panel for Northern Ireland and it is not the Lord Chancellor's policy to disclose its membership due to the possible security implications for the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to each of the advisory committees on justices of the peace for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: It is not the Lord Chancellor's policy to disclose membership of advisory committees on justices of the peace in Northern Ireland due to the possible security implications for the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Legal Aid Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The current members of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland are:

  His Honour Judge Petrie QC (Chairman)

  V. Chambers

  Mrs. L. A. Gilbert

  Miss L. Lundy

  J. I. Meehan

  J. C. Morton

  L. McBrinn

  J. P. McGrath

  Master J. C. Napier

  Mrs. A. P. O'Donoghue

  R. Wilson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Council on Tribunals.
  552
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The members currently appointed to the Council) on Tribunals are as follows:

  The Lord Archer of Sandwell, PC, QC. Chairman

  T. Norman Biggart, Esq, CBE, WS, Chairman of Scottish Committee

  Mrs. Annie Anderson

  G. A. Anderson, Esq, CA, FCMA

  M. B. Dempsey, Esq

  Professor D. L. Foulkes, JP

  Mrs. S. Friend, JP

  T. R. H. Godden, Esq, CB

  Christopher Heaps, Esq

  B. Hill, Esq, CBE, DL

  Professor M. J. Hill

  W. N. Hyde, Esq

  R. H. Jones, Esq, CVO

  Dr. Carole Kaplan

  L. F. Read, Esq, QC

  W. K. Reid, Esq, CB

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Serbia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to initiate investigations into allegations that United Kingdom-registered companies have(a) built armanent manufacturing factories in the former Yugoslavia and (b) provided arms and military equipment to Serbia contrary to internationally agreed embargoes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no information concerning allegations that United Kingdom companies have been involved in the construction of armaments factories in the former Yugoslavia.

  Investigation of alleged breaches of internationally agreed embargoes on the supply of arms and military equipment to Serbia and Montenegro is a matter for the commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. They will decide what, if any, action would be appropriate in the light of available information.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the British Government are taking to prevent British arms being sold to the Indonesian Government for use against the population of East Timor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All applications for export licences in respect of Indonesia, as elsewhere, are subject to strict controls and scrutinised on a case-by-case basis. Any application for equipment likely to be used for repressive purposes against a civilian population would be rejected.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take to urge the Government of the People's Republic of China to repeal recent religious laws increasing state controls on Chinese and foreign religious adherents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are aware of the recent publication of two new regulations on religious activity. Any action which further restricts freedom of choice, or which results in further harassment or ill treatment of religious believers
  553
  is of serious concern. We regularly raise questions of human rights, including the persecution of religious believers, with the Chinese authorities, urging them to conform to internationally approved standards. We will continue to do so.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take to urge the Government of the People's Republic of China to release from imprisonment Bishop Julius Jia Zhiguo, Bishop Johannes Han Dingxiang, Auxillary Bishop Shi Hong-Zhen, and other Christians recently imprisoned for their faith.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We and our European Union partners have often urged the Chinese authorities to conform to internationally approved standards of behaviour in the human rights arena, including cases of detention without trial. We have also raised with them lists of specific cases, including some cases of individuals detained in connection with their religious beliefs. We will continue to to so.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 468, what conclusions his officials have come to about the allegations published in The Independent on 24 January regarding British mercenary involvement in Nagorno-Karabakh; and what action he is taking.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We take seriously the allegation that British citizens and companies are attempting to procure arms and mercenaries for Azerbaijan, and investigations continue. Investigations to date suggest that there may be truth in the allegation that these attemps have been made, but as yet we have no evidence that they have succeeded. If evidence of illegality is found the matter will be put in the hands of the custom or police, as appropriate. We remain committed to supporting the CSCE's voluntary arms embargo.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government are taking to bring about a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 31 January 1994 at column 481.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by his Office(a) in the current financial year and (b) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Both the diplomatic and ODA wings of the FCO use newspaper advertising for recruitment. During the financial year 1993–94 recruitment campaigns with a budget in excess of £10,000 will have been held for grades DS9, executive assistant, administrative assistant and research analysts. Similar recruitment 554
  advertising will be undertaken in the financial year 1994–95. The ODA recruit specialists via advertisements throughout the year: cumulatively this costs more than £10,000. Effectiveness is measured in levels of response.

  Other promotional campaigns costing more than £10,000 are as follows:
  FCO TV advertising offering advice to British travellers overseas including what consular services are available. This comprises short consular "filler" films screened free of charge at off-peak hours, and teletext inserts. There are no plans yet for further films in this series in 1994–95. Feedback on screening and estimated viewing figures is provided by the handling agency.
  An FCO leaflet offering advice to overseas travellers which is distributed with British visitors passports by the Post Office and travel agents.
  A booklet called "The European Community: Facts and Fairytales" designed to explain popular misconceptions about European regulations has been distributed during the financial year 1993–94. Effectiveness was measured through demand.

  The FCO has not advertised on radio during 1993–94 and has no plans yet to do so in the next financial year.

  Antarctic Conference on Tourism
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he has taken of the representations by the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators in preparing his proposals for putting forward in Japan at the Antarctic conference on tourism.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have received no representations from the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators. We look forward to a full discussion on tourism at the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Japan. We believe that Antarctic tourism can be regulated through the environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty. Tourism is explicitly referred to in the protocol.

  UN Peacekeeping Operations
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the United Kingdom paid for United Nations peacekeeping operations in 1993(a) in Namibia, (b) in the Western Sahara, (c) in Iraq-Kuwait, (d) in Cambodia and (e) in Cyprus.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There were no United Nations assessed contributions for UNTAG—Namibia—and MINURSO—Western Sahara—in 1993. UNTAG closed down in March 1990. 1993 costs for MINURSO were met from existing United Nations resources. 1993 United Kingdom assessed contributions to UNIKOM—Iraq-Kuwait—totalled $3,003,584, UNTAC—Cambodia—$39,817,868, and UNFICYP—Cyprus—$538,081. UNFICYP was only brought onto United Nations assessed contribution funding in June 1993.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the United Kingdom paid for United Nations peacekeeping operations in 1993.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom paid a total of $165,225,559 in United Nations assessed contributions to peacekeeping operations in 1993.
  555

  Cook Islands
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to regulate banking deposits by United Kingdom citizens in bank accounts registered in the Cook islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The regulation of banking services in the Cook islands is a matter for the Cook islands authorities.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with his opposite number in the European Union in relation to the regulation of the trade in financial services between the United Kingdom and the Cook islands.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The marketing of financial services in the United Kingdom is regulated under United Kingdom and European Community law.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United nations and the Government of Morocco concerning the proposed referendum on the future of the Western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We maintain regular contact with the United Nations through our permanent representative in New York and with the Government of Morocco through the British embassy in Rabat.

  Morocco
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Morocco concerning the continued imprisonment of Abdelhaq Rouissi; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British embassy in Rabat has raised the case of Abdelhaq Rouissi with the Moroccan authorities and recently drew it to the attention of the newly appointed Moroccan Minister for Human Rights.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Comonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Morocco concerning their record on human rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We regularly take up human rights issues bilaterally and with our European Union partners. We welcome the Moroccan Government's agreement to recent visits by Amnesty International and the decision to establish a Ministry for Human Rights.

  European Constituencies
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that new boundaries for Euro-constituencies shall be drawn only after a decision that any new building for the European Parliament shall not be in Brussels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. A Council decision of 1 February 1993 calls for member states to complete the necessary procedures to bring into effect the agreement reached at the Edinburgh European Council increasing the number of MEPs in time for the elections in June this year.
  556
  The legislative procedures required to fulfil this obligation in the United Kingdom are expected to be completed shortly.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had during his recent visit to Turkey with representatives of the Kurdish community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had wide ranging discussions in Ankara with senior politicians, business men and journalists but he did not meet representatives from Kurdish political parties.

  EC Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) Commission personnel and (b) direct European Council staff are involved with the European Community foreign and security policy; if he will set out their relative responsibilities and duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The section in the Commission which deals with the common foreign and security policy of the European Union is staffed by 125 Commission officials of all grades. The new CFSP unit in the Council secretariat is being developed from the former EPC secretariat. It is headed by a seconded ambassador and staffed by 11 seconded diplomats from member states—a 12th is expected to join the unit at a later date. It is envisaged that 12 permanent Council secretariat staff will join the unit in the future. The Commission personnel are responsible for advising Mr. van den Broek, the Commissioner for External Political Relations. The CFSP Unit in the Council secretariat works to the presidency.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 124, if he will give details of that section of the protocol between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Government of Malaysia relating the value of aid to amounts of arms purchased.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No. It is established practice that details of Government-to-Government exchanges are confidential.

  We will co-operate fully in the inquiry announced by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Remand Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the daily average number of remand prisoners and convicted prisoners held in police cells in each year since 1980 and in the current year to the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  557
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what was the daily average number of remand prisoners and convicted prisoners held in police cells in each of the years 1980 to 1993 inclusive, and in the current year to the latest available date.
  The information you have requested is available for annual averages, calculated from the population figures for the last day of each month, which are given in the attached table. In 1981–1987 all prisoners held in police cells are assumed to be remand prisoners. For other years estimates have been made of the numbers held on remand and under sentence. Statistics on the number of prisoners held in police cells are published in table 1.5 of "Prison statistics, England and Wales".

  Average population in police cells by type of custody 1980–19941

  Year

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Total

  1980

  645

  195

  845

  1981

  125

  —

  125

  1982

  47

  —

  47

  1983

  310

  —

  310

  1984

  54

  —

  54

  1985

  45

  —

  45

  1986

  119

  —

  119

  1987

  537

  —

  537

  1988

  982

  95

  1,077

  1989

  103

  7

  110

  1990

  465

  196

  661

  1991

  682

  406

  1,088

  1992

  715

  383

  1,098

  1993

  13

  1

  14

  21994

  9

  0

  9

  1 In 1981 to 1987 all prisoners held in police cells are assumed to be remand prisoners. For other years estimates have been made of the numbers held on remand and under sentence. Averages are calculated using the population figures for the last day of each month.

  2 31 January.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average cost by police force of keeping a prisoner in police cells, per night.

  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 A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question requesting information about the current average cost by police force of keeping a prisoner in police cells, per night.
  As prisoners have only been held by the Greater Manchester police during November and December, and more recently by two additional forces, Humberside and South Yorkshire in February, not accounts have been received. I am therefore unable to provide this information at present.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost incurred by his Department for keeping prisoners, both sentenced and remand, in police cells for the financial year 1992–93.

  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.
  558
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question requesting information about the total cost incurred by the Prison Service for keeping prisoners, both sentenced and remand, in police cells for the financial year 1992–93.
  The total expenditure on keeping prisoners, both sentenced and remand, in polce cells for the financial year 1992–93 was £9,974,035. Further accounts relating to 1992–93, totalling £1,217,763 are under consideration.

  Cook Islands (Bank Accounts)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with his opposite numbers in the European Union concerning the security implications of access by United Kingdom citizens to bank accounts registered in the Cook Islands; and what provisions exist under the protocols of the Trevi Group to restrict access to such bank accounts for the proceeds of crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. The regulations of banking services in the Cook Islands is a matter for the Cook Islands' authorities.

  Police Codes of Conduct
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether anything exists in police codes of conduct to forbid officers passing on confidential information to third parties, including the media, whether for payment or not, during investigations into suspicious deaths; how often these codes have been breached in this respect in the last five years; how many officers have been disciplined or suspended; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the codes in this regard.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The police discipline code is contained in schedule 1 of the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985—S.1.1985/518. Paragraph 6 of the code creates a disciplinary offence of improper disclosure of information which occurs, inter alia, when a member of a police force without proper authority communicates to any person, any information which he has in his possession as a member of a police force. Punishments for breaching the code include dismissal from the force. I have no reason to think that the provisions of the code are inadequate in this regard. Where money or other consideration has been accepted, the possibility would also arise that the common law offence of bribery had been committed.

  Figures are not collected centrally about the categories of offences leading to disciplinary proceedings.

  Police Body Armour
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make special separate funds available to inner city police forces for adequate provision of covert body armour for police constables working in hazardous duties on foot patrol, and for officers engaged on mobile duties, especially when operating road blocks.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. Police protective equipment is purchased out of normal polce funds. It is for chief officers of police to decide how to equip their officers.
  559

  Prisoners (Searches)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has in relation to the powers of civilian staff in prisons to search prisoners.

  Mr. Howard
  Civilian staff in prisons conducting activities involving prisoners—for example, workshop instructors or catering staff—should be able to conduct non-intimate "rub-down" searches for unauthorised items such as concealed knives or sharp tools. This would make it unnecessary to bring in uniformed staff solely for that purpose and gives prison governors greater flexibility in their use of staff. In order to put the legal position beyond doubt, a clause is being tabled today for inclusion in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which will enable civilian staff authorised by the governor to conduct these searches. Only suitably trained or experienced staff regularly involved in the custody or supervision of prisoners would be authorised to use the power. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring forward similar measures for Scotland.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the Attorney General's right to appeal against lenient sentences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 10 February at columns 441–42.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish for the latest convenient year the number of(a) male, (b) female and (c) all prisoners sentenced to imprisonment by courts within Wales; and how many of these spent part or all of their sentences in prisons outside Wales.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 14 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking if he will publish for the latest convenient year the number of (a) male, (b) female and (c) all prisoners sentenced to imprisonment by courts within Wales; and how many of these spent part or all of their sentences in prisons outside Wales.
  According to the records held centrally, some 2,876 prisoners, excluding fine defaulters, were first received into Prison Service establishments under sentence from courts in Wales during 1993. Of these 2,755 were male and 121 were female. Information on the numbers who spent part or all of their sentence in Prison Service establishments outside Wales could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The available information is for the establishment of first reception; of those sentenced by courts in Wales in 1993, 690 males and 121 females were first received under sentence into Prison Service establishments outside Wales. There are no female Prison Service establishments in Wales.

  560

  Hoax Fire Calls
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the county fire authorities in order of number of hoax calls received in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will also show in each authority the number of hoax calls as a percentage of the population.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on malicious false alarm incidents attended by local authority fire brigades in order of the number in 1992 is shown in the following table, which also shows the number expressed per 100 population.

  Table showing, for 1992, the number of malicious false alarms for each fire authority and the number of malicious false alarms per 100 population

  Fire authority

  Malicious false alarms1

  Malicious false alarms per 100 population2

  Greater London

  22,384

  0·33

  Strathclyde

  16,349

  0·71

  Greater Manchester

  11,972

  0·47

  West Midlands

  10,747

  0·41

  West Yorkshire

  7,999

  0·39

  Tyne and Wear

  6,949

  0·62

  Merseyside

  6,451

  0·45

  Lancashire

  4,745

  0·34

  South Yorkshire

  4,630

  0·36

  Cleveland

  4,346

  0·78

  Northern Ireland

  3,397

  0·21

  Humberside

  3,104

  0·35

  Essex

  2,957

  0·19

  Kent

  2,678

  0·17

  Durham

  2,574

  0·43

  Staffordshire

  2,164

  0·21

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,160

  0·40

  Gwent

  2,109

  0·47

  Lothian and Borders

  2,107

  0·25

  Derbyshire

  1,920

  0·20

  Avon

  1,837

  0·19

  Devon

  1,724

  0·17

  South Glamorgan

  1,638

  0·40

  Leicestershire

  1,615

  0·18

  West Glamorgan

  1,543

  0·42

  Cheshire

  1,457

  0·15

  Nottinghamshire

  1,446

  0·14

  Berkshire

  1,350

  0·18

  Surrey

  1,320

  0·13

  Cambridgeshire

  1,232

  0·18

  Tayside

  1,136

  0·29

  Fife

  1,108

  0·32

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  1,067

  0·16

  Buckinghamshire

  1,036

  0·16

  Clwyd

  1,024

  0·25

  Cumbria

  1,013

  0·21

  Hertfordshire

  989

  0·10

  Oxfordshire

  986

  0·17

  Norfolk

  984

  0·13

  Gloucestershire

  867

  0·16

  Lincolnshire

  862

  0·15

  Dyfed

  806

  0·23

  East Sussex

  793

  0·11

  Hampshire

  779

  0·05

  Wiltshire

  737

  0·13

  Bedfordshire

  724

  0·14

  Shropshire

  701

  0·17

  Dorset

  693

  0·10

  561

  Fire authority

  Malicious false alarms1

  Malicious false alarms per 100 population2

  Northumberland

  688

  0·22

  West Sussex

  687

  0·10

  Warwickshire

  681

  0·14

  Suffolk

  632

  0·10

  Grampian

  616

  0·12

  Northamptonshire

  616

  0·10

  Central

  567

  0·21

  North Yorkshire

  555

  0·08

  Somerset

  555

  0·12

  Cornwall and Scilly

  366

  0·08

  Highlands and Islands

  346

  0·13

  Gwynedd

  309

  0·13

  Dumfries and Galloway

  255

  0·17

  Powys

  120

  0·10

  Isle of Wight

  100

  0·08

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Based on 1991 mid-year estimates.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Chairman of the Commission is the Speaker of the House of Commons. The deputy chairman is the hon. Sir John Knox. The members are Miss Sheila Cameron QC and Mr. David Macklin CBE.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has appointed me as the chairman of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. He has appointed the following as members for the period until 31 July 1994:

  Mr. S. G. Bennett (Association of Metropolitan Authorities)

  Mr. A. E. Best (Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association)

  Mrs. E. S. Brett (Association of County Councils)

  Mr. K Cameron (Fire Brigades Union)

  Mr. B. T. A. Collins (Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services)

  Mr. M. I. Davies (National Association of Fire Officers)

  Mr. D. T. Davis (Institution of Fire Engineers)

  Mr. M. R. Fordham (Fire Brigades Union)

  Mr. T. L. Glossop (Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association)

  Mr. C. Grenyer (Association of County Councils)

  Mr. W. J. A. Innes (Home Office)

  Mr. D. Matthews (Fire Brigades Union)

  Mr. G. Newton (National Association of Fire Officers)

  Mr. D. Punshon (Association of County Councils)

  Mr. A Ritchie (Association of Metropolitan Authorities)

  Mr. B. G. Robinson (Chief Fire Officer, London Fire Brigade)

  Mr. R. Scott (Fire Brigades Union)

  Mr. G. Setterfield (National Association of Fire Officers)

  Mr. J. Tiplady (Association of Metropolitan Authorities)

  Mr. F. Walker (Association of Metropolitan Authorities)

  Mr. M. Warner (Association of County Councils)

  Mr. R. G. Williams (National Association of Fire Officers)

  Dr. W. D. Woolley (Director, Fire Research Station)

  562
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The current membership is as follows:

  Sir Leonard Peach (Chairman)

  Mr. Peter Moorhouse (Deputy Chairman)

  Mr. John Cartwright (Deputy Chairman)

  Mr. Karamjit Singh

  Mr. Gordon Marsh

  Mr. Edward Wignall

  Brigadier Anthony Vivian CBE

  Miss Beryl Wallis

  Mrs. Linda Cawsey

  Mr. Mark Chapman CVO

  Mr. William McCall

  Miss Linda Haye

  Lt. Col. Anthony Williams

  Mr. Linbert Spencer

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the(a) approved establishment and (b) actual numbers of uniformed police constables for each of the Metropolitan police divisions for each month from January to December 1993 and the projected numbers for each month from January to April 1994.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that information relating to divisions is not held centrally. A table of figures showing uniform police constable strength and establishment at area level for each month of 1993 is shown. Projected figures for 1994 are not available.

  Divisional uniform police constable establishment and strength

  Establishment

  Strength

  1 January 1993 to 1 February 1993

  1 Area

  1,884·00

  1,827·90

  2 Area

  1,824·00

  1,779·50

  3 Area

  1,919·00

  1,931·24

  4 Area

  1,520·00

  1,569·40

  5 Area

  1,411·00

  1,356·40

  6 Area

  1,918·00

  1,876·21

  7 Area

  1,689·00

  1,643·41

  8 Area

  1,288·00

  1,309 ·31

  TOTAL

  13,453·00

  13,293·37

  PC variation

  —

  -159·63

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +155·40

  2 February 1993 to 1 March 1993

  1 Area

  1,875·00

  1,804·90

  2 Area

  1,819·00

  1,802·50

  3 Area

  1,914·00

  1,918·80

  4 Area

  1,532·00

  1,553·90

  5 Area

  1,407·00

  1,349·70

  6 Area

  1,913·00

  1,862·61

  7 Area

  1,682·00

  1,633·41

  8 Area

  1,375·00

  1,297·31

  TOTAL

  13,517·00

  13,223·13

  PC variation

  —

  -293·87

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +178·03

  2 March 1993 to 31 March 1993

  1 Area

  1,890·00

  1,811·90

  2 Area

  1,836·00

  1,809·10

  3 Area

  1,960·00

  1,915·80

  4 Area

  1,655·00

  1,545·90

  5 Area

  1,331·00

  1,362·70

  563

  Establishment

  Strength

  6 Area

  1,910·00

  1,865·01

  7 Area

  1,656·00

  1,643·41

  8 Area

  1,306·00

  1,306·31

  TOTAL

  13,544,00

  13,260·13

  PC variation

  —

  -283·87

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +162·03

  April 1993 to 4 May 1993

  1 Area

  1,890·00

  1,811·90

  2 Area

  1,836·00

  1,809·58

  3 Area

  1,960·00

  1,914·80

  4 Area

  1,655·00

  1,544·90

  5 Area

  1,331·00

  1,363·70

  6 Area

  1,910·00

  1,864·01

  7 Area

  1,656·00

  1,642·41

  8 Area

  1,306·00

  1,306·31

  TOTAL

  13,544·00

  13,257·61

  PC variation

  —

  -286·39

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +161·03

  5 May 1993 to 2 June 1993

  1 Area

  1,890·00

  1,845·90

  2 Area

  1,836·00

  1,831·68

  3 Area

  1,960·00

  1,909·93

  4 Area

  1,655·00

  1,530·90

  5 Area

  1,331·00

  1,432·85

  6 Area

  1,910·00

  1,902·11

  7 Area

  1,656·00

  1,672·10

  8 Area

  1,290·00

  1,306·50

  TOTAL

  13,528·00

  13,431·97

  PC variation

  —

  -96·03

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +150·13

  3 June 1993 to 5 July 1993

  1 Area

  1,891·00

  1,846·90

  2 Area

  1,836·00

  1,830·43

  3 Area

  1,961·00

  1,915·93

  4 Area

  1,656·00

  1,517·50

  5 Area

  1,332·00

  1,445·85

  6 Area

  1,911·00

  1,918·21

  7 Area

  1,656·00

  1,660·10

  8 Area

  1,291 ·00

  1,299·90

  TOTAL

  13,534·00

  13,442·82

  PC variation

  —

  -91·18

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +154·13

  6 July 1993 to 2 August 1993

  1 Area

  1,890·00

  1,860·90

  2 Area

  1,836·00

  1,846·43

  3 Area

  1,961·00

  1,913·38

  4 Area

  1,656·00

  1,520·49

  5 Area

  1,332·00

  1,468·95

  6 Area

  1,911·00

  1,932·20

  7 Area

  1,656·00

  1,674·90

  8 Area

  1,291·00

  1,301·90

  TOTAL

  13,534·00

  13,519·15

  PC variation

  —

  -14–85

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +153·33

  1 August 1993 to 6 September 1993

  1 Area

  1,899·00

  1,871·70

  2 Area

  1,857·00

  1,840·43

  3 Area

  1,970·00

  1,908·88

  4 Area

  1,663·00

  1,523·29

  5 Area

  1,338·00

  1,472·95

  6 Area

  1,918·00

  1,935·20

  7 Area

  1,664·00

  1,663·90

  8 Area

  1,295·00

  1,323·90

  564

  Establishment

  Strength

  TOTAL

  13,604·00

  13,540·25

  PC variation

  —

  -63·75

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +129·56

  7 September 1993 to 4 October 1993

  1 Area

  1,904·00

  1,873·70

  2 Area

  1,861·00

  1,834·56

  3 Area

  1,974·00

  1,920·48

  4 Area

  1,667·00

  1,534·69

  5 Area

  1,341·00

  1,464·95

  6 Area

  1,921·00

  1,927·63

  7 Area

  1,660·00

  1,657·90

  8 Area

  1,297·00

  1,326·50

  TOTAL

  13,633·00

  13,540·41

  PC variation

  —

  -92·59

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +116·80

  5 October 1993 to 1 November 1993

  1 Area

  1,907·00

  1,867·70

  2 Area

  1,864·00

  1,824·56

  3 Area

  1,977·00

  1,926·93

  4 Area

  1,670·00

  1,530·69

  5 Area

  1,343·00

  1,457·95

  6 Area

  1,924·00

  1,922·63

  7 Area

  1,670·00

  1,654·90

  8 Area

  1,299·00

  1,323·20

  TOTAL

  13,654·00

  13,510·56

  PC variation

  —

  -143·44

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +102·90

  2 November 1993 to 6 December 1993

  1 Area

  1,907·00

  1,868·76

  2 Area

  1,864·00

  1,816·36

  3 Area

  1,977·00

  1,929·93

  4 Area

  1,670·00

  l,553·69

  5 Area

  1,343·00

  1,453·65

  6 Area

  1,924·00

  1,918·36

  7 Area

  1,670·00

  1,648·20

  8 Area

  1,299·00

  1,328·20

  TOTAL

  13,654·00

  13,517·15

  PC variation

  —

  -136·85

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +90·93

  7 December 1993 to 31 December 1993

  1 Area

  1,913·00

  1,891·76

  2 Area

  1,870·00

  1,823·36

  3 Area

  1,984·00

  1,948·93

  4 Area

  1,675·00

  1,568·69

  5 Area

  1,340·00

  1,456·65

  6 Area

  1,929·00

  1,9211·36

  7 Area

  1,676·00

  1,640·60

  8 Area

  1,302·00

  1,326·20

  TOTAL

  13,697·00

  13,577·55

  PC variation

  —

  -119·45

  Sergeant variation

  —

  +79·93

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish information giving details of the capital provided in the Budget for(a) Teesside and (b) Tyne and Wear for the provision of housing for each year since 1987.

  Sir George Young
  Capital for the provision and maintenance of housing is provided to English local authorities through housing investment programme—HIP—allocations, which are issued annually by the Department.

  Information on HIP allocations made to each local authority in England for each year from 1979–80 to 1993–94 is available in the Library.

  Information on HIP allocations for 1994–95 will be placed in the Library shortly. Information on 1994–95 allocations for those local authorities within the county of Cleveland, and within the former county of Tyne and Wear, are given in the table:

  1994–95 HIP allocations

  Local authority

  (£ thousand)

  Hartlepool

  3,522

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  4,305

  Middlesbrough

  3,542

  Stockton-on-Tees

  3,926

  Gateshead

  5,921

  Newcastle

  8,779

  North Tyneside

  8,811

  South Tyneside

  3,896

  Sunderland

  8,746

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those that were consulted on the formation of the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Baldry
  To date about 8,500 copies of the draft bidding guidance on the single regeneration budget have been distributed to a wide range of organisations and individuals, including local authorities, business organisations, training and enterprise councils and voluntary and community groups.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those who will be responsible for making the decisions in the regional offices of the single regeneration budget on how the budget is spent.

  Mr. Baldry
  The integrated regional offices and the single regeneration budget do not come into operation until April 1994. The bidding arrangements for the single regeneration budget for 1995–96 are currently the subject of consultation. Decisions on the bids will be made towards the end of this year. It is therefore too early to determine what detailed arrangements will be made within integrated regional offices for dealing with decisions on the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total budgets for which each regional director of the single regeneration budget is responsible and the amount of funding each is able to provide for regeneration in their respective areas.
  566
  Mr. Baldry
  In its first year, the single regeneration budget will largely operate through the arrangements in place for the 20 contributing programmes and will honour existing commitments. Planned provision in 1994–95 is £1·442 billion and the expected regional distribution is:

  £ million

  South East

  15

  Eastern

  15

  South West

  42

  East Midlands

  68

  West Midlands

  175

  Merseyside

  103

  North West

  159

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  156

  North East

  159

  London

  369

  1,261

  English Partnerships

  181

  Total

  1,442

  Notes:

  1. These figures are provisional and are net of expected receipts. Where firm data is not yet available expenditure has been apportioned on the basis of the pattern of spend in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  2. For Department of Trade and Industry and Employment Department programmes transferring, Merseyside figures are included in those for the north west.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make in relation to council tax for the mentally impaired living alone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Where all the residents of a dwelling are severely mentally impaired a 50 per cent. council tax discount applies. In many cases the residents will be able to have all or part of the remaining liability met by council tax benefit.

  We have received a number of representations to the effect that such dwellings should be exempt from the council tax. We are presently considering those representations: I shall let the hon. Member know when we have reached a conclusion.

  European Funding Schemes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the European funding schemes for which local authorities can apply, the total budget of each scheme, the percentage that each local authority can apply, the total amount of each budget that is designated to England, and the total amount claimed by local authorities in each year from 1980.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rhinoceroses
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with other parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species on how to clamp down on the illegal trade in rhinoceros.
  567
  Mr. Atkins
  At the most recent meeting of the Standing Committee of the convention, held in Brussels in September, it was decided to put further pressure on consumer countries, especially China and Taiwan, to end all internal trade in rhino products and to bring stocks under Government control. The United Kingdom has observer status on the committee and played an active part in the discussions leading to the decisions. In addition the United Kingdom, together with our European partners, fully supported the discussion of the CITES Standing Committee to send technical and high-level delegations to rhino-horn consuming countries to assess the effectiveness of their efforts to combat illegal trade in rhino horn and to offer advice and assistance. We have contributed £5,000 towards the costs of the high-level delegation which has recently visited China and Taiwan. The Government will be represented at the Standing Committee meeting next month which will consider what further action should be taken in the light of the delegations reports.

  The United Kingdom Government have taken a leading role in encouraging greater efforts to conserve rhinos. On 3 February my Department announced a grant of £60,000 towards a project co-funded by the European Commission and the Worldwide Fund for Nature to appoint a scientific officer to co-ordinate rhino conservation activities throughout Africa.

  Waveney District Council
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to relax spending restrictions to permit Waveney district council to match, pound for pound, the money recently awarded to parts of Waveney under structural funds, objective 5b; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. For an explanation of the Government's policy on matching funding for European regional development fund grants, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 11 January 1994,Official Report, columns 3–4.

  Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his decision on the Nidderdale area of outstanding natural beauty designation order submitted to him by the Countryside Commission.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today confirmed the order which will designate Nidderdale as an area of outstanding natural beauty. The designation covers an area of 603 sq km in north Yorkshire. Nidderdale is important for its natural beauty and unspoilt rural character which the designation will help to secure.

  Housing Action Trust, Brent
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made with the proposal for a housing action trust in Brent.

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to announce, after further consultation with the tenants, that a postal ballot will be held from 14 to 27 March 1994. This will enable the 568
  tenants of the Stonebridge estate to vote on whether they are in favour of the establishment of a housing action trust for their estate.

  The housing action trust proposal represents a major opportunity to improve the estate and the quality of life within it, but the final decision must rest with the tenants. I very much hope that they will use their vote to decide the future of the estate.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Biwater Group
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the Overseas Development Administration's water and sewerage sector budget has supported contracts won by the Biwater Group in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration does not have a separate water and sewerage sector budget. Since 1985 Biwater Group has been awarded contracts under our bilateral aid programme spending as follows. Two contracts supported under the aid and trade provision, that is, a rural water supply scheme in Malaysia which commenced in 1986 with ATP support of £59·46 million and a hill country water project in Sri Lanka which commenced in 1988 with ATP support of £2·129 million.

  Under our regular country programme—excluding ATP which is centrally managed—we maintain central records on contracts undertaken direct by ODA with United Kingdom firms as part of technical co-operation. These show that a contract, valued at £1·5 million as part of the Cairo waste water project, was placed with the Biwater Group and began in 1992.

  For aid other than technical cooperation, contracts are placed with United Kingdom firms by overseas Governments or their institutions and not by ODA; our financial aid is made to the recipient country Government as a contribution to the cost of these contracts. Information on which United Kingdom firms received these contracts is not maintained centrally in ODA. Such information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Brazil
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by value each British aid project in Brazil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration—ODA—is currently funding 15 projects in Brazil. These are:

  1. Anglo-Brazilian Climate Observation Study (£2·9 million)

  2. Rainforest Silviculture Research Project (£2·4 million)

  3. Caxivana Research Station (£1·9 million)

  4. Forest Biomass and Nutrient Research Project (£1·7 million)

  5. Lake Mamiraua Ecological Research Station (£1·6 million)

  6. Rain Forest Pilot Programme Trust Fund (£1·5 million)

  7. Tocantins Forestry and Rural Development Project (£1·1 million)

  8. Tapajos National Forest Management Project (£0·8 million)

  9. Aromatic Plants Developments Project (£0·7 million)

  10. Central Amazonia Flora and Vegetation Project (£0·6 million)

  11. Recife Environmental Control Project (£0·4 million)

  569

  12. Floodplain Forest Ecology and Management Project (£0·3 million)

  13. Sao Paulo State Water and Sewerage Project (£0·2 million)

  14. Assistance to the Brazilian Indian Agency, FUNAI (£0·2 million)

  15. Yanomami Health Project (£0·2 million)

  The United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding on environmental co-operation with the Government of Brazil in July 1989. This provides the main focus for the programme which is the United Kingdom's largest in Latin America.

  In addition to these bilateral projects, we provide some £1·8 million per annum to finance post graduate and technical training awards for Brazilian students in the United Kingdom. Also, ODA's joint funding scheme is presently supporting 53 small projects in Brazil, managed by British non-government organisations, at a cost of more than £0·7 million. Other small projects are supported by the British ambassador's discretionary scheme, including a £55,000 grant to the Sao Martinho shelter for street children in Rio de Janeiro.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to make grants from the know-how fund available for Vietnam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund provides specialist skills and training for the former Soviet Union and eastern and central Europe. We are providing £10 million worth of similar technical co-operation for Vietnam under our aid programme to that country.

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other Commonwealth Governments about the increasing their funding of the Commonwealth Institute; and what discussions he has had with the Commonwealth Secretariat about improving links between the Secretariat and the Commonwealth Institute, and expanding financial support from the Commonwealth to the Commonwealth Institute.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All Commonwealth high commissioners in London and the Commonwealth Secretary-General are, ex-officio, governors of the institute's board. Through them, the assessors on the board, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to represent Government Departments in the United Kingdom, maintain a continuing dialogue on the level of funding and support provided by Commonwealth Governments and the Commonwealth secretariat, in addition to the direct contacts between the institute's staff and high commissions and the secretariat.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what purpose the Commonwealth Institute building would be put if the Commonwealth Institute closes or virtually closes in 1996; and what representations have been made to him by the appropriate local authority about the planning implications of the closure of the Commonwealth Institute, or about acceptable alternative uses for the building.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The board, the director-general and staff of the institute are developing a re-launch strategy to 570
  ensure that the institute does not close in 1996. Any alternative use to which the institute's building could be put would have to take account of the building's grade II* listed status and the terms of the 999 year lease governing the use of the site and building.

  On 13 October 1993, the Council of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea adopted the following resolution:
  "That this Council notes with dismay the proposal to withdraw funding from the Commonwealth Institute and regrets that should the Institute close, its valuable role in promoting inter-cultural awareness will be lost."

  In conveying the resolution to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the council argued that since it occupies a grade II* listed building the Commonwealth Institute was unique in the borough and that alternative uses for the building would be very hard to find if the institute had to leave.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received urging his Department to continue grant in aid to the Commonwealth Institute beyond 1996; what were the main conclusions of the inquiry, carried out by Lord Armstrong, into the Commonwealth Institute; if he will place a copy of Lord Armstrong's report in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received many representations from MPs and members of the public.

  In his review of the Commonwealth Institute, Lord Armstrong identified four options for the institute:

  (i) a larger grant in aid

  (ii) a continuation of the status quo

  (iii) the transfer of the Institute's collection elsewhere, and look separately at the buildings

  (iv) the closure of the Institute.

  In his conclusions, Lord Armstrong advised against closure; assumed increased Government funding to be unlikely; and recommended that the institute should be enabled to continue to run as at present, while the feasibility of transferring the collection of objects to another institution was examined. He judged that if there was no prospect of a significant increase in Government funding it would be unsatisfactory for all concerned to keep the institute ticking over indefinitely at the present level.

  I have placed a copy of Lord Armstrong's review in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the Departments for Education and for National Heritage and other Government Departments from his Department about spreading or switching funding of the Commonwealth Institute; and what discussions he has had with private sector interests about private sponsorship of the work of the Commonwealth Institute.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My Department consulted other Government Departments, including the Departments for Education and National Heritage, before the decision to cease funding in 1996 was announced on 21 September 1993. No other Government Department was able to assist financially.

  The outlines for a relaunch plan were presented by the board of governors to the institute's annual general meeting on 16 November 1993. The detailed implementation including the financing of this plan is under preparation by the director-general.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Post Office users councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The members of the Post Office users councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as at 21 January 1994 are as follows:

  Scotland

  Mr. Andrew O. Robertson (Chairman)

  Mr. Richard J. Ardern

  Dr. Tom N. A. Begg OBE JP

  Lady Jane Forbes

  Mrs. Vivian B. Greenhill

  Mr. D. G. Marnoch

  Mrs. Elizabeth A. Packard

  Mr. Alastair J. Turnbull

  Mr. Peter Wilson JP

  Mr. Edward Young

  Wales

  Dr. Eleanor M. James (Chairman)

  Mr. Gordon Donaldson

  Mr. Donald R. Dutton JP

  Mr. Graham S. Hall

  Mr. C. F. Hay

  Mrs. Margaret M. Kerridge

  Mr. Huw Ifor Lewis

  Mr. Lawrence Murphy

  Miss Meryl Pike

  Mr. Ellis Roberts

  Mr. Neville W. Simms MBE

  Mr. Anthony D. White

  Northern Ireland

  Mrs. Gwen Savage (Chairman)

  Mr. Ralph G. Bauer

  Mrs. R. P. M. Goldie

  Mrs. Olive M. Marshall

  Mr. James O. McDonald MBE

  Deaconess Hilary M. McDowell

  Mr. Albert J. Sherrard

  Mr. John D. Thompson

  Mr. George B. Turkington

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for England.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The members of the English Advisory Committee on Telecommunications as at 21 January 1994 are:

  Miss Moira E. Black (Chairman)

  Ms Anne Ballard

  Mrs. Diana C. Banks OBE

  Mr. Harry Branchdale

  Mr. Iain R. Bryce

  Mr. Samuel J. Cooper

  Mr. John D. Green

  Mr. Robert F. Little

  Mr. Brian M. Love

  Ms Claire B. Milne

  Mr. Douglas R. Oram

  Dr. Joyce M. Wood

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's assistance to the British aerospace industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since 1979 the Department has provided over £1·5 billion of support for major civil 572
  aerospace projects in the form of launch aid and support for research and technology. The DTI also helps the industry to sell its products and services abroad, in co-operation with other Departments, and ECGD has provided over £735 million of export credit cover to support these sales over the last three years.

  Ferrous Scrap
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is his assessment of the impact of increased demand and price for ferrous scrap internationally on the United Kingdom industry; and what steps he intends to take to help the United Kingdom industry;

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of (a) demand and (b) price of ferrous scrap in the current year and in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government have been closely monitoring recent developments. Ferrous scrap is an internationally traded commodity and as such will vary in price according to the level of supply and demand.

  I have agreed to meet a delegation from the steel and foundry industries. We have also discussed these matters with the European Commission, which is currently undertaking an in-depth study of the international scrap market. We will be studying the results carefully.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of export of ferrous scrap(a) in terms of tonnage and (b) in terms of value in each of the past 10 years; and what is his projection for 1994.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is published in the "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, Central Statistical Office", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's publicity advertising in the current year has included the following:

  Export Services

  Objective: to encourage firms to make use of Overseas Trade Services in tackling markets abroad.

  Assessment: responses and take up of information and services.

  Business in Europe

  Objective: to encourage United Kingdom firms into other European markets, and to provide information and help.

  Assessment: responses and take up of information and services.

  Small firms merit award for research and technology

  Objective: promotion of the SMART scheme to stimulate technological innovation in small firms.

  Assessment: responses and applications.

  Firework safety

  Objective: to alert the public to the need to enjoy fireworks safely.

  573

  Assessment: injury statistics are published annually.

  Inward investment

  Objective: to promote the United Kingdom as the preferred European location for foreign investment.

  Assessment: awareness and monitoring of the number and quality of responses.

  Queen's awards

  Objective: to attract applicants for the Queen's Awards for Export, Technological and Environmental Achievement.

  Assessment: responses and applications.

  The Department has many other promotional programmes, most of which have involved little or no advertising expenditure in the current year. Each has its own objectives and evaluation arrangements. Examples of topics covered are: DTI services to business; export promotion; small firms and business link; innovation and technology services; consumer affairs; industry sponsorship; business and the environment; deregulation; renewable energy; United Kingdom space interests; assisted areas; manufacturing and management best practice; and United Kingdom offshore supplies expertise.

  Most of these activities will continue in 1994–95, and media allocations will be made during the year according to need.

  Details of advertising and other promotional activities by the Department's agencies are not held centrally.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons the reprocessing of a final load of pressure for the reactor fuel was authorised following the termination of the fast reactor programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  Reprocessing the spent fuel represents the best value for money, based on both technical and economic grounds.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the implications for the frequency of plutonium nitrate shipments from Dounreay to Sellafield of plans to increase the rate of prototype fast reactor spent fuel reprocessing over the next three or more years.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 22 June 1993,Official Report, column 134.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on United Kingdom industrial research and development spending, by sector, in each of the past five years; what these figures are as a percentage of(a) sales, (b) profits and (c) dividends; and what comparison his Department has undertaken with the top 200 companies world wide.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Data on United Kingdom business enterprise research and development expenditure by detailed product group for 1988–1992 were published in table 2 of the Central Statistical Office "First Release" (CSO(93)188) a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Research and development expenditure as a percentage of sales is given in table 3 of the same publication.
  574
  Research and development expenditure as a percentage of sales, profits, and dividends for individual United Kingdom companies is published in "The 1993 UK R&D Scoreboard" a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This publication also contains similar data for the 200 international companies spending most of research and development. The data in the scoreboard are drawn from annual reports and accounts and are not directly comparable to the data published by the Central Statistical Office.

  Net Book Agreement
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the Office of Fair Trading report of the inquiry into the net book agreement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading who announced on 23 November 1993 that he would consider again the case for applying to the restrictive practices court for leave to have its decision in respect of the net book agreement reviewed.

  Charter Markets
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has consulted the Secretary of State for the Environment on the environmental effect of his proposals to change the legislation regarding charter markets; and what assessment he has made of the compatibility of those proposals with recent planning guidance on out-of-town shopping developments.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Consultations have, of course, taken place between myself and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, on all these matters and the Government's proposals in the Deregulation Bill take due account of all the relevant issues.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of all initiatives that are currently planned or operating which will exploit tidal power.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's tidal energy programme is now being completed. Remaining work consists mainly of generic studies of the impact of tidal barrages on the environment.

  Specific studies are being completed on steel-concrete sandwich composite for use in tidal barrages, mud transport in shallow water, fish deterrence, estuary sediment prediction, bird populations and mesocosm studies.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the non-fossil fuel obligation fund is allocated to(a) nuclear power, (b) wind power, (c) geothermal power, (d) tidal power and (e) other renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Eggar
  The level of payments to the individual technologies contracted under the non-fossil fuel obligation, and financed by the fossil fuel levy, depends on the contracts which the regional electricity companies sign in fulfilment of the NFFO orders, on the amounts of electricity generated under these contracts, and the market price of electricity. The Director General of Electricity Supply has estimated that in 1993–94 around 6 per cent. of the amount raised by the fossil fuel levy will go to renewables generators.

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the Official Receiver has taken against Mr. Asil Nadir under the Insolvency Act 1986.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Official Receiver has discharged his usual functions under the Insolvency Act, 1986 in relation to the bankruptcy of Mr. Nadir.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Mr. Asil Nadir will be eligible to be discharged as a bankrupt; and if he will give an assurance that he will not automatically be discharged.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Under section 279 of the Insolvency Act, 1986 most bankrupts are automatically discharged on the third anniversary of their bankruptcy. In Mr. Nadir's case the third anniversary of his bankruptcy is 25 November 1994. However, the court may, on the application of the Official Receiver, suspend the discharge of any bankrupt who fails to comply with any of his obligations under the Act, for example to co-operate with his trustee.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, columns 522–23; what qualifications the Committee of Selection ascertained under the terms of paragraph 2 of Standing Order No. 86 in respect of the nomination of the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), for Hexham, (Mr. Atkinson), for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) to serve on the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  It is not the practice of the Committee of Selection to comment upon its private deliberations.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, pursuant to his answer of 31 January, Official Report, columns 522–32, what documents the Committee of Selection had before it in ascertaining the qualifications of hon. Members nominated to serve on the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  It would not be appropriate to disclose the material the Committee of Selection uses during its private meetings.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the national museum of science and industry.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the science museum are:

  Sir Austin W. Pearce CBE (Chairman)

  Professor Sir Eric Ash CBE FEng FRS

  576

  Dr. Mary D. Archer

  The Lord Brabourne CBE

  The Viscount Downe DL

  Miss Mary S. Goldring OBE

  Mrs. Anita Higham BA Lesl Med

  Mrs. Joanna Kennedy CEng

  HRH The Duke of Kent KG GCMG GCVO ADC

  Dr. Bridget Ogilvie FI Biol

  Sir Michael Quinlan GCB

  Sir Dennis E. Rooke CBE ERS FEng

  Leopold de Rothschild Esq CBE

  Professor Sir John M. Thomas FRS

  Sir Christopher S. Wates FCA

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Board of the Greater Manchester museum of science.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the Manchester museum of science and industry are:

  John Lee Esq. (Chairman)

  Michael Bailey Esq.

  Louis Brennan Esq.

  Mrs. Joan Brown

  Ms Gayle Broughall

  Michael Dyble Esq.

  Professor Michael Gordon Gibbons BSc BEng MSc PhD

  Mrs. Virginia Halliwell

  Ben F. Hurren Esq.

  Ms Sue Runyard

  Sir Gilbert Thompson

  Dr. John Thynne

  Col. John Timmins

  Anthony Wilson Esq.

  F. D. Wilson Esq.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the national portrait gallery.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the national portrait gallery are:

  Rev. Professor Owen Chadwick, OM, KBE, DD, PPBA (Chairman)

  Sir Anthony Acland

  Mrs. Jane Benson

  Sir Roger de Grey (ex officio)

  Henry N. L. Keswick, Esq, MA

  Professor Norbert C. Lynton, BA

  Sir Oliver N. Millar, KCVO, FBA

  Lord Morris, MA, DPhil

  The Rt. Hon. Tony Newton, OBE, MP (ex officio)

  Professor Sir Eduardo Luigi Paolozzi

  Professor John M. Roberts, MA, DPhil

  Sir David Scholey, CBE

  Mrs. Claire Tomalin

  Mrs. Winifred Tumin

  John Tusa, Esq

  Lord Weidenfield

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the British library.

  Mr. Sproat
  The present members of the British library board are:

  Sir Anthony Kenny FBA (Chairman)

  Full-Time Members

  Brian Lang (Chief Executive)

  Michael Smethurst (Director, General Humanities and Social Sciences)

  David Russon (Director General, Science Technology and Industry)

  Part-Time Members

  Penelope Lively

  David Peake

  The Hon. Edward Adeane, CVO

  John Forty, CBE, PhD, DSc

  577

  Ronald Utiger, CBE

  Michael Griffith, CBE, DL

  Dame Ann Warburton, DCVO

  Henry Heaey, FLA

  Timothy Rix

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Library and Information Services Council.

  Mr. Sproat
  The present members of the Library and Information Services Council (England) are:

  Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer KBE, FRS (Chairman)

  Peter Cox

  Philip Holmes

  Nigel Macartney

  Sally Marshall

  Michael Messenger

  Nigel Oxbrow

  Sheila Pantry

  Keith Crawshaw

  Sir Charles Chadwyck-Healey

  Duncan Turner

  Christopher Heinitz

  David Leadbeater

  Brian Burch

  John Hicks

  Attendance in 1992–93

  Forecasts of attendance in 1993–94

  Provisional percentage increase/decrease over the previous year

  (million)

  (million)

  Imperial War Museum

  1·148

  1·150

  +0·2

  National Gallery

  4·200

  3·700

  -12·0

  National Maritime Museum

  0·541

  0·510

  -5·8

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  1·207

  1·200

  -0·6

  National Portrait Gallery

  0·563

  0·600

  +6·6

  Natural History Museum

  1·729

  1·750

  +1·2

  Science Museum

  2·579

  2·635

  +2·2

  Tate Gallery

  2·185

  2·550

  +16·7

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1·454

  1·435

  -1·0

  Wallace Collection

  0·198

  0·165

  -16·7

  Total2

  15·804

  15·695

  -0·7

  British Museum1

  6·725

  6·209

  -7·7

  1 British Museum figures are for calendar years 1992 and 1993.

  2 Excluding British Museum attendances.

  It is not possible to identify the number of visitors to the Royal Armouries which at present forms part of the Tower of London.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are the members currently appointed to the court of the Bank of England.

  Mr. Nelson
  The current members of the Bank of England court are as follows:

  Edward George, Esq (Governor)

  Rupert Pennant-Rea, Esq (Deputy Governor)

  Sir George Cadbury

  Anthony Coleby, Esq

  Sir Colin Corness

  Mrs. Frances Heaton

  Sir Christopher Hogg

  Sir Martin Jacomb

  Pendarell Kent, Esq

  Mervyn King, Esq

  Gavin Laird, Esq, CBE

  Sir David Lees

  578

  Robert McKee

  Brian Lang

  Gillian Cross

  John Sumsion OBE

  Rosemary Gray

  Museums and Galleries (Attendances)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the attendance figures for 1993 reported by the national museums and galleries in England for which he is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions, but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1992.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: Except for the British museum these attendance figures are now provided for financial years not for calendar years.

  I list forecasts for the number of visitors to the 11 national museums and galleries in England for which I am responsible for the current financial year and the actual figures for the financial year 1992–93. More accurate figures for 1993–94 will be available later in July.

  Sir Christopher Morse, KCMG

  Sir David Scholey, CBE

  Professor Sir Roland Smith

  Sir Colin Southgate

  Brian Quinn, Esq

  Ministers (Travel)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by Her Majesty's Treasury on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1992–93 after 11 April 1992 and in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  There was no specific budgetary provision for travel by the Chief Secretary in 1992–93. Expenditure on foreign travel was £660, all of which was incurred after 11 April 1992 attending ministerial meetings at the request of the Chancellor. There was no expenditure on internal travel.

  International Monetary Fund
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the policy of the IMF to publishes only general economic data and not specific policy advice.
  579
  Mr. Nelson
  Discussions between IMF staff and country authorities are confidential. The IMF publish its assessment of the world economy in the "World Economic Outlook" which is published twice a year.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department ever asked British Nuclear Fuels plc for a copy of the Touche Ross report on the economic prospects for THORP; and whether his Department has seen a copy of the report.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department has neither seen nor asked for a copy of the Touche Ross report. We have received all the information we required on the economics of THORP from the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Minimum Lending Rate
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table giving the minimum lending rate of the Bank of England on 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October in each year from 1 January 1990; what is the average mortgage interest rate for the leading building societies at each of these dates; and what is the differential between them.

  Mr. Nelson
  The minimum lending rate was not in use on any of the dates specified. The table gives the clearing banks' base rates on those dates, and the average mortgage interest rate of all building societies.

  Base rate

  Mortgage rate

  Differential

  1990

  January

  15·0

  14·44

  -0·56

  April

  15·0

  15·24

  0·24

  July

  15·0

  15·25

  0·25

  October

  15·0

  15·25

  0·25

  1991

  January

  14·0

  14·34

  0·34

  April

  12·5

  14·24

  1·74

  July

  11·5

  12·75

  1·25

  October

  10·5

  11·82

  1·32

  1992

  January

  10·5

  11·39

  0·89

  April

  10·5

  10·96

  0·46

  July

  10·0

  10·82

  0·82

  October

  9·0

  10·60

  1·60

  1993

  January

  7·0

  8·98

  1·98

  April

  6·0

  8·04

  2·04

  July

  6·0

  8·01

  2·01

  October

  6·0

  8·00

  2·00

  1994

  January

  5·5

  8·00

  2·50

PRIME MINISTER

  Consultancies
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister how much the Government spent on employing private sector consultants for each year from 1979.
  580
  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with any of his EU counterparts on the environmental and proliferation implications of THORP.

  The Prime Minister
  I meet my European Union counterparts from time to time, when we discuss a range of issues.

  Sir Peter Levene
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the report of Sir Peter Levene into the Government's use of external consultants.

  The Prime Minister
  At this early stage of the scrutiny no specific decision to publish has been taken but it is the normal practice for efficiency unit reports to be published.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the results of the Government's policies in the northern region since 1983; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will list, by Government Departments, the principal aid given to the northern region in each year since 1983.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1983, Government policy and programmes have helped with the transition of the economy of the north-east region to its present more diversified base.

  This process has been substantially helped by overseas investment of over £2 billion. The Department of Trade and Industry has also committed over £1 billion in assisting industrial and commercial projects, helping to create or safeguard around an estimated 50,000 jobs. Unemployment in the north-east has fallen from a peak of 19·6 per cent. in 1986 to 12·7 per cent. now.

  Visits, Scotland
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 406, what were the dates and locations of each of his 13 visits to Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  In 1991, I made five visits to Scotland, including Edinburgh, Glasgow—twice—Perth, and Deeside.

  In 1992, I also made five visits to Scotland, including Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, Strathclyde and Deeside.

  In 1993, I made three visits to Scotland, including, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Deeside.

  Railway Manufacturing
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the representations made to him by the Design Council about the future of the British railway manufacturing industry and a copy of his response to the Design Council.
  581
  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, I have received no such letter.

  Car Industries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will urge the German, French and Italian Prime Ministers to encourage the sale of their indigenous car industries.

  The Prime Minister
  The commercially-driven trend towards more cross-border, joint ventures and strategic alliances is expected to continue in the European car industry. I am sure that my German, French and Italian opposite numbers will not stand in the way of this process, which will strengthen Europe's global competitiveness.

  I am delighted that the French Government are following the United Kingdom's example and going ahead with their plan to privatise Renault.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the President of Cyprus on the talks now taking place under the role of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed United Nations efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem with President Clerides during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting last October. I have not had any discussions with him about the talks due to begin on 17 February. However my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has been in close touch with the parties. He met the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Michaelides, on 2 February.

  Biodiversity Convention
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking to co-ordinate the policy of the FCO and the Department of the Environment in relation to the ratifaction of the biodiversity convention to include the land and marine environments of Ascension Island, British Indian Ocean territory, the Cayman Islands, Chagos Archipelago, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Island, St. Helena, South Georgia and the south Sandwich Islands, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands and Virgin Islands.

  The Prime Minister
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has overall responsibility for the administration, and direct responsiblity for certain external relations, of the United Kingdom's 14 dependent territories and two dependencies.

  Policy towards the territories is co-ordinated through an inter-departmental group, including the Department of the Environment, chaired by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. That group has endorsed a strategy for consultation with the dependencies on whether they wish to be included in the United Kingdom's ratification of the biodiversity convention and, if not, whether they envisage the convention being extended to them at a later date.

  As part of that process dependent territory Governments need to consider taking on the new commitments arising from Rio. The FCO is helping the dependent territories to assess the costs and benefits to them of any new legislation required.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the procedure for recording the use of ministerial cars; and what arrangements are made to allow inspection of it by hon. Members.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The procedure is that car log sheets are maintained for recording the use of all ministerial cars. The log sheets are retained as internal documents.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Spongiform Encephalopathy advisory committee.

  Mr. Soames
  The members currently appointed to the Spongiform Encephalopathy advisory conmmittee are:

  Dr. D. A. J. Tyrrell, FRS, Chairman

  Professor I. V. Allen

  Professor F. Brown, FRS

  Dr. R. H. Kimberlin

  Mt. D. B. Pepper

  Dr. W. A. Watson

  Dr. R. G. Will

  Dr. W. D. Hueston

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Veterinary Products committee.

  Mr. Soames
  The current membership of the Veterinary Products committee is as follows:

  Chairman

  Professor J. Armour, CBE

  PhD, Dr. hc (Utrecht), MRCVS, FRSE

  Members

  Dr. D. N. Bateman

  BSc, MB BS, Fian CV MRCS, MD, FRCP

  Professor P. M. Biggs, CBE

  DSc, Dr. hc (Liege), DVM (hc) Munich, FRC Path, CBiol,

  FIBiol, FRCVS, FRS

  Professor J. W. Bridges

  DSc, PhD, MRC Path, CChem, FRSC, CBiol, FIBiol, M Inst Env

  Sci, FIOSH

  Professor J. R. Brown

  BSc, MSc, PhD, FRPharmS, CChem, FRSC, CBiol, FIBiol

  Mr. D. S. Collins

  MVB, CBiol, MIBiol, DVPH(MH), MRCVS

  Dr. A. Cooke

  BSc, PhD, CBiol, MIBiol

  Dr. R. Gaskell

  BVSc, PhD, MRCVS

  Professor G. Gettinby

  BSc, PhD

  Miss K. Gibson

  BVMS, MRCVS

  Dr. R. J. Heitzman

  BSc, PhD

  Dr. M. H. Jepson

  583

  BPharm, MSc, PhD, FRPharmS, MlnstPkg, MIInfSc, MCPP

  Professor G. E. Lamming OBE

  DSc, PhD, MA, BSc, BSc (Agric), FIBiol, NDA BSc, Hon Assoc

  RCVS

  Professor P. Lees

  BPharm, PhD, Hon Assoc RCVS, CBiol, FIBiol, Dr hc (Gent)

  Dr. K. A. Linklater

  BVMS, PhD, FRCVS

  Dr. Q. McKellar

  BVMS, PhD, MRCVS

  Dr. C. J. Powell

  BSc, MSc, PhD, DipRCPath, MRCPath

  Professor R. H. Richards

  BA, MA, VetMB, PhD, MRCVS

  Professor I. K. M. Smith

  MSc, PhD, MRCVS

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to each of the agricultural wages committees (England).

  Mr. Jack
  The following persons are appointed to the agricultural wages committees in England:

  Northern region—Carlisle

  Mr. D. Hill

  The Rev. Cannon R. W. Grayson

  Mr. J. Brandwood

  Mr. C. H. Saunders

  Mr. J. N. Anthony

  North Mercia region—Crewe

  Mrs. J. Bond

  Mr. G. Horey

  Mr. S. W. Martin

  Mr. G. B. Carvell

  North east region—Northallerton

  Mr. I. Potter

  Mr. A. Nilson

  Dr. W. Belfield

  Mrs. M. Law

  Mr. C. Oakley

  East midlands region—Nottingham

  Mr. I. D. McKinnell

  Mr. R. W. Tinn

  Anglia region—Cambridge

  Mr. D. S. King

  Mr. J. R. Leishman

  Mr. K. S. John

  Mr. E. J. Peskett

  Wessex region—Bristol

  Mrs. M. R. Sellers

  South Mercia region—Worcester

  Mr. H. Band

  Mr. S. R. Haswell

  South east region—Reading

  Dr. W. T. Jackson

  Miss P. Thorne

  Mr. H. Pollins

  Mr. A. J. Olson

  South west region—Exeter

  Mr. A. C. Gregson

  Wing Commander G. W. E. Newby

  584
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the agricultural dwelling house advisory committees.

  Mr. Jack
  Agricultural dwelling house advisory committees are not standing committees but are set up as required, with a membership drawn from panels of representative and independent members. The panels of independent members for England are appointed as follows:

  Northern region—Carlisle

  Mr. T. H. Richardson

  The Rev. Cannon R. W. Grayson

  Mr. D. Hill

  Mr. J. Brandwood

  Mr. C. H. Saunders

  Mr. J. N. Anthony

  Anglia region—Cambridge

  Mr. C. Gillot

  Mr. N. J. Mills

  Ms J. I. Firrell

  Mr. E. T. Kirby

  Mr. M. J. Harrison

  Mr. A. F. Felstead

  Mr. K. S. John

  Mr. E. J. Peskett

  Mr. C. J. Barker

  Mr. M. J. Coles

  Mr. P. G. Scates

  Mr. J. L. Fielding

  Mr. D. S. King

  Mr. D. P. Scarle

  Mr. A. W. J. Langford

  Mr. J. R. Leishman

  Wessex region—Bristol

  Mrs. M. R. Sellers

  Mr. G. N. Sellers

  Mr. W. H. Spray

  Mr. G. F. Vincent

  Wing Commander N. Rollin

  South Mercia region—Worcester

  Mr. H. Bank

  Mr. S. R. Haswell

  Mr. A. Druitt

  Mr. C. P. Love

  Mrs. E. M. Milton

  Mr. G. Nicholas

  Mrs. J. Thomas

  South East region—Reading

  Mr. M. R. Alden

  Mr. A. L Rowley

  Mr. B. Brownsey

  Group Captain J. Richardson

  Mr. H. Pollins

  Mr. P. J. Longhurst

  Mr. A. J. Olson

  Ms D. Thornton

  Mr. D. M. Saunders

  Dr. W. T. Jackson

  Mr. A. Basford

  Miss P. Thorne

  Mr. G. B. Miller

  Mr. R. Colling

  Mr. M. G. Lang

  Mrs. E. Slade

  Mr. D. W. A. Stevens

  Mr. A. T. R. Fletcher

  Mr. R. Baden-Smith

  North Mercia region—Crewe

  Mr. R. D. Durrand

  Mr. E. Lloyd

  Mr. G. Horey

  585

  Mr. J. Waterhouse

  Mr. J. M. Darlington

  Mrs. M. M. Carpenter

  Mr. H. Harland

  Mr. S. W. Martin

  Mr. G. V. Covell

  North East region—Northallerton

  Mr. I. Potter

  Mr. I. Nelson

  Dr. W. Belfield

  Mrs. M. Law

  Mr. C. Oakley

  East Midlands region—Nottingham

  Mr. R. J. Arnold

  Mr. B. J. Clayton

  Mr. R. W. Tinn

  Mr. T. A. Twigg

  Mr. A. W. Wilde

  South West region—Exeter

  Mr. A. C. Gregson

  Mrs. S. Weston

  Mr. B. K. Milner

  Mr. P. M. Tresidder

  Mrs. J. Thompson

  Wing Commander S. W. E. Newby

  International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she is taking to allow the United Kingdom through the EC to join the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The European Community applied to join the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna—ICCAT—in the mid-1980's. Since ICCAT's constitution did not allow for regional organisations to become members, an amendment was necessary before the EC's application could be progressed.

  The EC's application has now to be ratified by all the members of ICCAT before it can be accepted. Currently, ratification is still required from two member states; Morocco and Gabon, who have both indicated that they will be ratifying in due course.

  The EC currently holds observer status with ICCAT whilst France, Spain and Portugal are members in their own right.

  Farmers' Early Retirement Scheme
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which EU member states have implemented a farmers' early retirement scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2079/92 the farmers' early retirement scheme is optional for all member states. The following countries have implemented the scheme: France, Ireland and Belgium.

  The United Kingdom, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Luxembourg, Spain and the Netherlands have to date not implemented the EC early retirement scheme. The scheme is not suited to the structure of farming in the United Kingdom and if
  586
  implemented the cost required to come from national resources could be provided only by reducing expenditure on existing United Kingdom programmes.

  Livestock Premium Scheme
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the due payment date for each livestock premium scheme for each year since 1985; what percentage has been paid for each after this date; and what representations she has received on late payment.

  Mr. Jack
  For the suckler cow premium scheme, European Community rules specified payment within 12 months of the opening of the scheme for 1985 to 1988, within 15 months of the opening of the scheme for 1989, and within 20 months of the opening of the scheme for 1990 to 1992. For the 1993 scheme, payments must be completed by 30 June 1994. Nearly all payments are made before the deadline.

  There was no payment due date for the beef variable premium scheme which operated until March 1989. For its successor, the beef special premium scheme, European Community rules required payment to be made within nine months of a claim between 1989 and 1992. For the 1993 scheme, payments must be completed by 30 June 1994. Between 1989 and 1992, less than 0·1 per cent. of claims were paid after the due date. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  European Community regulations specify that sheep annual premium payments must be paid by 15 October—31 December for the 1992 and earlier schemes—of the year following that to which the scheme relates. Nearly all payments are made before the deadline. There is no payment due date for the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme.

  Representations are received from time to time about late or delayed payments. Every effort is made to pay premium as quickly as possible consistent with the need to ensure that applications meet the conditions of the schemes.

  Fish Exporters
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make it her policy to compensate fish exporting merchants and others who suffer financially as a consequence of action by French fishermen; if she will seek compensation from the French Government; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend has been in touch with the French Minister, Mr. Puech, and left him in no doubt that we expect him to ensure that the deplorable behaviour of some French fishermen is brought to an end as soon as possible.

  We have secured the co-operation of the French authorities in providing police protection for fish consignments on arrival in France upon prior notification, via MAFF, of transport plans. A number of consignments have already passed through this system, which remains available to help trade continue.

  We have also secured the French Government's assurance that compensation will be available, from the regional authorities in France, to those who suffer direct losses as a result of acts of vandalism. MAFF officials can advise and assist exporters on the construction of claims.
  587
  It is totally unacceptable that people going about their lawful business should be subjected to violence and intimidation. We shall maintain our pressure on the French authorities to restore normality.

  Sheep Dipping
  Mr Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will now make sheep dipping compulsory; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans to do so.

  Fishing Fleets (Monitoring)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money has been made available by the EU to improve monitoring of fishing fleet activity; and how it will be spent.

  Mr. Jack
  Responsibility for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the common fisheries policy rests with individual member states. Under the terms of Council decision 89/631 EEC the Commission may contribute up to 50 per cent. of the costs of the acquisition or modernisation of capital equipment for use in fisheries enforcement. This scheme runs from 1991 to 1995 and provision is made for expenditure of up to 22 million ECUs in each calendar year. To the end of 1992 a total of 32 million ECUs had been spent.

EDUCATION

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps have been taken during the implementation of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to ensure the continuation and expansion of non-vocational courses for students with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Boswell
  The duties on the Further Education Funding Council and LEAs under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 require them to ensure that adequate further education provision, including non-vocational courses, is available for students with learning difficulties or disabilities. We have promoted, through guidance to the Council and LEAs, the maintenance and development of provision for these students. The Government funds the FEFC to enable it to meet its responsibilities, and the local authority grant settlement takes account of all local authority responsibilities, including provision of non-vocational further education for students with learning difficulties or disabilities.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by his Department(a) in the current financial year and (b) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1993–94, the campaigns listed included newspaper advertising but did not include radio or television advertising:
  588
  The 1993 school testing campaign
  The objective was to advertise the availability of an information leaflet for parents summarising tests and assessments at seven, 11 and 14 in the national curriculum.GM schools campaign The objective is to advertise the availability of publications giving factual information about grant-maintained status.The 1994 school testing campaign The objective is to advertise the availability of an information leaflet for parents which summarises tests at seven, 11 and 14 in the national curriculum.
  The following campaign included both press and radio advertising:

  The Charters for Further Education and Higher Education

  The objective was to publicise the charters to allow as many students, potential students, parents, employers and others to obtain copies.

  All of the above advertising campaigns offered individuals the opportunity to order their own copy of the relevant information leaflet. In each case, providing the public with a mechanism for directly obtaining information was an important objective of the campaign.

  The following campaign did not include advertising:

  The DFE roadshow—A Sound Education

  The roadshow visited a number of venues around the country with the objective of updating parents on the Department's education policies and explaining how they can become more involved in their children's education.

  Campaigns are evaluated by pre- and post-campaign market research into their effectiveness, the number of coupon and telephone responses and the number of leaflets issued.

  Publicity activities for 1994–95 have not yet been decided.

  Capital Programmes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he has given to changing place cost multipliers in assessing capital programme allocations to take into account real costs incurred by local authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  The cost-multipliers used in the calculation of cover for basic need projects are derived from analysis of actual costs incurred by local education authorities through projects to provide new places. They represent a challenging but achievable target.

  My right hon. Friend will consider carefully any representations he receives about changing the means by which cover is provided to meet basic need.

  Examinations
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the extent of anomalies in the published tables of school examination results arising from pupils entering for GCSE a year early; and what proposals he has for rectifying the figures for the overall performance of schools for pupils at the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend is well aware of the arguments concerning the basis on which GCSE information should be presented in school performance tables, and has considered them carefully on several occasions. He continues to believe that the case for publishing data which reflect pupils' achievements before or during the year in which they reach the age of 16 has much to commend it, since it provides a clear and consistent record of results gained by the end of compulsory schooling. He will however shortly be
  589
  consulting about the basis on which the 1994 tables should be published. Final decisions will be taken in the light of that consultation.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement concerning the validity of comparing results in different areas when they are based on examinations of different boards.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Such comparisons should be generally valid since national examinations have built-in safeguards to ensure consistency in examining standards. All GCE A/AS level and GCSE syllabuses must satisfy criteria set by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority—SCAA. GCSE examinations must be conducted in accordance with the code of practice which my right hon. Friend introduced last year. The Office for Standards in Education has reported that the GCSE code has had a beneficial effect on examining and awarding standards at that level in 1993, and my right hon. Friend has now commissioned SCAA to develop a similar code for GCE. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications requires the awarding bodies for general national vocational qualifications to comply with a code of practice on external testing.

  School Governors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he has given to introducing a scheme for payment of loss of earnings for members of school governing bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  No such scheme has been considered. There is little difficulty in recruiting people to school governorship, which is part of the long tradition of unpaid voluntary service in this country.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 933, if he will provide details as to the way in which the £300,000 for research into dyslexia is being spent; and what plans exist for additional spending into the early identification of this condition.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has provided £250,000 for a research project based at Harris city technology college which is examining ways in which information technology can assist dyslexic pupils; and £74,500 for joint research being carried out by the Hereford and Worcester Dyslexia Association and the University of Birmingham into phonological awareness in pre-school children and ways in which teachers can identify and teach children with dyslexia. The latter amount includes £43,500 which the Department has recently agreed to provide to enable the research to continue for a further two years until 1996. The Department is currently considering further requests for funding research into dyslexia.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children are estimated to suffer from dyslexia in England and Wales; what is the trend in numbers; and how the figures are collected.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not collect such statistics.
  590
  The British Dyslexia Association estimates that approximately 300,000 children in England and Wales have dyslexia. There is no discernible trend in the number of children with dyslexia.

SCOTLAND

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times the sites of special scientific interest appeals committee has met; and what decisions have been taken on each occasion.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The advisory committee on sites of special scientific interest has met five times. Those meetings have been used to put in place the procedures under which the committee will consider any cases referred to it by Scottish Natural Heritage. SNH is required to receive and consider the advice of the committee on the matters that have been referred to it. To date no cases have been referred to the committee. A copy of the committee's report for 1992–93 has been placed in the Library.

  Astronomer Royal
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he hopes to reach conclusions about the appointment of an Astronomer Royal for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Advice will be given in due course to Her Majesty the Queen on an appointment to the office of Astronomer Royal for Scotland.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the maximum, (b) the minimum and (c) the average amount paid out under the arable area payments scheme in Scotland in the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: In 1993, the maximum payment made to a Scottish producer under the arable area payments scheme was just over £340,000. The minimum AAPS payment cannot be identified at this time because of the need to update the computer system for recording individual claims under the simplified element of AAPS. The average AAPS payment in Scotland in 1993 was £8,100, although this figure does not take into account the final oil seeds payment due to be paid by the end of March.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of insulin-dependent diabetics in Scotland; and how many of them live alone.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: The number of insulin-dependent diabetics in Scotland is not recorded. However, in 1986 a working group of the National Medical Consultative Committee estimated that there were some 50,000 diabetics in Scotland, and that some 35 per cent. of them were insulin-dependent. On that basis the number of insulin-dependent diabetics in Scotland would be about 17,500, of whom perhaps 25 per cent. live alone.

  Environmental Sponsorship
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests for environmental sponsorship have been received by Scottish Natural Heritage; and if he will list those granted and those rejected.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: Details of grants made in 1992–93 will be given in SNH's annual report for that year which will be published later this month.

  Holyrood House
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what accommodation is designated for members of the royal family excluding Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Phillip at Holyrood house; what accommodation is available for their staff; and how costs are allocated between the occupants and his Department.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend is responsible for the entire cost of the maintenance of the fabric of the palace, for security and for the cost of utilities such as fuel and telephones. All other costs are met by the royal household, which is also responsible for the allocation of accommodation within the palace. I understand that no accommodation is allocated to any particular member of the royal family.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit the west Dykebar area of Paisley to discuss with residents the provision of local government services.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the west Dykebar area. The hon. Member will, of course, have the opportunity to raise the issue of the provision of local government services in west Dykebar and other parts of Scotland during the passage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.

  Local Authorities (Applicants)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to make regulations governing the vetting of qualifications, claimed by applicants to senior and promoted posts in local government; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the arrangements made by local authorities to vet the qualifications of applicants for professional posts in local government; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what advice he has given to local authorities on the vetting of professional qualifications claimed by applicants for promoted posts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: It is for local authorities, as independent corporate bodies, responsible for the appointment of staff, to arrange to vet the qualifications of job applicants as they consider necessary. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has no locus in this matter.

  After School Care Initiative
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was given to each local enterprise council in 1993–94 for the after school care initiative; and what is the estimated outturn expenditure by each LEC in 1993–94 in that area of activity.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The allocation of resources to the local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of those bodies to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Scottish Arts Council
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations or individuals in receipt of awards from the Scottish Arts Council; if he will give details of the funding of the Scottish Arts Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, will assume responsibility for the Scottish Arts Council from my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, on 1 April 1994. The Scottish Arts Council's annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library, list the organisations and individuals in receipt of Scottish Arts Council funding. Subject to Parliamentary approvals, funding for the Scottish Arts Council in 1994–95 will be £23·777 million.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many properties have been sold by Scottish Homes in the parliamentary constituency of Cunninghame, South during each of the last five years; and how much money has been raised from these sales;

  (2) how many Scottish Homes properties there are in each of the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland; and what is the current valuation of the Scottish Homes' properties in each.

  Lord James Dougas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Training
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scottish Office and European Community money has been spent on training(a) unemployed youths aged 16 to 18 years, (b) 18 to 24 years and (c) the long-term unemployed in the parliamentary constituency of

  593
  Greenock and Port Glasgow; how many such trainees subsequently found employment; and which organisations were so financed to (i) commission and (ii) conduct the training programme in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: Responsibility for the delivery of Government training programmes in Scotland was transferred from the training agency to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in April 1991. The information on expenditure requested by the hon. Member is not available at parliamentary constituency level.

  Old Royal High School
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to put the former Crown Office building, the Old Royal high school in Edinburgh on the market.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Detailed consideration has been given to the future use of the Old Royal high school in conjunction with the Scottish Office and the House authorities. An announcement on that will be made shortly.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science and Engineering
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what initiatives he is taking to promote a greater interest by young people in science and engineering.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of encouraging young people to take an interest in science and engineering. This campaign which I launched last month includes a range of activities aimed at young people. In particular, the Office of Science and Technology is providing grants of £150,000 for projects involving school children.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many scientists and engineers there are employed in Britain in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the work force; and what is the average for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. David Davis
  The spring 1993 labour force survey indicated that of just over 24 million employees, just over 1·5 million, or 6·7 per cent., held a higher education qualification in a science, engineering or technological subject. According to OECD figures, which are based on 25 to 34-year-olds only, in 1991 there were about 770 science and engineering graduates per 100,000 of the United Kingdom labour force. This compares with a mean for the OECD of 633 per 100,000.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the costs of the citizens charter, to the latest possible date.

  Mr. David Davies
  The citizens charter applies to all public services, and this is reflected in their individual expenditure programmes. Centrally, the cost of the charter unit between the inception of the citizens charter and 31 December 1993 was £6,870,549.
  594
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to make the citizens charter justiciable.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The strength of the citizens charter lies in raising the standard of public services. We have no plans to make it legally enforceable. However, where necessary, specific charter provisions are backed by legislation.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has had from staff organisations regarding his plans to introduce changes to the civil service.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government keep in touch with the civil service unions on key issues as they arise.

  Science White Paper
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he has received from industrialists and academics for the technology foresight proposals set out in the science White Paper.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Industrialists and academics have welcomed the technology foresight proposals set out in the White Paper. Well over 3,000 individuals, representing companies, academic institutions, Government Departments and other organisations have been consulted.

  Research Programmes
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research programmes he has authorised directly connected to his Government's commitments at the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The research councils already make a major contribution to the strategic areas addressed by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development through established and developing research programme, which are reviewed annually. The Government's commitments post-Rio did not include an undertaking to commission new research programmes in any particular area.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil service posts have now been included in executive agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Over 346,000 civil servants, 60 per cent. of the total, are now working in 91 executive agencies and other organisations operating on next steps lines. Functions covering over a further 88,000 civil servants are under consideration for agency status.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he has given to the establishment of a national register of members of appointed public bodies and authorities; and if he will make a statement.
  595
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government have no proposal to establish a United Kingdom-wide register of members of appointed public bodies and authorities. It is normal practice for the names of members of public bodies to appear in the individual body's annual report. Public bodies should always be ready to provide a list of their membership and the organisation's postal address at which members may be contacted.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what requirements are made in respect of members and appointed public bodies and authorities as to the availability to the public to their names, addresses, telephone numbers, occupations, political affiliations and financial interests.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Because of the diversity in the nature and functions of these bodies, there are no general requirements. "Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs): A Guide to Departments" states that Departments are responsible for ensuring that appropriate rules of conduct are brought to the attention of candidates for membership; that the legislation founding NDPBs with trading or other financial objectives should include safeguards against conflicts of financial interest; that Departments considering restrictions on business appointments by NDPB board members should seek legal advice; and that members of NDPBs are expected to follow the long-standing rules on participation in political activities. For those bodies which are not NDPBs, Departments are expected to make separate provisions.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The current members of the Natural Environment Research Council are:

  Mr. R. Malpas, CBE, FEng (Chairman)

  Dr. Eileen Buttle (Acting Chief Executive)

  Professor J. R. L. Allen, FRS

  Professor G. S. Boulton, FRS

  Dr. P. J. Bunyan

  Dr. M. J. Carter

  Professor W. G. Chaloner, FRS

  Lord Chorley

  Dr. D. J. Fisk

  Dr. I. J. Graham-Bryce

  Mr. E. R. Hassall

  Professor M. P. Hassell, FRS

  Professor B. J. Hoskins, FRS

  Professor H. E. Huppert, FRS

  Professor P. S. Liss

  Dr. R. J. Pentreath

  Professor D. A. Ritchie, FRSE

  Dr. G. W. Robinson

  Professor J. I. Sprent, FRSE

  Professor S. A. Thorpe, FRS

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Board for Research Councils.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Advisory Board for the Research Councils was abolished on 31 December 1993.

  Roads
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 698, how may private citizens obtain information relating to local authorities cost-benefit analysis calculations in respect of local highway schemes.
  596
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Private citizens should write to the director of transport within the relevant local authority.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what provisions of the citizens charter assist private citizens wishing to ascertain the background assumptions and method of calculation for cost-benefit analysis prepared by local authorities in respect of local road schemes.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no such provisions within the citizens charter. However, local authorities have discretion to disclose what information they see fit. There are also statutory requirements within the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 which requires local authorities to provide members of the public with information of this type.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 698, regarding cost-benefit analysis carried out by local authorities in respect of bypass schemes, what powers he has to compel local authorities to disclose this information to citizens.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Ministers do not have such powers over local authorities.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those covered by personal pensions at the rebate-only level are entitled only to the minimum benefits needed to contract out of state earnings-related pensions.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) on 30 November 1993 at column 433.

  National Insurance Rebate
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions on the reconsideration of the national insurance rebate for those contracted out of state earnings-related pensions and in particular the possibility of changing an age-related rebate.

  Mr. Hague
  The Government are committed to considering options for a new system of rebates related to age for personal pension holders and possibly other contracted-out schemes. A consultation exercise was conducted between 10 December 1993 and 15 January 1994. We are now considering the responses received.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps the Chancellor has taken to promote the citizens charter in respect of the Child Support Agency and discrimination against men.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency is committed to the principles of public service set out in the citizens charter. This commitment is underpinned by its own client charter, published in April 1993 at the agency's launch.
  597
  The agency's charter sets out the standards of service that clients using its services are entitled to expect, and is freely available from agency offices. A leaflet explaining these standards is sent out automatically with every child support maintenance application or enquiry pack.

  A basic principle of the Child Support Act is that parents should provide financial support for their children whenever they can afford to do so, whatever their relationship may be with each other. Child maintenance is calculated using a formula which assesses the ability of both parents to contribute towards the upkeep of their children, irrespective of which parent has day-to-day care of them.

  Income Support
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to monitor the circumstances of income support claimants resident in care or nursing homes to ensure that the placement being funded is appropriate to their particular circumstances.

  Mr. Burt
  Under the community care scheme people who need financial help to enter residential care or nursing homes have their care needs assessed by their local authority who are also responsible for placement and funding. Responsibility for monitoring the new scheme rests with the Department of Health.

  For claimants with preserved rights to the special limits of income support payment is made depending on the registration category of the home.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people eligible for income support disability premium on the grounds of incapacity, but not receiving severe disablement allowance or incapacity benefit, will be eligible from April 1995 for payment of that premium from the 53rd week of incapacity.

  Mr. Burt
  From April 1995, for those who have no other means of entitlement to the disability premium, the period of incapacity needed to qualify will be 52 weeks.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people eligible for income support disability premium only by reason of receipt of severe disablement allowance will be entitled from April 1995 to payment of the premium from the 53rd week of incapacity.

  Mr. Burt
  Severe disablement allowance will continue to be payable after 28 weeks incapacity, and receipt of severe disablement allowance will continue to bring entitlement to the disability premium.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people claiming the income support disability premium on grounds of incapacity, but not in receipt of severe disablement allowance or incapacity benefit, will undergo the new incapacity test after the first 28 weeks of incapacity.

  Mr. Burt
  People receiving income support because of their incapacity will be expected to undergo the new incapacity test in the same way as anyone else who is claiming a social security benefit on the basis of being incapable of work.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were taken off invalidity benefit in Fife in 1993 and in(a) the first three months and (b) the last three months of 1993.

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

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if existing claimants of invalidity benefit who pass the new incapacity test will continue to receive benefit at the rate of their previous invalidity benefit if(a) they start therapuetic work, (b) they start voluntary work, (c) they go abroad for fewer than eight weeks or (d) they go into hospital for fewer than eight weeks.

  Mr. Scott
  Existing claimants of invalidity benefit whose incapacity benefit is paid at their previous rate of invalidity benefit will continue to be entitled to incapacity benefit at that rate for as long as their period of incapacity for work continues unless an adult dependency increase ceases to be payable for more than eight weeks. In this case the new rules governing that increase will then apply.

  Benefit would continue at the invalidity benefit rate for people who start working and satisfy the new therapeutic work rules or voluntary work rules. It would also continue for a period abroad of less than eight weeks, except in some exceptional circumstances when payment may cease. Where a person is in hospital for a period in excess of six weeks the normal hospital downrating rules will apply. At the end of that period in hospital, or a period of less than eight weeks abroad, the previous rate of benefit would again apply.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if existing claimants of invalidity benefit who pass the new incapacity test will continue to receive the same level of allowances for adult and child dependants as their previous invalidity benefit; and under what circumstances these allowances could be reduced or lost.

  Mr. Scott
  The replacement of invalidity benefit by incapacity benefit will make no difference to provision for child dependants for those people on invalidity benefit at the point of change. The rules on adult dependants will change but all those transferring from invalidity benefit will be protected, including those who are required to satisfy the new incapacity test. The Government propose, however, that the new rules should apply if an adult dependency increase ceases to be paid for more than eight weeks, or two years in the case of people who receive disability working allowance or undertake training for work.

  Disability Premium
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated saving to his Department from delaying entitlement to the disability premium in(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Benefit

  1995–96

  1996–97

  £ million

  £ million

  Income Support

  20

  25

  Housing Benefit

  *

  *

  Council Tax Benefit

  *

  *

  599

  Benefit

  1995–96

  1996–97

  £ million

  £ million

  Total

  20

  25

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are expressed in constant 1993–94 prices and are rounded to the nearest £5 million. "*" denotes savings of less than £2·5 million.

  2. Estimates show the savings that would arise if the policy of extending the qualifying period for the disability premium paid with the income-related benefits were introduced in isolation.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the value of the Christmas bonus in the next financial year if it had increased in line with(a) prices and (b) earnings since 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  Value of Christmas bonus in 1994–95 if increased in line with prices—£22·35. Value of Christmas bonus in 1994–95 if increased in line with earnings—£32·00.

  Notes:

  1. Prices revaluation based on movement in the Retail Prices Index.

  2. Earnings revaluation based on movement in the New Series Index (Whole Economy) Unadjusted.

  3. Amounts rounded to the nearest 5p at each uprating.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the length of the qualifying period of incapacity for severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  None.

  Station closures—including non attributable causes between 3 January 1993 and 1 January 1994

  Period

  Line

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Total

  (a) Closures over 20 minutes

  Bakerloo

  7

  11

  6

  7

  10

  8

  8

  15

  13

  5

  4

  6

  12

  112

  Central

  24

  21

  30

  22

  29

  19

  34

  22

  27

  21

  26

  57

  43

  375

  Circle/H&C

  12

  14

  0

  2

  2

  1

  2

  3

  6

  1

  12

  0

  6

  61

  District

  7

  16

  10

  11

  5

  6

  4

  1

  6

  9

  15

  9

  9

  108

  Jubille/Ell

  2

  7

  9

  5

  13

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1

  4

  5

  5

  58

  Metropolitan

  13

  22

  29

  17

  8

  10

  9

  3

  9

  10

  10

  15

  5

  160

  Northern

  17

  23

  15

  20

  7

  14

  14

  12

  20

  5

  13

  21

  53

  234

  Piccadilly

  15

  25

  16

  1

  12

  12

  4

  7

  12

  13

  6

  6

  10

  139

  Victoria

  4

  9

  10

  9

  9

  14

  3

  8

  3

  1

  11

  10

  6

  97

  Total

  101

  148

  125

  94

  95

  85

  79

  73

  99

  66

  101

  129

  149

  1,344

  (b) Closures over 1 hour

  Bakerloo

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  2

  3

  3

  7

  1

  3

  0

  1

  1

  22

  Central

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  9

  9

  6

  0

  5

  1

  2

  8

  1

  48

  Circle/H&C

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  District

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  5

  Jubilee/Ell

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  6

  Metropolitan

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Northern

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  2

  3

  3

  5

  2

  0

  2

  3

  0

  23

  Piccadilly

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  7

  Victoria

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  6

  Total

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  16

  18

  17

  14

  14

  9

  6

  6

  17

  4

  121

  Notes:

  1. Data is not available for the length of time of each individual station closure.

  2. Data on one hour closures has only been collected since the beginning of this financial year.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will answer the questions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton tabled for answer on 27 January regarding the appointments he makes to public bodies.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 9 February 1994 at column 364–65, 10 February 1994 at column 392–93, and 11 February 1994 at column 497–98.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing for each London underground station and line, for the period January to December 1993, the number and length of station closures(a) exceeding 20 minutes during usual period for passenger travel, (b) exceeding one hour during usual period for passenger travel, (c) exceeding one day, (d) exceeding one week and (e) exceeding one month; which stations closed during the above period have yet to be re-opened; when each closed station will re-open; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  None of this information is held by the Department on a station-by-station basis. Line-by-line data for closures over 20 minutes and one hour are shown on the table. Longer station closures over the period in question have included Cannons Park station—closed between 9 August 1993 and 13 September 1993—Mornington Crescent station—closed since 24 October 1992—and a number of stations on the Central line which were open for ticket issue only between 24 and 29 November 1993.
  601
  3. Period 11 commenced on 3 January 1993; each period is 4 weeks long.

  H&C=Hammersmith & city; Ell=East London line.

  Source: London Underground Limited.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing for each London underground station and line, for the past 12 months and as a total over the same period, the number of fire and smoke incidents.

  London Underground: Fire and Smoke incidents between 3 January 1993 and 1 January 1994

  Period

  Line

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Total

  Category A

  Bakerloo

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  11

  Central

  0

  2

  4

  1

  5

  2

  4

  5

  2

  3

  0

  3

  1

  32

  Circle/H&C

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  District

  2

  5

  5

  3

  2

  7

  4

  0

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  33

  Jubilee/Ell

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  5

  3

  0

  0

  1

  13

  Metropolitan

  0

  0

  3

  1

  3

  5

  4

  4

  5

  1

  1

  2

  1

  30

  Northern

  2

  2

  1

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  16

  Piccadilly

  0

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Victoria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  5

  Total

  5

  11

  17

  14

  17

  19

  16

  11

  15

  11

  5

  8

  6

  155

  Category B

  Bakerloo

  2

  0

  2

  3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  4

  1

  3

  1

  18

  Central

  8

  9

  5

  8

  9

  8

  11

  4

  9

  7

  3

  2

  6

  89

  Circle/H&C

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  2

  1

  13

  District

  1

  5

  6

  6

  2

  8

  1

  3

  5

  2

  3

  2

  4

  48

  Jubilee/Ell

  1

  1

  3

  3

  4

  2

  2

  0

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  23

  Metropolitan

  4

  3

  7

  2

  6

  7

  6

  7

  4

  2

  5

  7

  2

  62

  Northern

  4

  1

  6

  5

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  3

  2

  1

  33

  Piccadilly

  4

  4

  1

  0

  3

  1

  1

  0

  2

  5

  2

  1

  3

  27

  Victoria

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  8

  Total

  26

  25

  32

  27

  27

  32

  24

  16

  25

  28

  19

  20

  20

  321

  Overall Total (A and B)

  31

  36

  49

  41

  44

  51

  40

  27

  40

  39

  24

  28

  26

  476

  Notes:

  1. Category A incidents are where the presence of LFCDA or other fire brigade is required; Category B incidents are those dealt with by London Underground staff themselves.

  2. Period 11 commenced on 3 January 1993; each period is 4 weeks long.

  3. H&C=Hammersmith & city.

  4. ELL=East London Line.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing for each London underground station and line, for each of the past

  London underground lost time injuries between 3 January 1993 and 1 January 1994

  Period

  Line

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Total

  Bakerloo

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  3

  6

  7

  3

  6

  5

  3

  5

  50

  Central

  7

  5

  4

  5

  9

  6

  5

  9

  9

  8

  6

  7

  4

  84

  Circle/H&C

  0

  1

  2

  2

  4

  0

  5

  1

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  22

  District

  5

  8

  2

  2

  8

  3

  8

  3

  5

  6

  3

  6

  3

  62

  Jubilee/ELL

  1

  1

  1

  4

  2

  1

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  18

  Metropolitan

  3

  4

  2

  4

  3

  3

  5

  5

  2

  3

  5

  1

  4

  44

  Northern

  8

  6

  4

  11

  6

  17

  3

  5

  7

  5

  15

  9

  9

  105

  Piccadilly

  3

  3

  3

  5

  2

  1

  2

  5

  6

  8

  4

  7

  3

  52

  Victoria

  5

  5

  6

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  7

  3

  2

  0

  2

  34

  Total

  34

  36

  26

  37

  36

  36

  35

  37

  43

  41

  41

  36

  33

  471

  Note

  Period 11 commenced on 3 January 1993; each period is 4 weeks long.
  602
  Mr. Norris
  Figures on a line-by-line basis are shown in the table. The Department does not hold this data on a station-by-station basis.

  12 months and as a total over the same period, the number of employee lost time injuries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Figures on a line-by-line basis are shown in the table. The Department does not hold this data on a station-by-station basis.
  603

  London Underground
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a table showing for each London underground station and line, for each of the past 12 months and as a total over the same period, the number of non-violent crimes broken down into(a) theft from the person, (b) theft from the vehicle and (c) sexual offences; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing for each London underground station and line, for each of the past 12 months and as a total over the same period, the number of violent crimes broken down into (a) assault and (b) robbery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not hold this information in exactly the form requested. The table breaks

  Percentage of escalators out of service between 3 January 1993 and 1 January 1994

  Period

  Line

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Average

  Bakerloo

  4·2

  4·3

  4·2

  6·7

  10·5

  7·9

  8·6

  6·5

  5·6

  3·7

  3·9

  6·0

  3·9

  5·8

  Central

  12·4

  13·2

  10·8

  13·1

  1·6

  14·8

  13·7

  13·0

  12·4

  10·3

  9·1

  10·4

  7·9

  11·0

  Circle/H&C

  50·0

  50·0

  32·5

  10·8

  0·0

  8·7

  28·7

  1·2

  5·3

  0·0

  1·2

  3·7

  0·0

  14·8

  District

  3·9

  2·3

  0·7

  2·4

  6·6

  5·1

  3·2

  1·2

  9·3

  5·2

  6·3

  7·0

  5·3

  4·5

  Jubilee/ELL

  1·2

  5·4

  11·6

  2·2

  1·8

  3·1

  0·8

  9·6

  6·6

  6·2

  11·2

  0·4

  14·8

  5·8

  Metropolitan

  10·4

  7·8

  6·0

  3·6

  5·2

  9·8

  6·2

  7·4

  7·9

  7·6

  7·1

  0·3

  0·3

  6·1

  Northern

  11·8

  16·7

  14·3

  12·6

  13·9

  17·0

  16·1

  12·3

  11·0

  9·8

  10·3

  7·1

  7·8

  12·4

  Piccadilly

  14·0

  16·0

  17·6

  17·3

  16·2

  16·4

  18·2

  17·7

  14·0

  14·1

  15·0

  14·4

  12·9

  15·7

  Victoria

  11·0

  14·0

  12·6

  14·4

  14·7

  9·9

  7·5

  5·5

  1·0

  3·8

  3·5

  3·4

  4·8

  8·2

  Notes:

  1. Figures show the percentages of scheduled escalator hours out of service. Each four week period contains 80 peak hours.

  2. Period 11 commenced on 3 January 1993; each period is 4 weeks long.

  3. H&C=Hammersmith & City; ELL=East London line.

  Source: London Underground Limited.

  London Underground: Crime figures 1993

  Line and type of crime

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Bakerloo

  Crimes of violence

  1

  3

  3

  3

  2

  4

  3

  5

  6

  5

  2

  6

  43

  Robbery

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  0

  3

  2

  1

  5

  2

  4

  33

  Other offences

  59

  53

  55

  63

  57

  66

  61

  50

  47

  58

  54

  46

  669

  Central

  Crimes of violence

  3

  7

  4

  8

  4

  5

  7

  11

  11

  5

  4

  7

  76

  Robbery

  7

  3

  5

  6

  4

  7

  2

  6

  2

  2

  2

  6

  52

  Other offences

  202

  155

  221

  195

  224

  220

  236

  182

  168

  173

  250

  179

  2,405

  Circle/H&C

  Crimes of violence

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  3

  14

  Robbery

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  1

  0

  2

  0

  9

  Other offences

  24

  19

  35

  22

  30

  37

  23

  28

  21

  17

  42

  27

  325

  District Line

  Crimes of violence

  8

  3

  10

  7

  10

  8

  8

  13

  6

  6

  3

  7

  89

  Robbery

  9

  6

  3

  6

  9

  4

  10

  7

  2

  8

  2

  3

  69

  Other offences

  125

  108

  141

  159

  190

  163

  134

  128

  92

  155

  123

  130

  1,648

  Jubilee/ELL

  Crimes of violence

  1

  3

  1

  4

  5

  1

  3

  2

  4

  1

  1

  5

  31

  Robbery

  0

  1

  0

  0

  5

  1

  3

  4

  6

  2

  2

  3

  27

  Other offences

  34

  37

  37

  42

  41

  29

  33

  36

  39

  32

  26

  27

  413

  Metropolitan

  Crimes of violence

  7

  4

  2

  7

  6

  5

  2

  3

  4

  9

  3

  4

  56

  Robbery

  5

  5

  2

  4

  4

  4

  6

  10

  5

  6

  6

  3

  60

  Other offences

  110

  87

  95

  94

  125

  110

  108

  111

  91

  93

  93

  82

  1,199

  Northern

  Crimes of violence

  10

  9

  9

  12

  12

  13

  8

  15

  6

  4

  9

  18

  125

  Robbery

  8

  19

  11

  7

  8

  16

  6

  11

  10

  8

  10

  5

  119

  Other offences

  197

  174

  209

  193

  189

  176

  161

  140

  104

  129

  174

  126

  1,972

  604
  down the 1993 crime figures on a line-by-line basis between crimes of violence—including assaults—robbery and other crimes.

  London Underground
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing for each London underground line, for each of the past 12 months and as a total over the same period, the number and percentage of escalators out of service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available in exactly the form requested. The table shows the percentage of escalators which were not in customer service throughout each peak hour—morning and evening—between January and December 1993.
  605

  Line and type of crime

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Piccadilly

  Crimes of violence

  9

  9

  8

  4

  5

  3

  7

  8

  10

  13

  7

  15

  98

  Robbery

  4

  6

  2

  10

  13

  3

  8

  8

  2

  3

  10

  5

  74

  Other offences

  316

  290

  327

  310

  307

  249

  239

  245

  182

  291

  347

  251

  3,354

  Victoria

  Crimes of violence

  7

  10

  8

  1

  6

  5

  5

  8

  7

  5

  4

  6

  72

  Robbery

  9

  3

  1

  6

  3

  1

  4

  7

  2

  2

  9

  2

  49

  Other offences

  100

  99

  126

  114

  84

  129

  136

  88

  80

  87

  107

  83

  1,233

  Total

  1,260

  1,117

  1,319

  1,282

  1,346

  1,262

  1,216

  1,131

  910

  1,120

  1,298

  1,053

  14,314

  Notes:

  1. H&C = Hammersmith & City Line.

  2. ELL = East London Line.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing for each London underground station and line, for each of the past 12 months and as a total over the same period, the number of major customer injuries, broken down into(a) accident,

  London underground: major customer injuries between 3 January 1993 and 1 January 1994

  Line

  Period

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Total

  (A) Accidental

  Bakerloo

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Central

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Circle/H&C

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  District

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  7

  Jubilee/Ell

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Metropolitan

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  10

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Piccadilly

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Victoria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Total

  6

  2

  5

  5

  6

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  3

  4

  36

  (B) Crime-Related

  Bakerloo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Circle/H&C

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  District

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Jubilee/Ell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Metropolitan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Northern

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Piccadilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Victoria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Total

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  5

  (c) Suspected suicide

  Bakerloo

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Central

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Circle/H&C

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  District

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Jubilee/Ell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Northern

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —.

  1

  —

  —

  5

  Piccadilly

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Victoria

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Total

  4

  1

  2

  1

  1

  4

  2

  2

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1

  23

  606
  (b) crime related, (c) suspected suicide, (d) reckless behaviour and (e) medical condition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Figures on a line-by-line basis are shown in the table. The Department does not hold this data on a station-by-station basis.
  607

  Period

  Line

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Total

  (D) Reckless behaviour

  Bakerloo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Circle/H&C

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  District

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Jubilee/Ell

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Metropolitan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Northern

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Piccadilly

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Victoria

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Total

  2

  1

  2

  1

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  11

  (E) Medical condition

  Bakerloo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Central

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Circle/H&C

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  District

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  10

  Jubilee/Ell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Metropolitan

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Northern

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  6

  Piccadilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  Victoria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  5

  1

  0

  1

  5

  1

  1

  2

  4

  2

  1

  3

  2

  28

  Overall Total

  17

  5

  10

  8

  12

  7

  4

  5

  9

  4

  6

  7

  9

  103

  Note:

  Period 11 commenced on 3 January 1993; each period is 4 weeks long.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing for each London underground station and line, for the past 12 months and as a total over the same period, the number and length of incidents, including cancellations, which resulted in a headway of more than 20 minutes.

  Train service incidents resulting in a headway of more than 20 minutes—including non-attributable causes between 3 January 1993 and 1 January 1994

  Line

  Period

  Total

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Bakerloo

  15

  22

  16

  13

  8

  9

  13

  15

  8

  15

  17

  12

  12

  175

  Central

  40

  27

  61

  33

  35

  37

  35

  26

  32

  28

  29

  49

  36

  468

  Circle/Hammersmith and City

  15

  28

  19

  9

  6

  5

  6

  7

  5

  6

  11

  9

  11

  137

  District

  21

  27

  19

  17

  15

  21

  20

  8

  12

  9

  21

  21

  11

  222

  Jubilee/East London Line

  10

  27

  20

  13

  15

  10

  7

  3

  9

  5

  6

  8

  4

  137

  Metropolitan

  32

  36

  36

  26

  22

  26

  26

  22

  24

  22

  28

  34

  20

  354

  Northern

  13

  26

  23

  17

  10

  11

  17

  14

  12

  18

  20

  22

  15

  218

  Piccadilly

  15

  25

  18

  5

  14

  11

  10

  14

  20

  13

  15

  8

  19

  187

  Victoria

  3

  11

  8

  8

  7

  9

  5

  8

  4

  5

  10

  17

  9

  104

  Total

  164

  229

  220

  141

  132

  139

  139

  117

  126

  121

  157

  180

  137

  2,002

  Notes:

  1. Headway is the timed interval between trains.

  2. Period 11 commenced on 3 January 1993; each period is four weeks long.

  Source: London Underground Limited.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if franchise agreements for shared rail routes following privatisation will require mandatory inter-availability and common pricing for(a) full fare standard, (b) first class and (c) discounted tickets.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is our intention to include the following paragraph in the Secretary of State's formal guidance to the franchising director:
  608
  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not hold information about headways on a station-by-station basis, or details on the specific length of incidents, including cancellations, which have resulted in a headway of more than 20 minutes. Line-by-line data showing the number of headways over 20 minutes are shown in the table.

  "In considering the need for tickets to be inter-available between franchisees, you should consider whether the benefits outweigh the likely benefits of price competition and service diversity. You should encourage appropriate arrangements for co-operation between operators on the pricing of tickets and apportionment of revenues."

  In many cases, private operators will make arrangements to ensure that ticket inter-availability continues because it will be in their own interests to do so. However, the franchising director has said that he expects inter-availability normally to be a requirement of franchise agreements for season and full-fare standard and first class tickets on routes over which two or more franchisees operate. At the same time, there would be freedom for

  609
  operators to introduce differential pricing and validity restrictions on discounted tickets in order to attract customers to their particular services.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he was first made aware by Eurotunnel that commencement of freight and passengers services through the channel tunnel would be delayed beyond 7 March and 6 May; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information was supplied to him by Eurotunnel about possible delays in opening the tunnel by its published deadlines of 7 March for freight and 6 May for passengers, before he agreed to extend the channel tunnel concession period for a further 10 years; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list the commissioning programmes and commissioning tests which have to be repeated or rescheduled before opening of the channel tunnel can take place; what information Eurotunnel has supplied to him about the likely additional time which will be needed for commissioning locomotives; what plans he has to meet with Eurotunnel to discuss the further delays in opening of the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The probability of delay became clear at meetings between United Kingdom and French officials and Eurotunnel in January. Those contacts are continuing to cover the timing and content of outstanding commissioning tests for fixed equipment and rolling stock. Public statements about the programme can have commercial importance and financial consequences, and I think it should continue to be for Eurotunnel to make them.

  Trains, Glasgow
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a list of all correspondence between his Department and(a) Strathclyde passenger transport executive and (c) Lombard Tricity Finance regarding operational leasing for new trains in the Glasgow commuter network area; what assessment he has made of the implications of local government organisation for the immediate future of such operational leasing deals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish a list of all meetings held by Ministers or officials in his Department with Ministers or officials in any other Government Departments regarding operational leasing for new trains in the Glasgow commuter network area, giving (a) the dates of each meeting, (b) a full list of those attending and (c) the outcome of each meeting; whether any further such meetings are planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been no exchanges of correspondence between the Department and(a) Strathclyde passenger transport executive and (b) Lombard North Central about the Strathclyde rolling stock leasing deal. I wrote to Councillor Waugh on 5 November saying that I was aware of nothing in the Government's proposals for local government reform in Scotland that would alter the Accounts Commission's view that it would be in order for the regional council to conclude the leasing deal.

  My officials and I attended meetings in November and December 1993 with Scottish Office Ministers and officials, present at which were representatives of Strathclyde region and Strathclyde passenger transport
  610
  executive. These meetings discussed a range of issues including the leasing deal and concluded that that issue was primarily a matter for the local authority to resolve. A further meeting is planned for later this month at which representatives of Lombard North Central will be present.

  Probationary Drivers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce a "P" sign for probationary drivers.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 9 February by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend, the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) at column 270.

  British Rail
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has held with British Rail concerning the operation and funding of the Barking to Gospel Oak line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly have meetings with British Rail management. None has been held specifically to discuss the Barking to Gospel Oak line.

  Commuter Car Traffic
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average volume of commuter car traffic entering(a) Greater London and (b) central London per day for each of the last 10 years; and what are his predictions for the next five years.

  Mr. Norris
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Cars entering London daily between 7 am and 10 am

  Thousands

  London boundary cordon

  Central London cordon

  1983

  231

  1—

  1985

  1—

  127

  1986

  235

  1—

  1987

  1—

  123

  1989

  249

  127

  1991

  1—

  123

  1992

  259

  1—

  1 Not available.

  No predictions have been made of traffic five years ahead but over the longer term growth is expected to continue broadly in line with previous trends. This would give an increase of around one per cent. a year in the number of cars entering Greater London during the morning peak but no change in the number entering central London.

  M25
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost per mile at 1994 prices of the construction of the M25; and what will be the cost at 1994 prices of the construction of a widened M25.

  Mr. Key
  The cost of building the M25 was nearly £1,000 million which gives a price of approimately £6·85 million per mile. The price base in 1986 when the M25 was
  611
  completed, was similar to the current level according to the road construction price index. Using current prices the estimated cost of widening the M25 to four lanes is £7·59 million per mile. The estimated costs of the link roads proposed between junctions 12 and 16 work out at £15·45 million per mile. Proposals for other sections considered to need capacity beyond dual four-lane carriageways have not been assessed in sufficient detail to give comparative figures.

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

  Mr. Key
  The plans for the further development of the M25 were announced by my right hon. Friend last July. Subject to anything that might emerge from the review of the national road programme, I have no reason to reconsider that strategy.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many visits abroad the Minister of State for Public Transport made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Freeman
  I made four trips abroad during 1993.

  Place and purpose

  Cost (£)

  Bonn/Berlin

  To meet the German Transport Ministry and Deutsches Bundesbahn for discussions on Rail Privatisation in Germany and to promote British Railway supply industry in Germany

  826·97

  Paris

  To meet the French Transport Ministry for discussions on Channel Tunnel security issues and to visit GEC'S factory in Ayte to review progress on Eurostar trains

  320·20

  China

  To meet Chinese Ministry officials for discussions on railway issues

  1268,000

  Paris

  To meet the French Transport Ministry for discussions on Channel Tunnel security issues

  242·00

  1 Engagement undertaken during private holiday.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many visits abroad the Minister for Transport in London made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Norris
  I made five trips abroad during 1993.

  Place and purpose

  Cost(£)

  Chicago

  To study parking enforcement and adjudication systems

  1,274·12

  Paris

  To attend the Paris Air Show

  813·89

  Brazil

  To deliver a paper and chair a session on alcohol, drugs and traffic safety as part of the annual conference of the International Disciplinary Group of Studies on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence

  3,099·58

  612

  Place and purpose

  Cost (£)

  Berlin

  To address Initiative Haupstadt's Capital Club, on traffic problems and solutions in London

  438·40

  Hong Kong/Singapore

  To study public transport operations and congestion charging systems

  5,029·57

  Belfast International Airport
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what broad criteria his Department requires operators to meet when applying for a licence to operate services out of Belfast international airport; what applications he has received to run(a) transatlantic routes and (b) other routes from Aldergrove; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The criteria for the grant of an operating licence are laid down in EC Council Regulation 2407/92. The criteria relate principally to the adequacy of financial resources, fitness and insurance. In addition holders of operating licences must be majority owned and effectively controlled by EC member states or their nationals.

  Holders of EC operating licences do not need formal permission to operate scheduled or charter services within the EC provided that traffic rights are available under Council Regulation 2408/92. Carriers planning scheduled services outside those allowed by EC regulations will in most cases need to be formally designated by their authorities under the relevant bilaterial air services agreements.

  The Secretary of State for Transport gave exceptional permission outside the terms of the United Kingdom/ United States air services agreement in April 1993 for American Trans Air to operate services between New York and Belfast, to enable Northern Ireland to have direct services to the United States which until then it did not have. The Department currently has a further application from American Trans Air for permission to operate fifth freedom services between Belfast and Riga.

  Within Europe, the Civil Aviation Authority is considering two licence applications for services from Belfast international to the Isle of Man and Reykjavik respectively.

  Stansted Airport
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last visited London Stansted airport.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I last visited London Stansted airport on Sunday, 20 June 1993, when I returned from Luxembourg to Stansted following a special EC Transport Council meeting.

  Lorries
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in response to his proposed changes to the London night-time and weekend lorry ban.

  Mr. Norris
  I have received various representations from hon. Members, noble Lords, Members of the European Parliament, London borough councillors, the
  613
  London Boroughs Transport Committee, the Freight Transport Association and members of the general public. Many of these are seeking clarification of the proposals. Pensioners

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the effect on each executive agency within his Department of the recently announced £25 million reduction in running costs.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The recently announced reduction in running costs compared to the PES 1992 baseline applies to the Department's gross running cost control total. Of the Department's five executive agencies, only the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's running costs fall within the control total. DVLA will reduce running costs in 1994–95 by efficiency savings that were already planned as part of its target setting and planning arrangements.

  Foreign Airlines
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of existing regulations for the safety of foreign airlines flying into and from British airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Minimum safety standards for foreign aircraft are set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The United Kingdom is bound to recognise certificates of airworthiness issued according to these standards. Where there are indications of failure to meet ICAO standards, the Department asks the aeronautical authorities of the country concerned to investigate urgently and identify whether ICAO standards have been breached and, if so, to detail what measures have been taken to rectify the position. The Civil Aviation Authority also has powers to detain foreign aircraft where they consider there has or could be a serious breach of safety. It is also open to the United Kingdom to refuse operating permission for a non-EC carrier failing to meet ICAO standards.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members currently appointed to the traffic commissioners/licensing authorities.

  Mr. Key
  The names and traffic areas of the traffic commissioners/licensing authorities are as follows:

  Traffic commissioner/Licensing authority

  Traffic area

  Air Vice-Marshal Ronald Ashford, CBE (Senior Traffic Commissioner)

  Western Traffic Area

  Mr. Martin Albu

  North Western Traffic Area

  Mr. Michael Bens

  Scottish Traffic Area

  Brigadier Compton Boyd

  Eastern Traffic Area

  Mr. John Pugh

  South Wales Traffic Area and West Midland Traffic Area

  Brigadier Michael Turner

  South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area

  Mr. Keith Waterworth

  North Eastern Traffic Area

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Pensioners
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people of pensionable age in Northern Ireland are currently also receiving income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information which is available shows that at 30 November 1993, there were 61,382 income support claimants in receipt of pensioner premiums in Northern Ireland.

  Shipyards
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide the same level of assistance to Harland-Wolff Ship Repair Division Northern Ireland as is available to German and Dutch shipyards in 1994.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  It is the practice of the Government to provide intervention funding within the limits set by the European Commission in respect of eligible shipbuilding projects in the United Kingdom. The Government have consistently taken the view that priority should be given to protecting the builders of new ships, rather than those who repair or refit them. At the request of the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association the Government recently reviewed this policy but have decided that it should remain unchanged.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will investigate assistance available to shipyards and ship repairers in other European Union countries and provide an equal level of support in Northern Ireland to make tendering for major refitting work a realistic option.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Assistance available for shipbuilding and conversion projects in other European Community countries is a matter for the relevant authorities in the country concerned. It is not the policy of the United Kingdom Government to provide direct aid towards ship conversion. In certain circumstances alterations to ships carried out by United Kingdom yards can be considered for support under the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme. The seventh directive on aid to shipbuilding does not permit the granting of assistance for shiprepair.

  Company Records
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when and why the company records of SRC Components Ltd. and Canira Technical Corporation Ltd. were removed from Companies house, Belfast.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The company records of SRC Composites Ltd. and Canira Technical Corporation Ltd. are, and always have been, held by the Registry of Companies, Department of Economic Development, IDB House, 64 Chichester street, Belfast, BT1 4JX. There is no record of a company called SRC Components Ltd.

  Scottish Interconnector
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the actual cost of the proposed interconnector link project between Northern Ireland and Scotland.
  615
  Mr. Tim Smith
  Northern Ireland Electricity plc estimates the total cost of the project to be £175 million at December 1992 prices.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had with regard to the contract and costs of the arrangement between Northern Ireland Electricity and Scottish Electric in respect of the interconnector project.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  None. This is a matter for the two parties concerned, NIE plc and Scottish Power plc.

  Social Security Offices
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the social fund budget for each social security office in Northern Ireland in each of the last four years, the numbers of(a) loans and (b) community care grants applied for, the numbers awarded and their total values.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. Wylie to Mr. John Hume, dated 10 February 1994:
  As Chief Executive of the Social Security Agency I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on Social Fund budgets, applications and awards.
  The information is not held in the form you have requested but I have set out the available data in the attached tables. Details for each Social Security Office can only be supplied for the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1991. From April 1991 the Social Fund has been managed on a District basis and I am therefore providing information from that date for each District.
  You may be interested to know that information about the budget allocations, the number of crisis loans, budgeting loans and community care grants applications processed, the number of awards and the amount paid is available in the Library under Social Fund Data. The figures are updated on a monthly basis.

  Whole-time equivalent nursing staff employed in Northern Ireland health and personal social services and nurses in training

  Nurse type

  September 1988

  September 1989

  September 1990

  September 1991

  September 1992

  September 1993

  Registered Nurses

  12,222·72

  12,199·94

  12,158·44

  12,217·62

  12,098·54

  11,930·78

  Unregistered Nurses

  2,777·05

  2,832·26

  2,947·19

  3,190·92

  3,274·22

  3,343·23

  Student Nurses

  2,865·37

  2,711·00

  2,649·60

  2,050·60

  1,153·56

  351·80

  Project 2000

  —

  —

  —

  466·00

  1,098·00

  1,664·00

  Notes:

  1. Figures include Midwives

  2. Project 200 are not employees

HEALTH

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the members currently appointed to the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The current members of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration are:

  C. Brandon Gough, Esq. (Chairman)

  Douglas T. Boyd, Esq.

  Ms Tina Boyden

  Ms Sally Field

  Dr. Elizabeth Nelson

  Professor George F. Thomason, CBE

  616
  As the tables accompanying this letter are too long to be printed in the Official Report, arrangements will be made for a copy to be deposited in the Library.

  I hope you will find this information helpful.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available about social fund budgets in each of the past four years to indicate the pattern of priority categorisation constraints for each social security office in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. However, I understand that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evaluation and comparative analysis has been conducted by the Department of Health and Social Services or the Social Security Agency of the distribution of the social fund budget with regard to equality of treatment and need targeting across all districts; and if he will publish that research.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Health and Social Services and the Social Security Agency regularly monitor and evaluate the working of the social fund and information of the relative levels of need is one of the factors taken into account in allocating budgets to districts. Details of the basis of allocation and district allocations for 1993–94 have been placed in the Library.

  Nurses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of(a) whole-time equivalent registered nurses, (b) whole-time equivalent unregistered nurses and (c) whole-time equivalent nurses in training in Northern Ireland for each year from 1988 onwards.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  There are currently two vacancies as the terms of Mr. Anthony J. P. Vineall and Mr. Dennis Fredjohn expired with the publication of the 23rd report.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the members currently appointed to the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine.

  Mr. Sackville
  The current members of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine are:

  Mr. Michael Bett, CBE (Chairman)

  Mr. Jan Hildreth

  Miss Anne Machie, OBE

  Dr. Gillian Raab

  Professor George F. Thomason, CBE

  Miss Diana Wittingham

  617
  There are currently two vacancies as the terms of Dame Anne Mueller, DCB and Mrs. Rachel Pickavance expired with the publication of the 11th report.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Mathew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by her Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Secretary of State in 1992–93 after 11 April 1992 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's travel costs are not budgeted separately from those of other Ministers. The travel and subsistence figures, excluding the cost of services provided by the Government car service, for all Ministers and their private office staff and those in the parliamentary relations unit are as follows:

  Travel and Subsistence

  Financial Year

  Domestic £

  Overseas £

  1992–93

  planned

  151,619

  actual

  49,296

  11,085

  1993–94

  planned2

  70,000

  50,000

  actual3

  46,138

  57,641

  1 No specific sum allocation for domestic or overseas expenditure.

  2 Funds increased to take account of price increases, the addition of an extra Minister and private office and for commitments to visits overseas.

  3 To December 1994.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits abroad the Minister of State made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State made three overseas visits at an estimated cost of £5,526. Two of these visits were to attend meetings of Ministers of the European Community Health Council, while the third was a fact finding visit to the United States of America in connection with his ministerial responsibilities.

  Pacing
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals carry out pacing and pacing follow-up in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to the national pacemaker database there are 133 centres providing pacing and pacing follow-up in the United Kingdom. A list of these centres will be placed in the Library.

  Contraceptive Pill
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to limit the national health service prescribing of the contraceptive pill and make it available in pharmacies without NHS prescription; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has for freedom of speech by junior hospital doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The management executive advice "Guidance for staff on relations with the public and the media" was issued to national health service employers under cover of executive letter (93)51 on 8 June 1993. The guidance provides a framework within which local procedures can be developed to enable all NHS employees to raise concerns about health care issues. Copies of the executive letter and accompanying guidance are available in the Library.

  Hepatitis B
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage carrier rate for hepatitis B among pregnant women in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  These data are not collected routinely but studies have shown carrier rates between on in 2,000–0·05 per cent.—in rural areas and 1 in 100–1 per cent.—in some inner city areas.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which EC countries have a hepatitis B universal vaccination strategy in place.

  Mr. Sackville
  We understand that only Italy has a universal vaccination strategy in place; in addition, seven of the autonomous regions of Spain have introduced universal adolescent vaccination. All other European Union countries have a selective strategy aimed at particularly higher risk groups.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the carrier rate of hepatitis B in England per 1,000 population.

  Mr. Sackville
  The prevalance of hepatitis B carriage in the United Kingdom is low. Recent data from analysis of blood donations suggest that it is in the order of one in 1,500–0·07 per cent.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has of acquisition of hepatitis B by blood products in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Confirmed cases of hepatitis B infection reported to the public health laboratory service's communicable disease surveillance centre—England and Wales—where the patient had a history of receiving blood or blood products within the United Kingdom during the previous six months, and where no other risk factors were present were:

  Number

  1988

  8

  1989

  4

  1990

  3

  1991

  3

  1992

  2

  Figures for 1993 are still being received.

  Infectious Diseases
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of polio, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, hepatitis B, mumps, measles, rubella, tuberculosis, haemophilia influenzae and meningitis were reported in England in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of cases notified for polio, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, hepatitis B, mumps, measles, rubella, tuberculosis, haemophilus influenzae and meningitis in England for 1991 and 1992

  1991

  1992

  Polio

  3

  3

  Diphtheria

  2

  8

  Whooping Cough

  4,908

  2,171

  Tetanus

  8

  6

  Hepatitis B

  471

  481

  Mumps

  2,828

  2,333

  Measles

  9,126

  9,801

  Rubella

  6,917

  6,024

  Tuberculosis (all forms)

  5,726

  6,149

  Haemophilus Influenzae

  396

  451

  Meningitis (all forms)

  2,558

  2,361

  Tobacco
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates she has made of decreases in consumption of tobacco as a result of the voluntary code on tobacco advertisements.

  Mr. Sackville
  In October 1992 the Department of Health published a discussion document, the "Effect of Tobacco Advertising on Tobacco Consumption", a copy of which is available in the Library, reviewing the evidence on the effects of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption. The review did not identify any studies which seek to quantify the reduction in smoking that can be attributed to the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising and promotion.

  Lung Cancer
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) male and (b) female lung cancer deaths occurred in each region in 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table for 1992, the latest year for which data are available:

  Numbers of deaths from cancer of the trachea, bronchus and lung (ICD 1621) for males and females by regional health authority, 1992

  Regional Health Authority

  Males

  Females

  Northern

  1,780

  918

  Yorkshire

  1,656

  867

  Trent

  2,166

  946

  East Anglian

  828

  337

  North West Thames

  1,303

  686

  North East Thames

  1,682

  807

  South East Thames

  1,674

  786

  South West Thames

  1,163

  631

  Wessex

  1,228

  517

  Oxford

  880

  413

  South Western

  1,382

  665

  West Midlands

  2,448

  1,012

  Mersey

  1,198

  700

  North Western

  1,903

  1,031

  Wales

  1,324

  653

  1 International classification of disease, ninth revision

  620

  Hospital Beds, London
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds here were in each of the last live years in the area covered by the London implementation group.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about the average daily bed availability in London for 1988–89 to 1992–93 is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number

  1988–89

  43,997

  1989–90

  41,947

  1990–91

  38,793

  1991–92

  36,045

  1992–93

  34,811

  Source:

  KHO3 return

  During the same period there was a 4–49 per cent. increase in the number of in-patients treated.

  Referrals and Readmissions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how second referrals and readmissions are recorded within the NHS patient volume record system; and what percentage of finished consultant episodes are second referrals and readmissions;

  (2) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) of 31 January, Official Report, column 531, how readmissions are recorded in finished consultant episode statistics.

  Mr. Sackville
  All admissions to national health service hospitals are recorded as consultant episodes, reflecting the use of resources by consultant specialists. Readmissions from any source are included in the count but cannot be separately identified. On admission to hospital, a patient commences a hospital spell which may include periods of care under more than one consultant. There are about 103 consultant episodes for every 1100 spells in hospital. Patients referred to hospital consultants by general practitioners are usually seen in out-patients clinics. New referrals, including second referrals for the same condition, are recorded as new attendances, subsequent attendances are recorded as consultant initiated attendances. Second referrals to out-patient clinics cannot be identified separately.

  Mental Health Legislation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received since April 1992 suggesting amendments in the mental health legislation providing for trustees to manage a person's financial affairs if two doctors certify that this is required.

  Mr. Bowis
  None. The Law Commission is currently reviewing the law and procedures relating to decision making on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults and will publish its report later this year.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of newly qualified nurses completed their training in NHS hospitals(a) in London

  621
  and (b) in England in the 12-month period ended in December 1993; and what percentage of them found full-time permanent employment (i) in London and (ii) in England in NHS hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance will be given to managers to measure the productivity of nurses in the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is currently drawing up guidance on the basic principles for local performance-related pay schemes.

  Hospital Sales
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she is aware of to sell NHS hospitals to private health care providers.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am not aware of any.

  Former Military Hospitals
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are in each region to invest in extending or adapting former military hospitals for NHS use; and how much it is planned to spend on each such hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are currently discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health about the future use of one hospital, the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich which is due to close by 1998. Further details will be available later this year.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the average time patients currently wait for the results of cervical smear tests in each health authority area in England and Wales.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 9 December 1993 at column 325–26.

  Community Health Sheffield Trust
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when and by whom a final decision will be made as to the land and buildings in the Sheffield area that will transfer to Community Health Sheffield trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  Trent regional health authority together with Sheffield District health authority and representatives of the proposed trust, will determine which land and buildings will transfer to Community Health Sheffield trust. Discussions are in progress and it is expected that a final decision will be reached by the end of March 1994.

  AIDS
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the organisations involved in AIDS counselling, advice and information and the amount of grant each received from Government for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for 1993–94 is shown in the table. Each of these voluntary organisations includes HIV/AIDS counselling advice and information among its activities to a greater or lesser degree.
  622

  Name

  Amount (£)

  Aids and Housing Project

  29,000

  ACET (AIDS Care Education and Training)

  150,000

  Barnardo's

  9,375

  Black HIV/AIDS Network

  40,000

  Blackliners

  40,050

  Body Positive

  50,000

  CARA1

  15,000

  Globe Centre

  29,000

  Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence

  73,400

  Landmark

  60,000

  London East AIDS Network

  25,000

  London Voluntary Services Council

  24,000

  London Lighthouse

  300,000

  Mainliners

  40,000

  Mildmay Mission Hospital

  150,000

  National AIDS Trust

  275,000

  The NAZ Project

  27,000

  Positively Women

  70,000

  Streetwise Youth

  20,000

  Strutton Housing

  12,000

  Terrence Higgins Trust

  450,000

  Turning Point—Griffin Project

  33,200

  1 Care and resources for people affected by AIDS and HIV.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those hospitals and medical research facilities undertaking research of AIDS; and if she will list the amount of central Government grant each attracts.

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency through which the Government support research into HIV and AIDS is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  In the current financial year it is estimated that the Government will fund research on HIV/AIDS to a value of £26,209,000.

  The annual report of the MRC and "The Health and Social Care of People with HIV Infection and AIDS", which list the hospitals and medical research facilities currently undertaking AIDS/HIV research for the Department and for the MRC, are available in the Library.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the reasons for the delay in announcing how much of the special transitional grant was to be spent on non-local authority services; what assessment has been made of the impact of this delay on local authorities and other care providers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The decision was announced as soon as we had considered all the relevant factors. Local authorities should always be committed to value for money through the mixed economy of care.

  Health Authorities (Capital Receipts)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 116, whether any restrictions are placed on health authorities with regard to the use of capital receipts.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 24 January at column 116.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 24 January,Official

  623
  Report, column 116, what Treasury guidelines have been issued to health authorities, or health trusts, as to the use of capital receipts.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by(a) her Department and (b) her agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned for 1994–95, showing for each one the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for 1993–94 will be placed in the Library. Decisions have not been made on the use of advertising for 1994–95.

  Special Health Authorities
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the revenue and capital expenditure for each of the special health authorities within the four London regional health authorities' areas for 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for the London postgraduate special health authorities is shown in the table.

  Special health authority

  Revenue Expenditure £

  Capital Additions £

  The Hospitals for Sick Children

  65,197,843

  19,392,220

  The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery

  33,819,688

  11,945,668

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  27,622,311

  1,881,459

  The Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospital

  53,325,496

  2,038,647

  The Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospitals

  59,771,478

  2,361,637

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  37,593,200

  2,059,054

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's Hospitals

  76,963,054

  12,952,118

  The Eastman Dental Hospital

  9,844,379

  1,424,633

  Source: Annual accounts special health authorities—London postgraduate teaching hospitals—England 1992–93.

  Notes:

  (a) Total additions of fixed assets purchased is used as the capital expenditure figure. Capital charges are included within revenue expenditure.

  (b)Figures are provisional.

  Mr. Fred Hoult
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Leeds Central (Mr. Fatchett),Official Report, 31 January, column 536, if he will name the companies of which Mr. Fred Hoult is a director.

  Mr. Sackville
  The directorships held by Mr. Hoult are:

  Hoults Holdings Ltd.

  Hoults Ltd.

  Hoults Estate Ltd.

  Hoults (London) Ltd.

  Hoults (South West) Ltd.

  Hoults (Cumberland) Ltd.

  Wheelers of Gosforth Ltd.

  Wheelers of Cramlington Ltd.

  Lock N Store Ltd.

  624

  William Patterson Ltd.

  G. F. Ryan and Co. Ltd.

  Northumbria and Tyneside Residential Property Trust Ltd.

  2nd Northumbria and Tyneside Residential Property Trust Ltd.

  Lindisfarne Properties Ltd.

  Super Janet Computer Network
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the potential contribution of the academic computer network Super Janet to patient care; and what steps she is taking to preserve the confidentiality of any patient information transferred to such a network, and to ensure the security and integrity of any NHS system to which an external network might. be connected.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is monitoring the work currently being undertaken at the Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's hospitals to assess the potential benefits and problems associated with the use of the Super Janet network.

  As regards the confidentiality of information, any person controlling personal health data who proposes to put them onto a computer network must abide by the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1984. In addition, the national health service-wide networking programme is addressing the security implications of connections to external networks including Super Janet.

  Emergency Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what proportion the number of emergency admissions to hospitals in each health authority changed between 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  Nationally, the proportion of admissions to hospital which are non-elective has marginally declined. These account for some 47 per cent. of total recorded consultant episodes for the last three years, arid it is estimated that over 80 per cent. of non-elective admissions are emergencies. Proportions of the total number of finished consultant episodes that are non-elective admissions by regional health authority for 1992–93 and 1993–94—forecast and subject to revision—are shown in the table.

  Region

  1992–93

  1993–94 (forecast)

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Northern

  45·8

  45·3

  Yorkshire

  47·3

  45·7

  Trent

  47·8

  46·6

  East Anglian

  49·1

  46·0

  North West Thames

  45·8

  43·6

  North East Thames

  50·2

  49·3

  South East Thames

  47·8

  48·0

  South West Thames

  46·5

  46·2

  Wessex

  45·6

  44·9

  Oxford

  45·7

  45·0

  South Western

  43·7

  44·2

  West Midlands

  47·6

  48·5

  Mersey

  51·0

  49·6

  North Western

  45·3

  44·3

  England

  47·0

  46·3

  625

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the general practices in each health authority were fundholding on(a) January 1993 and (b) 1 January 1994.

  Region

  Number of funds

  Number of practices

  Number of groups

  Number of GPs

  Population cover 000s

  Percentage population covered by Fundholding Practices

  1st and 2nd Wave

  Northern

  38

  38

  0

  321

  460

  15·0

  Yorkshire

  55

  61

  3

  338

  693

  18·9

  Trent

  54

  57

  2

  311

  659

  13·8

  East Anglia

  13

  13

  0

  85

  168

  8·0

  North West Thames

  43

  49

  3

  235

  493

  14·2

  North East Thames

  23

  23

  0

  107

  266

  7·1

  South East Thames

  29

  29

  0

  147

  339

  9·2

  South West Thames

  38

  39

  1

  225

  463

  15·8

  Wessex

  32

  34

  2

  197

  392

  13·3

  Oxford

  46

  48

  1

  279

  570

  21·9

  South Western

  38

  42

  0

  244

  386

  11·0

  West Midlands

  58

  59

  1

  410

  659

  12·6

  Mersey

  44

  50

  5

  227

  459

  19·1

  North Western

  29

  34

  3

  161

  347

  8·7

  ENGLAND

  540

  576

  21

  3,197

  6,354

  13·0

  3rd Wave

  Northern

  31

  34

  3

  161

  303

  9·9

  Yorkshire

  54

  57

  2

  249

  509

  13·9

  Trent

  84

  102

  9

  420

  835

  17·5

  East Anglia

  35

  38

  2

  193

  362

  7·2

  North West Thames

  45

  46

  1

  223

  437

  12·6

  North East Thames

  25

  29

  1

  122

  256

  6·8

  South East Thames

  48

  59

  5

  227

  480

  13·0

  South West Thames

  28

  30

  2

  135

  267

  9·1

  Wessex

  22

  23

  1

  128

  253

  8·6

  Oxford

  28

  28

  0

  152

  269

  11·3

  South Western

  31

  33

  2

  170

  271

  7·7

  West Midlands

  73

  80

  7

  357

  719

  13·7

  Mersey

  40

  51

  7

  196

  379

  15·8

  North Western

  37

  49

  6

  168

  344

  8·6

  England

  581

  659

  48

  2,901

  5,711

  11·9

  Brain-damaged Patients
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will respond to the report of the health service committee "Failure to Provide Long Term NHS Care for a Brain Damaged Patient"; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The report to which the hon. Member refers was produced by the health service commissioner, not the health service committee. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 9 February at column 328.

  Asthma (Road Traffic)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies are being made by her Department about the link between road traffic and child asthma; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is currently studying the effects on health from air pollutants from all sources. The Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes, set up in 1990, and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, which was established in 1992, are examining the evidence with a view to estimating the likely effects of air pollution in the
  626
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information available centrally relates to the proportion of the population covered by fundholding practices in each regional health authority area. The figures for the first, second and third wave fundholders are shown in the tables.

  United Kingdom and to recommend research needed. The advisory group produced reports on ozone in 1991 and on sulphur dioxides, acid aerosols and particulates in 1992, and on the effects of oxides of nitrogen—one of the main pollutants from motor vehicles—at the end of 1993. Asthma is an important health issue and the Department is concerned about the rise in its incidence among all age groups. Further research is needed to help identify the underlying causes of this rise in incidence. Air pollution is one possibility, but investigation is also under way into other factors, such as the indoor environment, smoking habits and diet. The newly formed Medical Research Council institute for environment and health, funded by the Department and by the Department of the Environment, has made research into the health effects of air pollution its first priority. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 20 October 1993 at column 236.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are currently on the waiting list for organ transplant of kidneys, liver and heart-lung respectively; how many were added to the list in each category in the most recent 12-month period for which
  627
  figures are available; how many had transplant operations; and how many died while waiting for a suitable donor organ.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The figures give are for the United Kingdom and are provisional. They have been supplied by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

  At 31 December 1993 there were 3,947 patients awaiting kidney transplants—including 29 kidney and pancreas transplants—111 awaiting livers and 409 awaiting hearts—including 172 heart and lungs. During the year to 31 December 1993 there were 1,701 kidney transplants—including 125 transplants from live donors and 14 kidney and pancreas transplants—520 liver transplants and 336 heart transplants—including 35 heart and lungs transplants.

  The latest year for which information on patients joining the list and those who died while waiting for a suitable donor organ is available is 1992. There were 1,992 added to the waiting list for kidneys—including 22 kidneys and pancreas—537 for hearts—including 124 for heart and lungs—and 419 for livers. One hundred and thirty patients died while waiting for a suitable donor heart transplant—including 60 heart and lungs—and 53 died while waiting for livers.

  Children (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region the number of children on waiting lists for medical treatment for each year since 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting lists for in-patient and day case treatment by regional health authority and specialty is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England". This is published twice yearly and copies are available in the Library. Information is given on waiting lists for various paediatric specialties, but the numbers of children and adults on waiting lists for other specialties are not counted separately.

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS in the last financial year of salary payments for NHS employees suspended on full pay.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I will write to the hon. Member.

WALES

  Health Provision
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of health provision in West Glamorgan.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend will announce his decision following the period of public consultation currently underway in the county.

  Departmental Efficiency
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of his Department.
  628
  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office is already an efficient organisation successfully administering a very wide range of central Government functions throughout Wales. I am, nevertheless, continually looking for ways in which to improve its efficiency including, for example, through market testing and close controls on its running costs.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) males and (b) females were unemployed in Wales at the latest available date; and what are the figures in percentage terms.

  Mr. Redwood
  Seasonally adjusted, there were 99,600 males and 26,500 females who were claimant unemployed in Wales in December 1993. These represent workforce-based unemployment rates of 13·6 per cent. and 4·9 per cent. respectively.

  Tir Cymen
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what appraisal there has been of the take-up rate and the general success of the Tir Cymen pilot schemes in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A pilot scheme was launched in July 1992 and is planned to run for five years. A full appraisal will take place towards the end of the period. The target for take-up of the scheme is to have 50 per cent. of eligible land entered within five years. To date some 25 per cent. has been entered. The indications are that the scheme is proving to be successful.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the review of the management structure of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had concerning the re-distribution of parliamentary boundaries in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Whilst my right hon. Friend has responsibility for the appointment of one of the members of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales, overall responsibility for the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England and Wales rests with my right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend has received two representations in respect of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales' latest proposals.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consult the Welsh Language Board regarding proposed changes to the national curriculum in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, which supersedes the Curriculum Council for Wales on 1 April, will undertake consultations
  629
  this year on proposals for revised national curriculum orders. I shall ensure that the authority consults the Welsh Language Board on revisions to the National Curriculum Order for Welsh.

  M4 Relief Road
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he received during the consultation period on the proposal to extend the M4 relief road through the Gwent levels; how many of these representations approved of the Welsh Office proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A report on the results of the consultation and the issues raised is in preparation. The information requested will be made public when a decision is taken on whether or not to proceed with any of the published routes.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to promote sustainable development following the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Mr. Redwood
  A number of important measures in support of sustainable development objectives are already underway in Wales, for example the Welsh Development Agency's major land reclamation programme which is returning derelict and contaminated land to beneficial use. Welsh Office Ministers are also keen to ensure that Wales makes an appropriate contribution to the follow up action planned on the recently published "UK Strategy on Sustainable Development", copies of which have already been distributed to key Welsh interests.

  Quangos
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applicants for posts in Welsh quangos have notified the Secretary of State of their connections with the Tory party within the last two years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information supplied by nominees to the register of candidates for public appointment is confidential.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he is making in the elimination of bureaucracy, waste and mal-administration in the conduct of non-Governmental public bodies in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have impressed upon the chairmen of non-departmental public bodies the need for the highest standards of propriety in the conduct of public affairs in Wales. Steps have been taken to tighten up procedures and I am introducing new arrangements for monitoring and controlling the performance of bodies in Wales. I will make sure that both the number of bodies and appointments to them are strictly controlled.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the planning guidelines issued by his Department on the siting and construction of wind farms in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  630
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance is contained in the annex to planning policy guidance note "Renewable Energy", which was published jointly by the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment in February 1993.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the total credit approvals for capital spending for all the local authorities in Wales in the years 1986–87, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 at 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Total credit approvals used to finance local authority capital expenditure in Wales at 1993–94 prices are:

  Year

  £m

  1991–92

  326·803

  1992–93

  331·376

  1993–94

  1311·430

  1 Forecast

  A comparable figure for 1986–87 is not available. A credit approval system was introduced in 1990–91: the previous system placed controls on authorities' total capital expenditure.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what rate support grant Clwyd county council would receive in 1993–94 if it were treated for standard spending assessment purposes as the average within Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  An authority's revenue support grant, share of redistributurbed non-domestic rates and council tax income at a standard level, together equal its standard spending assessment. The standard spending assessment per head of population for county councils in Wales for 1993–94 is £675. For Clwyd it is £644, 95·4 per cent. of the Wales average.

  Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives he intends to take to improve education in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have a comprehensive programme of reforms to improve standards in education and to provide improved opportunities for all. We are currently implementing the wide-ranging provisions of the Education Act 1993 and have introduced further legislative proposals on teacher training matters. We announced on 5 January the changes that will be made as a result of the review of the national curriculum. These changes will be implemented promptly and fully. They will remove bureaucracy and over-prescription and substantially ease the burden on teachers.

  Housing
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking in relation to the recent housing policies of the Development Board for Rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Public Accounts Committee, at a hearing on 24 January, took evidence from the
  631
  accounting officer of the Welsh Office and the chief executive of the Development Board for Rural Wales about matters raised in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the board's 1992–93 annual accounts. The Committee will report in due course on the results of its inquiry. I do not wish to anticipate or pre-empt that report. The DBRW introduced revised rules and procedures for housing allocations in September 1993 which meet the statutory requirements.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the development of national health service trusts in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are currently 14 operational NHS trusts in Wales and my right hon. Friend announced on 19 November 1993 that he was establishing a further eight trusts with an operational date of 1 April 1994.

  Additionally, public consultation on applications received from north unit—Morriston hospital—in West Glamorgan and Taff Ely health unit—East Glamorgan hospital—Mid Glamorgan has now ended. In the light of representations received, and taking account the individual merits of both applications, my right hon. Friend has decided to establish these units as NHS trusts also to become operational from this April. The orders giving effect to these decisions have been signed today. I will announce shortly the details on the chairmen and non-executive directors of these further NHS trusts.

  This announcement today means that, from april 1994, some 90 per cent. of acute services and 85 per cent. of community services in Wales will be delivered by NHS trusts.

  Pupil-teacher Ratio
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the pupil-teacher ratio in Welsh in each local education authority for pupils preparing for key stage 4.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not available.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with Clwyd education authority and the Welsh Language Board the refusal by the Associated Examinations Board to translate A-level physical exercise examination papers into the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The translation of the A-level physical education paper offered by the Associated Examinations Board is a matter for the board to consider. Discussions are continuing between the individual school concerned, AEB and the Welsh Joint Education Committee to make appropriate arrangements for pupils to take the 1994 examinations in the language of their choice.

  Welshpool Bypass
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any specific proposals for safety improvement on the Welshpool bypass; and if he will make a statement.
  632
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Action has already been initiated as a result of driver behaviour on the bypass and, as is normal practice with newly improved sections of trunk road, the situation is being closely monitored.

  A detailed review has been completed and the opinions of the local highway authority and the police have been obtained. Works already undertaken to improve driver awareness include the relocation and modification of some direction signs and the provision of additional warning signs; the introduction of ladder hatched centre lines to discourage overtaking and reduce speeds; the addition of white hatching to hard strips through each junction to emphasise the carriageway edges and to reduce speeds; the provision of extra chevron plates at roundabouts and the re-positioning of tourist information signs away from junctions.

  Further measures are being considered including the banning of right turn manoeuvres from Salop road.

  Housing Subsidy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of housing revenue account subsidy paid per council house to each district council in Wales for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94, showing the percentage increase or decrease in each case.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A wide range of factors affect subsidy calculations. Subsidy is not paid on a per dwelling basis alone.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of notional rent set by his office for the purposes of calculating housing subsidy for each district council in Wales, and for Wales as a whole, for each financial year since 1991–92 and for 1994–95.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Authorities calculate guideline rents according to a formula within the housing revenue account subsidy determination for the relevant year. The guideline rents calculated by each authority for the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 are given in the following table. The figures shown for Wales have been derived from these figures.

  The Department's estimate of guideline rents for 1994–95 were given to the hon. Member in my reply on Friday 4 February 1994.

  Notional rent per dwelling

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £ p

  £ p

  £ p

  Aberconwy

  24·25

  25·67

  26·94

  Alyn and Deeside

  20·40

  23·81

  26·56

  Arfon

  23·08

  25·88

  27·88

  Blaenau Gwent

  27·25

  28·38

  29·63

  Brecknock

  24·62

  27·15

  29·10

  Cardiff

  27·88

  30·87

  33·23

  Carmarthen

  24·67

  27·29

  29·56

  Ceredigion

  25·58

  28·13

  29·87

  Colwyn

  23·50

  24·81

  26·27

  Cynon Valley

  24·88

  26·02

  28·17

  Delyn

  24·19

  25·65

  27·69

  Dinefwr

  21·77

  24·17

  26·04

  Dwyfor

  21·79

  25·19

  26·31

  Glyndwr

  22·37

  24·94

  26·77

  Islwyn

  23·88

  25·88

  27·94

  Llanelli

  23·48

  24·62

  25·87

  Lliw Valley

  25·79

  26·92

  28·17

  Meirionnydd

  23·42

  24·75

  25·81

  Merthy Tydfil

  23·52

  24·65

  25·90

  633

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £ p

  £ p

  £ p

  Monmouth

  28·77

  32·17

  34·92

  Montgomeryshire

  24·69

  28·10

  30·85

  Neath

  23·62

  24·75

  26·00

  Newport

  27·62

  31·02

  33·62

  Ogwr

  27·65

  28·79

  30·04

  Port Talbot

  24·87

  26·19

  27·54

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  22·62

  25·88

  27·90

  Radnorshire

  24·71

  27·58

  29·85

  Rhondda

  28·67

  29·81

  31·06

  Rhuddlan

  20·81

  24·04

  26·58

  Rhymney Valley

  27·56

  28·69

  29·94

  South Pembs

  25·46

  28·87

  31·52

  Swansea

  24·48

  26·00

  27·25

  Taff Ely

  24·79

  25·92

  27·17

  Torfaen

  26·83

  29·73

  32·13

  Vale of Glam

  25·81

  29·21

  31·96

  Wrexham Maelor

  19·75

  23·15

  25·50

  Ynys Môn

  24·65

  26·06

  27·31

  Wales

  25·05

  27·24

  29·11

  Source:

  (a) Audit Final Subsidy claims for 1991–92.

  (b) Audit Final Subsidy claims for 1992–93 (except for Cardiff where information has been taken from the 1992–93 Advance Final claim).

  (c) Second Advance Subsidy claims for 1993–94.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of housing revenue account subsidy for 1992–93 and 1993–94 for each district council in Wales, and for Wales as a whole, showing the percentage change in each case.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount of housing revenue account subsidy claimed by local authorities is set out in the following table:

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Percentage

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Local Authority

  £

  £

  Aberconwy

  1,584,274

  1,613,843

  1·9

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,520,527

  2,566,612

  1·8

  Arfon

  2,942,801

  2,860,306

  -2·8

  Blaenau Gwent

  10,775,958

  10,967,070

  1·8

  Brecknock

  715,009

  759,755

  6·3

  Cardiff

  19,343,579

  23,291,119

  20·4

  Carmarthen

  2,513,450

  2,348,352

  -6·6

  Ceredigion

  1,895,725

  1,932,664

  1·9

  Colwyn

  2,109,823

  2,194,617

  4·0

  Cynon Valley

  4,947,233

  4,914,395

  -0·7

  Delyn

  3,620,231

  2,957,483

  -18·3

  Dinefwr

  1,246,634

  1,486,992

  19·3

  Dwyfor

  840,681

  958,012

  14·0

  Glyndwr

  827,842

  803,215

  -3·0

  Islwyn

  5,369,027

  5,242,264

  -2·4

  Llanelli

  7,044,582

  7,501,220

  6·5

  Lliw Valley

  4,308,923

  4,157,709

  -3·5

  Meirionnydd

  1,061,048

  1,238,429

  16·7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6,869,166

  7,588,053

  10·5

  Monmouth

  3,789,654

  3,815,493

  0·7

  Montgomeryshire

  666,527

  496,002

  -25·6

  Neath

  4,776,019

  4,921,454

  3·0

  Newport

  11,244,593

  10,363,902

  -7·8

  Ogwr

  7,692,875

  7,702,537

  0·1

  Port Talbot

  4,749,752

  4,668,643

  -1·7

  Preseli Pemrokeshire

  2,755,958

  2,848,229

  3·3

  Radnorshire

  555,486

  525,905

  -5·3

  Rhondda

  8,623,018

  8,301,654

  -3·7

  Rhuddlan

  1,324,330

  1,276,569

  -3·6

  Rhymney Valley

  10,884,002

  11,347,929

  4·3

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,642,291

  1,427,901

  -13·1

  634

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Percentage

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Local Authority

  £

  £

  Swansea

  16,023,302

  17,353,927

  8·3

  Taff Ely

  6,938,835

  6,816,221

  -1·8

  Torfaen

  13,023,578

  13,076,949

  0·4

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,751,049

  3,612,705

  -3·7

  Wrexham Maelor

  6,998,218

  7,839,056

  12·0

  Ynys Mon

  4,311,794

  4,438,990

  2·9

  Wales

  190,287,794

  196,216,176

  3·1

  Source:

  (a) Audit Final Subsidy claims for 1992–93 except for Cardiff where information has been taken from the 1992–93 Advance Final claim

  (b) Second Advance Subsidy claims for 1993–94

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are unemployed in Wales and in Clwyd.

  Mr. Redwood
  In December 1993, the unadjusted numbers of claimant unemployed in Clwyd and Wales were 15,866 and 128,299 respectively.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation in relation to its consultancy contract with Quadrant public relations.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what communications he has received from the European Commission on the future of the Cardiff bay site of special scientific interest; and if he will place the relevant correspondence in the Library.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government have had various contacts with the Commission about the issue of Cardiff bay. In accordance with long-standing convention, the substance of the correspondence on this matter is confidential.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the complaint by the World Wide Fund for Nature to the European Commission in relation to the future of the Cardiff bay site of special scientific interest; and if he will place these representations in the Library.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received a number of representations about the complaint by the World Wide Fund for Nature to the EC Commission. Some appear to have been inspired by the fund's "Factsheet" of September 1993 which contained acknowledged errors.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of Cardiff Bay development corporation in relation to the corporation's public relations agents soliciting the names of companies employed by the city council from council employees.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have had none personally and have not raised the issue with others.

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales in relation to(a) the advertising of the vacant post of executive director, (b) additions or subtractions in respect of the membership of the board and (c) completion of the management reorganisation plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The appointment of a new chief executive is a matter for the chairman and the board of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales. However, I would expect the chairman to keep the Welsh Office fully informed of the actions that are being taken.

  I have had no consultations with the chairman about any membership issues.

  The management reorganisation of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales was fully implemented on 17 January 1994.

  Quango Guidelines
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue new guidelines to the Welsh quangos on the conduct of public relations consultancy contracts so as to debar the interference with commercial printing contracts let by third parties.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has given to the chairman of(a) all quangos in Wales and (b) Cardiff bay development corporation on the conduct of public relations consultants to whom they give contracts.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have issued no such guidelines to non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Health Board Rights
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he will issue in relation to the rights of members of health authority or trust boards with respect to the principles of open government and its applicability to the operations of those authorities and trusts.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend wrote to health authorities and NHS trusts about corporate governance matters on 27 January and indicated that the Department of Health was undertaking further work on open government. It will be consulting on their recommendations in early summer and we propose to undertake parallel consultation in Wales.

  A copy of the letter is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Nurses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of(a) whole time equivalent registered nurses, (b) whole time equivalent unregistered nurses and (c) whole time equivalent nurses in training in Wales for each year from 1988 onwards.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information available, which relates to nursing and midwifery staff, is given in the following tables:636

  Directly employed NHS nurses1

  Registered2

  Unregistered3

  Learners4

  1988

  17,507

  7,076

  3,337

  1989

  17,849

  7,070

  3,118

  1990

  17,986

  7,032

  3,075

  1991

  18,009

  7,019

  2,934

  1992

  18,096

  7,355

  1,970

  1993

  17,986

  7,220

  1,033

  Nurses employed by general medical practitioners5

  Number

  1988

  198

  1989

  268

  1990

  459

  1991

  524

  1992

  519

  1993

  544

  Nurses employed in private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics6

  Registered nurses and midwives

  Unregistered nurses and midwives

  1988

  1,157

  1,888

  1989

  1,541

  2,838

  1990

  1,927

  3,634

  1991

  2,298

  4,575

  1992

  2,623

  5,274

  1 Staff in post (whole-time equivalents as at 30 September). Includes staff employed by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. The use of locally devised payscales from 1991 onwards may affect the comparability of figures as these staff cannot be allocated centrally to a specific staff group and are not, therefore, included in the table.

  2 Enrolled nurse and above in 1988, grade C and above thereafter.

  3 Nursing auxiliaries and nursery nurses in 1988, grades A and B thereafter.

  4 Pupil and student nurses. Since the autumn of 1991 student nurses have been classified as students and are no longer included in the NHS staff figures. Staff included here are students finishing courses begun before this date. However at 1 October 1993 there were about 1,900 Project 2000 nursing students in Wales.

  5 Staff in post as at 1 October (whole-time equivalents). All these staff are registered nurses.

  6 Staff in post as at 31 March (whole-time equivalents) as notified by the individual premises.

  Health Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received with respect to the suitability for appointment, reappointment or continuation in office of the chairmen of present health authorities or health trusts and trusts-designate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Over the last 18 months I have received around 20 representations on these matters.

DEFENCE

  Engagements (Extension)
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  Too ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the available figures for each year since 1990–91 on the numbers and proportions of those officers and other ranks in each service who have applied for extension of their original engagement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures as requested for the Royal Air Force are set out in the tables. The Royal Navy and Army
  637
  could provide this information in the exact form requested only at disproportionate cost; details on extensions granted are, however, set out in the tables.

  Royal Air Force: applications for extension of service

  Financial year

  Officers

  Airmen/women

  Total

  Total trained strength at 31 March

  Proportion of trained strength who applied for extension (Per cent.)

  1990–91

  520

  1,971

  2,491

  82,621

  3·0

  1991–92

  573

  3,848

  4,421

  81,973

  5·4

  1992–93

  339

  4,262

  4,601

  78,863

  5·8

  Royal Naval Services: extensions of service granted

  Financial year

  Officers

  Ratings

  Total

  Total trained strength at 31 March

  Proportion of trained strength who were granted an extension (Per cent.)

  1990–91

  92

  933

  1,025

  57,078

  1·8

  1991–92

  22

  703

  725

  56,052

  1·3

  1992–93

  33

  437

  470

  56,064

  0·8

  Army: extensions of service granted

  Financial year

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Total

  Total trained strength at 31 March

  Proportion of trained strength who were granted on extension (Per cent.)

  1990–91

  876

  944

  1,820

  137,240

  1·3

  1991–92

  1,002

  929

  1,931

  136,514

  1·4

  1992–93

  818

  827

  1,645

  133,366

  1·2

  Notes:

  1. Figures include non-commissioned personnel who have applied for/been granted, an extension beyond their 22 year point.

  2. Figures exclude personnel who have converted from Short Service Commissions to longer commissons and those whose service is extended automatically upon reaching a certain rank.

  Premature Voluntary Release
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the latest available figures for each service, by rank and length of service, of applications for premature voluntary release, together with any available information on the reasons given.

  Mr. Hanley
  The breakdown by rank and service of the numbers of applications for premature voluntary release in

  Applications for premature voluntary release in the 12 months ended 1 October 1993

  NATO rank code1

  Royal Naval Services

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Officers

  OF7

  —

  —

  2

  OF6

  —

  7

  3

  OF5

  2

  21

  11

  OF4

  9

  36

  15

  OF3

  23

  58

  38

  OF2

  25

  82

  58

  OF1/OD

  —

  15

  7

  TOTAL

  59

  219

  134

  Non-Commissioned Personnel

  OR9

  32

  44

  50

  638
  the 12 months ended 1 October 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, is given in the table. Details of the length of service of applicants for premature voluntary release could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The reasons most frequently give for asking to leave prematurely are:

  Civilian job offer

  Disillusionment with service life

  Lack of opportunities for promotion

  Family/compassionate reasons

  639

  NATO rank code1

  Royal Naval Services

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  OR8

  1

  65

  —

  OR7

  273

  78

  105

  OR6

  207

  196

  125

  OR4

  285

  685

  164

  OR3

  —

  1,229

  —

  OR2/OR1

  892

  3,369

  679

  TOTAL

  1,690

  5,666

  1,123

  1 NATO Rank Codes equate to United Kingdom Service Designations as shown in the following table.

  NATO Rank Codes equaling to United Kingdom Service Designations

  Royal Naval Services

  NATO rank code

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  OF–7

  Rear Admiral

  Major General

  Major General

  Air Vice Marshall

  OF–6

  Commodore

  Brigadier

  Brigadier

  Air Commodore

  OF–5

  Captain

  Colonel/Lieutenant Colonel

  Colonel

  Group Captain

  OF–4

  Commander

  Major

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Wing Commander

  OF–3

  Lieutenant Commander

  Captain

  Major

  Squadron Leader

  OF–2

  Lieutenant

  Lieutenant

  Captain

  Flight Lieutenant

  OF–1

  Sub-Lieutenant

  —

  Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant

  Flying Officer/Pilot Officer

  OF(D)

  Officer Designate

  Officer Designate

  Officer Designate

  Officer Designate

  OR–9

  Warrant Officer

  Warrant Officer Class 1

  Warrant Officer Class 1

  Warrant Officer

  OR–8

  —

  Warrant Officer Class 2

  Warrant Officer Class 2

  —

  OR–7

  Chief Petty Officer

  Colour Sergeant

  Staff Sergeant

  Flight Sergeant/Chief Technician

  OR–6

  Petty Officer

  Sergeant

  Sergeant

  Sergeant

  OR–4

  Leading Rate

  Corporal

  Corporal

  Corporal

  OR–3

  —

  —

  Lance Corporal

  —

  OR–2

  Able Rate

  Marine (1st Class)

  Private (Classes 1 to 3)

  Junior Technician/ Senior Aircraftman/ Leading Aircraftman

  OR–1

  Ordinary Rate/Junior

  Marine (2nd Class)/Junior

  Private (Class 4)/Junior

  Aircraftman

  NATO rank code (Officers)

  QARNNS

  NATO rank code (Non-commissioned personnel)

  QARNNS

  OF–6

  Commandant Nursing Officer

  OR–9

  Warrant Officer RGN/Warrant Officer EN(G)

  OF–5

  Principal Nursing Officer

  OR–7

  Chief RGN/Chief EN(G)

  OF–4

  Chief Nursing Officer

  OR–6

  Petty Officer RGN/Petty Officer EN(G)

  OF–3

  Superintending Nursing Officer

  OR–4

  Leading RGN/Leading EN(G)

  OF–2

  Senior Nursing Officer

  OR–2

  Student Nurse/Pupil Nurse EN(G)

  OF–1

  Nursing Officer

  OR–1

  Probationary Nurse

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is held by his Department on the proportion of low flying complaints which are made by persons who have not previously complained about low flying.

  Mr. Hanley
  Records are not maintained of the proportion of low flying complaints received from those who have not complained about the training before.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if details of complaints about low flying are held on a computer database by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities are made available to Royal Air Force strike/attack/reconnaissance aircrew deployed on operational duties to(a) Italy, (b) Turkey and (c) Saudi Arabia, for low flying training at less than 250 ft above ground level.
  640
  Mr. Hanley
  All necessary training is undertaken prior to deployment.

  Colonel Edward S. Cowan
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State For Defence if he will list the official dates and engagements of Colonel Edward S. Cowan since July 1992 in regard to his position at the Ministry.

  Mr. Hanley
  Colonel Angus Edward Frances Cowan retired early from the Army on 12 August 1990 at his own request.

  Royal Navy (Fishing Protection)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps is is taking to instruct the Royal Navy to protect British fishing activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal Navy Fishery Protection Squadron conducts fishery protection duties on behalf of
  641
  the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency under a contract arrangement.

  Laser-guided Bombs
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the award of the contract for the low-level laser-guided bomb.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 3 February 1994 at column 907.

  Defence Procurement Tender List
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines he ha issued with respect to the validity of ISO9001 quality assurance systems certificates issued by Bureau Veritas UK for the purposes of the defence procurement tender list; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Bureau Veritas UK does not issue ISO9001 quality assurance systems certificates; neither does it hold national accreditation to do so.

  Service Women (Pregnancy)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take measures to withdraw from any liability for compensation to dismissed service women whose dismissal related to pregnancy at a time when such a dismissal was public policy.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department accepted at a High Court hearing in December 1991 that the policy of discharging service women on grounds of pregnancy was in breach of the EC Equal Treatment Directive 76/207 which came into effect on 9 August 1978. Consequently the Department has accepted liability to pay compensation to service women dismissed on pregnancy between that date and August 1990 when the policy was discontinued and maternity leave was introduced.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were placed in employment by Lewisham's job centres in each month since April 1992.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 14 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people placed into employment by Lewisham Jobcentres in each month since April 1992.
  There are two Jobcentres in close proximity in the Lewisham district. Lewisham and Catford. Jobseekers from Lewisham also use the Catford Jobcentre so I have shown the information required for both of these offices on the tables attached.
  I hope this is helpful.

  642

  Placings achieved by Lewisham and Catford Jobcentres April 1992 to March 1993

  Month

  Lewisham jobcentre

  Catford jobcentre

  Total

  April 1992

  98

  137

  235

  May 1992

  89

  207

  296

  June 1992

  97

  218

  315

  July 1992

  128

  237

  365

  August 1992

  76

  155

  231

  September 1992

  122

  180

  302

  October 1992

  113

  168

  281

  November 1992

  133

  178

  311

  December 1992

  82

  122

  204

  January 1993

  126

  236

  362

  February 1993

  111

  183

  294

  March 1993

  110

  183

  293

  Placings achieved by Lewisham and Catford Jobcentres April 1993 to January 1994

  Month

  Lewisham Jobcentre

  Catford Jobcentre

  Total

  April 1993

  98

  189

  287

  May 1993

  81

  170

  251

  June 1993

  127

  189

  316

  July 1993

  112

  188

  300

  August 1993

  105

  162

  267

  September 1993

  132

  203

  335

  October 1993

  110

  198

  308

  November 1993

  194

  208

  402

  December 1993

  104

  117

  221

  January 1994

  119

  200

  319

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has made or is planning to make to the European Commission in response to the Commission's review of the employee acquired rights directive; whether he sought the views of the trade unions whose members are affected by the directive; and if he will publish the representations he has made.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government welcome the review of the acquired rights directive. The European Commission has not yet published any results of the review and the Government have not, therefore, made any representations in response to it. Any response will accordingly depend on any proposals that the Commission may bring forward following its review. The normal practice is for the Commission to consult social partners on any proposed changes to a directive, and for the Government to present an explanatory memorandum to Parliament. It is expected that this will be done in due course.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  The Department is undertaking the following campaigns in 1993–94 budgeted to cost in excess of £10,000:
  643

  Campaign

  Objective

  Evalutation

  Make It Your Business

  To increase awareness of Investors in People and National Vocational Qualifications among senior managers

  Pre- and post-campaign market research, measurement of direct response to the campaign (ie requests far further information)

  1993 National Training Awards

  To invite entries for the competition and to publicise the winners

  Post-campaign market research, number of requests for entry packs to the competition

  Career Development Loans

  To invite enquiries about Career Development Loans

  Market research and assessment of the number of enquiries received

  Careers Service

  To announce the availability of the Careers Service prospectus

  Post-campaign market research

  New Horizons for Women

  To encourage women to diversify their participation in the workforce and in public life

  Assessment of the number of people attending the New Horizons events

  Just the Job/New Measures

  To raise awareness of Employment Service programmes among long-term unemployed people

  Tracking research and take up of publications

  Employer Campaign

  To raise awareness and encourage the use of Jobcentre services among employers

  Tracking research

  Disability

  To raise the awareness of disabled people and employers of the help available to disabled workers

  Tracking research

  Workstart

  To promote the Workstart programme to employers in its pilot areas

  Number of responses from employers

  Jobfinders Grant

  To launch the Jobfinders grant in its pilot areas

  Number of people who take up the grant

  Work Trials

  To promote Work Trials to employers and the long-term unemployed

  Number of places offered by employers and take up by unemployed people

  Community Action

  To launch Community Action to employers and the long-term unemployed

  Numbers taking part in the programme

  Note:

  It is planned that the above campaigns will continue in 1994–95. New campaigns are planned to form the relevant groups about the modern apprenticeships programme and the new small firms training loan scheme.

  Objective 3 Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been submitted for EC funding under objective 3 for funds to assist with retraining in parts of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Until the negotiations on the objective 3 plan to use European social fund resources throughout Great Britain have been concluded, it is not possible for the Employment Department to approve any applications for ESF assistance. The Government submitted the objective 3 plan at the beginning of November 1993, and there have been a number of discussions since then. We continue to press upon the Commission the need for an urgent decision so that essential training for the unemployed is not disrupted.

  Access to Work
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many companies applied for grants under the access to work scheme in each region during 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Access to work is not yet operational.

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people took part in the job interview guarantee scheme in each region and in Great Britain as a whole in 1993; how many participants secured full-time or part-time employment with their sponsoring employers; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 14 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the Job Interview Guarantee Programme.
  The table attached shows the number of unemployed people who took part in or who were assisted by the Job Interview Guarantee in 1993. It also shows regional figures and Great Britain as a whole.
  The information relating to numbers of people gaining employment includes those placed into both part-time and full-time jobs. Separate statistics are not collected on those going into part-time work.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Job interview guarantee January to December 1993

  Number of people assisted

  Number of people placed into jobs

  North

  21,275

  7,301

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  56,368

  17,202

  East Midlands and Eastern

  23,120

  9,047

  645

  Number of people assisted

  Number of people placed into jobs

  London and South East

  105,922

  44,775

  South West

  32,564

  12,918

  Wales

  22,741

  10,255

  West Midlands

  26,607

  14,307

  North West

  42,198

  19,848

  Scotland

  24,284

  17,917

  Great Britain

  355,079

  153,570

  Income Support
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in each region and Great Britain as a whole were refused income support in 1993 because they were deemed to be not actively seeking work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department does not hold information about the number of income support claimants who are refused benefit on that ground.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each region and for Great Britain as a whole how many people who received unemployment benefit for 12 months were refused income support after being means-tested in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of disabled people out of work in each region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following table shows the number of ILO unemployed people who, in response to questions in the summer 1993 labour force survey, said that they had a short-term or long-term disability or health problem which limited the kind of paid work that they could do.

  Economically inactive persons

  Standard region

  Men aged 16+

  As percentage of all men aged 16+

  All persons aged 50+

  As percentage of all persons aged 50+

  Men aged 50–64

  As percentage of all men 50–64

  (Thousands)

  (Per cent.)

  (Thousands)

  (Per cent.)

  (Thousands)

  (Per cent.)

  South East

  1,612

  24·1

  3,295

  64·0

  275

  21·4

  Greater London

  655

  25·5

  1,196

  65·1

  117

  25·3

  Rest of South East

  957

  23·1

  2,099

  63·4

  157

  19·2

  East Anglia

  204

  24·8

  442

  65·8

  33

  20·6

  South West

  495

  27·2

  1,072

  66·8

  89

  24·4

  West Midlands

  521

  26·0

  1,067

  65·8

  107

  25·8

  East Midlands

  403

  25·8

  816

  65·1

  80

  25·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  512

  27·1

  1,053

  68·7

  112

  29·9

  North West

  683

  28·7

  1,356

  69·4

  159

  32·7

  North

  360

  31·0

  707

  72·8

  94

  39·2

  Wales

  360

  32·8

  701

  73·6

  91

  39·9

  Scotland

  512

  27·0

  1,060

  68·7

  125

  32·8

  Great Britain

  5,662

  26·5

  11,569

  67·1

  1,166

  27·5

  Source: Labour Force Survey—summer 1993 (not seasonally adjusted).
  646

  ILO unemployed amongst those with health problems or disabilities Great Britain—summer 1993

  thousands

  Standard region

  Numbers ILO unemployed with health problems or disabilities

  South East

  121

  Greater London

  57

  Rest of South East

  64

  East Anglia

  15

  South West

  28

  West Midlands

  38

  East Midlands

  27

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  46

  North West

  44

  North

  23

  Wales

  20

  Scotland

  36

  Great Britain

  397

  Source: Labour force survey (not seasonally adjusted).

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people and what percentage of the labour force in each region and for Great Britain as a whole were classified as being in temporary employment in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  For the years from 1984 onwards, this information is available from the labour force survey and can be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest estimates from the labour force survey, for each region, of the number and percentage of(a) all males, (b) all adults over 50 years of age and (c) all males between 50 and 65 years of age who are recorded as economically inactive; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Latest estimates from the summer 1993 labour force survey are given in the following table. The numbers who are economically inactive relate to those who are neither in employment nor ILO unemployed, and will therefore include, for example, all those who are looking after a home or are retired.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each standard occupational
  647
  and industrial classification (a) the numbers employed, (b) the numbers unemployed and (c) the numbers of long-term unemployed under the International Labour Organisation classification where previous occupation or employment fell within each classification for each region and Great Britain as a whole at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is available from the summer 1993 labour force survey and can be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list for each region(a) the number of people unemployed, (b) the percentage of the total number who are unemployed and (c) the percentage of the labour force unemployed for 12 months or more for each month since January 1991; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list for each region (a) the number of people unemployed, (b) the percentage of the total number who are unemployed and (c) the percentage of the labour force unemployed for six months or more for each month since January 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is available from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Training
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people were participating in(a) employment training, (b) employment action, (c) the enterprise allowance scheme and (d) youth training in each region and in Great Britain as a whole in 1992–93 and 1993–94 to date; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, the destination of leavers from employment action, giving the most recent figures available and figures for each year since the scheme began, broken down by (a) full-time employment with their work experience employer, (b) full-time employment with another employer, (c) employment in their own business, (d) part-time employment,(e) voluntary employment, (f) another Government training programme, (g) full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) job club and (k) other; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will publish a table showing for each region and for Great Britain as a whole the destination of leavers from youth training, giving the most recent figures available and figures for each year since the scheme began, broken down by (a) full-time employment with their work experience employer, (b) full-time employment with another

  Region

  Employment Training 1992–93 Fees1

  Employment Training 1992–93 Allowances2

  Employment Action 1992–93 Fees1

  Employment Action 1992–93 Allowances2

  Training for Work planned provision 1993–943

  South East

  26,103,435

  —

  5,297,520

  —

  58,546,358

  London

  48,829,069

  —

  9,615,545

  —

  121,994,814

  Eastern

  11,377,369

  —

  3,107,496

  —

  47,941,033

  South West

  25,130,165

  —

  4,824,910

  —

  63,155,516

  West Midlands

  38,046,222

  —

  5,906,981

  —

  85,352,355

  East Midlands

  25,278,836

  —

  5,083,041

  —

  55,034,206

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  43,622,900

  —

  7,264,185

  —

  98,032,276

  Greater Manchester

  26,772,290

  —

  4,685,380

  —

  44,923,749

  North West

  29,343,048

  —

  4,952,157

  —

  77,470,576

  Northern

  48,888,393

  —

  4,163,560

  —

  79,474,1588

  648
  employer, (c) employment in their own business, (d) part-time employment, (e) voluntary employment, (f) another Government training programme, (g) full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) job club and (k) other; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will publish a table showing for each region and for Great Britain as a whole the destination of leavers from employment training, giving the most recent figures available and figures for each year since the scheme began, broken down by (a) full-time employment with their work experience employer, (b) full-time employment with another employer, (c) employment in their own business, (d) part-time employment, (e) voluntary employment, (f) another Government training programme, (g) full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) job club and (k) other; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he will publish a table showing for each region and for Great Britain as a whole during 1993 how many unemployed disabled people participated in (a) employment training, (b) restart and (c) training and enterprise council schemes and the destinations of those participating; and if he will make a statement;

  (6)if he will list for each training and enterprise council the total number of leavers from training courses and the number and percentage who went on to (a) full-time employment, (b) part-time employment, (c) further training, (d) a further course, (e) further education, (f) unemployment and (g) other destinations in each quarter of 1993; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) if he will list for each training and enterprise council (a) the number of participating trainees who are over 40 years old, (b) the male to female ratio and (c) the number of disabled trainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the information is contained in a large number of tables, I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure on(a) employment training, (b) employment action, (c) the enterprise allowance scheme and (d) youth training in each region and in Great Britain as a whole in 1992–93 and 1993–94 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in t he following tables for each of the Employment Department regions.

  The information for Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.
  649

  Region

  Employment Training 1992–93 Fees1

  Employment Training 1992–93 Allowances2

  Employment Action 1992–93 Fees1

  Employment Action 1992–93 Allowances2

  Training for Work planned provision 1993–943

  Total

  323,391,727

  303,067,713

  54,900,775

  65,573,569

  727,926,071

  National

  326,418,091

  303,067,713

  461,604,106

  475,673,568

  781,826,600

  1 Employment Training and Employment Action superseded by Training for Work on 1 April 1993.

  2 Employment Training and Employment Action allowances were not allocated regionally.

  3 Training for Work planned provision includes both fees and allowances.

  4 National figures for Employment Action include Scotland.

  Region

  1Business Start Up Scheme 1992–93

  BSUS planned provision for 1993–94

  South East

  6,965,460

  8,579,810

  London

  7,430,643

  11,552,288

  Eastern

  2,542,104

  5,719,354

  South West

  6,949,773

  9,342,602

  West Midlands

  7,485,364

  9,930,889

  East Midlands

  6,136,123

  7,418,052

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8,743,013

  11,199,176

  Greater Manchester

  6,023,815

  6,682,285

  North West

  6,158,712

  8,113,344

  Northern

  3,789,207

  5,290,509

  Total

  62,224,214

  83,828,309

  National

  62,224,214

  92,792,000

  1Enterprise Allowance Scheme superseded by Business Start Up Scheme on 1 April 1991.

  Region

  Youth training 1992–93

  Youth training planned provision for 1993–941

  South East

  78,638,773

  73,530,796

  London

  53,642,580

  67,791,627

  Eastern

  37,803,269

  62,900,706

  South West

  53,295,224

  60,607,999

  West Midlands

  78,281,944

  85,848,948

  East Midlands

  61,528,473

  61,255,629

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  78,747,999

  87,356,769

  Greater Manchester

  47,177,959

  49,755,760

  North West

  58,099,250

  82,823,343

  Northern

  55,879,335

  60,242,404

  Total

  603,094,806

  692,113,981

  National

  617,021,080

  704,363,000

  1 Youth training planned provision excludes bridging allowance.

  Earnings
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the average total weekly earnings in(a) each travel-to-work area and (b) Great Britain as a whole in (i) cash and (ii) current prices for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information by each travel-to-work area is not available. The following tables provide details of average earnings by area at April of each of the last five years. The information on the retail prices index, all items, at April, to convert 1989 figures to 1993 prices is published in table 6.4 of the Employment Gazette and in table 26 of the annual supplement to "Economic Trends" for April of earlier years.

  The majority of areas show a positive change in real earnings over the five-year period. Outside London and the
  650
  south-east there is little evidence of any great disparity in earnings. Any differences that do exist result from the concentration of industries and occupations with relatively lower earnings in certain regions.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full time adults—pay unaffected by absence: at April

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Great Britain

  239·7

  263·1

  284·7

  304·6

  316·9

  England and Wales

  241·5

  265·0

  286·6

  306·4

  319·0

  England

  242·7

  266·7

  288·3

  308·1

  320·9

  Wales

  215·9

  232·1

  252·2

  270·9

  281·2

  Scotland

  221·4

  244·0

  265·3

  286·7

  296·8

  South East Region

  275·0

  303·6

  326·7

  348·6

  365·5

  Greater London

  304·6

  336·3

  361·1

  385·3

  408·0

  City of London

  408·5

  455·1

  486·0

  510·4

  543·3

  Barking

  271·8

  296·5

  322·4

  340·9

  363·2

  Barnet

  272·6

  308·4

  305·0

  318·0

  345·4

  Bexley

  257·5

  281·1

  317·1

  354·7

  339·0

  Brent

  265·4

  295·4

  316·4

  336·3

  364·1

  Bromley

  257·9

  285·4

  288·0

  305·8

  321·5

  Camden

  317·0

  346·9

  368·7

  390·6

  404·2

  Croydon

  265·2

  296·0

  321·8

  339·8

  342·0

  Ealing

  270·9

  307·2

  336·1

  356·3

  361·9

  Enfield

  252·6

  270·1

  298·8

  326·0

  339·4

  Greenwich

  254·6

  268·8

  292·4

  310·6

  330·1

  Hackney

  310·4

  353·9

  374·0

  —

  —

  Hammersmith

  289·3

  316·2

  352·4

  373·2

  393·6

  Haringey

  242·1

  272·0

  283·7

  303·0

  323·1

  Harrow

  267·6

  286·0

  322·7

  335·4

  349·8

  Havering

  239·1

  258·6

  292·2

  315·5

  319·3

  Hillingdon

  280·6

  309·4

  327·1

  382·6

  422·8

  Hounslow

  311·2

  345·0

  354·8

  365·3

  357·9

  Islington

  290·2

  330·1

  360·0

  388·4

  425·3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  284·6

  311·9

  335·2

  358·3

  371·9

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  269·0

  292·1

  324·6

  364·9

  361·4

  Lambeth

  310·9

  340·2

  370·9

  381·6

  418·5

  Lewisham

  252·7

  266·4

  299·5

  325·1

  336·3

  Merton

  269·4

  294·6

  316·2

  332·9

  366·0

  Newham

  255·8

  280·4

  313·5

  338·5

  358·8

  Redbridge

  240·5

  274·2

  287·1

  319·1

  339·9

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  274·6

  299·6

  332·7

  347·1

  350·0

  Southwark

  315·0

  344·4

  367·5

  396·7

  412·4

  Sutton

  279·5

  321·1

  319·5

  335·8

  340·1

  Tower Hamlets

  319·3

  351·1

  382·7

  423·9

  474·3

  Waltham Forest

  235·9

  263·2

  283·1

  304·7

  305·0

  Wandsworth

  260·9

  294·1

  307·9

  332·9

  372·5

  City of Westminster

  329·9

  365·1

  397·8

  415·7

  447·3

  Remainder of South East region

  248·5

  274·0

  295·3

  315·6

  328·7

  Bedfordshire

  244·4

  269·3

  287·4

  314·9

  324·3

  Berkshire

  276·1

  299·3

  326·6

  349·1

  370·0

  Buckinghamshire

  261·2

  290·4

  307·1

  326·1

  330·6

  East Sussex

  220·3

  238·6

  260·9

  272·7

  287·8

  Essex

  242·9

  268·4

  287·2

  305·5

  316·7

  Hampshire

  241·7

  266·9

  285·6

  306·6

  322·5

  Hertfordshire

  259·8

  290·3

  314·2

  326·7

  342·1

  Isle of Wight

  217·6

  225·5

  255·2

  270·8

  259·9

  Kent

  235·7

  256·3

  280·4

  298·6

  308·3

  Oxfordshire

  237·6

  264·1

  285·5

  307·9

  327·6

  Surrey

  266·0

  299·6

  322·2

  346·0

  362·4

  West Sussex

  248·3

  270·6

  287·8

  314·4

  320·9

  651

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  East Anglia Region

  227·3

  249·6

  268·9

  288·4

  292·2

  Cambridgeshire

  236·2

  261·8

  280·7

  299·6

  306·9

  Norfolk

  220·3

  239·5

  259·1

  280·5

  281·4

  Suffolk

  224·9

  246·4

  266·0

  283·9

  286·8

  South West Region

  225·0

  246·8

  265·5

  283·1

  298·4

  Avon

  241·3

  263·0

  283·9

  296·1

  315·0

  Cornwall

  196·3

  214·2

  219·9

  239·5

  252·4

  Devon

  203·6

  227·1

  243·4

  263·9

  280·4

  Dorset

  225·4

  247·5

  261·1

  278·4

  292·0

  Gloucestershire

  230·1

  251·4

  276·9

  294·8

  306·7

  Somerset

  226·3

  236·2

  256·3

  272·6

  287·2

  Wiltshire

  234·0

  262·0

  281·2

  306·1

  319·4

  West Midlands Region

  220·4

  240·6

  261·1

  279·9

  291·9

  West Midlands MC

  225·2

  247·7

  268·1

  287·8

  301·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  208·0

  227·6

  246·1

  262·8

  279·8

  Shropshire

  202·1

  222·9

  242·5

  263·0

  275·4

  Staffordshire

  215·6

  230·9

  251·7

  268·7

  273·6

  Warwickshire

  230·7

  246·6

  270·8

  290·8

  299·9

  East Midlands Region

  216·3

  241·6

  261·3

  276·1

  285·7

  Derbyshire

  217·2

  250·9

  269·5

  281·0

  288·9

  Leicestershire

  212·0

  237·5

  257·9

  169·9

  285·0

  Lincolnshire

  207·7

  226·6

  244·9

  263·7

  270·5

  Northamptonshire

  224·0

  250·6

  265·3

  286·6

  298·7

  Nottinghamshire

  220·3

  241·6

  263·4

  277·5

  283·7

  Yorkshire/Humberside Region

  219·7

  239·6

  257·9

  277·3

  287·4

  South Yorkshire MC

  224·8

  242·7

  263·6

  280·3

  287·2

  West Yorkshire MC

  217·1

  241·1

  257·9

  278·3

  288·9

  Humberside

  222·4

  237·6

  252·5

  275·9

  286·3

  North Yorkshire

  215·6

  231·0

  253·1

  270·2

  283·3

  North West Region

  283·6

  244·5

  267·1

  285·5

  298·8

  Greater Manchester MC

  223·1

  243·0

  267·1

  285·8

  297·2

  Merseyside MC

  222·9

  242·9

  265·0

  282·0

  297·2

  Cheshire

  237·8

  261·4

  284·0

  303·1

  325·6

  Lancashire

  214·1

  235·7

  254·8

  274·5

  281·7

  North Region

  216·1

  236·7

  258·0

  282·3

  288·6

  Tyne and Wear Metropolitan Council

  212·7

  234·2

  257·4

  282·3

  287·0

  Cleveland

  234·4

  246·3

  267·1

  291·6

  297·9

  Cumbria

  220·1

  246·7

  270·1

  287·0

  299·2

  Durham

  206·3

  230·5

  245·2

  272·7

  279·9

  Northumberland

  206·1

  221·1

  247·0

  273·6

  276·3

  Wales

  215·9

  232·1

  252·2

  270·9

  281·2

  Clwyd

  215·2

  236·7

  253·0

  271·9

  281·6

  Clywd, West

  200·1

  223·3

  231·5

  254·1

  262·2

  Clwyd, East

  222·0

  242·3

  262·1

  280·2

  290·6

  Dyfed (excluding Llanelli)

  205·0

  220·3

  236·2

  250·6

  274·8

  Gwent

  212·2

  226·6

  250·6

  263·6

  273·1

  Gwynedd

  215·3

  225·5

  246·3

  259·7

  264·1

  Mid-Glamorgan

  220·0

  232·7

  249·9

  270·7

  278·5

  Powys

  206·2

  210·1

  226·8

  251·6

  262·5

  South Glamorgan

  224·4

  245·0

  265·4

  282·2

  299·3

  West Glamorgan (including Llanelli)

  213·4

  230·5

  253·7

  281·1

  283·0

  Scotland

  221·4

  244·0

  265·3

  286·7

  296·8

  Borders

  187·9

  205·7

  242·9

  258·2

  262·5

  Central

  220·0

  238·5

  257·7

  281·8

  295·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  207·6

  226·5

  239·4

  255·1

  264·7

  Fife

  206·2

  228·7

  251·9

  273·4

  280·6

  Grampian

  2253·8

  287·6

  318·8

  336·9

  336·2

  Highland

  211·6

  229·2

  253·2

  269·3

  273·7

  Lothian

  223·9

  244·8

  2263·2

  290·8

  306·2

  652

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Strathclyde

  219·7

  243·1

  260·6

  279·3

  293·3

  Tayside

  204·5

  222·4

  248·1

  269·3

  280·2

  Orkney, Shetlands, Western Isles

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Highlands and Islands

  219·7

  232·3

  261·5

  280·2

  280·5

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Note: ".." denotes sample too small and/or standard error too large for reliable estimate.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing for each region and for Great Britain as a whole during 1993(a) the number of job clubs in operation, (b) the number participating in job clubs and (c) the destinations of those participating, broken down by (i) full-time employment, (ii) part-time employment, (iii) self-employment, (iv) further participation in job club, (v) full-time education or training course, (vi) unemployment and (vii) other options; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 14 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Jobclubs.
  The attached table shows the number of Jobclubs open in December 1993, the number of people who joined Jobclub from 1 January to 31 December 1993 and the number who left during the same period to go into jobs, other positive outcomes and for other reasons.
  Details of the number who joined Jobclub during the year have been given on the table as records of the number participating on the programe at any one time are not kept.
  As the primary focus of Jobclub is on getting people into work we do not keep detailed statistics on the different destinations of Jobclub leavers. Included in the "other positive outcomes" category are those leaving to go into full-time education, training (including Training for Work), self-employment, or to join a temporary work programme. The "other leavers" category includes people who are still unemployed on leaving the Jobclub and those leaving for other reasons such as health problems, or taking up part-time education. There are no figures available to show how many people subsequently re-join a Jobclub.
  A more detailed examination of the destination of Jobclub leavers was carried out in January 1991. This was based on a postal survey of individuals who joined in Autumn 1989. At that time 43 per cent. of respondents went into full-time employment, 10 per cent. into part-time employment, 2 per cent. into self employment, 14 per cent. joined Employment Training, 2 per cent. went into full-time education or training and the remaining 29 per cent. left for other reasons.
  The Employment Service is planning a wide ranging evaluation of its programmes and services which lead to jobs. This should begin in spring 1994 and will, amongst other things, allow us to update our information abut the destination of leavers.
  Jobclubs continue to be an effective and popular programme. We are now helping more people than ever before and almost half of those who join leave with a job to go to.
  I hope this is helpful.

  653

  Jobclub information

  1993

  Number of Jobclubs

  Number of entrants

  Number into jobs

  Number into other positive outcomes

  Number of other leavers

  Northern

  99

  14,316

  5,739

  7,134

  1,258

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  120

  20,509

  9,154

  2,724

  7,811

  East Midlands and Eastern

  125

  20,945

  9,603

  2,660

  7,670

  London and South East

  429

  80,354

  32,003

  10,086

  32,302

  South West

  121

  17,646

  7,905

  2,246

  6,078

  Wales

  84

  13,555

  7,129

  1,790

  4,002

  West Midlands

  156

  20,870

  9,606

  3,275

  7,504

  North West

  184

  32,593

  14,312

  3,595

  14,429

  Scotland

  138

  21,718

  10,222

  2,727

  8,133

  Great Britain

  1,456

  242,506

  105,673

  36,237

  89,187

  JobCentres
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the number of vacancies in jobcentres that were(a) temporary and (b) permanent in each quarter since December 1990 in each region; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 14 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the numbers of vacancies in Jobcentres.

  Tables showing the number of temporary and permanent vacancies notified to Jobcentres by region were published in Hansard on 8 December 1993, column 212 refers. The information covers the period from April 1987 to 8 October 1993.

  I enclose a table which gives similar information for the latest available period, from 11 October 1993 to 7 January 1994.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Details of permanent and temporary notified vacancies 11 October 1993 to 7 January 1994

  Period

  11 October 1993 to 7 January 1994

  Region

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Northern Region

  15,619

  5,769

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  28,980

  8,466

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  35,125

  12,076

  London and South East Region

  99,996

  30,770

  South West Region

  28,889

  9,637

  Office for Wales

  20,909

  13,155

  West Midlands Region

  32,415

  9,240

  654

  Period

  11 October 1993 to 7 January 1994

  Region

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  North West Region

  54,348

  22,229

  Office for Scotland

  42,347

  16,614

  National Total

  358,628

  127,956

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men took early retirement in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May". Also, it is not this Department's practice to reply on matters that are "in confidence" or "commercial in confidence".

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

War Crimes Act 1991
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the cost to date of the administration of the War Crimes Act 1991; and how many people have been brought to trial under it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the costs to the end of this financial year are estimated at £ 5.4 million. No prosecutions have yet been brought.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Answer he has given shows what a nonsense the whole of the operation relating to the War Crimes Act is, and how right your Lordships' House was to reject it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is my noble friend's interpretation of the facts. The actual fact is that Parliament said that such action was to be undertaken. It passed the War Crimes Act and it has been necessary for those investigations to take place; hence the expenditure to which I referred.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the answers to these questions are not read in Yugoslavia? Otherwise those who are now committing war crimes might believe that, if it costs money to bring justice, the allegations against them will not be investigated.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is difficult for me to ensure that observations which are made in Parliament are not reported in Yugoslavia or indeed in the United
2
Kingdom. Often such observations are not reported in the United Kingdom when we wish that they were I cannot give a guarantee.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, my noble friend stated— if I have riot misunderstood him— that no prosecutions have been brought. I read in the papers recently that one prosecution had been brought in Scotland and that the court had said that there was no case to answer.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that that was a civil case. The information I have is that no prosecutions have been brought.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Earl stated that Parliament determined the matter. Was that not by the invocation of the Parliament Act? Does not the history of the matter show the folly as well as the constitutional impropriety of invoking the Parliament Act to override your Lordships' judgment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord will recall, another place decided in favour of the Bill; your Lordships decided against it. When that occurred a second time, the Parliament Act was invoked. The Parliament Act decrees how Parliament shall operate. In that respect, I believe that the answer I gave was correct. It would be improper for me to enter into a discussion at the Dispatch Box about instances when it would or would not be suitable for the Parliament Act to be invoked.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with regard to the earlier Answer given by the noble Earl, is he aware of an announcement made recently in Scotland that there were to be no prosecutions in the matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes, I am aware of that fact.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Bearing in mind the strong feelings which exist across both sides of the House on the issue, will the noble Earl state at what

3
stage another place or the Government will consider whether it is worth pursuing the matter or coming back to Parliament for a new decision?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the law of the land is that war criminals should be investigated. If, having carried out their investigations, the police find that there is nothing further to investigate, of course the matter will die a natural death.
Lord Acton: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in 1989 the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry reported three key cases with a realistic prospect of a conviction? Have any of those cases subsequently been abandoned? Do any remain which still have a realistic prospect of a conviction?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry looked into 300 cases. A further 43 cases were brought to the attention of the Metropolitan Police war crimes unit. All those cases have been reviewed and at present 27 cases are under investigation.
Lord Acton: My Lords, with respect, the noble Earl's reply does not answer my question. In paragraphs 9.10 and 9.50 the report specifically picked on three key cases. The War Crimes Act was based largely on the platform of those three cases. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would answer my question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall find out the information for the noble Lord, and let him know. I think that that would be best.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, did not many Members of your Lordships' House recognise that no prosecutions under the Act were likely to be successful, but nevertheless they thought that the Act embodied a principle which was worth establishing?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was one of the many views taken on the Act which have proved quite controversial. Some people take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder; others take the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter; others take different views.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree on the following three propositions: first, that to mount a prosecution for an alleged offence committed 50 years ago and abroad is fraught with difficulties; secondly, that to prosecute for a crime under the War Crimes Act will cost this country many hundreds of thousands of pounds; and, thirdly, would not the money be better spent maintaining the present level of compensation for persons who have been seriously injured— I emphasise those two words— by crimes committed within this country, rather than seriously reducing that level of compensation from 1st April this year, as contemplated by the Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer to the noble and learned Lord's first question is, yes. The answer to his second question is, yes. The answer to his third question is that, with respect, it is a total irrelevance which has nothing to do with the War Crimes Act 1991.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister gave what can only be described as a minimal answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. If the noble Earl is aware that no further prosecutions are to be mounted in Scotland, are the Government satisfied with the closure of the Scottish war crimes unit? Does that raise any issues of differences between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it does not at all. In Scotland the Lothian and Borders police investigated the problems. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, advised by the Scottish Crown Office, assessed the situation. Seventeen cases were investigated; they were all discharged. That is why the police investigations have come to a close in Scotland. The fact that they have not done so in England has nothing to do with the position in Scotland.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us in this House and outside think that in this case the Commons were right and that it is better, in the face of difficulties, to try to bring justice for horrible crimes, even those committed long ago?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is yet another view which many people hold and to which I referred the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in the answer I gave him. Many people take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie.

Religious Education: Discussions
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with leaders of ethnic minority communities in England and Wales about the future of religious education.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have had a number of discussions with leaders and representatives of religious groups on subjects including the future of religious education. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is responsible for advising Ministers on all aspects of RE in England and is also in contact with religious groups. No representations for such discussions have been received in Wales. Should representations be received, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales would give them very careful consideration.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree with me that the main purpose of religious education is to achieve the spiritual and cultural development of all pupils and that it is important that in no case should pupils be made to feel that their religion is in any way second class? Does the noble Baroness agree therefore that great sensitivity is needed to ensure that we uphold respect for common ethics in all religious groups?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness. That is one of the purposes of

5
religious education. It is also the purpose of education that all children, from whatever background, should understand the Christian tradition, both historical and cultural, of this country.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that morality may be taught in schools without necessarily being attached to any religion?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that spirituality and morality are distinct subjects in education and are equally important.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a fundamental difference between teaching religion and teaching about religion? Should not teaching about religion and humanism be the priority in our whole approach to religious education in schools? Does the Minister also agree that in many communities in our country the majority of families have a cultural tradition which is certainly not Christianity? We must therefore never put any other faith in a second-class position.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, humanism is neither a religion nor a faith. We are talking about religious education.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that all 43 dioceses of the Church of England have an inter-faith committee or working group among whose members there is a desire to relate to other historic faiths? Is she aware too of the desire within the Board of Education that where the majority in a certain place are of other faiths, those faiths should not be disregarded or overridden?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an important point. First, we are enormously appreciative of what is being done by the Christian Churches in this country and those of other faiths who have been working constructively together on the operation of the syllabuses now out for consultation. It is right and proper not only that Christianity should be safeguarded within the syllabus for religious education but also that there should be a recognition that other faiths exist and that the integrity of those faiths should be sustained.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while no other faiths should be treated as in any way second class, it is confusing for some young people when they are taught about too many different religions at the same time?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The syllabuses which are out for consultation at the moment pose one or two important questions. One is the way in which educationally a child can properly do justice to learning about more than one faith at a time. That is a proper question to pose. At the moment, I believe that for Key Stage 1 the syllabus provides for Christianity plus two other religions; at Key Stage 2, if one takes the maximum, it is Christianity
6
plus four. I believe that there is a serious question mark over the ability of young people to benefit educationally from that range of subjects.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that while grant-maintained status is made available for Roman Catholic and Anglican schools it is entirely reasonable that such opportunities should be made available for Moslem schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. It is entirely proper, and should an application come before us that meets all the criteria it will be properly considered. At the moment there have been only two applications from Moslem schools. One fell and was withdrawn at the later stages. The other was rejected on the grounds that there were 1,500 spare places within a two-mile radius and 3,500 spare places within the authority as a whole.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say what happens when those following the Christian religion in a school are in a very big minority?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is one of the reasons why religious education is not a national curriculum subject. It is a compulsory subject within the curriculum, which allows parents, if they wish, to withdraw their children. It also allows for proper recognition of both national and local factors. The situation described by the noble Baroness could be taken into account as a local factor. The syllabuses are out for consultation at the moment. We are encouraging local authorities not simply to adopt a religious education syllabus that applies rigidly to the whole authority but one that allows flexibility and properly reflects local community factors.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister consider it right that where a majority of children come from families of other faiths, they should nevertheless be taught Christianity as the primary religion? Does she not agree that that is one of the main reasons 'why Moslems are asking for separate education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree absolutely with that point. I said in response to another question that whatever background children come from it is essential that they learn about the cultural, historical and religious traditions of this country.

Women's Organisations
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have not met the Home Secretary"s pledge to fund the National Alliance of Women's Organisations, in order to support umbrella bodies within the voluntary sector.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no pledge of financial support to this organisation has been given.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extremely brief reply. We are

7
aware that no funding has been given to this organisation and find that a little unsatisfactory. I ask for further clarification. Can the Minister say why this organisation, which is one of the few national umbrella organisations, if not the only one, does not receive any core funding from this Government, even though it meets the criteria laid down by the Home Office? Secondly, will the Minister indicate whether before taking the decision the Government consulted any of the 225 women's organisations that make up this alliance?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Voluntary Services Unit makes grants both to national generalist voluntary organisations which provide services and support for other voluntary bodies or for the sector as a whole and to national voluntary organisations which promote voluntary activity. So far as I know, the organisation does not come into those categories; that is the reason why my right honourable friend, in making his decisions, did not include it for support.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the body does not come into those categories, can my noble friend tell us which categories it does come within?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know which categories it comes within. It covers a fairly wide number of voluntary organisations— as I understand it, about 200 or so. They range from the Mothers' Union at one end of the scale to the Camden Lesbian and black lesbian groups on the other.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that this umbrella organisation, which represents some 6 million women, is excluded from government funds simply because of some bureaucratic division made by the Government in the categorisation of organisations? Is that the only excuse that the Minister can offer for denying payment to this organisation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, certainly not. There are endless organisations which approach my department and other departments requesting grants. Each department has to decide for itself which organisation it funds in the light of its own priorities, objectives and budgetary constraints. In my department the organisations that are funded are generally described as national generalist voluntary organisations, which are umbrella organisations.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Earl ask his department to consider this matter again? It is well known by all of us who are connected with women's organisations that this co-ordinating organisation is very useful and it can save a lot of money by not duplicating the requirements of different organisations. It-seems to a great many of us that this was a very ill thought-out refusal. The letters that we have received about it were totally unconvincing. Will the Minister take this matter up again?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I would be entirely pleased to respond to the noble Baroness's request to have the matter looked at. I cannot imagine that she will get a very favourable reply, but I shall
8
certainly look at the matter again. As I understand it, a number of organisations contribute a certain subscription towards this body. Nevertheless, those organisations seem to require a fairly hefty government grant as well. Perhaps they ought to put their subscription rates up.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may put two questions to the Minister. First, bearing in mind that the Conservative Women's Council is a member of this organisation, have any representations been made by the council concerning a grant? Secondly, does the Minister agree that it is important, as we have only 18 months to go before the United Nations Women's Conference in Beijing, that women's organisations should be encouraged and helped to prepare for that very important conference?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer to the last question is, yes, I am sure that it is desirable that they should do all that they can to prepare themselves. The answer to the noble Lord's first question is, not to my knowledge.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his first Answer the Minister responded that no pledge had been given to the National Alliance of Women's Organisations. While that is strictly true, is it not the case that the Secretary of State said in a speech to the Charities Aid Foundation in November last year that help should be given to umbrella bodies of voluntary organisations? If that is the case, is not the National Alliance of Women's Organisations an excellent example of an umbrella organisation which makes it easier for the voluntary services unit to deal with women's interests than having to deal separately with the 225 member organisations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in so far as he referred to the Charities Aid Foundation annual conference at which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary spoke. At that conference he reaffirmed the importance of the work of umbrella and generalist bodies in strengthening the voluntary sector. He made no commitment at all about the funding of particular organisations. That is the position.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, Members of this House and of the other place have been chairmen and members of the Women's National Commission. Does the Minister agree with me that it would be unfair to let this Question pass without recognising the work that is done by the Women's National Commission, and the fact that it is funded as an umbrella organisation for women's issues?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Seccombe is absolutely right. I am glad that she has drawn our attention to that point.

Under-floor Insulation
2.59 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that all new houses should have under-floor insulation to prevent heat loss and to prevent radioactive radon from entering the house.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the building regulations make provision for the insulation of dwellings including under-floor insulation where it is necessary to reduce heat loss. Requirements to prevent radioactive radon from entering new dwellings are also included in the building regulations for those parts of the country where significant radon levels have been identified. The normal way of sealing floors against radon ingress is by the use of a membrane rather than under-floor insulation.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. But does he realise that from an insulation point of view it is easy to put in double glazing and cavity wall insulation, and even easier to put insulation in the loft, but if one has not already installed it in new houses, under-floor insulation, without which a great deal of energy can be lost, is very difficult and very expensive to put in later on? Will he try to get some requirement for such insulation in new houses? Does he also appreciate that it affects our future generations?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government are committed to strengthening the requirements of the building regulations. To that end a consultation document was published in January last year. It is proposed to lay revised building regulations in the summer with the aim of bringing them into force by the end of the year. Similar proposals have been consulted on in Scotland; Northern Ireland proposes to consult before the end of the year.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my point relates to the first part of the noble Viscount's Question which refers to heat loss. Does the noble Viscount recall that during the run-up to privatisation, in order to get the energy industry ready for it, the Government almost totally eliminated grants for insulation and energy saving? Bearing in mind the enormous sums of money that the privatised energy industries are now making, does he agree that it would be realistic to reappraise the situation and perhaps charge them something for this?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, your Lordships may know that this week is in fact Energy Advice Week. Many local authorities and local organisations are working toward that end.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Viscount take my advice about the present energy companies and tell them to have a look at this matter?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the news that this week is Energy
10
Advice Week comes as rather a surprise to some of us? Not many of us had heard about it. Will the Government be more energetic in their energy advice? Will the noble Viscount tell us what in fact is in the building regulations, of which he read out a list a few moments ago? If he is talking about loss of heat through lack of insulation, will he perhaps go into the noble Lords' guest-room and see how much heat is escaping?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord has not heard of Energy Advice Week. Last week I picked up a local Welsh newspaper, the Western Telegraph, which had a pull-out bifolio giving a lot of advice on the subject. The proposals improve energy performance for heating and hot water by between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. The aim of the revised regulations is to make a significant improvement without introducing unnecessary technical risks in allowing designers some flexibility in how the requirements can be met.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that perhaps the reason that we have not heard about Energy Advice Week is that today is National Impotence Day? It may have affected the Government in some way. More seriously, can we have an assurance from the Government that when the deregulation Bill comes in, building regulations of that sort will not be swept away in a great bonfire?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I hardly think that we shall introduce new regulations with the aim of putting them on a bonfire.

Intelligence Services Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. I am glad, though not surprised, that this Bill has been welcomed on all sides by your Lordships as a step forward. Placing the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ on a statutory basis will rightly bring them into line with the Security Service.
Some of your Lordships may still believe that the legislation goes too far in terms of openness, and others that it does not go far enough. But I believe that the Government will be seen to have struck the right balance in the interests of this country and its citizens. That balance lies between accountability and unprecedented openness on the one hand and, on the other, the essential need to safeguard national security, the secrecy of operations and the personal safety of those who work for the security and intelligence services.
The Bill contains several important elements: a definition of the functions of SIS and GCHQ; a procedure for the investigation of complaints against them; the establishment of an independent commissioner to keep under review the Secretary of State's power to issue warrants and authorisations; and last, but by no means least, a committee of parliamentarians with an oversight remit which applies to all, three services.

11
Moreover, these provisions do not supplant existing safeguards and ministerial responsibility. They complement them.
With this new framework in place, I believe that the confidence of the public and Parliament in the activities of the three services will be enhanced and that those who work for the services will feel more secure. I was particularly glad that during the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Richard, felt that, broadly speaking, the Government had got that framework "about right".
Let me say a further word about the committee of parliamentarians. The committee has a wide brief. Its function is to examine expenditure, administration and policy. Subject to certain provisions, it can determine its own procedures. I am sure that as it settles into its role the committee will come to appreciate the value of its access to the three agencies, of the unprecedented amount of information relating to national security which will be available to it and of its direct line to the Prime Minister, who has overall responsibility for intelligence and security matters.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, welcomed both the thrust of the Bill and, more specifically, the introduction of the oversight committee. He and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, referred to the importance of choosing the right kind of people for that committee. I am sure that the Prime Minister, through his consultations with the Leader of the Opposition and I imagine with others, will attach the utmost importance to that point. It is in everyone's interest that he does. Thorough and effective oversight within a secure ring of secrecy is essential.
With regard to secrecy, an especially appropriate subject perhaps on St. Valentine's Day, I welcome the acknowledgement by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that exposure should not be total and that paths that need covering should remain covered. We must not lose sight of that. After all, secrecy is the essence of intelligence and security work. It is not realistic, nor would it be effective, to deal with espionage, subversion, terrorism and threats to the country's economic well-being by overt means alone. That applies both to the business of obtaining information about such matters and to the taking of counter-action. Sadly, the end of the cold war has not made the task any easier. I believe the public and your Lordships appreciate that. Nonetheless, this has not stopped the Government from allowing the cloak of secrecy to be lifted to a considerable degree, in particular through the establishment of the oversight committee. That is a fundamental change and one that I hope is recognised as such. The committee's reports, after any necessary security excisions, will be compulsory reading, I am sure, for the rest of Parliament and for members of the public.
I should like at this point to pay tribute to the care and attention with which your Lordships have examined this Bill. It has been the object of very well informed debate. We have had some lively exchanges about the oversight committee and on the question of GCHQ and union membership. This House has been fortunate, as is often the case, in being able to draw on much relevant
12
experience. I should like to pay tribute to the thoughtful contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. I shall not recite the names of all who have participated, but I should also like to mention the valuable contributions from my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Glenarthur, Lord Mottistone, Lord Vivian, Lord Bethel and Lady Park of Monmouth, with her special insight into these matters. I should also like to mention the valuable contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Merlyn-Rees, Lord Bridges and Lord Monkswell, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, for correcting me on the status of the GC Staff Federation.
I believe that noble Lords all recognise the advances embodied in the Bill. They should not be underestimated. Considerable effort and care have gone into making it a clearly worded Bill and one which the Government believe strikes the right balance. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, thought that the Bill went about far enough in matters of accountability. I think that is right. National security and secret intelligence matters cannot be dealt with in exactly the same way as other departmental affairs. While lessons can be learnt from systems in other countries, those systems do not necessarily bring better results, nor are they necessarily right for our own institutions and services.
I believe that the Bill represents the best way forward, and that it will stand all of us in good stead in the future. I therefore invite your Lordships to give it a third reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I begin by echoing some of the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. On the whole this House did a workmanlike and good job in examining the detail of the Bill. Like him, I accept that the affairs of the security services cannot be dealt with properly— nor should they be— in the glare of publicity. Therefore, as the noble and learned Lord said, we are concerned with a question of balance between the necessity for secrecy in the operations of the intelligence services on the one hand, and the necessity for some knowledge and scrutiny by the elected representatives of the people and, indeed, by the people themselves on the other.
I pay tribute to the work the services carry out. It is right that we should do that and therefore right that we accept that the services deserve protection. A number of Members of your Lordships' House have had experience of one kind or another in dealing with one or other of the services. For my part, in some of my previous incarnations, I found that they made my work easier rather than more difficult. Further than that I am sure your Lordships would not expect me to go. Nevertheless, as a consumer— if I can put it that way — I developed a healthy admiration for the skill, determination and dedication of the services. It is right that we place that on record.

13
But that is not an end to the matter. If it were, if that were the only issue involved, then clearly there would be no need to alter the present arrangements. Total secrecy is obviously something under which intelligence operatives prefer to work. But in this case it is a question of balancing that secrecy on the one hand with the knowledge and necessity for disclosure on the other.
That gives rise to a number of questions. How much information should be disclosed? To whom should the information be disclosed? What should be the form of that disclosure? As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intimated, it is in that regard that we are unhappy with the Bill. We recognise that the Government made substantial efforts to put the intelligence security services at GCHQ into a recognisable and comprehensive legal framework. For that we are grateful. But I have difficulty accepting the provisions in the Bill for oversight and scrutiny in their present form.
The parliamentary committee must have access to sufficiently comprehensive and up-to-date information to be able to do its job properly. I am not entirely satisfied that that is necessarily provided for in the Bill. After all, we are dealing with disclosures not to Parliament as a whole; not to a Select Committee of the House of Commons; but to a very restricted and select group comprising as few as six distinguished parliamentarians to be chosen by the Prime Minister following consultation with my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition. No doubt they will be carefully chosen. They will need, I imagine— clearly, it would be sensible— the broad acceptance of the directors of the services themselves or at least of the senior Ministers who are answerable to Parliament for those services.
My view is that once the six are chosen and the committee set up, then prima facie the duty of the services should be to disclose to the committee rather than to conceal. In other words, if there is doubt as to whether the six wise men and women should or should not know something, then the presumption ought to be in favour of knowledge being passed to them rather than knowledge being concealed from them. For that system to work it will need the close co-operation of the directors of the services and the committee itself. I am not entirely satisfied that the present arrangements will necessarily foster that co-operation.
I should like to make one further point in regard to the committee before we finally pass the Bill. I refer to the linkage of the committee to Parliament itself. It should be a parliamentary committee rather than just a committee of parliamentarians. By that I do not mean that it should operate according to the normal rules of a parliamentary committee, either in the other place or here. It would be a special kind of parliamentary committee with restrictions on its membership, operation and procedure. I accept too the need for the Prime Minister's right of censorship. Before anything moves into the public domain it is right that the executive— in this case the Prime Minister— should have the opportunity of looking at the report and
14
deciding whether or not a matter is too sensitive for it to be included in the general report to Parliament or to the country.
However, I insist that the linkage of the committee should be to Parliament rather than to the Prime Minister. From the point of view of the operation of the Bill and the future health of the security services themselves it is important that there should be an overt and direct link between the oversight committee arid Parliament. Otherwise it will be a committee not directly responsible to Parliament but responsible to the Prime Minister who will vet the report before it is published. That cannot be in the interests of the services themselves. It will be impossible to avoid the suspicion or allegation that matters which should properly be disclosed are being concealed. The Government do not accept that. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed the contrary view on a number of occasions. Because of that the Labour Party in another place will feel free to examine the arrangements afresh. It is an issue about which we feel strongly.
Another issue about which we feel strongly is trade union rights at GCHQ. Again the Government failed to recognise the justice of our argument. Frankly, I do not understand their obduracy and opposition. I do my best to understand the Government's position on a whole host of matters. Some are difficult. There are, however, occasions when I manage to understand at the seventh reading. Their attitude on GCHQ totally escapes me.
As I understand the position, the Government say that there is no allegation against the loyalty of any member of the workforce at GCHQ. We therefore start from the basis that they are loyal workers who have been doing their job in the interests of the country and, as mentioned on all sides, doing it well. However, we say that they cannot exercise their basic right of belonging to a trade union of their choice. That is absurdly illogical, particularly if one takes the following proposition. As a member of the intelligence services, a member of the Foreign Office at diplomatic level or a civil servant at a fairly high operative level, there would be nothing whatever to prevent one joining the trade union of one's choice. It seems to me the height of absurdity to have a situation in which a senior executive of MI6 can belong to a trade union of his choice but a workman or typist at GCHQ is prevented from exercising that same democratic right.
I do not press the point any further. The argument has been heard; we were beaten three times in the course of the Bill. I say only to the Government that it is an issue to which we shall return. As my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff said at Second Reading, it may be necessary to wait until a Labour government are in power for that injustice to be remedied.
I wish to say a few words in regard to the personnel on the Bill. I pay tribute to my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lady Turner for the help they gave at various stages of the Bill. pay tribute also to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He always listens with great courtesy, with great patience and with great silence. How much he actually agrees behind the wig

15
and the mask is difficult sometimes to tell; nevertheless he treats us with unfailing courtesy. For that at least, if not for any concessions, we are extremely grateful.
So far as we on this side of the House are concerned I suppose that it is just about two cheers for the Bill. The Government have probably been wise in placing the intelligence services in a proper legal framework. They have been wise too in setting up the commissioner. They have been wise in setting up a committee to oversee the services. But as someone in another place said on another occasion, the devil is in the details. Were it not for the details, perhaps of some of the intricacies of the oversight procedure, we might have been able to give the Bill three cheers rather than two. We welcome the exit from the closet. We cannot welcome, I am afraid, the arrangements proposed for parliamentary scrutiny. That probably sums up our position on the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I do not propose to reiterate the arguments put forward at Second Reading and refined to some extent at Committee stage and which are set forth in a letter published in The Times today. Those arguments explain why it seems to us self-evident that we have an obligation to this relatively small group of people— the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong— to whom this Bill would offer a safety net. I very much hope that when the Bill goes to another place the Government will not exercise their ability to block it. It is a Bill which has widespread support on all sides of this House and I believe on all sides of another place. If there were a free vote in another place I believe that it would be passed overwhelmingly. I believe it is a matter of honour for this country that it be passed. So once more I make a plea that the Government restrain themselves on this occasion when the Bill goes to another place.
Meanwhile, I should like to take this opportunity to thank those of your Lordships who have been good enough to support the Bill in this House, both when we first passed a Resolution last July by a majority of 60 to 48 and subsequently at Second Reading and at Committee stage. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, a former Governor of Hong Kong, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke, Lord Chalfont, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, Lord Beaumont and Lord Butterfield— I hope I have not forgotten any— for supporting it. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his understanding opposition. I forgot to mention the support of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, which has been most valuable.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. — (Lord Bonham-Carter.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House has already expressed itself on the principle behind the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has so properly and lucidly introduced and piloted through the procedures of your Lordships' House. I apologise to him for coming in late for his brief contribution. In case he has not said so I think that the argument is admirably expressed in the letter to The Times today which he drafted and to which I had the honour to add my name. I do not believe there is anything further that I can say other than that I hope and believe, in the light of the arguments put forward, that the Government should and will see fit to accede to those arguments and to make this very modest and minimal step in favour of justice for those to whom justice is being denied.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I shall be very brief as behoves me at this Third Reading but I sometimes wonder whether the Government, and indeed this country, fully appreciate what a traumatic event it will be for people living in Hong Kong when we pass over sovereignty in 1997. In Gibraltar, which was also obtained as a result of military action many years ago, the wishes of the inhabitants are repeatedly said to be paramount; and in any case the Gibraltarians have full British citizenship. Yet in Hong Kong these things do not apply. However skilfully the transition is organised — I hope that it still can be so organised— personal traumas and tragedies will remain, which makes our obligation to see that that transition is as painless as possible all the greater. When a group such as the one which is the subject of the noble Lord's Bill has been positively identified by successive governors, by the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and, I have reason to believe, by our own Foreign Office as being, because of its non-ethnic origins, particularly and uniquely disadvantaged as regards citizenship and long-term right of abode, it surely deserves to be treated with a magnanimity of spirit which would cost us virtually nothing and not be subject to an inflexible rule of thumb and some weasel-worded and frankly worthless half promises. I therefore also plead with the Government not to stand in the way of this humane and fair Bill but to allow a free vote on it in another place.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, as I did at Second Reading, I rise now to give my wholehearted support to the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I have one regret only, and I mention this specifically for the benefit of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I was not a signatory to the letter to The Times today. I totally support the content of that letter and I ask him to read the letter as if my name was also at the bottom of it. I support the Bill.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, this is surely a Bill which deserves to get the best possible send-off from your Lordships' House. A number of things have become clear during the debates on the Bill. One is that there is a real problem for which we have real responsibility. Another is that it is a relatively small problem so that, unlike so many others, we can actually deal with it. Yet another is that these proposals have

17
overwhelming support from those in Hong Kong who speak for the community as well as widespread support in your Lordships' House.
I should like to repeat my own support for the Bill and also that of my noble friend and fellow former Governor, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, who is unable to be here today. I hope and I trust that when the Bill reaches the next stage of its journey in another place it will be given a fair and positive welcome, as it deserves.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I hesitate to prolong the proceedings much further except to say that had it not been for the vision and resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, first in moving a Resolution in your Lordships' House concerning this matter and then subsequently introducing this Bill and piloting it through the House, the way in which we treat this very important minority in Hong Kong may not have received the attention which it deserves.
If this Bill passes through both Houses, as I sincerely hope and trust it will, that minority in Hong Kong will have much to thank your Lordships for and also the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I join with other noble Lords in giving full and enthusiastic support to the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am sorry that, in one case because of illness and, in another, inflexible events, I was prevented from speaking earlier on the passage of this Bill. I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in all his efforts and also those who spoke in favour of the Bill.
The point that I wish to make is one I made last summer when we discussed this matter; namely, arising from my academic responsibilities in Hong Kong, and I have checked on the numbers, I find that over the past 10 years I have had longish interviews with no less than 450 young people in Hong Kong. I wish noble Lords to know that fewer and fewer of them, speaking quite intimately with me, have a real wish to leave the Pacific Rim with all its improving prospects. They want to live in Hong Kong protected by British citizenship or in Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore or Japan.
I support this measure without reserve. It seems to me that it will give these young people, particularly the grandchildren, the option to come to us or to keep the protection of a British passport— that is to say, a European Community passport— into the future. I calculated that if, even down to their grandchildren, they all came here, bringing with them their entrepreneurial skills, computer and molecular biological talents— and even in some cases their cricketers— that would add only one of them for every 20,000 citizens of Europe. I support this Bill and hope that it will have a safe passage through the other place.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has introduced the Third Reading of this Bill with a speech of commendable brevity. That style has been repeated by others of your Lordships. I hope not to disappoint your Lordships in that remarkable track record. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, invited the Government to accede to the
18
arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, so lucidly explained today and previously; and also in the important letter that he and others wrote and which appears in The Times today. Rather like the man running after the bus which has just left the bus stop, my noble friend Lord Geddes asked if I would read the letter as though his name was on it: too, but unfortunately it was not. The next time I read that letter I shall try to remember that he would have liked to been invited to add his name to it.
I admire the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has for those sections of the community to whom this Bill is directed. I have made clear throughout its passage that the Bill itself does not carry the support of the Government. We have always known that some sections of the ethnic minority population in Hong Kong would face problems as regards their status after 1997. We have made provision for them in the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986. We made provision for the British nationals who might otherwise become stateless to become British overseas citizens. We gave an assurance regarding their admissibility to the United Kingdom if the people concerned come under pressure to leave Hong Kong.
I know that this will not satisfy those noble Lords who have spoken, but the Government do not feel that it is necessary to go further. I have tried to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, of the Government's views, as I have many other noble Lords, but not for the first time, and I daresay not for the last in my experience, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has remained resolute and he wishes his Bill to go forward. He has a number of very influential people in support of his Bill.
I admire his pertinacity and the goodwill which he has towards these people. Ii would like to give the noble Lord the satisfaction he desires, but for all the reasons I have given, both on this occasion and others, this does not commend itself to the Government. I shall merely content myself with congratulating the noble Lord for the way in which he has introduced the Bill and for having got it thus far.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I do not propose to extend this debate. I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his answer. He will not be surprised that his argument did not convince me and, I suspect, A did not convince him. I forgot to thank my noble friend Lord Beaumont for supporting this Bill and I now do so. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1994
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may he for the convenience of your Lordships if we discuss also the European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1994, laid before the House on 20th January, and the European Parliamentary Elections (Change to the

19
Franchise and Qualification of Representatives) Regulations 1994, laid before the House on 2nd February. I shall deal first, if I may, with the two constituencies orders.
These two orders give effect to the recommendations, which are contained in the reports of the European Parliamentary Constituencies Committee for England and the European Parliamentary Constituencies Committee for Wales respectively. The two committees were set up under the provisions of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1993. They had to determine how England and Wales should be divided so as to accommodate the additional six seats in the European Parliament, which were approved at the Edinburgh summit in December 1992.
It was agreed at that summit that the European Parliament should be enlarged. The primary reason for this was the reunification of Germany, and an extra 18 seats were allocated to Germany to take account of the increased electorate. A number of the other member states were also allocated extra seats, including six to the United Kingdom. Of these six, five have been allocated to England and one to Wales.
The two special committees were set up in July 1993. They followed, as far as possible in the time available, the practices and procedures which are used by the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions. Indeed, of the six members of the committees, five were commissioners of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions and the sixth was an assistant commissioner. Their provisional recommendations were published in September of last year, and one month was allowed for representations and counter proposals to be made. Copies of all the counter proposals and representations were placed on deposit in offices in every district in England and Wales and a further period was allowed for representations to be made about them.
The committees made their final recommendations to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary just before Christmas. In making those recommendations, they have taken account of the views which were expressed to them. At the same time, they complied with the statutory requirement which was placed on them that they should aim to recommend European Parliamentary constituencies with, as nearly as possible, equal electorates. Although, of course, the committees will not have pleased everybody, I think that they have carried out their tasks in an admirable and impartial way.
I now turn to the regulations. These regulations extend the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament to citizens of other member states of the European Union. Our present legislation relating to elections restricts the right to vote and to be a candidate to British and other Commonwealth citizens, and to citizens of the Irish Republic.
Under the terms of Article 8b.2 of the Treaty on European Union, though, citizens of the Union, who live in a member state without being a national of that state, have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament.
20
The draft regulations, therefore, make a number of technical amendments which extend these electoral rights to citizens of the other member states of the European Union who are resident here and who satisfy the other criteria which British citizens must satisfy. That is the overall aim of these draft regulations.
The regulations are themselves, I am afraid, long and complex. That is because our electoral legislation, very rightly, often goes into minute details of prescription and practice. Effecting even simple changes can, therefore, require a whole host of legislative minutiae, and this accounts for the complexity of the document which is before your Lordships.
The general principle of Article 8b.2 of the treaty is that non-national residents should be treated for electoral purposes in exactly the same way as are the nationals of a member state. This, too, is the main principle behind the draft regulations, and we are not introducing, of our own accord, any requirements on citizens of other member states which we do not require of our own citizens. So, for example, in order to register to vote, a citizen of another member state must have been resident in Great Britain on the qualifying date of 10th October, or 15th September for Northern Ireland, in exactly the same way as do British or other Commonwealth citizens. Similarly, citizens of other member states who wish to stand here for election to the European Parliament must conform to the same nomination procedures as have other candidates hitherto.
But one or two small differences of procedure will apply to European Union citizens. These stem from the provisions of the European Community Directive which implements Article 8b.2 of the treaty.
In connection with the directive, I repeat the regret which has already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, about the handling of this document. By a most regrettable oversight, the directive in its draft form was not deposited with the Select Committee on the European Communities. That was not, of course, intentional but was, I am afraid, due to human error. I can only say that I apologise to the House, to the Select Committee on the European Communities and to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, its chairman, for this error, which was wholly unintentional. I regret that this error should have deprived your Lordships of the opportunity to consider the provisions of the directive while they were still at the stage of being proposals. I apologise that that should have occurred and for the discourtesy which, as I say, was certainly not intended.
The draft regulations introduce some minor differences of procedure for Community citizens from those which we require of our own citizens. Perhaps the main difference from our normal domestic arrangements is that if Community voters wish to vote in the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament in June they will have to apply to their local electoral registration officer by 29th March to register to vote. There will, therefore, be no duty on electoral registration officers to seek out citizens of the European Union for registration. They will have to apply for registration themselves.

21
The draft regulations also require intending voters and candidates to supply information about their electoral rights in their home member state. Member states will be exchanging information on non-national electors and candidates, so as to prevent double voting or candidacy, and in order to enforce disqualifications which are imposed by a home member state.
The regulations appear very complex but they are, in reality, merely the means of effecting a simple extension of rights to vote and to candidacy, which enables us to conform with our treaty obligations. I commend these draft orders and regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Cornmittee]— (Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing these complex orders and regulations so clearly. I shall deal first with the constituency orders and then move on to the question of franchise.
The Minister and the House will be well aware that we have not been satisfied with the way in which the process of determining boundaries has been carried out — not that we have any criticism of the commissioners; we recognise that five of them are already Boundary Commissioners and that the sixth is an assistant commissioner. We have no reason to suppose that they have done their job in anything other than a thoroughly professional way. However, because of the delays for which the Government themselves were responsible in the initial introduction of the necessary legislation, it became necessary to go through the procedures, which the Minister has outlined to us, without the possibility of having public inquiries. We consider that to be thoroughly unsatisfactory. Without inside knowledge, it is difficult to know how valid the final outcome is.
I wonder whether it is possible to ask the Minister not for any individual figures of the electorate sizes in the constituencies that are proposed in the orders, but at least for the range. What is the largest constituency in terms of electorate, and what is the smallest? How does that variation compare with the variations between parliamentary constituencies in this country? It is only with information of that kind that we can judge whether the outcome of the commissioners' consultations and deliberations has been entirely successful.
Turning to the regulations which deal with the change to the franchise and qualification of representatives, we recognise that they are in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. We recognise that it is right that the electoral laws of this country should be retained for elections in this country for the European Parliament but, at the same time, that we should now do what other countries did last time, which is to open up the candidacy to citizens of other states of the European Union. I believe that the first British candidate to stand for election in another member state was Sir David Steel, in Italy. Let us hope that candidates from other countries stand here and that candidates from this country stand for election in other countries in the forthcoming elections.
22
There is a curiosity in the regulations to which I hesitate to draw attention in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We understand that the regulations contain provisions extending the franchise at European parliamentary elections and that they amend paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. That appears to be a Henry VIII provision, amending primary legislation by regulation. It would be helpful to have the Minister's comment on that. In particular, I cannot see why that amendment to primary legislation should not have been made when we considered the Act determining these matters last year. Is that simply an oversight on the part of the Government or is there— dare I say— something more sinister in its omission from last year's Act?
The Minister has described these matters as largely technical, and I am in no way qualified to challenge that view. The principles on which the provisions are based, with the exceptions to which I have referred, appear to be sound. We shall not oppose the orders and regulations.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for the clear way in which he introduced the orders and regulations.
I begin by saying that we on these Benches have no intention of opposing the provisions but, having said that, I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that the whole procedure of arriving at the constituencies for the European elections reflects very little credit on the Government. It has been spatchcocked together at the last possible moment. However, I suppose that it should be said, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that by the same token it is impressive that the Boundary Commission has been able to produce the plans at such speed. That is a great credit to the commission, and Parliament should be suitably grateful. No doubt people elsewhere in Europe will be marvelling at our diligence and our ability to produce constituency boundaries at the last possible moment; indeed, almost on the eve of the elections.
That is not to say that everyone will be happy with the Euro-boundaries. It is a shame that the opportunity was not taken to give Cornwall its own constituency. That county has as distinct an identity as any. It also has many of the traditions of a nation— its own anthem, industries, culture and problems. Yet even after the review it remains lumped together with Plymouth West, which is urban, has different industries and is populated by staunch Devonians.
I suspect that in the end the result in both Cornwall and Devon will be a useful reminder to the Conservative Party that the winner-takes-all voting system, which we alone continue to use in Europe for these elections, is a sharp blade that can cut both ways. That was discovered in recent elections by its sister party in Canada. I hope that one result of the European elections in June will be that the Government are provided with a clear reason for proceeding on the basis upheld in March by EC Advocate-General Darmon that Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome, calling for a uniform electoral procedure in all member states, should be respected, We on these Benches— and I believe that the same is true of

23
Members on the Labour Benches— expect a fair system of proportional representation to be in place for the next European elections.
Speaking for a party which believes that there is a democratic deficit in the European Community, I welcome the extension of voting and candidacy rights to our fellow Europeans resident in the United Kingdom. It is good to see in a government order the words "citizenship of the Union". Let us see more of that.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm what I believe to be the case but it needs to be made clear beyond peradventure? Is it correct that in all the other member states of the Union resident British citizens will be in exactly the same position as European nationals here will be if the regulations are passed?
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I intervene only briefly. I am grateful to the Minister for giving the House a full and clear explanation of these important and complex orders and regulations. I wish to say a few words about the third, the European Parliamentary Elections (Change to the Franchise and Qualification of Representatives) Regulations, which are complex. As the Minister explained, their general purpose is to give effect in the United Kingdom to the European Community directive which was adopted last December. That directive laid down detailed arrangements to enable citizens of the member states of the European Union to vote and to stand as candidates in the member states in which they reside but of which they are not nationals. That implements a significant provision of the Maastricht Treaty.
That extension of voting rights has taken many years to achieve. It is fair to say that the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House has consistently pressed for voting rights in the country of residence in respect of local and European elections. Indeed, full reports were made by the committee to that effect in 1983 on elections to the European Parliament and in 1990 on local elections. Happily, the directive appears to be entirely in line with the views expressed in those reports; in particular, the omission of residence requirements which might have discriminated against nationals of other member states. That I very much welcome.
Unfortunately, as the Minister was good enough to mention, neither the Select Committee nor the House was given an opportunity to consider the directive in draft form after the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and before its adoption by the Council in December. The Minister indicated that that was due to an administrative oversight in Whitehall. I appreciate that that was in no way intentional and was entirely inadvertent.
Last month I wrote to the noble Earl's honourable friend, the Minister in another place, drawing attention to that omission. Soon after the text of the directive and a full and helpful explanatory memorandum were deposited at the House. I also received a full and gracious apology and an explanation from the Minister
24
concerned. Furthermore, I thank the noble Earl for his words of apology, which were wholehearted. I accept his most forthcoming sentiments.
I mention that in order to explain why my committee was unable to report to the House or to express a view on the directive before its adoption. I am sure that we all agree that such scrutiny by the House is of considerable importance and in line with the declaration attached to the Maastricht Treaty which emphasises the role of national parliaments. I repeat my thanks to the noble Earl for his gracious words and I too support the third of the three orders and regulations on the Order Paper.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have one point of detail which perhaps my noble friend will deal with. The constituencies are listed on page 10 of the regulations. Under Hampshire North and Oxford there is included Newbury. Of course, Newbury is in neither of those counties; it is in the Royal County of Berkshire. Therefore, the list reads oddly, as Newbury appears to be allocated to the European constituency of Hampshire North and Oxford.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome, with various degrees of warmth, that the orders have received.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was not happy with the procedures and said that it was the Government's fault that they were published at the last moment and that there was no full public inquiry. In fact, there was a considerable degree of public involvement. The committees were set up in July of last year. In September they published the provisional recommendations which were placed on deposit in the offices of local councils. They were left there for a month in order that representations and counter-proposals could be made. All the representations and counter-proposals that were made were copied and placed on deposit in the district office of every district in the land. I hesitate to say that that used up 4 tonnes of paper. There were 1,500 objections. Two to three weeks were allowed for representations on the counter-proposals, and a month after that the final report and decisions were made. The original recommendations were modified quite a bit. Therefore, although there was no public inquiry, there was a great deal of public involvement.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to the distribution of the six extra seats. At present the average electorate per seat in Scotland is 11 per cent. lower than in England. However, the average in Wales is 1 per cent. higher than in England. Under the new arrangements, the Welsh average electorate will become 13 per cent. lower instead of 1 per cent. higher than that of England and that of Scotland will remain at 4 per cent. lower.
The noble Lord asked also about the range of parliamentary constituencies and how they compare with the European parliamentary constituencies. The largest is South West Yorkshire and has 552,793 constituents. The smallest, North Yorkshire, has 478,111 constituents. The average for England is 512,851 electors per European constituency. There is a variation of 7.8 per cent. The parliamentary range is between 35,000 in Surbiton and 101,000 in the Isle of

25
Wight. The average constituency has 70,000 electors. But all those are under review. That will substantially improve the position.
The noble Lord asked for the smallest and the largest in Wales. The largest is South Wales Central which has 478,392 electors and the smallest Dyfed and Gwynedd which has 400,137. The average is 444,535, of which all are within 5 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, queried whether it is correct to use subordinate legislation to amend Acts of Parliament. The European Communities Act 1972 enables subordinate legislation to give effect to Community obligations by amending primary legislation if necessary. There is nothing unusual in doing so. For example, the procedure was used for the Firearms Order 1992, which amended the firearms legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that the regulations and the Bill preceding it were patched together. I thought that rather harsh but I can understand why he said it. The noble Lord did not lose the opportunity to mention proportional representation. I knew, as soon as he rose to his feet, that he would do so. I do not blame him at all. But he knows the position. I shall riot chase that particular hare any further.
The noble Lord referred to Cornwall and West Plymouth. Many representations were received from Cornish people to the effect that Cornwall should have its own European parliamentary constituency and should not be forced to join with part of Plymouth. However, the electorate of Cornwall is 27.4 per cent. below the electoral quota. Plymouth was also unhappy about being divided into two European parliamentary constituencies. But the committee could see no other viable way in which to achieve fair electoral equality. Therefore, it has not qualified its original provisional recommendations in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about procedures. The boundaries in the orders will be used only for the 1994 elections to the European Parliament. The parliamentary boundary commissions are currently reviewing the boundaries of the Westminster constituencies and are due to make their reports by the end of 1994. Once those reviews are completed and changes have been approved by Parliament, the commissions in England, Wales and Scotland have a duty to review the European parliamentary constituency boundaries to realign them with the changes made to the Westminster constituencies. In doing so they will undertake a full review and there will be opportunities for representations and for local inquiries.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg asked whether British nationals in other European states would be given the same facilities as are other European nationals in the United Kingdom. Under the European Community directive, United Kingdom citizens residing in other member states will now have the same rights as other European Community nationals in this country. They will be able to vote in European parliamentary elections in the state where they reside.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to Newbury. Not for the first time he has stumped me. I cannot give my noble friend an answer. Perhaps he will
26
allow me to consider the matter and take advice upon it. I shall then write to my noble friend arid tell him why Newbury appears in a place in which my noble friend did not expect it to appear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should be extremely happy were my noble friend so to act.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for getting me out of a hole. I am grateful too to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for being so understanding about the unfortunate mistake which was made with regard to his European Communities sub-committee. I hope that that will not happen again. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1994
4.4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections (Change to the Franchise and Qualification of Representatives) Regulations 1994
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd February be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bosnia
4.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) rose to move, That this House takes note of the situation in Bosnia.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to discuss the continuing conflict in. Bosnia, as well as the response of this country and the international community in our efforts to bring about peace. On 10th February, I repeated to your Lordships the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on the decisions of the North Atlantic Council meeting on 9th February. I shall return later to those decisions.
First, I should like to stand back from the daily rush of events and attempt to set this conflict and our response to it in a wider context. There is no doubt that the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia were started by Serb aggression, and the Serbs have been the worst aggressors throughout. But all sides have committed

27
terrible acts. The inescapable fact is that the conflict is now a three-sided civil war: Serbs fight Moslems in and around Sarajevo; in central Bosnia Moslems fight Croats; in the Croatian Krajinas Croats confront Serbs in an uneasy truce; and in Bihac, Moslems fight Moslems.
It is for historians to decide how and why that should have happened. Our concerns must be and are what we can do for the future. What we cannot do is to end a civil war by outside intervention. We can put pressure on the parties to comply with UN resolutions, as we are doing in Sarajevo, Srebrenica and Tuzla. But we cannot stop the fighting when the parties wish to fight on.
What we can do, and have done is threefold. First, we can attempt to stop the conflict from spreading into neighbouring states. Much has already been done. Perhaps the most volatile neighbouring state is Macedonia. There American and Nordic troops are engaged in a unique UN exercise in preventive diplomacy. We too have played our part, taking the lead in establishing diplomatic relations and giving over £ 2 million in emergency humanitarian aid. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that I am now able to make another £ 2 million available for Macedonia, which is facing great deprivations and which needs our help. That is part of our preventive action in that country.
Secondly, we can and do support the peace process. The only way to end the killing is a negotiated settlement accepted by all the parties. Some people have taken pleasure in decrying the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Stoltenberg. But they have achieved a great deal, working under pressures that few could have tolerated. They continue to enjoy the full support of the Government and of the European Union.
Thirdly, we can and do make a contribution to the humanitarian effort. In fact, Britain has done more than that. We have played a role which is second to none. British teams, escorted by British troops, have delivered over 63,000 tonnes of aid in 801 convoys. As I speak, an ODA convoy, carrying 120 tonnes of wheatflour and beans, is struggling through heavy snow from Tomislavgrad to Zenica— the first on that route since last week. However, I regret to say that I have just heard that that convoy has been looted by demonstrators in Gornji-Vakuf. Fortunately, no one was injured and much of the aid remains. But such events are almost a daily occurrence. They serve only to remind us just how hazardous is the situation.
I should like to say a word about those involved. The brutal killing of Paul Goodall shows the dangers that our aid experts face. The British troops not only escort convoys, they also negotiate with local warlords. They defuse bombs and mines. The very roads some convoys pass over have been built by our Royal Engineers. They have rescued civilians caught up in the fighting. On occasion it was the sheer presence of a British "Warrior" that deterred one side or the other from further atrocities. We can, and should, be justly proud of our aid workers and soldiers.
Your Lordships are aware that the Government are reviewing the future of our troops in Bosnia. No final decision has been taken, and there are many factors. But
28
I assure your Lordships that we shall take full account of the vital work that they are doing, as well as the risks that they all face.
Again, some people seek to demean the aid effort by suggesting that we use it as a pretext to avoid military intervention. That charge in unworthy. Military intervention would not achieve the very humanitarian objectives that our aid does. That is why we went there. Many thousands of people are alive today who otherwise would have died.
The humanitarian situation has not stolen the headlines this winter with the appalling scenes that many of us feared. Across the country as a whole, thanks to the enormous international effort, the picture is better than we dared to hope. But the situation is still critical, and in some places desperate. We must continue our efforts with UNHCR to avoid a humanitarian disaster in the prevailing winter conditions.
I shall attempt later to give your Lordships a fuller picture of some of the humanitarian situations in Bosnia. However, I hope, first, that noble Lords will allow me to return to the negotiations on a settlement. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am much obliged. There is, perhaps, a certain confusion about our aid effort at present. Is it or is it not suspended? If it is suspended, can the Minister say where it has been suspended?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to ask me to expand on the matter. Temporarily, last week, we suspended the aid effort for two reasons. First, we did so as a mark of respect for Paul Goodall on the day of his funeral, which was also the day of the NATO meeting. We considered that it was most definitely sensible to see how the next few days went after the NATO meeting. Secondly, there was the problem, to which I shall return in a moment, in Gornji-Vakuf, where three aid workers had been detained. We were also looking for the best way to move forward in the new situation.
We got ready over the weekend and started to move yesterday up to Tomislavgrad. This morning, we started from Tomislavgrad. The suspension was a temporary one. That is all we intended it to be. We shall only move — and we have had many temporary suspensions before — when it is safe to do so. That is a joint decision between the convoy drivers, and particularly with UNPROFOR. As I said, there have been many temporary suspensions and this was not the only one. However, as I said, there was a double reason for that particular suspension.
I should now like to turn to the peace process. The main obstacle to agreement is territory. The parties all accept the broad outline of a territorial settlement in which the Moslems would have at least one-third of Bosnia's territory, and access to the sea. But the Bosnian Government are not satisfied with the quality of the territory so far on offer from the Serbs and Croats. The gap between the parties has been reduced to 15 towns, eight of which are disputed by Serbs and Moslems and the other seven by Serbs and Croats. The co-chairmen

29
have suggested an international arbitration procedure to resolve each of the disputes, which the European Union fully supports.
Although limited progress was made, I regret to have to inform your Lordships that the latest round of talks in Geneva broke up on Saturday— again, without agreement. The Government believe that the differences are bridgeable, but only if all the parties really want to achieve it. I can all too readily understand that the terrible experiences of the past two years must have bred deep suspicions on all sides. But all parties must understand the futility of pursuing the military option.
Your Lordships will have seen the press reports from Sarajevo over the weekend. With great patience, the UN Commander in Sarajevo, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose, has negotiated a cease-fire between the Bosnian Government and Serb forces. So far that has held. Some progress has also been made in placing heavy weapons under control. But there is far to go, and we must remain cautious. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in wishing General Rose and his colleagues well in their efforts.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the decisions by the North Atlantic Council on 9th February complement the efforts of General Rose. In the best case, such developments could lead to agreement between the parties on a real cessation of violence and demilitarisation of Sarajevo. But we have been disappointed before. The Bosnian Serbs should have no doubts: after 20th February any heavy weapons still in the 20 kilometre zone and not under UN control will be subject to air strikes.
The decisions on air strikes were not taken easily, or in isolation. I am all too aware of the risks that air strikes, and talk of air strikes, pose to the humanitarian effort and to those heroically struggling to get the aid through. Your Lordships will have seen reports that UNPROFOR is taking precautions to safeguard UN personnel, working closely with UNHCR. The safety of our troops and civilian workers is of paramount concern. I am confident that UNPROFOR's contingency plans are well prepared.
However, Sarajevo is not Bosnia. It is true that it receives much media coverage. Elsewhere the news is not so encouraging. As noble Lords may have heard, there has been renewed fighting around Gornji-Vakuf this weekend. The situation in Mostar and Bihac remains of great concern. Indeed, I have just given the House the news from Gomji-Vakuf this lunchtime.
It is a truism to say that Bosnia is a complex and difficult issue. But I firmly believe that it is not intractable. As I hope I have made clear, it is not in the hands of NATO, the UN or the EU to end the war. The primary responsibility for that must lie with those who are fighting it. But we can be much more than onlookers. We can give support to the negotiators, aid to the needy, and support our efforts with the forces at our disposal. We are doing all this, at considerable risk to our own people. I feel proud of their efforts and I hope that, before long, they will achieve the desired result: a peaceful settlement in Bosnia.
30
However, peace will only come when the fighting people in Bosnia decide that fighting is no longer worth while. It is the tragedy of Bosnia that they have not yet done so. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the situation in Bosnia. — (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
4.20 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for taking the opportunity to outline the Government's view of the policy they have pursued over the years in former Yugoslavia. I associate myself with the tribute the noble Baroness paid to British troops and aid workers and to the efforts of General Sir Michael Rose. The argument she put forward suggests that the Government are trying to persuade us that they have pursued a consistent policy over the years, although I am sure they must recognise that that is riot how the policy is perceived. If they do not recognise that, they should simply read the article by Mr. Peter Riddell in The Times today.
What we have witnessed over the past couple of years is a painful and at times humiliating demonstration of the decline of British influence both as regards our European allies and as regards the United States of America. I have thought for many years that the term "special relationship" with the United States should be abandoned. In so far as it applies to the political field, it is in my view a self-delusion. It is a phrase one never hears in the United States in this context. Certainly, in the past few weeks or months there has been very little sign of it, either in the visit of Mr. Gerry Adams to New York or— more relevant to today's debate— in the Sarajevo ultimatum.
We have also seen in the political field— I am afraid we must confess this— a striking absence of British leadership. I must exclude from that the performance, as I said, of our troops and of our aid workers on the ground. On at least two critical occasions, however, we have had to bow to the pressure of others and to the persuasion of other countries against the judgment of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary. The first occasion was when we first resisted, but then submitted to, German pressure by recognising first Croatia and then Bosnia. I believe it is generally agreed that that 'was a mistake.
The second occasion was the decision taken last week at the NATO summit. It is no use pretending that the decision to issue what I can only call the Sarajevo ultimatum did not represent a sharp change in British policy. The Government have reiterated again and again over the past few months and years that this is primarily a civil war; that peace can only come by negotiation between the parties to the conflict; that we will offer our good offices to any negotiation; that we will offer humanitarian aid; and that the use of force jeopardise humanitarian aid and will carry other risks with it.
The noble Baroness said that we cannot end a civil war by outside intervention. I do not know what the Sarajevo ultimatum is if it is not outside intervention. I do not know what it seeks to achieve unless it is to hasten what is called the peace process. Nor is it any use

31
pretending that the change was not a response to United States' pressure and the Foreign Secretary agreeing, not because he agreed with the policy, but because he believed that to hold out against it would have jeopardised the NATO alliance. He has never indicated that he agreed to the policy; he has indicated that he thought that if we did not go along with the policy we would jeopardise the NATO alliance.
What we have seen is this country reluctantly accepting a policy that was French in inspiration and backed by the United States in the last instance. As I said when the Statement was made last week, we on these Benches welcome the decision. We only wish it had been taken earlier. Having been taken so late, it will be much harder to carry out and the risks which it carries are much greater. Let no one suppose that those of us who support the decision under-estimate the risks. The risks are there, and they are stark. The Serbs may try to delay their withdrawal by one means or another. They may obstruct the flow of humanitarian aid. The Bosnians may try to use the ceasefire to improve their position. We do not know how effective air strikes will be. We must ask ourselves whether we are willing and able to deploy further troops if complications such as those I have mentioned demand it. Nor is it easy to foretell what the Russian reaction will be. We wish neither to supply Russian nationalists with political ammunition nor to submit to blackmail.
Those are some of the risks (and, of course, there are others) which this policy inevitably carries with it. However, we must remind ourselves of what has happened over the past few years in former Yugoslavia. We have to remind ourselves that over 2 million people have been driven from their homes, that 170,000 people have been killed and that in Sarajevo alone 10,500 people have died,2,400 of them children, while 57,000 people have been wounded. Beyond the human tragedy the dreams of a new world order which many of us had in 1989 have turned in this part of the world into nothing less than a nightmare. In addition the standing of the United Nations and the authority of NATO have been gravely undermined.
In Sarajevo the ultimatum, as the noble Baroness indicated, holds; but it is fragile. If it holds, and if the ceasefire holds, one small step in re-establishing the authority of the United Nations and of NATO will have been taken. However, I do not believe we can afford to stop there. As proposed by my right honourable friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats in another place many months ago, safe enclaves must be established elsewhere and guaranteed by the UN and NATO, above all at Tuzla where the airport must be re-opened. We have repeatedly pressed for this to happen. It is worth reminding ourselves that what has prevented it happening has been the objections of the Bosnian Serbs — a group of people who have absolutely no legal standing whatever in this matter.
Tuzla has problems which are different from those of Sarajevo but in some ways more acute. Oxfam told me today that only 15 per cent. of the food supplies required are getting through to Tuzla whereas 50 per cent. are getting through to Sarajevo. The price of an egg in Tuzla
32
is the equivalent of £ 1 and the price of a kilo of coffee is the equivalent of £ 50. If Tuzla airport were re-opened, it would provide a safer means of getting humanitarian supplies and food supplies through to civilians of all communities in central and eastern Bosnia.
The pressure which has been mounted since last week must be maintained. Time is not on our side. Last week there was a call-up in Belgrade. Spring is round the corner and with it the possibility of a spring offensive by the Serbs, probably in collaboration with the Croats. I repeat that the noble Baroness has said we cannot stop a civil war by outside intervention. That is undeniably true. Nonetheless there are ways and means by which one can encourage negotiation and encourage those who are negotiating to come to a peaceful settlement. That is what I believe we should do, and that is what I think last week's ultimatum was the first step towards establishing.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I should like to start by associating myself, since I seem to be the first speaker from these Benches and may therefore speak for my colleagues, with what the noble Baroness has said of our recognition and thanks to our noble colleague, Lord Owen, and Mr. Stoltenberg and, before him, Mr. Vance, in their negotiating mission; to UNPROFOR as a whole and especially to the British contingent within it; and to the Sarajevo part of it under General Sir Michael Rose.
We are debating an intervention in a civil war in a newly independent state. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves — everybody knows it but it sets the background— who these people are. Some of the South Slays, which is what "Yugoslav" means in basic Slavonic, were Christianised from the West by Rome and consequently became Roman Catholics and wrote in Latin letters. Others were Christianised from the East by Constantinople and consequently became Orthodox and wrote in cyrillic letters. Very shortly there arose among these two a heresy— that of the Bogomiles, who had some very special and fascinating beliefs, setting them apart from all other Christians of any time, anywhere. I am talking now about the 8th and 9th centuries—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? There is actually no record of any Bogomil heresy in that part of the world west of Macedonia or Bulgaria. According to the latest scholarship, it was in fact a rather odd form of Church which was re-colonised by the Franciscans just before the fall of the kingdom of Bosnia. So the Bogomil heresy is an outdated piece of information produced by a Hungarian in, I think,1860. I think the noble Lord may be wrong in his facts about that.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I can only say that I have read texts which have it otherwise, and put it much closer to what I have just said. In any case, my point is that this is like Ireland, only much much worse, because it has been going on three times as long and there are three parties instead of two. In any case, when the Turks arrived it was very largely heretics— whether correctly described as Bogomiles or not — who converted to

33
Islam and thereby incurred the hatred and sometimes contempt of both Christian factions. All of them throughout spoke what is now called the Serbo-Croat langu age.
Those are the people we are talking about. We sometimes feel as though they must be of different nationalities, but it is not so. They have the same language; they share the same original stock and there are religious differences only, as in Ireland. That is, as I say, the background but something perfectly new has happened now. That is, that in this monstrous slaughter, which has gone on for so long and which horrifies us every time we think of it, we are going to kill some people for the first time: we too are going to kill some people. To justify that, one needs to be very sure that everything is being done correctly and that there is no alternative. That is what I want to talk about.
Let me remind your Lordships also of the diplomatic history during the last week or so. The Secretary-General of the United Nations wrote to the Secretary-General of NATO, asking NATO to authorise its military command to launch airstrikes on request from the United Nations forces in Bosnia. NATO agreed to do so and agreed also that UNPROFOR should determine which artillery and mortar emplacements were responsible for attacks on civilians. In other words, as General Sir Michael Rose was reported in the press as saying this morning, it is he who decides what should be shot at. It also appears, although I do not think it has been stated in Parliament, that the NATO command responsible is Southern Command. One of the things I ask the noble Baroness to tell us about later is this. Is that Command still, as it always has been in the past, headed by an American admiral in Naples? I assume that it is.
Last week's Statement made by the Government in this Parliament gave two reasons for our intervention. The first, in the order given, was that it would maintain the solidarity of NATO— not of the United Nations, mark you— and the second aim was to prevent war spreading. What has been the reaction to these moves? Let us start at random but very close to the war. Hungary is not going to allow its territory to be used for surveillance flights in connection with any bombardment of the Serb emplacements round Sarajevo. The Czechs do not want the bombing: they say that it will be playing into Zhirinovsky's hands, and we must remember that he has already declared that in Bosnia the third world war is now under way.
Behind both, of course, we can see Russia itself. The Russian Government has said that the decision to launch a missile and bombing strike on Bosnian-Serb positions should be taken at a sitting of the United Nations Security Council and not by a Command of the peace-keeping forces, and then only if the Serbs do attack the peace-keeping forces. So the Russians have wanted the Security Council to meet to strengthen security zones round Sarajevo.
Here comes my second question. The Security Council was to have met last Friday afternoon but was prevented by snow in New York. I understand that it is scheduled to meet in about two or three hours from now. Is that right, and what will be the Russian position at
34
that meeting? What will our position be? Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to tell us some facts when she comes to wind up.
I should like to give your Lordships some stray Russian quotes. The Russian Foreign Minister believes that possible air attacks on Bosnia are the "least acceptable option". He stated a week ago:
"We are categorically against such strikes even in principle … there should not be talk, first and foremost, about air strikes against the Serbs alone. We should talk about protection From attacks from any of the sides".
Marshal Grachev, the Minister of Defence, has declared that the proposed action is,
"capable of provoking a new escalation of combat actions".
The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, has said that Russia will,
"insist on the United Nations Security Council weighing the matter of using force in Bosnia".
In the United States, which is of course the country where the pressure for the initiative has come from, we hear the voice of President Clinton's security advisor last week, no doubt reflecting a widely-held feeling. He said:
"United States forces are not for strengthening peace-keeping; they are for winning wars. "
And here is another voice from Washington. Mr. William Perry, the Defence Secretary, said yesterday that NATO would consider attacking targets outside the 20 kilometre zone if air strikes fail to prevent. Serbs shelling Sarajevo. My point in referring to these quotes is that both the super-powers, which are both now democracies, are now bound and hampered in their ways by an ill-informed and volatile public opinion. This is not a very comfortable situation for the rest of us in the middle, partly because our public opinion is often better informed and consequently we are not so hampered or bound, and also because we are in the middle.
The Russians in particular have had to change their stance on Bosnia since their elections. Such things as I have quoted used not to be said by the Russians. They now are, and we all know why.
I wish now to stand back from the conflict and question the use of NATO, which is not automatically the right entity to use. The North Atlantic Treaty states that whenever, in the opinion of any, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any member of NATO is threatened, then the members can come to each other's assistance in a military way. An attack on any one of them shall be considered an attack against all of them.
None of those situations applies in this situation. Since the treaty of 1949, there has been the New Strategic Concept of 1991, which does not modify the treaty but fleshes out some detail. It states that arty armed attack on the territory of the allies from whatever direction would be covered by the Washington treaty. It also states that the new world environment does not change the purpose or the security functions of NATO as expressed in the treaty, but underlines their enduring validity.
None of those things has happened. Tragic arid dangerous as it is, the Bosnian conflict does not threaten

35
the security of our countries. It is not an attack on the territory of any of us. It does not call NATO into action under the North Atlantic Treaty.
It represents a new situation. I usually complain that the Government will take military action which is not strictly in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolution. However, I do not do so this time. The action is covered by the Security Council resolution. But the delegation of the task by the United Nations to NATO is somewhat of a crooked leg. It is odd. Things do not fit correctly. Where does CSCE (the Council on Security and Co-operation in Europe) come in— that forgotten and most hopeful departure? Its original tenets include a rule that no frontiers should be changed without consent. That rule was broken in a big way by the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. I wonder whether in the private counsels of our governments that factor is held to rule out the CSCE as a practical instrument of peace keeping in future. If so, that would be a great pity. I hope that that body will soldier on.
Perhaps we may compare the intrinsic suitability of the two organisations to deal with the situation. NATO is a partial and exclusive organisation. The CSCE is pan-European, and includes Canada and the United States. NATO is a defensive military alliance formed to meet a specific threat. On the other hand, the CSCE is a regional organisation on the general political level with specified military functions. It seems to me obvious which is the more suitable. The fact that NATO is large and very capable in the military sense, and the CSCE has no troops, does not invalidate the general point that I make. Did not the Secretary-General write to the CSCE at the same time that he wrote to NATO? It would have been a more natural recipient for the letter. Perhaps he did, and we have not heard. Alternatively, perhaps he did not, because he was so strongly pressed by the United States to take the course that he did.
In conclusion, I have grave fears for the future. I believe that the action was avoidable. Given the reaction of the American people to what they have seen on television every day, and our own reaction, such action is difficult to avoid. However, I believe that cool heads would have stood out against the recent surge of American enthusiasm for it, a rash surge in the teeth of the opposition of the other super-power democracy in the world.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Braman: My Lords, I should like to make five points. First, in the British commander of the United Nations Forces in Bosnia, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose, whom I know well and respect greatly, we have indeed a first-class soldier. If mountains can be moved, he will move them. If they cannot, he will have the courage— and it sometimes takes just as much courage— to say what cannot be done. I hope that he will be listened to and supported. Having listened to the noble Baroness, I am sure that he will be. After all, it was he who organised the early cease-fire in the Falklands which saved many lives on both sides.
Secondly, although there have always been strong arguments for doing nothing in Yugoslavia— or no more
36
than the admirable and excellent humanitarian operations we undertake at present (and I, too, welcome the praise of the noble Baroness of British forces in that respect)— and strong and perhaps increasingly compelling arguments for taking more positive action, there has never been a case, whatever the political or media pressures, for making threats or cajoling with high sounding phrases and then doing nothing to honour them. The United Nations' credibility, already thin, would then become totally non-existent, as would NATO's credibility. Now that NATO, apparently on behalf of the United Nations, because it is the only organisation capable of controlling these events, has actually laid the matter on the line with a deadline for certain action in Sarajevo, it must be prepared to do what it says, whatever the hazards and the risks.
Thirdly, it seems to me that still much the best of a lot of difficult choices— and General Rose's negotiated cease-fire seems to be pointing in that direction— is to devote all possible military and diplomatic effort to try to make the designated safe haven, or safe area, of Sarajevo temporarily, and without prejudice to any final political solution, a neutralised area under United Nations control, with a United Nations garrison, more legitimately and rationally backed by NATO air power for their own protection; and the Russians would seem to support that as well. That, of course, in itself is not without difficulty and would have probably been, as has already been said, much easier to organise and engineer some months ago in the wake of the quite near acceptance of the Owen-Vance plan. It may now require many more United Nations troops of quality and effectiveness. It must, however, remain a sounder proposition than exclusive and isolated air action, the benefits of which are doubtful and which may do as much harm as good. But if convincing threats of air attack, or its very selective limited and exemplary use, may bring about that neutralisation, it will indeed have served a purpose.
Fourthly, whatever more positive action is undertaken— of course, it may have to be air action, at least of an exemplary nature, because of the very short time now available to the United Nations— I hope that all possible moves and counter moves will be thought through in depth on the advice of those on the ground and that the appropriate contingency plans will be made well in advance. I was relieved to hear the assurance of the noble Baroness on that point, because if there is any hint of anyone sleep walking into this politically highly dangerous situation just with their fingers crossed, we could be in trouble in the weeks ahead.
We may have to be prepared temporarily to suspend our humanitarian operations. Our own in situ forces may need to have more firepower and helicopter and other forms of support, and even have their numbers temporarily increased. General Rose's command machinery may have to be strengthened. All that must be faced while we still have the flexibility and before the die is cast.
Finally, in deciding on an appropriate contribution to whatever now needs to be done, I hope that sound military judgments on the security of our own forces will always be paramount and that we shall not continue

37
to be unduly obsessed and inhibited, as we were, sad to say, in the early preparations for action in the Gulf, by current Ministry of Defence contortions to squeeze a legitimate defence needs quart into a totally arbitrary Treasury pint pot. That is an exercise which would in any case, and sadly all too soon, make it difficult, if not impossible, for us to deploy any sustained and sustainable military effort anywhere, even if it were directly in our national interests, and/or outside pressures became, as they appear to be becoming now, irresistible.
Whatever we do now, there are bound to be risks. There is no question about that. But if the United Nations, backed by NATO, could concentrate on and be successful in making Sarajevo— which, after all, is the crucible of this whole ugly war— a truly safe haven, we would at least have the satisfaction of helping to restore the authority of the United Nations, from which many other advantages would flow. It would also make clear that on Europe's very own doorstep there are things up with which— as Winston Churchill once wrote— we and other European nations simply will not put. That is not only for very important humanitarian reasons but also, I suggest, for practical ones relating to our longer term self-interest.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as usual, the House will have listened with attention and respect to the opinions of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. Since I agree with what he said, I do not propose to elaborate on it. I would like, however, to follow the example of the Minister in opening the debate and extend it a little wider, though perhaps in a slightly different way.
We have mentioned several times the American President, Bill Clinton. I begin by quoting a more distinguished predecessor in that office, Abraham Lincoln, who said:
"If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending we could then better judge what to do and how to do it".
My own feeling has been throughout the conflict that, because we have consistently failed to interpret the course of events because our attention has been focused on them only intermittently since the wars consequent upon the collapse of the old Yugoslavia came upon us, we have never been able to concentrate sufficiently upon what role, if any, it was proper for us to play.
The noble Baroness gave us some good news about the importance of Macedonia. However, there are other areas adjacent to the conflict— Kosovo in particular— where the same apprehensions of its continuance no doubt exist. It is worth going back and looking over a course of events which did not begin in Bosnia. It is perhaps a pity that we had "Bosnia" in the short title of the debate because the Bosnian situation is only a part — it is the most terrible part, the part that has most recently caused us the most anguish, but it is only part — of a long process. The beginning was a short war which everyone has forgotten: the attempt to reconquer Slovenia by the Yugoslav national army, basically a Serb force.
There was then the war in Croatia over the Serb enclaves in that country. It has been suspended, but no
38
one knows for how long. People rightly deplore the destruction of many towns and historic monuments in Bosnia. Have we forgotten the destruction of Vukovar, a town of considerable historic importance, razed to the ground by the Serbs in their pursuit of a greater Serbia?
In other words, it is not a civil war in the way in which we normally think about civil wars. Perhaps we may take a war with which many of us grew up to political adulthood, the Spanish civil war. That was a war between Spaniards, in which, as it happened. external powers intervened to a greater or lesser extent. But the conflict was between Spaniards and it ended with a Spanish government, though not the Spanish government at the time when the war began. But, as was admitted for the first time fully by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons in the Statement last Thursday to which the noble Baroness referred, the war began through Serbian aggression in partnership with the Bosnian Serbs. As the noble Baroness rightly said, although horrific deeds have been done also by Croats and to some extent by the victims of aggression, the Moslems, unless one appreciates how the war began, one can neither assess what has been happening in Bosnia nor reckon what is likely to happen in Macedonia, Kosovo and, if it starts again, as may well be the case, once more in Croatia.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, reminded us of events in the 8th and 9th centuries. For present purposes, I do not believe that we need to go back quite so far as that, but it is important to remember the early modern period, the 18th and 19th centuries, in that pan of the world. What was true then was not merely that there was the religious division— and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was perfectly right in referring to the religious rather than the ethnic nature of the divisions—. it was that part of the area was part of the Habsburg Empire and part of it was part of the Ottoman Empire; and that roughly coincided with the religious divisions. Clearly, that made the creation of a united Yugoslavia at the end of the First World War one of the most precarious achievements of the peace conference.
But if we look at the national movement in all parts of what became Yugoslavia, the notable point— and this relates very closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said— was that Serbia was patronised by Russia. It became Russia's outpost in Eastern Europe. Indeed, it was the Russo-Serb connection which, through the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo, was the proximate— only the: proximate, not necessarily the ultimate— cause of the First World War. From that we should have drawn a lesson which has very little relation to the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, attaches importance; namely, the fact that Russia is now a democratic country and we can talk to it in the same way as we can talk to other democratic countries. Whether Russia its democratic or not, it is bound to retain an interest in Serbia. Therefore a settlement in the Balkans can be attained only if in some way Russia can be persuaded to take part in negotiating it and can be brought on board as a guarantor. For that reason, even more important than what General Rose

39
may be doing today in Sarajevo is what the Prime Minister may be able to do today or tomorrow in Moscow. It is a key to what can happen.
It is all very well to say that the United States has pushed us into a position which we would otherwise have been reluctant to be in. What has happened is that Europe on its own has proved incapable of resolving a situation which, if not a direct threat to our frontiers, is through the trigger mechanism a possible cause of events which might certainly in the end— not next week or the week after but in the end — threaten the whole construction of Europe where peace still prevails. Europe cannot do it. The CSCE, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred, is a wraith, a myth, a mist. Therefore it was natural that in the end the two super-powers would somehow or other have to bring this war to an end. Whether or not they can do it, no one else can.
It is essential, therefore, to look at each stage of the war and to try to remember what those stages were. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who rightly reminded us of the sheer statistics of misery, and not only of the deaths and the semi-starvation imposed by the obstacles placed in the way of our aid effort and by the blockade of the so-called safe havens, including Tuzla. Other factors have also made the situation impossible. One of them is ethnic cleansing. And who now remembers Dame Anne Warburton's report on the number of mass rapes carried out by Serbs in Bosnia for military purposes? It is a pity and is to be regretted— this may be what people mean by not listening to the "something must be done" school— that we have not looked and been prepared to look at each event following each event and tried to find out what lessons could be drawn from it.
As is to be expected in the case of a war abroad, a good deal of propaganda has been directed at other countries, trying to make them see the justice of the cause of one side or the other. To some extent the justice of the cause of those who have suffered aggression has been accepted. We were told, not very long ago as history goes, that the West would never tolerate the fixing of boundaries through military aggression. It is quite clear that that hope has been abandoned. As the noble Baroness said, the best that can be hoped for is that some kind of room will be made for the Bosnian Moslems to have their own place.
People criticise Germany— and in some respects German diplomacy has been clumsy— but one point to which no one has referred is that Germany has taken in a very large number of refugees. The refugee problem in Europe is surely a matter which should concern us all. This war has created a new wave of over a million refugees; and any war which in imitation of it were to begin or to be continued, as may happen, in the Caucasus— about which we talked the other day— will set that process in motion.
Sometimes the arguments put forward to defend the Serb force in particular seem to me to be far-fetched. Miss Nora Beloff, writing in today's Times, quotes General Briquemont in regard to the fact that some of the shooting in Sarajevo starts on the Moslem side. That
40
may well be true; General Briquemont has been there and I have not. But that is hardly a very important comment. Why are the Moslems having to shoot at anyone? Why is Sarajevo besieged? Towns that are besieged often tend to try to take the initiative against the besiegers, particularly when the besiegers persistently cut off the routes of their food supplies, energy, water and electricity. In regard to the Moslems in Sarajevo one could repeat the famous notice on a cage in a French zoo:
"Cet animal est mé chant. Quartet on l'attaque it se defend'.
When this kind of comment gets circulation people say that all sides are as bad as each other and there is nothing to be done about it. They are all in their different ways not people we would much enjoy having to live with. But they have to live with each other. The question of responsibility has to be solved.
The final point, and the only one on which I would come into contact with the question as to what we do next and what happens next— questions that were surveyed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall — is this. The characteristic of Serb actions— they are Bosnian Serb actions; but I find it very difficult to distinguish between Milosevic and his Bosnian acolytes, no matter how hard he may from time to time try to distinguish himself— has been that, whenever there has been serious pressure or the threat of military action, they make just enough of a concession to make it difficult for the countries that have threatened them to follow the threat through. That explains why the noble and gallant Lord had to refer to instances when it looked as though we were going to do something but at the last moment we did not. Everything we know shows that that tactic is ingrained in those people.
I do not agree with all the strictures made on the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, because I see their difficulties. But so far as concerns Tuzla, the noble Lord is absolutely right. No reason other than a willingness to take the promises of brigands at their face value has prevented that airport from being opened. Why have we maintained aircraft in the skies over Bosnia for months if we cannot find ways of opening an airport which might enable those aircraft to deliver food rather than merely burn up fuel?
This is a tragic issue. It is one to which I fear this House will have to return in the not too distant future.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for introducing the debate in her usual helpful and competent manner. I endorse her praise for British troops who are involved in Bosnia and pay tribute to the excellent way in which they do their work. It is because I am very concerned for their future that I take the view that I do about the conflict. I am pleased that the noble Baroness insisted and underlined the fact that it is a civil war despite the fact that her noble friend Lord Beloff seems to think otherwise. It is a civil war, and no amount of demonising the Serbs will alter that fact.
The situation arose from a desire on the part of the British Government to appease Germany in its recognition of Croatia. That was most unfortunate. If it

41
had not happened, the dismemberment of Yugoslavia may not have occurred in the way that it did. There could have been peaceful negotiation. However, that was not to be, and we find ourselves in our present situation. It appears that our Government, through weakness and vacillation in the face of President Clinton and President Mitterrand, are agreeing to military intervention through air strikes against only one of the warring parties. That carries grave implications and danger for the future. I feel sure that the Government will have considered that.
I should like to ask whether the Bosnian Moslems have now achieved their objective of bringing NATO and the United Nations into the war on their side. Perhaps the Government do not see it that way. Or maybe have they not considered that possibility?
The responsibility for the shelling of Sarajevo market place the weekend before last has not been established. Indeed, as I understand it, an investigation is still taking place. Yet the United States and France have jumped into action on the basis that it was the Serbs who carried out the shelling. What worries me about the whole business is whether the shelling of Sarajevo market place will become a sort of Bosnian "Gulf of Tongking" incident. Everybody knows what that was about. It was a ruse to get the United States involved in Vietnam, with disastrous consequences.
We are entitled to ask why the British Government changed their minds almost overnight. Were they really cowed into submission by President Clinton's threat of withdrawal from NATO or by the French Government's attempt to rescue something from the shambles that their intervention has so far created? We are entitled to know why the Government changed from being critics of the "do something" brigade to becoming part of it. Whatever we think, we are entitled to know exactly why that change of mind took place. We are also entitled to know what vital British interest is at stake which warrants the possibility— there is now a possibility— of a large-scale commitment of British troops and high casualties. Will British lives be risked in Bosnia to save NATO's face? What are the reasons for the Government's change of heart.
If air strikes fail and the war intensifies elsewhere in Bosnia other than at Sarajevo, what is the likely response to that situation? What if the Serbs and the Bosnians refuse to withdraw their heavy weapons? What is the next step? It is virtually inevitable that the commitment of large-scale ground troops will then be necessary. That would be an enormous disaster. It is inevitable that large-scale troop involvement in Bosnia would lead on to war with Serbia itself. It is a situation fraught with enormous danger.
I fear that the reason why history so often repeats itself is that politicians refuse to learn the lessons of history. As we know, interventions in civil wars have led to enormous disasters. Consider the position in Vietnam where the United States intervened. That ended up with one million people killed— 50,000 of them United States troops— and one million more maimed and injured. The end result was that the United States withdrew in chaos and ignominy. In Beirut, again after big casualties, the United States forces withdrew in
42
chaos and ignominy. In Afghanistan the Soviet intervention was a disaster. Hundreds of thousands of lives Were lost before the Soviet army withdrew in ignominy and defeat. That undoubtedly contributed to the downfall of the Soviet empire (which may have been a very good thing) but the Afghans are still fighting each other. So that intervention did not lead to any good outcome and indeed unnecessarily killed more people. Finally, in Somalia, the military intervention, which was; intended to help the humanitarian effort, ended in chaos and ignominy with United States troops bombing and. gunning down innocent civilians including women and. children, taking aid officials prisoner, strengthening the warlords and undermining confidence in the United Nations. That is what interventions on the ground have done so far.
I am concerned that the threat of bombing should not: lead to military intervention on the ground in Bosnia. I. prefer to learn the lessons of history. Military intervention in Bosnia is almost inevitably bound to end the same way. In my view, the dangers are even greater.
We are told that the present Bosnian situation constitutes a serious threat to European peace, particularly in central Europe. I do not believe that to be true. However, intervention in Bosnia by ground forces would constitute a real threat to peace in Europe, if not the world. Let us make no mistake about it; let us not be namby-pamby about it. Russia would not be able to ignore a ground intervention. The least that would happen is that volunteer troops from Russia would assist the Serbs. Even more serious, the stresses and strains within the region caused by any western intervention on the ground could bring the present Russian regime crashing down, perhaps to be replaced by something extremely sinister and warlike.
It is imperative that that sort of situation is not allowed to occur. I ask the noble Baroness for absolute assurances that British ground troops will not become involved in a fighting role in Bosnia. We are entitled to ask that because we have seen the Government change their position, often overnight, as in the case of air strikes. I believe that the House is entitled to receive the assurance that British troops will not become involved on the ground in a fighting role in Bosnia, and certainly not on the side of one of the civil war combatants.
Finally, I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider their attitude towards any intervention through air strikes. It would be the beginning of an extremely serious step leading to God knows what, as I have described. I urge both the Minister and the Government to reconsider their position.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the situation in Bosnia daily becomes even more unpredictable than it has been in the recent past, even allowing for the awful and shocking events to which we have been exposed by the media. Perhaps that is one explanation for the considerable flux in the Government's approach to the problems there over the past few weeks and to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, drew attention.
We all listened closely to what the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said and repeated last Thursday, which

43
helped to spell out some of the most recent political objectives which the Government perceive in the Bosnian cauldron. She said, and repeated today, that the Government would support the use of air power,
"provided that it would support and not undermine the aid effort and the peace process". — [Official Report, 10/2194; col.1713.]
She also said, at col.1714, that,
"the attempts made by General Rose to secure the demilitarisation of Sarajevo and the agreement to place the city under UN administration, … are a major step forward".
The Minister also went on to say last Thursday, in regard to Tuzla Airport:
"We intend to see not only that [it] is opened but that it is kept open".
In the Foreign Secretary's Statement in another place last Thursday, which was repeated here, he stressed rightly that the war,
"will not end by military victory. A lasting settlement cannot be imposed". — [col.1710.]
It is interesting to recall that only a few weeks ago we were reading headlines regarding the possibility, even the likelihood, of British troops withdrawing from Bosnia, "in the Spring". Those were authoritative headlines based on ministerial briefings and statements. I wonder whether they were simply tactical leaks designed to put pressure on allies or others to face up to the issues, or that we are seeing a genuine reappraisal of the military contribution which our and other United Nations ground and air forces can make to solving a diabolical problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, told us today that the future of our forces in Bosnia is still under consideration.
Those twists and turns leave me concerned about the directives which our Armed Forces in the area are receiving. In the Gulf war I sought and obtained clear written political objectives so that we and the allied forces could be given precise directives to be put into action to achieve those objectives. It was possible to see before we started what territorial and other gains had to be achieved to meet the military contribution to the overall objectives. What seems to be lacking in the various and at times disjointed snippets of political objectives emanating from New York, Brussels or here in London, is an indication of how we are to measure the success of some elements of the military contribution.
Getting humanitarian aid through in sufficient quantity to the various distribution points can be measured. If air power is to be used, other than in the direct support of ground forces escorting aid convoys, how should we be measuring whether it meets the United Nations and NATO's objectives? If the threat of its use contributes to meeting an objective, well and good. But if it has to be used I am concerned about the potentially protracted nature of such a commitment.
I trust that the Government are confident that there will be sufficient aircraft and support of the right kind available for months, maybe years, if peace is not brought to end this dreadful civil war. After more than two years no side seems to be willing to agree to a stable settlement. The more that the United Nations establishes safe havens in and around Sarajevo, Tuzla, Mostar, and so on, the greater will become the demand for protection forces on the ground, for supporting air cover and resupplying convoys. There will be an understandable
44
tendency for large numbers of refugees to flock to the safety of the protected areas. Have we and the other nations faced up to the implications of sustaining ever-increasing numbers of distressed and homeless people and the ground forces supporting the havens?
Those who talk glibly of using air power and a few surgical strikes to solve much of our problems are in danger of overlooking the amount of effort which is already being expended by the Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm in meeting the Bosnian and a number of other protracted commitments in other parts of the world. At the moment every type of operational aircraft — with the exception of the Buccaneer, which is being withdrawn from service in a few weeks time— is committed to operations somewhere around the world. Many of those aircraft are flying well in excess of their authorised hours and a large number of their front-line and support units are either deployed or under notice to deploy. Our Hercules special forces and other air crews have made over 1,000 flights in and out of Sarajevo since it was besieged.
While I am quite certain that none of those involved expects to do other than undertake such commitments as they arise, it is as well to realise that many are facing long periods away from home. Most of the air crews and their ground support personnel are away for anything up to 200 days a year. At the same time, the Royal Air Force, in line with the other two services, is reorganising and drawing down numbers rapidly. Twenty-two thousand uniformed personnel and a further 2,000 civilians will also have been involved in moves over a three or four year period. I find it alarming to learn that of the 3,500 made redundant in the last two phases of the rundown in the Royal Air Force, all but a 100 were ready volunteers.
So long as the Royal Air Force and the other services are so highly committed operationally, with the ever present prospect of operational patrolling turning into live warfare, I seriously question the wisdom of proceeding with further major defence cost studies and other cost cutting initiatives. While none of us would want to be wasteful, I fear that there is a real danger that the ever reducing manpower of the forces will not be able to give full attention to both live operations and economy exercises. Something must give. It ought not to be operations where lives and much more may be at stake.
I mention these matters because we are hearing so much about the use of air power. It is as well to remind ourselves that it is not just a matter of sending a small flight of aircraft here or there with a few bombs on board. Much much more is involved. We need to be careful about overloading a very fine bunch of professionals with non-operational concerns. So long as Her Majesty's Government require them to punch their weight and more in many trouble spots around the world, let them concentrate on that.
5.31 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, recently I had the privilege of going to SHAFE at Mons and to NATO headquarters. It was at NATO headquarters we heard about the new or fairly new role which the Armed

45
Forces have all over the world; namely, a humanitarian role. It is a role which requires as much courage as, if not more courage than, the more traditional role they have had in the past. I should like to join those who have paid tribute to our forces, which are maintaining such a difficult position in the present three-cornered civil war. It seems that in today's culture of contempt the services, as someone said in The Times newspaper this morning, retain the respect and the admiration of many people in this land.
It was also during that visit that someone, whose name I could not disclose even if I knew it, said during a very interesting lecture that to take the guns away from the trigger-happy majors above the city of Sarajevo would require an army of 130,000 men. That, I should think, is a conservative estimate.
I find myself fascinated by the high standard of contributions in the debate— I have enjoyed hearing them for the very competence of the speeches— and the subject is obviously one over which good people will disagree.
I want to say very briefly what Christian Churches have been doing because it has often been implied that they have been doing nothing. In fact,26 million dollars worth of food, medicines and the like have been channelled by the humanitarian efforts of the Churches. The distribution of such has relied on the Churches on the ground. Here we have a particular advantage. We have communities on the ground which will assist with the distribution. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, needs no reminding that the Churches would be ready to do that and to assist in any way they possibly can. Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Reformed Churches, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal have been busy with this. Indeed, £ 600,000 of aid has been channelled by the Catholic Organisation for Overseas Development and a similar sum by Christian Aid. The whole exercise sets out to assist victims regardless of ethnic or religious background. The plight of women victims of war is of particular concern to the World Council of Churches, which has set up a special fund for such sufferers. The Church of Scotland has provided Caroline Boyd as the field consultant for the fund.
In order to support and encourage the Churches on the ground to care for all their people, visits have been made from this country and will be made again. At least we hope so. For the great hope is that these works of mercy and charity will not be brought to an end by any action that we might have to take on 20th February. Here I have to disclose my hand. I do not believe it is right or wise to make air strikes. But equally I realise that having threatened to do so we must carry them out if necessary; otherwise we reach the stage of the schoolmaster who is known by the boys in the class never to fulfil any of his threats and therefore cannot keep order. So what a dilemma there is! It is for those aid workers that we must have the utmost concern. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us in some way in the face of the rumours last Friday that aid workers might well be used as human shields in the event of air strikes by the United Nations.
Church leaders have condemned the abhorrent and barbaric acts of rape and so-called ethnic cleansing, the
46
terrible destruction of homes and communities and the ruthless slaughter of civilians. We would all echo that. The search for reconciliation goes on. The Council of European Churches together with the Roman Catholic Council of European Bishops called a totally ecumenical conference of European Churches at Pé cs in Hungary. They called on their governments for a cease-fire and for the lessening of human suffering and pain. They insisted that forced emigration should stop. They called on all Christian people in Yugoslavia to promote peace, reconciliation and compassion. It was their wish at Pé cs that governments would call on Christian people of all denominations to promote and pray for the peace process.
So the Churches have done and are doing something and they offer their services for peace and the alleviation of human suffering wherever the secular state can use them. They have not, however, called for direct military intervention for they share the view that unless a peace has been agreed on the ground, outside military intervention would deepen the conflict and provoke more violence and suffering. There must be a desire in every right-thinking person to hammer those who permit dreadful and abhorrent violence against innocent: people. But it is questionable whether that attitude and. desire for retribution, however understandable that may be, can be the raw material and the basis of a good foreign policy.
Can the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, when she, sums up, tell your Lordships' House what are the aims of air strikes? If, as has been said, it is to make Sarajevo a neutral and safe haven, let that be the limited. objective. For the doctrine of the just war it is necessary. so the doctrine says, to be satisfied that by entering the conflict we shall actually make it better. If you cannot. feel satisfied in your own mind that that will be so, you have no business to enter it. That involves being prepared to see things through to a satisfactory conclusion and being committed to that with all our resources. As I said, that will involve a huge army and goodness knows how many years in administering conquered territory. Is that really what we want to do?
If we do have to make air strikes on 20th February — I imagine that every Member of your Lordships' House hopes that we do not— it will be the first time in its history that NATO has fired a shot in anger. The change in the self-understanding of NATO will be immense, as also will be the attitude towards NATO which may well become a fourth ingredient in this civil war. NATO was founded as a defence alliance. It won probably the greatest battle of all time. The Russian empire was defeated without firing a shot. It was achieved by immense patience and a courageous retention of nerve.
Before I sit down I repeat my expression of concern for all those who have left house and home to drive lorries or to distribute aid in food and medicine— the aid workers and those protecting them— and prevail on Her Majesty's Government to stand in the councils of the nations for wisdom and patience and not to respond to popular demand, while abhorring, of course, the evil which we all deplore.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wish chiefly to set the Bosnia issue in the wider framework of our relations with eastern Europe and Russia and our future in NATO. But, first, it is absolutely vital that, as a country, we should not deprive General Rose and the military command in Yugoslavia of their most valuable weapon, the element of surprise. Our Government have, for good or ill, decided to threaten the Serbs with an air strike if certain conditions are not fulfilled. That is the strategy. Tactics must be left to the man on the ground, who cannot hope to keep the Serbs guessing and catch them off balance if he and our Government are constantly required to spell out what action would be taken in a range of different scenarios which we can all envisage. Let us not speculate; let us not question and probe in the next seven days; and let us not suggest that we are not serious about the threat. In doing that we weaken his hand. Let us enable General Rose to keep everyone guessing and meanwhile negotiate with the winning cards, if any, still safely in his hand and not face up on the table.
Our strategy— our policy— in Bosnia is clearly dictated by a number of outside factors. Will the US withdraw from Europe if NATO is not seen to be both decisive and effective? Or will President Clinton, and our own Government, be blackmailed by Russia and persuade us into inaction on the grounds that to go against Russian support for the Serbs will make President Yeltsin's position untenable? Fortunately, the Security Council resolutions to which Russia was a party authorise action, but I fear that there is plenty of evidence that Yeltsin and Zhirinovsky are at one in supporting the Serbs. I fear too that the Russians are, as always, playing a version of the old, old doves and hawks game under which the West has constantly to concede, in order to strengthen mythical doves against hawks, in a country where there is in fact a remarkable unity of purpose between the old communist establishment, the new reformers and the not very new hard right, on the desirability of getting what Russia wants.
President Yeltsin's spokesman, following Yeltsin's visit to Brussels last December, set out clearly what Mr. Kostikov has also spelt out from time to time. Speaking about the talks between President Yeltsin and Manfred Worner, the NATO Secretary General, Mr. Kostikov said that the two men's approach to the North Atlantic union was very close. But Yeltsin thought that,
"if Europe embarks on the path of accepting Eastern European countries into NATO this will be regarded as detrimental to Russia".
He added that for the first time the question of Russia itself joining NATO was raised directly. Moreover, he added,
"Jacques Delors, chairman of the European Commission, asked President Yeltsin himself whether Russia would like to join NATO".
He said that there was an impression that Europe would like that.
It seems difficult to believe that we actually contemplate inviting the wolf into the fold while agreeing with the wolf that it would be very offensive to
48
him to invite more sheep. Perhaps I may remind the House that Russia is meanwhile setting up 27 military bases in the territories of the CIS states; launching a new heavy missile cruiser; doubling expenditure in defence R& D; putting the new Sukhoy 34 bomber into mass production; and arguing for an army of over 2 million men.
Yeltsin's new year message to the people of Russia outside her borders was:
"We were and will be together. We defend and will defend your and our common interests".
I realise only too well that western governments, including our own, are on the horns of a dilemma. Is Yeltsin at risk? Is the US poised to forge a direct relationship with Russia and withdraw from NATO, leaving a meaningless friendship society to face a very turbulent and uncertain future?
I believe that at the least we should try to be clear-sighted. Russia's self-appointed new role as internal peacemaker is being, and will be, used to justify considerable military strength. Her neighbours, who are now being included once more in the self-assumed Russian sphere of influence, will be looking to see whether we have the power or the will to resist, not an immediate threat of war, but a menacing pressure of imperialist expansionism; or whether we hope to convince ourselves and them that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
The fact that the communist nomenklatura, temporarily submerged, is climbing back to a degree of power in both Poland and Hungary is a further complication and Hungary's refusal, reported today and referred to by another noble Lord, to let NATO use her air space is another straw in the wind. We have little room for manoeuvre. If there is no air strike and the Serbs appear to comply, there may be a respite. But it will not be a solution. If we are forced to use air strikes there will be a major escalation in the troops and aircraft required and we shall be in a new and yet more serious situation.
Have the defence cuts already emptied the cupboard? There is one lesson that we can learn and one action that we can take to improve a very bad position. It is to halt the cuts and to endeavour, if we can, to be seen to provide a credible and effective NATO deterrent. In doing that we should send the right signals to America, to Russia and to eastern Europe in the longer term. It is true that we need Russia's support over Bosnia. We shall only get it if the Russians see that we are worthy of respect and that we see them clearly. We must not forget that they need us too.
I believe, with other noble Lords, that our great mistake was to follow Germany's lead and recognise new countries which did not meet our criteria for recognition and thus become embroiled in a civil war because we wished to be seen to be good Europeans. I fear too that the air strikes, if they happen, will be exploited against us very effectively by the Serbs in ways that we can all imagine and that it will be difficult indeed for us to extricate ourselves. But before anything else, I believe that, having made a decision, we must now support it to the hilt if the threat is to be credible and effective. We must be sure, however, to have the

49
resources to do whatever is necessary. Without that a fatal blow would be dealt to our political and military credibility as members of NATO and of the Security Council. We cannot pursue a consistent policy if we have no teeth at all.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I listened with great attention to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey. I admire her suit or dress. She may not know— but I suppose that she does— that it closely resembles the tartan of the Black Watch, the senior Highland regiment. I hoped that that was a sign of stiffening on the part of the Government, but I must say that I see more sign of that in the dress than in the speech.
Turning to the speeches that we have heard this afternoon, I notice that those who are in the "do nothing" brigade refer constantly to "civil war". This is not a civil war. Of course, one can call it a civil war because the parties once formed one country or federation, but this is a war of brutal aggression for territory that the Serbs want. There is not a shadow of doubt that the enemy of peace and of the people of Bosnia is not that particular satellite Karadzic; it is Milosevic and his dream of a greater Serbia. That is what the war is about.
This is a war that is taking place at the heart of Europe. It is a war of immense importance for the future of Europe. If we in Europe cannot stand the barbarity in our midst, what can we do? What hope is there for our world order to succeed? The whole position reminds people of my age— and there are many even older in this House— of the civil war in Spain, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred. There are great similarities. A war was taking place that was supported and supplied by the fascist countries of Italy and Germany, and we subscribed to an embargo on arms for the government. It applied only to the government. That was, of course, an intolerable position and the rebels won the day, as was practically inevitable. Our actions today have many similarities.
I must strongly criticise the position that the Government have taken. They were a party to the setting up of the negotiating team of Vance and Owen. I was at the. Council of Europe about a year and a half ago when we heard a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in which he said quite definitely that the one thing that the negotiators would not tolerate was the retention of territory that had been won by brutal means such as ethnic cleansing and every other form of modern brutality. Since then, the position of the negotiating team on behalf of Europe has been to give way and to endeavour to persuade the Moslems to accept a situation imposed on them by force by the Serbs.
We hear also— mostly from the people in the "do nothing" brigade— that atrocities are committed by all sides. There is no doubt that that is true, but who can doubt who let the genie out of the bottle? When people see atrocities being committed against their own people (and the evidence has been before them for a long time), they become irrational.
50
We must make up our minds about what we are going to do. The Government say that they are only interested in providing humanitarian aid. Like others, I pay tribute to the troops. It must be awful for fighting regiments to have to negotiate with the most appalling people as they try to get the food through. One must admire them and the discipline that makes them able to tolerate the sort of things that they have to tolerate.
We have also agreed to a blockade on and to apply sanctions against Serbia as a whole. We have done that totally ineffectively. First, we used our aircraft and our ships to count the violations— to count the petrol-runners as they went in. Then we stiffened it up a bit. But the fact is that sanctions are not working. I am told by the noble Baroness that the embargo on arms is not working for the Bosnian Moslems. All our efforts seem to be in vain. They seem ludicrous. It is true that time after time Milosevic has played with Europe and with our effort. It is also absolutely proven that every time that we have threatened to use the overwhelming force that we possess, he has given a little until some of us (whether the Brits, the French or the Americans) have been unable to agree with the action taken— and away the Serbs go again.
We must have a proper policy. We now find ourselves with one, but somewhat reluctantly. We have decided that we are going to be realistic about the safe havens. I agree totally with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that that is an objective that we must look at because it is one that can achieve a great deal more than the safe havens. I agree also that we must provide the equipment, the money and the people that are needed. The other noble and gallant Lord from my own service of long ago stressed the fact that without the means, the services cannot provide the essential backing; that we need to carry out a policy.
We have an objective: to secure the safe havens. If we do secure them, we shall be sending a very strong message to Milosevic and the Serbs that we mean business and that we have at last done sornething that we said that we would do. If we can do that, we shall come nearer to achieving the objective that we all want, which is a peaceful settlement (however bad that appears when set against our original objectives). A peaceful settlement could now be achieved, but to achieve it the Government, along with the rest of our allies, must be consistent and firm.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, for introducing this debate with such an excellent review of the events in Bosnia and to thank other noble Lords who have taken us through the history and complications of the terrible conflict in the Balkans.
However, I should like to concentrate entirely on one issue, the NATO ultimatum. As the air has been alive recently with the sound of doves making noises like hawks, perhaps it will not come amiss if a notorious hawk utters for once a few plaintive cries of warning. Several noble Lords have asked what circumstances have changed to make the Government abandon their view that armed force is not a useful option in this

51
conflict. A number of possibilities have been put forward. I should like to advance another. One of the main and more recent reasons why the policy has changed is because it so happened that a TV camera crew happened to be on the spot immediately after the recent appalling incidents in the marketplace in Sarajevo. The pictures were beamed hundreds of times into the homes of people in Europe, America and all over the world.
Once again, foreign policy has been hijacked not by the American or French governments but by the TV practitioners and other people of the media. Some are ill-equipped to comprehend the broader implications of what they are reporting and suggesting. At a recent lecture a practitioner in the television world openly boasted that the function of the TV reporter in the Balkans was to oblige the Foreign Secretary to do things that he would not otherwise have the courage to do. Reporting from Bosnia within the last few days, the same person used the phrase, "This is at last a victory for the new tough approach".
That is where there has been a change in the attitude not only of our Government but in that of many Western governments. Although it has become one of the cliché s of the debate, NATO has surrendered to the something-must-be-done school of foreign policy. What has it decided to do? It has decided to issue an ultimatum that unless the Serbs carry out a certain number of carefully specified actions within a specific number of days there will be air strikes against some of their positions. That has occurred in spite of the fact that we are told over and over again— and most of us believe it— that armed force will not bring an end to this war which, despite opinions to the contrary, is in the view of most people a civil war.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, suggested that we should not probe too much into the contingencies and possibilities that might follow. To a great extent she is right. As my noble friend Lord Bramall said, we must assume, as most of us do, that our Government and other governments have thought the thing through to its logical conclusion. I cannot believe that they are, as my noble friend put it, just sleepwalking into the situation with their fingers crossed.
The Government must know, therefore, that the ultimatum to the Serbs, which is due to expire in a few days, has a finite number of possible consequences. The first is that the Serbs might totally ignore the ultimatum. Indeed, at one time they threatened to do so. If they do and NATO fails to act upon its ultimatum there will be a disastrous loss of credibility and influence not just for NATO but for the United Nations, the United States and ourselves.
Let us suppose that the Serbs ignore the ultimatum and that we carry out air strikes against certain specified targets. What then? We all know the dangers and it is unnecessary to rehearse them at great length. There may be retaliation against foreign troops in Yugoslavia. There may be serious and perhaps decisive disruption to the aid programme. How do we know precisely how surgical— if I may use that expression— the air strikes will be? However surgical an air strike, there is almost
52
bound to be a certain amount of what is known as "collateral damage". People are actually killed when bombs are dropped on them, and that is very much likely to happen in this case. That leaves aside the really disastrous scenario, which is the use of foreigners or people of their own kind as a human shield against such an attack.
On the other hand, what if the Serbs comply? What if they pull their guns back to the 20 kilometre line and cease temporarily the bombardment of Sarajevo? Nothing much will have been achieved. Peace would be no nearer. The end of the war would be no nearer. Other forms of violence can be practised within the context of this dreadful civil war. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, these people are expert at such things. After a while they will move back and the whole process will have to be started all over again.
But there is another scenario which is in my view the most likely of all. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, perceptively referred to it. The Serbs may partially comply; they may do just enough to persuade the NATO planners and the United Nations Secretariat that perhaps this is not quite the moment to fulfil the ultimatum. Indeed, there have been recent reports that the United Nations people have said, "You don't really need the guns to go back 20 kilometres. There are other ways of preventing them shelling Sarajevo". That is the beginning of a crack. I fear that the withdrawal will take place partially and to an extent which will make it very difficult indeed for the West to fulfil its threats.
Let us think, for example, of what will happen if they decide to withdraw their guns into one of their major brigade or divisional headquarters. Do we then bomb a Serb brigade headquarters? We must think very carefully before we do that. What if the Serbs withdraw their guns into villages? Do we then bomb the villages? However surgical an air strike on the guns in a village, it will have some fairly devastating effects.
We have put ourselves into a difficult and agonising position. Either we shall not fulfil our threat, not deliver on the ultimatum and lose credibility entirely in the area, and perhaps in other places around the world, or, if we do what we threaten to do, we are on the road to something which not even the most imaginative contingency planner can entirely envisage.
I wish to ask the Minister a specific question which has arisen in the debate but is not yet fully clear. Certainly I am not clear about it. Who will be responsible for authorising the air strike at midnight on the day that the ultimatum expires? I cannot believe the suggestion that it will be a British General in the field. If that is true, it is a perilous position to place ourselves in. On the other hand, I hope that the Secretary General of the United Nations will not be the man to decide.
Who will be responsible? What consultation and military and political decision will have to be taken on midnight on the day that the ultimatum expires if the air strike is to be launched? That is one of the things at least that we should be told, and told very clearly. I believe that we are embarked on a high-risk strategy. It could end either in our being sucked into a broader conflict, with all that means, or a humiliating withdrawal.

53
I ask the question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Why are we involved in this conflict anyway? Where are the vital interests that are at stake? I must confess that I perceive none. It is possible, of course, that we fear the spread of this war outside its present boundaries. That would be dangerous but there are other ways of dealing with that than becoming totally and militarily involved in the conflict. We have been told, and no doubt we shall be told again, that we cannot sit idly by and watch the denial of human rights, ethnic cleansing, oppression and brutality without doing something about it. Well, we have not done much about it during the years. We have watched brutality and oppression take place on a massive scale all over the world but we have not yet done what we are proposing to do in Yugoslavia.
Further, as several noble Lords have said, we are in danger of damaging broader aspects of our foreign policy. Relations with Russia, especially in the context of securing any kind of peace in the Balkans, are absolutely vital. If we continue this unilateral policy — which is what it is— of carrying out air strikes against one side in this civil war, I fear that relations with Russia may be damaged seriously.
Part of the problem lies in the United Nations. We must take a fresh look at what has happened to the United Nations since the Gulf War. In my view, it has begun to have an inflated idea of its own role, influence and importance in the world. It is behaving like the defence ministry of a major power when it should be more closely equated to the foreign office of a third world country. It is beginning to interfere almost at will in matters which some time ago would have been properly left to national sovereignty. I believe that we are embarked on a dangerous course of action.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that actions taken by the United Nations must be decided upon by the Security Council, which has only five members. For the purposes of war and peace, the United Nations is the Security Council. Does the noble Lord have any feeling about which of those five members may be causing the irresponsible actions about which he complains?
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Having been a representative of the United Nations, I am well aware of the powers of the Security Council. I do not place the blame on the Security Council or any member of it. I believe that the bureaucracy of the United Nations is becoming altogether too powerful and is beginning to take decisions and authorise actions far too readily. In my view, in that way it is becoming something of a danger as regards regional conflicts such as that in Yugoslavia.
I end by saying— and it is not the first time it has been said this evening, having been said by both my noble and gallant friends— that if we are bent on pursuing actions and policies of this kind we must look again seriously at Options for Change and Front Line First and all the other euphemisms which are advanced for cutting our defence forces. If we are to drop bombs on people, we had better have the aircraft from which to drop them; we had better have the airmen to fly and maintain those
54
aircraft; and we had better have the soldiers, sailors, ships and tanks necessary to follow up the action if A goes wrong. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot stride around the world seeking to play a major role in every regional crisis, however serious and dangerous it may be, if we are not prepared to afford the military establishment which is essential for the successful pursuit of such a foreign policy. It would riot be the first time that a miscalculation in the Balkans has led to disaster. I hope that we shall not let that happen this time.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Chalker for bringing this debate to your Lordships' attention. I should like to concentrate on the situation which exists now and to emphasise some of the difficulties that face NATO and the British Army in the support of the United Nations protection force.
Before I go any further, I should like to pay tribute also to our sailors, soldiers, airmen and the many civilian volunteers who have shown such great courage and who have provided such dedicated and professional expertise in support of the United Nations operation. In particular, I congratulate Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose on the prompt, robust and successful approach that he has made to date. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House would wish him good fortune and success in the difficult future,
I turn now to some of the important factors of the current situation which shall discuss under the: headings of NATO, the ultimatum and the effects on the British Army. First, as regards NATO, in the context of the debate I am sure that there is no need to remind your Lordships that the keystone of western defence has been and I presume will continue to be NATO and that our defence policy is based on our commitment to it. The current reduction in our Armed Forces, to which I am utterly opposed, has been made easier for the Government by their very commitment and contribution to NATO.
As many noble Lords have said this afternoon, the credibility of NATO could now be at stake. If it does not implement the course of action that has been decided upon, it could well be asked, why does NATO exist today? Surely in this post-cold war period it exists for the very situation which confronts us now in Bosnia.
If NATO is to continue to be seen to be a credible organisation and the pillar of strength on which Britain and the other western countries rely for their existing security, there can be no going back on the decisions that have been made. Those decisions must be followed through and a clear and strong NATO strategy should be issued as soon as possible. To turn back now, should the Bosnian Serbs not comply with the ultimatum, and to take no action after the recent announcement would result in a complete withdrawal of the UN force and a total humiliation for NATO It would also be the end of the organisation and the termination of the security system which has protected the west so successfully for

55
so long. In my view, NATO would rightly be seen to be powerless, voiceless and an organisation of no future consequence.
With a reduced Army establishment of only 122,000 troops, there is little capacity within our existing commitments to take on additional ones without causing even more desperate overstretch to the Army. However, the facts of the matter are that we are involved in the former Yugoslavia with a deployment of 2,500 British Army troops in and around Bosnia, Royal Navy ships in the Adriatic and Royal Air Force planes patrolling the no-fly zone and monitoring the area on a 24-hour basis. We shall continue to be involved and it is unspeakable even to contemplate that we should welsh on our agreed commitments and leave our allies in the lurch when the going starts to get a little tougher.
No, the time has come when we should be resolute, robust and take a firm line of action. It is not the time to shirk the fight, and if we must fight to achieve the aim, it must be remembered that we shall be fighting for the very existence and survival of NATO. NATO, and Britain as part of that organisation, have issued the ultimatum and it is vital that we support it.
I have served with the United Nations and have some experience of safe havens, protected areas and frontiers or divided boundaries between hostile communities. The NATO ultimatum should result in the establishment of such areas. In any United Nations operation there are some common essential ingredients, one of which is that the UN aim must be concise and clear and understood by all ranks on all sides.
A second essential ingredient is to ensure that any United Nations force is deployed in sufficient strength and with sufficient weaponry and has the resolve, determination and will to achieve its aim. It must be able to fight and win in any hostile confrontations. But I must sound a word of warning. To establish safe havens and protected areas is extremely expensive in manpower terms, which in this case could be in the region of an additional 55,000 to 60,000 troops, a large portion of which would have to be drawn from other countries.
Another essential ingredient is to ensure that there is an effective command structure with excellent communications; and surely the time has come to reorganise the geographical command structure within Bosnia. Additional two-star subordinate command areas should be established in Bosnia in accordance with any plan that General Rose proposes. There must be no political interference with the tactical command structures and plans devised by the UN Commander in Bosnia.
I now turn to the ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs, which will expire at midnight on 20th February, just over six days from now. There are only two options open to the Bosnian Serbs: they either defy the ultimatum or they comply with it. However, it is of concern that it is unclear at the moment what strategy will be adopted by the United Nations and NATO if the ultimatum is defied and air strikes have been carried out. Presumably there are contingency plans to be implemented and it would be insecure to announce future strategy at this stage. So far the actions taken
56
begin to look as if the Bosnian Serbs may comply with the ultimatum, or is this merely a symbolic gesture? Compliance has to be full compliance and this means removing all heavy weapons, either handing them over to UN control or for the Bosnian Serbs to remove them to outside the 20-kilometre exclusion zone.
If they comply with the ultimatum it is assumed that UN momentum will be maintained and, apart from the collection and control of the heavy weapons, large reinforcements will be required to police and control the city of Sarajevo; to patrol and observe the 20-kilometre perimeter of the Sarajevo exclusion zone; and to defend and protect, with force if necessary, the Serbian villages within the exclusion zone which will probably become safe havens.
If that operation is successful, a similar strategy should be adopted as soon as possible over Tuzla, Gorazde, Srebrenica and Bihac, the other UN-designated safe areas. All those operations may require large reinforcements, but it is to be hoped that it will lead to an overall peace agreement. I believe that reinforcement should start now as this would indicate that the UN and NATO are being realistic about the ultimatum and that it is not just another idle threat. It should also allow the military commanders on the ground considerably more flexibility for their planning and future operations.
However, if the Bosnian Serbs do not comply with the ultimatum and NATO air strikes are carried out, massive reinforcement will have to take place, some of which will probably come from the United Kingdom. The war would be likely to escalate, with Serbs bringing heavy artillery barrages down on Sarajevo, showing the world their contempt for the UN and NATO and that they can defy these all-powerful world organisations. In this case there may well be no other alternative than for land and air forces to clear the Sarajevo exclusion zone by force. The aim must be maintained and in this case ground forces will be required to provide the fire and movement to achieve the aim.
What will be the effect of all of this on the British Army? Currently the Army, like the other armed services, is still being reduced to its Options for Change target figure of only 122,000 troops. The strength of the Army has already reached a figure just below 131,000. It will be inevitable that Britain will have to provide some of the reinforcement I have referred to either through the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps or from within United Kingdom Land Forces. However, the plain fact is that we can only provide teeth arm units at the expense of a further decrease in the time spent between emergency six-month tours, which now stands at around 15 months as opposed to the agreed two years between tours.
Many of your Lordships have advised Her Majesty's Government that the Armed Forces are being reduced too much. In fact on frequent occasions the Government have been advised to cease all proposed cuts to the armed services in view of the uncertainties and dangers that exist in this unstable world today. Currently the Army is so overstretched that regimental and battalion establishments have to be increased for operational deployments by one complete company or squadron

57
from a different regiment before they are capable of carrying out their tasks. That is a deplorable state of affairs and badly affects other battalions, which have to lose a company in these circumstances. The situation is becoming ludicrous and the Government should make every effort to increase these establishments now.
The Secretary of State is on record as saying that should world events deteriorate, force levels would be reviewed. I believe that the events in the world have deteriorated and that those force levels should be reviewed now. As a result of such a review, surely Her Majesty's Government: should increase the overall establishment of the Army to around 135,000 and abandon any further cuts. Without taking action to increase the Army establishment, and with the possibility of additional units probably being deployed to Bosnia, regiments will become even more overstretched than they are now, leading to a further deterioration in morale. However, any regiment sent to Bosnia will carry out its duties superbly and there will be no loss of morale once deployed; but it is morally wrong of Her Majesty's Government to over-commit the Army causing significant overstretch when the establishment could easily be increased at a cost of probably no more than half a per cent. of GDP, bringing the Defence Vote up from 3.5 per cent. to 4 per cent. Surely it is not too much to ask the Government to increase the Defence Vote, with additional funds to provide additional troops for the presumably forthcoming further commitments in Bosnia.
In conclusion, NATO must follow up its ultimatum in a robust manner and take firm action. It must issue a clear and strong overall strategy beyond the implementation of air strikes. The future is likely to demand heavy military reinforcement of peacekeepers from many UN countries. The United Kingdom is likely to provide additional combat and support troops which will cause disastrous and impossible overstretch to the Army if its establishment is not increased to around 135,000, which is a figure that I and many of your Lordships have consistently advised in this House.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should like to say a few words this evening about the United Nations and about the inconsistencies in government policy. I shall also look into the background of the situation in Bosnia with a view to thinking a little about the future. I hope that I am not being over-ambitious in that aspiration. However, I suspect that, as in so many matters to do with Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia, over-ambition is a risk that we have to take.
I welcome the debate especially because it gives us the opportunity to declare our support for the United Nations. Many speakers mentioned the involvement of NATO. I must admit that I am a little concerned about expressing support for NATO's involvement in the Bosnian situation. I say that because if one looks back over the past few years one can see the proliferation of quite a large number of organisations, countries and groups of countries that have been involved in the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, as someone pointed out only the other day, it has been like
58
Fred Karno's circus in that we have had Britain, France and Germany as individual countries involved, riot to mention those on the other side of the former Iron Curtain; we have had NATO; we have had the European Community before it became the European Union; and we have had the United Nations. All those organisations or countries have been involved in one way or another. I suspect that that is part of the reason: fir the difficulties that we find ourselves in today.
One of the key phrases used by the Minister in her opening speech— indeed, it is very apt to the whole debate— was that a civil war cannot be ended by outside intervention. In making that statement, I suspect the noble Baroness set a scene. It is interesting to compare the conflict in Bosnia — and in the wider former Yugoslavia— with domestic or family conflict. Some years ago domestic conflict and violence were considered not the province of our police forces. In the international sphere the United Nations Charter forbade involvement in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. Over the years that situation has changed. We now consider domestic violence to be something that we will not tolerate and our police intervene and charge the perpetrators.
We have not yet reached that stage in world affairs, but we are rapidly getting there. As the situation in Yugoslavia developed, we saw the recognition of parts of the former Yugoslavia, for example Slovenia and Croatia, and active involvement in what were effectively the internal affairs of a sovereign country, namely, Yugoslavia, by the United Nations and various other bodies. We are not prepared now to stand idly by and we condemn violence, but we are still a little reluctant to intervene. However, that position is changing. I hope we will riot accept the precept of this Government that we cannot end a civil war by outside intervention. The implication is that we cannot end domestic violence or conflict by outside intervention. That is not acceptable. What we can recognise is that we do not have the will to intervene to end a civil conflict.
I would like now to consider how the conflict started and what lessons we can learn from seeking to resolve it in the longer term. Some noble Lords have gone back into history — almost pre-history— and have talked about the inherent conflicts between people of different religious affiliations. I would hope we could recognise that the rise in unemployment and the reduction in comparative living standards was a fundamental cause of the instability and the break-up of Yugoslavia. I hope we can recognise that those same problems of redundancy and the lowering of incomes can cause similar problems on the domestic front, in terms of the: family context that I mentioned but also in other areas of the international scene.
That analysis gives some pointers for policy. First, we should ensure as far as possible that we do not, by fiscal, economic and trade policies, contribute to unemployment and to a reduction in living standards anywhere. Secondly, to ensure a long-term peaceful future we must recognise that everyone in Bosnia, whether of Croatian or of Serbian origin, or whatever faction they may belong to, all have something positive to contribute to the future of a peaceful and prosperous

59
community. We should develop policies to aid that end objective. If we demonise any one part of the community that makes up Bosnia, we shall store up problems for the future.
I am concerned by the following matter. Having recognised Bosnia de facto if not de jure, why do not the British Government, through the UN, provide assistance to the Government of Bosnia to protect their territorial integrity from incursion by Croatia and Serbia? Why do we continue to support the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in his plans for the effective dismemberment of Bosnia? What plans do the Government have to support the peaceful development of the various parts of the former Yugoslavia based, I hope— for them to be effective— on concepts of full employment and equitable distribution of income for everyone?
I am not hopeful of a positive answer to that final question because the policies that this Government employ domestically exacerbate the problem by creating unemployment and the inequities of income distribution that have occurred over the past 15 years. Therefore, I do not believe the Government are in a strong position to suggest actions to resolve problems in other parts of the world. However, I throw in that question in the hope that someone in the Foreign Office may be looking more positively at what can be done in a world context than is the case with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary as regards looking at what can be done in the domestic situation.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am glad that this is a government Motion being debated in government time. I listened with interest to the introduction of the noble Baroness. Nevertheless I regret that Her Majesty's Government continually refer to civil war in Bosnia. To get a proper perspective I believe it is necessary to look at the whole sequence of events since the break-up of the old Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became violent.
The first move was the attack by the Serb-led Yugoslav National Army on Slavonia. When this was repulsed, the same forces attacked Croatia and seized large parts of eastern and central Slavonia and of the Krajina, amounting to one-third of the whole of Croatia, causing massive destruction of property and displacement of people. To this day— here I follow the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Mackie of Benshie— towns such as Vukovar and Osijek are still largely in ruins. During this war the same forces, as a diversion, wantonly bombarded the world-famous Dalmatian city of Dubrovnik, the so-called pearl of the Adriatic.
After the ceasefire and the introduction of UNPROFOR into Croatia, the same forces in April and May 1992 invaded Bosnia and Herzegovina. By then, of course, the Yugoslav National Army was mainly Serb and Montenegrin in membership but it was assisted by Serb irregulars recruited both from within and from outside Bosnia. These forces have killed tens of thousands of people, largely civilians. They have driven out hundreds of thousands from Bosnia and Herzegovina alone. It was they who set up concentration
60
camps and followed a deliberate policy of mass rape in order to victimise and humiliate the other communities and to promote their vile concept of ethnic purity.
So far the Serbs have seized over two-thirds of the Bosnian land, whereas their share of the population was about 30 per cent. and between a quarter and 30 per cent. of all marriages used to be between members of different communities and traditions. These facts explain why the United Nations imposed sanctions on the "rump" Yugoslavia alone: that is to say, on Serbia and Montenegro only. It is because of these facts that the United Nations Secretary-General said in measured terms in London in August 1992— and I quote him—
"The territories of the former Yugoslavia, now locked in military confrontation, have been recognised by the international community and have taken their places in the General Assembly of the United Nations as Member States. This then is an international conflict. "
That is why I disagree so strongly with the civil war thesis. We have witnessed deliberate aggression and planned genocide. We have seen a consistent effort to create a Greater Serbia. This should be resisted because if it were successful it would without doubt be followed by demands for a Greater Hungary, a Greater Albania and a Greater Russia. The ensuing mischief would know no bounds.
Of course there are some grounds for describing the present fighting as having some aspects of a civil war. The participants indeed speak the same language. The Serbs certainly had bitter memories of their sufferings in 1941 and 1942 and also in the First World War. This makes their behaviour a little more understandable, but in no wise excusable. Of course the Bosnian Moslems and Croats have committed atrocities; of course they have destroyed whole villages, killing and expelling their inhabitants. It would be surprising if they had not, after what has been inflicted on them. It is incumbent upon us, however, to look beyond the appearances, to establish the truth and to act so as to protect the future of Europe and of the world.
It is our duty and our interest to ensure that aggression and genocide are as little rewarded as possible. That is why it is so important to develop a coherent, internationally agreed and long-term policy for the former Yugoslavia and for the whole of the Balkans. That is why I so much regret the lack of unity up to now of the great powers and of the Western democracies. That is why I regard the so-called mediation at Geneva and elsewhere as a pretence, as a cloak for disunity and as something which must be superseded rather soon. I say that without in the least detracting from the integrity of the mediators.
In forming a long-term policy it is usually helpful to have an historical perspective. The river Drina marked, I believe, the boundary between the eastern and western Roman Empires. This ancient frontier still separates Serbia from Bosnia-Herzegovina. From the high middle ages onwards, Bosnia and the neighbouring duchy formed one unit. For four centuries under the Turks they remained a frontier unit of the Ottoman Empire, where Christians, Moslems and Jews co-existed. After the Congress of Berlin, Austria-Hungary continued to administer Bosnia-Herzegovina as one unit. Under both royalist and Titoist Yugoslavia the territory preserved

61
its integrity and its plural life. This is a truly amazing instance of administrative and social continuity from the early 14th century until about two years ago.
So, for reasons of history and because of the deep-rooted tradition of tolerance and mutual respect, and of recent intermarriages, I and many others wish to see Bosnia-Herzegovina continue as a single unit. The proof that Bosnians can still co-exist is to be found among the heroic inhabitants and defenders of Sarajevo — still a mixed city despite the agonies of a siege lasting nearly two years. Further proof exists in the mixed city of Tuzla, where over a quarter of a million people still respect each other's rights without violence, despite acute shortages of food and fuel. Incidentally, the Moslem-Croat military alliance still holds in this part of the country despite what has happened elsewhere.
Given the deaths and widespread suffering that have occurred, your Lordships may well ask how the unity of Bosnia is to be preserved. I suggest that the Security Council will have to be persuaded that unity is a just outcome and one that is likely to be permanent. At first, I think that some form of supra-national authority would be necessary for Bosnia. Whether this should be called a United Nations trusteeship or an interim administration is a matter for discussion. It would be needed for a considerable period of years. It would assume initial responsibility for all government functions, including defence and policing. Its task would be to oversee the long, slow process of restoring secular, plural and decentralised democracy.
In addition there is a pressing need for reconstruction and economic development. This would have to be generously funded by the richer countries of the world, particularly the Western ones and the Middle Eastern oil producers. In fact this combination is now beginning to co-operate over the situation in Gaza, Jericho and the occupied territories. Similar co-operation, I suggest, will be necessary over Bosnia major investment in infrastructure and housing in both Palestine and Bosnia could help create employment for the many jobless in Europe and in the Middle East.
Serbia and Croatia have both, in different ways, over-reached themselves. Both will, I trust, come at least to acquiesce in the plan I have outlined. It is in their long-term interests to have an independent, prosperous and reconstructed country between them. In return for acceptance, they could expect the lifting of sanctions and economic restrictions, together with generous funding for the many refugees and displaced people on their own territories. If a large number of those who are presently displaced were enabled to return to their homes in Bosnia, the problems of both Serbia and Croatia would be greatly eased.
The alternatives to a coherent long-term policy are truly horrible. They include festering refugee problems, the spread of existing fighting, the involvement of more Islamic mujahideen or the intervention of other powers such as Turkey. NATO, the Council of Europe, the CSCE and even the European Union could all find themselves in a state of institutional chaos, while the impotence of the United Nations would have been made clear. If, on the other hand, the political will can be found to design and apply a sound long-term policy,
62
religion could come to the aid of statesmanship. Following the successful conclusion in 1993 of the Year of Inter-religious Co-operation, the Catholic, Orthodox and Moslem leaderships, as was perhaps indicated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, should, combine to support a wise political strategy. Let us try to make of Bosnia a model for South Eastern Europe. We should, I believe, make plans now, remembering that it was in 1943 and 1944, before the end of the Second World War, that the basic designs of the United Nations, Bretton Woods and GATT were conceived. Peace building, I believe, should start even before wars come to an end.
6.49 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, were completely apposite and his description of the Serbs' actions was exact. I have just one minor criticism to make, which is purely a "show off" point. A unified Bosnian kingdom survived under a gentleman called Ban Kulin, who reigned from 1180 to 1204.
Whether what I have to say will have any effect on the suffering of the people of Bosnia or will alleviate the pain of the citizens of Sarajevo I doubt. Furthermore, I do not relish what I am about to say. The policies of Her Majesty's Government have added to that pain and suffering. They have been the prime, movers in preventing the Bosnians from helping themselves" and judging by at least one of the Prime Minister's statements, those policies have been based on ignorance. For instance, on 23rd June 1993 in the Official Report, Commons, he stated at col.324,
"The biggest single element behind what has happened in Bosnia is the collapse of the Soviet Union and of the discipline that that exerted over ancient hatreds in the old Yugoslavia".
Did someone not tell the Prime Minister that Stalin expelled Tito from the Comintern in 1948 and that several NATO war games foresaw the possible Russian invasion of Yugoslavia to reimpose that discipline? Furthermore, the policies of Her Majesty's Government seem to lack consistency. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said on "The World at One" on 6th February,
"The Serbs have actually occupied the land they want".
He continued,
"At the end of the day there will have to be a negotiated! settlement. No one is actually going to win this war".
I interpret that as saying that the Serbs have won all they want: all that we have now to do is to closet them with the Bosnian Government in a carriage M the Forest of Compiegne to make sure that they sign on the dotted line. However, for our own face-saving purposes, we must disguise the Bosnian surrender as a compromise so that we can hide European impotence, ignore American hypocrisy and just pack up our tents and forget the whole beastly business.
Previously in your Lordships' House I have suggested that what we and the UN are doing in Bosnia is the worst of all possible worlds. John Simpson showed in this week's Spectator how the United Nations is conniving with the Serbs in the siege of Sarajevo. Lawrence Freedman in The Times on Saturday put forward the theory that the US agreed to persuade

63
NATO to carry out bombing of the Serb guns to cover its retreat from the area in the same way that President Nixon bombed Hanoi and Haiphong to conceal the US defeat in Vietnam.
As has already been said, large amounts of aid— the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to 50 per cent.; I had not heard that figure before, although I had certainly heard the figure of 40 per cent. or 25 per cent. — go to feed and fuel the warring parties, mostly Serbs. The Croats are blatantly pouring troops into Bosnia and the arms blockade has little or no effect on Serbian fighting ability as they inherited something like 500 or 600 tanks from the old federal army. However, it stops the legitimate Bosnian Government recognised by the United Nations from getting heavy weapons. It cannot obtain heavy weapons; it can only smuggle in light weapons.
I pause to observe that we lifted the arms embargo from the Angolan Government just before Christmas. The Angolan Government are fighting a very nasty civil war with Mr. Jonas Savimbi. Those fighters were armed by allies of ourselves until quite recently. That civil war is very much nastier than what is going on in Bosnia.
The Bosnian Government is incidentally led by a man who has written in a book published in the early 1980s called Islam Between East and West that,
"Islam was a spiritual synthesis between East and West".
He spoke highly of the Renaissance and its painting, and approvingly of Anglo-Saxon philosophy and culture. He is clearly not a fundamentalist modelled on Cairo assassins or Persian mullahs as he is depicted by Serb propaganda. It is also worth pointing out that both Milosevic and Tudjman are hard core ex-communist opportunists. It is also worth remembering that when two years ago Mr. Milosevic went to Kosovo he had pictures painted of himself and Jesus carrying the bones of Prince Lazar, a Serbian Tsar who was defeated in the battle of the killing fields in 1389. He is therefore an opportunist, dishonest and a thoroughly unpleasant man, from Mr. Izetbegovic's description.
The Serbs plotted and armed themselves long before the break up of Yugoslavia milosevic grabbed the federal budget. The Serbs burnt the great library in Sarajevo. They have bulldozed and destroyed mosques and suggested that the Moslems should all be repatriated to Anatolia. I leave aside the ethnic cleansing upon which so many noble Lords have already spoken. Mr. Karadzic declared autonomous regions, armed the local Bosnian Serbs, asked for Serb protection and created incidents all in collusion with Milosevic, long before the war broke out.
Let us also remember that on the day of international recognition 100,000 Bosnians of all religions and creeds went on to the streets in Sarajevo and were addressed by a speaker whose theme was, "Let all Serb chauvinists depart to Serbia and all Croat chauvinists depart to Croatia. We want to remain, and we want to keep Bosnia as well". Those people all demonstrated from multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Bosnia.
I have been well briefed for this speech by a book soon to be published by Noel Malcolm, which describes in great detail the facts of the war, its causes and course.
64
All his facts are well researched. They all have source notes. He shows, for instance, that the BBC referred to the Bosnian Government almost from the beginning as a warring faction, so equating it with the Serbian ethnic cleansers. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary referred to the conflict as a civil war when it is a rebellion, armed, encouraged and directed from outside. He also stated in an article in the Mail on Sunday that there is ample justification for resistance, but went on to say that it should not happen.
The Vance-Owen plan admitted to the establishment of an apartheid in Bosnia— ethnic cantons or separate development, call it what one will. That gave the Serbs enough gain to make the Moslems believe that the Serbs were being rewarded for their aggression, and the Serbs agreed and so pushed for more— which is exactly what happened. It also exacerbated the differences between the shaky Croat-Moslem alliance, which soon broke.
It is into that cauldron that the UN place lightly armed troops who can be held hostage if any action is taken by NATO, so possibly forcing an ignominious evacuation or a massive escalation. The whole sorry story has been a discredit to all governments: the British Government for serious feebleness; the Germans for even greater feebleness; the French for slightly less feebleness and the United States for being run by CNN. The Americans are always urging action provided that they can stay at 30,000 feet. A country internationally recognised has ceased to exist. There have been 150,000 people killed and a million refugees created by the dreadful cocktail of Western wetness and Serbian evil. If the Serbs do not raise the siege of Sarajevo and pull back their heavy weapons, but are then bombed into doing so, it will be obvious that Bosnia could have been saved earlier. We shall therefore have left undone that which we ought to have done, and will have done that which we ought not to have done and there is no health in us. But unfortunately we are not ashamed of ourselves as we should be.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, one's admiration for British and indeed French troops and aid workers in Bosnia, and for those from other Western European countries, is only by matched by one's lack of admiration— I put it as politely as possible— for the role played by Western European governments in general and the British Government in particular for bringing us to where we are today, and in that I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I say "Western European governments" advisedly rather than "Western governments" because I agree with the Americans that Bosnia is in Europe and therefore it is essentially a European matter, to be settled mainly by Europeans.
There was a perfectly respectable case to be made for total non-intervention, letting the combatants slug it out. However, that course of action, or inaction, was never followed. Instead, we had partial intervention which favoured, accidentally no doubt, the aggressor. An arms embargo designed for a different country— the former Yugoslavia— was craftily extended to Bosnia, a country recognised by the United Nations, in the full knowledge that the Serb aggressors had access to all the arms and

65
ammunition they could possibly need. This thereby wrecked the balance of power and facilitated Serb conquests.
That policy has been defended on the grounds that, by allowing an aggressor to achieve his territorial ambitions as speedily as possible and encouraging the defender to resign himself to the fait accompli, one will thereby save tens of thousands of civilian lives which might be lost if the balance of power were more equal and the defender were accordingly more inspired to go on fighting. That could be true, one might well save more civilian lives that way, though one cannot be certain how things would have turned out. However, it was also the argument convincingly and perhaps sincerely, for all I know, deployed by Marshal Pertain in 1940. Millions of Frenchmen agreed with him at the time, but with hindsight I do not think that very many would do so now.
It was also argued that if the embargo were relaxed, the Russians would supply the Serbs, but so well armed were the Serbs already that the only thing that the Russians could usefully have supplied them with would have been hydrogen bombs.
The obsession with maintaining the embargo seemed to be accompanied by the tacit acceptance of much of the rebel Serbs' black propaganda against the Moslems. I say "rebel Serbs" because there are many Serbs who support the Bosnian Government. There was the suggestion that the easy-going, slivovitz-sipping Moslems were at heart Islamic fundamentalists. I do not think I need remind your Lordships that the Bosnian flag depicts the fleur-de-lis— hardly a symbol of militant Islam.
The Serbs also claim that the Moslems are interlopers with no real right to be in central Europe, less than 250 miles south of Vienna. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, effectively reminded us what nonsense such an argument is. There is no need to repeat his history lesson, except to say that these people have been, whether as heretical Christians or later as Moslems, in situ for over a thousand years.
Moreover, although it is easy to be starry-eyed about the degree of mutual tolerance existing between different ethnic, religious or linguistic groups in various parts of the world, Bosnia seemed to be almost unique in that respect, if not always in rural districts then certainly in Sarajevo. There, as we have been reminded,29 per. cent. of marriages were between people of different faiths. One would certainly never find that degree of intermarriage in Montreal, Belfast, Nicosia or Beirut.
The legitimate government of Bosnia, which until recently had a Christian majority, if one must use religious terms, is now, with the connivance of the BBC, reduced by the British establishment to just one of the "warring factions". Some, like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, with whom I so often agree, but not on this occasion, suggest that it is simply a straightforward civil war. However, he may have forgotten or may never have known that maps showing plans for a greater Serbia and displaying in detail plans for the partition of Bosnia and the allocation to Moslems of less than 10 per cent. of the territory were circulating in Belgrade over
66
five years ago. That is long before the war started, so there is nothing spontaneous about the so-called civil war. The aggression has been planned for a long time.
We are also told: "All sides have committed atrocities". That is true, but off-hand I cannot think of anywhere in the world where atrocities committed by one side have not led to reprisals by the other. Serb atrocities are the more numerous and vicious. Even if that were not the case, he who commits the first atrocity is surely the more culpable.
It is perhaps true that Serbs have a legitimate cause for anxiety— probably their only legitimate cause for anxiety — in the high Moslem birth rate. In that, they resemble Ulster Protestants, Lebanese Roman Catholics, native Fijians on Fiji and Europeans in various parts of the world. They all fear being outnumbered in areas where they once predominated.
However, none of that anxiety remotely justifies the type of ethnic cleansing carried out by Serb rebels. Ethnic cleansing is not a new concept, unfortunately. It has occurred all too often this century, since 1945 alone in Sudetenland, Palestine, various parts of Africa and Cyprus, to name but a few. But in Bosnia it has been carried out with particular cruelty.
What has happened has happened, of course. It may be difficult, if not impossible, to recreate the kind of Yugoslavia, in particular Croatia and Bosnia, which I first came across 42 years ago this March. There was the physical and perhaps even spiritual perfection of Dubrovnik, the elegance of the old Turkish bridge at Mostar and the grace of the minarets 'which adorned so many cities and towns in the centre and south of the country. Nor can one bring back to life the 170,000— some say quarter of a million— people who have died. Humpty-Dumpty probably cannot now be put together again.
But, having partly intervened to the accidental benefit of the aggressor, one cannot simply shrug one' s shoulders now and say: "Tough, but Realpolitik " — which in this case means sucking up to the mendicant Russians— "dictates that the present situation is the lesser of two evils". One cannot go on to claim that in some undefined way Western Europe's actions have prevented the war from spreading: after all, Macedonia is a quite separate issue. Realpolitik may dictate quite the opposite. Now that the West has belatedly taken action to counter some of the malign consequences of its arms embargo— and let there be no more empty threats, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Brarriall has urged, threats which cause the Serbs to despise and under-rate the West— now that that has happened, the West must follow things through. It must not only guarantee the safety of Sarajevo, the one place in Bosnia where a plural and tolerant society is still possible, but for the sake of future European peace as well as justice, assuming that some kind of partition takes place— and I feel that it probably will— the West must ensure that the Moslems have an adequately large and economically viable area in which to live, with a guaranteed exit to the sea.
It is no good assuming that the Islamic world will simply yawn and forget about the matter within a fortnight if nothing is done. Can anyone suppose that the

67
murder of Christians in Algeria and Egypt has nothing to do with Bosnia? Can anyone suppose that the alarming growing power of semi-fundamentalist religious parties in Turkey has nothing to do with Bosnia? The Independent today predicted that they would obtain 25 per cent. of the vote in the next elections, as opposed to merely 12 per cent. recently. Can anyone assume that that has nothing to do with Bosnia? Of course not.
It is no good assuming that, if nothing is done, the younger Bosnian Moslems will simply shrug their shoulders and accept the status quo. Armenian terrorists are still assassinating Turkish diplomats almost 79 years after the massacres and deportations in Eastern Turkey of 1915. Palestinian terrorism is still a reality, even if we hope it may diminish as a result of recent accords. However, most Palestinians and many Armenians are physically conspicuous in a Western European crowd. Hence, for them, terrorist activity is even riskier than would otherwise be the case. In contrast, Bosnian Moslems are European. They look European, and blend easily into the scenery. The capacity of people with a powerful sense of grievance to cause havoc for years, possibly decades, among those who they feel stabbed them in the back or, at best, badly let them down should not be underestimated. Prudence as well as justice dictates that we should help the Moslems to survive and thrive in Bosnia.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise for being a few minutes late for the debate. It was because I had been advised that the earlier business would take rather longer than it did. I hope that I shall not, as a result of missing the first few minutes of the Minister's speech, put a question to her that she has already answered.
Like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for ensuring time for the debate. It is long overdue, but, as it happens, it is very timely. We are at a turning point. No doubt that has been said before. There have been a number of occasions when attempts to reach a negotiated settlement looked like a turning point. But in the end they led to just another breakdown and, sadly, a further escalation of the conflict.
It is, however, a turning point, when NATO at last takes a decision to issue an ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs that air strikes will be mounted against them if they do not move their heavy weapons at least 20 kilometres from the centre of Sarajevo. The Minister told the House last Thursday that the Government had been ready to consider air power since last August. In that case, why did the British Government not press for the ultimatum much sooner? That seems a rather more pertinent question than the one put by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart as to why the Government have changed their mind.
For many months now the safe havens policy has been a sick joke. It has gone unobserved by the warring parties, with the resolutions of the European Union, the United Nations and NATO unimplemented, and the international community apparently helpless, divided
68
and indecisive. Meanwhile, civilians continue to be slaughtered, particularly by Serb bombardments of Sarajevo. The Minister says that the Government were ready and willing to consider the use of air power from August. But no action was taken, and the UK Government appear to have been one of the main blocks to such action.
Throughout the period— indeed since last April— the Labour Party has called for the implementation of UN resolutions, including air strikes and the enforcement of the no-fly zone. Belatedly, action is now being taken. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I welcome it. No doubt the Minister will in reply tell the House the latest position. I understand that some weapons have been handed over to UN forces but that the Serbs have moved some heavy artillery to their own bases within the 20 kilometre border, claiming that that is all that is required so long as they are under UN supervision. Can the Minister confirm that? And can she tell the House whether there is any dispute between the NATO command, the UN on the ground, as to how to handle the situation? Can she also tell the House what is the response of the international community to the claim of the Bosnian Serbs that they cannot hand over weapons because of the licence that that would provide to the Bosnian Government infantry?
Today, there is a debate in the Security Council in which I understand as many as 40 different countries are intending to speak. France and the USA have already announced that there should be no extension of the deadline in the ultimatum. Can the Minister confirm that that is also the position of the United Kingdom Government and that that will be made clear at the UN debate? I assume that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, on their visit to Moscow, will discuss Bosnia with President Yeltsin. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I attach great importance to their trying to gain Russian support for the current policy. No doubt they will explain to President Yeltsin that it is not a matter of taking sides but of implementing UN resolutions with a view to ending the war.
The ultimatum, of course, concerns the siege of Sarajevo. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, pointed out, there are a number of other so-called safe areas, as well as the continuing problem of the closed airport at Tuzla which has blocked aid supplies for many months. Can the Minister put more flesh on her answer to the House last Thursday on Tuzla airport when she repeated the statement that pressure would be exerted to open it but did not say how? According to reports today, only 20 per cent. of needed aid supplies are getting through. Can she also give some indication of what plans there are to make the other safe areas genuinely safe?
We on these Benches recognise the very important role that the humanitarian aid programme has played in saving many thousands of lives. We salute the bravery of UN forces, including British soldiers, in their dangerous and difficult task of protecting the aid convoys and trying to keep the routes open. We are also fully aware of the dangers to the workers themselves, so tragically highlighted by the brutal murder of a British

69
worker a couple of weeks ago. We also accept, although most reluctantly, that it may be necessary to suspend some of those operations temporarily.
There have already been rumours of threats of hostage taking and of blocking the exit routes of aid workers. We unequivocally condemn such threats and hope that none of the warring parties have any such intentions. I would not expect the Minister to give details of the reorganisation and redeployment of British troops or British aid workers in the event of air strikes being necessary. But I would be glad to have her reassurance that every precaution is being taken to ensure their safety.
I now turn to the question of sanctions. The Labour Party consistently advocated the imposition of sanctions some time before the Government accepted their necessity. Since their introduction we have pressed for tougher implementation. Economic pressure on Serbia should have started earlier; it should have been more intense.
For some time we have also been calling for sanctions against Croatia. The Croatian Government have cynically ignored the wishes of the international community by continuing to pour Croatian troops into southern and western areas of Bosnia. Thursday's Statement referred to,
"taking an increasingly firm position … [on] warning off the Croatian regular army from, entering the war on the side of the Bosnian Croats".
What does this firmer position amount to? We are entitled to know. Do the Government support the implementation of economic sanctions against Croatia, or not? We are well aware of Chancellor Kohl's opposition. But does he call all the shots on this matter, as he did over the foolish and premature recognition of Croatia which set us on the road to the disaster which we now face in Bosnia? My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon mentioned that point, and I believe it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
I do not wish to go back over the past history of this tragedy other than to say that a series of strategic mistakes of a political kind have been made at crucial moments. Nor do I wish to say that all the mistakes lie with the European Union or in the UN. It was, for example, unwise of the Bosnian Government to hold a referendum on independence when it was bound to be boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs and then to seek independence on the basis of that result. It would have been better had Bosnia instead become a UN protectorate. Had that happened, some of the horrors of ethnic cleansing and wanton killing might have been avoided.
There is, however, little point now in regretting what did or did not happen in the past, although of course we must learn from those mistakes. We must learn from them in relation to Macedonia and also Kosovo. So far the conflict has been contained, and we strongly support the CSCE and UN presence in Macedonia. We believe that it should be maintained. I was glad to hear that there is to be an increase in aid for Macedonia. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, mentioned Kosovo. We favour
70
continuing pressure on the Serbs to cease their persecution of the Albanian majority in Kosovo, which is a further threat to the stability of the area.
Before turning to the vital question of a political settlement for Bosnia, I should like to mention briefly the question of refugees, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Thousands have been displaced by the war. Indeed, a substantial part of the aid effort is about feeding people forced to leave their homes and seek refuge where they believe they will be safer. There are substantial numbers of Bosnian refugees outside Bosnia. If there is to be a more permanent ceasefire and it becomes easier for those remaining to leave, one can expect pressures from many more refugees. Can the Minister tell the House what plans have been made to cope with such pressures and whether the UK Government will agree to a more generous refugee policy than it had at the early stage of this conflict?
In opening the debate the Minister stated that it was not possible to end the conflict by force and that a political solution must be found. We accept that a negotiated peace is the only way to end the carnage. We are also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Stoltenberg for trying to achieve that. What we have disputed is the possibility of reaching a negotiated peace as one side or the other continues to ignore United Nations' resolutions and uses every opportunity to exploit temporary advantages by the use of force, regrettably often directed at civilians.
It is also argued that the failure to take a firm stand on Sarajevo has meant that the Serbs have been allowed to believe that they can gel: away with almost anything. Last week's NATO decision represents, I hope, a more decisive and firmer approach from now on, instead of the shilly-shallying and lack of vision that have predominated until now.
Assuming, as we must all passionately hope, that the Serbs accept the ultimatum and withdraw, immediate steps must then be taken to secure the long-term demilitarisation of Sarajevo and the installation of a United Nations' administration there.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Baroness advocating that the capital of an independently recognised state, recognised by the United Nations, should be annexed by the United Nations and that that country should be deprived of its capital?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. What I am suggesting is that, until there has been a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the current conflict in Bosnia, the capital of Sarajevo should be under United Nations' administration. I hope that I have made that clear.
After that, there must surely be either a concentrated effort to protect the other five safe areas, or the policy should be abandoned. Perhaps the Minister can state the Government's view. The Secretary General of the United Nations has been asking for more troops for many months. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, implied, member states should respond to his request. Perhaps may add that it would be particularly helpful if the US Government took the lead in doing so, with the clear understanding that it is part of a limited objective to secure those areas as genuinely safe.

71
We must also get the parties back round the table and try again to get them to reach agreement. We on these Benches deplore the position taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who yet again, a week ago, called for a lifting of the arms embargo. How can pouring more arms into Bosnia possibly help in bringing about an end to this war? No, the way to help the Moslems is by supporting at the negotiating table their legitimate claims for a viable state, even though the territory allocated to them may well have to fall short of what they believe it should be.
Finally, it is our hope that air strikes will not be necessary but that if they are, NATO and the United Nations will remain united in their determination to lift the siege of Sarajevo and that they will be successful in bringing that about. However, it will be far better if the Serbs accept the ultimatum and the siege is lifted as a result of that acceptance. That will be a first step, and I stress only a first step, towards a more resolute determination of the international community to bring this terrible conflict to an end, something which most of us can agree must be our aim.
I regret that I cannot agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that it is not in our national interests to play our part in the United Nations and NATO in this intervention. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, rightly said, it is in our wider interests in the new world order to end this conflict. It will require both courage and vision, which have been all too sadly lacking up to now.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her last remarks, with most of which I agree entirely. I well understand that she may have been detained elsewhere but I am glad that she has caught up with the information that I had given about Macedonia. In fact that was that we were doubling our assistance to Macedonia, which I was very pleased to do.
When this House debates a major issue, great minds and long experience are brought to bear. Today has been no exception. In closing the debate I shall attempt to respond to as many as possible of the points made by noble Lords, but I know your Lordships will understand if I have to write to some of you. There have been so many different points made during the last three and a half hours.
Let me take first the political matters. Several noble Lords sought to argue that the Government had made a decision which came too late. I might remind the House, as I believe I did last Thursday— in fact the noble Baroness reminded me of it— that we have consistently supported the use of air power provided that it would support and not undermine the peace process and the aid effort. I believe that it was the whole question of the margin of balance that was so difficult for many countries to achieve. But, together with our NATO allies, we accept that there is absolutely no doubt that the shelling of Sarajevo demands the strongest response. That is why the decision passed the test that to issue this
72
ultimatum would do more good than harm. That was a point referred to by the right reverend Prelate in his speech.
Our support for air power is not new. It was the British Prime Minister who suggested it to President Clinton last May. The concept became part of the Security Council Resolution 836 on safe areas and the NATO close air support for UNPROFOR has been available and used since June last year. We fully supported the NATO decisions on air strikes, made last August, and it was our Prime Minister's initiative together with Prime Minister Balladur of France which led to NATO's summit decision in January on our readiness to use air power in Srebrenica and possibly Tuzla. However, the UK has always said that air action is not an end in itself. All our NATO allies have agreed on that. It can be part of a strategy to improve the situation but it cannot by any means be the total strategy. I believe that the NATO decisions arrived at last Wednesday now achieve that. It is important to realise that, while there will always be dangers in intervening, there comes a time when a decision must be made.
For many such as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the decision came too late. As for the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, it was he who accused the Government of being inconsistent. I have just shown that we were not. He also accused us of an absence of British leadership. I have shown that there was none of that either. I have said on many occasions that one cannot stop a war by outside intervention. I do not believe the Sarajevo ultimatum on its own can stop a war; but if it works— and it must be made to work— I
believe that it can assist. That is where the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was correct when she asked what was happening at the present time.
As far as we know weapons have been withdrawn to Serb bases. They are being placed under UN supervision. The NATO decision which we took was that heavy weaponry would be withdrawn more than 20 kilometres from Sarajevo or placed under UN control. If they comply with either of those conditions then there are no grounds for an air strike. But if they comply with neither, then that artillery which has not been withdrawn beyond 20 kilometres or placed under UN control will be subject to an air strike. It is part of UNPROFOR' s job, under Lieutenant-General Rose, to put those heavy weapons under control.
One of your Lordships was concerned that we had restrained the United States or the French from an initiative that they wanted to take, or the much more robust response that they wanted. We fully supported a robust decision. But, as I mentioned a moment ago, it can only be as a first step. The Foreign Secretary has been in close touch throughout recent months, and particularly in the past few weeks, with our allies and European Union partners. That includes not only the United States and the French but also the Canadians, who are deeply involved on the ground in Bosnia with us. Naturally there are differences of approach. That is because they base their judgment on a different sort of involvement and the United States is not on the ground in Bosnia. But, whenever an issue such as air strikes is

73
considered, all the information (which is highly complicated) must be brought together and it is that valuable work which is being done so ably on the ground by Lieutenant-General Rose.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, we have had a long debate and I have a lot of questions to answer.
One noble Lord asked me about the legal authority for air strikes. Security Council Resolution 836 provides the legal basis for air power in the event of the strangulation of Sarajevo. I do not see that there should be any further anxiety on that point. It is quite clear, as I gave in answer on the Statement last week.
The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lady Park all referred to how the NATO decision might affect the peace process. I believe that the NATO decision dovetails with the negotiating strategy being pursued by both co-chairmen in trying to secure an overall settlement. Despite the setback in the adjournment of the talks this week, I believe that it is right to bring together not only the work of the co-chairmen and the NATO decision, but also the decision to appoint the UN Secretary-General's special representative so that he, together with Lieutenant-General Rose, can decide what is happening on the ground. They are both there to secure the demilitarisa-tion of Sarajevo and to gain agreement to place the city under UN administration as envisaged in the European Union action plan.
A number of questions were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. He seemed to say that the Bosnian Moslems believed that the UN and NATO have entered on the Moslem side. We entered on no side. Certainly the UN and NATO must not have any one-sided action and we shall do all we can to ensure that that is so.
The noble Lord. Lord Kennet, asked why NATO had been brought in and not CSCE. The UN required specific tasks to be performed. The main task areas were not only complex but they were limited military tasks. As I need hardly remind your Lordships, the CSCE is not a military body and, if one is to be engaged on military tasks, one needs a proper command structure. That can only be provided by NATO. CSCE would not be equipped for such military tasks.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, talked about the fact that in their opinion sanctions were not working on Serbia. I agree that the sanctions were far too slow to work thoroughly and I and others did our best to get those sanctions tightened. But I am informed again and again that the Serbian economy has been suffering high inflation and that those sanctions are working on Serbia.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I understand that petrol is now much more available in Serbia than it was a couple of months ago.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that may be so but we must compare that with the needs that they have for petrol and the situation as it was even a year
74
ago. That situation is still very much worse, even though it may have improved slightly in the past month or so, for whatever reason.
My noble friend Lord Beloff questioned the actions of the Russians in relation to the Security Council meeting being held today. He asked whether the Russians would be prepared to support the NATO decision. As I said earlier, there is no doubt that the action agreed by NATO falls within the framework already authorised by Resolutions 824,836 and 844. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are in Moscow this week for talks with President Yeltsin and Foreign Minister Kosyrev. The situation in Bosnia is high on the agenda. But that is not the only contact. We have been in close contact throughout and firmly believe that Russia has a constructive role to play in bringing the Serbs to obey the ultimatum set by the decision of the United Nations and to be implemented if necessary by NATO.
I hope that Russia will find a way to play a constructive role because, when noble Lords ask me why we became involved in the conflict at all, there is only one answer: that is, to stop it spreading. I believe that there is a real fear — as we often hear from noble Lords such as my noble friend Lord Beloff. He spoke of Kosovo. It was interesting that the discussions between my right honourable friend Mr. Douglas Hogg and Dr. Rugovo, the leader of the Albanian majority in Kosovo, were so easy. In that discussion we were able to make clear our support for a return to Kosovo of its previous autonomous status and the restoration of the CSCE observer status to Kosovo, Vojvodina and also to Sandjak. Therefore the people on the ground know that we are not just concentrating on what happens in Bosnia; we are concerned for Kosovo and, as mentioned earlier, for Macedonia as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked what would happen if the bombardment of civilian areas of Sarajevo was launched from outside the 20 kilometres zone. If UNPROFOR can identify that artillery source, that artillery would be subject to the air strike. That is covered by the resolutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me about the possibility of Croatian involvement in Bosnia. That is to be reported by the Secretary-General to the: Security Council. There are a range of possible responses to that Croatian action, including sanctions. But we must be careful to avoid what I would term a "knee-jerk" reaction. We must consider what will best serve the overall objectives of bringing peace to Bosnia and the preservation or continuance of the humanitarian effort. But I fully understand the noble Baroness's frustration that sometimes the Croatians seem to get. away with it though the international comrnunity reacts when there is a bombardment of Sarajevo. As many of your Lordships have said, there has undoubtedly been just as much atrocity in other places.
I must now turn to the military aspects. It would be right to remark on the many tributes that have already been made in the first few days to the trernendous efforts of Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, began but he was echoed in many subsequent speeches. I agreed wholeheartedly

75
with my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth when she said that it was crucial that we should not deprive Lieutenant-General Rose of the element of surprise in his action. I hope that in nothing I say or do will I deprive him of any chance of surprise. It may be for those reasons that I do not go into all the details that some of your Lordships might like this evening.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said that we needed to advance on three fronts; the military as well as the diplomatic and humanitarian. Of course we agree with him totally. The air action is not to be isolated but it is to be co-ordinated with the other elements of our peacemaking efforts. There will certainly be agreement from the commanders on the ground in the planning of any action which takes place. Further than that I feel I should not go but I believe that there should be sound military judgment. That is what must hold the ring on this occasion.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, spoke in respect of Tuzla of the comment of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that one could not impose a settlement or impose the opening of the airport. That is the story of the whole of these conflicts. It is intensely difficult to impose simply by one means or another. There has to be negotiation before one comes to any question of imposing a military solution or seeking to impose a military reaction. That is as true for Tuzla and Srebrenica as it is for Sarajevo.
The noble and gallant Lord was also concerned with the protracted nature of the UK-NATO commitment. In that we agree with him wholeheartedly. That is why we have gone step by step— too slowly for some, I know, particularly on the Liberal Benches, but I do believe that it would have been much more serious in terms of casualties had we not gone as carefully as we have.
The British military involvement in Bosnia, whether on the ground or in the air, has been limited to clear and attainable objectives. We have certainly used our deployment in line with the advice of the military commanders on the ground. British troops have already been in action, exchanging fire in pursuit of their convoy duties. I cannot predict military deployments for the future or how the commanders will use those deployments but I can assure your Lordships that there will be no indiscriminate deployment of forces in the air or on the ground.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves the military aspect, it is clear that it will be General Rose who will report on Sunday night what has happened and what withdrawals and so on have taken place. Who will then take the decision whether what he reports constitutes compliance with the ultimatum?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I imagine from all that I have heard that General Rose will be in the best possible position to say whether they have actually complied with the 20-kilometre rule or indeed whether they have brought any arms within 20 kilometres of Sarajevo under UN command. He has also there the special representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Akashi, who will be involved in the decision-taking and in the advice which is channeled
76
back to the NATO command. The Commander in Chief South— I believe that he may be an American; I am not sure by his name; it sounds slightly Dutch to me— is obviously in charge of the eventual NATO deployment, but it is a bringing together of NATO and the UN before any decision is taken. However, your Lordships would not expect me to go into the total detail of that, because I think it would be wrong to do so. It was of course the North Atlantic Council which delegated the authority to the NATO commander, Admiral Boorda, and the United Nations Secretary-General has delegated his authority to Mr. Akashi. So it is in all cases people who are involved on the ground or in close contact with the commanders on the ground who will take the decisions.
Many other questions have been asked in your Lordships' House today but there was one which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me on which I want to make the response quite clear. He said that if air strikes take place it will be the first time that British forces have killed in Bosnia. I have to tell him that we have already had to take action which undoubtedly has killed snipers in various places in Bosnia. But we have only taken action in defence and in defence of the people of Bosnia who were being attacked. Therefore, while we hope that all casualties will be kept to a minimum, if people engage in war and others are trying to offer protection it cannot be right to say that they should not strike out in order to protect.
A number of your Lordships intimated that air strikes alone would not be enough to move the Serbs. We have always said that. Had we thought that air strikes alone would stop the Serbs from their aggression perhaps, we would have taken the decision to use them long ago. They were decisive neither in Vietnam nor in the Gulf but in this case we believe that they may be helpful in supporting UNPROFOR to pursue the specific tactical objectives that it now has in Srebrenica and Sarajevo. We will always be in difficulty about knowing exactly who has done what. That is why I find it impossible to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, about who is responsible for the shelling in Sarajevo. All I can tell him is that the investigations by UNPROFOR have been going on. While it cannot be said with certainty who was responsible for the 70 or so deaths that were caused, we certainly know that there were many people who could have been doing it on both sides in Sarajevo. In a separate incident UNPROFOR has determined that the Bosnian Serbs were responsible for killing the civilians at Dobrinja in Sarajevo on 4th February, the day before the major incident to which the noble Lord referred.
One noble Lord spoke about aid getting through and said that he thought that the amount was rather low. While it is true that in some of the Moslem enclaves the convoys have been able to get only 20 per cent. of needs supplied through the aid convoys, in many areas it is well over 50 per cent. and in some areas it is over 70 per cent. So it varies enormously according to the conflict and, if I may say so, also to the weather.
The right reverend Prelate and others asked me about the hostage taking and the reports we have heard in recent days. Many reports do exist and we know that threats have been issued against aid workers. The three

77
aid workers who were held in Banja Luka were released on Saturday morning. One of them was a British subject. My department, the Overseas Development Administration, UNPROFOR and the UNHCR are co-operating closely in contingency planning, including for hostage taking.1 know that your Lordships would not expect me to reveal details to the House but I can assure you that it has been done. In fact it was done quite a long while ago, without any publicity, so that it could be effective if necessary.
We are obviously concerned to continue to give relief as much as we possibly can. Many convoys are operating in the areas outside Serb control, according to the UNHCR. The weather conditions are very harsh indeed, but I believe that we can continue. If we have to have temporary suspensions, as we had for four days, we shall make them as temporary as possible. The critical point is that we keep a close eye on the security situation for any signs of deterioration and we do not send convoys off where we believe that they could be impeded and brought into great danger. If the convoys are not safe then the aid cannot get through. Therefore the safety of the convoys and the soldiers who guard them must be our first concern.
There are many other aspects of the aid issue that I could talk about. There are two or three issues raised by your Lordships to which I wish to respond. My noble friend Lord Beloff spoke not only about the wider need for peace than just in Bosnia, but about suffering throughout the area. He asked whether we had forgotten the work of Dame Anne Warburton for those women who were so cruelly affected by rape and other deprivations which they suffered at the hands, mainly of the Serbs, but also of other parties. I can tell him that we put into action— together with German colleagues— a system of counselling and assistance for the women who have been so affected by rape and other atrocities. That is continuing and going well. The objective was to train Bosnians to counsel their own womenfolk when we had done the groundwork. I am proud to say that Marie Stopes International has been carrying out that work exceptionally well on our behalf.
My noble friend Lord Beloff also asked whether we had reviewed each terrible event and learnt from it. We have certainly tried to do so. That is why we are being particularly careful in the actions which we take. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to the fact that there might be more refugees. It is absolutely critical that we do succeed in trying to create safe areas. It is a very different situation from the safe havens which, with a great deal of power, we managed to create in an area from which the Iraqi troops had been largely excluded. The Bosnian situation is entirely different and much more complex. The noble Baroness knows full well that we shall do all we can to ensure that safe areas are created. Some of the ambitions for safe areas were possibly higher than could ever be achieved, but we shall do what we can.
The right reverend Prelate spoke about help going in and said that the Churches were willing to do more. I hope that people will continue to give their goods and resources. But I repeat the plea which I made in answer to a Question last Thursday. Individual volunteers
78
should not go to Bosnia— I repeat, they should not go to Bosnia— because it is not only dangerous for them, but it brings other organised convoys and the ICRC arid the UNHCR, and even my own convoy people, into great danger let alone the troops who often have to save them. Therefore, I make the plea that by all means help through the Red Cross and the UNHCR, but do not go to Bosnia directly.
Two other areas have been mentioned very often in recent weeks; one is Srebrenica. There it was difficult for the Dutch recce party to get in. I am glad to say that the deployment of Dutch troops has already started there and should be completed in a couple of weeks' time. I now turn to the reopening of Tuzla airport, which is a favourite subject of all of us, because we are determined to see it happen. The first thing I should tell your Lordships is that aid is getting through to Tuzla by road convoys. The opening of Tuzla airport will be done, but it must be done in a way which does not prejudice the ability of the road convoys to get assistance through. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that in one convoy we get 10 times the amount of assistance through compared with one Hercules flight. Because of that it is more efficient even though we wish the road convoys to be backed up by flights by Hercules aircraft into Tuzla. That is why we continue, through pressure on the ground through the NATO commanders in theatre at this very moment, to seek to get safe access to Tuzla for aircraft. Further than that, I am unable to go.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am very pleased to hear that some aid is getting through by road. The figure I have heard quoted is about 20 per cent. of what was originally sent. However, is it not the case that there is now the incidence of malnutrition, particularly in the areas northwest of Tuzla, and that that makes it all the more important that this airport should be opened so that the full 100 per cent. of aid which is identified as being needed to feed the people of that region gets through?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would that we could. I shall try to make it so. To get rather more than 20 per cent. of aid through is better than getting none through. If the opening of the airport is going to prejudice getting 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. through, then we give ourselves an even bigger problem. We are also looking at the question of supplying by other routes the areas to which the noble Baroness referred. It may be possible that there is some other way, despite the weather conditions, of getting resources to the towns which are particularly troubled.
This has been an interesting debate. Nobody would pretend that it is an easy question or that the policies and actions of the international community have been right at the right time and in each respect. Far from it. I have always said that hindsight is a great gift and so is the ability to tell the future. Sadly, both were denied to the: Ministers of the Crown and to their colleagues overseas. I understand your Lordships' great concern that we should learn from history. Indeed, we always try to do so. We must be guided by the military commanders on the ground. We must use their information to go 'with our political information in order to find a way ahead

79
which will lead to a lasting end to the various conflicts in Bosnia. That is the path which we are on and on which we shall stay. We shall continue working without ceasing to try to bring the reality of peace to Bosnia as soon as we can.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may try her patience for one moment. There is a very important question the answer to which is still not clear in my mind. It concerns what happens at the end of the ultimatum period. Do I understand from her replies to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that, when that period comes to an end, the decision as to whether the terms of the ultimatum have been met by the Serbs and the decision therefore actually to launch the air strikes, will be taken by the special representative of the United Nations and the UN commander on the ground? Will there be no further discussions at a political level before the strikes are launched?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I said with regret in explanation at an earlier stage that I would not be able to answer all the questions. Certainly the advice of the United Nations special representative on the ground, the UNPROFOR commander, the Commander in Chief South and all those involved will be considered. They will be in contact with their governments. As regards further public debate, to which I believe the noble Lord was referring, I do not know the answer to that. I see that he is shaking his head. I am speaking specifically of contacts with leaders of governments but on the basis of the advice and conclusions reached by those on the ground. More than that I cannot say.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Landmines
7.59 p.m.
Lord Deedes Lord Deedes rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the export of landmines and equipment to detect them.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am raising this question because I think that we should pay more attention to the havoc being wrought in the world today, mainly among innocent people, by the misuse of landmines. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranborne for being ready to respond to some of these points. Having seen something of the problem, I feel strongly that every civilised government ought to look again at their position.
We are talking about a death roll in the world today of about 800 people a month, most of whom are civilians. We are talking about another 2,000 people a month being crippled for life— and in countries with sparse medical facilities. If casualties on that scale arose from chemical, gas or nuclear weapons, there would be uproar. We would be thoroughly alarmed. We would be demanding that something be done about it.
But the fact is that we are not at risk. The single casualties— there is about one every 15 minutes in the
80
world today— are not reported. They are not noticed and they create no public alarm. So we have what I can only describe as a "complacent silence" on the subject.
As well as the casualties, millions of acres of land have been lost. Thousands of villages and homes are lost to their inhabitants. In Cambodia, where I am about to go, about 1,700 people are killed each year because of mines and 3,200 million square metres have been infested by mines.
When damage of that order afflicts some of the poorest people on earth, I find it hard to square what is our curious lack of concern with our professed sympathy for the developing world— and even more with our professed sympathy for the environment. Landmines are the enemy of the environment. I should add that the aid that we give to the poorest nations is but a fraction of what the United Nations in New York warns me it will cost to lift even a proportion of those mines— work that will occupy something like a century.
The use of mines, anti-personnel and anti-tank— all 300 types of them— has become totally indiscriminate. Some years ago during the defence of Britain, some of us laid mines. We mapped them and although I was never sure what happened to the maps, we did our best. Those mines had a defence purpose. Today, their primary purpose is not military defence. They have become strategic weapons that are aimed directly at civilians. They are designed to kill and maim innocent people. They are designed to cause unimaginable suffering. They are designed, above all, to terrorise; to deny people their homes. Let us try to imagine the plight of refugees, of whom there are millions, returning after a long civil war to find their homes barred by mines that they cannot see and cannot find.
I estimate that the world today is carrying between 85 million and 100 million landmines. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's estimate. The cost of lifting any one of them is upwards of 1,000 dollars. The time taken to lift a mine is 100 times the time taken to plant it. Yet mines are still being laid. Vast numbers are still being laid in the former Yugoslavia. They are being laid faster than we can lift them. Is it true, by the way, that we prohibit mine-detecting equipment going to the former Yugoslavia on the grounds that it is considered to be an armament?
Inevitably, thousands more people will die and tens of thousands will suffer agonies because survivors, so the International Committee of the Red Cross tells me, take an average of six hours after the accident to reach hospital— that is, if they survive at all— where the treatment will be rudimentary for what is an extremely complex injury. As the British Medical Journal explains:
"Land mines have ruinous effects on the human body: they drive dirt, bacteria, clothing and metal and plastic fragments into the tissue— causing secondary infections".
And that has to be dealt with by only second-rate medical facilities.
I think that the cruelty of what is going on and the death roll calls for a little more than we are doing now. It seems to me to be not all that far removed from the war crimes of the Second World War, which have haunted us ever since.

81
As the [CRC insists, these weapons are causing damage to civilians out of all proportion to their military use and, on those grounds, should be prohibited. I ask the Minister: where do we now stand on this matter? I hope that he will assure us that we no longer export these pernicious weapons, in any shape or form, for other people's wars. But should we not go further? Why are we hesitating— or appear to be hesitating— to support the United Nations call, backed by the United States of America, for an international ban on those weapons? I have heard it said that such a ban would be "unworkable". Well, it works for chemical warfare, so why should it not work for mines?
I am not insensitive to the military view. I understand it. But in my submission this holocaust— and it is no less than a holocaust— transcends the military view. I want to see us think again about the ban. In this dreadful sphere, I want to see us give humanity a breathing space.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, for initiating this debate. I do not claim to be an expert on landmines. My first experience of them was when I accidentally walked into a minefield. I did not do that out of great courage or heroic or stupid bravery. In fact, I only knew that I had walked through a minefield when I was told afterwards that the area through which we had walked was an uncleared minefield. It was in Zimbabwe. Troops were called out later to dispose of a mine that had recently been uncovered by wind and rain. Nobody had known that a mine was there. It was blown up later using a rifle. I think that shows that one of the big problems with minefields is that although they affect large areas of the world nobody really knows where they are.
When I looked into the history of landmines I found that they were originally developed to protect another form of mine. There are two forms of mine: the anti-tank mine and the anti-personnel mine. The anti-personnel mine was developed to protect the anti-tank mine and to stop people tampering with it. They have developed ever since. One of the insidious things about the anti-personnel mines is that they are now so developed that they are used not as a weapon of defence but as a weapon of offence. They are used mostly against civilians. As the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, pointed out, whatever we say tonight, there still remains the fact that about 100 million landmines are planted around the world. Nobody knows the actual figure. Our objective should be prevention rather than cure.
Landmines are indiscriminately placed. Today they are not distributed by conventional armies, although they are used by them. They are not an object of military use; they are used largely in countries where internal conflicts are taking place. I refer specifically to Mozarnbique, which I have visited, and to Angola, about which I have seen programmes. No one knows where the mines are. An insidious nature of the new anti-personnel mines is highlighted by the Russian butterfly mine. It represents the epitome of what is wrong with them. They are small, plastic mines which are difficult to detect and are distributed by being
82
thrown out of helicopters. When thrown from a helicopter they will, due to their design, fly and land anywhere. They were used mainly in Afghanistan and because of their shape many children picked them up and, as a result, lost their arms.
The fact that children pick up landmines shows what today they are all about; they are weapons used against civilians. Last May I attended a convention on anti-personnel mines and was able to look at the whole range. I had previously seen a number of military anti-personnel mines but those that I saw last year shocked me. If one saw such a mine out of context or without knowing what it was one would think That it was a toy. One would think that it was a plastic boat to put in the bath. They have been developed so that they cannot be detected. They are cheap to produce They are merely a piece of plastic with a button which is wrapped around a plastic explosive. They cannot be found, and for that reason their distribution is dangerous. They can be distributed anywhere; indeed, during my research I discovered that they can be put into any location one can imagine. When thinking of landmines one usually has a Second World War image of an area surrounded by a barbed-wire fence and signs clearly stating that mines are present. These mines can be placed anywhere.
One of the worst aspects is that the production of mines has become a massive international industry. Apart from a few countries in Africa almost every country, including the whole of the developed world, is making mines or is receiving them. Clusters of minefields are a danger to civilians. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, the problem is in removing mines. That is more difficult than laying them. One merely has to toss the mine aside in order to lay it and it will arm itself— it is ready for use. However, it is very difficult to get rid of a mine. One of the saddest aspects of the Gulf War was illustrated in a recent programme showing that people involved in removing mines and trying to make the area safe and habitable had lost their lives.
It was not until I researched the subject that realised that the ODA has spent a great deal of money and has been a leading light in mine clearance, which must be to its credit. One of the problems is that mines will be with us for decades to come; once planted they can last for many years and are always dangerous.
As the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, pointed out, landmines are being laid faster than they are being taken up. Consequently, large areas of the world are becoming uninhabitable. People who live in those areas can lose their arms and legs as a result of the mines. We must introduce a complete ban on the production and sale of mines. Do the Government plan to attempt to sway international opinion along those lines? I was surprised to learn that the Government have not signed the 1980 inhumane weapons convention. Its long title is the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional 'Weapons Which May 13e Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. I press the Government to sign that convention as soon as possible and perhaps the Minister will indicate whether the Government intend to do so.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, for putting this important topic on our agenda tonight. He and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, described in detail the impact of this cruel weapon of war. Long after hostilities have ceased it continues to kill and seriously maim innocent civilians, who as often as not are children, and the animals they tend. Most of the victims are rural people who live and work on land over which warring armies or bands once passed. Perhaps even less acceptable is the fact that mines in their thousands— and, overall, in their millions — have been dropped indiscriminately from the air making areas of land uninhabitable in an attempt to break an opponent economically and deny them the ability to grow food. Sadly, as has been pointed out, that problem is not with us merely as a result of former conflicts; anti-personnel mines are still being laid as near home as Bosnia and as far afield as Angola, Burma, Afghanistan, the Sudan and probably many other countries. The countries worst affected by past mine laying are: in South-East Asia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Burma; in Western Asia, Afghanistan and Kurdistan; in Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe and Zambia.
Apart from the inhumanity, and I suggest the illegality, of wounding and killing civilians, there is a serious economic effect on the countries involved and a prolongation of the refugee problem. Many thousands of refugees are waiting in refugee camps in Thailand to be resettled in Cambodia because the lands in which they could settle are contaminated with mines. Many large tracts of good agricultural land lie untilled and will be unusable for many years. The problem is compounded because the countries concerned are poor and are dependent on agriculture.
Non-governmental organisations working in poor communities are most aware of the problem, which affects rural communities, agricultural development and primary and secondary health care, because of the regular arrivals in hospitals of seriously wounded people who often need amputation of one or more limbs. One non-governmental organisation has been set up specifically to cope with the mines problem— the Mines Advisory Group, based in Cockermouth in Cumbria. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, those NGOs receive government support on a fifty-fifty basis, but I wonder whether that is enough.
People in remote areas who would perhaps survive with more prompt care may die before receiving adequate medical and surgical treatment. In any event, such care may be inadequate in the countries where it is most needed. Figures I have show that in Cambodia in 1990,6,000 amputations were necessary because of anti-personnel mine injuries which caused 12,000 or more deaths in addition. There are 30,000 amputees in Cambodia, and some estimates put it at nearer 50,000. There are 60,000 in Vietnam.
The weapons explode one by one over a long period, often in areas off the beaten track. Therefore, they do not receive news coverage. That was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes. In fact one of the main
84
benefits of the Unstarred Question may well be that it will bring the effects of this inhuman practice further onto the political map. We must try to put this issue onto centre stage among the international problems facing the Government.
I am sure that the noble Viscount will not say that the problem is none of the British Government's business because we did not lay the mines. I think better of him than that. I should point out though that we have supplied mines over the years; we have developed some of the technology; and we have trained some countries in the techniques of laying them. We hope that the Government will share some of the anxieties which we have expressed.
I hope, first, that the Government will recognise that these weapons are inhumane and should be banned under international law. Secondly, the Government and all countries should stop the manufacture and export of these weapons. I should point out that a moratorium on their export has been declared by the United States and France. We should do that too as an example to other nations.
We should step up assistance to mine-clearing operations throughout the world. We are in a very good position to do that because we have the technical know-how and military expertise which could assist other countries.
I should like to amplify those three points. As regards the inhumanity of the weapons, such weapons would be prohibited by the United Nations convention of 1980 which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned. The noble Lord gave its long title but it is usually known as the Inhumane Weapons Convention. It refers in particular to landmines, booby traps and other such devices.
That protocol arose from the more general additional protocols of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva conventions on the conduct of military operations. For reasons which I do not understand, the Government have not yet ratified the convention. I am aware that it is not perfect. For example, it applies only to international conflicts and not to internal or civil wars, in which many of the mines have been used. As with all conventions, it is extremely difficult to enforce adherence. Nevertheless, if the ratification of that convention were to become the stated policy of the Government, other countries which have not yet signed it would be encouraged to do so. That would help to edge anti-personnel mines off the acceptable list of tradable and usable methods of war.
I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to assure us that at some point we shall sign the 1980 Inhuman Weapons Convention. In addition, at present discussions are taking place at the United Nations with regard to updating and making that convention more effective. Those discussions were set in motion by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Are the British Government involved in them?
Secondly, what is the current position regarding the manufacture and export of these weapons by the United Kingdom? That is the salient point of the Unstarred Question. Is it still going on? Why have we not been able to follow the example of the United States and France in accepting a self-imposed moratorium? The

85
fact that many other countries, including other European countries and a large number of developing countries, are now making those devices should not be used as an excuse. Nor do I feel that, if the anti-personnel weapons exported by Britain are made in such a way that they are self-destructive or have only a timed life, it is a sufficient safeguard because many of these self-destroying devices, or some of them at least, will not work and if only a small percentage do not, people could be blown up and land is unusable.
Thirdly, what are we doing to contribute to the widespread need for assistance with de-mining and rehabilitation for victims? As has been said, it is estimated that there are 100 million mines still contaminating 60 countries in the world. I am aware that this has been discussed by the United Nations and at various meetings of NGOs, which have called for a ban on the use of those weapons. In addition, they call for programmes to rehabilitate countries which are affected and to destroy the landmines that are there. For example, Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, Medico International, the Mines Advisory Group and Physicians for Human Rights have come together to issue a joint call to ban anti-personnel landmines. They call for:
"An international ban on the use, production, stockpiling, and sale, transfer or export of anti-personnel mines; and the establishment of an international fund, administered by the United Nations, to promote and finance landmine awareness, clearance and eradication programmes worldwide; and countries responsible for the production and dissemination of antipersonnel mines to contribute to the international fund".
However, even if a plan for de-mining is worked out, as the resolution suggests, it is expensive and needs funding. It is estimated that it costs 100 times as much to detect and clear a mine as it does to manufacture one. If there are 100 million mines which cost 100 dollars each to make, it will cost 10 billion dollars to clear them. That is a very large sum. But I suggest that, spread out over a longish period, it should be a possible aim. It would be an extremely good investment because it would put back into use land which is now unusable. On these Benches, we would like to see the United Kingdom at the forefront of such activity, both contributing technically and financially. It is not appropriate to let NGOs shoulder the burden as is now the case.
Just the other day, I noticed in the Guardian an advertisement from the Mine Advisory Group of Cumbria asking for a non-government volunteer to take up a post in Laos to train people in de-mining operations. I believe that the Government should be doing that; it should not be up to non-governmental organisations to do so.
The United Nations General Assembly has passed a resolution stating that,
"responsibility for removing mines and other remnants of war rests with the countries who planted them".
That, perhaps, could be interpreted as letting us off the hook, as we were not actively involved. However, as I said earlier, we helped to develop the technology and supply some of the mines— for which we were paid. The governments or factions within the countries that laid the mines and which should, theoretically, pay, mostly do not have the resources to do so; or, in many cases, they had been replaced or overthrown. They are just not
86
there. But, in that context, I should point out that Argentina has come forward with an offer to assist with the eradication of mines in the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
In conclusion, this tragic prolongation of the miseries of war through,
"a weapon of mass destruction in slow motion",
is just one example of the consequences of the whole trade in lethal weapons. That, sadly, still forms far too large a portion of our exports. On these Benches, we would like to see a rapid move to diversifying the technical skills and resources of our defence industry towards more constructive products.
Much of the severity and impact of the many conflicts that have afflicted and continue to afflict the developing world can be laid at the doorstep of the industrial North, which has supplied most of the sophisticated and deadly weapons that have been used. It is not for nothing that the arms trade has been likened to immoral earnings, whether or not they are sweetened by gifts of extravagant and unnecessary dams.
By signing the United Nations Convention on inhumane weapons, agreeing to stop the export of anti-personnel mines and wholeheartedly contributing to de-mining programmes, the United Kingdom could start the process of ending this sombre trade in death and mutilation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I tray put a question to the Minister before he replies to the debate. My noble friend Lord McNair and I would like. to know what research is being carried out into new methods of finding and destroying such mines. I know that some ladies with good voices can shatter a glass with a high note. However, is such research going on and, if so, are the Government contributing to it?
8.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, like other speakers who have spoken in this short debate, I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Deedes for tabling the Unstarred Question and for giving us the opportunity to debate such an important subject. I can confirm to my noble friend that a recent United States Department of Defence survey estimated that there are over 100 million landmines laid around the world. Moreover, as the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Redesdale, pointed out, they were mostly sown indiscriminately. It is also worth noting that over 30 million of those mines were sown in Africa.
The landmines themselves, and their terrible effects on civilians— especially anti-personnel mines which have been laid indiscriminately in countries such as Angola, Cambodia, Somalia and Afghanistan— have been the subject of considerable public concern in recent months. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Deedes and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, both drew attention to the terrible effects of the indiscriminate use of such weapons. So far as concerns Her Majesty's Government's policy arid practice, much of the reporting on our attitude has been, I submit, misleading. Therefore, I welcome the

87
opportunity to set out the Government's position. At the same time, I shall attempt to answer my noble friend's questions.
I should record at once that the United Kingdom has not produced or exported landmines for some considerable time. I say that especially to the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Perhaps I may quote a passage from a recent issue of Asiaweek entitled, "A Moral Minefield", which I think clearly illustrates the horrific nature of such weapons. It reads:
"There are, of course, many who shrink from labelling one weapon as being more immoral than another. Ban landmines? Why not ban Napalm? Why not ban war itself? … Mines stay in their deadly place long after the battle is over. Rifles go back in the armoury but the landmine just keeps on killing".
That point was emphatically made by my noble friend Lord Deedes.
The latter brings me to what I believe to be the nub of the problem; namely, the use of such weapons. Any weapon which is used in the wrong way can be dangerous to innocent people. That is why it is so important to have laws and rules which control how such weapons should be used.
It is the Government's firm belief that the problem of the indiscriminate use of landmines is best addressed by encouraging greater adherence to the 1981 United Nations Convention, known as the United Nations Weaponry Convention. I am sure that noble Lords will be aware that that convention has three protocols. The second of those protocols contains strict rules governing the use of landmines, including rules prohibiting the use of landmines against civilians— a rule which, as has been observed this evening, is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Noble Lords will be interested to know that the United Kingdom played an important role in drafting that protocol. In fact, we signed the convention in 1981 and, most importantly, we have always adhered to its principles. We hope to be in a position to ratify— and I believe that this is the news that noble Lords are seeking — later this year. We take now, and will continue to take, every opportunity to encourage other states to do so.
The United Kingdom strongly supports international action aimed at dealing with the indiscriminate laying of anti-personnel landmines. After all, as noble Lords have observed, that has had such terrible consequences for civilians and, indeed, continues to do so. Noble Lords may be aware that the United States tabled a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in November last year which called for states to implement a ban on the export of anti-personnel landmines which pose grave dangers to civilian populations. The US Congress had previously passed a Bill which called for a one-year moratorium on the trade in US anti-personnel mines. The Bill became law in October 1992.
The United Kingdom supported the US resolution, which was adopted without vote by the General Assembly. In supporting the resolution we issued an explanation of our position that landmines are legitimate defensive military weapons when used responsibly and in accordance with the laws of war. If used in accordance with Protocol II of the UN Weaponry
88
Convention, anti-personnel landmines, and particularly those which are self-destructing or self-neutralising, do not pose a grave danger to civilian populations. Consequently, the Government think that it would be wrong for the possession of self-destructing or self-neutralising anti-personnel landmines to be restricted to countries which have the ability to produce them.
As several speakers tonight have observed, the effect of such weapons can be devastating. Their indiscriminate effects on civilian populations around the world is one of the reasons why countries have sought to limit their use. Increasingly calls are being made— as they have been here this evening— for an outright ban on landmines. We have all, particularly through recent media coverage, seen the terrible effects that these weapons can have on innocent civilians when they fall into the hands of people who use them irresponsibly. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has illustrated the point and from my own experience I can cite many examples of the effects that landmines can have. Like the noble Lord, I myself have narrowly escaped those effects.
We must, however, be careful to remember that if used properly and in accordance with the laws of war, landmines are legitimate defensive military weapons. The United Kingdom's Armed Forces are, of course, trained to use them in this way, as, clearly, my noble friend Lord Deedes was during the last war.
As a state party to the convention, France has exercised its right to call a review conference which is likely to take place in 1995. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the main aim of the conference will be to consider strengthening Protocol II on Landmines. We hope to play a full part in the conference and indeed in the preparatory work leading up to it. This will start shortly.
Let me now turn to the important area of how the Government are trying to help those countries in the developing world which are so heavily afflicted by the problem of landmines. The subject was again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked about research. Research is continuing on how to explode landmines. Various devices are being improved all the time. I shall write to the noble Lord to give him some examples of the sort of work that is in train.
We have become too well aware that the needs for humanitarian mine clearance operations have grown enormously over the past few years, reflected by the Government's steeply increased commitments, from £ 360,000 in financial year 1991– 2 to £ 1.89 million in financial year 1993– 4. Our actions have concentrated — I think noble Lords would agree that this is right— on the most serious problem countries, for example, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique and north west Somalia. In north west Somalia between November 1991 and May 1992 we provided £ 674,000 to co-fund a mine clearance training and supervision programme for Somali clearers. The programme is continuing under a United Nations contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Deedes mentioned Cambodia. Since October 1991 we

89
have given grants totalling £ 492,500 to the Halo Trust for its mine clearance operations in Cambodia. I hope my noble friend Lord Deedes will be able to advise me on what he finds there. We have also provided £ 6,500 for a mine awareness radio programme. Two further project proposals from the Halo Trust worth £ 330,000 are under consideration. The Halo Trust is actively engaged in de-mining in rural Cambodia, focusing on areas of importance to the community such as areas to which internationally displaced people are expected to return. I believe that matter was referred to by noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Until the end of October 1993 the United Kingdom contributed to the costs of the United Nations Transitional Authority for Cambodia which financed mine clearance operations undertaken by the Cambodian mine action centre. Since the end of the United Nations mandate, we have provided £ 133,000 through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to support the continuance of the centre's operations. A proposal for support to the centre for two further years is at present under consideration by donors. Our aid is aimed at reducing casualties caused by mines.
However, that is not the end of it. In addition we have provided £ 470,000 over the past three years to set up and run a limb fitting unit at Calmette hospital in Phnom Penh. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to this important matter. The project included the training of Cambodian technicians in limb fitting techniques. We have also begun funding a similar project in Kompong Sorn in southern Cambodia and have agreed funding of some £ 250,000 for this over three financial years.
As part of our response to United Nations appeals for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, the ODA contributed half a million pounds during the financial year 1992– 3 towards mine clearance programmes of the United Nations office of the co-ordinator for Afghanistan. Further contributions were made to the International Committee of the Red Cross which, among other things, has supported a major hospital in Kabul, and clinics elsewhere in the country.
In Angola— here, I defer to the more recent experience of my noble friend Lord Deedes in that country— we will consider assistance for de-mining as part of a United Nations co-ordinated effort once a formal ceasefire has been established between the
90
Government of Angola and UNITA, and once a permanent peace settlement has begun to take root and to be implemented.
As your Lordships have observed this evening, war injuries, including those caused by mines, have been a major preoccupation of these medical facilities. The Halo Trust has also received money for its de-mining of Afghanistan. Most recently we have been able to support co-ordinated actions to de-mine roads in the Zambezia province of Mozambique, arid to support the Cambodian Mine Action Centre over the next two years. Her Majesty's Government will continue to consider sympathetically funding requests for mine clearance. operations as one of the many demands on their available resources for humanitarian assistance. That is an extremely important demand on our humanitarian assistance.
However, the sheer size of these problems means that humanitarian mine clearance operations are very time consuming and expensive, and indeed are dangerous to those who take part in them. They are best handled on an international basis. Therefore our actions need to be co-ordinated through the United Nations wherever possible. I should point out that we are unable to supply defence equipment— which term includes mine detection equipment— to those countries subject to arms embargoes. These countries include both the former Yugoslavia and Somalia mine detection equipment to other countries suffering the effects of indiscriminate mining are looked at on a case-by-case basis. But I am sure noble Lords will realise from what I have said that we always look sympathetically on such requests.
Let me end by saying that Her Majesty 's Government are confident that the current stringent export licensing procedures for defence equipment are sufficient to ensure that landmines of the self-destructing or self-neutralising variety are not exported to countries which might use them irresponsibly. However, we are all too aware of the dreadful effects which the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines cause, and therefore we wholeheartedly support and will continue to support international efforts to eradicate this.

King's Cross Railways Bill
Bill withdrawn.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before nine o'clock.

  RUSSIA: PRIME MINISTER'S FORTHCOMING VISIT
  RUSSIA: PRIME MINISTER'S FORTHCOMING VISIT
  THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT: US ATTITUDE
  THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT: US ATTITUDE
  TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENTS HELD BY MPS' SPOUSES
  TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENTS HELD BY MPS' SPOUSES
  GATT: BENEFIT TO BRITISH MARITIME INDUSTRIES
  GATT: BENEFIT TO BRITISH MARITIME INDUSTRIES
  A.12 TRUNK ROAD: FATAL ACCIDENTS
  A.12 TRUNK ROAD: FATAL ACCIDENTS
  Al2: WICKHAM MARKET-SAXMUNDHAM IMPROVEMENT
  Al2: WICKHAM MARKET-SAXMUNDHAM IMPROVEMENT
  CLIMBERS AND HILL WALKERS: RESCUE STATISTICS
  CLIMBERS AND HILL WALKERS: RESCUE STATISTICS
  ORAL HEALTH STRATEGY
  ORAL HEALTH STRATEGY
  HEALTH EDUCATION AUTHORITY: ROLE
  HEALTH EDUCATION AUTHORITY: ROLE
  HEALTH EDUCATION AUTHORITY: HIV/AIDS PREVENTION ROLE
  HEALTH EDUCATION AUTHORITY: HIV/AIDS PREVENTION ROLE
  ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED BY RELIGIOUS METHODS
  ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED BY RELIGIOUS METHODS
  MAFF AND DoH INSPECTORATES: COSTS
  MAFF AND DoH INSPECTORATES: COSTS
  ACCUMULATED CAMPAIGN SERVICE MEDAL
  ACCUMULATED CAMPAIGN SERVICE MEDAL
  SSA: BASIS OF CALCULATION
  SSA: BASIS OF CALCULATION
  WESTMINSTER COUNCIL: HOUSING POLICY
  WESTMINSTER COUNCIL: HOUSING POLICY
  NIDDERDALE AONB
  NIDDERDALE AONB
  DTI: COST OF MOVE
  DTI: COST OF MOVE
  DTI HEADQUARTERS: REFURBISHMENT COST
  DTI HEADQUARTERS: REFURBISHMENT COST
  SENTENCE DISCOUNTS
  SENTENCE DISCOUNTS
  PRISONERS FROM NORTHERN IRELAND: PRE-RELEASE ASSISTANCE
  PRISONERS FROM NORTHERN IRELAND: PRE-RELEASE ASSISTANCE
  PRISONS OMBUDSMAN
  PRISONS OMBUDSMAN
  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ACCESS
  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ACCESS
  PRISONS: OVERCROWDING
  PRISONS: OVERCROWDING
  METROPOLITAN POLICE: COMPLAINTS
  METROPOLITAN POLICE: COMPLAINTS