Sitting of 17 February 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL (By Order)
    FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)

    UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 24 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Cross-border Co-operation
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on cross-border security co-operation; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): The British and Irish Governments reiterated at the intergovernmental conference on 28 January that they place the highest priority on developing further the effective co-operation which already exists between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and encouraged by what he has said. He will know that, last night, another British soldier was severely injured in Belfast. Will he confirm to the House that the bulk of explosives and weapons that are used by the IRA and many of the terrorists come through the Irish Republic'? What progress has been made with the Irish Republic to ensure that some of those weapons and explosives are prevented from coming through and being used by the IRA?
    Sir John Wheeler: I share My hon. Friend's concern about the injuries sustained by a young soldier late last night. It was a wicked, evil attack on a young man carrying out his duty in the name of democracy and freedom. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that co-operation between the Garda and the RUC is excellent. There have been a number of important finds of weapons and explosives by the Irish authorities. For example, this week alone near Mullingar in County Westmeath, the Garda and the Irish army
    1050
    recovered a heavy machine gun, two spare barrels, a rifle, a pistol and assorted ammunition, including 1,700 rounds of heavy-calibre ammunition. That and other recent finds demonstrate clearly the Irish Government's commitment to fighting terrorism. I assure the House that co-operative work between the RUC and the Garda has never been better.
    Mr. Maginnis: I can understand the Minister's diplomacy and his desire to be courteous to the Garda Siochana—no one disagrees with that—but what steps does his Department take to monitor the activity and the degree of co-operation between the two police services? For example, we all know that South Armagh is at present a hotbed of IRA activity. Can he give me any idea of how many people have been charged during the past 12 months in the Monaghan-North Louth area? From his monitoring, can he give me any idea of the extent to which there is cross-frontier co-operation on intelligence?
    Sir John Wheeler: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the co-operation between the RUC and its immediate counterparts in the border police stations of the Republic is extremely good. I can also tell him that the work that is done by my Department and through the intergovernmental conference ensures that co-operation is pursued to the utmost degree. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman precise statistics about the areas that he mentioned, but I shall see that he has them as soon as possible.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable concessions were made to Dublin in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that in the historic declaration just before Christmas we received considerable assurances from the Dublin Government that they would support the necessary security measures, which would continue to be necessary if the IRA rejected the declaration, as now appears more and more likely? Does he further agree that Britain has every right to expect not only declarations of support from the Irish Government and commitments from the Garda, but that resources will be committed to enable effective support for our security forces along the border and further into Eire?
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. May I make it clear to the House that I do not want statements from either Back Benchers or Ministers. It is now Question Time and I expect to have brief exchanges during these important Northern Ireland questions.
    Sir John Wheeler: The co-operation exists. It is improving and finds by the Irish police authorities continue. There were finds in county Louth on 16 January and county Monaghan on 21 and 24 January, when mortars, weapons and equipment were recovered. That will continue.
    Mr. Mallon: In the recent security discussions with members of the Irish Government, was reference made to the fact that, in recent months, murderous attacks have been made by loyalist paramilitary groups on 18 members of our party, all of whom were elected representatives? Does he agree that it is the duty of all of us to give every help and protection to those people who have been working tirelessly for peace through the political process? Does he further agree that some of the insidious and disgraceful remarks made by hon. Members, such as those made by the

    1051
    right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) yesterday about Irish people working on the channel tunnel, are, in effect, an incitement to such murderous attacks? Will he, with me, condemn that?
    Sir John Wheeler: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the first part of his question. The threats and attacks against those who have been elected through the democratic system in Northern Ireland are taken seriously. I am currently studying with great concern a number of cases involving SDLP councillors. The remarks of other right hon. or hon. Members are a matter for them, not for me.

    Peace Initiative
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's peace initiative.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by his latest talks with Dublin on the future of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will report the latest progress towards a peace settlement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): We have been working closely with the Irish Government to see that everyone fully understands the joint declaration. The declaration, by which we both stand, demonstrates that there is no obstacle in the path of anyone who wants to argue a political case, provided only that he rejects the use, or the threat of, violence in its support. It rests squarely on the principles of agreement, consent and democracy, and it provides a framework and a process for peaceful democratic progress. The two Governments also are maintaining, with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, their commitment to the urgent search for an overall political accommodation through the three-stranded talks process.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my distaste at the way in which Gerry Adams was feted on his recent trip to America, and on the "Walden" programme last Sunday? I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to keep the broadcasting ban in place, not least because Sinn Fein dislikes it so much. Is not it outrageous for Gerry Adams to claim that the key to peace in Northern Ireland lies with the British Government, when the IRA and Sinn Fein have been responsible for the mayhem, misery and murder in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The last part of what my hon. Friend said is right. Last year, 86 people were killed by terrorists in Northern Ireland, while no single death was caused by any member of the security forces, which underlines exactly what my hon. Friend said. I regretted the treatment that Mr. Adams predictably received in the United States. I believe that now, people in the United States, as here, are waiting to see whether the promise to give up justifying violence will be delivered. The broadcasting ban is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Heritage Secretary, who made a statement on 4 February in which he said that it will remain in place, but will be kept under review in the light of changing circumstances.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, when the talks in Northern Ireland began, the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Reynolds, said that the window of opportunity then could bring peace before Christmas? As that does not seem to have happened, should not we reiterate the fact that Northern Ireland and its people are as much a part of the United Kingdom as the people of Essex or any other part of the United Kingdom and they are not up for grabs or negotiation?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I saw a report that Mr. Reynolds had expressed the hope which my hon. Friend mentioned. Unfortunately, that hope has not been fulfilled, although it should have been. There is no excuse for continuing violence and there never has been. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) recently said, the declaration has destroyed every declared reason for the continuance of violence that has ever been put forward by the IRA and those who represent it.
    As for the conclusion of my hon. Friend's question—that people living in Northern Ireland are part of the United Kingdom—of course that is so and the joint declaration reiterates that constitutional guarantee.
    Mr. Hain: May I urge the Secretary of State to leave no stone unturned in an effort to get the republican movement involved in the talks? While we all accept the rejection of violence as a precondition for everybody's participation, is not it absolutely essential that the Government do not stand on ceremony over issues such as clarification when it is vital for peace to get Sinn Fein to the discussion table? I remind the Secretary of State that Ministers, through the United Nations, are currently talking to the Bosnian Serbs, who are responsible for one of the most evil acts of genocide in history. Besides that, the IRA's atrocities, evil though they are, pale into insignificance. It is vital that we do not nitpick at this stage but get Sinn Fein to the discussion table to make progress with the declaration, which I welcomed at the time.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall not join the hon. Gentleman in comparing one act of political violence with another. All political violence is atrocious and totally unacceptable. It is important to note the distinction between Bosnia and our own country. If one negotiates with people who bring bombs and guns to support their arguments in a political democracy, apart from anything else one fatally undermines those who may share their broad overall objective but subject that to the discipline of constitutional politics. We have never done that and we never shall. There is now no justification whatever for Sinn Fein to continue to exclude itself from the forum in which the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is open for debate.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Secretary of State remember that, at the previous talks, neither the Union nor the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was on the table? In view of his widely reported statement at the weekend that one of the outcomes of talks based on the declaration could be a united Ireland, does that now mean that the Union and the 1920 Act are on the table and will be discussed at those talks?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: As I said at the very first meeting of the talks process—at which the hon. Gentleman was present—it has always been perfectly clear that, at the end of that process, the British Government would rise from

    1053
    the table as much committed to the Union as they were when they sat down. That is because there is no prospect in the immediate future or the medium term of the greater number of people in Northern Ireland wishing to see the Union finished. Equally, however, it has always been understood—the declaration also makes this clear—that democracy and nothing else will determine the future of Northern Ireland. That has always been the British Government's position and I find it impossible to understand those who take offence at it.
    Mr A. Cecil Walker: Will the Secretary of State admit that the peace initiative is going nowhere? Will he now take steps to set up a Northern Ireland Assembly to cater for all the needs of all the people of Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The re-creation of a Northern Ireland Assembly is one of the ways in which devolution and the restoration of democratic responsibility can come to the people of Northern Ireland. Article 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement shows that that policy is supported by both Governments. The talks process is the correct forum in which ways of achieving that can be explored. As to the first part of the question, I do not agree that what the hon. Gentleman calls the peace process—I think he means the declaration—is going nowhere. It is a statement of the fundamental principle that democracy will decide the future of Northern Ireland, and it will stand.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the prospects for peace would be better if there were more public confidence in the security forces? Therefore, in view of the Amnesty International report referring to evidence of collusion between British security forces and loyalist paramilitary organisations, including the supply of intelligence, arms and even personnel for loyalist death squads, will he consider setting up an independent inquiry?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I take all Amnesty reports seriously, and we shall therefore consider that one carefully. It produced no fresh evidence in addition to that which has been examined already in support of the assertions that gained such publicity. Of course it is right that the security forces should command the confidence of the public. I see the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding frequently. I notice that in the past year the number of complaints against the police force in particular has fallen substantially and that is important. I make one last point about the Amnesty report: it was disappointing that, rather than calling upon the paramilitaries to desist their attacks upon the security forces, it called only for them to desist their attacks on what it called innocent civilians, and that was a pity.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be helpful if President Clinton repeated his support for the peace initiative when the Prime Minister goes to Washington, thus denying Sinn Fein the support it expects in America?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: President Clinton probably needs no encouragement for that, as he has been outspoken and warm in his support of the declaration. With that goes his recognition that there is no conceivable arguable ground for the continuance of violence for political purposes, unless those who use violence for those purposes acknowledge that they cannot get what they want by democratic means and therefore use violence.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome the meeting that is to take place on Saturday between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach and trust that they will use that occasion to confirm their intention of seeing through the principles in the Downing street declaration? Does he accept that it is of vital importance that both Governments should be seen to be acting in concert, that nothing should be seen to be driven between them and that no unilateral action should be taken by either of those parties, given the three strands of the relationship?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is important that the two Governments should be seen to be standing together in support of the principles set out in the joint declaration. That is exactly where we stand. It is also important that the talks process should continue and that there should be no hiatus. Nobody is waiting upon a Sinn Fein decision, in the sense that some policy has been put in abeyance. As long ago as last April, I said on behalf of the Government that I would seek to put forward ideas that would give direction and focus to the talks process. That initiative has been welcomed by the main constitutional parties participat:ing. Unfortunately, the Democratic Unionist party is not participating. It is open to anybody to use such an initiative; I believe that I am perfectly justified in doing so and that it will have beneficial effects.
    Mr. Garnier: What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to acquaint the people of the United States, rather than the President and the Government, with the true nature, history and habits of the Irish Republican Army? What steps is he taking to ensure the better understanding of the Government's most laudable peace initiative and declaration in that country?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The people of Ireland, north and south, are only too familiar with the history and character of the Irish Republican Army and do not need instruction from me. As to the second part of the question, I have taken considerable pains to see that the people of Northern Ireland understand the declaration. I have published 200,000 copies and made them available everywhere. In a number of speeches and articles I have used the text of the declaration, showing what it is, what it achieves and what it does not do and that has been generally thought to be rather helpful.

    Inter-party Talks
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning the resumption of the inter-party talks process.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): My right hon. and learned Friend is meeting the leaders of the three Northern Ireland parties who have recently been involved in exploratory talks with me to discuss ideas with them for giving direction to further bilateral discussions across all three strands. He has invited the Democratic Unionist party to participate in those proceedings also. At the last intergovernmental conference on 28 January, both Governments confirmed their commitment to the three-stranded talks process and underlined the urgency and importance of the search for political agreement.
    Mrs. Roche: In a recent article in The Irish Times, the Secretary of State quite rightly said that it was not a question of promoting one tradition at the expense of the other. Given that welcome statement, will the Minister guarantee that, in any such talks, equal emphasis will be placed on north-south institutions, ensuring that they work jointly and are strong and effective, as well as ensuring that links are maintained with Great Britain?
    Mr. Ancram: The talks have always been across the three relationships, which is why they are known as the three-stranded talks. In a sense, each of those strands is related to the other. None of them can stand in isolation: one relates to north-south relationships, the second to internal relationships and institutions in Northern Ireland and the third to the relations between the two Governments of the Republic of Ireland and of the United Kingdom. All those strands will be considered in any talks process.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister believe that the Secretary of State was assisting the process of peace by sending the details of his proposals to a foreign country—the Irish Republic—before informing the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, especially those who are participating in his three-stranded talks?
    Mr. Ancram: The ideas that are at present being given to the leaders of the three constitutional parties that are prepared to take part in the process stem from our assessment of the exploratory talks and what had gone before in relation to where the parties stand on the three strands. As they are partners in the process, it would have been strange if we had not made known those ideas to the Government of the Republic of Ireland. That was why it was done.
    Dr. Hendron: Does the Minister agree that, while the violence continues on both sides—the Provisional IRA tried to kill a young soldier earlier today, loyalist paramilitaries are firing rockets and bullets and have tried to kill a number of people in my constituency and elsewhere—it is immoral for the political parties not to come together? Will the Secretary of State encourage the parties to come together for inter-party talks with the two Governments, based on the three-stranded approach?
    Mr. Ancram: I unreservedly condemn the acts of violence to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I agree that nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of seeking a political settlement within the three relationships that I have described. That is something which we are trying to take forward, and in an intensified way. Our hope is that, as that process continues, those who are on the outside, either because they wish to be or because they will not renounce violence as we have asked them to, will change their minds and become part of that process as well, because a political settlement that will bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland must have widespread acceptance. That is what we would obviously seek.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that there is an absolute need to be clear on issues? We have already had a misunderstanding today when the Secretary of State, in answering a question about the United States, referred to Northern Ireland. Therefore I ask, while we are going on the three-stranded approach, whether they will be on the same pattern as previously—nothing is agreed until
    1056
    all is agreed? What would happen to the business in the House if that were carried through in the light of the present difficulties in getting the usual channels to work together?
    Mr. Ancram: The talks are continuing under the agenda set on 26 March 1991 by my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor. The purpose was to embrace the three strands in the discussions. At the time, round-table discussions were envisaged; we have made it clear that at present we do not think it right or wise to return to that arrangement because the basis for round-table agreement does not yet exist, but we wish to embark on such discussions eventually—under the agenda to which I have referred.
    The talks are not an end in themselves, but a means of achieving a lasting settlement. That must be their purpose, and it is certainly the British Government's intention.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my hon. Friend draw a distinction between consulting the Government of the Republic, and viewing that Government as a party to the inter-party talks process?
    Mr. Ancram: The Government of the Republic are a party to the three-stranded talks, and always have been. The reason for acquainting them with the ideas was the fact that they stemmed from exploratory discussions that I have been having with the parties. We wanted to take those ideas further, and showing them to the Government of the Republic was a matter of courtesy, given the relationships that exist.
    Mr. Alton: May I put the question of courtesy aside, and revert to the question asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea)? Surely the Minister accepts that political parties represented in the House of Commons should have received the details at the same time as our partners in Dublin. Does he not recognise that the systematic alienation of parts of the loyalist community is now a problem as serious as the alienation of republicans? What is he doing to try to engage loyalist paramilitaries in the important peace initiatives?
    Mr. Ancram: The position regarding loyalist paramilitaries is the same as that regarding Sinn Fein and the IRA: if they renounce violence, they can become part of the democratic process. As for trying to bring in other parties, I have said repeatedly—as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—that we hope that the party of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster will return to the talks process. The door remains open, and we will welcome them if they wish to enter; but as long as they stay away from the process, it is not surprising that we will not show them our ideas.

    European Regional Funding
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Commission of the European Union concerning financial support for projects in Northern Ireland from the European regional development fund and other funds.
    Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend and ministerial colleagues are in contact with the Commission as and when the interests of Northern Ireland require it.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that I have here a list of environmental, infrastructure and industrial projects for which European money is urgently needed to create jobs in Northern Ireland? Why is he wasting £61 million on the interconnector with Scotland, which threatens jobs in Northern Ireland? Will he now abandon that plan, and save us the expense and bother of the public inquiry in Scotland which was announced yesterday?
    Sir John Wheeler: I cannot respond to that question; it is a matter for other Ministers. I can tell the House, however, that our structural funds plan for 1994–99—in which I know the hon. Gentleman takes a sincere interest—has been placed before the Commission. We have not yet received a formal response, but we hope to do so soon.
    Sir James Kilfedder: Why does the Northern Ireland Office seem to discriminate against the good people of North Down by failing to press the Commission to direct a greater share of European funds and investment to my area, to create more employment? Is the Minister aware that there is considerable unemployment in North Down, particularly among school leavers and graduates? The people of North Down feel that they are being penalised because they live in religious and political harmony.
    Sir John Wheeler: The interests of North Down are always in the minds of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my other ministerial colleagues. I very much hope that some of Northern Ireland's 52 per cent. portion of the United Kingdom's allocation of structural funds will find its way to North Down by one means or another.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that my colleagues and I are very disappointed and dissatisfied with the way in which United Kingdom representation to the Commission is being made on behalf of Northern Ireland? We are concerned that we are not receiving adequate funds to develop the infrastructure around our ports, or those of south-west Scotland and the north-west of England. What does the Minister propose to do before there is economic devastation to Belfast, Warrenpoint and Larne harbours? When will he robustly seek to ensure that we obtain proper funding and that funding that is being poured into Wales and the Irish Republic is not used to disadvantage our ports?
    Sir John Wheeler: Funding into Northern Ireland from the Exchequer and United Kingdom taxpayers will be about £18 billion in the next six years, in addition to the £1 billion that comes from the EC structural funds. As to the Northern Ireland ports, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if any of those ports is eligible we shall seek to ensure that we obtain the maximum possible benefit for the Northern Ireland ports.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that it was a serious injustice and a serious error by the Government that Northern Ireland was excluded from the new cohesion fund? Given that that fund is committed to both transport and environment, does he agree that Northern Ireland has exactly the same problems in both those areas as has the Republic, as we are both part of the same offshore island? What has he done about it, and will he do anything about it? It is a very substantial fund, from which we have been excluded.
    Sir John Wheeler: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Northern Ireland receives very substantial sums indeed and I and my colleagues are always looking to see whether we can acquire any additional form of funding from any other source to sustain the programmes that we wish to be developed in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stott: One of the projects that has received European regional development fund funding and is of crucial importance to the island of Ireland is the upgrading of the Belfast to Dublin railway line. Is the Minister in a position to tell the House what progress has been made in the upgrading of that line, as well as the upgrading in the rolling stock? The Minister may well be aware that Sir George Quigley, the chairman of Ulsterbank, has set up a study group to recommend how to put in place a Belfast-Dublin growth corridor, with all the possible economic spin-offs that will occur if that were put in place. The upgrading and modernisation of that rail link are integral and crucial to that concept.
    Sir John Wheeler: It is important that the project to which the hon. Gentleman refers should be sustained and encouraged. It is my understanding that £70 million is available between the two Governments to further the work and I very much hope that it will continue.

    Health and Social Services Boards
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the appointment of non-executive directors to HSS trust boards.
    Mr. Ancram: Non-executive appointments to HSS trust boards are made by the Department of Health and Social Services with the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend. The Department seeks to achieve equality of representation in terms of gender and community background, but does not normally consult publicly on its proposals.
    Mr. Trimble: Can Minister add a little more to clarify the criteria on which he operates? May I direct his attention to a trust in my constituency, Upper Bann, the recently appointed chairman of which is a Mr. David Cook—a rather strange appointment, in view of the fact that the regional health and social services council, which is supposed to be the watchdog organisation to keep an eye on the boards and the trusts, is chaired by Mr. Cook's wife. Is that not rather an incongruous appointment? Or is that a result of the difficulty which the Minister is in because. as he probably knows, half-presentable members of the Alliance party are rather thin on the ground in that region?
    Mr. Ancram: Mr. Cook's appointment was subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, who was both aware of, and took into account, Mrs. Cook's position in reaching his decision. The role of the health and social services council is, basically, to represent the views of the population covered by an HSS board and its contacts are primarily with purchasers rather than providers of services. The skills and experience that Mr. Cook brings to the board will be invaluable in the early days of operational independence, when strong leadership will be vital. I may say to the hon. Gentleman, who I suspect has, behind the last part of his question, the veiled complaint that Unionists are not being appointed, that there is no policy relating to

    1059
    appointing representatives of political parties. Two active Ulster Unionist party councillors are non-executive directors of HSS trust boards.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Is not it time that the Government realised that the way in which people are appointed to trust boards is regarded in Northern Ireland as disgraceful, unacceptable and undemocratic? During the debate in the House on Monday, no one from my party, and not even the representatives of Northern Ireland, supported the appointments to trust boards. Is not it time that the Government reviewed the whole set-up and allowed some elected members on to the trust boards who will be accountable to the people whom they serve?
    Mr. Ancram: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Those who are appointed bring various important qualities to the boards. They have to have some or all of the following attributes: an understanding of top management in large organisations; a relevant specialist skill or knowledge; experience of the voluntary sector; live or work in the area to be served by the trust—at least two on each trust do so—and willing to make the necessary time commitment. Such attributes will serve the health service in Northern Ireland very well.

    Cross-border Co-operation
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to make on increasing cross-border co-operation.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: These are matters to which the Government will continue to attach high importance. The political talks process provides an opportunity designed to establish the best means of further developing co-operation to mutual benefit, north and south. I also look forward to promoting it at meetings of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference.
    Mr. Soley: Leaving aside political matters, does the Secretary of State accept that the existence of the border has been a major hindrance to the normal economic development of the north and south of Ireland? Would not it be a good idea if, with the European Union, we invested much more in developing border links, especially in terms of transport, roads, energy and other infrastructure projects, in order to make the border as irrelevant in economic terms as is the border between, say, France and Belgium?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It was very surprising that so little north-south trade was taking place until a few years ago. Whether that was because of the existence of the border or because of what it represented and was caused by, I do not know, but I am very glad that trade is increasing significantly. There is much to be gained for the mutual advantage of north and south from the structures and institutions that will encourage that development of cross-border links.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State welcome the paper which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I presented to the then Prime Minister on 28 August 1985 in which we said that, if we were members of a devolved administration, we would discuss with Irish
    1060
    Ministers matters of mutual interest and concern, provided always that United Kingdom sovereignty remained undiminished and that any illegal claims were removed?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Without having every passage of the 1985 document in my mind, I certainly welcome any step that is intended to develop co-operation in economic and other matters between the north and south parts of that island, between Northern Ireland and the Republic. I have always believed that it can be undertaken entirely effectively without in any way impinging on the sovereignty of Northern Ireland, which remains part of the United Kingdom in international as well as national law.
    Mr. McNamara: Does the Secretary of State accept that, to be effective, any cross-border institutions involving trade, the economy or the infrastructure should have a strong executive role on the basis of ground rules laid down by both Governments?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: What I do think is important is that any organisation—a board, a structure or whatever it is called—that has such an objective should have a very clear jurisdiction. It is very important that there should be a clear jurisdiction with very clearly defined lines of authority or vires coming from wherever is appropriate, whether from Westminster, Dublin or any subsequently established legislative body. I hope to see them established and I believe that, once they are in place, they will be seen to be playing an effective part. It is a matter for strand 2 discussions in the talks.

    Political Parties (Violence)
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which political parties in Northern Ireland have now notified him that they have a policy of not supporting violence.
    Mr. Ancram: The policies of the different parties in Northern Ireland are well known not only to the Government but to the community at large. What everyone in Northern Ireland wants to hear is that those who support violence will now turn away from it for good and accept that the only way to advance political argument in a democracy is through peaceful, constitutional means. The joint declaration offers a clear opportunity for all violence to be brought to an end.
    Mr. Shaw: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland want the peace process to continue and to move forward and, through their political parties, support non-violence? Do not the majority of the people now feel that the time is rapidly approaching where parties such as Sinn Fein, which do not support the abolition of violence, should be excluded from the peace process? Should not we be moving forward and getting an agreement on which the people of Northern Ireland can depend for peace?
    Mr. Ancram: First, I can certainly confirm that the constitutional parties reflect the desire of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland to achieve a peaceful accommodation and settlement. Secondly, I must make it clear that Sinn Fein is not part of the process at the moment because it has not renounced violence on a permanent or even a temporary basis. The choice for Mr. Gerry Adams is clear. If Sinn Fein wants peace, it must renounce

    1061
    violence and renounce it permanently; that is logical. If it has sufficient confidence in its own beliefs, it must come into the democratic process and, like any other democratic party, seek to sell its ideas through the democratic process rather than at the end of a gun.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the Prime Minister accept that the withdrawal of guns from Sarajevo is not the end of the story if they are freed for use elsewhere in Bosnia? Does he accept reports from one of my constituents that Bihac has been under constant shellfire since the day after the Sarajevo massacre, that 18 people died in a direct hit on a hospital last Monday and that there is hand-to-hand fighting? In wishing him success in Sarajevo, can I ask him what follows from that?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that, although Sarajevo is central to our concerns at the moment, there are many other areas of grave difficulty besides Sarajevo. The only satisfactory conclusion that we will get is by pursuing the political negotiations to achieve a satisfactory, agreed political settlement. Those political negotiations will proceed. The United States is clearly going to take a higher profile than previously in the peace negotiations and that will be extremely welcome.
    Sir Ralph Howell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Ralph Howell: In view of the Government's excellent record of and commitment to safeguarding the value of pensions, is it not remarkable that last night the Opposition voted against uprating? Is this not a case of fine words and weasel actions?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend is right about the vote yesterday. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is enormously time-consuming. I urge the House to be quiet.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is still right in what he said a moment or so ago. We shall judge Opposition Members by their deeds and not just by their words, and last night they were in the wrong Lobby.
    Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us why, in his article in today's Daily Express entitled "What I mean by Back to Basics", there is no reference whatsoever to taxation? Is this deliberate or accidental?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well—for I have told him from this Dispatch Box on previous occasions—that "back to
    1062
    basics" runs right across the whole of Government policy, including the economy. He will know that, as a result of the sensible economic policies that we have been following, we now have growth unmatched by other countries across Europe.
    Mr. John Smith: If "back to basics" covers all these things, why, in the article, is there no reference to taxation? I remind the Prime Minister that, speaking to a rally on 7 April—two days before the general election—he told his audience:
    "More tax cuts for all: that is our basic Conservative belief."
    Why did such a basic belief disappear suddenly?
    The Prime Minister: The reality is that the Conservative party is the one which cuts taxes, and it always has been. Not even the right hon. and learned Gentleman can conceive of any circumstances in which, or any occasion when, taxation would be lower under a Labour Government than under a Conservative Government.
    Mr. John Smith: Is not the truth that the Prime Minister was so gravely embarrassed by the duplicity of his Administration before the election and by their incompetence since the election that he dared not even refer to taxation in his article on "back to basics"? The right hon. Gentleman, in his article, goes on to claim—perhaps understandably—that this is not a moral crusade, but he does say that it has a moral dimension. Does not that moral dimension include telling the people the truth about tax?
    The Prime Minister: Over the last 14 years, the Conservative party has cut tax after tax after tax in Budget after Budget. What did the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) have to say? He said:
    "The Budget decisions the Conservatives made in the 1980s"—
    those that cut taxes—
    "were completely unacceptable."
    The hon. Gentleman is nodding and confirming that those tax cuts were unacceptable. I am delighted, for we now know that the Opposition are not in favour of tax cuts, even when the opportunity presents itself. That can mean one thing and one thing only: the Opposition thought then that tax cuts were unacceptable, and they have no intention of cutting taxes in the future.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this country there is very widespread recognition of the fact that his decision that we should join in the ultimatum to the warring factions in Bosnia was a very difficult one, was characteristically courageous and, in the circumstances, was absolutely right? Will he give the House an assurance that if we have to take military action our troops will receive all the back-up support and air cover that they require? Does he share my conviction that, if called upon to act, our forces will behave with all the bravery and professionalism that they have demonstrated on similar occasions?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that the British contingent of UNPROFOR has performed with the highest distinction and I am certain that it will continue to do so. The United Kingdom and a number of other countries have received several further requests from the United Nations. We are able to meet some, but not all of them. The most immediate is for help in consolidating and monitoring the

    1063
    ceasefire at Sarajevo. The Government agreed this morning to provide some urgent assistance. Two companies of the Coldstream guards will be redeployed from central Bosnia to help in the demilitarisation of Sarajevo. We shall also provide a mortar-locating troop of around 60 soldiers equipped with Cymbeline radar. The United Nations also asked for additional battalions from—[Interruption.] I should have thought that the House might be interested in what is happening in Bosnia. The UN also asked for additional battalions for UNPROFOR from several countries. As Britain already had a large contingent there, we decided not to send an additional battalion as part of the general—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is answering a—[Interruption.] Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a statement."] Order. I am prepared to name people today. The Prime Minister is giving a serious answer and I want us to hear the end of it in silence.
    The Prime Minister: The House may not have heard the last few words that I said. I made it clear that although the United Nations has asked for additional battalions from several countries, as we already had a large contingent there, we decided not to send an extra battalion as part of the general reinforcement.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that that answer will be taken as a "no" to General Rose's request for further troops in Sarajevo? Does he realise that that will be heard as music to the ears of the Serbs? Should the proper response of the British Government to a British general who asks for the resources to do the job that we have asked him to do, not be if, but and maybe, but yes?
    The Prime Minister: Due to the noise from Opposition Members, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said a moment ago. I told him—[Interruption] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will listen now and not ask such stupid questions in future. I said that the most immediate need is to help in consolidating and monitoring the Sarajevo ceasefire. That is what General Rose asked for and I said that the Government agreed this morning to provide that extra assistance. Two companies of the Coldstream guards will be redeployed from central Bosnia to help the demilitarisation. That is what I told the House a moment ago and, based on that, the right hon. Gentleman's question is an absurdity.
    Mr. Bates: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the latest edition of "Teesside 2000", which gives details of some 20 separate investments totalling some £3·5 billion in the Teesside area? Is not that good news for Teesside and an adequate demonstration of how the Government's policy of Government agencies and the private sector are succeeding in regenerating the north-east, whereas the policy of state hand-outs to inefficient nationalised industries from the Opposition failed?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the attractiveness of Teesside and of other parts of the United Kingdom to investment from overseas. Of course, that relates to a number of things—the general economic situation, the tax structure and the fact that investment in the country is welcome and is producing a good return for overseas investors.
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Denham: The Prime Minister is paid £78,292. Is he aware that only people who are paid more than £64,000 a year will have seen their tax bill fall under the Conservatives? Has it ever occurred to the Prime Minister that if people in his position were prepared to pay a little more tax towards funding the national health service, millions of tax losers would not be facing 50p on their prescriptions?
    The Prime Minister: Even the hon. Gentleman should have heard about the vastly increased resources that taxpayers are providing for the national health service. When the hon. Gentleman's party left office, the expenditure on the national health service was about £8 billion. It is now well over £35 billion. That has come as a result of increased investment in the national health service by a Conservative Government.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Following my right hon. Friend's successful visit to Moscow earlier in the week, will he assure the House that everything possible is being done to encourage and assist the Russian people to become good democrats and to avoid the fascist, ultra-nationalist policies of Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his party in the forthcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia in two years' time?
    The Prime Minister: We have to continue to do all that we can to build the relationship between the western nations and Russia. I reached a series of agreements with President Yeltsin during the visit over the past couple of days that contribute towards that. There is no doubt about the scale of assistance that is going to help Russia deal with its economic problems. I believe that it is right to provide that assistance; right for Russia, and right for us because it is in our interest to ensure that Russia remains, not only in the short term, but permanently, a good neighbour to the democratic nations of western Europe.
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Prime Minister recall the bit in the taking stock initiative about the Union being a partnership? If so, is he aware that British Gas has announced the locations of the headquarters of its five new business units? None is going to Wales and none to Scotland, which supplies the bulk of the gas; all five are going to England. Is the Prime Minister prepared to condemn the unequal distribution of headquarters units by a so-called British company—or is that something else which is not a matter for him?
    The Prime Minister: I shall no more condemn that individual action than I would wish to condemn the actions of many companies that have specifically decided to invest in Scotland over the past decade, to such an extent that Scotland now receives more inward investment, and has made greater changes in its quality of life over the past decade, than in any previous decade.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

TUESDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Intelligence Services Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Sunday Trading Bill.

THURSDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "The Unelected State" on an Opposition motion.

FRIDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Motion on the Building Societies (EFTA states) Order.

Motions on the Scottish Revenue Support Grant Reports.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement and for the Opposition day, which I am sure we are all looking forward to. In view of the Prime Minister's statement during Question Time, can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or a debate on Bosnia in Government time at the earliest possible opportunity?
Was not the Security Service Bill taken on the Floor of the House in its entirety in 1988, and if so, did not that set a precedent for the Intelligence Services Bill? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government intend to take the whole of that legislation on the Floor of the House?
In view of the decisions and arrangements being made in another place concerning the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to come to the House of Commons and tell us what is going on, rather than all the statements, changes and announcements being made either in another place or in the newspapers?
May we also have an early debate on overseas arms contracts and the illegal hidden subsidies provided by the much put-upon British taxpayer?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman raise with the BBC, on behalf of us all, the question of "Today in Parliament" being moved to long wave alone? Many of our constituents enjoy listening to us on FM, and at least they know where we are.
Mr. Newton: The whole House thought that the hon. Gentleman was chancing his arm a bit with that last remark—but I will ensure that his concern, which may be shared by others, is drawn to the attention of the authorities at the BBC.
On overseas arms contracts, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the statements that have been made and inquiries that are under way in a Select Committee. I do not think that a debate is appropriate at the moment.
As for the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, it seems to be entirely appropriate that when legislation is under
1066
discussion in another place, statements relating to that process of discussion should be made in another place. Certainly, if it were under discussion here, grave exception would be taken by the Opposition Front Bench to comments being made in another place.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not our intention to propose that the Intelligence Services Bill should be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House. I simply make the point that there is beginning to be a gathering inconsistency between the demands made on me, not least by Her Majesty's Opposition, for additional time to be taken on the Floor of the House, and the demands made on me to respond to the Jopling report. The House will have to decide whether it wants to move in one direction or the other.
As to Bosnia, of course I will undertake in general terms that, in a developing situation, and especially looking ahead over the next few days, I will ensure that statements are made when that seems to be appropriate, and we will keep under close review the possible need for a debate.
Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the growing public concern about the suffering of live animals being transported to the continent, and the growing frustration in Parliament that there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it, may we have a debate next week to enable the House to express an opinion on whether the Government should put a proposal to the EC that member states could ban the export of live cattle?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has taken a long and honourable interest in these matters, which I respect. I cannot promise a debate. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be here to answer questions on Thursday, and that sounds I ike a point which my hon. Friend may well seek to raise.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that, having regard to the indefinite war of procedural attrition that is being waged by the official Opposition, by next week they will have had five Supply days devoted to subjects of their choosing and the previous minority party Supply day was in October last year? Having regard to the fact that all the minority parties get only three Supply days in a parliamentary year, will he give us an assurance that an early day will be allocated to the minority parties' subject?
Mr. Newton: That is a reasonable request and I will certainly look at it sympathetically, although I cannot make a specific promise at the moment. At least we are in a position to talk to the hon. Gentleman in the normal way.
Sir Anthony Grant: On the question of the Jopling report, will my right hon. Friend seek an early meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and ask him whether he agrees with the views of his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), that sitting all hours available is not the best form of parliamentary democracy? Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the support of the public and, indeed, a majority of the House if he presses ahead with reforms, with or without the dinosaurs of the Labour party?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's understandable remarks chime with something I said earlier. I see that the Leader of the Opposition has departed, perhaps in response to my

1067
hon. Friend's remarks. It is certainly the case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's PPS made remarks at the time, to which my hon. Friend referred, which are totally inconsistent with the way in which Her Majesty's Opposition are behaving.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on the closure of old people's homes and the awful effect that has on the people living in them, for whom these are their homes? Is he aware that the shortage of funds for local authorities such as mine causes terrible anguish for people in Bewcastle house in my constituency, which is under threat, and for old people's homes all over the country? Will the Government show some compassion and help these homes to stay open, and recognise that the people in them need to live there?
Mr. Newton: The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that I am not in a position to comment on the specific case that he raises. I have no doubt, and I certainly hope, that he has raised it directly with his local authority because he may well be accurately reflecting its concern.
Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for an early debate on political correctness in local government, with particular reference to Labour-controlled Dudley council? Extraordinarily, that council has branded Thomas the Tank Engine, Super Ted, Fireman Sam and Postman Pat as sexist male stereotypes—characters that are enjoyed by tens of thousands of children, including my own.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The council's decision was utterly ludicrous. I hope that my hon. Friend's comment will be considered by those who took that absurd decision.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would not it be helpful if the Treasury appended a note to the Scottish Revenue Support Grant Report, which is to be debated on Monday week, giving its response to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' calculation that the transition costs of Scottish local government reform will be at least £720 million and that there is no money available? Will the Treasury make a serious response to the COSLA figures? Will he raise the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. Newton: As always, I will bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friends, but I remind him that Scottish local government will be discussed in the debate that I announced today and in the Standing Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Committee, but there are ample opportunities to raise the matter.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: As my right hon. Friend is a sagacious, restrained, well-balanced and realistic Leader of the House, does he agree that Select Committees do not exist at the behest of hon. Members who are not numbered among their members? The Committees have a parliamentary existence that is separate from interference from the Leader of the Opposition or any other politician, and that includes legitimate requests for trips abroad.
Mr. Newton: Even without my hon. Friend's kind words, for which I express gratitude, I would have had no difficulty in agreeing with him. The sillier aspects of current events underline the point that I have made several times: the actions of her Majesty's Opposition do not damage the Government but Parliament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may have offered the Leader of the House kind words, but they had nothing to do with next week's business, with which, I remind Members, we are now dealing.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) will be allowed to become a member of the Select Committee on Procedure only following a Division of the House of Commons, which means that the motion will have to be moved before 10 o'clock at night?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman continues to wage what I regard as a nasty little campaign, and I do not intend to engage in it with him.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Before the House debates the important question of Bosnia, will my right hon. Friend undertake that someone in the Government—preferably the Prime Minister—will ask President Clinton why, if Bosnia is so important to the United States, the United States does not commit ground troops to Bosnia?
Mr. Newton: I will bring the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who I think will meet President Clinton before too long. It would perhaps be fair to say that all countries make contributions in various ways to various peacekeeping operations and that very few countries are in a position to contribute to all of them.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Before the beginning of next week's business, will the Leader of the House hold serious discussions with the Prime Minister on his growing habit of coming to the Dispatch Box and making serious statements in such a way that he cannot be questioned in detail? I instance as evidence today's statement on Bosnia. It is of great concern to every Back-Bench Member who is likely to have soldiers from regiments in their constituency committed to Bosnia. It is not a matter for light treatment. I seriously ask the Leader of the House to protect the interests of our constituents.
Mr. Newton: I know full well that my right hon. Friend did not in any way intend to treat the House lightly, and he did not do so. If the House was treated lightly, it was because the Opposition did not listen to an important reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave in the way that they might have been expected to—I sense that you, too, Madam Speaker, felt that. Relatively minor adjustments to force levels are made frequently. We have made a small but useful addition to the capabilities of General Rose in Sarajevo. We have not adjusted our policy in any way that would necessitate a statement to the House.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, two weeks ago, I asked for an early debate on the subject of the spending commitments of the Opposition

1069
—particularly the Labour party? Over the past two weeks, the Labour party has made further commitments which run into billions of pounds. As it is a matter of great urgency, may we have such a debate next week?
Mr. Newton: With a bit of ingenuity, my hon. Friend might manage to get those points into the debate under the rather curious title "The Unelected State". It certainly would be helpful if the Opposition were to come clean on their incredible spending pledges.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Leader of the House find time next week, or at an early date, for a debate on the failure of the national health service to provide dental treatment in all parts of these islands? Is he aware that, in my constituency, in many other parts of Gwynedd and Clwyd and no doubt elsewhere, people are unable to get on to dentists' lists because the dentists will only take people on a private basis? Will the right hon. Gentleman please arrange a debate on that important matter?
Mr. Newton: I have heard that suggestion being made more often than I have seen clear evidence of it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is due to be here to answer questions next Tuesday.
Mr. Gerald Malone: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will note that there has been disappointment in the House that we have not been provided with an opportunity next week to debate the interesting policy of cutting pensions for pensioners and benefits for the poor that we saw last night. He may also note that, in a helpful way, I have written to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), asking him to outline that new policy and hoping that he may come to the House to explain it further. Will my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity for the House to go into it in depth? Perhaps it is a leaked report from the Social Justice Commission; if so, the House needs to debate it.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who is deputising today on the Opposition Front Bench, will pass on that suggestion as a possibility for the Opposition motion on Monday 28 February, along with the suggestion made by my hon.Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). Having been Secretary of State for Social Security, I cannot recall an occasion when the Opposition—or some significant number of them—felt it right to vote against the pensions increase. I hope that the constituents of those who voted last night against the increase will have that fact drawn to their attention.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When will the Government make a statement on the abandonment of the local government review throughout Britain? The House heard the exchanges between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) regarding Scotland, where local government reorganisation will cost about £700 million. It is estimated that, for England and Wales, we are talking about another £1.5 billion, and it is reckoned that we do not have that money in the country. Nearly every county association, including many Tory associations, is against the review. It is no good saying that individual orders will be brought before the House. We want the whole policy to be put in the political dustbin.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may want that, but he is not going to get it.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: As the ultimatum to the Serbs expires at midnight on Sunday, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, whatever happens, there is a statement in the House on Monday?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend knows the way in which I have responded on those matters in the past, and he knows that I have done so in good faith. I will not seek at the moment to add to my remarks on the subject earlier. I will, of course, bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the Leader of the House consider having an early debate on the economic situation in the northern region? Despite the comments made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) in Prime Minister's Question Time, the situation in the northern region is not as rosy as he has painted. For instance, my constituency lost 1,100 jobs last week, when one mine closed. There are other examples of that in the northern region, where we have lost the major industries of shipbuilding and coal mining. In my view, the subject is worthy of a day's debate.
Mr. Newton: I am, of course, well aware of some of the difficulties that have been experienced in the north-east and in other parts of the country during the difficult period of the recession and, indeed, earlier. I am also aware of the new opportunities that have been brought to the area by the policies that we have pursued, not least in the modern electronics industry as represented by Fujitsu and in the motor industry as represented by Nissan.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend share the fear that I expressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary before Christmas that the killers of PC Patrick Dunne may never be brought to justice? May we have a debate on the effects of drugs and violent crime on civil disorder in our cities, particularly the growing practice of witness intimidation and the imposition of the code of silence? There is a growing fear in the House and outside that a particular category of vicious drugs barons is now above the law. If a brave and popular policeman can be gunned down and if others in future may be gunned down and their killers cannot be brought to justice, we shall have reached a serious situation and we should debate it.
Mr. Newton: There are many who will sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern and they will certainly include my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are acting in many ways to tackle the problem that he describes. I will certainly bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Has the Leader of the House had time to study the report from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on breathing in our cities, which points to the link between vehicle emissions and respiratory illness? May I draw his attention to the recommendations, which point to the need for a reduction in vehicle usage? As that flies in the face: of current Government policy, as evidenced this week by the events in Wanstead and the lunatic proposals of the Department of Transport to drive an urban motorway

1071
through Woolwich, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on the Government's transport policies so that we can discuss that serious issue?
Mr. Newton: I have two points to make in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, in response to his point about Wanstead, which is in the direction of my part of the country and which I pass fairly frequently, nothing is more damaging or raises the level of emissions in the atmosphere more than stationary traffic stuck in traffic jams. That point is sometimes underestimated. Secondly, my right hon. Friends have made their approach clear in various ways, including what has been said and done about road fuel taxation, not often, I have to say, with the support of Opposition Members.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Could my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on employment so that the House can have the opportunity to discuss the impact on employment prospects of a national minimum wage and of the payroll tax proposed by the Labour party?
Mr. Newton: That is another very good idea for the Opposition day debate on Monday week. I hope that it will be borne in mind.
Mr. Harry Barnes: We have already had two statements on Bosnia today: one by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Question Time and a short one by the Leader of the House in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The statement made by the Leader of the House had nothing to do with business questions. As we have had statements, should not we have the opportunity that normally follows statements to question the people who make them? The Prime Minister should be brought back to the House later today so that questioning can take place and all of us can be involved in it. There was little time in Prime Minister's questions to ask questions on the matter.
Mr. Newton: All I have been seeking to do is respond to questions that were put to me. I did not add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, and I certainly do not intend to do so now. But I have outlined the approach that we shall adopt to the possibility of statements and, indeed, debates at future times.
Mr. Peter Luff: May I urge my right hon. Friend once again to arrange for an early debate on waste and corruption in local government? Does he agree that such a debate would provide an excellent opportunity for the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) to expand on her remarks in The Times that Lambeth
"is falling to bits with corruption"?
Mr. Newton: That is another point which may well, with minimum ingenuity, be in order in next Thursday's debate. I imagine that part of the target of next Thursday's debate will be those activities that local authorities have contracted out to get them done more efficiently. One could turn the point round. Perhaps my hon. Friend takes my point.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Leader of the House is aware that during the passage of the Railways Act 1993, the Minister for Public Transport told
1072
us that the charges imposed by Railtrack would be 50 per cent. higher than the charges imposed at that time. We now know that the increase is 300 per cent. May we have a statement from the Minister for Public Transport on the reasons for the increased cost so that we can be sure that it does not all go into the pockets of private operators?
Mr. Newton: In a written answer yesterday, my right hon. Friend simply reported the latest progress made by Railtrack in producing charges for access to the rail network. I think that the hon. Gentleman is reading too much into that statement.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the Leader of the Opposition's campaign of non-cooperation in the House? Can we have a debate on that subject tomorrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tomorrow?"] I mean, next week. We should note that the Leader of the Opposition voted in only three of this year's debates after 10 pm. My right hon. Friend will remember that the Duke of Plaza Toro
"led his regiment from behind—
He found it less exciting."
We should reflect on the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is leading his troops in the evenings from his bed—[Interruption.]
Mr. Newton: The reaction of Opposition Members shows that my hon. Friend's comments come as something of a surprise to them, and I think that they may care to look into the subject, which is interesting. I would hesitate to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Liddington), whose private Member's Bill—in which I have an interest—is due to be discussed tomorrow, that that debate is to be overtaken in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on the progress of work in the Select Committees? That would give Tory Members an opportunity to explain how angry they are at the fact that the extensive travel programme in which they all propose to participate is being brought to a halt. The £100,000 that has so far been spent by Select Committee members going on fact-finding tours to every part of the world by club-class travel could be devoted to the staff of this place. The results of those tours rarely emerge on the Floor of the House.
The money saved could be used to provide cars for the staff of the House after 10 pm instead of after 10.30 pm. That would prevent employees, many of whom are women, going into the night and travelling potentially dangerous journeys of up to one and a half hours after serving this place perfectly well.
Mr. Newton: I will respond to the hon. Gentleman as his question seems to invite only when he assures me that Labour Members intend to undertake a permanent self-denying ordinance not to go on any Select Committee visits abroad.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend allow time next week for a debate on the business environment to ascertain whether the Government intend to incorporate in their policy any aspects of Labour's second business plan? Labour's first business plan, otherwise known as the shadow Budget, bombed disastrously at the 1992 election, so we should perhaps call the debate the "state of the unelected".
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has ingeniously worked his remarks into a context that would be relevant to next Thursday's debate. Labour's business plan for Britain shows every sign of being a plan for a bankrupt Britain.
Rev. Martin Smyth: We understand that the Leader of the House is a fair-minded person, so will he find time next week to debate a motion setting up the Select Committee on Northern Ireland? Three years ago, there was unanimity on that subject, so why has there been a delay? Will we have to wait until the next leap year?
Mr. Newton: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows that discussions are proceeding actively among the interested parties. I cannot give him a date, but I think that he knows full well that I am seeking to make progress as soon as possible.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to consider the magazine entitled "The Best Sex Guide", published by the Health Education Authority, which so many hon. Members have received with great consternation? We should debate the editorial content and method of distribution to our children of that magazine.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise a debate next week on that subject. The magazine sounds like a document which most of us would be fairly cautious about being seen with in the present circumstances. I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who will be here to answer questions next week.
Mr. David Winnick: Despite the answer that the Leader of the House has given to some of his hon. Friends, would it not be useful, on reflection, for the Government to make a statement next week to make it clear that they fully apologise, and will make amends, for the contemptible way in which they have treated Parliament, which has led to the present position of non-co-operation? Is it not clear to the Leader of the House that, since that policy has been in effect, the Opposition have shown that we are here to defend parliamentary democracy and that we cannot be treated with contempt, such as the guillotining of two Bills even before their Second Reading? Unless the Government recognise that it is time that they made a full apology, our non-co-operation policy will continue well into the summer.
Mr. Newton: Even on more reflection than I have had while listening to the hon. Gentleman, I would not go down that path. As I have said several times, if the hon. Gentleman looks at what I said in justification of the motions to take action to implement policies on statutory sick pay and national insurance contributions by April, he will find that everything that I said has turned out to be right.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread dismay in the tourist industry regarding the European Union's draft directive on distance selling? May we have an urgent debate next week on that topic and, in particular, an opportunity to tell the European Commission to get lost with its absurd suggestion of putting up black flags on beaches that are alleged to be unsafe?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate of that kind next week, but I promise to bring my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Dr. Tony Wright: Will the right hon. Gentleman simply tell the House how long the farce over the Jopling report will continue? Is he aware that it will be two years to the day tomorrow since the Jopling report was issued? It was in the Tory party manifesto for the 1992 election and the Queen's Speech following that election. Does he understand that the failure to act has nothing to do with the present policy of non co-operation? It is a long-standing failure, which depends on the Leader of the House coming forward with proposals that will commend themselves to wide sections of the House. When will he do that?
Mr. Newton: I make no complaint about the fact that the hon. Gentleman asked effectively the same question last week, although, confusingly, from a different corner of the Chamber. From whichever corner of the House he asks it, his fire should be directed about five yards in front of me.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future to debate the contentious issue of begging in our streets, which does so much to besmirch this country's image with visitors from abroad? There have been reports today of bogus beggars with L-registered Vauxhalls on the streets of Sheffield, drawing motability, invalidity and, I dare say, gullibility allowances at the expense of the British public. Should not we debate tightening up social security, and should not the Opposition support us?
Mr. Newton: I have seen those reports. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Social Security have also seen them and will consider them, along with my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a ministerial statement condemning the excesses of cheque-book journalism, whereby certain newspapers could offer a £40,000 inducement to a woman to sell her story when she was rescued from the Cairngorm mountains earlier this week? Given that 151 rescue workers from the RAF and voluntary rescue teams risked their lives, and in some cases, suffered loss of wages to save that woman's life in a two-day rescue operation which cost £120,000, is it not time that the Government stepped in to stop such mercenary malpractice by certain newspapers?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will probably acknowledge that the scope for the Government to intervene as he suggests contains some dangers, as well as the advantages that he sees. Equally, the whole House will understand why he has raised the matter and will respect his comments.
Mr. David Shaw: Will it be in order in next Thursday's Opposition day debate to raise the issue of the 40 councillors' wives, children and close relatives employed on Monklands district council, which appears to be an unelected state—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking a direct question about business next week? If he is, he should get on with it. [Interruption.] Order. Is the Government Whip seeking to catch my eye?
Mr. Shaw: I was asking whether in next week's debate it would be appropriate to raise the matter of the 40 unelected members of the council—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is a question for me whether it would be in order appropriate to raise it. Therefore, when the time comes, if the hon. Gentleman raises the matter with me, I shall give him an answer.
Mr. Shaw: If I may—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must try harder.
Mr. Shaw: I will try harder, with your encouragement, Madam Speaker. I am trying to achieve a motion next week which, if it has not been tabled already, will enable us to discuss the unelected state within a state in Monklands district council, where 40 close relatives of councillors are employed by the council, and the unsatisfactory state of affairs where poor Tom Macfarlane lost his job for "being a naughty boy" in relation to the Labour mafia families on the council. He appears to have upset the ruling councillors. Would it be appropriate to raise that matter in the debate next week?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may have moved from asking whether something was in order to whether it was appropriate. I am sure that you will guide him on whether it is in order, Madam Speaker. I will guide him that, if it is in order, it might be appropriate.
Mr. Derek Enright: The Leader of the House will recall that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment have both in the past fortnight stated their concern about unemployment in my constituency and promised to act quickly on it. As RECHAR 2 was announced by the European Commission yesterday, will the Leader of the House arrange for the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement next week promising to match that cash so that we can get going with it immediately to solve some of our desperate problems?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise what the hon. Gentleman asks, but I can promise to make sure that my right hon. Friend is quickly made aware of his request.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on local government taxation, so that we may examine how the Conservative Ealing council has again been able to reduce the council tax by an average of £100 and compare it with the Labour council which, in 1987, raised it by 65 per cent. in a single year by imposing additional taxation on old people and on Ealing hospital of nearly £500,000? What do they care about the national health service? The matter should be examined by the House.
Mr. Newton: I am tempted to think that the success that my hon. Friend describes must have something to do with his own assiduous efforts on behalf of his constituency.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate next week on the plan to reduce from 86 to 49 the number of women cleaners working in the House and its outbuildings and to subject them to training programmes to teach mature women how to dust and use vacuum cleaners? Those women have been serving the House for
1076
many years and many of them are no longer young. Is not it a despicable way to treat those loyal servants of the House?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that his remarks are more properly to be directed towards the Chairmen of the Administration Committee or the Accommodation and Works Committee, neither of whom is in his place at the moment.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Leader of the House aware that, precisely when Ministers at the Department of the Environment were answering questions in the Chamber on water, sewage charges, EC directives and costs, civil servants were sneaking out a statement welcoming a new proposal from the Commission that would effectively ban bathing from some of our most famous beaches? Is it not extraordinary that, as a result of the Prime Minister's initiative at the European summit and the meddling that took place thereafter, we have a worse muddle and we do not even have the opportunity to question Ministers in the House? Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an opportunity next week for us to question the Secretary of State for the Environment on that important issue?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot give precisely that undertaking, but his question probably links with one asked a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I will bring those questions to the attention of my hon. Friends.
Mr. James Clappison: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on inward investment, especially into the south-east, which is of great interest to the CBI in my constituency in Hertfordshire? May we also debate the maintenance of this country's excellent record of attracting inward investment over the past decade and the likely effect on that record of the so-called business plan from the Opposition, which would undoubtedly increase business costs and deter investors, as well as undermining the competitiveness of businesses that are already here?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's remarks are absolutely on the ball, if I may use a colloquialism. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who speaks for the Opposition today, is still here to listen to another suggestion for Monday week's Opposition Supply day.
Dr. John Reid: Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite having had several stabs at it, his responses on the manner in which the announcements were made on Bosnia today are still entirely unsatisfactory, particularly as, to justify their being made as an oral answer, he had to diminish the importance of a statement in his second response to the House? Does he not realise that the matter was much more important than he allows: first, because it was a tactical deployment, which will not only add troops to Sarajevo, but, by definition, withdraw them from central Bosnia; and secondly, because it is a refutation—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not in order to discuss policy during business questions. If he has a point to put to the Leader of the House, he must must do so. We are not in a political discussion at this stage.
Dr. Reid: I am not in a political discussion; I am seeking to describe the reasons why there should have been a statement today—I hope that there will be a statement next week—because it was a refutation from the Dispatch Box of a request by a British general to send more troops. Will the Leader of the House ensure that when such important statements are made on matters of life and death they are made in the form of a statement so that hon. Members on both sides of the House, of all political persuasions and whatever their opinions on the matter, get the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on it?
Mr. Newton: I have now responded twice to such points. I do not think that I can add to what I said earlier. I have already made it clear that the possibility of statements, and, indeed, of debate, will be kept closely under review.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 496 concerning the tension on the Korean peninsula.
[That this House, aware of possible intervention by the U.S.A. against North Korea, and that Her Majesty's Government's policy is for the peaceful re-unification of the peninsula, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to have urgent discussions with the U.S. Government in an effort to avert a possible war which will prevent re-unification and for the sake of détente and peace.]
As the Government's policy is for the peaceful reunification of both north and south, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to have urgent discussions with the American authorities on this critical situation?
Mr. Newton: I will bring the hon. Gentleman's concern to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the Leader of the House confirm that primary legislation is needed to close the Commonwealth Institute? Is it not therefore improper that, because of the withdrawal of public funding, the institute is issuing redundancy notices to its staff, and will continue to do so? When will we look at that primary legislation, because it is wrong to close a place before we have given consent, is it not?
Mr. Newton: I was not aware of the circumstances of the redundancy notices to which the hon. Gentleman refers.The right course for me is to bring his question and his concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Points of Order
4.13 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, which arises directly out of business questions. During business questions, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), an experienced and well-liked Member of the House, came in with the clear and deliberate intention of referring to remarks that he says were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), who serves as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. The thrust of his question to the Leader of the House was that, somehow, the hon. Lady's views were at variance with the official policy of the Opposition.
Can you, Madam Speaker, confirm that it is a convention that, if a matter of this kind is to be raised, the hon. Gentleman should inform the hon. Lady that he intends to refer to what he thinks are her views, so that she can have an opportunity to be present and refute them if he is wrong?
Madam Speaker: That is the customary procedure here. When one hon. Member intends to refer to another, it is a matter of courtesy for that hon. Member to give notice to the Member who is to be mentioned, so that any statements that are made can be challenged.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: I do not think that there can be a further point of order. I have given a ruling. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a different matter?
Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For most of my years in the House, it has been the convention for an hon. Member intending to attack another to give that person notice; but I did not think that it was necessary to give notice if one intended to repeat another hon. Member's remarks—in no derogatory sense—by quoting from the Official Report.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Member who is to be mentioned might reasonably reply, I think that it is a matter of courtesy to give that hon. Member notice that he or she will be mentioned.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to pages 267–68 of yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, particularly items 9 to 13? Between 44 and 50 hon. Members voted against certain motions. Two or three Conservative Members said that the Opposition had voted against pension and other increases, which is completely untrue.
There are 270 members of the parliamentary Labour party—not to mention the Liberal Democrats, the nationalists and the Ulstermen—and I understand that the 44 to 50 hon. Members who voted against the motions did so because the increases were not large enough. It is wrong for Conservative Members to pretend otherwise.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I cannot comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the Official Report; the record stands.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to try to assist in the conduct of business—which you, of course, manage so very well.
There were difficulties during Prime Minister's Question Time. This place is sometimes very noisy, which I consider right and proper: sometimes there is an outburst of anger that is very difficult to control, when hon. Members think that they are being abused by the Government. On this occasion, the Prime Minister made what amounted to a mini-statement during Question Time. Such action deprives hon. Members of the opportunity to ask questions about what has been said, and of what many regard as a good opportunity to question the Prime Minister generally: it destroys two opportunities at the same time.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that it would help both you and the House if you made it clear to the Prime Minister, and other Ministers, that if they want to avoid causing difficulties for you as a result of anger in the House, they should make statements from the Dispatch Box about important issues such as the sending of troops to other countries, to make bombing raids and possibly kill people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: No. I do not wish to take any more points of order. I appreciate the efforts of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to avoid creating difficulties for me; it is most unusual for any hon. Member to go out of his way to do that. I understand the frustration felt in many parts of the House, but the Prime Minister was perfectly in order today in answering the question that was put to him. I am always disturbed when there is so much noise: it takes up a great deal of time. The Prime Minister could not be questioned further about what he had said, because the time had been taken up by a great deal of noise—which, I must add, comes from all quarters of the House.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During business questions, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr.Spink) referred to a sex magazine; in fact, he described it as a sexy magazine. The Leader of the House replied.
Is it not conventional for a document referred to by a Front Bencher to be placed in the Vote Office? If that happens in this case, what action will be taken to control the queues?
Madam Speaker: If I understand the position correctly, only quotations from state papers appear in the Vote Office. As the magazine was not a state paper, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) was perfectly in order simply to bring it to our attention.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that, as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers, you have observed, in your visits to Parliaments abroad, that they often have, especially in the newly democratised states, more subtle methods of voting than we have in our Chamber, whereby they do not have to vote yes or no; there are other possibilities, using sophisticated electronic systems. Last night in the Chamber, many of us spoke in the debate on the social security measures, and we wished to express a certain point of view. That point of view was to support pension increases but to be highly critical of what the Government were doing. The only method available for us to do that was to vote no. Will you consider other possible methods by which we can express that point of view?
Madam Speaker: Of course, abstention is always open to hon. Members. I think that if the hon. Member is seeking to change the method by which we vote, he ought to refer it to the appropriate Committee.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As a matter of fact, there was another reason why we voted last night. I think we ought to draw it to your attention because sadly you were not in the Chair; you had other business to do, no doubt. There were five votes. There happened to be a meeting of the 92 Group across at Queen Anne's Gate, which was being addressed by the Secretary of State for Social Security. Prior to that, the leader of the 92 Group, the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), was in some trouble. He looked like being carved up by the left of the Tory party. We wanted to ensure that the Tory party remains divided. The only way in which we could do it was to stop that business taking place, so we had five votes.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover is being as helpful as ever.

Royal Navy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
[Relevant document: The Eighth Report from the Defence Committee on Royal Navy Commitments and Resources, HC 637 of Session 1992–93, and its First Special Report, HC 142 of Session 1993–94, containing the Government Reply thereto.]
4.21 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): It is, of course, a year which has been of great significance for all of us, marking as it does one of the great events of history—the deciding battle, 50 years ago, for the future of Europe and the greatest combined land, sea and air operation of the second world war.
It is only right that the achievement of our forces who fought throughout the second world war with tremendous determination and courage should be marked by special commemorative events. The Royal Navy, the subject of today's debate, paid its own special tribute in May last year when Merseyside hosted a series of events commemorating the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, the longest continuous campaign of the second world war. The Royal Navy will also play a full part in the forthcoming D-day events which commemorate the largest amphibious operation ever undertaken in history.
Among other things, such commemorative events serve to remind us of our responsibility to ensure that such a war never happens again. The military tasks of today for our armed forces, set out in the defence White Paper "Defending Our Future", published last July, are those deemed necessary by the Government both to maintain the freedom and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and its dependent territories and to enable the United Kingdom to pursue its legitimate interests at home and abroad.
Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early. Before he departs—perhaps he has just done so—from the subject of the 50th anniversary of one of the greatest events that led to the total elimination, downfall and defeat of Nazism, may I ask whether he is aware that many of us take the view that not enough is known by the younger generation about the significance of D-day compared, for example, to French children, who perhaps have a better reason for understanding it? Can he do anything with his ministerial colleagues in other Departments to ensure that, in schools at least, there is far greater understanding of the significance of D-day? The people who participated and lost their lives did so for the most heroic cause conceivable. All of us are deeply proud, 50 years on, that the people who took part—the people who died and the people who survived—did so to ensure that Nazism was defeated.
Mr. Hanley: I agree, and I am sure that the House agrees utterly with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. I am certain that associated with the 50th anniversary of D-day will be a number of events throughout the country and television programmes and media opportunities for explaining exactly what he has said. It is important that this generation understands the sacrifice that was made, and the reasons why it was made 50 years ago.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Those are wonderful sentiments. I remember looking at the maps from Benghazi
1082
to Tobruk and all the rest as a little kid and thinking about those great victories, but I also reflect on what has happened today. The Germans have captured Rover and there is a Japanese flag flying over the Greater London council.
Mr. Hanley: As usual, the hon. Gentleman fails to rise to the occasion and is somewhat flippant. The matters to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred were far more serious than the hon. Gentleman's weak joke.
Hon. Members will be aware of the significant changes that are taking place in the strategic setting of our overseas and defence policy. Some have enhanced the security of the United Kingdom and its allies; others have added to uncertainty and created new commitments. It is reasonable to ask where maritime forces fit in this modern world.
The whole ministerial team at the Ministry of Defence and I remain convinced that there is an enduring need for sea power. The generic capabilities of our maritime forces—their reach, endurance, mobility, flexibility and ability to station off a hostile coastline—make them ideal for deterrent or peacekeeping missions, or both. The Polaris and, in the future, the Trident submarines, of course, provide the ultimate deterrent. As for conventional forces, the three core elements of the Royal Navy are the capabilities provided by our nuclear-powered submarines, our aircraft carrier task force and our amphibious forces.
The SSN—the strategic submarine nuclear—has tremendous mobility which allows it to be deployed rapidly and covertly and it can contribute greatly to enforcing sea control. Carriers and their escorting frigates and destroyers can provide considerable support to the land battle, with fixed and rotary wing support and, of course, air defence, surface strike and anti-submarine warfare. Our amphibious ships are a highly flexible national capability which is admired and admirably suited to the present strategic environment.
In the Adriatic, our national carrier task group, with HMS Ark Royal currently acting as flagship, continues to stand ready to provide additional protection for British forces ashore in Bosnia. The carrier-based Sea Harriers have been conducting training missions over land in Bosnia-Herzegovina, to ensure their readiness to provide close air support if required. They have also been flying air defence missions as part of the NATO operation to enforce a no-fly zone over Bosnia and are available to take part in NATO air operations if called upon to help protect Sarajevo and its citizens from further bombardment by the parties to the conflict.
Four Sea King MK4 helicopters from 845 Squadron have been based in Split since November 1992. They provide key casualty evacuation support for land forces operating with the UN and have almost become stars in their own right on television. Support ships, the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries Resource and Sir Geraint based in Split, are also playing a key role in providing essential logistics support to our troops ashore. In addition to our national forces deployed, we have ships in NATO's Standing Naval Force Mediterranean and the Standing Naval Force Atlantic, which are both operating in the Adriatic in support of Operation Maritime Guard, the joint NATO-WEU operation to monitor and enforce compliance with the arms embargo against the whole of the former Yugoslavia and the trade sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.

1083
Elsewhere, our long-standing commitments in the Gulf, the south Atlantic and the Caribbean continue. In the Gulf, the Armilla patrol—currently HMS Glasgow and HMS Cumberland, supported by Royal Fleet Auxiliary Bayleaf—is now in its 14th year of continuous operations. The Armilla patrol makes a valuable contribution to regional security and stability and to the protection of British interests in the region. An interesting recent development has been the occasional presence in the Gulf of a Russian task group which has operated alongside allied ships in support of the remaining UN sanctions against Iraq.
In the south Atlantic, the Navy continues to patrol around the Falklands and provides a visible demonstration of our continued commitment to the security of the islands. HMS Endurance also continues to deploy annually to the area in support of our interests in the Antarctic region. Indeed, earlier this month, HMS Endurance pressed further south into the Antarctic's Weddell sea than any other royal naval ship in history.
In the Caribbean, the West Indies guard ship—the WIGS—has continued to carry out its duties successfully in support of the ground forces in Belize. This commitment has afforded the opportunity for the Royal Navy to make an important contribution in the area by assisting the United States and other authorities in the international campaign to counter the operation of drug traffickers. WIGS has achieved a number of successes in this area over the past year. It has been finding millions of dollars worth of illicit drugs.
The West Indies guard ship, in the latter part of the year, also assisted in the United Nations embargo operations off Haiti. Our future defence policy in that region—including the need for the full-time presence of the WIGS—is currently under review. I envisage, however, that our historic ties with the area will continue, and that the Royal Navy will continue to deploy there.
In the far east, the three Hong Kong patrol craft provide support to the Hong Kong garrison and assistance to the Hong Kong authorities in a variety of law and order tasks. In south-east Asia, until mid-November last year, Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel made a valuable contribution to the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cambodia.
The Royal Navy also carries out a range of overseas visits which support and extend bilateral naval contacts and are also undertaken at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in support of Her Majesty's Government's interests and our industry overseas. One of the most notable overseas visits of recent months was that carried out by HMS Norfolk and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Grey Rover to South Africa at the end of January. The aim of the visit was to renew relations between the Royal Navy and the South African navy, and they were the first foreign naval ships to visit since sanctions were lifted. The ships and crew received a remarkably warm welcome in Simonstown and Cape Town, where 69,000 people visited our ships.
The Navy is also playing a full part in the process of developing contacts with Russia and countries in central and eastern Europe. An impressive programme of contacts has been developed with these countries over the past four years, and highlights of the past year have included visits by royal naval vessels and submarines to ports in Russia,
1084
Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria. HMS Avenger's visit last September to Novorossisk in Russia, where no foreign warship had visited in living memory, coincided with the 50th anniversary of the city's liberation during the second world war, the 150th anniversary of its founding and the 300th anniversary of the Russian navy.
Reciprocating those visits, for the first time ever, three Russian frigates visited the Gibraltar naval base and, on departure, took part in a short exercise with HMS Brilliant. Here in the United Kingdom, in October, the Russian training ship Gangut visited Dartmouth and Britannia royal naval college. Also, the Royal Navy will again be working closely with the Russian armed forces in March, when a royal naval destroyer will take part in a multinational maritime exercise in the Barents sea, which has been devised in response to an initiative by our Norwegian allies.
The House will also be aware of the important agreement, announced this week in Moscow by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, concerning joint military exercises between units of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom, beginning in 1995. The exercises will represent a major step forward in the process of deepening our defence relationship with Russia, will usefully promote closer contact and better understanding between our respective armed forces, and will accord fully with the spirit of the partnership for peace proposals announced at the NATO summit in Brussels on 10 January. Details of those proposed exercises are to be developed jointly by our respective military authorities, and also add to the excellent work of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State, who visited Russia last year.
All that shows that we can be proud of a Royal Navy that continues to operate in all parts of the globe—from the north Atlantic to Antarctica, from the Caribbean to the far east, and many places in between. At home, the Royal Navy has continued its task of ensuring the integrity—
Mr. Graham Allen: In his list of deployments, the Minister mentioned Ark Royal and its current station off Bosnia. Both he and the Secretary of State will no doubt be aware of the correspondence that I have had with the Department relating to Ark Royal and its refit in 1959, when asbestos was stripped out of its boilers by ratings who often had inadequate protection. I have mentioned to him the case of Mr. Michael Ward in my constituency who is now suffering gravely from asbestosis. Will the Minister agree to look at those case papers and, if he feels it appropriate, is he prepared to meet Mr. Ward and me to make representations on his behalf?
Mr. Hanley: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his intention to raise this matter concerning a previous HMS Ark Royal. Mr. Ward has telephoned a number of officials in the Ministry. On several occasions, he has been invited to write giving details of his claim, but he has not yet done so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will encourage him to get in contact. It is not possible, without details, to consider his claim. We do not know his employment record since his discharge from the Royal Navy in 1963, and it is not immediately clear that his asbestosis is necessarily attributable to his naval service. However, we shall gladly look into the matter. If details are provided, the hon. Gentleman and I will be able to contact each other again.

1085
At home, the Royal Navy has continued its task of looking after British territorial waters and protecting British rights and activities in the surrounding seas. The maintenance of a 24-hours-a-day, year-round presence in our waters provides considerable reassurance to merchant vessels and other mariners that they can rely on the Royal Navy in the event of an accident or emergency.
The Navy's fishery protection squadron is continuing to conduct fishery protection patrols on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. The squadron also carries out a number of duties for other Government Departments, including the monitoring of dumping at sea, combating oil pollution and the famous search and rescue operations. In 1993 naval search and rescue crews responded to 647 call-outs and winched to safety some 600 people requiring assistance. Assistance can be provided to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise when the opportunity allows. Last year, three Royal Navy vessels assisted customs officers to board a merchant vessel suspected of drug trafficking off Land's End.
Measures to improve the safety of fishing vessels operating in waters frequented by submerged submarines have recently been implemented. Moreover, the recently introduced SUBFACTS information scheme, which broadcasts advance warnings of dived submarine movements to other mariners, has been extended to include the Sea of Hebrides, the Minches and sea areas off Plymouth and Portland. It is only right that I should pay tribute to Members of Parliament of all parties for the constructive way in which they have helped in the development of the SUBFACTS programme by recognising the need for it.
The Royal Navy also supports the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Ships of the Navy's Northern Ireland squadron conduct counter-terrorist deterrent patrols in both the coastal and the inland waters of the Province. The Royal Marines provide troops to support operations and contribute commando units on short tour infantry deployments. In addition, since last year and until further notice, Royal Navy Sea King helicopters—currently from 707 Squadron—have contributed to military operations in support of the RUC.
It is the Government's clear intention that, at a time of public expenditure stringency, we should obtain the greatest possible output from the available resources. It is, of course, entirely appropriate that defence should play its part. As hon. Members will be aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has established a radical and searching scrutiny of defence support functions. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who heads that initiative, will deal in more detail with "Front Line First" later, if time permits and if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is important to remember that, in spite of major changes in the way we do business, as well as the pressures on the defence budget, there is still a healthy naval procurement programme in hand. Work continues on the landing platform helicopter, our helicopter carrier ordered last May; tenders are outstanding for a further batch of up to seven Sandown class single role minehunters; 18 new FRS2 Sea Harriers are on order, as part of a deal worth some £200 million; and a contract has been awarded for the development and production of Sonar 2076, which is part of our extensive programme to modernise the
1086
Trafalgar class attack submarines. My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement will spend more time on that aspect of our work later in the debate.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: As my hon. Friend will know, almost 400 conventional submarines are deployed around the world, more than 200 of them by third-world countries. It is therefore essential that we keep our power of anti-submarine warfare at full capacity and I was grateful for the account that he gave of some of the programmes. Does he agree that it is essential that we go ahead undisturbed with the programme to purchase the excellent Westland EH101 Merlin helicopter, which is an essential part of our anti-submarine warfare capacity?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is a former Defence Minister and will know that we are well aware of the excellent capabilities of the EH101s. Will he allow my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to respond to that question? Negotiations are under way but, if there is anything to add, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to do so.
I was mentioning the Trafalgar class attack submarines and the fact that my hon. Friend may be able to spend a little time on that subject later. I shall conclude my opening remarks to allow hon. Members as much time as possible to speak on the wide range of issues which cover the Royal Navy. I wish to emphasise that at the heart of the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines, are our men and women. They serve at sea, on shore and in the air to maintain the high standards of quality, loyalty and efficiency of which we are justly proud. It is encouraging to report that they are working hard and that those with key operational commitments especially find, and continue to find, their work rewarding and stimulating.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend at that point, but does he agree that the morale of the excellent young men and women who serve in the Royal Navy would be damaged if compulsory random testing for drugs were introduced? That would have implications for the majority of young sailors; as we know, although the problem exists, it is small.
Mr. Hanley: Compulsory random drug testing is being studied by all three forces. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Army recently carried out two trials, one in Berlin and one in the United Kingdom, and the results are being examined. My hon. Friend has said that it is a small problem, but it is growing and it is serious, especially when we are talking of men and women who have control of not only expensive but potentially dangerous property. A mistake or an action that has been caused by, or has been affected by, drugs or drink—causing serious episodes when abused—has great impact. We must consider those issues seriously. The Royal Navy has no immediate plans to introduce compulsory random drug testing, but I would support it if it decided that it was necessary.
I was telling the House that morale in the Navy is generally good. I pay great tribute to all in the Royal Navy for keeping their morale as high as it is. In difficult times of contraction of our armed forces, the men and women in the Navy understand the rationale behind the decisions. Morale is good, notably among those working on some of the modern, lean-manned ships, such as the type 23 frigates with reduced complements, where particular challenges are

1087
offered. Even on type 23 frigates, men and women work together. We are living in times of change -and times of challenge, but I know that our men and women are rising to those challenges.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend refers to men and women rising to the challenge. Does he agree that it is not a universal view in the Royal Navy that the mixture of sexes at sea in a front-line fighting unit is necessarily for the good and that there are many who believe that the efficiency of the Royal Navy has been diminished by the presence of Wrens at sea?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend expresses a view which I hear from time to time when I visit Royal Navy ships and bases, but it is not shared by the majority of people who work in the Royal Navy. The women in the armed forces have always undertaken a wide variety of duties and, over the past three or four years, we have announced decisions to widen their employment opportunities further and to recruit more. The number of women in the services in general has increased over the past five years from 16,000 to 18,000. That shows that not only are there places in the armed forces for women but that women want to take those places. I see no reason on earth why they should not do so.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Apart from the additional costs of accommodating women at sea—a factor that I am sure my hon. Friend considers seriously—will he comment again on the substantial costs to the Exchequer that have been incurred in granting compensation awards to women of the Royal Navy who have become pregnant? It is an intolerable state of affairs that people who sign on to serve their country, and who thereby should be available for any duty at the behest of the Crown, are compensated for not being available.
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend mentions a matter which has caused considerable concern over recent months. It is a finite problem, because those women who were discharged from the armed forces between August 1978 and August 1990 would have no reason to be discharged now because the employment regulations have changed. We were apparently at fault in discharging women in that way. The level of compensation paid to them seems to have been extremely high, but it would not be right for me to query the right of a woman to take an action in court or the amount of the settlements, since those are beyond our control.
I recognise that this matter has given rise to offence in many quarters, especially as the compensation may have been seen by some as excessive-in the light of elements of compensation for people wounded in warfare or in action. Nevertheless, that has been the law.
Mr. Eric Martlew: It appears that the Minister is trying to mislead the House because, in answer to a written question which I tabled, he said that the average compensation was just over £5,000. That does not seem high to me.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman may be confusing the difference between the settlements which were arranged between the parties and those in which people took the passage of law through tribunals to the furthest possible extent. There are differences between awards made
1088
recently by certain tribunals and cases in which women, who were quite within their rights, negotiated with the forces, which regard themselves as responsible employers, and reached what I regard as sensible settlements. It is a finite matter. As I said, the employment practices changed in August 1990, so we should see an eventual end to such cases.
Those matters are peripheral to the main impact of the work of men and women in our forces. Women in the Navy are contributing at every level. Not a single hon. Member could visit a Royal Navy ship and, standing on the bridge, fail to recognise the contribution that women are making to the Royal Navy. The amalgamation of the Wrens into the Royal Navy allows women no longer to be subject to any discrimination over rank. I would not mind seeing—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) may regret the day—a woman admiral in the Royal Navy. I would not mind a woman driving a ship.
Mr. Ottaway: That would be perfectly acceptable to me if it were an all-Wren ship.
Mr. Hanley: I am sure that my hon. Friend would love to serve on such a ship. But there is no need for all-Wren or all-male ships. Men and women work extremely well together. There are only some areas in which women cannot serve, such as on minesweepers, where the accommodation is far too small, and in submarines, which were not built to allow separation for the purposes of privacy. Times have changed since my hon. Friend served on HMS Eagle. His service was not only gallant but long,and I look forward to his advice in future—but on this subject he is on a losing wicket.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of women afloat, will he consider the possibility that the answers that he is given by serving officers and others in our armed services are conditioned by the feeling that perhaps their answers should be politically correct?
Mr. Hanley: I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend that I do not regard it as "politically correct" to open up the opportunity for the armed forces of this country to accept those who are talented and intelligent and want to serve, and to choose from 100 per cent. of the population rather than from less than 50 per cent. The opportunities afforded to women have shown that they can achieve the highest level of national life, and there is no reason why they cannot serve in the armed forces, where that is possible. There are certainly areas in which it is still impossible for women to serve. We understand that, but the number of such areas is falling dramatically.
We have a woman monarch, and we have had a woman Prime Minister and a woman lord mayor of London. I see no reason why we cannot have—[HON. MEMBERS: "And a woman Speaker."] And a woman Speaker, indeed. I must mention that. There is no reason why we cannot have a woman first sea lord in due course.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We have a woman Deputy Speaker as well, and she would like to see the Minister's face rather than his back.
Mr. Hanley: Actually, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were seeing my better side.
Indeed, we have a Deputy Speaker who is not only a woman, but a lady as well. I must mention your interest in

1089
the Royal Navy, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that, by convention, you are not allowed to make speeches in this place. Your interest in the Royal Navy over the years has been as great as that of any hon. Member—indeed, greater—and you have led several delegations to me in the interests of the Royal Navy. I hope that you do not mind if I break that confidence.
Mr. Donald Anderson: On that theme, getting back to basics, could not the Minister, on behalf of the Government Front Bench, say that some of his best friends are women?
Mr. Hanley: I do not think that I shall comment on that.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a serious point, now that we have discussed the roles that women have played in the life of the nation, one thing is missing from the list. When will Royal Navy ships be provided with woman-sized equipment? For instance, fire fighting suits are much too big and cumbersome for women to join firefighting teams and some of the shoring-up equipment is far too heavy for women to lift. Problems have been reported from the decks of many ships because of women's inability to lift the heavy loads and to take part in some of the ordinary team workings of the ship. Either some of the equipment will have to be made smaller and adapted for use by female sailors, or women will continue to be discriminated against on the mess decks of our ships. That serious problem was reported to me extensively during my time with the Navy last year.
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right; practical problems have been inherited from times past, and changes are being made. My hon. Friend mentioned firefighting suits. Not long ago I was on HMS Norfolk during a firefighting exercise, and women were taking a full part, wearing suits that fitted them perfectly.
Dr. John Reid: That was just for your visit.
Mr. Hanley: I do not think it was. In any event, I believe that those uniforms are available for all women serving in the Royal Navy. My hon. Friend made a good point about the fact that we must adapt to new circumstances. Obviously, there are certain tasks in which those who are not as physically strong as others will find themselves restricted, and we must continue to work on those areas. I hope that my hon. Friend does not feel that there is a general feeling of inadequacy surrounding women serving at sea. According to a recent survey, they seem to be serving extremely well, and more and more men serving at sea welcome both their presence and their ability.
Mr. Devlin: I am sorry to press the point, but it is important. We should have discrimination on grounds not of sex but of size and strength, just as there are restrictions on who can join the firefighting service in civilian life. Women who cannot lift certain loads, are not of a certain size and cannot perform certain tasks are not allowed into the civilian firefighting service, so why are they allowed to go to sea when they are patently not able to do the job?
Mr. Hanley: Women will go to sea if they can do the job. I assure my hon. Friend that we take into careful and serious consideration the ability of people, whatever size they are, to use the equipment safely for the purpose for
1090
which it is intended. It would be wrong to require a person of diminutive stature to take on a task that he or she could not safely do, whether on board ship or anywhere else.
Dr. Reid: Male or female.
Mr. Hanley: Indeed, male or female.
In introducing the debate I have covered a wide range of activities both at home and abroad—
Mr. Michael Colvin: I was waiting until my hon. Friend's peroration to hear whether, although this is a debate about the Royal Navy, he would make even passing references to the Merchant Navy. He mentioned the worldwide role which the Royal Navy plays, and he also mentioned the Falklands. He will recall that half the fleet that went to the Falklands consisted of ships taken up from trade.
I am sure that the Ministry of Defence will have considered the size of our merchant fleet, and what would happen in any future operation similar to the Falklands campaign—there are likely to be many of them from now on, in support of the United Nations or under a NATO banner. The Ministry must consider not only whether we have enough ships to take up from trade but whether, if those ships happen to be foreign ships under charter, we have enough British crews and officers in the Merchant Navy available to man them.
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I am glad that he has intervened, because it would be wrong not to mention the extremely valuable role played by the United Kingdom merchant fleet and the tasks that the courageous men and women serving in it carry out every year. I must agree with my hon. Friend that in the past decade there has been a significant decline in the British-flagged merchant fleet. The Ministry of Defence in conjunction with the Department of Transport, keeps a close watch on the numbers of strategic ships to ensure that its plans are capable of being carried out if—God forbid—another Falklands campaign were needed.
The reasons for the decline range from the worldwide slump in the fortunes of shipping registries to changes in trading and even, in some parts of the world, changes in fiscal policy. In recent years the rate of decline has slowed, but the decline seems set to continue, albeit at a much reduced rate. However, we are confident that we can still meet the need for ships and crews should it arise.
Finally, as I have already said, I have ranged widely in geographical terms, with good reason. Had I not done so, I could not have hoped to give any real impression of what the Royal Navy is doing. This is an annual debate, and it is therefore right that it should, in effect, be a catalogue of what the Royal Navy has achieved over the past 12 months, not only in defence of this country but through its personnel in their role as diplomats extraordinary as they travel the world. It is also important that we as a Government do as much as we can to ensure that the senior service remains one of the most capable and effective navies in the world. I know that I take the whole House with me when I say how proud we are of our Royal Navy.
4.59 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: On behalf of the Opposition, I am pleased fully to endorse what the Minister said about the Normandy landings and D-day, which I suppose in defence-speak today would be called a

1091
wonderful example of amphibiosity. That is one of the many new words that the Ministry of Defence has coined, rather like "downsizing", which reminds me of London Underground saying that fares will be "revised" when it means increased.
Clearly, Labour Members share wholly with the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House pride in our Royal Navy, admiration for the skill and expertise of the men and women in the Navy and confidence in their ability to respond to a changing world as the kaleidoscope of international events makes such changes necessary.
Although few hon. Members have direct knowledge of life in the Navy—the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is one such example, but perhaps a bad example because his views on women may derive from an earlier age—there is considerable expertise, especially among members of the Select Committee, whose reports are always widely respected and eagerly awaited. Undoubtedly, that expertise will be displayed tonight.
The main focus of our debate will be partially overshadowed by the grave developments in Bosnia. It is appropriate to put on record our position on Bosnia, where the Royal Navy is mightily involved. First, we regret that there has been no statement today on the Government's response to the key new development—the United Nations request for more troops. Secondly, the Opposition have maintained an unwavering record of support for the deployment of British forces to assist the humanitarian effort in Bosnia.
Over the past days, thanks to the negotiating skills, determination and courage of our British United Nations general, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose, and the forces under his command, a ceasefire has been in operation in Sarajevo. General Rose has called for an additional 3,000 troops to help him to enforce that ceasefire. Certainly, we believe that the United Kingdom should contribute to those forces.
The Government's response, which was announced this afternoon, is welcome so far as it goes. It amounts to the redeployment of two companies of Coldstream Guards from Vitez—although that begs the question about the consequential effect on the situation in Vitez. The response also involves the additional deployment of 60 new troops who are specialists in mortar location.
General Rose specifically asked for an additional battalion, but that United Nations request has been refused by the Government. His aim was to avoid possible military escalation, particularly a necessity for air strikes when the deadline expires on Sunday evening. His request was the result of an assessment of need. There is still time for an adequate response, and we hope that the Minister will give an assurance that we will use the time before Sunday's deadline to pressurise our allies, including the United States, for additional contributions.
Mr. Colvin: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to correct one misunderstanding that prevails at present? Although General Rose is British, he is not the British Commander, he is a NATO-United Nations commander. Some 7,600 troops from other United Nations and NATO partners are ready to be deployed in Bosnia. It is time that other countries did more to take part in this operation, rather than leaving it to the British and French.
Mr. Anderson: Certainly, the British and French contributions are substantial. I can confirm that, although General Rose is a British national, he is acting as the United Nations commander in Bosnia. We should view his assessment of the need with great respect. History will judge us badly if, because of our over-cautious response now, there is an escalation of warfare in Bosnia and the window of opportunity afforded by the ceasefire is lost. That is as much as I wish to say about Bosnia.
To obtain a clear idea of the scale of the recent changes, which have fundamentally altered the role of our Royal Navy, I invite my parliamentary colleagues to read the three previous debates on the Royal Navy, especially the debate held four years ago this month in February 1990. That shows exactly how the world has changed over the past four years.
In February 1990, the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), the Under-Secretary at the time, opened the debate. His speech referred inter alia to President Gorbachev's policy of perestroika, the fact that HMS Achilles had visited Rostock in East Germany, the submarine capability of the Soviet Union and its ability to mount a surprise attack against the NATO countries in Europe. He said that the Soviet Union was continuing to invest heavily in modernising its armed forces. He gave as the Royal Navy's primary NATO role its anti-submarine warfare capability. He said that the primary potential threat remained that posed by the Soviet submarine fleet.
Today, we are in a different world. However, there is one aspect of that speech four years ago that I invite hon. Members to hear. The Under-Secretary said:
"Our force of destroyers and frigates stands at 48 vessels, of which 44 are available for operations immediately or within a short period. We remain committed to a force of about 50 and we plan to order sufficient ships to meet that commitment."—[Official Report, 5 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 657.]
Since then, as we say in this House, an amendment has been tabled. There is a United States saying that a promise is something to run on, not to stand on.
The current figure for frigates and destroyers is about 35. We must add to that the current defence share of gross domestic product of 3·7 per cent.—in 1984–85, it was 5·3 per cent. It has been projected by the Treasury that it will fall to 3·24 per cent. in 1995–96, and by defence experts that it will fall to 2·9 per cent. by 1999–2000. That is a sign of the financial pressures facing the forces as a whole.
Mr. Hanley: I seem to remember that, at the Labour party conference in October, some 79·9 per cent. of members voted—I believe that that makes it official party policy—to reduce the defence expenditure of the United Kingdom to the European average, which is about 2·4 per cent. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is saying that, whatever the pressures on our defence budget and, indeed, whatever the reassessment caused by the changing world order and the fact that we do not have anyone threatening to attack our shores any more, the Labour party would do even more to reduce our defence expenditure and, therefore, run riot with defence industries, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.
Mr. Anderson: I was expecting that intervention. I assume that it will be followed by a question as to whether I was ever a member of the CND.
Clearly, we need to look not at conference resolutions but at the Labour party's manifesto at the last election,

1093
which I happen to have with me. In that manifesto—£I hope that the Minister will regard this with the same care as he reads conference resolutions—we said:
"We will provide whatever resources are needed for effective defence for our country, providing the necessary level of forces with the appropriate equipment and weapons."
We do not need to consider Government resolutions as we can consider their actions. Their figures are Treasury-led and not strategy-led and have fallen rapidly.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): As a keen observer of Labour party conferences, I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with his cavalier and dismissive words about conference resolutions. Will he confirm that conference resolutions that are passed by a majority of two thirds or more are binding on the Labour party? In the example mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister, the resolution to reduce our defence spending by one third—equivalent to wiping out spending on the navy—was passed by a 79 per cent. majority.
Mr. Anderson: I confirm that Labour policy is that which appears in its election manifesto. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is eagerly awaiting the manifesto that will win the Labour party the election in three years' time. Our actions in response to that manifesto will be more credible and honest than the Government's actions, as I showed when I compared the Government's promises four years ago and the actuality today.
Mr. Colvin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman has had one go and I suspect that his intervention will follow in the vein of other rather silly interventions.
Mr. Colvin: I was going to say that the Liberals are not here.
Mr. Anderson: The Liberals could speak for themselves if they were here.
The key complications in the Royal Navy are the long research and development times and the expected length of service of new ships. A good example of that problem is the history of the Upholder class submarine, the design contract for which was placed in May 1980. In November 1983, the build contract for the first of class was placed with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. The contracts for the remaining three boats were placed in 1986. Hon. Members will know of the history of cost overruns, but all four boats did finally, and very recently, go into service.
The "Options for Change" White Paper, which appeared in July 1990, stated that only four boats would be built in that class, yet in July last year the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" announced that the Ministry of Defence decided to withdraw Upholders from service by 1995 and were taking steps to dispose of them, after a total spend of £910 million, claiming that there would be savings in running costs of £25 million to £30 million per annum.
In a note for the Public Accounts Committee in October last year, the MOD claimed that a number of potential markets for the Upholder class boats had been identified. Last month, however, a Ministry source was quoted as saying that no country had come forward with a realistic offer and that, when taken out of the service next year, the four boats would "rust away". Will the Minister confirm
1094
that there is no realistic prospect of orders, that almost £1 billion has effectively been wasted and that total savings in running costs amount to £25 million to £30 million per annum?
It is clear that the financial reasons that led to the Upholder decision last year were regretted by many people in the Royal Navy. They recognised its role in the training of captains and crew who go on to larger vessels and with our special forces. They also believe that it would be more likely to be used in the future operations that we envisage.
There is clearly a close correlation between morale in the Navy and the retention of such vessels. I am reliably informed that the premature voluntary retirement rate shot up among Upholder personnel immediately after the decision was announced. The Upholder decision and other examples of cost cutting, such as the helicopter carrier, should encourage a little caution and humility among Conservative Members who demand to know how much we would spend on defence and our priorities. They expect us to produce fully worked-out operational plans three years before we take power and when we are consistently denied access to data because of the unnecessary and foolish cult of secrecy in the MOD.
Mr. Hanley: Things have never been more open.
Mr. Anderson: I refer the Minister to the fact the Opposition Front-Bench team has still not been provided with a copy of the semi-public speech on the RAF by Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon to an audience that included a number of Conservative Members. We have sought to obtain a copy of that speech, but without success.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the speech was made at a private function. It is therefore not available for the Government to issue it. On openness, last year's Government White Paper set out its proposals in more detail than ever before—some people, including members of the Labour party's Front-Bench team, said that they were surprised by the openness of the document and the extra details that it contained. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot say that we are not open with our information. Will he confirm that this very week he and his Front-Bench team were afforded a full briefing on the Army? That briefing was one of a series that demonstrates the openness of which the MOD and the Government are proud.
Mr. Anderson: Of course we welcome the briefing:
"And e'en the ranks of Tuscany
Could scarce forbear to cheer."
It marked a welcome breakthrough. I repeat, however, that the air chief marshal's speech was made to a semi-public body and that when we asked for a copy of that speech, we were referred to the office of the Secretary of State for Defence. We have still not been supplied with one.
The Minister mentioned the new openness. Will he assure the House that the interim reports and the final report on the "Front Line First" study will be made available to the House? What impact will that study have on long-term costings?
There is a substantial contrast between the Government's rhetoric and the reality. That contrast is the reason why many people in the defence community are disillusioned with the Government and the reason for the recent MORI finding that, on defence matters, the public trust Labour more than the Conservatives. That is a matter of record.

1095
Clearly, the changes in the security context have led to pressures for changes in NATO and to a rethink on defence priorities in all countries, not least the United Kingdom. The "Options for Change" statement of July 1990 has been further refined, if that is the word, in the light of Treasury pressures. NATO is in a transition phase. It is instructive to read the Brussels summit communiqué of January this year, which placed a new emphasis on the build-up of the European pillar in defence—the European defence identity and the common foreign and security policy outlined in the Maastricht treaty.
Increasingly, the United States is reassessing its role in Europe, prompted by a number of pressures, not least financial. For example, on the 7 February of this year, President Clinton presented his 1995 budget to Congress. It amounted to a strategy of global withdrawal and a major reduction in the defence share of Government expenditure. In the United States, the share of gross domestic product that is allocated to defence will fall to 13 per cent. by 1999—a third of the share during the cold war and the lowest share since the isolationist 1930s. In the 1990s, the share amounted to as much as 40 per cent. of the federal budget. Britain and Europe must respond to changed United States policy perceptions.
Those who claim that the special relationship continues do so with much less credibility. They are not helped by the Conservative party's assistance to the Bush candidacy during the last presidential campaign, which posed major problems for our embassy in Washington because the Washington bureaucracy is so highly politicised. Despite having a remarkably expert ambassador in Sir Robin Renwick, we face a wall of problems as a result of the Conservative party's foolish partisan intervention in the campaign. I remind Government Members that the United Kingdom's concession last week to the allies over air strikes in Bosnia arose in part because of the fear that inaction would excite the pressures of isolationists within the United States.
The link between our defence policy overall and European Union developments is as yet uncertain, but the trend is likely to be an increased United States disengagement, coupled with a strengthening of European Union cohesion.
The Royal Navy is vitally affected by our perception of the changes in the nature of the threat, and our response to that threat. The old and clear role of anti-submarine warfare in the gap between Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom has now gone, and a new role is being worked out with a much wider definition of security. The United States marine corps White Papers have spoken of a change
"from a focus on global threat to a focus on regional challenges".
A United States naval strategist has talked of new threats from
"zealots, crazies, drug runners and terrorists"
while another warns of
"the growing wealth of petro-nations—available to bullies and crazies".
It is instructive to see the Government's response in that context. The Government have argued that the "Options" statement was "strategy-led, not resource-disciplined", but virtually everyone outside the ranks of Ministers accepts that it is resource-led and strategy-disciplined. That makes it essentially a cost-cutting exercise.
1096
The versatility of the Navy is vital for poise over the horizon and inshore for political and military objectives. There is the flexibility of deployment without the necessity of support from the countries involved. For example, Harriers can go up in any weather, and carriers can travel 400 miles in 24 hours. There is an increasing role for the Navy in support of the civil powers, such as in disasters, drug matters and the defence of small states. That is a particular Commonwealth role, and one thinks of Grenada and the debate over the defence of micro-states within the Commonwealth. That debate began in the 1980s and, alas, has not reached a conclusion.
Clearly, the Royal Navy has special advantages in the new circumstances because of its versatility. At the time of the Falklands crisis, SSN craft were the first to the area, and one SSN spent over 100 days unsupported at sea.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) mentioned that there is a widespread distribution of submarines nowadays. There are 376 conventional submarines in 44 countries around the world, 222 of which belong to 30 third-world countries. More than 3,000 advanced Exocets have been obtained by 29 countries.
How has the Royal Navy been able to move from the old to the new? Are the resources available? Hon. Members will know the three "defence roles" set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993" and I shall not repeat them. The total force elements which were assigned to various defence roles were set out clearly, and it is accepted by the Government that there is much double counting.
The total of the fleet remains at four ballistic missile nuclear submarines or SSBNs, 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines or SSNs, three carriers, 35 destroyers and frigates, eight amphibious ships, 25 mine counter-measures vessels, or MCMV, and 16 Royal Fleet Auxiliaries.
The Government will be aware that there are major concerns within the defence community about fitting the forces to the defence roles. Those concerns include our amphibious capability, where there is a shortfall which makes it vital to proceed with work on the two landing platform docks to replace Fearless and Intrepid. The helicopter carrier decision was much welcomed.
As far as aircraft carriers are concerned, the follow-on to the three carriers which require replacement between 2009 and 2016 must be considered. That is roughly the same time as the Sea Harrier is due to be replaced, but nothing is as yet planned.
Since there is no prospect of our ordering big carriers, we may eventually have to convert to helicopter carriers. No other aircraft will be available, unless the next generation of Sea Harriers is ready by that time. The European fighter aircraft cannot fit on to our small carriers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are considering the next generation of Sea Harriers in their long-term costings?
I will just say in passing that France has similar problems in relation to its carrier fleet. France has two major, but aging, carriers—the Clemenceau and the Foch, which came into service in the early 1960s. There was a cry of anguish in the early February issue of Cols Bleus from Admiral Coatane, the French chief of naval staff, who regretted the many delays in the Charles de Gaulle. Admiral Coatane hoped that a second carrier would enter into service some years after. It was anticipated that the

1097
Charles de Gaulle nuclear carrier would be completed five years ago, but France is now saying that it will be completed—at the very earliest—in 1999.
It is sad that France has such a nationalist procurement policy. The Sea Harrier was appropriate for the French carriers, but it was not ordered. France is, of course, ordering the Rafale for the nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle.
The "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993" suggested that only 24 destroyers and frigates would be required for fully active service, while other ship numbers will be at a reduced level. Is it the intention of the Government to withdraw the type 22 frigates speedily? Clearly, the lower complement of the type 23–175 crew, as against 250 on the type 22—is important.
Will the new type 23 be ordered at the expense of the common new generation frigates being jointly developed by the United Kingdom, France and Italy? One assumes that such joint procurement of expensive projects will be increasingly necessary. Yarrow claims that further delays in the common new generation frigates could mean the United Kingdom losing its present frigate-designing skills. I understand that the two United Kingdom consortiums involved—Yarrow and Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.—still have not heard which has been awarded the contract, whereas the key manufacturers in the other participating countries have been selected.
It would be helpful to know the current state of thinking of the Royal Navy on joining in the developments of the conventionally armed stand-off missile, or CASOM, which has a range of over 1,000 km. That would be a major increment in the power-projection of Royal Navy frigates.
As to nuclear-powered attack submarines, or SSNs, is there a clear commitment to begin the construction of the first batch 2T class submarines at Barrow when the Trident vessels are completed? As always in industrial matters, we need to retain our expertise. Trident has now been given a sub-strategic role, following the Secretary of State's announcement on 4 October last year during the House's debate on the defence estimates for 1993. That sub-strategic role has caused concern by doubling the number of potential nuclear warheads to 96 on each Trident submarine from 48 on each Polaris. In our judgment, warheads, not explosive power, are the key factor. That role is also a blow to those who seek to discourage nuclear proliferation. It is clearly an unfortunate signal to countries that are developing their own nuclear capacity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will say more about mine counter-measures vessels. There is clearly an urgent need to order the next batch of Sandowns, which are very much valued in multi-national operations. I shall dwell a little on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary—the point raised by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). It is necessary to use ships taken up from trade to supplement the existing tankers and replenishment ships to meet the total requirement under defence role 2. There is much scepticism in defence circles about the number of seamen listed in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993", because the figures given were swollen by including foreign seamen in British ships and even trainees still at school.
I refer the Minister to the excellent report by the House of Commons Employment Select Committee entitled "The Future of Maritime Skills and Employment in the United
1098
Kingdom", which was published on 2 November last year. It shows an alarming decline in seamen and ships arising in particular from a lack of Government support for the industry. I refer the Minister to the fifth and 10th recommendations in that report, which are very pertinent to the capacity of the Navy to respond in emergencies.
I remind the Minister that, during the Gulf war, the Government were required to charter ships at exorbitant rates. They chartered 127 foreign flag vessels at a cost of £180 million. The peace-time equivalent cost was estimated at £85 million. The key question is whether the Government recognise the need for a core fleet of militarily useful merchant vessels. If so, are they prepared to give fiscal and other incentives to achieve that before it is too late? The position will certainly have deteriorated even since the report of the Select Committee was published in November last year.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I ask this question in support of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Is it not also the case that the recently retired First Sea Lord has spelt out clearly in a meeting of the parliamentary maritime group his real anxieties on the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises? I find it difficult to accept the view of Government Front-Bench Members that all is well and there is not a problem.
Mr. Anderson: Government Front-Bench Members continue to repeat that all is well as our merchant marine sinks beyond the horizon. We must treat with considerable respect the views of people with such long experience as the former First Sea Lord. I urge the Government to take the problem seriously and ask themselves whether we in Britain need a core merchant capacity and, if so, what we are prepared to do about it.
It is clear that ship ordering has vital industrial and regional consequences. I need cite only two examples. One is the success of Vickers in bidding over Swan Hunter for the construction work, valued at £211 million, for the helicopter carrier. That led to the collapse of Swan Hunter and the loss of thousands of jobs on Tyneside.
The second example is the contest between the two royal dockyards, Rosyth and Devonport, which led to the £5 billion Trident refit contract being awarded to Devonport and the consequent pledge by the Secretary of State that Rosyth, by way of compensation, would be guaranteed refitting work on more than half the fleet for 12 years.
The Minister will be aware that fears are now widespread that the Government could be forced to reverse that decision because the Treasury has demanded even greater cuts. The results of the defence costs study, which I understand will be completed towards the end of next month but published in April or May, are awaited with great trepidation in Rosyth, which employs 3,700 people. There is great anxiety that the pledge given only last November will not be met.
It is said that the cuts envisaged in the defence costs study will go well beyond those envisaged in "Options for Change". The Treasury has given officials the target of saving £750 million in each year from 1996–97. Is it still considered feasible to maintain two yards with the reduction of the destroyer-frigate force to 35?
As for naval helicopters, the Government are presumably watching with some concern the hostile takeover bid by GKN for the Westland group, made on

1099
8 February. It is claimed that British Aerospace, which had an interest in Westland, an independent producer, at an earlier stage, was warned off by the Ministry of Defence.
Perhaps the Minister could comment on that and on what role, if any, the Government are playing. It is certain that helicopters will play an increasing role in the regional warfare of the future, in which equipment for rapid response is needed. The highly versatile EH101 Merlin will obviously benefit the Royal Navy. That point was made earlier by the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).

I shall conclude by discussing some of the human factors in the Royal Navy. Our capacity as a naval power clearly depends on motivating our sailors at a time of reduction and restructuring in the new strategic context. If we compare Royal Navy pay scales for 1978 with those in 1994 in real terms, we see that, although salaries for the higher ranks have risen by between 15 and 18 per cent., the salaries for the lower ranks have decreased in real terms by 13·7 per cent.
There are other key anxieties about the conditions for the men and women in our Royal Navy. One is that the conditions of overstretch lead to personnel spending increasing time at sea away from families. The possibility of spending time ashore has been made more difficult by the Government's programme of contractorisation. Men previously expected to spend some time in jobs at home. Those jobs may no longer exist as a result of contractorisation.
The shore-sea ratio is of considerable importance to morale. It has regional variations. The danger is that, in the ideological pursuit of privatisation, the Government could harm our Navy. Similarly, "Front Line First" will involve a trade-off with morale as shore time is likely to be further limited not only as a result of contractorisation but as a result of the likely conclusions of the "Front Line First" study.
As for housing, the Royal Navy clearly was not consulted about the decision to sell off the stock of housing. The ensuing housing association would be the largest in Britain, with major problems in relations with local housing authorities, tenant participation in the giant authority that will emerge and management structure. It is clear that many of those problems have not been thought through. Again, the decision was motivated by a once-for-all saving of £500 million and a desire to avoid Treasury demand for further cuts.
Will the Minister ensure that the findings of the independent survey of the married quarters estate are published? What is he doing to ensure that cheap rented accommodation is available to service families who want it when they leave Ministry of Defence property? There was a helpful Rowntree report on that a year or so ago.
In conclusion, in spite of the reductions and changes over a short period, our officers, men and women in the Royal Navy remain remarkably cheerful and resilient. By a neat recasting of the defence needs and juggling within the categories, the Govenrment have given an appearance of producing a highly flexible and well-motivated force. The new military traits of mobility, flexibility and inter-operability in a highly uncertain world would make the tasks of our Royal Navy even more vital. Further cuts, which will undoubtedly be justified yet again on strategic
1100
grounds, as the shadow of the Treasury looms over the Ministry of Defence, will risk endangering the current state of morale and readiness of our forces.
Having read the speech on defence capabilities that the Secretary of State gave to the Centre for Defence Studies on Tuesday, I cannot help wondering how much the Government are clinging to an expensively structured role of anti-submarine warfare from an earlier period when there was a very different threat. Should there be more emphasis on power projection, with the anti-submarine capability being ancillary to that?
The Government's attempts to meet so many commitments are a means of avoiding choices between a continental or maritime future and between specialisation or collaboration with our allies. We may want to stay in the business of a major warfare capacity, but is there not a danger of us ending up with units that are too small for the tasks demanded of them? The time of choice is fast approaching as the cost of systems and commitments continue to rise and budget constraints become even more onerous.
How long will current plans last after "Options for Change" and the current review? Over the next six years we shall approach the time when, it is estimated, defence expenditure will be only 2·9 per cent. of gross domestic product. The moment of choice cannot be long delayed.
5.42 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I join my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in paying tribute to the Royal Navy, not only for what it did for us 50 years ago, but for the way in which this country's safety, independence and freedoms have been guaranteed for the past 500 years by the way in which the Navy has defended our shores and overseas interests. It would be a fundamental error for anyone to imagine that the importance of the Royal Navy is less today than it has been during the past 500 years.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the role played by the Royal Navy can be summarised in three categories. First, it represents our interests abroad, and looks after our trading interests and prestige abroad in peace time and in limited warfare. Secondly, it provides the naval contingent of any force that we give to the United Nations, the Western European Union or our allies if we are called upon to do so. Thirdly, and ultimately most importantly, it safeguards this country and its security in times of all-out war. I shall follow my hon. Friend the Minister of State in exploring the way in which the Royal Navy is able to fulfil those tasks, and its capability to do so properly.
I welcomed my hon. Friend's comments about the way in which our ships sail around the world and represent us. In Russia, South Africa, the far east and the West Indies, our ships represent us and show the white ensign in foreign ports. They enormously enhance this country's prestige and its ability to trade internationally.
I was puzzled by my hon. Friend's precise comments on the current and future role of our ships on the West Indian station. He rightly paid tribute to the way in which that ship has contributed to the anti-drug smuggling exercise and the way in which it has supported our troops, who, sadly, have now withdrawn from Belize. He mentioned the invaluable task that it has carried out in representing our interests in that part of the world.

1101
My hon. Friend said that the ship and its posting was under review. In almost the same breath he said that he thought it was extremely important that we should continue to have a ship in that part of the world. If that is true, I very much hope that it will not be necessary to review the position for long. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the debate, I look forward to an assurance from him that there is no plan to withdraw the West Indies guard ship.
During the last debate on the Navy I spoke of piracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, was less than sympathetic to the view that we should be able and prepared to play a role in defending the merchant fleet and shipping routes, particularly in the far east, against the dangers of piracy. I hope to receive a more positive response today.
There were 100 incidents of piracy and armed robbery in 1992, 80 per cent. of which were in far eastern waters and some of which involved British ships. I am sure that the House will recall the tragic and appalling murder of Captain Bashforth and his chief officer in December 1992, when their ship was boarded.
Such incidents cannot be allowed to continue, but they are growing in number and there is a substantial risk that they will spread. Indeed, such incidents are spreading—from the South China sea to the Hong Kong-Luzon-Hainan triangle. In 1993 there were several sophisticated attacks on ships in those waters when hand grenades and machine guns were used. It is a problem that Her Majesty's Government should take seriously. The Royal Navy should play a positive role in the Association of South-East Asian Nations to ensure that, in those waters, both our ships and those of other countries are safe.
The merchant fleet is vital to this country. The hon. Member for Swansea, East touched on its importance and capability, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin). Our capability to carry out, if necessary, another Falklands-style campaign was also mentioned. The Government have assured the House that they are confident that we would be able to do so by hiring foreign-flag ships if necessary. I, like the Select Committee and most of those in the Royal Navy to whom I have talked, do not share that confidence.
I know that Treasury Ministers have been asked by the British Chamber of Shipping—supported in high places—to undertake a specific test of our ability to run a Falklands-style campaign. They want a day to be picked at random during the coming year and an official exercise to be carried out to see whether there are ships available to enable us to carry out such an operation. I understand that that request has been turned down flat by Ministers.
I can think of only two reasons for the refusal. First, we can be assured that such ships are available, so the test is unnecessary. But I am afraid that I have seen no such proof and am deeply sceptical about the availability of such ships in some circumstances. The second reason could be that Ministers are frightened that such an exercise would show that we could not carry out a Falklands-style campaign. It would therefore be necessary for the Ministry of Defence to spend more money on, and give greater support to, the merchant fleet than it is currently prepared to do.
Mr. Ottaway: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has read General de la Billiere's book, "Storm Command" on the deployment of ships during the Gulf war. He said
1102
that about 146 ships were chartered to ship goods to the Gulf, of which only three flew the United Kingdom flag. That shows that 143 foreign vessels were chartered for that exercise. That shows that such ships are available.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend says that the ships are available. I could enter a prolonged debate on the circumstances in which they might not be available. Foreign-flag ships would not be available in two circumstances. First, they would not be available if the country where they are flagged out did not support the United Kingdom in the exercise being undertaken and would not permit its ships to be used. I think that India withdrew and refused its ships to be used for that reason.
Secondly, ships might not be available if their crews decided that they were not prepared to serve because of the high-risk nature of the operation. Neither the Falklands exercise nor the Gulf exercise was of very high risk to our ships—although, in the former case, we were extraordinarily lucky. Neither case contained such an element of risk that foreign crews refused to serve on safety grounds, but I can easily envisage different circumstances in which they might. Therefore, although the required number of ships exist, their availability must be called into question.
Mr. David Jamieson: Given the hon. Gentleman's experience of defence matters, he will be aware that much of the Falklands campaign was fought with a flotilla of ships, many of which were adapted at the Devonport dockyard in my constituency. Does he accept that such a campaign would no longer be possible because the rundown in the Devonport dockyard since the early 1980s means that we do not have the civilian expertise in the dockyard to carry it out?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I accept that it would now be substantially more difficult to find the expertise in British dockyards generally than it was 12 years ago because we have fewer dockyards and fewer dockyard workers. That is another aspect of our eroding defence capability that could lead to danger.
The most obvious and topical example of the support given to the United Nations is the current role of the Royal Navy in the Adriatic. The Defence Select Committee hopes to visit our forces in the Adriatic and in Croatia in a fortnight's time. I hope that the activities of certain members of the Opposition Front Bench will not prevent us from doing so and that the usual party system will re-establish itself so that my Labour colleagues on the Defence Select Committee can travel in a way that they are currently blocked from doing.
If we manage to make that trip, there is a great deal that we shall wish to see. It is important for the House that, at such critical times, the Defence Select Committee, in particular, manages to see exactly what is happening in the areas where our troops, sailors and airmen may find themselves in danger. I should regret it were we to be balked in our attempts to do so. I hope that we shall be able to reassure ourselves on two matters: first, on the command system; and, secondly, on the availability and suitability of the aircraft currently in that station on Ark Royal.
I welcome the Government's decision to order more FRS-2 standard Harriers, which are good all-purpose aircraft. I am not clear about how many currently on station are equipped with the Tiald equipment necessary for targeting and reconnaissance. I should welcome anything that my hon. Friend can tell me about that, and any

1103
reassurance that he can give me. Will the weapons on those aircraft and on Jaguar enable the Sea Harriers and Jaguars that we have available in the Gulf to play a full role in whatever may be necessary should the United Nations decide to carry out the air strikes that are currently threatened against the gun positions?
The House should also take account of the fact that the operations in the Adriatic have caused much difficulty in the Royal Navy in terms of the commitment of our available ships there and elsewhere. It is remarkable that half of the 14 type 22 frigates have already served there, and that half of the 12 T-42 destroyers have served there, at least one of them twice. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary has done magnificent service in the Adriatic and the Olwen has not been relieved since the Ark Royal group sailed there over a year ago.
Those details show the extent to which the Royal Navy is fully stretched, or possibly over-stretched, by our present commitments. When so many of our ships are involved in one task, it must eat into their availability to carry out the other tasks that I mentioned earlier, represent our interests across a broad front and appear round the world to show the presence of Great Britain and its interests.
Another aspect of the Adriatic operation that needs attention from the House, which the hon. Member for Swansea, East touched on, is the question of the Upholder submarine fleet. The Upholder submarine is admirably suited to operations in shallow seas. Diesel submarines are much better than nuclear submarines in shore, in operations used in covert landing, and in shadowing other submarines in shallow waters.
If we need any submarines in our present operations, we need the Upholder, yet that fleet is about to be scrapped, mothballed, or sold. It is new, extremely expensive and, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East said, we have been going ahead with it at great expense, even after the "Options for Change" proposals of 1990.
Mr. Donald Anderson: May I commend to the hon. Gentleman broadsheet 92 of the Royal Navy magazine, in which Lieutenant Commander Peter Hinchliffe, commanding officer of HMS Ursula, gives a great hymn of praise to the Upholders' capabilities? That would have been published in January 1993, shortly before the decision to abolish the class altogether.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Personally, however, I doubt whether the removal of the Upholder submarine from our armoury results from a change in strategic assessment. I fear that it is led by a shortage in the funds available to my hon. Friends, who have made a difficult decision which is hard to justify in defence terms. I hope that my hon. Friends will note the value of those boats and the use to which they can be put, and review their decision to lose Upholder. Even if that means that some other part of our defence capability must, sadly, be reviewed, we need to keep those boats and should certainly not allow them to be sold to foreign flags.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend comment on another aspect of that strange decision? Are not many countries enhancing their conventional submarine capability, not least the Iranians with the purchase of Soviet boats? Has not the United Kingdom traditionally been a strong exporter of submarines and submarine-related systems? Is
1104
it not poor economics for us to prejudice our position in that market and leave it increasingly open to our competitors, such as the Germans, French, Dutch and Swedes?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Those are all good and valid points. Indeed, I would go further on the purchase of submarines by other nations. Even more dangerous than Iran is the situation in Korea. Hon. Members will have noticed the growing interest expressed in the British press about what is happening in Korea and the growing public awareness of the grave danger that North Korea might be about to embark on another foolish exercise, such as it did in the early 1950s, and invade South Korea. It is not a paper threat but a real possibility.
North Korea has just bought a further 24 or more SSKs from the Russians and has an enormous submarine fleet. The Korean waters are shallow and ideally suited to diesel-driven submarines. Should North Korea invade South Korea, I have no doubt whatever—I have good grounds for saying so—that our American allies would look to us for support. I am not sure what support we would give them. I do not know whether the Government have assessed what we could or should give them in the event of being called on to produce something useful for our allies.
I suggest that the Upholder submarines and our mine-clearing vessels would be two ways in which we could enhance the United States' ability to resist a Korean invasion. Both those vessels would be admirably suited to a United Kingdom contribution to the war which I fear may come within the next two years.
I welcome the addition of the landing platform helicopter. That was quite a battle. It replaces Hermes, which we lost in 1983, so I regret that we have already gone for a long time without an LPH. I also regret that its capability has been cut from 800 to 500. In a good article, Colonel Southby-Tailour, an experienced marine officer, set out in graphic detail why that cut is deeply damaging. He pointed out that, although the new vessel is designed to carry 500 people in normal circumstances, it is intrinsic to its design that it will also have a 300 overstretch capability.
That means that 300 more men will be crammed on to a ship designed for 500 men. The conditions in which they would be expected to live, tough though marines are, would put them under grave pressure. They would not be able to inhabit the LPH for long sustained periods, in the Adriatic, for example, where we might want to put troops into a vessel and hold them in readiness offshore. Although the LPH will bring unwelcome restrictions in the numbers she can carry, I welcome her addition to the fleet.
I am worried by a rumour—I know not who started it—that, because we have the LPH, we may not have the full complement of three aircraft carriers, and that the first aircraft carrier to come out of service will not be replaced. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will reassure me that there is absolutely no foundation whatsoever in that rumour and that the LPH will be in addition to and not in substitution for an aircraft carrier, which carries out an entirely different purpose.
As many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, I shall summarise my remaining remarks. The ultimate role of the Royal Navy is to keep our seas open in times of war. Neither I nor the Select Committee believes that the fleet that we now operate is capable of carrying out that task or

1105
of playing its full role in a NATO attempt to carry out that task. I look with particular concern at the rundown in the number of SSNs and the fact that we now have only about 35 frigates, not all of which will be on station where they are needed should war break out.
It would be very foolish for the Government to assume that, because Mr. Yeltsin is sympathetic to the west, Russia is now safe and that there is no potential threat from Russia or the Russian Federation and a group of her allies against Britain or NATO in the near future.
Mr. Yeltsin is not safe and events in Bosnia make his position less safe. As violence in Bosnia escalates, Mr. Yeltsin will face increasing pressure from the Duma and from his Conservative opponents for co-operating with us and not supporting Serbia wholeheartedly. If we get what the Russians laughably call a Conservative Government, by which they mean a Communist reactionary Government, or a return to a socialist Government in Russia, it would not take very long for the Russian forces, notwithstanding the recent rundown, to be re-established.
There are now moves in Russia, even under Mr. Yeltsin, to reunite with the Crimea and Byelorussia. There are strong elements in Russia that want the Ukraine back as a single unit within the Russian Federation. If they achieve that and move into the Baltic states, we will face the core of the old Soviet Union, in so far as it represented power, very little diminished in size or strength as a result of that reamalgamation.
We must look to the long-term future with the possibility that we shall still need a strong, united NATO and a British contributory force in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force capable of carrying out a role in an all-out war against us. It is the finding of the Defence Select Committee that our Navy is not strong enough properly to fulfil such a role.
6.4 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). May I take the opportunity to congratulate the Defence Select Committee on its work and on many of the good reports that it has produced?
No doubt the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be pleased to know that I shall concentrate on "Front Line First", the fancy title of the defence costs study. Once again, the Royal Navy is experiencing the impact of a Treasury-led defence policy. As the Defence Select Committee said in its report on the Royal Navy published last September, we are still awaiting the publication of the future size and shape of the Royal Navy. While we wait, we see the fleet shrinking, along with support services and the civilian and naval personnel employed.
As the Defence Select Committee said, the Government's policy seems to be leading not to extended readiness but to diminished readiness. Rosyth naval base is certainly being diminished; it considers itself to be in the front line for the Treasury guns which are poised to blast it into complete non-existence. Hon. Members will not be surprised to know that I intend to concentrate my remarks on Rosyth naval base, although they also have a wider relevance.
I begin by emphasising why I believe Rosyth naval base is in the front line for closure; then I shall argue why Rosyth should continue as part of Britain's front-line capability.
1106
The first reason why Rosyth is lined up for closure is the reduction in the surface fleet. That affects the entire Royal Navy and concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about it. There are, of course, constant promises from Ministers about the replacement of that fleet, but a fog always descends when we try to pin Ministers down about the timetable, size and detail of that replacement.
According to the 1993 defence estimates, there were 29 vessels at Rosyth. Of those 29, three were engaged in trials or training, so 26 were active or within imminent capability. Today, there are only 11 active or ready vessels at Rosyth—hardly a secure number for a naval base.
The second reason why Rosyth's future seems insecure is the continuing effect of "Options for Change" which, back in 1991, nearly led to Rosyth's closure.
Rosyth has experienced a drastic loss of jobs as well as a reduction in the surface fleet. By 1995, it will have lost 1,100 civilian jobs and 2,900 service personnel. Most recently, there have been rumours about senior officers retiring and not being replaced.
Only this week I received another noticeboard letter from the Ministry of Defence. I do not know how other hon. Members feel, but when I pick up a letter from the noticeboard with the Ministry of Defence symbol on it, my heart sinks. It sank again when I opened the letter this week to find that yet another 155 staff from Rosyth naval base are to go between September 1994 and March 1995.
Of course, I am assured by the Minister that the further reduction has nothing to do with the "Front Line First" initiative. I believe that just as much as I believe that it is too early to speculate on the future of Rosyth naval base. We were given similar information back in 1990–91, when there was a clear Ministry of Defence memorandum stating the Government's intention to close down the naval base at Rosyth.
As well as the reduction in the surface fleet and the number of personnel, Rosyth has seen a reduction in its role and functions. It is now a base for minor war vessels. Much of the work carried out by those vessels now seems insecure—for example, fisheries protection. As hon. Members know, fisheries protection is provided through contract between the MOD and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. That contract ends next month. I have yet to hear anything about its renewal. Indeed, in a letter of November 1993, the Minister said that the current arrangements would be viewed in relation to the demands that they made on the defence budget.
I am sure that other hon. Members share my concerns about the wording. There is no guarantee that fishery protection work will continue to be carried out by the Royal Navy; we may see an end to it, as we have seen an end to what were once the regular patrols of offshore oil and gas installations.
A fourth reason why Rosyth thinks that it is in the front line and targeted for closure is the insecurity of other facilities nearby. Rosyth dockyard may have been promised allocated surface work, but the fleet reduction hardly makes that secure. Nor does the full-scale privatisation of the dockyard, which is, I believe, the Government distancing themselves from the future of Rosyth and Devonport dockyards. Also under threat is the national rescue co-ordination centre at Pitreavie, even though the decision to make it a national centre was announced only in July 1993—it is due to become fully operational at the end of this year.

1107
Rosyth and the people of Fife, and indeed, Scotland, have learnt from bitter experience not to trust any promises or protestations from the Government. I have already mentioned the attempted closure of Rosyth naval base in 1991. At first, it was stated that no closure was planned. Then it was stated that all naval bases were being treated equally. Then we were told that the Scottish Office would be part of that decision-making. It was a diary of deceit and deception. We are now hearing similar statements. Is it any wonder that the people of Fife do not believe them?
Allow me to bring hon. Members up to date with the events of the past month. On 19 January, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) met the Minister for Defence Procurement to discuss Rosyth dockyard and naval base. No mention was made of the review that was announced the next day by the naval base commander. Why did the Minister say nothing to us at that time? Will he also comment on the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), who, like his predecessor, is calling for the closure of the naval base?
The Minister is saying that all bases are being treated equally. We have evidence that that is no more the case now than it was three years ago. At Rosyth, there is a failure to get information to straight questions and answers; three studies are taking place, not just one; and a questionnaire is being circulated at the moment asking personnel where they would like to go if the base closes. We know full well that a number of people in powerful positions, including those on the naval board, see Rosyth as expendable; as first in the front line of fire. Let me fire back on behalf of Rosyth, and argue why it should remain part of our front-line capability.
The first reason is strategy. One of the three main objectives set out in the defence estimates 1993 is to
"Ensure the protection and security of the United Kingdom and our dependent territories, even where there is no major external threat."
Whatever else changes, Britain will remain an island nation with a coastline measuring 3,010 miles. It is argued that the loss of the only base on the north-east coast could seriously inhibit forward defence and rapid redeployment. It could go against the speed and protection of North sea interests and expose the seas around Norway. Rosyth's closure could also inhibit the protection of waters in the north Atlantic and the defence of convoys.
As hon. Members have already said, since the break-up of the Warsaw pact, arguably, we live in a more insecure and less predictable and less stable world. I listened this morning to the captain of HMS Ark Royal in the Adriatic, talking on the radio about its extended and constant readiness, waiting as the hours tick by for the news of whether it will be actively intervening in air strikes on Bosnia. There is no longer a nice neat line between us and them, between the enemies and the allies. The abandonment of Rosyth would leave the entire North sea coast, one side of the United Kingdom land triangle, exposed without a naval presence.
I shall now deal with the navy's peacetime role and mention again fishery protection, and along with it the anti-smuggling drug interdiction and environmental roles, which are played by the fleet. Rosyth provides an ideal and cost-effective training base for new commanders. It also provides invaluable assistance for an important Scottish industry—the fishing industry. I make particular mention
1108
of the Braer disaster off Shetland. While we all hope that that will never occur again, the fast forward reaction of the crews from Rosyth undoubtedly helped to control and contain the pollution, and saved lives in the horrendous conditions of a storm force 11. That speed and skill should not be lightly cast aside.
Like many other hon. Members, I believe that fishery protection and all that is associated with it provides an irreplaceable and invaluable training ground and should be maintained as a Navy function at Rosyth and elsewhere. Rosyth is within two hours of the training area for mine-sweepers—another point in its favour. The vessels maintain a United Kingdom presence in northern waters.
The closure of Rosyth would lead to the concentration of the United Kingdom's naval bases on less than 3 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total mainland coastline. There are strategic arguments against such a concentration. The closure of Rosyth would also lead to the costly loss of a centre of excellence for engineering, support and expertise, and mine-hunting navigational systems. For all those strategic reasons, Rosyth should be seen as part of our front line.
Recruitment and retention is another area in Rosyth's favour. Rosyth, Fife and Scotland have provided 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom's naval personnel. Its closure would lose a good number of people. It would lead to the loss of experienced men and to significant extra costs and duplication of facilities. There have been comments about morale being good. I can say to hon. Members that morale in the Rosyth area is at the depths; it is at rock bottom. It seems to me that no consideration is given by Ministers in the Ministry of Defence to the Navy's most precious asset—its people, who serve, who are loyal and are committed. I am thinking particularly of the people of Rosyth and the people of Scotland as a whole, who have served the defence of the realm over the centuries.
Let me quote not an admiral but a general—General Cromwell. He put it very plainly when he said:
"I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for and loves what he knows, than that which you call a 'gentleman' and is nothing else."
The men and women of Rosyth know what they fight for, and they have already made their commitment clear. Rosyth has saved the Ministry of Defence millions of pounds already; it is the most-studied naval base in the country, and it has proved its cost-effectiveness. Savings of 40 per cent. in overall running costs have been achieved since "Options for Change". Land sale receipts are bringing in more than the original estimates, and the commitment continues to increase savings each year.
I believe that the minor war vessels base at Rosyth is cost-efficient and cost-effective. Its closure would cost the Treasury more than it would save.
I need tell no hon. Member of the vital importance of such bases to the local economy. Indeed, during the last battle over Rosyth's future, the Prime Minister acknowledged Rosyth's importance to Fife's economy. In answer to a question, the Prime Minister said:
"No decision has been made to close Rosyth or any other naval base. We fully recognise the implications that closure would have for employment in the area. Those implications would be fully considered and examined before any such decision was taken."—[Official Report, 5 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 159.]
I hope that that is still the case. The role of the base in providing employment is even more vital following the job

1109
losses that have resulted, over the past three years, from the rundown of the base and the reduction of the dockyard. As hon. Members will know, those job losses will continue.
Even with the reductions that I have mentioned, 5,000 jobs are still related to the base; however, its closure would lead to a rise in unemployment to a rate of between 20 and 30 per cent. in an area that now has the highest unemployment level in Scotland. It would also dig a £96 million hole in the local economy. Service and civilian personnel spend a large portion of their money on local goods, services and businesses; 250 companies in Fife would lose business if the base closed—82 per cent. of them small businesses. Some would collapse, leading to a loss of revenue for the Government. Skills would also be lost—skills whose availability is a major attraction for possible alternative industries. Twenty-five per cent. of the work force at the base have been there for more than 20 years; they are not at all confident about finding new employment.
The Treasury is kidding itself if it thinks that closures of this kind will save money. If Rosyth is closed, the Treasury will incur costs in the form of unemployment and other benefits, and the loss of tax and national insurance revenue. If the amount per person is £9,000 a year, the Treasury will lose £45 million annually.
Let me ask the Minister some questions. Will the MOD release terms of reference for the studies of minor war vessel base porting that are being carried out at Rosyth, Plymouth and Portsmouth? What, to date, has been the cost to the Government of the task change at Rosyth, in terms of redundancies, associated costs for civilians and costs associated with the transfer of naval personnel? Can the MOD provide an update on the annual savings anticipated from the change in task, over five years? Will the Government confirm that the social and economic implications of changes at Rosyth will be taken fully into account now as they were in 1991? Does the Minister agree that Rosyth retains strategic importance as a minor war vessel base?
At the beginning of my speech, I referred to "Front Line First". I hope that I have explained why the people of Rosyth, Fife and Scotland as a whole feel that they are in the front line—being fired on. Since 1990, we have lived with uncertainty hanging over the naval base, the dockyard and now, again, the naval base. Rosyth has been plagued by rumour, counter-rumour, reversed decisions and broken promises.
We will not stand by and watch the closure of Scotland's only surface vessel base, and Britain's only north-east coast base. The people who are based at Rosyth have served the country for nearly a century: they, and the surrounding communities, are only too well aware of the power of the sea and the price that it demands, and they know what it means to be in the front line in times of both peace and war.
Let me end by reminding the Minister of Sir Winston Churchill's words on 11 October 1940. The circumstances were very different from those that we face today, but I think that his observations are very relevant to the development of a defence policy that deals with the reality—the fact that a maritime nation must be able to be in the front line in both peace and war. Sir Winston said:
"You may look at the map and see flags stuck in at different points and consider that the results will be certain, but when you get out on the sea with its vast distances, its storms and mists, and with night coming on, and all the uncertainties which exist, you
1110
cannot possibly expect that the kind of conditions which would be appropriate to the movements of armies have any applications to the haphazard conditions of war at sea."
6.27 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who chairs the Defence Select Committee so admirably, sensibly drew our attention to the grave concern that is felt about future developments in Russia and the need to preserve our overall NATO capability. His chairmanship of the Committee has done us a great service.
The end of the cold war has made the defence equation not less difficult, but much more difficult. There are obvious pressures to reduce spending. We can take some comfort from the fact that our reductions are less, in percentage terms, than the reductions in the budgets of our NATO allies, but it is clear to me that we live in a very unstable world.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on his excellent speech to King's college this week, when he set out admirably the realities of an unstable world of which conflict is sadly a continuing feature, and the certainty that there will be trouble somewhere in the future—trouble that will require our involvement. He set out cogently the need for the United Kingdom to maintain strong, well-balanced forces. I assure him that he will have very strong support from Conservative Members in his battles with the Treasury.
We may wish to have a larger Navy, but what we have is, I know, a strong, capable, well-manned and well-led force, retaining an all-round capability above, below and on the surface of the sea. With the end of the cold war, the number of ships has decreased, as has the size of the navies of all our allies. The target strength of the United States navy, obviously the largest navy in the western world, was 600 ships. That navy achieved 546 ships before the end of the cold war. It is now down to 373, and will soon be down to 346. It has halved the number of submarines and it is more than halving the number of surface escorts. Those figures for the United States include the equivalent of our Royal Fleet Auxiliaries.
We maintain a Royal Navy fleet, including RFAs, of more than 100 ships. That is a commendable contribution to the world naval scene.
When the trouble blew up in the Adriatic, the Navy—as always—responded instantly and effectively, in spite of having to maintain its other—commitments around the world. It was interesting to see a list of places where the crews of our ships spent Christmas day a few months ago. Apart from the numerous ships in the Mediterranean, there were vessels in Brazil, in the Falkland Islands, in the Gulf and in the far east. "Join the Navy and see the world" remains true today.
No praise can be too high for the men and women who serve on those ships and support them ashore, and for their leaders. They are professional, competent and loyal. Visiting one of our ships, one is immediately struck by the age of the crew—at least, someone of my age is struck by the age of the crew—which, I am told by captains, is now, on average, less than 21: officers are included in the calculation. It is amazing that a destroyer or a frigate in harm's way in the Gulf or the Mediterranean would have a crew with an average age of less than 21.
We are going through what seems to those crews to be a period of constant change in the Navy. We understood

1111
the reasons, but I would say to Ministers: let us have an end to reviews with the present "Front Line First". They inevitably bring worries about the effect on careers and we need a period of stability in the years ahead. Therefore, let "Front Line First" be the end and let us finally decide where we are going as a result of that review.
The Adriatic is very much in our thoughts. I was fortunate enough to go there recently and have a briefing at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation headquarters in Naples. It is a very successful operation under Admiral Mike Boorda, the American admiral commanding the southern flank of NATO. It is an exellent example of NATO and the Western European Union working together. There is joint tactical command of the ships at sea, which is working effectively. There is burden-sharing between the many nations that are supplying the ships for the blockade. About 30,000 merchant ships have been interrogated and about 500 have been directed to ports in Italy for examination. The blockade has been completely successful.
We also have in the region the carrier group led by HMS Ark Royal. Our thoughts on Tyneside are especially with Ark Royal and her sister carrier, as they were built at Swan Hunter on the Tyne. If there should be air action over Bosnia in the next few days, we know that the Fleet Air Arm from the Ark Royal will be ready to play a full and effective part.
The need for deployment in the Adriatic has again shown the value of the carrier. It is free from any problems of basing ashore. However, I must pay tribute to what I heard of the support given by the Italians to the operation in the Adriatic. They have given full support on the sea and in the air and have made available every possible facility to the United Nations forces. The carrier is nevertheless free from the problems of having to find a base—it carries its base with it in the RFAs. It makes possible a quick reaction and, interestingly, it can steam to avoid the bad weather that, at times, can close the shore bases from which the air forces operate.
I shall say a few words about the fleet train, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, of about 21 ships. Recently on one day, two were in the Falkland Islands, four were in the Adriatic—where they are playing a vital role—one was in the Gulf, one was in the West Indies and three were exercising with the Royal Marines. Without the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the warships could not operate as they do. They provide the Navy with endurance and flexibility. They are indispensible, but some are getting rather old. Indeed, some are becoming very old ladies.
There is a case for going ahead, in the near future, with some new auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels or something on those lines; perhaps somewhat simpler than the two that were added to the Navy in recent years, and perhaps something less suited for all-out war in the Atlantic, but suited for support of task forces in areas such as the Gulf or the Adriatic.
I shall now discuss the main surface warship fleet—the destroyers and frigates. It is a commendable feature of the fleet that the average age of our destroyers and frigates is now only 10 years. There never has been, in my time, such a low age for the escorts in the Navy. Indeed, it is the
1112
lowest figure since the first world war. It means that, as we take new ships into service, we will be paying off old ships at the age of perhaps only 15 years.
One can argue that, with such a modern fleet, we should stop ordering new ships, but I am sure that that would be a bad decision. I do not believe for a moment that it is the one that will be taken by the Government. New ships have the obvious advantage of the latest technology, but they also need smaller crews, they do, or should, need less maintenance and they should take less time to refit. As a result, they should be more available and provide better value for money for the taxpayers. There is a strong case, therefore, for continuing with a warship-building programme and I believe that that is the desire of the Government, even if it means that we shall pay off some escorts at a relatively early age.
As part of the programme that has been announced by the Government, there will be new mine counter-measures vessels, new submarines, more type 23 frigates and, at last, replacements for the landing ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, which is important for the Navy, the Royal Marines and, I hope, Tyneside.
On the horizon—not so far away, I hope—is Project Horizon, the joint NATO frigate, of which we are supposed to buy 12, the French four and the Italians four. The people in British industry expect that the sharing of the work will be equated to the number of ships being ordered by each of the three countries. There is nothing, at present, to lead one to suppose that that will not be the case, but it is a factor which needs to be watched.
It is essential that we maintain our shipbuilding capacity. We must bear in mind—returning again to the wise remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster—the fact that we need to maintain the capacity to regenerate if things go wrong on a massive scale. One cannot build a shipyard overnight. There is a case for maintaining a capacity for future expansion if necessary. At the same time, the more yards there are, the better will be the competition and, presumably, the value for money for the orders that are placed by the Government.
I know that the House would expect me to mention the sad case of Swan Hunter, which collapsed shortly after the previous Navy debate. The Government were justified in their decision to have the three frigates being built there completed. It was interesting that, at the time, the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State assured me that they had not approached any other yard to have that work done, and they had rejected the approaches made to them by other yards keen to take over the work of completing those frigates.
That decision to support Swan Hunter has been fully justified. HMS Westminster sailed on time, built to the highest possible standards, and I believe on or below the target cost. Work on the other two frigates is progressing well and the Navy remains, as always, a satisfied customer of Swan Hunter. Ministers also sent to the yard the work of completing the Fort George, after her trials.
The highest tribute is due to the work force at Swan Hunter for the way in which they have continued to perform magnificently under the most distressing of circumstances, with half their colleagues losing their jobs around them. The labour force there is a great asset, and potential buyers must value it highly.
The Government fought hard and successfully—an uphill battle, as I know from my experiences of visiting the Commission in Brussels—to obtain intervention funding

1113
for merchant shipbuilding at Swan Hunter. The door was very nearly shut at the start of the battle. The battle raged for months and was eventually won by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry. That will enable Swan Hunter to compete in the merchant navy market, and intervention funding of up to £7 million is available for that.
An interesting feature in the argument that eventually prevailed in the face of great opposition from Brussels was the fact that the Government pointed out the special facilities at Swan Hunter. If they were not to be available, they would have to be replicated elsewhere to provide the Navy with all the ships that it will need in the future. I am thinking especially of the eventual replacements for Ark Royal and her sister aircraft carriers.
There is still hope for Swan Hunter. This morning, I had discussions with a potential buyer and, in a few days' time, I shall meet another. The media are obviously extremely interested, but, as I have said to them, negotiations are best conducted in private, not in the glare of media coverage.
Significant naval orders are to be placed in the next few years, but the potential buyers recognise the facts of life. They know that to keep the yard going by relying on Royal Navy orders paid for by the taxpayer is not realistic. There must be additional work, which will have to be in the form of exports.
If the yard is to have a future, it must have a new owner. It is in the interests of the Government that the yard should have a future so that competition can be maximised in orders for the Navy. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has agreed to allow Swan's to tender for new work, subject to the backing of a new owner. Tenders are being submitted for some work which could be vital to the future of Swan's.
Swan's has retained its design team. I pay tribute to Lloyd's bank, which has done all that it can to help, and to the receiver and his team who have done an excellent job in difficult circumstances. They have slimmed down the yard's overheads and made a yard that was very efficient in terms of the quality of its products much more efficient in terms of a reduction in its costs. It is now a very different Swan's from that of a year ago and it must surely be in the interests of the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the lean, efficient Swan's survives as a traditional centre of marine excellence, providing effective competition for future orders for the Royal Navy and better value for the taxpayer.
6.41 pm
Mr. David Jamieson: I am pleased to participate in the debate and, in particular, to be able to add my voice to those who have praised the excellent service men and women who serve in our Navy and in the armed forces and on whom the defence of our nation depends. I note, however, that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, the voices of Conservative Members are sometimes belied by their actions.
This week, I received some information from the Library about the monetary rewards given to our service men and women. A service man who had been a commodore between 1978 and 1994 would have received a pay increase of 18 per cent. in real terms. An able seaman in the same period would have received a 13·7 per cent. decrease in pay in real terms. I hope that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have something to say
1114
about that. I also trust that he has a sharp pencil, because I have a number of questions that I should like him to answer; I am sure that he will.
I shall focus on some issues relating to defence and the Navy which have sometimes been neglected, not intentionally but because they have been swamped by others. Last year, I spoke a great deal about the royal naval dockyard in Plymouth and my concerns about the Trident contract and, since then, I have spoken about the surface fleet repair orders.
Tonight, I should like to focus on two different matters, one of which is the gradual withdrawal of the Navy from Plymouth and the south-west and the "downsizing", as I believe it was called earlier, of the Navy in our area and the effect on the local economy. I shall also say a few words about some important issues affecting royal naval personnel and their families.
Having examined the records of debates over the years, it is clear that such issues have not had an airing in the House, so I shall take this opportunity to correct that. Before I do so, however, I cannot avoid mentioning the royal dockyard at Devonport and I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be surprised if I did not.
Last year, I welcomed the fact that the Trident refit contract went to Devonport. I know that it has been very difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) who last year fought extremely hard on behalf of her constituents and her dockyard and who put up an excellent fight last year. She has made an excellent case again tonight. I know how difficult it has been for her and I am aware of the many problems in her part of the country.
The Minister will know, however, that things are not altogether rosy in Devonport, because since it was announced that Devonport had won the contract, we, too, have suffered substantial job losses. Most of the Trident work will not flow to Devonport until the end of the century, about 1998. Can the Minister guarantee that there will be sufficient surface work to sustain the dockyard in the meantime, so that, when 1998 comes, the yard is able to carry out the work on the Trident submarines?
I deal now with the privatisation of the dockyards. People who work in the dockyard and people who live in Plymouth have a number of questions. What is the timetable for privatisation? Will the Minister say something about his inner thoughts on this important matter? I shall not rehearse all the arguments about privatisation—that can properly be done in another forum—but a number of questions need to be answered, especially in view of the developments in the last week or so involving Rover.
Rover was privatised five years ago and taken over by British Aerospace. It has now been taken over by BMW. Is it possible that Devonport could be taken over by BMW or some other foreign company? Could such a company have Arab involvement? Could it contain potential enemies who happened to be large investors? The Government had no scruples about selling arms to Iraq, which is why I am seeking reassurance about that matter.
The Devonport dockyard is of vital strategic importance to the Royal Navy and to the defence of our country. If it is privatised, will it be another vital facility about which the Government will say, "It is nothing to do with us," as they have about the Rover deal? After privatisation, what device will the Government use to ensure that the dockyard continues in British ownership and that British interests are served?

1115
I now raise a matter that is very important in Plymouth and that will be very important in other dockyards and facilities around the country. At the moment, the dockyard is called "Her Majesty's royal dockyard". Will it continue to be called that after privatisation? It is an important issue in terms of the defence of the nation, my constituents' jobs and the prestige of the city of Plymouth.
I have said many times that Plymouth is highly dependent on the Navy and that the Navy is highly dependent on Plymouth. Our record goes back 300 years with the Navy and with the men and women who have serviced its ships during that time. We have a proud history. There have been many changes over the years—we accept that and know the reasons behind them—but the fundamental changes that are taking place now are having a major effect on the economy of our city.
I question the quality of planning by the Navy and the Ministry of Defence and I wonder what sort of co-ordination there is between those dealing with strategic planning and those responsible for financial management. Some important issues need to be addressed about the good use of taxpayers' money; that was mentioned by the Minister when he opened the debate. All too often, we find that millions of pounds are spent on establishments in Plymouth and the south-west that are due to close.
For example, the Royal Navy engineering college at Manadon in my constituency, which is due to close in July 1995, has had maintenance and refurbishment of its buildings totalling £2·8 million in the past two years. How can one justify such expenditure on an establishment that is about to close? It is interesting that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave me an answer in Hansard and had to write to me two days later to correct it because he was a few million pounds out. It demonstrates the level of chaos in Ministry of Defence planning.
Even today, I have heard that a contract has been awarded to a builder for the royal naval depot at Coypool in Plymouth. I welcome it because it will bring employment for building workers in my area, but we know that the Royal Marines have been considering moving from Coypool and Seaton barracks because they have been to Chivenor to see whether it is a more appropriate place for them.
Is there a proper relationship between the strategic and the financial planning for those establishments? Millions of pounds are being spent on them and it may be money that is being wasted. I remind the Minister that, in the past two years at Chivenor, £9 million has been spent on office space, yet it has already been announced that the place is to close. I have seen the Minister and expressed my concern about Plymouth and about the need for intervention.
Most of all, the Ministry of Defence needs to co-operate with the local community. It is not enough for the Ministry of Defence to consider only what is in its own best interests. We must look at the broader interests of taxpayers and local communities. If the Ministry were to co-operate with local councils, with the private sector, including chambers of trade and commerce, and with others in the locality, the value added to the land and buildings that it was proposing to leave would be substantially greater than if the matter were left to the Ministry alone.
1116
That is why I am pleased to note that a working party is getting under way in Plymouth, not to take decisions but so that vital recommendations can be made to the Minister by those who know and understand the area. I repeat that it would be a way of adding value to these establishments for the taxpayer. I hope also that the Minister will look at RAF Chivenor to see whether a similar working party could be set up there.
A number of matters affect individual service men and their families, particularly the very large number who are my constituents, one of which is service accommodation. I have referred in the House many times to the number of empty service quarters. In my constituency, we have 227 empty service quarters. In Plymouth, there are 362 altogether. It means that a total of 14 per cent. of the properties owned and maintained by the Ministry of Defence are lying empty in Plymouth. Some are being vandalised; others are having to have money spent on them for security reasons.
The Minister must address that issue. In the whole country, 10,112 out of 72,000 service quarters are empty. As someone has said, that is the equivalent of a small town lying empty, but it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.
I also want to mention homelessness and what happens when defence personnel, particularly those in the Royal Navy, come to the end of their time in the service. There are three reasons why homelessness affects naval personnel. The first is marriage break-up. There are many tensions in the job, just as there are in civilian life, and service marriages do break down. There are the service families who come to the end of the tour of duty. Others, I am sad to say, have been made redundant under "Options for Change".
Last year in Plymouth, 75 families of former Navy and other military personnel were made homeless. As soon as they leave the service, their right to subsidised rent goes; although some were paying £30 or £40 a week for their homes while they were in the service, their rent goes up immediately to £80 or £90 a week once they leave. That puts pressure on housing benefit and the social security budget, or, in some cases that I have come across, a service man eats into his gratuity to pay the rent on property that he formerly rented at a reduced rate.
Service families may then become what is known as irregular occupants of the property, which is the next stage to being classified homeless. At that point, Plymouth city council has to pick up the tab, the responsibility for these families, and find them homes. In a debate on housing in the Chamber not two weeks ago, we heard that other deserving families were pushed even further down the list.
How will service families fare in the future? I am sure that the Minister has read the consultation document from his hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment entitled, "Access to local authority and housing association tenancies". Section 8·4 of the report says:
"The Government proposes that a local authority should not be under a duty to provide emergency assistance to a person who has any form of accommodation available, however temporary the tenure. In order to align with the new and more limited duty towards persons eligible for assistance, it will be necessary to provide that a person occupying any accommodation, even of a temporary character, will not qualify."
What will happen to those Royal Navy personnel who leave the service or whose marriage breaks down? They will no longer be classified as homeless by the local authority. Who will help them? Will we think it acceptable

1117
that people who have given their working lives to the armed forces and often risked their lives could be on the streets with no home whatever, and not even the local authority has responsibility for them?
The Minister will know that there are in my constituency a number of service personnel living in houses that they consider to be substandard. Recently, I was shown a house that needed major maintenance and in which the carpets were damp. The families concerned have been told that no funds are available for improvements. Those are the families of people serving in the Royal Navy. By contrast, at the Manadon royal naval college, which is just two miles away, £10,000 has just been spent on carpets in the wardroom, despite the fact that the college is due to be closed in July 1995.
It is natural that my constituents should ask why it is not possible to have valuable work done when the health of families is at stake. The Minister, in his letter to me, said that the wardroom work to which I have referred was done for health and safety reasons. Many of my constituents would say that it is for health and safety reasons that work needs to be done on their homes. I hope that the Minister will address that question.
I should like now to refer to a very important issue that affects naval personnel. Two or three weeks ago, I attended a meeting in Plymouth that had been arranged by an action group concerned about the working of the Child Support Agency. It was a packed meeting, and I was surprised and concerned at the very large number of Navy personnel present. Their job gives rise to strains in marriage. Long periods away from home lead to separation. Service personnel are just as prone to marriage breakdown as are civilians.
At the meeting, people expressed concerns relating specifically to service in the Royal Navy. I was told that their welfare departments usually give them very good advice, and in respect of most matters people were full of praise for those departments. However, in the case of the Child Support Agency the people who should be giving advice are not up to speed on the legislation and are not in a good position to advise.
I hope that the Minister will act urgently to ensure that those welfare departments, which usually provide very high-quality service, will be able to do so in respect of matters relating to the Child Support Agency. I assure the hon. Gentleman that these problems are causing very great stress among serving Royal Navy officers and ratings.
The Child Support Agency sends out letters demanding a response within 14 days. Anyone who does not respond promptly enough has a settlement imposed on him. Several people at the meeting that I attended asked how a person on a submarine or serving elsewhere could respond within 14 days. Very often, people encounter great difficulty.
The Minister is shaking his head. Let me make it clear that what I am putting to him has been brought to me, separately and independently, by serving Royal Navy personnel. They tell me that they do not receive notification in time to respond within the period specified by the agency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look into that very important matter and will make representations to the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. Hanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken that matter up with the Department of Social Security. If there are operational reasons for any response delay, they will be taken flexibly into account.
Mr. Jamieson: I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance. He may now cross out one of the questions on his list.
Many service men have told me that they can encounter problems throughout their employment if they are found to be in financial difficulty. Some people have found the amounts they have to pay each week being increased massively. I shall not go into all the arguments about the matter, as they were discussed last week, but I should like to know whether people will be prejudiced in their work if they are found to be experiencing financial difficulty.
I want to discuss the education of the children of men and women serving in the Royal Navy. Within the last few weeks, I have come across some very disturbing information. The Ministry has a boarding school allowance scheme, which enables children whose parents live or work away from home to have continuity of education. Such provision is quite proper, and I support it.
Most of the boarding schools are, by definition, private and independent. We all know that such schools have no obligation to follow the national curriculum or to undertake key stage testing, about whose necessity, in the context of raising standards, we have heard so much in the Chamber. Nor are such schools inspected regularly by Her Majesty's inspectorate, and they do not come within the remit of the Office for Standards in Education unless there is some direct cause for concern or a school is trying to have itself registered.
I make those points because many Royal Navy personnel send their children to such schools. and the expenditure represents a very considerable part of the Ministry of Defence budget. The Minister will know that last year the boarding school allowance scheme cost more than £116 million and that the average cost per place was about £7,700. The scheme covers thousands of children. Despite that, the number of inspectorate reports is very small. The schools are funded at four times the level for equivalent state secondary schools, the average cost of the latter being £2,000.
All schools have a very special duty to care for their children—the in loco parentis concept. Boarding schools have a special duty, as their in loco parentis role continues 24 hours a day. Unlike the children in day schools, those at boarding schools do not have direct contact with parents or guardians at the beginning and end of each day. Thus, it is very important that they be able to make private telephone contact with people outside. Sometimes children need reassurance, and sometimes they need to be able to tell people outside things that they cannot put to those running the school.
I put those points to the Secretary of State in a letter of 21 January. I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been very busy in the past few weeks and has not been able to find time to reply. My letter contained three very important questions—questions that I am putting now on behalf of Royal Navy personnel. I asked the Secretary of State:
"Are the HMI and OFSTED reports on private schools made available to all the parents who have children at those schools on the MOD boarding scheme?"
I can assist with the answer. Although the Secretary of State for Defence has not yet found time to reply to my

1119
letter of 21 January, the Secretary of State for Education has, within the past hour, replied to a similar letter that I sent to him. The right hon. Gentleman's reply says:
"Any school which is the subject of a published report is supplied with copies, which it can distribute as it sees fit."
It goes on:
"The onus is on the school to distribute the report to interested parties or to advise them where the report can be obtained."
In other words, those reports are not generally available to the service families who are using the schools. They are available only if the school chooses to let the parents know about the report and to send them a copy.
The second question that I asked in my letter was what programme the Department had to check that independent and private schools involved in the scheme were offering good standards of education and value for money. The third question was whether the Minister would urge the Office for Standards in Education to carry out extensive inspections of all private schools that receive subsidies from the Ministry of Defence under the service boarding scheme.
I am concerned about the matter because I have taken the trouble to consider some of the reports on the schools that are on that scheme. Those schools are also on the list of admissible schools, which is sent out by the service children's education authority to Navy personnel who inquire about boarding education. Two schools that I shall mention are on that list. It seems to suggest that those who send it out have some confidence in the schools that appear on it. I mentioned that in the letter to the Minister and I have given him at least a month's notice of what I shall say.
I have the report of the Finborough school in Stowmarket, Suffolk, which has a total of 216 pupils. Two thirds of the children boarding at the school have parents in the armed services. That school receives money from the Ministry of Defence budget and from Navy personnel who send their children there, yet, in the report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, serious concerns are raised about the school's standard of education. For example, the report said:
"few lessons were good throughout."
It said of the quality of teaching:
"it was satisfactory in less than half of the lessons seen in the junior school."
It said that there had been a
"relatively large number of expulsions and suspensions … Pupils' standards are frequently limited by insufficiently high expectations and a constant lack of rigour and challenge in the tasks set."
That report was conducted in May 1993. What action has the Minister taken on behalf of those children who are being sent there under the boarding scheme? The school receives between £500,000 and £750,000 a year of taxpayers' money, yet, as far as I can see, no action has been taken by his Department or, if it has, that action has not been brought to my attention. Perhaps the Minister has not found time. I shall willingly give way to him if he will tell us something about the school and the action that he has taken.
Mr. Hanley: I merely remind the hon. Gentleman that he spoke to the private secretary of the Under-Secretary of State, my noble Friend Lord Cecil of Essenden, who dealt with that matter. The draft letter and the gist of its contents were explained to the hon. Gentleman. It was explained that the draft letter was in its final stages and that the
1120
Ministry of Defence needed concurrence from the Department of Education. The hon. Gentleman knows that such things take a few days to complete. It is not quite fair of him to say that nothing has been brought to his attention about those matters when he knows from the gist of the letter that the matter has been dealt with fully and that in a short time he will receive the official response. By the way, I am grateful to him for raising the issue.
Mr. Jamieson: I am glad that my telephone call to the Minister today seems to have initiated some activity in his Department and that we are now receiving answers on behalf of the children in those schools. I did not seek the answers for myself, but for the children in those schools and their parents.
Perhaps, while the Minister has the matter in his mind, I shall turn his attention to another school. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Conservative Members are saying "Oh no." May I remind them that in their constituencies, there are probably children who attend some of those schools? They may not be concerned about the standard of education that those children receive, but I am. The parents have a right to know what the reports contain. The reports are treated almost as if they are secret documents and it is only proper that the contents are brought into the public domain, since public money is being spent on those schools through the Royal Navy and the boarding school allowance scheme.
The Rodney school in Kirklington, Nottinghamshire, was inspected in June 1991. As far as I know, it is in operation and 27 per cent. of its pupils are on the boarding schools allowance scheme. An article in The Times a year later said:
"A second independent school in little more than a week was yesterday given six months to improve standards or face closure."
What has happened about that school since 1992? Children of service men and women have been attending that school week on week and the taxpayer is paying for it to be maintained.
I found another school that is not on the list—
Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is talking about education, which may have some tangential, but only a tangential, relationship to the debate on the Royal Navy. Is it in order to speak for 35 minutes and for the past 10 minutes to talk about education in a debate which is devoted to the Royal Navy?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): There is no time limit on speeches, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. It is up to individual Members. So far, the hon. Member has been quite in order.
Mr. Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that reassurance. I must say to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that I am talking about the education of children of parents who are serving in the Royal Navy and in the armed services. If I were out of order, I am certain that Mr. Deputy Speaker would have ruled me so.
Another school, which is not on the list of admissible schools, but has a large number of children who are on the boarding school scheme is Hillsea college in Basingstoke, Hampshire. It received a critical report in June 1991 by Her Majesty's inspectors. I am glad to say that it closed in July 1992, but not because of any action taken by the Ministry of Defence or by the Department for Education. It

1121
eventually closed because there were too few pupils going to the school. [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members are jeering.
Mr. Hanley: I am not.
Mr. Jamieson: The Minister is not jeering. He is listening to the argument seriously, for which I am grateful. Some hon. Members behind him have jeered at some of my comments, but my concern for those families is substantial.
I shall refer to another school that I am glad to say closed some years ago. A report on the Crookham Court school by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in 1987 highlighted safety hazards and unsatisfactory teaching standards. The report said that the school was in a "dirty and depressing state". One of the reasons why the school was closed was given in an article in The Times in July 1990, which said:
"the owner of a private boys' school was yesterday convicted of sexually abusing one of his pupils."
One of the staff was also convicted. The report on the school said that that private school catered mainly for service families. I have tried to make some points on behalf of the families and the children of those people serving in the Navy.
I have tried to raise some important matters on behalf of those families, because some of the children are in poor schools, some of which are in a dangerous condition. I have read the reports, and most of the children are in good schools, with high standards and good exam results, which look after their pupils with great care. My concern, which the Minister should take on board, is that a substantial minority of the schools are not meeting even the minimum standards that one would expect for a reasonable education.
I have raised those matters on behalf of service personnel and their families because they are vital to the morale that we need in the services for the men and women who serve their country every day of their lives.
7.20 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I hope that the House will excuse me if I do not follow the comments of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), although I would wish to associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) about Rosyth dockyard. My constituents in Portsmouth would well understand the worries that she mentioned. We who represent dockyard constituencies fight hard to maintain their position, but in a positive manner, seeking to present the qualities of our own areas and never seeking to damage the prospects or opportunities of other dockyards or constituencies.
In the past I have intervened in debates of this nature to call for more ships and more men. That is probably expected of those of us who represent naval constituencies. Tonight I am concerned about the efficient use of the resources that the Royal Navy has at its disposal in a world in which circumstances change so rapidly that planning becomes especially difficult.
In the 19th century one could respond to an international situation by sending a gunboat. Nowadays it is essential that, if a Royal Navy presence is to be deployed to meet an international situation, we are certain that the vessel concerned is capable of meeting the needs of that situation, and is equipped so as to enable it to make a
1122
positive contribution then and there. It is also vital that the operations of the vessel should be properly supported and protected.
Much has been said today, and even more on previous occasions, about the situation in Bosnia. At some point the naval presence that we have maintained there for some time may be called upon to play a more active role. The great difficulty is that it is not clear exactly what that role would be. Would it be to assist in landing further troops? Or might it be to help with the emergency withdrawal of troops and civilian personnel from the area?
For example, a few months ago it was not clear whether the port of Split would fall to hostile forces, in which case the whole course of the operation would have been changed. It is not possible simply to say that so long as we have some ships to send we shall be solving the problem.
I am old enough to remember the appalling casualties suffered by the Royal Navy after the end of the second world war in that same Adriatic sea, when our ships ran on to mines laid, we believe, by the Albanians. That was an appalling situation that caused great loss of life, and it reminds us of the fact that the Navy has to face unknown dangers wherever it operates.
That is why I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give thought not simply to how many frigates we should have—although I suppose that we can never have too many—and not only to how many minehunters we should have, but to whether we shall have a sufficiently balanced fleet today, in a month's time, in a year's time, or in five or 10 years' time. Over all those different time spans, we must have a sufficiently balanced fleet to operate effectively in the uncertain conditions that may arise.
The idea of another Falklands operation has already been mentioned. I do not wish to say much about that, but I remind the House that the Falklands emergency arose suddenly and we had to put together a fleet quickly. Fortunately, we still had the kind of vessels that couild maintain an operation in the south Atlantic in sufficient force to achieve our purpose.
The question that I now ask is whether in a short time we could mount an operation against a defended shore, to put troops on the beaches and inland to support forces already present in a theatre of operations, be it Bosnia or elsewhere. I am reminded of the fact that when close inshore operations were required in the Gulf conflict the greatest threat came from minefields. The Royal Navy" s presence there included mine hunters of the latest type, capable of clearing a way not only for Royal Navy vessels to get in close, but for vessels of the United States navy, whose helicopter-mounted anti-mines measures were found to be less effective than those of the Royal Navy. We must ensure that we can clear the way before vessels arrive and that when they get to their station they are of the correct kind.
Our assault ships Intrepid and Fearless have already been mentioned. We are aware of the large sums spent over recent years to maintain those vessels in service, but I ask my hon. Friend whether he can give me an assurance that both vessels are available for service and could be used if necessary to mount an operation against a defended shore. Rumours suggest that that is not entirely the case, and I should like a firm assurance.
Can my hon. Friend also confirm that, when he mentions a landing platform dock, he is talking about two replacement vessels, not one supplementing the existing assault ships, or one stretched to a slightly greater

1123
capacity? Two landing platform docks are essential if we are to maintain our capacity to operate away from home waters and to maintain a force ashore in hostile territory over time.
We all welcome the decision to proceed with the landing platform helicopter. That type of vessel would be essential if we needed to move large numbers of troops in or out of a theatre of operations in a short time. However, can we be assured that the Royal Navy will have sufficient helicopters of the right kind to ensure that the vessel will be used efficiently and effectively when it is available and that it can be operated in the meantime from the platforms that we may have to improvise?
There is an urgent need to supplement the Merlin programme of the EH101, the purely naval programme, with procurement of a utility version that would provide the kind of heavy-lift high-flexibility capacity that could be necessary in Bosnia by the beginning of next week. I doubt whether we really have the capacity today to operate in that way efficiently and effectively.
I seek an assurance that we are not simply saying that we have a certain number of vessels, and that means that we have a certain operational capacity but a fleet whose design is based on operational requirements and a clear strategic plan prepared for the future. We must not have simply a residue of ships after the Treasury's budgetary restraints have been met. We need a fleet that can act as the operational arm of the interests of this country and protect those interests overseas effectively, efficiently and flexibly. That is perhaps much more important than simply the number of any one sort of vessel.
Each year I look in vain in the reports on the defence estimates for a clear statement on exactly what sort of operations we anticipate that this country would acept on behalf of the United Nations, NATO or our own national interests, and in which parts of the world we would be prepared to commit our forces. Until we clarify the circumstances in which the Royal Navy might be called on to operate in support of the other two arms of the armed forces, we cannot judge whether the Royal Navy will be able to carry out its task efficiently in the short term, the medium term and the long term.
I ask my hon. Friend to give specific assurances on HMS Fearless, HMS Intrepid and the two landing platform docks. I would also like a wider assurance that the Ministry of Defence has a clear picture of the operations that we could properly undertake and those which are not within the capacity of the United Kingdom.
7.31 pm
Mr. Jamie Cann: What I shall say is complimentary and complementary to what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said: first, it is complimentary in that I agree with what he said: secondly, it is complementary because what I shall say goes along with what he said and perhaps extends it in one specific area. I have no constituency interest. There was the tiniest reserve outfit in Ipswich harbour, which was supposed to look after the harbour during the war, but that has long since gone. I shall not criticise the Government's policy with regard to the Navy. I shall merely talk about
1124
what I see as the role of the aircraft carrier in the Royal Navy at present and in the past, and how it will fit in with our needs in the future.
The Royal Navy was the first navy to have an aircraft carrier. It stripped the guns from four battle cruisers and replaced them with strutted landing platforms for the take-off of seaplanes. During the second world war, our Navy was one of the first to have metal decks on carriers. It was certainly the first navy to have angled take-off decks and mirror-aided landings on carriers. We have a proud history in these matters.
Everyone recognises that between the wars we lost our leadership over the navies of other nations. Certainly, in the second world war, the Americans and the Japanese far outstripped us in the use of these vessels. They were the first to recognise that the carrier was the capital ship. That was true, certainly from 1942–43 and perhaps all the way through to the early 1970s.
In exercises using British hunter-killer nuclear submarines—the modern capital ships—it has been proved that no carrier group can protect the carrier and its centre from such vessels. Therefore, we must recognise that the capital ship is the hunter-killer and if the carrier has a role at all it is different from its previous one.
We recognised that before other countries. We scrapped HMS Illustrious, HMS Victorious and so on—one of the smallest, Hermes was the last—and replaced them with a different vessel at the same time as the USSR was building carriers.
The USS Nimitz was built in 1975, and the French are still building a large carrier, the Charles de Gaulle—I suppose it would have to be called that—which is not yet commissioned. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, we produced a different vessel altogether. Basically, the new Invincible class carriers were designed for anti-submarine warfare. One of them is either on extended refit or in mothballs, according to whom one talks to.
Then a strange thing happened, rather like Ipswich. Ipswich was behind the times when everyone else was knocking down terrace houses and putting up blocks of flats. This country got it the wrong way around in terms of carriers. When we were scrapping the large carriers with fixed-wing aircraft and producing carriers for antisubmarine warfare in the north Atlantic against the threat from the USSR, the cold war disappeared over the horizon. We had wars in the Falklands and in the Gulf, and now we have things to do in Bosnia. Goodness knows where we will go after that.
Clearly, the modern role of the carrier will not be that of the capital ship. It will be the offshore airfield for a large number of planes covering the landing, reinforcement and removal of ground forces in different areas of the world. When we look at our carriers and their role, we compare badly with, for example, the French. The Invincible class carriers are modern—they were commissioned in 1980. Each one is 20,000 tonnes with a complement of 700—excluding any flying staff—nine fixed-wing aircraft and nine Sea King helicopters. The aircraft are there only to protect the carrier so that the helicopters can do their job.
In comparison, the French carrier, the Clemenceau, is 27,000 tonnes—that is not much bigger—and has a complement of 10,000, but that is the French. The number of aircraft flying from the carrier is 37 compared to nine. That is four times the punch that we are putting in. We have two carriers on the way which will deliver a total of 18 Sea Harriers. The French have the Foch and the Clemenceau

1125
which will deliver 74. For commensurate effort, the French punch is, unfortunately, much greater than ours, although at the time it seemed that we had more foresight about the use of such vessels.
The way in which we are equipping our present carriers is outdated. I know that it is not easy in these times because money is not easy to come by; I am certainly not giving any pledges. We may be able to reduce the number of helicopters on our carriers and increase the number of fixed-wing aircraft—I do not know, because I have never been on one of our carriers, but I hope to do so before I leave this place.
To follow what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North said, we must ensure that we can put at least a brigade force ashore almost anywhere in the world and cover it by the use of carriers and a carrier task group in the way that I do not believe our present force would be able to do.
As always, the Royal Navy has a multiplicity of roles. It is now our nuclear deterrent. It provides capital ships that can roam the world and do as much damage as any other navy, and probably better. We will always need frigates, minesweepers, and so on. However, we must re-evaluate the ability of the Royal Navy to be able to put ashore, cover and support British troops wherever they may be in the world.
7.39 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: It is a great pleasure for me to contribute to the debate, not least because I am beginning my association with the Royal Navy through the armed forces parliamentary scheme at the same time as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), who spoke so ably earlier in aid of Rosyth. Through that association, I hope that in future I shall be able to speak with even more experience, especially on the lives and concerns of royal naval officers and ratings.
The debate has concentrated on the wider issues, including where the Royal Navy is heading in volatile times and reduced circumstances. I heartily agree with much that has been said already by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members. I do not want to repeat or labour the points that they made, but I should like to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and with the thoughtful comments on the role of aircraft carriers made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann). I heartily concur with his comments—a study on aircraft carriers by the Navy would be worth while.
Last year's defence White Paper, which as the House will probably know I felt unable to support in the Lobby, identified three key roles for our armed services. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster paid some attention to those roles, which were: first, to protect the United Kingdom and our dependent territories; secondly, to insure against any major external threats to the United Kingdom or its allies; and, thirdly, to contribute to promoting the United Kingdom's wider security interests through the maintenance of international peace and stability, especially where it affects our national interest or the security of the United Kingdom and its allies.
On the third category, the main threat to Europe and to our allies results from the instability and uncertainties that have arisen in the aftermath of the cold war, rather than from any direct threat to the safety of sovereign territories
1126
that belong to the United Kingdom or our allies. Furthermore, it is obvious that a wide variety of commitments has arisen from that third category, Bosnia being the most recent.
It appears that the number of those commitments will continue to rise rather than fall. It is therefore obvious, although not inevitable, that the use of force—whether naval, military or through air power—or the threat of it will, when combined with diplomatic pressures, continue to have an effective part to play in the collective or individual security of the United Kingdom and its allies.
Several of the tasks involved in those three defence roles, such as the rapid reinforcement of a dependency—whether it be the Falklands or another state, for example in the Caribbean—may have to be undertaken alone by the United Kingdom. The effective use of the Royal Navy would be crucial in the fulfilment of that role. Ministers have confirmed that the United Kingdom's ability to project military power across the world, using our sea power, remains a crucial factor in our defence and security policy.
The difficulty is the credibility gap that exists between my hon. Friends' acknowledgement of the commitments that face the Royal Navy and the other two services, and their apparent acceptance of the continued salami-slicing of the defence budget and of enforced reductions in the capability of the Royal Navy to perform those tasks in line with our commitments. The 1992 public expenditure survey round took a further £1 billion from the defence budget and the 1993 PES round appears to want to achieve savings during the next two to three years of £1.4 billion, under the pretext of the "Front Line First" defence costs study.
I accept that the decline in the operational size and activity of the former Soviet Union submarine fleet means that the Royal Navy no longer needs to maintain the same levels of anti-submarine operations in the north Atlantic. It has been alleged that that is why the Government have decided to scrap the Upholder class of submarine. I join my hon. Friends and Opposition Members in asking my hon. Friends the Ministers to reconsider that decision. I also believe that the Upholder class of submarine could be an extremely useful and cheap way to project power, particularly in shallow waters—perhaps after minor adaptations—and we should consider that matter carefully.
I point out to Ministers that the Baltic is another region of possible instability in the not too distant future. The Upholder class of submarine would be ideal for use in the Baltic sea. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement replies to the debate, will he mention the current use of the Upholder class and say whether he has any plans to reconsider its future?
My concern about our commitments is, if anything, made worse by the idea that a further defence costs study is under way, under the pretext that I mentioned earlier. There have been many remarks about having more admirals than ships. Having studied the figures, I confirm not only that that is totally untrue but that it is folly to suggest that scrapping a few of those admirals, as if they were ships, would save much money.
I accept that it is reasonable for the Government to say that privatising some functions that do not need to be carried out by service men or civil servants might save some money and therefore release service men to help with overstretch in other sectors. The greater use of private sector finance in procurement, particularly where it

1127
involves leasing, might also solve some short-term problems. A further streamlining of management structures and working methods, especially at Navy headquarters, might produce some savings.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the matter, as I fail to see where the further savings, particularly in the Royal Navy, will come from; it has already instituted its own cost-saving process under the prospect review of naval support structures, which was due to be completed in 1992 but is still being implemented. A further cost reduction exercise will follow the cost reduction exercise that is now in progress. Even with its present force levels, the Royal Navy still faces difficulties in meeting its commitments.
I hope that the Minister will shed some light on another concern. Given that the Royal Air Force has no credible missile system that can be guaranted to bring down an incoming Scud missile, does he believe that the two destroyers or frigates, which under the 1993 defence White Paper will be allocated for the defence—supposedly—of the United Kingdom mainland, will be armed with the sort of missiles that could bring down an incoming Scud? As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, it would be easy for a nutter or zealot to mount a Scud missile unit on a tanker. We have a problem with terrorism, but there is also the problem of people in the near east, the Gulf and elsewhere who are prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve their ends.
The firing system of a Scud missile is very mobile and can easily fit in the hold—or, if properly disguised, on the deck—of a super-tanker. I hope that my hon. Friend can assure me that, given the Navy's skill in bringing down a Silkworm missile while on escort guard duty during the Gulf war, it will be able to do the same should such an emergency arise again. The population of Britain would feel extremely uncomfortable if we had no Patriot-type missiles and no system capable of bringing down missiles in an extraordinary attack which could come out of the blue.
Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that concerns have been expressed about the continued development of what is known as the Patriot 3? The Patriot surface-to-air missiles which were deployed in the Gulf were not 100 per cent. effective, but they had a remarkable political effect on the way in which the war was conducted.
Is not that doubly important because the North Koreans are now developing the equivalent of a Scud which would be capable of firing a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon as far as Tokyo? South Korea is another country that needs an important ground-to-air, point-to-point defence system.
Mr. Hargreaves: My hon. Friend demonstrates better than I could the need for such defences.
If our destroyers must be on standby for effective guard duty of the United Kingdom mainland and that is specified as one of our primary defence roles, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that they will be suitably equipped for that task.
I should like to make a final point without which the debate would not be complete, concerning the role of the Royal Navy in Bosnia. I earnestly hope that my hon. Friend
1128
will assure the House that our naval force in the Adriatic will be suitably protected if force through air power has to be used over Bosnia.
It is known that the former Yugoslav navy—now the Serbian navy—has a number of submarines. I am not sure whether the correct intelligence exists as to how many of them are serviceable; nor do I know, or wish to know, of the deployment of our submarines in defence of our ships which are operating in the area. I hope that when my hon. Friend winds up he will assure the House that we have sufficient operational ships to guarantee their safety.
A tragedy could easily occur by underestimating the number of submarines that the former Yugoslav navy is able to deploy should it be inclined to do so surreptitiously. It may feel that, through a third party or agency, it could in some way flare up the overall situation in the former Yugoslavia to its advantage by such an act. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure hon. Members who have spoken during the debate.
7.52 pm
Mr. John Hutton: The Minister of State began by saying that this was a time of change for the armed services, and for the Royal Navy in particular. He is absolutely right. This is a time of unprecedented change. We have witnessed a large reduction in the size of the fleet and in the number of service personnel. It is true to say that the Royal Navy today is smaller than at any time since the second world war.
Underlying all the changes in the Navy is the rapidly changing international climate. The end of the cold war generated hope and optimism about the future, and rightly so, but it also created major uncertainties. There are still significant threats and dangers, as the crisis in Bosnia and the Gulf war clearly demonstrated. The debate tonight gives the House the opportunity to scrutinise the Government's record while managing the Royal Navy through that difficult period of change. I must say that the evidence to date is not impressive.
There is a lack of direction and focus to our whole defence policy. That is not just my view—it is the view of the Select Committee on Defence. A number of hon. Members have praised the activity and work of the Select Committee during the past three years, and I want to add my voice to those opinions. The Committee has done an excellent job in drawing attention to some of the problems and deficiencies in the Government's defence policy.
Underlying the Committee's concern—Committee members who are present in the Chamber may correct me if I am wrong—is the view that, until and unless we get to grips with some of the basic issues about the appropriate range of our defence commitments, we will be plagued by a continuing confusion about important procurement and manpower issues.
It is right that we concentrate at least a measure of our concern on the Government's procurement budget; not just as it affects the Navy, although that is particularly important to our proceedings tonight and to my constituents. It is true to say that Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. has built some of the finest ships ever to sail under the white ensign. I think that there is genuine cause for concern when we look at the Government's management of the procurement budget.
Using the GDP deflator, defence spending fell by 2 per cent. between 1980 and 1993–94. Defence procurement

1129
spending during the same period fell in real terms by 10 per cent. The defence budget has fallen fractionally, but the procurement budget has fallen by five times the reduction in the defence budget.
We are all concerned with the resources which are available to finance and support our armed services. There must be a reasoned debate on what we can afford and what the resources will permit us to spend. No one can pretend otherwise. There is a difficult public spending climate at the moment, and my hon. Friends know how that has come about.
If we are to maintain the operational readiness and the fighting capability of our armed services, it is essential that we at least try to ring-fence the procurement budget whenever possible. If we do not allow our services access to the latest combat technology and weapons systems supported by the necessary software and hardware to allow the systems to work effectively, we will deprive our armed services personnel of the cutting edge. Those are crucial tools which they need to do their job effectively.
Hon. Members must recognise that, in the climate of continuing pressure on defence spending, the Government are unwise to focus to the extent that they have on cutting important elements of the procurement budget. My constituency has experienced the sharp end of some of the harsh decisions taken by the Government. When "Options for Change" was published in July 1991, it represented a devastating blow to shipbuilding in my constituency.
There have been discussions today about the Upholder class. I emphasise the value of Upholder as a class and as a weapons system. When Upholder was being built originally, the Navy was expecting 12, and that has not been mentioned tonight. At a stroke, when "Options for Change" was published, that was reduced to four.
The consequences of that decision are that we will have no Upholders serving in the Royal Navy at all. That is a serious loss to the operational capability of the Navy and to support services, especially secret forces which are landed as part of secure operations and intelligence units.
In addition to the eight Upholders which disappeared from the budget, we lost another six SSNs which were planned by the Government. That random and unscheduled cut caused complete devastation to the naval shipbuilding industry, which must operate on a long-lead basis. The industry simply cannot be asked and be expected to cope with a sudden decline in the volume of its anticipated work.
The redundancies have followed as night follows day. In the past three years, almost 8,000 shipbuilding workers in my constituency and many thousands in other constituencies have paid the price of that with the loss of their precious jobs. So tonight we need to keep our focus firmly on the issue of procurement. Without an adequate supply of the right equipment at the right price, the effectiveness of our armed forces will be seriously compromised.
I want to deal with some specific issues that relate to the Navy and to my constituency. First, when can we expect the tenders to be issued for the next round of type 23 frigates? There is a serious delay in the Government's timetable for ordering those important ships. The ships were to have been ordered in 1993. That did not happen. Now it looks As if the ships will not be ordered until some time in 1995.
Anyone who has a knowledge and grasp of shipbuilding knows that such delays cause serious difficulties for shipbuilders and shipbuilding workers. There must be a
1130
doubt about whether the new timetable for ordering the type 23s is compatible with the Government's commitment to maintain an adequate frigate force. The delay will also involve serious industrial consequences which will mean additional redundancies among our naval shipbuilders.
Secondly, what are the Government's plans for the batch 2 Trafalgar class? When can we expect orders to be placed for those boats? The whole programme has been the subject of extensive delays all the way down the line. That has meant additional heavy redundancies at VSEL. It is worth pointing out to the Minister that the last nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine to be ordered by the Government was HMS Triumph, the last of the Trafalgar class vessels. The order for HMS Triumph was placed on 3 January 1986. That is eight years ago. Such a delay in the ordering of a new class of strategic submarine nuclears has been immensely damaging to the naval shipbuilding industry of Britain.
I am sure that there is consensus in the House—I have agreed with virtually all the speeches that I have heard tonight—that it is vital for our strategic long-term defence interests that we maintain an effective SSN-building capability in Britain. That requires not only the building facilities but the crucial design teams. The whole infrastructure that goes into a new generation of ships, which is vital for the defence interests of Britian and our allies, has been compromised by the extensive delay riot only in ordering the batch 2 Trafalgars but in the original decision not to proceed with the SSN20 programme. We can argue the toss about whether we need this or that sort of boat or how many boats we need; but we are playing with our fundamental ability as a shipbuilding nation to provide the vessels.
I hope that the Government will act quickly to confirm that they will be ordering the batch 2 Trafalgars in the near future, and that they will stick to a programme that will allow an SSN fleet of at least 12 boats to be maintained; or is it the Government's intention to reduce yet again the number of SSNs that are available to the Royal Navy?
Thirdly, are we any nearer a decision on the results of the study into the afloat support requirements of the Navy? Do the Government intend to order any new auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels? What progress has been made with the new auxiliary oiler class?
Fourthly, what are the Government's plans for the replacement of Fearless and Intrepid? That issue has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is fundamentally important to the ability of the armed forces of the United Kingdom not only to contribute to amphibious military operations in the NATO area but, on a wider scale, to support United Nations' operations around the world. We must retain that amphibious capability.
Other hon. Members have spoken about the need for two replacements for Fearless and Intrepid. It is essential that there are two replacements. There is an inherent danger in retaining a one-ship class. When it comes to the amphibious capability of the Navy, it is essential that we retain two of those assault landing ships. Certainly the shipbuilding community of Britain looks to the Government to make it clear tonight that they intend to order two of those boats and that that decision is imminent and will be made this year.
Fifthly, I wish to raise the matter of the new common generation frigate. There has been some anxiety about the timetable that the British Government are operating for the

1131
award of the prime contractorship in the United Kingdom. An intense competition is taking place between British Aerospace and GEC on the one hand and VSEL and Hunting as an alternative rival bidder for that prime contractorship. We need an imminent decision on that. It is probably the single most important naval procurement decision that remains to be taken this decade. It will affect the structure and shape of the British naval shipbuilding industry well into the next century.
I hope that, underlying that decision, which is eagerly awaited in the shipbuilding community, there is recognition on the part of the Government that whatever decision they take they must act to ensure that the naval shipbuilding industry remains competitive and that there is a variety and multiplicity of providers in that industry. It would be a serious mistake—we have seen it made already in the case of Swan Hunter—for the Government to pursue a procurement policy which operates in an anticompetitive way. It is important that we keep the maximum number of naval shipyards in Britain to provide competition and crucial employment and maintain the skills base that has been built up over generations in the shipbuilding communities.
Another question that the Government and hon. Members must consider tonight is how many new common generation frigates will be ordered. What is the present position on the eventual size of that new fleet? There has been some informed speculation that the numbers will drop from 18 to 12. That would be serious. We must seek to ensure that, certainly in Britain, there is a one-for-one replacement of the type 42 destroyers. That will require a British build programme of at least 12 of those new generation frigates.
The last point that I want to raise is the Malaysian arms deal signed by Lady Thatcher in 1988. There has been a great deal of press speculation recently about the implications of that deal and agreement, and how it has affected British naval shipbuilders. Many Opposition Members look to the Government to come clean on the full extent and implications of that agreement. Is there any truth in the suggestion that GEC and British Aerospace were handed control of decisions about which a British defence contractor was eligible for work under that agreement? That is an important issue. It has affected not only my constituents but the constituents of other hon. Members who represent shipbuilding communities.
As I understand the original agreement between the British and Malaysian Governments, there was a possibility that submarines would be ordered by the Malaysian Government. That has simply not happened. Miraculously, under the terms of that agreement, instead of submarines which could well have been built in my constituency being procured from Britain, a number of frigates were ordered by the Malaysian Government and placed with GEC at Yarrow.
It is important that the House is informed to the fullest extent possible about the accuracy of those allegations and the role of the British Government in subsidising those defence orders. We are not talking about trivial issues. We are talking about fundamental issues of openness in government and the decisions that have affected the shape
1132
and size of the British naval shipbuilding industry. I know that many hon. Members will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
I shall finish my comments on that note because I know that there are still many hon. Members who want to speak. To summarise, this has been a unique debate for me because I have agreed with just about every speech that I have heard. It is good to know, for the sake of the health and quality of our armed forces, that there is a consensus in the House about the need to maintain our armed forces to ensure that they have the right equipment at the right time to do the job that we want.
We are entitled to be immensely proud of the contribution that our armed services have made and continue to make to public life. We owe it to them at least to ensure that they have the right equipment at the right time at the right price.
8.8 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: This is the first occasion on which I have had the pleasure of following the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) in a defence debate. Although I do not wish to follow precisely his remarks about procurement, some of the issues that I wish to raise relate to the procurement policy decision-making process.
When I was preparing my remarks for this annual Navy debate, one word repeatedly came to mind. It was "uncertainty".
That recurring theme manifested itself—whether in respect of Britain's defence requirements and capabilities over the next 20 years or more, or in relation to decisions that have been, or will have to be, made about the Royal Navy and their impact on the south-west region and the Plymouth travel-to-work area, part of which includes my constituency.
We were all excited when the Berlin wall came down, symbolising the end of the cold war. Subsequent events in the former Soviet Union and eastern bloc countries also caught our imagination. Few, if any, could have predicted the sequence of events that followed. Before those events there was a certain predictability—I hesitate to use the work "cosiness" in this context—and, in practice, both the western world and the east knew where they stood.
Since the Berlin wall came down, that predictability has been replaced by uncertainty and, sadly, increasing instability, particularly in parts of Europe and the former Soviet Union. Initially we talked about the peace dividend and the Government produced "Options for Change". I must confess that, as a layman, I find myself repeatedly asking where it will all lead. We now have the study "Front Line First" and are entitled to ask what the United Kingdom's defence objectives and responsibilities for the early part of the 21st century are, what strategy we will pursue and what defence capability we will require. In the context of tonight's debate, we ask those questions in relation to the Royal Navy.
I sometimes wonder whether the Government, as a collective body, rather than the Ministry of Defence, are clear in their own mind about those responsibilities and objectives. We seem to have a series of decisions about requirements, capabilities, sizes and many other issues but, taken together, they hardly add up to a clearly defined and recognisable defence strategy.

1133
As well as having implications for our national defence and security—let alone our international obligations—that worrying position has a direct bearing on the south-west. The south-west region has the highest dependence on defence and defence-related activities of anywhere in the United Kingdom. That is certainly true in the Plymouth travel-to-work area. I shall concentrate on two specific aspects; the surface ship refitting programme for the Devonport dockyard and the Navy's manpower requirements.
HMS Raleigh is located in my constituency. It is the shore base where all the non-officer intake into the Royal Navy, both male and female, undertakes their initial training. Any announcement about the Royal Navy's manpower requirements will have direct consequences for HMS Raleigh and the Torpoint community. HMS Raleigh has the capacity to provide initial training for more than 4,000 non-officer recruits per annum. In the past three years, the numbers passing through HMS Raleigh have been 1,200, 800 and, last year, 800—a total of about 3,000.
All of us understand that manpower requirements of the Royal Navy are changing. However, the figures show that, in a few years' time, the Royal Navy manpower planners could experience serious problems in terms not only of absolute numbers but of ensuring that they have at their disposal both adequate numbers in all the necessary skills available and the right balance of those manpower skills.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if those figures are put alongside the alarming loss of our seafaring traditions as a result of the decline in the numbers of merchant marines, they add up to a serious problem?
Mr. Hicks: I made it clear that I viewed the recent trends with genuine anxiety. In five years or so, the products of the past five years' training will move into senior non-commissioned posts in the Royal Navy. We are not talking about office manpower requirements, when one can advertise, recruit and train in a comparatively short period but about highly skilled young men. Will my hon. Friend the Minister bear that fact in mind, because it worries me? I know that those involved in the training of those young men are equally worried.
The projected work load over the next five years at the Devonport dockyard is another important issue. Since last year's Royal Navy debate the important Trident refit contract decision has been made. Naturally, I was pleased that the contract was awarded to Devonport. At the same time, Ministers announced that, as part of the offset arrangements, Rosyth dockyard would undertake 16 surface ship refits and one carrier refit over the next 10 years. I do not tonight wish to enter into a debate on the merits of that decision, but the economic results of the decision are questionable in terms of providing value to the taxpayer.
My principal worry relates to the position of the Devonport dockyard before the Trident refit work materialises at the turn of the century. I gather that, over and above the Rosyth allocation, 11 frigates and destroyers will require refits between now and the year 2000. Devonport has provisionally been allocated just three of those 11—HMS London later this year, HMS Norfolk in 1995–96 and HMS Marlborough in 1997–98. To put it bluntly, that work load is insufficient to ensure the viability
1134
of Devonport over that vital period. It is essential that Devonport is allocated more Ministry of Defence refit work.
If Devonport is not allocated more refit work, further job losses will occur that could have implications for its ability to retain the current skill mix in appropriate quantities to service the strategic deterrent—I do not say that lightly. That is the dilemma facing the dockyard managers at Devonport. The Ministry of Defence can resolve the problem through enhanced surface ship refit allocations. If Ministers do not recognise that, further job losses will occur.
Ministers should also acknowledge that below a critical employment figure, unit labour costs rise and Devonport could then be placed at a disadvantage in terms of competitive tendering.
I am sure that Ministers do not want that unsatisfactory state of affairs to arise, but the remedy lies in the hands of Ministers at the Ministry of Defence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the winding-up speeches are to begin at 9.20. In the hour remaining for Back-Bench Members to contribute to the debate, six hon. Gentlemen, who have been in the Chamber for most of the day, are hoping to catch my eye. With a bit of co-operation from hon. Members, they may all be successful.
8.19 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I shall keep my remarks brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to comply with your wishes.
It is a pleasure to follow the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks). I shall take up themes on which they both touched, for precisely the same reasons.
Defence procurement matters are extraordinarily important to communities that rely on them for employment. When I was first elected to this place in 1983, the largest single public sector employer in my constituency was British Shipbuilders. Work at the Swan Hunter shipyard was shared between the Walker yard in my constituency and the Wallsend yard in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers). When the parliamentary boundary commissioner proposed, some 18 months ago, to bring Wallsend and Northumbria wards from north Tyneside to Newcastle, East, I looked forward to representing the whole of the shipbuilding industry on Tyneside. Although the decision has come into effect, one or two other things have happened in the meantime.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East wondered what happens when a dockyard runs out of work. I am here to tell him. Swan Hunter is currently in the hands of the receiver. When the company failed to win the landing platform helicopter contract, some 3,000 people were directly employed at the yard and a further 3,000 workers were employed, through sub-contractors, on shipbuilding but were wholly reliant on Swan Hunter as the main employer.
Since receivership, the number of people still employed at the yard has dropped to just below 1,000, and work is fast running out. It reflects enormous credit on the

1135
remaining management at Swan Hunter, and particularly on the remaining 600 manual workers, that they are able to complete, to the highest quality, type 23 frigates, which are sophisticated vessels, for the Ministry of Defence and deliver them on time in those desperate circumstances.
So that the House understands the range and scale of the blow to Tyneside, may I add that our two other major employers, NEI Parsons (Heavy Engineering) and the offshore oil industry—largely William Press, a subsidiary of AMEC, and the sub-contracting work that it facilitates—are also both laying off men with similar skills. Parts of my constituency have male unemployment levels of 90 per cent. In the shipbuilding community as a whole, male unemployment already runs at 40 per cent. A further 600 people will become unemployed this summer unless the Government intervene or a private sector company can buy Swan Hunter and give it shipbuilding work in the near future.
Therefore, what happens when great defence facilities run out of work is that it is a disaster for the local community that relies on those large single centres of employment, and the disaster is not easily resolved. I hope that the Minister will say how pleased the Ministry of Defence is with the quality of work that is still coming out of Swan Hunter and that he hopes that Swan Hunter will make a transition into the private sector and continue to supply warships to the Ministry of Defence.
Conservative Members have stressed the importance of the intervention funding being secured for Swan Hunter. It is not intervention funding in the conventional sense. It is not an unlimited subsidy for merchant work which a future owner can procure for the yard, but a maximum £7 million, which can sit alongside a private sector merchant vessel order that goes into the yard. That will not happen unless the yard also has a base work load, which means a military work load. At one time I had hoped that, with the type of intervention funding that has been secured. Swan Hunter could make a transition to more general reliance on merchant shipbuilding work and more general engineering work so that its over-reliance on warship building could have been diluted. That is now unlikely to happen.
Time is running out for the Swan Hunter yard. The future for the yard will be as a much smaller, leaner and more efficient warship building company. The intervention funding that has been secured may never be used at all. If it is used, it will be as transitional relief to enable the yard to continue warship building, rather than a step away from warship building as part of—dare I say—a defence conversion strategy towards civilian activities. That is an absolute tragedy for the community that I represent. It is also a tragedy for the community which I hope to represent after the next general election, when a large number of former shipyard workers—now unemployed shipyard workers—will be moved into the Newcastle, East and Wallsend constituency, as it will then be called.
The Government have done nothing to help to provide alternative employment or bring new work to the area. I accept that that is not the fault of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. We are asking not for charity for him, but for a fair hearing. We have not had that fair hearing so far.
The decision on the AOR-1 contract cost Tyneside dear. Well over 1,000 people lost their jobs immediately after
1136
that procurement was announced. We learned much later from the Public Accounts Committee that the work was carried out elsewhere at an extra cost to the taxpayer of some £58 million. People on Tyneside regard that as unfair. The competition between ourselves and Barrow-in-Furness was not one of two equally placed tenderers. Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. has enormous reserves behind it which it uses astutely enough but which are simply not available to Swan Hunter.
On overseas contracts, the British Government would not even back Swan Hunter in the little contract from Oman for two patrol vessels, which could have led to orders for a further eight vessels. I believe that the Government's influence could have been decisive, but rather than see Swan Hunter get the contract, they let the work go to the French. That contract came at a time when a gesture from the Government would have been seen as an important gesture of confidence in the yard.
The Malaysian contract was a great scandal. The charge against the Government is twofold: if they were playing favourites in an overseas defence order, that is very wrong and unfair to other British companies that would have liked to have tendered for the work on an even playing field. If the British Government used public money to put a concealed subsidy behind the bid of their favoured tenderer, that is not just unfair; it is positively illegal. I hope that sooner or later the facts are ferreted out and are subjected to the fullest possible public scrutiny.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: No.
Mr. Brown: I thought that I heard a Hooray Henry intervention from the playing fields of Eton.
The people of Tyneside are asking for a level playing field. If the Minister can confirm that he is satisfied with the quality of work from Swan Hunter and that he hopes that it can tender for future work from his Department in private sector ownership, I shall be satisfied with his response to the debate tonight.
8.30 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I can associate myself at least with his earlier remarks, having visited Swan Hunter some three years ago and seen for myself the excellence of the work carried out there.
I should also like to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) in all he said about Devonport. I played my own modest role in putting pressure on the Government to secure the Trident refit contract for Devonport. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) is no longer in the Chamber. I hope that we are never forced to choose between Devonport and Rosyth; they both have a crucial strategic role to play in the defence of our country.
The debate has done a great deal to reassure me that at least the House understands the dependency of our nation on the sea. Some of our constituents are not as aware of that as they should be.
The United Kingdom still depends fundamentally on sea power. Even after the opening of the channel tunnel, 90 per cent. of our trade will still enter and leave these shores by sea. In war, securing the maritime supply lines will be an essential challenge to the Royal Navy if our civilians are to survive.

1137
The origins of the Royal Navy lie in the protection of the merchant fleet. When Henry VIII had his red, white and blue squadrons, there was no delineation between the merchant and military capacity of the Navy. It gradually separated into the red, white and blue ensigns that we have today designating the different aspects of our fleets. The Royal Navy's principal historic purpose has been to secure our coastal waters and protect our merchant shipping.
Of course, the Navy has acquired many new roles; it has to deal with an unpredictable and dangerous world. We have heard a great deal about that today, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). We should take careful note of the eighth report of the Defence Select Committee which shows the stresses and strains under which the Royal Navy operates.
The least sophisticated, least stable country can easily gain access to the most sophisticated and reliable weaponry. That is a challenge which we must make sure our Navy can face.
My principal purpose tonight is to raise two concerns which my hon. Friend the Minister did not address in his opening remarks. One has been dealt with in a number of interventions and speeches: the relationship between the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy. The other is ensuring that the hydrographic service is capable of meeting the challenges of the modern world.
I turn first to the Merchant Navy. We have heard a great deal from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster, for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) about the crucial role of the Merchant Navy as the fourth arm of the defence of our shores.
If the Royal Navy existed primarily to protect the Merchant Navy in the early days, it is certainly true now that the Merchant Navy has a crucial role in reinforcing the Royal Navy. If the Royal Navy is stretched, as it probably is, that role becomes more important.
I should declare an interest. For a number of years, I have had the privilege of advising the Chamber of Shipping and I have learnt the crucial role that the Merchant Navy can and should play in meeting our defence needs.
Several hon. Members have referred to the Falklands conflict and the role of STUFT—ships taken up from trade. More recently, in the Gulf war, there was heavy reliance on charter. Different conclusions were drawn by the Ministry of Defence from their experiences.
In 1982, Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse said:
"I cannot state too often or too clearly how important has been the Merchant Navy's contribution to our efforts. Without the ships taken up from trade, the operation could not have been undertaken, and I hope this message is clearly understood by the British nation.".
At the end of last year in a television interview, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, commented on the chartering of ships for the Gulf war:
"The criteria, the test is, 'Can you get them when you need them?' If the answer is 'Yes, and unequivocally yes' then this is a sensible way to use your resources."
That is the central question. Can we get them when we need them? Will those chartered reinforcements be available as readily as the Minister believes? I do not believe that they will.
A wide variety of military roles will be required of merchant vessels in a conflict: fleet support, supply tankers, troop carriers, hospital ships, vehicle and tank
1138
carriers, stores ships, tugs and salvage vessels. For different reasons, in each of those markets, different conditions will prevail which will make it difficult to be confident that the right mix of vessels will be available.
The crucial reason for that concern lies in the catastrophic decline of the British merchant fleet, both owned and registered. In 1980, some 38 million deadweight tonnes of shipping were owned by British shipping companies. Now the figure is only 13 million tonnes—one third of the level in 1980. The registered fleet stands at only 3·3 million deadweight tonnes, yet the Ministry of Defence insisted in a slightly mealy-mouthed statement nearly two years ago that, in general, there are still enough vessels for defence purposes.
The Government's view is that it is easy to charter, but what if the Governments or the owners of the vessels are opposed to United Kingdom strategic interests? How long will neutral shipowners take to assess the risk to their vessels before being prepared to commit them for use in wartime? Our need is often greatest in the early stages of a conflict. The hon. Member for Swansea, East asked about the costs of doing that.
The vessels that were chartered at the time of the Gulf war cost £180 million—more than twice what it would cost to charter in peacetime. The irony is that rebuilding our merchant fleet, which would be possible using a variety of fiscal and other techniques, would make money for the Treasury instead of costing money.
What do other nations do? More than 100 merchant ships went to the Gulf war for Britain, but only six flew the red duster. France sent 27 merchant ships; 26 of them flew the tricolour. The United States of America sent 165 merchant ships of which 105 flew the stars and stripes.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with the contents of the Jones Act which provides the explanation of why many United States merchant ships have to fly the United States flag?
Mr. Luff: There are many aspects of the way in which the United States has sought to address its merchant navy needs. I do not support all of them, but the United States has said that it needs to do better in any future conflict and has dedicated extra resources to building its merchant fleet.
The Employment Select Committee, in its third report last Session, drew particular attention to the problem of manpower. It might be possible to buy in foreign crews, but can we rely on their loyalty in time of conflict? Can we rely on their Governments allowing them to fight for Britain? The Indians would not let their nationals fight in the Falklands war.
The Ministry of Defence insists that adequate numbers are available. Have the Government made sufficient allowance for the various specialities by category of ratings and officers? Half the United Kingdom ratings perform little more than hotel functions on board British merchant vessels. They are valuable and important functions, but they are not necessarily the most important in times of war. Have the Government made a proper assessment of the fitness and qualfications of many of the numbers they claim? Coastal, estuarial and dock workers all make useful contributions, but their experience is unlikely to be relevant to deep sea warfare.

1139
There is also the issue of relocation to foreign chartered ships. It is not easy to learn how to use new equipment or deal with the foreign language instructions on much of that equipment.
The second and quite separate area that I want to address concerns the hydrographic service. That specialist area of the Royal Navy is sometimes overlooked. It celebrates its 200th anniversary next year, so it is right that we should remember it today. It has functions for the Ministry of Defence in gathering hydrographic, oceanographic and geophysical data. It has particular importance in terms of submarine navigation and for our nuclear deterrent. It also has a crucial role for maritime safety, the protection of the marine environment and maritime trade in all the waters for which the United Kingdom is responsible.
It may be run as an agency on the production and commercial side, but the ships are firmly part of the main fleet of the Royal Navy under the command of the Commander in Chief Fleet. The hydrographic service performs a vital role at times of national emergency. We were rightly reminded earlier of the imminent 50th anniversary of D-day. The brave and courageous surveying of the landing beaches by the hydrographic service enabled D-day to be the success that it was.
There are a number of specific challenges for the hydrographic service. It is a little known fact that only 36·6 per cent. of the United Kingdom continental shelf has been charted. That leaves some two thirds remaining. Many coastal waters have been surveyed only by lead line. The shifting sands in places such as the coast around Dover, where I recently had the privilege of sailing with HMS Beagle, require regular re-survey. There is also the question of changing priorities. The Braer disaster has created a new importance to surveying around the Fair Isle gap.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to address my next point, as it is important. There are new legal requirements. There is some talk of the Germans tabling proposals to amend chapter five of "Safety of Life at Sea" which would impose a massive new burden on our surveying requirements. Perhaps more important, the United Nations law of the sea convention has now acquired its 60th signatory and comes into force on 16 November this year.
Her Majesty's Government are in active consultation over part 11 of that convention, which deals with mineral resources in international waters. I hope that the Government will ratify the treaty before November. If they do, article 76 will have an important impact on our hydrographic service, because it imposes an obligation on our Government to define the continental shelf properly and accurately, and provide a mass of data within 10 years of ratification.
I am told that, in the north-west approaches to our waters, the continental shelf goes out more than 400 miles from the mainland, some way south of Iceland. Charting it is a massive task, to which others will contribute, such as the Natural Environment Research Council, the British Geological Survey, private contractors and private shipowners. But the central effort will be devolved to the hydrographic service. That is of central importance,
1140
because articles 77 and 81 of the convention give rights over minerals and drilling on the continental shelf to the country that has exercised its rights under the treaty.
We must ask whether the hydrographic service is well enough equipped to perform that role. It now has only two ocean survey vessels, three coastal survey vessels, one survey motor launch and two naval parties on chartered vessels, apart, of course, from Endurance, the ice patrol ship.
Many of those vessels are relatively old. HMS Beagle, on which I sailed, was commissioned in 1968. New hulls and investment in new technologies are needed urgently, irrespective of ratification of the law of the sea conference. In his recent report, the Hydrographer of the Navy hinted at a number of worrying delays in making the necessary decisions to re-equip the service.
My contention is that the Government are right to be proud of their record on many aspects of the Royal Navy. They are right to be proud of the fact that the Royal Navy has the youngest fleet since world war one. They have two priceless assets—the Merchant Navy and the hydrographic service—to which I believe they are not paying sufficient attention.
8.42 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) has just said about the Merchant Navy. I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), about the third report of the Select Committee on Employment on the future of maritime skills and employment in the United Kingdom. The Committee's recommendations—it is one on which I used to serve—are important. I am delighted that it diversified into the important matter of our maritime marine.
I cannot see—the hon. Gentleman put the question to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench—why there cannot be an exercise in the mobilisation of the merchant fleet in support of military operations. It does not have to be a full mobilisation, but I cannot believe that it would not be possible to sit down and do a desk exercise so that at least one would know what was available. One would warn the industry that it might happen at any time, somebody would blow the whistle and we could see who responded, how quickly, and what it would cost.
I am sure that that exercise is possible. I believe that the only reason why the Government do not want such an exercise is that they know very well what the answer would be. Therefore, there would be pressure on the Treasury, as well as other bodies, to introduce reforms, possibly of a fiscal nature, that would improve the situation and help to restore some of the merchant fleet that we badly need.
I should like to respond, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, to the compliments that have been showered around on the work that we have done. We are very well chaired—I am glad to see him back in the Chamber—by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who brings, as one would expect from a direct descendant of the noble admiral, a Nelson touch to the conduct of our affairs. It is the only Committee in this place never to have had a vote. The consensus and unanimity that we find in the debate today percolates to our Committee's deliberations.
As the years go by, our defence debates take place in an atmosphere of ever-increasing uncertainty. That matter has

1141
been picked up by many hon. Members today. The Government's most recent statement on our defence estimates for 1993 is entitled "Defending our Future". One must ask, against whom, what, where and when? The certainty of the old cold war is now gone, and the uncertainty of the new world order makes planning difficult. That means that the two principles of war—flexibility and mobility—become ever more important.
Also important is the cohesion of NATO. That needs to be demonstrated in Bosnia. If, as in Bosnia, NATO is talking tough, we must also be tough and act with the full agreement of all NATO partners. The situation in Bosnia is a test of the credibility of NATO and its relationship with the United Nations. It is the first time that NATO has been into offensive action since the Korean war 40 years ago.
Accepting that NATO remains the basis of our national defence, it is the north Atlantic alliance that, in turn, is its foundation stone.
Underpinning that is the so-called special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. I know that that relationship has been severely tested as of late, not least by the decision over the visa for Gerry Adams—it was advised against by the State Department and then overturned by the White House. It is terribly important that the hot line that exists between No. 10 Downing street and the White House is regularly used. On that occasion, I believe that communication broke down. Therefore, I think that the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to Washington is very important. I very much hope that the bridge of understanding and trust between No. 10 and the White House is rebuilt.
One way to assist that special relationship is through defence industrial co-operation. Joint projects and reciprocal sales between the United Kingdom and the United States—the so-called two-way street—are vital. It is significant that, although the political special relationship may have cooled a bit, there is no doubt that business men still recognise it.
It is a feature of our membership of the European Union that so many American businesses now invest in the United Kingdom. We attract nearly half their investment to the EC. The United States is the biggest recipient of British investment abroad. We have more investment into the United States than any other nation. That two-way street must be improved. That is why I want to say a word this evening about two defence industrial contractors: Vosper Thorneycroft and Westland. I will then say a quick word about Gibraltar.
Vosper Thorneycroft is based in the constituency of the late Stephen Milligan, who was our hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, which borders my constituency. I always regarded Stephen Milligan as a very good friend, a trusted colleague and splendid Member of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The whole House will join me in saying how saddened we are by his tragic death. I know that if he were here today, he would be speaking up for that company and his many constituents who worked there. I am sure that he would be standing, at the Bench just behind me, speaking eloquently, as he always did, without notes, and in an articulate manner. He will be sorely missed by the House.
If he were here today, I am sure that Stephen Milligan would ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he had seen press reports about the French company CMN, which is reported to be bidding for Swan Hunter. We have heard about the problems of Tyneside, and I acknowledge their
1142
existence; but—especially in view of what the hon. Member for Newcastle on Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said about a level playing field—it is worrying that a bid is being made for a British defence company by a French company that receives substantial Government support. That will, if anything, "unlevel" the playing field, and it may also add to the excess shipbuilding capacity that already exists in the United Kingdom. Companies such as Vosper Thorneycroft could experience unfair competition.
We have heard about the shipbuilding intervention fund—the £7 million that Swan Hunter has already received. Vosper Thorneycroft does not receive any such money. What do the Government intend to do? They have already decided to exclude foreign hulls from the tendering process in relation to minehunters; a serious French takeover bid for Swan Hunter could result in the undermining of Vosper Thorneycroft and the torpedoing, as it were, of an important industrial defence company.
We should take due note of the current situation in Gibraltar. This morning, I had a discussion with a representative of the Transport and General Workers Union about Gibraltar, and they drew my attention to the review of the Rock's economy by the Ministry of Defence. Over the past 10 years, that economy has undergone enormous structural change. It used to be 75 per cent. dependent on the MOD; the figure is now down to 15 per cent., and falling.
Some 600 or 700 more jobs are expected to be lost in Gibraltar as a result of the review, and the cutting of further MOD work. There could be as many as 1,000 redundancies. I feel that the time has come for a round table discussion between the MOD, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office about how we can provide alternative work and training for redundant workers to overcome the difficulties. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has already been out to the Rock and has talked to people there, but I think that they would like to come here and discuss the matter to ensure that any rescue plan is properly co-ordinated.
Let me ask two questions. First, is it possible for the Rock—as a Crown colony—to be granted assisted-area status? That could well be possible. Secondly, why can it not benefit more from the EC KONVER fund, which is already available to assist in such cases?
I congratulate all our Royal Navy personnel on the superb job that they are doing with UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia, and in the Adriatic. If they are called on to play a part in air strikes against Serbian or other gun or mortar positions, I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing them well, and a very safe return.
8.52 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has said about the Royal Navy and its personnel, especially given the difficult task that it is performing in the Adriatic.
Opening this important debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces referred to the battles of 50 years ago. I was pleased to hear him say that he recognised our responsibility to ensure that such events never occur again. He went on to say how important it was also to recognise the enduring need for sea power.

1143
Inevitably, debates on the Navy tend to be dominated by considerations about its hardware. Those concerns, which have been expressed again tonight, are very real, not least in view of the lead time that is now required to provide new ships at sea. It is no longer measured in years; it must almost be measured in decades. There are other considerations in regard to the Royal Navy, however, and tonight I wish to concentrate on the unique value of its contribution to the life of the nation.
Perhaps in slight contrast to the other two services, the Royal Navy constantly carries out useful tasks. Even in peacetime, the Navy is doing something that must be done—something that is useful and repays some of the expense that the taxpayer necessarily incurs in maintaining it.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned a number of the tasks for which it is responsible in peacetime, many of which are in aid of the civil powers. He mentioned the assistance given to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, fishery protection, work to control drug and arms running, work associated with accidents and emergencies and evacuation work—which could be military or civilian.
Mention has also been made of patrols in waters of high strategic importance—such as the Armilla patrol, which has operated for the past 14 years—and of the need to protect sovereignty. In that context, the Falkland Islands immediately spring to mind.
Another of the Navy's tasks is supporting the British Antarctic survey, which is particularly significant in the light of the Rio agreements. South Georgia fishing limits will have to be policed by naval forces, because there is no airfield on the island. The list goes on and on: all the Navy's peacetime tasks represent a return for the taxpayer's money. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) mentioned the hydrographic service. That aspect of the Royal Navy's work has an immediate pay-off, generating substantial income.
Traditionally, the Royal Navy has been one of the finest training schools in the world, if not the finest. It continues to train young men in increasingly high-tech skills which will be relevant to the civilian life to which they will eventually return. It also provides training in man management, the taking of responsibility and good citizenship. All that costs an enormous amount but pays handsome dividends—unlike other areas of Government expenditure, which sometimes appear to produce no return at all.
Let me place on record my regret about certain features of naval life today. We no longer have a Royal Naval Reserve Fleet. During the past 12 months, we have agreed to scrap the Royal Naval Auxiliary Reserve. The House must be aware of the decimation of the Royal Naval Reserve and the ending of a long tradition of the Royal Naval Reserve manning and operating its own sea-going tenders. It must also be aware of the closure of Royal Naval Reserve depots around our coastline.
Those facts, taken in conjunction with the reduced numbers of men employed in the fishing industry and the contraction of the merchant marine, which was mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening, and with the increasing use of foreign crews in the ships that remain under the red ensign, mean that the ships and personnel that we have now are all that we are likely to have to fight with in a future conflict.
1144
Given the lead time to build new ships, and given that we have drained every reservoir and every pool of seafaring expertise, it is unlikely that we will be able to mount any additional forces in any foreseeable conflict other than the forces that we have at that time. That places an enormous responsibility on Government and especially on Defence Ministers.
I invite the House to consider the words of President Clinton in his "State of the Union" address on 25 January, three weeks ago, when he said:
"Last year, I proposed a defense plan that maintains our post-Cold War security at a lower cost. This year, many people urged me to cut our defense spending further to pay for other government programmes. I said no. The budget I send to Congress draws the line against further defense cuts. It protects the readiness and quality of our forces. Ultimately, the best strategy is to do that."
He want on to say:
"We must not cut defense further."
During the debate, understandably, Bosnia has been mentioned several times. The House is well aware of the substantial contribution that Britain is making in that region and especially, in the context of the debate, the number of naval assets deployed in the Adriatic. That is of enormous value and importance because of what those forces represent in terms of their potential for supporting, for reinforcing, for interdicting from the air if necessary and even ultimately for evacuating our forces on the ground. It is a classic example of the use of sea power. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) referred to the 500 years of tradition that we have in the use and deployment of sea power, maintaining a presence or even a threat beyond the horizon, which in its turn deters and lends enhanced credibility to the diplomacy that our country conducts.
I now turn to the words of caution that were so thoughtfully expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster when he spoke about the political situation in Russia. I share his worries. As we move towards what may well become a shooting war in Bosnia, I am apprehensive at the prospect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation being led into a three-dimensional trap. My three-dimensional trap is one of demoralisation, stemming from involvement in a war that we might not be able to win, possibly confronting the prospect of defeat, diplomatically, militarily or both, and that might—we must all fight against this—lead ultimately to the disintegration of NATO, which would be the realisation of Moscow's long-term aim. I invite the House to consider who, even now, remain the world's best chess players.
To understand the danger to NATO and the threat to western democracy, it is necessary to analyse carefully what is happening in Russia today. That, to my mind, is best summed up in the headline that appeared in a brief from the Center for Security Policy in Washington, dated 24 January 1994:
"Who lost Russia? The same people who are taking it back—the Soviets and their friends."
9.3 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I am sure that all hon. Members present will join me in welcoming the opportunity to discuss the future of the Royal Navy. Since the launch of "Options for Change" in the summer of 1990 and subsequent announcements about the size of our armed forces, we have had few occasions to debate the broad strategic implications of our current maritime policy.

1145
I am glad that so few Members of the Opposition have sufficient interest in the subject to be here this evening, because it has allowed me to squeeze into the debate, but I cannot avoid acknowledging the brief cameo appearance of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), the sole member of the Liberal party who has occasionally turned up—rather like a picnic boat at Henley royal regatta.
The facts and the contents of the debates, and the contributions made to them by Ministers, allied with those Ministers' firm decision in favour of a new helicopter carrier—I trust that a complementary order for new landing platform docks will soon be made as well—and the recent pronouncement, which appears to clarify the Ministry of Defence's policy on the size of the surface fleet, bode well and prove that only a Conservative Government can be entrusted with the nation's defences.
There is, nevertheless, a very real danger of a continuing mismatch between the Royal Navy's resources and its operational commitments. For that reason, it remains necessary for the Government to think clearly and carefully about our foreign policy interests and decide which are crucial and which are merely desirable if current financial pressures prevail. In short, where is the front line? Should it be redrawn to match our resources or should our resources be allowed to increase to man a longer front line fully?
At present, the Royal Navy is valiantly seeking to fulfil our commitments to NATO, in the north Atlantic, in the Mediterranean and the channel; to continue the long-standing Armilla patrol in the Gulf; to maintain a presence in the south Atlantic and the West Indies; and, of late, to provide more ships for patrolling the Adriatic. The Royal Navy is also to be found in the Indian ocean and the far east.
Naval technology and doctrine have certainly changed since Alfred Mahan cautioned fiercely, "Never divide the fleet," but surely it is only common sense that our current commitments should at all times be bolstered by the funds necessary to ensure that a naval presence in a particular geographical area is of sufficient quality, in terms of capabilities and the amount of time spent on station, to achieve military and diplomatic objectives.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has tempered the Ministry's vagueness—some might say, understandable obfuscation—about the size of the surface fleet. Until several months ago, projections of a combined destroyer and frigate force of "about 35" could be interpreted—indeed, were interpreted—as meaning 30. We are now assured that "about 35" means no fewer than 34. This trend provides some hope of a more open debate about the role of the Royal Navy, and the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on that. In future, it might even be possible to have an absolute minimum figure, but problems remain.
The projected figure includes those vessels described as being in "extended readiness", a delicate euphemism for totally unfit for combat. If all those warships that are being broken in, refitted and even awaiting sale are taken into account, it means that, for every one vessel on patrol, there are two or three in port.
The United States navy is the world leader in stealth technology but the Royal Navy may become the world leader in another sense. It will be so overstretched by a multiplicity of global commitments that it will be a
1146
ghost-like, ultra-stealthy fleet. It is sobering to re-read what a Conservative defence commentator, Christopher Coker, wrote only six years ago. He reported:
"the 1987 Defence Estimates … suggested … that the Navy would deploy only 45 operational frigates and destroyers by the mid-1990s, a figure very close to the total of 42 planned in the 1981 Nott review".
Would that we were to have 42 or 45 operational, or even partly operational, surface ships now.
It is perhaps counter-productive to speculate on which royal naval commitments are more dispensable than others. Such an exercise would merely demoralise the dedicated seamen who serve on particular vessels. The Ministry should, however, accept that the Royal Navy is, I fear, overstretched. With that acceptance, my right hon. and learned Friend will be equipped to consider all possible options for improving the situation without compromising the national interest.
It is also vital that my right hon. and learned Friend should make two cast-iron—or perhaps I should say "iron-clad"—commitments, the first being to resolve project definition by assuring the House that the two increasingly outdated amphibious assault ships, HMS Fearless and Intrepid, will be replaced. Combined land-sea amphibious operations are one of our greatest strengths and they enable us to act, independently or in concert, in out-of-area operations in what Senator Nunn of the United States so charmingly dubbed "come-as-you-are parties".
The second commitment involves our submarine fleet. There is an unfortunate fallacy, fashionable in some quarters, that submarine warfare is somehow less important now than it was during the cold war. I suggest that people forget at their peril not only that the Russian fleet is undiminished but that country's construction programme appears to be continuing apace.
The versatility of the modern SSN—the nuclear-powered submarine—is ignored. Too often it is written off as a platform whose sole rationale is as a submarine killer or as an overly aggressive weapon which does not sit well with the multilateral peacekeeping operations in which surface vessels are used to send diplomatic signals.
The fact is that SSNs are versatile boats. They can be used to launch conventional cruise missiles against land targets, to protect our sea lanes, to conduct surveillance and special operation missions and, through improvements in submarine C31—or command control communication intelligence systems—as an integrated part of a surface fleet. The Government should and, I trust, will assure the House that no more cuts in the SSN fleet will be made. They should also reconsider the decision to disband the Upholder class of conventional submarines whose qualities have been mentioned by other hon. Members this evening.
With a guarantee about the size of the surface fleet and a decision to proceed with a helicopter carrier—which will go hand in hand, I trust, with an announcement about LPDs—the Government and the Ministers on the Front Bench have shown that they hold the Royal Navy's best interests close to their hearts and at the forefront of their minds. What we must now do is build on those guarantees and ensure that the Royal Navy can meet all its commitments now and in the foreseeable future.
9.10 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is one of the advantages of having a name beginning with W that, from time to time, one is tail-end Charlie in a debate. When

1147
you and I first came into the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our naval debates were illumined by hon. and gallant Members who had spent their formative years before the mast. I have not had that privilege, but we have all had the privilege of hearing some exceedingly fine speeches this evening, not least from hon. Members who either, as in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), are distinguished in their field or who have proved themselves distinguished in their defence of constituency interests, be they naval bases, shipyards or companies which support the Royal Navy.
If one cannot spend time before the mast, one can at least try and do the next best thing. In the House, it is to get oneself on to the parliamentary armed forces scheme. I am just coming to the end of my term. I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, particularly, if I may say so, in politics. None the less, I pay a warm-hearted tribute both to the organisers of the scheme and to my generous hosts, the Corps of Royal Marines. I want, in the few minutes that remain, to dwell on the importance to this country of our amphibious capability and of the Royal Marines in particular.
As has so often been remarked in the course of this wide-ranging debate, we are an island nation which depends on overseas trade for its livelihood and on the maintenance of that trade for its survival. We are different from our continental allies in western Europe, and our maritime heritage impels us towards a concentration, if we are wise, on the instruments of maritime power and of air power which is its concomitant.
The Royal Marines are indispensable to us because they enable us to project power ashore from the sea in an exceedingly cost-effective manner. They are only some 6,000 or so in strength and their budget is only some £200 million a year, but every man of the Royal Marines is trained to the highest standards, and there is no dilution of those standards even at this time of acute economic stringency.
Then there is the versatility of the corps, which, during my attachment to it, enabled me to see at first hand something of its operations. I thought that Belize was a typical scenario, being a country that might at some time in the future require amphibious assistance for its defence. In Northern Ireland, 40. Commando is engaged in west Belfast as I speak. This is a highly dangerous environment, notwithstanding the Government's efforts to secure a political settlement which will bring peace. In addition, I saw marines train in northern Norway for arctic warfare. Without that training and without their special expertise the Royal Marines would not have been able to provide the essential ingredient which made possible the recapture of the Falkland Islands in 1982.
I did not see, but read newspaper accounts of, the Royal Marines' intervention in Operation Haven in northern Iraq. We read about the activities of the naval pilots from the commando Sea King squadrons that are providing such valiant service in Bosnia at present. Before the conflict is over, we may need yet again to be able to project military power ashore from the sea. I should be prepared to lay a bet that, if so—whether to reinforce our presence or to execute a satisfactory withdrawal from Bosnia—the Royal Marines will be there.
1148
I should like to make just two observations about the equipment of the Royal Marines. First, there is the crucial importance, for their operations as for the operations of the Army, of a sufficiency of helicopters. It is my earnest hope that in due time, when the Sea King mark IV comes to be replaced, the utility version of the Merlin will be used. It would make very good logistic sense. The commonality would make for economy in the operations of the fleet. I trust too that, if the Royal Air Force acquires some of these aircraft—I hope that it will—they will be marinised and able to inter-operate with the Sea Kings of 845 and 846 naval air squadrons for the Royal Marines.
Secondly, I gather that it is planned that the anti-armour element of 3 Commando Air Squadron—the Lynx/TOW aircraft—will not be replaced with a dedicated anti-tank helicopter flown by the Royal Marines. I am informed that the Royal Marines will have to rely on the Army Air Corps for this role. I believe this to be unwise—first, because there is a likelihood that the aircraft will not be marinised and, therefore, will be unsuitable for operation from carriers; secondly, because it is almost certain that some general will require the Army Air Corps to be elsewhere when the Royal Marines badly need their aeroplanes.
The other equipment issue which I wish to raise concerns ships. We are delighted at the decision of Her Majesty's Government to procure HMS Ocean, the landing platform helicopter, but this vessel is to be constructed only partly to naval standards. Bearing in mind what happened to the Atlantic Conveyor and to Sir Galahad in the Falklands war, I wonder whether that is entirely right.
When I read my contract bulletin from the Ministry of Defence and see that the project definition studies for the two landing platform dock vessels are to be studies for potential construction without the full implementation of naval standards, I wonder about the wisdom of such a potentially cost-saving measure. I know that defensive aids have much improved and that there are electronic and chaff defences which are perhaps more important than ruggedness of construction. Nevertheless, I hope that we shall not spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar.
Finally, I earnestly pray that we shall be able to retain Swan Hunter shipbuilders in operation on the Tyne. To do so is crucial to a properly competitive naval shipbuilding industry. The yard is fully capable of building vessels such as the landing ship logistic which we shall want and the landing platform docks that we shall need. I hope that we shall be able to keep the yard going until it can be rescued by a French buyer, or whoever it may be. I hope that the LSL Sir Bedivere will be refitted by Swan Hunter.
I praise the Royal Marines and Her Majesty's Government for the support that they have given to the Marines, and I thank my hosts, who made my parliamentary attachment so worth while.
9.20 pm
Dr. John Reid: Single service debates are normally characterised by a relatively small number of people who have a relatively wide range of knowledge. They are normally leaner and fitter than most of the debates and tonight has been no exception.
A large number of specific points were raised and it is almost impossible to cover them all as well as making general remarks. However, to address one comment to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), many of us had feared the experience of interventions from

1149
him in Royal Air Force debates and it now seems that he has geared up to extend his empire of knowledge. We look forward to his future comments in debates on the Royal Marines and other naval matters.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) raised a specific point regarding Devonport, especially the need to retain a skill mix there for Trident. He was one of a number of hon. Members who raised a specific industrial issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) referred to the tragic developments at Swan Hunter. In both those cases we want to see the retention of strategic industrial capacity in the United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members presented a pretty devastating critique of the present position of our merchant fleet, to which I shall return, including the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr. Luff), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) reiterated his view that naval resources did not match naval commitments. He said that there was a mismatch and an overstretch. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), managed to combine that point in a devastating fashion along with a pledge of undying loyalty to the Tory Government and confidence that they will not do that in the first place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) highlighted the devastating effects of random and unscheduled cuts based on budgetary rather than strategically driven decisions, outlined the effect of those cuts on the shipbuilding industry and asked some penetrating questions about the Malaysian aid deal, to which I hope the Minister will reply in his summation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) raised a range of social issues, especially the disgraceful difference since 1979, under the Government, between the real increase in wages and conditions—particularly wages—among the higher ranks in the Navy and the real decrease of up to 14 per cent. among ordinary ratings. It seems that for the Government and the armed forces, as elsewhere, there are two standards—one for the bosses and one for the poor bloody infantry and the poor bloody ratings.
My hon. Friend also talked of the standard of education in schools attended by sons and daughters of personnel. It was interesting to see how the party of "back to basics" in education did not like the detail with which he had armed himself tonight. Hon. Members said that it was a boring subject. If the education of the sons and daughters of the military of the country is a boring subject, I ask myself why the Tories have been prattling on for the past six months about an education system which they have murdered over the past 14 years. My hon. Friend did a service to the House by raising that issue.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) looked for a balanced fleet and for "a clear strategic view". If he is looking for that, he will, in his own words, "look in vain" to the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) raised some important questions, to which I shall return, about the role of aircraft carriers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) made perhaps the most impassioned and certainly the most moving appeal tonight. She argued, as she has in the past—tonight she surpassed herself—about the way in which the Government have betrayed their commitment
1150
not only to our industrial base but to our strategic requirements and to the manpower and womanpower at the Rosyth base.
I repeat that the Labour party believes, and has believed, in the continued existence of two dockyards capable of refitting nuclear-powered submarines. We believe that that is essential, and we stand by that tonight. It is a great tragedy that, as predicted, the so-called guarantees given by the Secretary of State for Defence some months ago turned out to be as flimsy as we thought they would be—
Mr. Aitken: No.
Dr. Reid: The Minister says no, but we are all learning from experience the difference between a written guarantee and a Rifkind guarantee; the second sort is not worth the paper it is not written on.
The hon. Member for Upminister (Sir N. Bonsor) gave his usual polished performance, bringing a great deal of experience, specifically to the criticism of the decision on the Upholder class—I shall return to that subject—and to his comments on the Select Committee's view that our naval forces are insufficient for our commitments. That was also the Committee's view on the infantry, and I suspect that it is increasingly becoming its view across the whole range. If I have missed out any hon. Members who spoke, perhaps I shall mention them during my general comments.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, the events of today are moving so quickly that, even as we have been speaking, the situation in Bosnia has been changing, almost by the hour. Immediately before the debate, using a rather spurious answer rather than a full statement, the Government refused to meet a request by someone who is admittedly a United Nations and NATO general, but who also happens to be a British Army officer and a British citizen, for us to assist towards the creation of a more stable environment around Sarajevo by supplying more troops.
The Opposition regret that refusal, and feel that General Sir Michael Rose has been let down, as have the UN forces in Bosnia in general. We appreciate the danger and we take the point about balancing the risks, but apart from the consideration that the request was made by a British general, the fact that we are already one of the largest contributors to the force in Bosnia means that we should be ultra-cautious about the danger of not having sufficient troops on the ground, in the estimation of the UN commander. We are sad, and we believe that the Government have ducked their responsibilities.
Some hon. Members may be aware that since the debate started there has been a relatively surprising political initiative. The Russians have apparently spoken to the Serbs this afternoon and said that they are prepared to put in extra soldiers around Sarajevo. The Serbs appear to be suggesting that on that basis they will withdraw more completely than they had previously been prepared to. It is too early to give a reasoned judgment on that development, but let us all, on both sides of the House, hope that it has the potential to reduce even further the possibility of a terrible overspill into general war, and to de-escalate the situation around Sarajevo.
Mr. Garnier: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the development that he has just mentioned is probably the direct result of the intervention by the British Prime Minister in Moscow this week?
Dr. Reid: That may be the case. I am not in a position to know whether the new policy of "back to Boris" has brought some benefits. If the Prime Minister was involved in the decision in any way, hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome that. Perhaps he has made no reference to it since coming back from Moscow because there were secret talks—or it may all be nothing to do with him. If he contributed towards what may turn out to be a move towards peace, of course we shall all welcome that, as we would welcome any steps that could be taken to resolve the savage and cruel war in the former Yugoslavia.
I shall briefly add my voice to the accolades that it is customary to give on such occasions to the service men and women in the Royal Navy. This year, in connection with the Navy, the phrase "service men and women" is probably more important than it was in the past.
It has been mentioned that this year is the 50th anniversary of the greatest armada of ships ever assembled by this or any other nation together with its allies. Our thoughts go to those who gave their lives in the service of their country, especially the role that they played on 6 June 1944. That great armada may have diminished somewhat but, as hon. Members have said, not only in the Adriatic but elsewhere, men and women of the British Navy continue to fulfil a role that is not only productive for this country and its national interests but, one hopes, helps to create a more peaceful and stable world.
In discussing the future role of the Royal Navy, I shall start my general remarks by making the observation, which is perhaps a banal one, that the security of the United Kingdom is first and foremost a question of maritime security—that is self-evident for an island such as ours. In defensive terms, our ability to guarantee the security of Britain's sea lines of communication has always been the fundamenental prerequisite of our survival as a nation. Twice in this century alone—we have already referred to one occasion—we faced a hostile enemy determined to blockade and starve Britain into submission, and twice we have prevailed by the narrowest of margins. Defending ourselves from the emergence of a similar threat in the future remains our primary duty.
If the sea is our first line of defence, it is just as important as a means of pursuing our wider security objectives. If we are denied the use of some of the world's oceans for our purposes, we would be powerless to safeguard our interests overseas, resist acts of aggression against our friends and allies abroad and fulfil our own obligations within the NATO area. Today, as in the past, our vital interest extends far beyond Britain's shores and we must ensure that we retain the ability to contribute to the maintenance of peace and stability wherever it is threatened.
Having defined the two main tasks of the Royal Navy—the defensive task of protecting our trade routes and the offensive task of projecting power overseas—it should be clear that the transformation of the strategic environment since 1989, which has been alluded to by several hon. Members, has significant implications for the relative emphasis that each should be accorded within our overall defence strategy. The disintegration of the Warsaw pact and the break-up of the old Soviet fleet means that we need a radical reassessment of our approach to the use of sea power.
As several hon. Members have mentioned during the cold war our priorities were relatively simple to define—to maintain the transatlantic link and to deploy sufficient
1152
ground forces in a forward position to act as a deterrent to any intended aggression. The situation has now changed in two fundamental respects: first, the central front no longer exists and the correlation of forces in Europe has changed out of all recognition; secondly, there has been a dramatic decline in the potential threat to shipping in the eastern Atlantic following the rapid decrease in the size and operational readiness of the Russian navy.
I shall be careful how I couch this because caution has correctly emanated from several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Upminster, for Ludlow and for Harborough. It is essential to guard against complacency and prepare for the possibility of a revived threat. Russia continues to operate a number of modern surface warships and highly capable attack submarines, and an authoritarian regime in Moscow may at some stage in the future attempt to rebuild an ocean-going capability with the intention of posing a challenge to the security of Britain and our allies. Therefore, we are not complacent.
Continued economic stagnation is almost certain to impose resource limitations on what the Russian armed forces are capable of doing in the foreseeable future, regardless of who is in power. Furthermore, as the new military Russian doctrine underlines, the issue of the near abroad is likely to preoccupy Russian military planners for some time. Therefore, although we are not complacent, we recognise the objective economic, political and geographical conditions that constrain even a threatening and ambitious leadership in Russia.
For the Royal Navy, those developments are of the utmost significance. In the absence of an immediate and tangible threat to transatlantic communications, the Royal Navy will be able to spend less time and devote fewer resources to the task of gaining control of the sea and concentrate more on using that control for the purposes of power projection.
Our naval force structure and procurement plans need to be revised in a way that explicitly recognises that change. On paper, the Government appear to agree with us on that matter. On Tuesday, for example, the Secretary of State for Defence told a meeting organised by the Centre for Defence Studies that our maritime power projection capability was a critical component of national defence strategy. He went on to define its core capacity as consisting of three distinct elements: aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered submarines and amphibious forces. It is appropriate, therefore, to consider those elements as a convenient yardstick by which to judge the effectiveness of Government policy.
The refit in 1959 of the old Ark Royal aircraft carrier was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). The relationship of existing aircraft carriers to the future capability and role of the Royal Navy was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. In view of the importance accorded to the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers by the Secretary of State, I hope that the Minister, when he sums up, will be able to deny categorically a recent press report that HMS Ark Royal is to be mothballed—although the MOD, using its latest euphemism, would say that it is being placed in a state of "extended readiness". Someone in the MOD must be being paid to do nothing but think up beautiful euphemisms. As has been mentioned, we have not cuts but "downsizing".
I hope that the Minister will deny the report, because there would be a significant diminution in our maritime

1153
intervention capability if extended readiness, mothballing or any other euphemism that the MOD can produce, were to shroud the Ark Royal. We know from our experience of the Falklands war that a force consisting of two carriers affords a degree of air power that is barely adequate to conduct maritime operations in a hostile environment. Without the Ark Royal, it would be impossible to ensure even a two-carrier deployment.
As the Secretary of State said on Tuesday:
"to be an effective tool, a naval force must have a credible capability to act".
Unless the Ark Royal receives its planned refit, such a credible capability will cease to exist. The Secretary of State must understand that.
It is interesting that the Secretary of State specified nuclear-powered submarines in his speech. As we are all aware, last July the Government announced their intention to lease or sell the United Kingdom's fleet of four Upholder class diesel-powered submarines, a matter to which various hon. Members alluded. It must now be obvious to the Government, in view of the comments from hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the wisdom of that decision is questionable.
The smaller draft of Upholder vessels compared with the larger nuclear-powered attack submarines makes them better suited to the type of coastal operations that are vital in amphibious warfare, especially in mine-clearing and special forces operations. The unique inshore capabilities of those vessels are still required. It remains for the Government to explain how the assets will be provided if all four Upholders are sold.
The final element of naval power identified by the Secretary of State—the amphibious capability—is even more interesting. There has been a great deal of comment by hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and for Barrow and Furness, on amphibiosity and amphibious capability. We know that assault ships Fearless and Intrepid were used during the Falklands war and both would be needed again in any future large-scale operation.
"Extended readiness" is a phrase that we have heard again in relation to one or both of those ships. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that Intrepid could be made operational in the event of an emergency? Will he confirm that Fearless has been kept operational in much the same way as the second division in the Gulf was kept operational—by cannibalising the first? Will he confirm that Fearless has been kept operational because the Intrepid is being cannibalised for spare parts? Unless he can give us that categorical assurance, many will wonder whether the guarantees that we shall have two amphibious ships at our disposal ring hollow. I fear that the real answer cannot be given tonight and that the term "extended readiness" is little more than an exercise in obfuscation.
It is a matter of great national concern that the Royal Navy's amphibious capability has been allowed to lapse into such a state of disrepair. It is an indictment of the Government's approach to defence policy that they have so far failed to provide the resources and take the decisions needed to rectify that problem.
Last November, the Secretary of State announced to the Select Committee on Defence that he would invite tenders for a further batch of Sandown class minehunters, taking our total force "up to" 25 vessels. First, that was a declaration of intent, and no one should think anything else; it is not a firm order. Secondly, it is vague
1154
commitment, with the phrase "up to" 25. Thirdly, even if the orders were placed today, there would be a danger period, spreading to the end of the century, in which mine counter-measures capability would be perilously overstretched. Can the Minister give us any further concrete news on how that situation now stands?
The merchant marine has been mentioned by almost every hon. Member tonight. I need say no more than that there is unanimity in the House that this country is no longer capable of mustering anything remotely near to the type of back-up that we would need from the commercial sector if there were a national naval emergency. One of the first priorities of a future Labour Government will be to seek ways to identify a core of militarily useful commercial ships and to devise the means by which their continued availability can be assured.
The time for choices is rapidly approaching. We cannot go on indefinitely postponing decisions, pushing back orders and tapering back training. We cannot go on having cuts and cannnibalising one section of the armed forces' equipment to keep another one going.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West quoted Churchill in a moving section of her speech. Churchill also said that one of the facts of life was that when one took the most audacious airman, the most courageous seaman and the most gallant soldier and put them in a room together, the result was the sum total of their fears.
I am afraid that if we put the Ministers for Defence together, we would appear to get the sum total of their fears. They fear, on the one hand, the Treasury and, on the other, making decisions which might alienate some people in the short term, but which would be absolutely essential for the benefit of our armed forces in the long run. Unless they overcome those fears, they will do a disservice to themselves, the House, the Navy and the rest of the armed forces.
9.42 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I am glad that, in his catalogue of fears which he thinks the ministerial team has, the hon.Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) did not include a fear of the Opposition Front Bench. I can certainly assure him that that is not high on our list of priorities.
I am glad to open the winding-up speech by paying the traditional, but nevertheless wholehearted, tribute to the men and women who serve in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. Hon. Members from all parts of the House throughout the debate have expressed consistently high praise for their professionalism, loyalty and dedication to duty. I am glad to add the Government's tribute of appreciation to the senior service.
I express that appreciation tonight with particular feeling because, although there have been some encouraging developments today in Sarajevo about which I shall say something in a moment, it is still possible that Royal Air Force and Royal Navy pilots could have to go into action next week. That is a sombre thought and makes this debate on the Royal Navy all the more timely and appropriate.
There has been an encouraging and important new development to the situation in Sarajevo today. The Russian Government have offered 400 troops to join UNPROFOR. As a consequence of that announcement and

1155
of other developments, including the British Government's announcement that we will be redeploying some 300 men to Sarajevo from Vitez, it appears that General Rose is getting more and more of the troops he has requested to help monitor the ceasefire. That ceasefire appears to be making encouraging progress and it is being reported tonight that there has been a significant increase in the withdrawal of Serb artillery units beyond the 20 km line.
It is too early to say that the ultimatum has been complied with, but the early signs are distinctly encouraging. The British Government welcome those developments. We are glad that the Russion Government have been so active in persuading the Serbs to withdraw their heavy weapons. The matters were discussed between President Yeltsin and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They agreed on common objectives in Bosnia during their talks in Moscow. Both Governments wanted to see heavy weapons withdrawn from Sarajevo. Both Governments wanted to see those weapons brought under United Nations control. Both Governments wanted to see the peace negotiations given new impetus. Those developments appear to be happening.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested that we and our partners should use whatever channels we had to bring our influence to bear on the warring parties. President Yeltsin privately gave the Prime Minister notice that he intended to send a personal emissary, Deputy Minister Churkin, to meet the Serbs, and that Russia might be prepared to deploy additional troops to Sarajevo to control heavy weapons.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence did everything that they could to encourage that. So today's news that the Russians have made some progress is seen as a most welcome development, arising as it did directly from the talks in Moscow. The whole House will congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on what has clearly been a most successful diplomatic initiative.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is obviously right, and I am sure that the whole House will join him in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and welcoming the Russian initiative to send assistance to us in Sarajevo. I see on the tapes this evening that there is a planned meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Italy on Sunday. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the meeting will go ahead? We all hope that there will be no need to undertake any further initiative and that what has been agreed today will be effective.
Mr. Aitken: I can, indeed, confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the United States Defence Secretary and Defence Secretaries of other nations that have aircraft based in Italy which would be involved in securing compliance with United Nations resolutions will meet in Italy on Sunday. It will be a briefing meeting which will allow them to be briefed at first hand by operational commanders of their own contingents.
I shall do my best to answer the points raised in today's Navy debate. Before I leave the subject of Bosnia, I must say to the two Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen that they seemed to be unduly and unfairly churlish about the
1156
British contribution in Bosnia. I should point out that we are already providing one of the largest contingents in UNPROFOR.
We are contributing to the United Nations' immediate needs by agreeing to the redeployment of some of our forces, notably two companies of the Coldstream Guards from Vitez to Sarajevo and a mortar locating troop equipped with Cymbeline radar. Those extra special resources for which General Rose has asked are a most effective contribution and response to the United Nations request.
General Rose has been told of this morning's Cabinet decision and I understand that he is very pleased with the British contribution. I only wish that the leader of the Liberal Democrats was in his place tonight. I would like to say to his face that his remarks in the House this afternoon were misplaced, ill advised and utterly wrong.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister is perfectly entitled to his view. As he was so keen to say that to my right hon. Friend's face, did he contact my right hon. Friend's office during the day to give him warning that he would like him to be here?
Mr. Aitken: I intended no discourtesy in parliamentary terms. The leaders of parties can look after themselves and must expect their public statements to be responded to. It was not a personal attack. I was criticising his political position.
Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Aitken: No, I will not give way.
Mr. Eric Martlew: It is now a quarter to 10 at night. Would not it have been better if the Prime Minister had come to the Dispatch Box at 3.30 pm and made a statement on Bosnia and Russia?
Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman merely reveals the unsuitability of himself and his party for government. Has he never heard of secret diplomacy? Has he never heard of co-ordination of the timing of announcements with allies? Surely he realises that the British and Russian Governments had to co-ordinate. It was right that the Russian Government should make their announcement at the appropriate time.
In the limited time available to me, I shall now return to naval matters. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who I see returning to his place—I hope that I did not worry him too much with my earlier criticisms; I thought that he might have taken flight—asked about Upholder submarines. That subject was also mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and others.
As we announced in the 1993 White Paper, the Upholders are being withdrawn from service in the six months leading up to March 1995. That was an extremely difficult decision for us to take. It was due to the fact that there has been a fall in Soviet—now Russian—navy activity, particularly in the Greenland-Iceland gap, where the Upholders were designed and designated to patrol.
I was confused by the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East because, having criticised us for proposing to withdraw the Upholders, in another part of his speech he seemed to refer to the Greenland-Iceland gap and say how good it was that the United States had reduced its activity

1157
in that region. But at the end of his speech, he demanded less anti-submarine activity and greater power projection of maritime forces. I think that there was some confusion—he cannot have it all ways, even if he is a Labour party spokesman.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Swansea, East when he talked about the need for maritime power projection for various purposes, including the defence of what he called microstates. He referred to the landing platform for helicopters, which he mysteriously called a cost-cutting measure—that is not what my hon. Friends the Treasury Ministers called it when the project was approved. LPH achieves mobility, flexibility and the amphibious element that is crucial to future peacekeeping operations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster referred to a rumour. He was right in describing it as a rumour, and I can scotch it once and for all. It was rumoured that, because we introduced the LPH, the carrier would be scrapped as a consequence. We have no such plans or intentions and the rumour is false.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster also mentioned piracy, and I can give him a more emollient reply than he was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) about the Malacca straits. We believe that all attacks on merchant ships at sea are a matter of great concern. Royal Navy ships will take all appropriate measures to respond to incidents of piracy whenever they are able to do so. The United Kingdom is playing an active role with the Association of South-East Asian Nations and other states in the International Maritime Organisation to combat piracy.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), referred to the merchant shipping fleet, which has been of concern to us. The last decade has seen a significant decline in the British flag merchant fleet. We at the Ministry of Defence keep a close watch on the numbers of strategic ships to ensure that our plans are capable of being achieved.
Many of the issues raised about increasing the size of the merchant fleet are matters for the Department of Transport, not the Ministry of Defence. A new package of measures to help the British shipping industry and encourage more British shipowners to fly the red ensign was announced by the Department of Transport on 15 December. Those measures include new regulations simplifying the registration of merchant ships, and consultation on the proposal that, except for strategic ships—where there will be a nationality requirement for the master to be British, or to be from British Commonwealth, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or EC countries—officers of United Kingdom-registered ships can be of any nationality.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) made a moving speech. She has been a doughty fighter for her constituents, for which I respect her. She made an eloquent plea on behalf of Rosyth naval base. The 155 redundancies to which she referred have a simple explanation. It was confirmed in January 1992 that Rosyth naval base would be reduced to a minor war vessel operating base by April 1995. As part of the planned rundown to minor war vessel operating base status, we had, sadly, to announce up to 155 redundancies. There was no deceit about the subject, which was not part of the "Front Line First" study.
The hon. Lady made a powerful caes for the retention of Rosyth naval base, not just in terms of avoiding
1158
unemployment among her constituents, but for strategic reasons. I shall consider her speech carefully as part of "Front Line First". There is no great secret or conspiracy—"Front Line First" studies all aspects of defence support activity, of which naval infrastructure is just one of 20.
Studies are being conducted across the naval estate and the study on the rationalisation of facilities at the Rosyth naval base must be seen in that context. No decisions have been taken; nor will they be until after recommendations in the context of the studies as a whole have been presented to Ministers. The hon. Lady asked me six or eight questions about Rosyth naval base. I hope that she will understand that I cannot answer them in the time available, so I shall write to her and answer them.
I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for the energetic way in which he champions his constituents' interests in difficult times. No other hon. Member writes, telephones or visits my office more often or more effectively. He and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked me to pay tribute to the work force at Swan Hunter. I am full of admiration for their professionalism and high standards of workmanship in finishing our type 23 frigates and other MOD work during the past few months of acute disappointment and adversity. Their standards have been impeccable and highly admirable. I confirm that Swan Hunter is welcome to tender for new MOD contracts, although before we can place such a contract we shall need to see new ownership of the yard.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) produced the unusual conspiracy theory that a Devonport dockyard could be taken over by Germans or Arabs. The answer to his question whether that could happen is emphatically no. Appropriate safeguards will be maintained. They will be necessary because the refitting of our nuclear submarines is of the highest importance to our national security interests.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) began his speech by saying that he had no criticism of the Government's policy towards the Royal Navy. That stamps him as an hon. Member with independence of mind.
On the other conspiracy theory stories about Malaysia, various allegations were made, mainly by the hon. Members for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East who seem to think that some special bias was encouraged by the Ministry of Defence towards frigates from Yarrow and away from frigates from Swan Hunter.
The choice of companies to supply equipment and contractual arrangements are matters for the Malaysian Government. Indeed, all defence purchases under the MOU by Malaysia were made for cash, with the customer making the decisions. Export Credits Guarantee Department facilities were not required and there was no question of taxpayers' money financing a series of successful orders for British industry, worth well over £1 billion.
As for the MOD playing a sinister part in that, all we did was to comment on the companies' technical competence, but we did not make a firm recommendation either way. That is entirely in line with our normal practice on such occasions. The choice of Yarrow for that order rested solely with the customer.
I apologise for being unable to answer all the points raised in this debate.
Dr. Reid: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Aitken: I have been cut short and shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he took up two minutes or so of my time, which I could have been using valuably.
May I knock on the head the notion that the Government are drifting and doing nothing on defence procurement? In the nine months since our last Royal Navy debate, we have had a succession of impressive procurement decisions or orders worth well over £1 billion. Those include the important decision to award the landing platform helicopter contract to Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. In January, we announced the decision to purchase 18 new FRS2 Sea Harriers as part of an order worth some £200 million. A few weeks later, I announced the awarding of a contract for the development and production of Sonar 2076, as part of the overall Swiftsure and Trafalgar update programme, worth in excess of £400 million.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that tenders for four single-role minehunters, with an option for three further vessels, were to be issued, as they were in December 1993 on the basis of the "UK-only build". Responses to that invitation to tender are due in April and we expect to place an order later this year. Meanwhile, the Trident programme continues to make good progress and HMS Vanguard, the first submarine to be accepted by the Royal Navy in 1993, proceeded to sea trials and is progressing well.
During the same period, what on earth have the Opposition been doing? The Liberal party's sovereign policy-making body, the federal conference, passed a resolution for a 50 per cent. defence cut. The Labour party passed a resolution by a two-thirds majority—composite resolution No. 49—the effect of which would be to reduce
1160
Britain's defence spending by a third, or £7·5 billion. That is the equivalent of removing the whole spend of the Royal Navy. For good measure, the brothers passed composite resolution 48, instructing the next Labour Government to carry out the immediate scrapping of Trident.
If those resolutions show what the Labour party thinks about the Royal Navy, at next year's conference Labour will probably pass another composite resolution banning the politically incorrect singing of "Rule Britannia".
By contrast, the Government believe in a strong and effective Royal Navy whose capability, versatility, flexibility and fire power make it one of the premier naval forces in the world. We have a core capability provided by our aircraft carriers, our nuclear-powered submarines and our amphibious forces. Questions have been asked about our carriers, but under current plans we will continue to maintain three Invincible aircraft carriers and HMS Intrepid.
I have referred elsewhere to the formidable work which our aircraft carriers have been able to do through fully utilising their wide range of capability while stationed in the Adriatic—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Royal Navy

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Robert Jackson be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Richard Tracey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Ordered,
  That Mr. Kevin Hughes be added to the Select Committee on European Legislation.—[Mr. Wood.]

Home Improvements (Merseyside)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this house do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
10 pm
Mr. David Alton: First, may I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing this debate to take place and for giving me the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the serious problems being encountered by applicants for home improvement grants on Merseyside?
Let me first describe the genesis of the problem. Hon. Members may recall the massive 1960s and 1970s clearance programmes, when hundreds of thousands of homes were bulldozed, when communities were decimated and the heart was torn out of countless neighbourhoods. Family life was left in tatters as people were uprooted and scattered to overspill estates to which many did not want to go.
As a young city councillor in Liverpool in 1972, I was first elected for the Low Hill ward and fought my first election campaign on a pledge to stop the bulldozers in their tracks. When I became chairman of the city's housing committee in 1978, I was able to announce at my first committee meeting that we were pensioning off the bulldozer and to declare the largest ever housing action area programme in Britain. Thousands of homes in Liverpool were improved and many "Coronation Street" communities were given a new lease of life.
Since then, it has become axiomatic to declare a preference for renewal rather than demolition, so much so that, throughout the five district councils that comprise Merseyside, just 90 properties have been demolished in the past 12 months. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will embrace that principle.
No one expected all sub-standard housing to disappear overnight, but the hope was that homes would gradually be improved and that communities and neighbourhoods would be kept together.
On 29 November last year, a group of councillors and officials from the five district councils on Merseyside travelled to Westminster to bring me and other Merseyside Members of Parliament up to date with how those hopes are turning into fears.
Lest the Minister assume that I am making some narrow point, let me emphasise that the political representation was all-party and was of a very high calibre. The points I am raising tonight reflect that same all-party concern. They also reflect the concern of the local housing association movement. The Minister has had a copy of the representations from the housing associations and the local housing forum representing the five district councils.
Let me summarise the present position. Throughout the north-west, some 10 per cent. of housing stock is deemed to be unfit. On Merseyside the percentage is considerably higher—16·8 per cent. in Liverpool, 20 per cent. in Wirral and 23·5 per cent. in St. Helens. In addition, the local authorities estimate that a further 21·8 per cent. of properties across the country need renovation. Parliament lays a statutory duty on the local authorities to deal with unfit properties. We require them by law either to provide a renovation grant or to demolish an unfit property. Clearly, that requires resources.
Last year, the Government made available £32·5 million. The five local authorities, however,
1162
estimate that they need some £132·7 million to meet the duty that the House of Commons places on them. St. Helens requires £10·8 million; Sefton, £4·6 million; Knowsley, £5·3 million; Liverpool, £74 million; and Wirral, some £38 million. In other words, there is a shortfall of more than £100 million, and the local authorities are failing dramatically to discharge their responsibility to provide grants within six months of the application being received.
In fact, the waiting lists are so long that some families on Merseyside have been waiting a staggering eight years since their application for a house improvement grant was lodged. Constituents of mine living in Wavertree and other areas, such as Aigburth, Edge Hill, Kensington Fields and the Allerton road area, have been waiting for intolerably long periods to get grants for basic home improvements. The current average waiting time throughout the country is four years and five months.
My colleague, Councillor Frank Doran, the Kensington councillor and a member of Liverpool city council's housing committee, was told in answer to a question at]last month's city council meeting that, since 1990 in Liverpool, 12,360 inquiry forms and 3,559 tests of resources had been issued; 3,377 inquiries had been passed on for initial inspection; 2,153 applications had been determined as complete; and that only 25 initial inspections took place each week on average.
The current renovation grant regime is means-tested. As the Minister well knows, a new £20,000 ceiling applies to all mandatory grant applications submitted after 14 January. The information from the Greater Liverpool area underlines the fact that the majority of grants approved are going to the poorest households, living at or close to income support levels. In every authority, the majority of grants went to people who were unable to make, a contribution: in St. Helens, 54 per cent.; Sefton, 73 per cent.; Knowsley, 67 per cent.; Wirral, 60 per cent.; and Liverpool, 75 per cent. Those figures represent people applying for house improvement grants who were unable to make a contribution, such were their incomes.
Now that the £20,000 limit has been imposed, undoubtedly the poorest people living in the worst housing will be the most adversely affected. Last year, 31 per cent. of people in St. Helens, 4 per cent. in Sefton, 3 per cent. in Knowsley, 18 per cent. in Liverpool and 18 per cent. in Wirral, all received grants above the £20,000 limit, such was the extent and cost of the work that needed to be done. Those families, who have to apply for grants higher than the new mandatory limit, will not be able to find the resources to fund the additional work that is required.
That acute situation has been made even worse by the Government's notification of funding levels for housing renewal in the current financial year. Across Merseyside, specified capital grant levels have been cut by 23 per cent. in one authority and, at worst, 40 per cent. in another, with average cuts of 29·4 per cent. across the county. Yet, paradoxically, at the time when those cuts are being made in funds for housing in the area, the European Community has given the area the dubious status of an objective 1 region.
The casual observer might be excused some cynicism in contemplating cuts of nearly a third in the money available for house improvement grants, and cuts of £17 million in Liverpool alone in funds for day-to-day programmes, at the very moment when we are being assured that the area's pressing needs will be recognised and addressed.

1163
I am also disappointed that, in a letter sent to me today, the Minister's colleague the Earl of Arran has refused to meet the same delegation that came here to meet the cross-party group of Members of Parliament, and to listen to their arguments. That simply will not do. I am grateful to the Minister for being present this evening; I hope that he will assure me that his door is open, and that he will be prepared to meet the delegation to discuss these serious problems.
Some 12,388 renovation grants are now restricted by lack of finance on Merseyside—879 in St. Helens, 731 in Sefton, 925 in Knowsley, 5,148 in Wirral and 4,705 in Liverpool. That backlog will continue to grow. Homes will again have to be demolished as the spectre of new demolition and new clearance programmes appears on the horizon.
In 1989, the Government recognised the need for a more strategic approach by introducing housing renewal areas; I welcomed that at the time. Eight renewal areas were declared on Merseyside—11 per cent. of the total throughout the country. But, because home improvement grants are demand-led, councils are debarred from directing their limited funds to those areas. The result is "pepperpotting", and a consequential patchwork quilt with dereliction on one side and renovation on the other. In the same street, a beautifully improved home may be cheek by jowl with a derelict eyesore.
In Liverpool alone, there are more than 7,000 empty properties in the private sector, many in need of improvement. The renewal areas, therefore, are an embarrassment. Virtually none of the grants are even going to properties in those areas. The failure to target specific neighbourhoods contrasts sharply with the successful experience of the housing action areas and housing action trusts in the public sector. I hope that the Minister will consider that in the review of procedures that is currently under way.
I was brought up in a home without basic amenities. Over the 21 years in which I have represented people in Liverpool—either as a councillor, or in the 15 years for which I have had the privilege to represent them in the House—I have seen the misery that bad housing can create; but I have also seen the radical improvements in people's lives that home improvements can bring. No end of men with building skills are currently unemployed: we should match their skills with people's needs, and tackle the decay of perfectly good housing before it is too late.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on securing the debate, and on his commitment to his constituency. I do not entirely agree with all his figures, but I do entirely agree that we must make much better use of the housing stock that we already have—whether it is in the private or the public sector, and whether it is on Merseyside or elsewhere. I also agree that we must seek to improve both private and public housing stock that is in poor condition.
It may be helpful to set the hon. Gentleman's concerns in context. In September last year, the English house condition survey of 1991 was published. That survey
1164
represents the most up-to-date information available on unfit dwellings. The introduction of the 1991 data has made it clear that significant changes have taken place in the distribution of unfit dwellings.
The survey showed that, after allowance had been made for the change in definition of the fitness standard, there had been a reduction in the number of unfit dwellings across the country, and that that reduction had not taken place evenly. In the context of this debate, it is worth noting that areas such as Merseyside—which had significant concentrations of unfit dwellings in 1986—showed a much greater improvement in conditions than areas with lower levels of unfitness.
Therefore, although I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's worries, I think that one should not lose sight of the fact that there has been a significant improvement in housing in Liverpool between the last survey and the most recent English housing conditions survey.
That improvement in housing conditions was largely due to the effective targeting and investment of resources. Between 1986 and 1991, about £100 million of public money was spent on private sector renewal in Merseyside—not public sector, only private sector renewal—and that has had a direct effect on the reduction in unfitness.
Moreover, people's homes today are generally better equipped, better heated, better insulated and in a better state of repair than ever before. Those improvements resulted partly from building new homes and partly from demolishing the worst homes, but mainly from investment by public and private landlords, and especially by individual home owners in the improvement of their own homes. I am sure that the hon. Member will have seen for himself—as I have—the great improvements that have been made in many parts of Merseyside: for example, in Kirkby and Stockbridge Village in Knowsley, the Vauxhall area of north Liverpool and many of the estate action areas such as Netherley and Belle Vale.
Although those improvements are welcome, I acknowledge that there is more to be done to improve homes that are still in poor condition. I readily acknowledge that, for someone who lives in housing that is in poor condition, it is of little consolation to be told by a Minister that much has been done elsewhere. However, in the private sector, that must, in the first instance, be the responsibility of home owners. It is up to us, in the Government, to ensure that public spending is used to tackle the worst conditions and, in both the private and social rented sectors, resources are being targeted more effectively exactly to do that—to tackle the housing that requires that help most.
It is worth noting that the housing conditions survey shows that many households in the worst owner-occupied stock are not on low incomes, so the new emphasis on housing investment programme strategies will provide the right framework. Private sector renovation is already focusing on the worst housing and on those people most in need and, in the social rented sector, estate action and housing action trusts, such as the one in Liverpool, are tackling the worst social housing problems.
In 1991–92, a total of £17·5 million of capital grant was made available by the Government to the Merseyside authorities towards the costs of renovation grants to improve privately owned properties. In the event, the Merseyside authorities spent £20·6 million. All those figures are large because all the figures in relation to Liverpool and Merseyside are large, but they spent £20·6

1165
million. In 1992–93, we made available £19·3 million and in that year the authorities spent £23·5 million of grant. So, as they had spent more than had been anticipated, the Merseyside authorities were given an extra allocation of grant, totalling £2·65 million. In the current year, the grant allocation was £19·54 million, and the local authorities' estimate of spend is £24 million.
The Government have already met 95 per cent. of the difference by giving extra allocations. The point is that the amounts of money allocated to Liverpool in particular and to Merseyside authorities in general have been substantial. Year on year, the authorities have overrun their allocations, but, even so, they have received extra help in recognition of their needs. Indeed, the resources have enabled 20,000 Merseyside homes to be improved. Let me explain how that worked this year for the city of Liverpool.
Liverpool was given a grant guideline of £9·99 million for 1993–94. Its estimate for the full year's spending sent to the Department on the claim form last October was £13·85 million. On the face of it, that suggests a potential shortfall of £3·86 million. The Government have already responded: in December last year, an extra supplementary credit approval totalling £3·57 million—almost 93 per cent. of that potential shortfall—was made available. That was the largest allocation to any authority in the country.
Many millions of pounds were allocated to meet the local authority's needs and an extra supplementary credit approval was also granted. That is the action of a Government committed to meeting the demand for grant support in Liverpool and across Merseyside and responding to the very needs to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Local authorities are always concerned that resources for next year may not be as great as they were. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will be aware that there is pressure on public spending. Clearly, local authority capital spending cannot be immune from such pressure. Nevertheless, £20 million has again been set aside for 1994–95 to add to sums from underspending authorities elsewhere in the country in order to allocate extra money most effectively to those authorities where demand is greatest—undoubtedly those such as Liverpool.
Mr. Alton: As the Minister has challenged some of my figures, may I draw to his attention a letter from John Simm, assistant manager of private sector initiatives of St. Helens borough council? He writes:
"The problems we face have recently become more acute in light of the recent notification of levels of funding for this activity for financial year 1994–95. Across Merseyside Specified Capital Grant levels have been cut at best by 23 per cent. in one authority and at worst by 40 per cent. in another, with average cut of 29·4 per cent. across the region."
Surely the Minister accepts that, given such dramatic reductions in the money available, it is inevitable that many houses will not be improved. That will be a cost on the public sector in future when homes are demolished and people have to be rehoused.
Mr. Baldry: As I have already said, it is clear that, year on year, we are, and have been, investing considerable sums in supporting private sector refurbishment and renovation in Liverpool and all of Merseyside. Notwithstanding the pressures on public spending, we have this year alone set aside a further £20 million which will, of course, be added to the sums from authorities that do not spend their full quota.
1166
That money will be allocated for extra resources to local authorities that have the greatest needs. It is not unreasonable to infer that, as Liverpool has tended to have the largest allocation of such funding for private house renewal investment, it will have a not insignificant share of any further such investment. We are talking about significant sums overall.
We have also recognised some of the funding pressures that arise from the current system of mandatory renovation grants. That current system has been monitored carefully since its introduction in July 1990. We issued a consultation paper last summer on various possible changes to improve the system.
Not surprisingly, because it is a matter of considerable interest, the paper attracted more than 400 responses, and I am well aware of the keen interest of the Merseyside private sector forum and its strongly held views about resources—views which the hon. Member has fairly reflected this evening—about the benefits of a targeted approach and about standards, and the range of suggestions in its response to the consultation exercise. Its views are being carefully considered, and I would expect a further announcement about longer-term changes to the mandatory renovation grant system to be made shortly.
The hon. Member will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction announced some short-term changes last November. There were three options to consider: a reduction in the grant limit, changes to the means test and a reduction in the level of Exchequer support.
There was widespread support for a reduction in the grant limit, although there was reluctance to see changes in the means test regulations or a reduction in the level of Exchequer support. That is understandable, and I think that it would probably be the case in any context, but, in the spirit of the consultation exercise, the grant limit for mandatory renovation and disabled facilities grant was reduced from £50,000 to £20,000, which means that the money available can be allocated to more homes for more families; but the level of grant support and the means lest were left unchanged.
It is also important to put the amount of money that is being invested in the private sector in Liverpool into the context of the full range of housing activity on Merseyside that the Government are supporting, since it might be thought that the figures that I have mentioned so far are the totality of Government's support for housing on Merseyside; that is not the case.
We are investing in and supporting many housing initiatives in Merseyside. For example, the estate action programme has enabled large sums of money to come to the area. Over the past three years alone, over £100 million has gone into improving nearly 20,000 local authority dwellings, and many more millions from the private sector and from housing associations have contributed to the dramatic improvement of many estates across the area. The hon. Member will be familiar with many of the estates in Liverpool that have benefited.
I am also glad to see that the estate action program me has encouraged many tenants, especially in areas of Liverpool, to get together and work towards managing their own estates. We have already seen the first tenant-management co-operative in the Colwell area of Liverpool, and there are other groups there and in the Wirral that are developing plans for estate management boards.

1167
The hon. Member mentioned the HAT—the housing action trust—and he was right to do so because Liverpool has the largest HAT in the country. It has taken over 67 high-rise blocks in the city, a total of 5,337 homes. Several of those blocks are in the hon. Member's constituency. A very large sum of money will be needed to improve the flats and the living conditions in them and to put in place a better management service, and we have made it perfectly clear that large sums of money will be made available.
For example, this year alone, an allocation of £16 million has been made. Most of it is being used to achieve the HAT's immediate priority of catching up on outstanding repairs. That is a £20 million two-year programme to ensure that all the homes are warm, secure and watertight. Such a programme is a considerable commitment by the Government.
We also have the Merseyside development corporation, which has played an important role in supporting the provision of new homes for both rent and sale. It has provided land, cleared and prepared for development,
1168
which has enabled opportunities for new-build schemes. In north Liverpool, the continuing redevelopment of the Vauxhall area through private developers, housing associations and housing co-operatives is extremely welcome. The Eldonian housing co-operative development, for example, on the old Tate and Lyle site is not only well but flourishing.
I also emphasise a special allocation for Merseyside, again supported by the Government. In the current year, that special allocation—it is unique in the country because no area other than Merseyside has it—totalled £20 million and it has been used to take on empty local authority stock in poor condition and improve it for rent. In Liverpool, the vacant stock initiative is tackling 1,300 properties by refurbishing or converting vacant houses and flats for sale or for rent through housing associations.
Merseyside has also secured three city challenge areas. It means over £110 million of spending power over a five-year period.
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies have been done to assess the effects on relative living standards, work incentives and family life of phasing out married couples' income tax allowance and the additional personal allowance for lone parents.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No specific studies on this question have been carried out. Although tax changes in 1994 and 1995 will result in a proportionately greater tax burden for married couples and unmarried people with children, they will still pay less tax than other single people with the same incomes.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the cost in tax relief of each dwelling let under the business expansion scheme; and what estimates he has made of the amount of capital gains tax which will be lost if and when these are sold;

  (2) how many dwellings let under the business expansion scheme were specifically let for the university sector; and what the proportion of business expansion scheme dwellings are assured exit schemes;

  (3) how many new lettings from investments under the business expansion scheme there were in (a) each region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole; and what percentage these figures represent of (i) all privately rented property and (ii) all rented property, for each year of its existence.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The average cost per dwelling of providing BES income tax relief is estimated to be about £17,500 for lettings made between 1988 and 1992. It is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the cost of exempting gains arising from disposals of BES shares from capital gains tax. Any gains arising from the sale of properties owned by BES companies are, of course, subject to corporation tax in the usual way. Information is not available centrally from administrative sources on the number of dwellings let under the BES for the university sector or the proportion of dwellings which are let through assured exit schemes. However, information from independent analysts suggests that of the total amount of investment made through BES assured tenancy public offers about 30 per cent. was invested in accommodation let for academic establishments and about 60 per cent. was in assured exit schemes. Reliable estimates by regions are available for years up to 1991–92. These and preliminary estimates for the United Kingdom total in 1992–93 are shown in the table.
  888

  New Lettings

  as a percentage of:

  Total number1

  All privately rented property

  All rented rented property

  (per cent.)

  (per cent.)

  1988–89

  England:

  South-East

  2,200

  0·33

  0·09

  East Anglia

  300

  0·33

  0·11

  South-West

  300

  0·14

  0·06

  West Midlands

  300

  0·22

  0·04

  East Midlands

  400

  0·29

  0·08

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  400

  0·25

  0·06

  North-West

  1,100

  0·61

  0·13

  North

  200

  0·21

  0·04

  Wales

  400

  0·47

  0·11

  Scotland

  800

  0·58

  0·07

  Northern Ireland

  neg

  neg

  neg

  United Kingdom

  6,400

  0·33

  0·08

  1989–90

  England:

  South-East

  1,200

  0·17

  0·05

  East Anglia

  100

  0·10

  0·04

  South-West

  100

  0·05

  0·02

  West Midlands

  100

  ·07

  0·01

  East Midlands

  200

  0·14

  0·04

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  400

  0·24

  0·06

  North-West

  500

  0·27

  0·06

  North

  neg

  neg

  neg

  Wales

  neg

  neg

  neg

  Scotland

  400

  0·30

  0·04

  Northern Ireland

  100

  0·45

  0·05

  United Kingdom

  3,100

  0·15

  0·04

  1990–91

  England:

  South-East

  2,500

  0·31

  0·10

  East Anglia

  1,100

  1·05

  0·40

  South-West

  500

  0·22

  0·09

  West Midlands

  100

  0·07

  0·01

  East Midlands

  400

  0·28

  0·08

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  100

  0·06

  0·01

  North-West

  500

  0·26

  0·06

  North

  neg

  neg

  neg

  Wales

  neg

  neg

  neg

  Scotland

  100

  0·08

  0·01

  Northern Ireland

  400

  1·82

  0·20

  United Kingdom

  5,700

  0·27

  0·07

  1991–92

  England:

  South-East

  4,100

  0·50

  0·17

  East Anglia

  300

  0·27

  0·11

  South-West

  1,100

  0·47

  0·20

  West Midlands

  100

  0·06

  0·01

  East Midlands

  700

  0·49

  0·14

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  400

  0·22

  0·06

  North-West

  1,300

  0·65

  0·15

  North

  100

  0·10

  0·02

  Wales

  500

  0·52

  0·14

  Scotland

  100

  0·07

  0·01

  Northern Ireland

  800

  3·64

  0·41

  United Kingdom

  9,300

  0·42

  0·12

  1992–93

  United Kingdom

  24,000

  1·08

  0·30

  1 Estimates rounded to nearest 100.

  889

  Building Societies
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the building societies that have agreed to allow the building societies ombudsman scheme to consider home income plans cases;

  (2) if he will list those building societies who were involved with home income plans; and which have refused to agree that such cases can go to the ombudsman scheme.

  Mr. Nelson
  I understand that the following societies have consented to an extension of the Building Societies Ombudsman's powers to cover complaints or possible complaints related to home income plans:

  Bradford and Bingley

  Britannia

  Chelsea (Capital Access Scheme mortgages on a case by case basis)

  Cheltenham and Gloucester (including complaints arising out of lending by the former Guardian, Heart of England and Portsmouth Building Societies)

  Halifax

  Melton Mowbray

  National and Provincial

  Newcastle

  Northern Rock (all complaints arise out of lending by the former Lancastrian Building Society)

  Portman (including lending by the former Wessex Building Society)

  Staffordshire (if Society cannot first resolve complaint itself)

  Woolwich (all complaints arise out of lending by the former Town and Country Building Society).

  The following societies have refused:

  Bristol and West

  Kent Reliance

  Lambeth

  National Counties

  West Bromwich.

  The Leeds has formally refused but is in practice co-operating on a case-by-case basis—this includes all complaints arising out of lending by Sussex County, Eastbourne Mutual or Southdown building societies.

  The following societies have not yet made a firm decision:

  Alliance and Leicester

  Birmingham Midshires

  Manchester

  Nationwide

  £ million at 1993–94 prices

  Year

  Petroleum revenue tax

  Supplementary petroleum duty

  Corporation tax

  Royalty

  Total

  ACT setoff

  Mainstream CT

  1979–80

  3,526

  —

  192

  423

  1,543

  5,683

  1980–81

  5,004

  —

  201

  507

  2,060

  7,772

  1981–82

  4,526

  3,834

  511

  778

  2,643

  12,293

  1982–83

  5,786

  4,232

  357

  564

  2,884

  13,822

  1983–84

  10,163

  —

  726

  755

  3,216

  14,860

  1984–85

  11,537

  —

  2,000

  1,910

  3,900

  19,346

  1985–86

  9,718

  —

  1,654

  2,791

  3,136

  17,299

  1986–87

  1,759

  —

  1,673

  2,289

  1,361

  7,082

  1987–88

  3,228

  —

  957

  867

  1,440

  6,493

  1988–89

  1,805

  —

  902

  671

  792

  4,170

  1989–90

  1,293

  —

  610

  305

  708

  2,916

  1990–91

  980

  —

  413

  551

  689

  2,634

  1991–92

  -231

  —

  397

  287

  597

  1,049

  1992–93

  71

  —

  495

  208

  572

  1,347

  1993–941

  500

  —

  300

  —

  600

  1,400

  1 1994–95 Financial Statement and Budget Report estimate.

  890

  Business Premises
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority district valuers may require those whose business premises are being revalued to produce audited accounts; for how many years they may be asked to produce these; within what period they may be asked to provide them; what sanctions apply in the event of non-production; and for what purpose such detailed information may be required.

  Mr. Nelson
  Valuation officers are empowered under paragraph 5 of schedule 9 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, as amended, to serve a notice on a person, who is the owner or occupier of a hereditament, requesting that person to supply information, specified in the notice, that the officer reasonably believes will assist him on carrying out his statutory functions.

  Accounts are asked for where rental information is sparse for the type of property in question. Valuation officers will specify a period sufficient to establish trends, but this would not normally exceed three years.

  The Act provides that the information should be supplied within a period of 21 days from the date of service of the notice. There is a fine on summary conviction for failing to do so without reasonable excuse.

  The information supplied will be used to establish rental values for those classes of properties in order that valuation officers may fulfil their statutory obligation to compile and maintain rating lists.

  North Sea Oil
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, columns 607–8, if he will publish a similar table of revenues from North sea oil since 1979–80, based on 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Revenues raised from North sea oil and gas production by category of tax since 1979–80 at 1993–94 prices have been as follows:
  891

  Tax Changes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Peckham will receive an answer to the two questions about the effect of the 1995–96 tax changes, tabled for answer on 31 January.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Today.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 635–41, to provide similar estimates of the burden of direct and indirect taxes for 1995–96 to take account of

  Income tax, national insurance contributions and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1995–961

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1000

  2000

  Single

  Indexed 1978–79 tax system applied in 1995–96

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  41·8

  73·60

  105·72

  173·64

  270·72

  525·43

  823·33

  1,146·45

  1,792·69

  2,762·04

  5,993·23

  NICs

  12·65

  19·98

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  Income tax + NICs

  54·14

  92·58

  129·77

  197·69

  294·77

  549·48

  847·38

  1,170·50

  1,816·74

  2,786·09

  6,017·28

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  21·3

  25·2

  27·2

  29·7

  34·8

  45·0

  52·9

  58·9

  65·8

  70·9

  77·0

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·2

  4·1

  3·1

  2·1

  1·5

  1·2

  0·9

  0·6

  0·3

  Income tax + NICs

  27·8

  31·7

  33·3

  33·9

  37·9

  476·0

  54·4

  60·1

  66·7

  71·6

  77·3

  1995–96 tax measures applied in 1995–96

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  28·54

  52·87

  77·20

  132·50

  210·36

  366·08

  521·80

  677·52

  988·96

  1,456·12

  3,013·32

  NICs

  14·75

  24·48

  34·21

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  Income tax and NICs

  43·29

  77·35

  111·41

  172·28

  250·14

  405·86

  561·58

  717·30

  1,028·74

  1,495·90

  3,053·10

  VAT

  —

  18·89

  24·84

  37·47

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  22·26

  27·45

  38·43

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  118·50

  163·70

  248·18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  14·7

  18·1

  19·8

  22·7

  27·0

  31·3

  33·5

  34·8

  36·3

  37·4

  38·7

  NICs

  7·6

  8·4

  8·8

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·6

  2·0

  1·5

  1·0

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  22·2

  26·5

  28·6

  29·5

  32·1

  34·8

  36·1

  36·9

  37·8

  38·4

  39·2

  VAT

  —

  6·5

  6·4

  6·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·6

  7·1

  6·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  40·6

  42·1

  42·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, no children

  Indexed 1978–79 tax system applied in 1995–96

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  30·76

  62·88

  94·99

  160·64

  252·84

  502·20

  796·36

  1,119·47

  1,765·71

  273,5·07

  5,966·26

  NICs

  12·65

  18·98

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  Income tax + NICs

  43·41

  81·85

  119·04

  184·69

  276·89

  526·25

  820·41

  1,143·52

  1,789·76

  2,759·12

  5,990·31

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  15·8

  21·5

  24·4

  27·5

  32·5

  43·0

  51·1

  57·5

  64·8

  70·3

  76·6

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·2

  4·1

  3·1

  2·1

  1·5

  1·2

  0·9

  0·6

  0·3

  Income tax + NICs

  22·3

  28·0

  30·6

  31·6

  35·6

  45·1

  52·7

  58·7

  65·7

  70·9

  76·9

  1995–96 tax measures applied in 1995–96

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  23·58

  47·91

  72·24

  127·54

  205·40

  361·12

  516·84

  672·56

  984·00

  1,451·16

  3,008·36

  NICs

  14·75

  24·48

  34·21

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  Income tax and NICs

  28·33

  72·39

  106·45

  167·32

  245·18

  400·90

  556·62

  712·34

  1,023·78

  1,490·94

  3,048·14

  VAT

  —

  17·30

  23·72

  37·33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  24·60

  29·93

  41·12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  114·29

  160·10

  245·77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  12·1

  16·4

  18·6

  21·8

  26·4

  30·9

  33·2

  34·6

  36·1

  37·3

  38·6

  NICs

  7·6

  8·4

  8·8

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·6

  2·0

  1·5

  1·0

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  19·7

  24·8

  27·3

  28·7

  31·5

  34·3

  35·7

  36·6

  37·6

  38·3

  39·1

  VAT

  —

  5·9

  6·1

  6·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·4

  7·7

  7·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  39·1

  41·1

  42·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  892
  the tax changes announced for 1995–96, assuming that other aspects of the tax regime are subject to statutory indexation and that prices rise by the amount specified in the working assumption on page 121 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95" and assuming earnings growth in 1995–96 is the same as in 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Estimates of tax payments in 1995–96 on the basis requested are given in the table. The actual tax burden in 1995–96 will depend on decisions taken in the 1994 Budget as well as on changes in prices and earnings.
  893

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1000

  2000

  Married, 2 children

  Indexed 1978–79 tax system applied in 1995–96

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  10·82

  42·94

  75·06

  139·87

  230·29

  477·85

  770·46

  1,093·58

  1,739·82

  2,709·17

  5,940·36

  NICs

  12·65

  18·98

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  24·05

  Income tax + NICs

  23·48

  61·92

  99·11

  163·92

  254·34

  501·90

  794·51

  1,117·63

  1,763·87

  2,733·22

  5,964·41

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  5·6

  14·7

  19·3

  24·0

  29·6

  40·9

  49·5

  56·2

  63·8

  69·6

  76·3

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·2

  4·1

  3·1

  2·1

  1·5

  1·2

  0·9

  0·6

  0·3

  Income tax + NICs

  12·1

  21·2

  25·5

  28·1

  32·7

  43·0

  51·0

  57·4

  64·7

  70·2

  76·6

  1995–96 tax measures applied in 1995–96

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  4·58

  28·86

  53·19

  108·49

  186·35

  342·07

  497·79

  653·51

  964·95

  143,2·11

  2,989·31

  NICs

  14·75

  24·48

  34·21

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  39·78

  Income tax and NICs

  19·28

  53·34

  87·40

  148·27

  226·13

  381·85

  537·57

  693·29

  1,004·73

  1,471·89

  3,029·09

  VAT

  —

  17·06

  24·40

  39·95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  24·62

  28·88

  37·91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  95·02

  140·68

  226·13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  2·3

  9·9

  13·7

  18·6

  23·9

  29·3

  32·0

  33·6

  35·4

  36·8

  38·4

  NICs

  7·6

  8·4

  8·8

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·6

  2·0

  1·5

  1·0

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  9·9

  18·3

  22·5

  25·4

  29·0

  32·7

  34·5

  35·6

  36·9

  37·8

  38·9

  VAT

  —

  5·8

  6·3

  6·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·4

  7·4

  6·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  32·5

  36·2

  38·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, both working, no children

  Indexed 1978–79 tax system applied in 1995–96

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  11·45

  40·12

  72·24

  136·48

  211·44

  359·78

  556·04

  796·15

  1,358·40

  2,292·90

  5,524·09

  NICs

  12·65

  18·98

  25·30

  37·96

  44·29

  48·10

  48·10

  48·10

  48·10

  48·10

  48·10

  Income tax + NICs

  24·10

  59·10

  97·55

  174·43

  255·73

  407·88

  604·14

  844·25

  1,406·50

  2,341·00

  5,572·19

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  5·9

  13·7

  18·6

  23·4

  27·2

  30·8

  35·7

  40·9

  49·8

  58·9

  70·9

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  5·7

  4·1

  3·1

  2·5

  1·8

  1·2

  0·6

  Income tax + NICs

  12·4

  20·2

  25·1

  29·9

  32·8

  34·9

  38·8

  43·4

  51·6

  60·1

  71·6

  1995–96 tax measures applied in 1995–96

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  6·55

  28·36

  52·12

  100·79

  149·45

  270·93

  415·76

  571·48

  882·92

  1,350·08

  2,907·28

  NICs

  10·03

  19·76

  29·49

  48·96

  66·20

  79·56

  79·56

  79·56

  79·56

  79·56

  79·56

  Income tax and NICs

  16·57

  48·12

  81·61

  149·74

  215·65

  350·49

  495·32

  651·04

  962·48

  1,429·64

  2,986·84

  VAT

  —

  19·57

  26·60

  40·54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  28·97

  33·59

  42·73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  96·66

  141·80

  233·01

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  3·4

  9·7

  13·4

  17·3

  19·2

  23·2

  26·7

  29·4

  32·4

  34·7

  37·3

  NICs

  5·2

  6·8

  7·6

  8·4

  8·5

  6·8

  5·1

  4·1

  2·9

  2·0

  1·0

  Income tax and NICs

  8·5

  16·5

  21·0

  25·6

  27·7

  30·0

  31·8

  33·4

  35·3

  36·7

  38·4

  VAT

  —

  6·7

  6·9

  6·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9·9

  9·6

  7·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  33·1

  36·5

  39·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes to tables

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay Class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. Since 1990–91, husbands and wives have been taxed independently. Previously the tax liability of couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons with earlier years, the table therefore shows income tax and National Insurance Contributions paid by a married couple as a proportion of their joint income, assuming, as in the earlier years, that where both partners are earners, the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.

  3. In order to provide comparability with 1978–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowance, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couple with two children.

  4. Estimates of income tax and National Insurance Contributions in 1995–96 are based on the illustrative assumption of uprating 1994–95 personal allowances, tax thresholds, NIC Lower and Upper earnings limits and the level of Child Benefit in line with the assumption of 3·25 per cent. given in the 1994–95 Financial Statement and Budget Report for the increase in the Retail Price Index in 1995–96.

  5. Estimates of income tax and National Insurance Contributions in 1995–96 if the 1978–79 tax regime had been indexed for inflation are based on
  894

  895
  the assumption that the 1978–79 levels of personal allowances, child tax allowances, tax thresholds, NIC Lower and Upper earnings limits and Child Benefit are indexed to 1995–96 in line with the growth in the RPI. The growth in the RPI in years beyond 1993–94 uses the assumptions for RPI increases for 1994–95 and 1995–96 contained in the 1994–95 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  6. In both cases, average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence and are assumed to be £38930 per week based on the earnings growth assumption of 4 per cent. for 1995–96.

  7. The estimates of most indirect taxes are based on equations derived from the 1985 Family Expenditure Survey, uprated to later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. Estimates of VAT on domestic fuel and power, Airline Passenger Duty and Insurance Premium Tax are based on equations using results from the 1991 and 1992 Family Expenditure Survey respectively, uprated using a similar methodology. These estimates are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved.

  8. There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with the same composition and similar incomes and estimated payments of VAT and other indirect taxes are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range, the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between estimates obtained from Family Expenditure Surveys for different years.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 653–41 and, on the same basis as his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of 22 April 1993, Official Report, columns 176–78, provide similar estimates of the burden of direct and indirect taxes

  Income tax, national insurance contributions and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1994–95

  multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1000

  2000

  single

  indexed 1978–79 tax system applied in 1994–95

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  39·70

  70·58

  101·46

  166·53

  259·26

  503·22

  788·90

  1,099·57

  1,720·91

  2,652·91

  5,759·60

  NICs

  12·16

  18·25

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  Income tax + NICs

  51·87

  88·83

  124·86

  189·93

  282·66

  526·62

  812·30

  1,122·97

  1,744·31

  2,676·31

  5,783·00

  percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  21·2

  25·1

  27·1

  29·7

  34·6

  44·8

  52·7

  58·8

  65·7

  70·9

  76·9

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·3

  4·2

  3·1

  2·1

  1·6

  1·3

  0·9

  0·6

  0·3

  Income tax + NICs

  27·7

  31·6

  33·4

  33·8

  37·8

  46·9

  54·3

  60·0

  66·6

  71·5

  77·3

  1995–96 tax measures applied in 1994–95

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  27·34

  50·73

  74·13

  126·83

  201·69

  351·41

  501·13

  650·85

  950·29

  1,399·45

  2,896·65

  NICs

  14·16

  23·51

  32·87

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  Income tax and NICs

  41·50

  74·25

  107·00

  165·27

  240·13

  389·85

  539·57

  689·29

  988·73

  1,437·89

  2,935·09

  VAT

  —

  18·12

  23·85

  35·97

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  other indirect

  —

  21·40

  26·31

  36·74

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  113·76

  157·16

  237·98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  14·6

  18·1

  19· 8

  22·6

  26·9

  31·3

  33·-5

  34·8

  36·3

  37·4

  38·7

  NICs

  7·6

  8·4

  8·8

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·6

  2·1

  1·5

  1·0

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  22·2

  26·4

  28·6

  29·4

  32·1

  34·7

  36·0

  36·8

  37·7

  38·4

  39·2

  VAT

  —

  6·5

  6·4

  6·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·6

  7·0

  6·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  40·5

  42·0

  42·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, no children

  Indexed 1978–79 tax system applied in 1994–95

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  29·36

  60·24

  91·12

  154·00

  242·02

  481·13

  762·88

  1,073·55

  1,694·89

  2,626·89

  5,733·58

  NICs

  12·16

  18·25

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  Income tax + NICs

  41·52

  78·49

  114·52

  177·40

  265·42

  504·53

  786·28

  1,096·95

  1,718·29

  2,650·29

  5,756·98

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income tax

  15·7

  21·5

  24·3

  27·4

  32·3

  42·8

  51·0

  57·4

  64·7

  70·2

  76·6

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·3

  4·2

  3·1

  2·1

  1·6

  1·3

  0·9

  0·6

  0·3

  Income tax + NICs

  22·2

  28·0

  30·6

  31·6

  35·5

  44·9

  52·5

  58·6

  65·6

  70·8

  76·9

  1995–96 tax measures applied in 1994–95

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  22·38

  45·77

  69·17

  121·87

  196·73

  346·45

  496·17

  645·89

  945·89

  1,394·49

  2,891·69

  NICs

  14·16

  23·51

  32·87

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  Income tax and NICs

  36·53

  69·29

  102·04

  160·31

  235·17

  384·89

  534·61

  684·33

  983·77

  1,432·93

  2,930·13

  VAT

  —

  16·48

  22·64

  35·73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  896
  that would take effect in 1994–95 if the tax rates announced for 1995–96 and contained in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95", applied in 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Figures illustrating the hypothetical tax burdens in 1995–96 if the measures announced for 1995–96 applied in 1994–95 are given in the table. The actual burden of tax in 1995–96 will depend on decisions taken in the 1994 Budget as well as on changes in prices and earnings.
  897

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1000

  2000

  Other indirect

  —

  23·71

  28·75

  39·38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  109·48

  153·42

  235·42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  12·0

  16·3

  18·5

  21·7

  26·3

  30·9

  33·1

  34·5

  36·1

  37·3

  38·6

  NICs

  7·6

  8·4

  8·8

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·6

  2·1

  1·5

  1·0

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  19·5

  24·7

  27·3

  28·6

  31·4

  34·3

  35·7

  36·5

  37·5

  38·3

  39·1

  VAT

  —

  5·8

  6·1

  6·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·5

  7·6

  7·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  39·0

  41·0

  41·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, 2 children

  Indexed 1978–79 tax system applied in 1994–95

  Amounts,£per week

  Income tax

  10·05

  40·93

  71·81

  133·88

  220·17

  457·55

  737·80

  1,048·47

  1,669·81

  2,601·82

  5,708·51

  NICs

  12·16

  18·25

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  23·40

  Income tax + NICs

  22·22

  59·18

  95·21

  157·28

  243·57

  480·95

  761·20

  1,071·87

  1,693·21

  2,625·22

  5,731·91

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  5·4

  14·6

  19·2

  23·8

  29·4

  40·7

  49·3

  56·0

  63·7

  69·5

  76·3

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·3

  4·2

  3·1

  2·1

  1·6

  1·3

  0·9

  0·6

  0·3

  Income tax + NICs

  11·9

  21·1

  25·4

  28·0

  32·5

  42·8

  50·8

  57·3

  64·6

  70·1

  76·6

  1995–96 tax measures applied in 1994–95

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  3·93

  27·32

  50·72

  103·42

  178·28

  328·00

  477·72

  627·44

  926·88

  1,376·04

  2,873·24

  NICs

  14·16

  23·51

  32·87

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  Income tax and NICs

  18·08

  50·84

  83·59

  141·86

  216·72

  366·44

  516·16

  665·88

  965·32

  1,414·48

  2,911·68

  VAT

  —

  16·06

  23·11

  38·06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  23·79

  27·83

  36·37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  90·69

  134·52

  216·29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  2·1

  9·7

  13·5

  18·4

  23·8

  29·2

  31·9

  33·5

  35·4

  36·8

  38·4

  NICs

  7·6

  8·4

  8·8

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·6

  2·1

  1·5

  1·0

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  9·7

  18·1

  22·3

  25·3

  28·9

  32·6

  34·5

  35·6

  36·8

  37·8

  38·9

  VAT

  —

  5·7

  6·2

  6·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·5

  7·4

  6·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  32·3

  35·9

  38·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, both working, no children

  Indexed 1978–79 tax system applied in 1994–95

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  10·73

  38·18

  69·06

  130·82

  202·92

  344·92

  532·59

  762·48

  1,301·70

  2,199·13

  5,305·82

  NICs

  12·16

  18·25

  24·33

  36·49

  42·86

  46·80

  46·80

  46·80

  46·80

  46·80

  46·80

  Income tax + NICs

  22·89

  56·43

  93·39

  167·32

  245·79

  391·72

  579·39

  809·28

  1,348·50

  2,245·93

  5,352·62

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  5·7

  13·6

  18·5

  23·3

  27·1

  30·7

  35·6

  40·7

  49·7

  58·8

  70·9

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  5·7

  4·2

  3·1

  2·5

  1·8

  1·3

  0·6

  Income tax + NICs

  12·2

  20·1

  25·0

  29·8

  32·8

  34·9

  38·7

  43·2

  51·5

  60·0

  71·5

  1995–96 tax measures applied in 1994–95

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  5·97

  26·91

  49·72

  96·51

  143·29

  259·63

  398·42

  548·14

  847·58

  1,296·74

  2,793·94

  NICs

  9·60

  18·95

  28·31

  47·03

  63·82

  76·88

  76·88

  76·88

  76·88

  76·88

  76·88

  Income tax and NICs

  15·56

  45·86

  78·03

  143·53

  207·12

  336·51

  475·30

  625·02

  924·46

  1,373·62

  2,870·82

  VAT

  —

  18·59

  25·34

  38·75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  28·05

  32·42

  41·05

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  92·50

  135·79

  223·33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  3·2

  9·6

  13·3

  17·2

  19·1

  23·1

  26·6

  29·3

  32·3

  34·6

  37·3

  NICs

  5·1

  6·8

  7·6

  8·4

  8·5

  6·8

  5·1

  4·1

  2·9

  2·1

  1·0

  Income tax and NICs

  8·3

  16·3

  20·8

  25·6

  27·7

  30·0

  31·7

  33·4

  35·3

  36·7

  38·3

  VAT

  —

  6·6

  6·8

  6·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  10·0

  8·6

  7·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  33·0

  36·3

  39·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes to tables:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have
  898

  899
  income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay Class I NI contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2.Since 1990–91, husbands and wives have been taxed independently. Previously the tax liability of couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons with earlier years, the table therefore shows income tax and National Insurance Contributions paid by a married couple as a proportion of their joint income, assuming, as in the earlier years, that where both partners are earners, the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.

  3 In order to provide comparability with 1978–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowance, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couple with two children.

  4.Estimates have been provided on the basis that measures for 1995–96 announced in the 1993 Budgets are implemented in 1994–95, on the basis of 1994–95 levels of earnings and prices and with other tax allowances, thresholds at 1994–95 levels. Estimates have also been provided for tax payments on the basis that the 1978–79 tax regime had been indexed for inflation in line with the growth in the RPI and applied to 1994–95 levels of earnings.

  5.Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence and are assumed to be £37430 a week based on the illustrative earnings growth assumption of 4 per cent. in 1994–95.

  6.The estimates of most indirect taxes are based on equations derived from the 1985 Family Expenditure Survey, uprated to later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. Estimates of VAT on domestic fuel and power are based on equations using results from the 1991 Family Expenditure Survey, uprated using a similar methodology. These estimates are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved.

  7.There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with the same composition and similar incomes and estimated payments of VAT and other indirect taxes are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range, the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between estimates obtained from Family Expenditure Surveys for different years.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 635–41, if he will provide estimates for the years 1978–9 to 1992–93 of the burden of direct and indirect taxes on a married couple, two children, and one earner on 100 per cent. of average earnings, including the impact of mortgage interest relief, if the family is assumed to have a mortgage at the average outstanding level in each year, and is paying the average mortgage interest rate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The available information is given in the table.

  Tax and mortgage payments

  1978–79

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (i) Whole economy

  Income tax

  11·2

  9·3

  9·1

  NICs

  7·2

  6·2

  6·2

  (ii) Family

  Income tax

  14·4

  12·3

  12·4

  NICs

  6·5

  7·9

  7·9

  Net mortgage payments

  11·8

  14·0

  10·8

  Notes:

  1. Whole economy income tax and NICs show total tax receipts on an accruals basis as a proportion of GDP. The figures for NICs include both employers' and employee contributions.

  2. Family income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners are assumed to pay Class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  3. In order to provide comparability with 1978–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowance, child benefit is treated as a deduction from income tax. Both children are assumed to be under 11 years old.

  4. The calculations assume a mortgage of £33,000 in 1992–93 and 1993–94, and one of £8,400 in 1978–79. The figures for 1978–79 and 1992–93 represent broadly the same proportion of the average house price as a £33,000 mortgage today.

  5. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. Average earnings stood at £92·80 per week in 1978–79 and £347·70 in 1992–93. They are assumed to grow by 3½ per cent. in 1993–94 to £359·90.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 635, if he will (a) provide estimates for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95 of the burden of direct and indirect taxes on a married couple, one earner, two children, on 100
  900
  per cent. of the average earnings, including the impact of mortgage interest tax relief, assuming that the family has a £35,000 mortgage and that mortgage interest rates are 7·9 per cent. in 1993–94 and 7·8 per cent. in 1994–95 and (b) provide similar estimates for 1995–96 to take account of the tax changes announced for 1995–96, assuming that other aspects of the tax regime are subject to statutory indexation, that prices rise by the amount specified in the working assumption on page 121 of the Financial Statement and Budget report 1994–95, that earnings growth in 1995–96 is the same as in 1994–95 and that the family has a £35,000 mortgage and that mortgage interest rates are 7·8 per cent. in 1995–96.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]:The available information is given in the table.

  Tax and mortgage payments

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (i) Whole economy

  Income tax

  9·1

  9·6

  9·9

  NICs

  6·2

  6·4

  6·3

  (ii) Family

  Income tax

  12·4

  13·1

  13·7

  NICs

  7·9

  8·8

  8·8

  Net mortgage payments

  11·6

  11·6

  11·8

  Notes to Table:

  1. Whole economy income tax and NICs show total tax receipts on an accruals basis as a proportion of GDP. The figures for NICs include both employers' and employee contributions.

  2. Family tax and mortgage payments show income tax, employee NICs and net mortgage payments for a one-earner married couple on average earnings with two children as a percentage of earnings.

  3. Family income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners are assumed to pay Class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  4. Child benefit is treated as a deduction from income tax.

  5. Estimates of family income tax and National Insurance Contributions in 1995–96 are based on the illustrative assumption of uprating personal allowances, tax thresholds, NIC Lower and Upper earnings limits and Child Benefit in line with the assumption of 3·25 per cent. given in the 1994–95 Financial Statement and Budget Report for the increase in the Retail Price Index in 1995–96.

  6. Mortgage payments are shown net of mortgage interest relief.

  7. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are assumed to be £359·90 per week in 1993–94, £374·30 in 1994–95 and £389·30 in 1995–96, based on illustrative earnings growth assumptions of 4 per cent. per year in 1994–95 and 1995–96.
  901

  Pension Transfers
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information the Securities and Investments Board requested from FIMBRA, LAUTRO and IMRO in relation to pension transfers; what was the basis of the brief given by the Securities and Investments Board to KPMG; what action was taken by the Securities and Investments Board in investigating pension transfers by the companies directly regulated by the Securities and Investments Board; what were the terms of reference of the steering committee on pension transfers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: KPMG was asked by the Securities and Investments Board to examine in conjunction with FIMBRA, LAUTRO and IMRO the extent of compliance with regulators' requirements in the sale of lump sum pension transfers. I understand that the study was carried out on a representative sample of client files provided by those SROs. It was commissioned as a result of SIB's analysis of compliance by directly regulated firms, which indicated significant levels of non-compliance. SIB published the report on 16 December 1993. It found that, as with SIB's directly regulated firms, a large proportion of files did not contain all the material that they should have contained. SIB has stressed that it remains to be seen how far this finding is symptomatic of unsuitable advice causing financial disadvantage to investors.

  A regulators steering group, chaired by the chief executive of SIB, has been charged with examining the extent of the problem and devising preventative and remedial guidelines. An advisory committee of experts, chaired by Sir Douglas Wass, has been set up to advise the SIB board on further work on pension transfers. Full terms of reference of both are set out hereafter.

  Pensions Advisory Committee

  1. To review the plans and proposals developed by the Regulators' Steering Group in accordance with its terms of reference, with particular regard to their practicability and to the extent to which they address the problems identified; and

  2. To submit to the SIB two reports on the outcome of its review:
  the first on the proposals of the Steering Group for the development of preventative measures; and the second on the full report of the Steering Group on the actions required to provide remedies for any shortcomings in the advice given to clients.

  3. It is understood:

  (a) that members of the Advisory Board will be free to consult their "constituencies" on an informal and confidential basis during the course of its work, and

  (b) that the Advisory Board will be free to publish its reports to the SIB in the event that the body does not accept its advice in whole or in part.

  Regulators' Steering Group

  (i) To advise on further measures necessary to ensure that future pension business involving transfers or opt outs from occupational pension schemes is conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory standards.

  (ii) To develop specifications for an industry review of potential problem cases, and the priorities for tackling the review.

  (iii) To clarify the scale and incidence of detriment to investors.

  ((iv) To consider what forms of remedy are appropriate in different sets of circumstances.

  (v) To plan for co-ordinated regulatory activity where it is necessary.

  902

  (vi) To foster commitment within the investment and occupational pensions industries and the actuarial profession to the review, and to the resolution of problem cases.

  To keep SIB informed of its progress on the above by means of monthly reports, and in particular to report on (i) above by 28 February 1994 and to report on overall progress by 30 June 1994.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passports
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now arrange for the issue of a full British passport or travel documents to Mrs. Hunwicks, a constituent of the hon. Member for Ilford, South.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mrs. Hunwicks has not acquired British citizenship and thus does not qualify for a British passport. Any application she may wish to make for a Home Office travel document will be considered on its merits.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are applied by officials in the Passport Agency and his Department when deciding whether or not to issue passports to people living in this country for the last 30 years but who were born in the republic of Cyprus(a) before and (b) after it gained its independence.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Passport Agency issues British passports to those who qualify under the relevant nationality legislation. In the case of people born in Cyprus, this is the Cyprus Act 1960 and the British Nationality (Cyprus) Order 1960.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Passport Agency has refused to issue a full passport to Mrs. Hunwicks, a constituent of the hon. Member for Ilford, South; and what account was taken of the issue of a British visitor's passport.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mrs. Hunwicks has not acquired British citizenship and thus does not qualify for a British passport.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. and Mrs. Hunwicks, constituents of the hon. Member for Ilford, South, first applied for passports at the Passport Office at Petty France, London; what reasons they gave for the application; when Mr. Hunwicks was given his passport; why Mrs. Hunwicks was refused a passport; and how many subsequent visits and telephone calls Mr. and Mrs. Hunwicks made to the Passport Office.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mr. Hunwicks applied for British passports for himself and his wife on 18 January 1994 to enable them to travel to Morocco. A passport for Mr. Hunwicks was issued on 21 January. He was informed that a passport could not be issued to Mrs. Hunwicks as she has not yet acquired British citizenship. Mr. and Mrs. Hunwicks have made three visits to London passport office, and had several telephone conversations, in seeking to clarify this situation.
  903

  Temazepam
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce his decision on the conclusions reached by his Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs regarding the misuse of the hypnotic temazepam.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am studying the Advisory Council's conclusions in consultation with ministerial colleagues. The consultation process is taking a little longer than at first envisaged, but I hope to reach a decision shortly after Easter.

  Assault
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by region the available data on the breakdown of assault victims by (i) race and (ii) religion in 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by region the number of female victims of (i) sexual and (ii) physical assaults since 1990 who were assaulted by males against whom they had restraining orders.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Sex Offences
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted sex offenders have then gone on to offend once again after their release from prison in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information on the re-offending of prisoners is the reconviction rate for a "standard list" offence, as defined in appendix 4 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1992", within two or four years after discharge from a prison service establishment. The latest statistics are for those discharged in 1987 after completion of a prison sentence for which the principal offence was a sex offence. Of those discharged, 416 or 25 per cent. had been convicted of a further offence within two years and 540 or 32 per cent. within four years. The numbers exclude the reconviction of a small number of discharges whose criminal histories could not be traced.

  Fraud
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce provisions for minimum custodial sentences linked with the amounts involved in cases of major fraud.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to do so.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the effect on the report of the Sheehy inquiry of the members of the inquiry all being men.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.
  904

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will answer the questions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton tabled for answer on 28 January regarding the appointments he makes to public bodies.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no record of any question tabled by the hon. Member to my Department for answer on 28 January.

  The hon. Member has received an answer to all the questions he tabled for answer on 26 January concerning public bodies.

  Police Surveillance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 435, if he will review the position as respects court cases of citizens allowing their houses to be used for surveillance by the police.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is clear that the operation of the current rules on disclosure causes a number of problems in respect of members of the public who allow their homes to be used for surveillance by the police. The Government are reviewing this issue as part of their consideration of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice about prosecution and defence disclosure.

  Game Licences
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will abolish the game licence system.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are currently consulting interested groups on how far game licences continue to meet their original objective of combating poaching and enforcing the statutory close season and on whether there may be better means of achieving the same object.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many teachers, per London borough, are employed directly on section 11 funded projects; and what estimate he has made as to how many will lose their jobs following the change in the grants formula.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not maintained centrally in the form requested. The number of designated teacher posts approved for funding under section 11 grant in each London borough is shown in the table, in full-time equivalent terms.

  London Borough

  Number of FTE teacher posts approved

  Barking and Dagenham

  15·6

  Barnet

  48·5

  Bexley

  7·0

  Brent

  92·5

  Bromley

  —

  Camden

  72·4

  Croydon

  63·2

  Ealing

  184·4

  Enfield

  64·0

  905

  London Borough

  Number of FTE teacher posts approved

  Greenwich

  85·0

  Hackney

  225·5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  40·6

  Haringey

  181·1

  Harrow

  37·0

  Havering

  3·0

  Hillingdon

  13·0

  Hounslow

  91·4

  Islington

  102·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  58·0

  Kingston

  7·1

  Lambeth

  51·2

  Lewisham

  98·0

  Merton

  28·0

  Newham

  132·2

  Redbridge

  56·6

  Richmond

  4·0

  Southwark

  108·5

  Sutton

  2·0

  Tower Hamlets

  428·5

  Waltham Forest

  114·0

  Wandsworth

  112·4

  Westminster

  95·5

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to posts in full-time equivalent terms, not individuals.

  2. Figures include any such posts in grant maintained schools within a borough's area

  Section 11 Grant: London boroughs

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Barking and Dagenham

  211,233

  246,230

  245,849

  223,204

  317,607

  230,289

  230,860

  Barnet

  1,049,851

  949,002

  1,202,176

  1,073,736

  1,135,419

  808,203

  748,243

  Bexley

  11,104

  13,049

  15,523

  13,105

  55,271

  95,293

  100,138

  Brent

  4,025,852

  3,349,013

  2,614,389

  2,521,332

  2,449,332

  1,627,435

  1,742,385

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  244,234

  424,671

  1,544,899

  1,635,092

  1,441,285

  784,832

  1,111,346

  Croydon

  1,235,905

  1,093,806

  1,384,268

  1,351,821

  1,250,852

  930,801

  949,775

  Ealing

  3,654,390

  4,711,527

  5,579,558

  4,578,343

  3,253,875

  2,112,204

  2,632,879

  Enfield

  346,133

  470,294

  535,477

  496,131

  988,721

  1,053,026

  1,058,164

  Greenwich

  491,847

  455,939

  1,248,340

  1,334,721

  1,557,710

  1,178,481

  1,329,673

  Hackney

  941,829

  1,499,707

  4,299,227

  4, 128,546

  4,191,327

  2,874,005

  3,002,040

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  212,962

  142,900

  1,011,358

  1,000,212

  764,353

  680,384

  713,289

  Haringey

  1,992,027

  2,988,487

  2,871,610

  1,663,800

  2,357,008

  1,857,603

  2,604,874

  Harrow

  567,214

  568,947

  755,346

  708,141

  808,967

  580,320

  556,992

  Havering

  0

  36,407

  29,798

  27,934

  45,490

  36,622

  39,169

  Hillingdon

  369,717

  374,464

  448,158

  529,700

  432,290

  332,159

  317,055

  Hounslow

  1,250,491

  1,889,641

  1,620,992

  1,712,577

  1,824,153

  1,265,608

  1,401,864

  Islington

  412,193

  527,806

  1,727,799

  1,689,993

  1,981,114

  1,262,481

  1,434,673

  Kensington and Chelsea

  133,599

  162,496

  1,051,382

  1,027,752

  1,081,670

  830,214

  899,845

  Kingston

  9,866

  1,210

  0

  0

  77,628

  108,532

  106,742

  Lambeth

  689,373

  262,171

  1,468,067

  1,665,526

  1,511,432

  1,046,532

  1,109,603

  Lewisham

  317,569

  332,541

  1,440,252

  1,382,641

  1,883,935

  1,394,157

  1,637,467

  Merton

  705,491

  441,369

  588,786

  435,738

  373,830

  463,386

  490,246

  Newham

  2,506,284

  2,877,460

  2,580,767

  2,428,165

  3,255,362

  1,899,954

  2,206,728

  Redbridge

  816,962

  853,644

  880,844

  858,488

  1,103,708

  870,444

  933,052

  Richmond

  69,177

  66,446

  74,879

  52,427

  56,716

  53,729

  56,225

  Southwark

  515,764

  270,503

  2,302,159

  2,096,790

  1,894,304

  1,622,506

  1,965,479

  Sutton

  3,848

  16,920

  15,696

  19,367

  46,201

  44,137

  46,902

  Tower Hamlets

  266,711

  291,460

  4,353,398

  4,962,547

  8,771,856

  5,978,576

  6,826,782

  Waltham Forest

  1,641,928

  1,540,411

  1,627,145

  1,270,270

  1,897,467

  1,501,779

  1,585,015

  Wandsworth

  312,391

  309,424

  2,117,834

  2,176,164

  1,998,135

  1,234,737

  1,434,386

  Westminster

  68,948

  73,648

  1,519,653

  1,316,560

  1,899,147

  1,329,921

  1,498,548

  London Boroughs Grants Unit

  0

  18,142

  7,022

  7,928

  62,510

  113,815

  117,528

  Inner London Education Authority

  7,503,850

  21,941,375

  19,308,052

  0

  0

  0

  0

  906
  All approved posts remain eligible for grant funding. It is a matter for authorities to decide, within their overall financial provision, how they propose to proceed in the light of the reductions in section 11 funding which we regret it has been necessary to make.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the expenditure, per London borough, on section 11 projects for each of the past five years; what it will be in the current year; and what is the proposed expenditure for 1994–95.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows, in relation to each London borough, and also the London Boroughs Grants Unit and, where relevant, the Inner London education authority,

  (a) for the years between 1988–89 and 1992–93, grant expenditure under section 11;

  (b) for 1993–94, amounts of grant under three quarterly payments so far made; and

  (c) budget allocations which have been notified as the basis for grant recipients' own expenditure in 1994–95.

  Since grant is currently paid on the basis of actual expenditure incurred by grant recipients, it is not possible to give grant expenditure figures for 1993–94 as a whole, or for 1994–95.

  It should be noted that the later figures in relation to the Inner London education authority include grant in respect of earlier years, payment of which had been delayed due to the late submission of claims.

  Prison Dogs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the effect of the privatisation of prisons on prison dogs; and if he will make a statement.
  907
  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. Harry Cohen, dated 17 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 representations have been received about the effect of the privatisation of prisons on prison dogs.
  I have assumed that your Question refers to recent newspaper articles suggesting that the Prison Service intends to have the dogs destroyed. We have received a number of representations in response to these articles.
  The candidacy of the Prison Dog Service for market testing has been suspended, as under present law contractors would be unable to exercise powers to stop and search inmates. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill would remedy this. The future of the dogs will come into question only if there is a market test and a private sector contractor wins the contract. We would expect to find alternative work placements or homes for the dogs.

  Crime Detection
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish for the last convenient year details of the crime detection rate for each police force area in England and Wales, together with the equivalent rates for England as a whole and for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information relates to 1992 and is published in table 2.11 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1992", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Communications Business
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans the communications business of the Home Office has to close the Ruddington head office; what are the consequences to be for the staff in the event of such closure; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he expects to initiate pre-redundancy measures as detailed in the model redundancy agreement and if necessary to offer staff the option of secondment; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will ensure that any proposed purchaser intends to respect existing terms and conditions of employment of the communicatioins business of the Home Office employees and that employees' severance terms shall not be changed without consent and that there can be no unilateral change to these terms;

  (4) what conclusion he has reached on the representations made by unions at the communications business of the Home Office concerning a guarantee of redundancy money in the event that any new owner of DTELS becomes insolvent; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what is the status of the proposed sale of the communications business of the Home Office; who has managed the sale; what is the purchase consideration; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what proposals there are for the communications business of the Home Office to relocate staff presently
  908
  operating at Ruddington head office to be relocated at the DTELS establishment at Stanton; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what indications he has received from any proposed purchaser of the communications business of the Home Office to maintain the recognition agreement with NUCPS, CPSA and IPMS unions; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) what steps he has taken to ensure that the communications business of the Home Office shall retain its autonomy and that the privatisation process shall help to protect jobs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  DTELS, formerly the Directorate of Telecommunications, is being privatised by means of a trade sale. Price Waterhouse is the financial adviser to the Department on the sale.

  National Transcommunications Ltd. has been approved as preferred bidders for DTELS and negotiations to complete the sale are under way. The purchase consideration must be treated as commercial in confidence.

  NTL is not in a position to set out in detail future staffing plans for the business. These will be finalised following completion of the sale. It has announced, though, that it intends to close DTELS's existing Ruddington head office within 12 months and to transfer operations o Winchester, with some staff relocating to the existing DTELS site at nearby Stanton. Opportunities may also arise at other NTL or DTELS locations.

  We have no plans to initiate pre-redundancy measures under the model redundancy agreement or to second staff in response to NTL plans. The unions have been informed that the Government's normal clean break policy on privatisation will apply and that there will be no Government underwriting of any redundancy payment which are the responsibility of NTL.

  NTL has undertaken that where redundancies are necessary it will respect the procedures currently in place. Staff terms and conditions, including severance rights, are protected on transfer by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

  NTL has undertaken also to adhere to collective bargaining arrangements. Any proposal to change conditions of service would be discussed and agreement sought. It has confirmed that it would not seek to make unilateral changes.

  The Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union is the union recognised by NTL for collective bargaining. NTL recognises that existing recognition of civil service unions within DTELS transfers across. It aims though, to recognise BECTU as the sole union which represents all staff. It is understood that BECTU and the civil service unions are discussing how this might be achieved.

  While it was not a requirement of sale, NTL has indicated that DTELS will operate as a separate entity within its organisation and that a separate operations structure will be maintained.

  We think that DTELS is being sold to a purchaser which will meet its responsibilities to staff and customers. While NTL has indicated that there will be redundancies, privatisation ensures that for the majority there is the best prospect of long-term job security.
  909

  Sentencing (Illness)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for ensuring that courts are placed under a stronger duty to inquire into a convicted defendant's former medical history and circumstances where there is an application to adjourn the date of sentencing on grounds of illness.

  Mr. Maclean
  Courts already have a power to adjourn after conviction to enable inquiries to be made.

  We are not persuaded that it is necessary to place courts under such a duty.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the total cost to public funds of the Metropolitan police in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  As police authority for the Metropolitan police district, I have approved estimates which provide for net revenue expenditure of £1,660·724 million in 1994–95. There will be a cash limit on current expenditure of £1,616·511 million. Capital expenditure is subject to separate control.

  I have also approved the issue of a precept of £133·55 per property in band D of the council tax valuation band Metropolitan police purposes.

  I have discussed the estimates for the Metropolitan police expenditure in 1994–95 with representatives of the London local authority associations.

  Fire Precautions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the report on the review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 which began in July 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We received the report late in December. The report concludes that the Fire Precautions Act 1971 has been successful in its primary objective of saving lives. But it suggests that certification is no longer the only or best way of achieving fire safety and that there is room for a substantial move to self-compliance. It recommends, however, that adequate controls must be retained to maintain high standards of public protection where necessary and to enable fire authorities to target their resources at high risk premises. It recommends the removal of Crown immunity from enforcement action other than in very limited circumstances.

  We will consider this report alongside the findings and recommendations of the scrutiny on fire safety enforcement which began on 17 January. However, in the meantime, we believe that it is important that all interested parties are able to consider the findings and recommendations of the review and I have today arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Interested parties can obtain copies by writing to the Fire Safety Division of the Home Office, Horseferry house, Dean Ryle street, London SW1P 2AW.

  Racial Chanting
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993 for racial chanting at football
  910
  matches under section 3(1) of the Football (Offences) Act 1991: and how many of these prosecutions were successful.

  Mr. Maclean
  In England and Wales in 1992, there were 31 prosecutions under section 3 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991, 21 of which resulted in a conviction. 1993 data will not be available until the autumn.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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) the Lord Chancellor's Department and (b) his 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. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has conducted no television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising or promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 in the current financial year, 1993–94. No advertising or promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 are planned for 1994–95. The same applies to the two agencies for which the Lord Chancellor has responsibility-the Public Record Office and Her Majesty's Land Registry.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Law Commission.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The members currently appointed to the Law Commission are:

  Mr. Justice Brooke (Chairman)

  Professor Jack Beatson

  Miss Diana Faber

  Mr. Charles Harpum.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Judicial Studies Board.

  Mr. John Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The following are currently members of the Judicial Studies Board: Lord Justice Henry (Chairman), Judge Francis Allen, Mr. P. Birts, QC, Mr. Justice Brooke, Judge Crane, Mr. P. F. Guggenheim, JP, Mr. J. F. Halliday, District Judge Holloway, Mr. R. E. K. Holmes, Mr. Justice Johnson, Lord Justice Kennedy, Judge Machin, QC, Professor M. Partington, Judge Sumner, Mr. Justice Tuckey, Dr. D. A. Thomas.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Section 706 Tribunal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: HIs Honour Stephen Oliver, QC is the chairman of the tribunal constituted under section 706 of the Income

  911
  and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. There are also six members appointed by the Lord Chancellor as having special knowledge of or experience in financial or commercial matters. Their names are Mr. H. A. Stevenson, Mr. R. L. Payton, Mr. A. Spier, Mr. R. J. G. White, Mr. A. J. Ring and Mrs. S. Sadeque.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Transport Tribunal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The president of the transport tribunal is Judge Harold Wilson. The chairmen are Judge Michael Brodrick, Robert Owen QC and, in Scotland, J. Mair. The other members of the tribunal are Miss B. Haran, Mr. T. Hall, Mr. G. Simms, Mr. J. Whitworth and Mr. P. Rogers.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Lands Tribunal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The members of the Lands Tribunal are His Honour Judge Marder QC (President), His Honour Judge O'Donoghue and His Honour Judge Rich. In addition to these legal members there are also five surveyor members: Mr. P. H. Clarke, Mr. J. C. Hill, Mr. M. Hopper, Dr. T. Hoyes and Mr. A. P. Musto.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Value Added Tax Tribunal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The president of the Value Added Tax Tribunal is His Honour Stephen Oliver QC. The four full-time chairmen are Mr. R. A. Bennett QC, Mr. J. D. Demack, Mr. A. W. Simpson and Mr. W. T. A. Wallace. There are also 30 part-time chairmen whose names are:

  J. F. Avery Jones

  C. P. Bishopp

  Mrs. A. N. Brice

  M. P. Cornwell-Kelly

  Viscount Dilhorne

  J. F. Easton

  Lady French

  J. H. Fryer-Spedding

  Mrs. E. Gilliland

  Miss J. C. Gort

  P. E. Heim

  A. Hilton

  P. Horsfield, QC

  R. P. Huggins

  M. S. Johnson

  F. L. De May

  R. K. Miller, CB

  Mrs. J. C. Mitting

  A. S. T. E. Nicol

  M. F. O'Brien

  M. F. J. Palmer

  Miss J. Plumptre

  D. S. Porter

  D. Potter

  H. Robin Rowland, QC

  D. A. Shirley

  I. E. Vellins

  R. H. Widdows

  P. W. De Voil

  Miss J. Warburton

  There are also 136 other members as follows:

  Mrs Edith Rachel Adams, FCA ATII

  John Adrian, Esq

  Ms Caroline Susan De Albuquerque

  912

  Michael Hamilton Allan, Esq

  George Kevin Armstrong, Esq FCMA FCIS

  Robert Asbridge, Esq

  Mrs. Vera Ashcroft

  Ronald William Atkinson, Esq

  David George Bailey Esq

  Dr. Norma Rhoda Ball, AKC FRGS

  John Daniel Dudley Bates, Esq

  Lindsay Harry Berry, Esq

  Richard Stewart Boddington, Esq

  Robert Bridge, Esq

  Vivian Robert Vincent Brindley, Esq

  Alan Bell Brown, Esq FCA ATII

  Arthur Ernest Brown, Esq

  Gordon Burnison, Esq

  Mrs. Brenda May Burrell

  John Anthony Byrne, Esq DCM FIPM

  Mrs. Margaret Ada Tomsett Calvert, FAC

  Frederick Ernest Thomas Card, Esq

  James Carew, Esq FCIS

  Kenneth Chambers, Esq

  Richard Chant, Esq ACA FTII

  Arthur Haywood Charlesworth Esq

  Roger Edmund Cockfield, Esq

  Ian Condie, Esq

  Bernard J. Coode, Esq FFA

  Richard Dudley Corke, Esq

  Anthony Norburn Craven, Esq

  Robert Laverock Hamilton Crawford, Esq

  James D. Crerar, Esq

  James Stredwick Cullen, Esq

  Jon Patrick Maynard Denny, Esq

  Miss Vera June Di Palma, FCCA FTII OBE

  Keith Stuart Dugdale Esq

  John Brian Dynes, Esq

  Mrs. Sheila Edmondson FCA

  Mohammed Farooq, Esq

  Hector William Michael Fiske, Esq

  Geoffrey Gallon, Esq

  Cranstoun Bygott Harold Gill, Esq

  John Martyn Gilliat, Esq

  John Bryan Goulding, Esq

  William Graves, Esq

  Robert Geoffrey Grice, Esq

  Derrick Peter Harris, Esq FCA

  Charles Vernon Hasted, Esq

  Frank Hazledine, Esq

  Anthony Francis Hennessey, Esq

  William Edward Hesketh, Esq ICCA

  Roger David Hicks, Esq

  Stanley Hobson, Esq

  William Chalmers Hogg, Esq

  Frank Paul De Montezuma Horsey, Esq

  Mohammad Modashar Hossain, Esq FCA FCBSI

  Robin M. Ivison, Esq FCA FTII ATT

  Ms Jessica Mary Jacob

  Michael James, Esq

  Roy Leonard Jennings, Esq FCA FTII

  Mrs. Roberta Scott Johnson

  Ivor Arthur Herbert Jordan, Esq

  Aziz Khan, Esq

  John David Kippest, Esq

  John Michael Lapthorne, Esq

  Peter Halford Lawson, Esq

  Peter Dennis Lewis, Esq TD

  Geoffrey John Charles Lockhart, Esq

  Miss Karen Bruce Lockhart

  Maurice McCloy, Esq

  George McCulloch, Esq

  Edgar Michael McGahey, Esq OBE

  Mrs. Janis Rosemary Adelaide McGowan

  Francis McIlwee, Esq FCCA ATII

  Terence McKeag, Esq

  Hugh McMichael, Esq

  Mrs. Rosalind Jean Mackworth

  Kenneth Charles Manterfield, Esq FCA

  Lt. Colonel Tymothy Marsh

  John N. Mendelssohn, Esq

  George Miles, Esq

  Herbert William Millar, Esq

  913

  Dennis Victor Mundy, Esq

  Linley Barrett Ollier, Esq

  Richard Turner Parkinson, Esq

  Mrs. Rosemary Vivien Penn

  Thomas Murch Petherick, Esq

  Norman Henry Phillips, Esq

  Reginald James Pickerill, Esq FCA FTII

  William Joseph Pickup, Esq

  Alan William Potter, Esq

  Mrs. Gilian Pratt

  James Pratt, Esq

  Mrs. Gretta Pritchard

  Dr. William Idwal Pumphrey, FIM

  Scott Alexander Rae, Esq

  John Benjamin Rees, Esq

  David Spencer Richards, Esq

  Stephen Paterson Riddell, Esq MA LLB

  Anthony John Ring, Esq FTII FCA

  Mrs. Nancy Joan Roberts

  Phillip James Roberts, Esq

  Albert Leonard Robinson, Esq RHCIMA FCFA

  Mrs. Margaret Jane Rees Rogers

  Dominic Thomas Scarre Rutter, Esq

  Mrs. Shahwar Sadeque MBCS

  Mrs. Lynneth Mary Salisbury

  George Kenneth Baber Saxby, Esq

  Peter John Seward, Esq

  Michael Alan Sharp, Esq

  Cyril Raymond Shaw, Esq FCA

  Stanley Ronald Sibley, Esq FCCA

  Michael Maurice Silbert, Esq FRICS

  Vivian Sklar, Esq

  Basil Benjamin Smith, Esq

  Frank Smith, Esq

  Mrs. Janet M.Smith

  Ramniklal Pranial Sodagar, Esq FCA ATII

  Lewis Springfield, Esq

  James Thomas Brian Strangward, Esq

  Ranbir Singh Suri, Esq

  Selvyn Walker Telfer, Esq

  Neil Francis Townsend, Esq

  Maurice William Trace, Esq

  Willian Raymond Turner, Esq

  Dame Joan Fleetwood Varley, DBE

  Anthony Wreford Bothwell Voge, Esq

  Dame Rachel Elizabeth Waterhouse, DBE

  Howard Edmund Watkinson, Esq

  Michael Eckford Lind Weir, Esq

  Ian Ronald Welch, Esq

  Peter Whitehead, Esq

  Leon Guy Wilkinson, Esq

  Miss Diana M. Wilson

  John Anthony Wright Esq

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to immigration appellate authorities adjudicators.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: There are currently 15 full-time adjudicators of immigration appeals. They are: R. G. Care, J. R. Bright, Mrs. J. Davidson, J. R. Disley, I. M. S. Donnell, J. G. Freeman, M. T. Fugard, A. T. Hatt, E. J. T. Housden, M. I. Khan, J. A. 0. O'Brien-Quinn, D. J. Parkes, M. W. Rapinet, C. 0. Richards and J. G. Storry. There are also 100 part-time adjudicators whose names are:

  G. Alis

  K. Allen

  F. Aragon

  Miss E. Arfon-Jones

  C. H. Bennett

  S. J. Blackford

  W. G. Beckett

  D. N. Bowen

  Ms J. M. Braybrook

  Mrs. F. C. Bremner

  J. S. Brodwell

  V. Callender

  914

  The Reverend J. Camp

  Professor D. B. Casson

  Miss A. M. Cheales

  Major General M. H. F. Clarke

  Dr. H. Concannon

  Professor K. Counter

  M. E. Curzon Lewis

  Mrs. A. C. Davies

  M. Davies

  G. Dearden

  Mrs. D. Drew

  Miss K. E. Eshun

  J. B. Fitzpatrick CBE

  J. R. A. Fox

  J. Frankland

  Mrs. D. A. Friedman

  J. C. Gibbs

  Miss J. C. Gort

  B. S. Grewal

  The Honourable J. K. A. Grey

  J. L. Guest

  Guild CBE

  P. Gulbenkian

  D. T. Hallchurch

  J. J. Halliwell

  M. Hinchliffe

  A. J. Hirst

  J. L. O. Holden

  M. S. W. Hoyle

  R. J. C. Ince

  Ms C. Jarvis

  D. J. Jefferson

  E. J. Jenkins

  M. H. Jubber

  R. A. Kay

  Mrs. C. M. Kennedy

  P. M. Kilty

  I. S. Kulatilake

  A. Labor

  D. A. Lamb

  H. J. E. Latter

  J. W. H. Law

  Sir Alan Leslie

  Miss M. N. Lingard

  Mrs. C. J. Lloyd

  Mrs. C. J. W. Malins

  A. J. Martin

  Mrs. E. S. Martins

  Master R. Martyn

  D. W. Mayall

  H. M. Mitchell QC

  J. J. Molloy

  M. Neuberger

  E. L. Newsome

  C. M. G. Ockelton

  R. J. Oliver

  O. G. Onoufriou

  C. Osborne

  J. D. Perkins

  Dr. S. L. Popper

  J. F. Pullig

  N. W. Renton QC

  Mrs. C. E. Roberts

  Mrs. H. C. Rose

  P. B. Rose

  C. P. Rushton

  D. J. Salmon

  N. Selwyn

  Mrs. P. M. Skitmore

  Dr. P. E. Slinn

  L. J. Smith

  Dr. H. Storey

  Mrs. S. H. Story

  B. M. Suchack

  Mrs. P. A. Symons

  Mrs. D. E. Taylor

  J. M. Timmons

  S. D. Travers

  I. E. Vellins

  T. G. Walters

  915

  G. Warr

  B. C. M. G. Watkins

  Mrs. J. L. Weinberg

  E. M. E. White

  Mrs. K. Woodhouse

  C. C. Wright

  P. J. Wynne

  C. J. Yelloly

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the immigration appellate authorities, Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The president of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is Mr. George Farmer. The two vice presidents are Mrs. J. Chatwani and Professor D. Jackson. There are also nine part-time legal members whose names are:

  I. Kinnell, QC

  R. E. Maddison

  Mrs. R. Mannion

  Professor D. S. Pearl

  W. B. Scott

  M. Shrimpton

  Mrs. M. Simon

  M. Simons

  C. Whitaker

  There are 27 lay members of the tribunal. Their names are:

  Mrs. J. M. Abrahams

  M. R. Beale

  The Honourable Mrs. L. Bonham Carter

  G. J. Brown

  V. R. Cadogan, JP

  Mrs. A. J. F. Cross De Chavannes, JP

  C. A. N. Edinboro

  B. Edmond

  Major D. Francombe

  D. M. Froome

  Mrs. J. H. M. Goodchild

  J. L. S. Harrison

  Mrs. S. I. Hewitt

  R. E. Hunte

  M. James

  A. G. Jeevanjee

  A. K. Khandwala

  N. Kumar

  Miss P. G. Liverman

  A. A. Lloyd, JP

  The Countess of Mar

  Mrs. M. Padfield

  Miss S. S. Ramsumair

  Mrs. M. Roe

  P. Rogers

  A. Smith

  Mrs. A. Weitzman

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: There are 62 members of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. The president is Mr. J. R. T. Holt. The deputy president is Mr. J. A. Davidson and the legal members are Mr. A. M. Sage, Mr. J. Frankland, Mr. R. J. Godfrey, Mr. C. B. Robson, Mr. F. H. Warriner and Mr. J. Westcott.

  There are also 28 medical members whose names are:

  C. A. C. Charlton

  J. C. M. Currie

  D. Davies

  A. E. Dormer

  R. F. Fletcher

  A. C. Fraser

  G. Freeman

  M. Grundy

  916

  M. Hamilton, OBE

  P. J. D Heaf

  A. R. Horler

  A. G. Horsburgh

  M. S. Hughes

  D. Longson

  P. R. K. Medley

  J. E. Mitchell

  B. J. Muir

  A. Paton

  J. Potter

  R. Pracey

  Robertson

  Sir William Slack, KCVO

  D. R. Smith

  I. V. O. Smith

  T. B. Stretton

  W. C. Walker

  J. P. Williams

  P. M. Yeoman

  There are also 26 service members whose names are:

  D. F. G. Bentley

  Ms C. E. Birtwistle

  D. I. Cadman, CBE

  M. B. Chesterfield

  A. W. Colvin

  R. Dales

  P. Deering, JP

  R. S. Elliott

  Lt. Col. Epplestone, JP

  D. F. Field

  Mrs. J. M. Finlay

  Miss B. I. Forbes-Adam

  Mrs. J. L. Ford

  B. L. Glynn J. Heath

  N. Howlett

  C. F. Jebens

  C. Jewitt

  R. W. Jones

  P. G. Kibble

  Miss S. M. Lamont

  Miss E. Rhodie

  R. E. Saunders

  D. Seaman

  Sir Leslie Townsend, KCVO CBE

  A. D. Welsh

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 museum of London.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the Museum of London are:

  Peter Revell-Smith, Esq (Chairman)

  Colin Amery, Esq

  Mrs. Averil Burgess

  Sir Ashley Bramall, DL

  Dr. Alan Clinton

  Peter Draw, Esq OBE

  Norman H. Harding, Esq

  Lady Amabel Lindsay

  Dr. Geoffrey Howard Martin, CBE DPhil

  Ian D. McNeil, Esq

  Sheriff Anthony Moss

  Mrs. Dawn Muirhead

  Keith Wells, Esq

  Michael Wheeler, Esq

  Professor John J. Wilkes, BA FSA

  Gordon Wixley, Esq

  C. D. Woodward, Esq OBE

  917
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Tate gallery.

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

  Dennis Stevenson, Esq CBE (Chairman)

  The Countess of Airlie, CVO

  The Hon. Janet de Botton

  Michael Craig-Martin, Esq

  Richard Deacon, Esq

  Bamber Gascoigne, Esq FRSL

  David Gordon, Esq

  Christopher LeBrun, Esq

  Sir Richard Carew Pole

  Mrs. Paula F. Ridley, JP MA

  David Verey, Esq

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Sir John Soane's museum.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the Sir John Soane's museum are:

  His Grace the Duke of Grafton (Chairman)

  Sir Walter F. Bodmer, Kt FRS FRC Path

  Ms Bridget Cherry, FSA

  Edward Cullinan, CBE RA

  Richard Griffiths, Esq

  Ronald W. Lightbown, Esq MA FSA FRAS

  Alderman Sir Francis McWilliams, Kt BSc FEng FICE

  Sir Philip Powell, KT RA ARA FRIBA

  T. Russell-Cobb, Esq

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Museums and Galleries Commission.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the Museums and Galleries Commission are:

  Graham Greene, Esq CBE (Chairman)

  The Marchioness of Anglesey

  Dr. Frank Atkinson, OBE

  Jack Baer, Esq

  The Baroness Brigstocke

  The Viscountess Cobham

  Frederick W. Dunning, Esq OBE BSc FGS FMA

  Richard Foster, Esq

  Professor W. John Last, CBE MA Hon FMA

  Professor David Michie, RSA RGI FRSA

  Lord (Raymond) O'Neill

  Right Hon. Lord Rees, QC

  Robert Smith, Esq

  Dame Margaret Weston

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what future plans he has for the royal parks.

  Mr. Sproat
  The royal parks are one of London's finest assets and give pleasure to millions. The Government are committed to maintaining and improving these important open spaces so that they attain the highest standards of excellence.

  I have now considered the second report on the role and management of the royal parks from an independent review group, chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins. The group's first report considered Hyde park and Kensington gardens; this time its attention was focused on the four remaining parks in central London; St. James's park, Green park, Regent's park and Primrose hill. The group once again examined a wide range of issues and consulted many individuals and organisations. The conclusions of its report were discussed at a one-day conference.
  918
  The group's recommendations highlight the opportunities we now have to enhance the quality of the parks, and to provide for changing demands and pressures, but in doing so we must not lose sight of the fundamental purpose of the parks as places where hundreds of people can enjoy themselves in the open air. We are looking positively at the proposals in the group's report, although it is clear that some of them would involve significant changes and significant expenditure: for example, to landscape, traffic and parking. In this answer I shall describe the action we have already taken, and my proposals for taking matters forward. There will have to be detailed consultations with interested parties, including the royal household, Westminster city council, and the Crown Estate Commission, before some proposals can be implemented; some will require further study to determine whether practical solutions are possible; and the availability of financial resources will play a major part in determining the extent and timing and implementation of others.

  A central theme of the Jenkins group was that the pedestrian should have priority within the parks and that the impact of traffic on the atmosphere of the parks, particularly St. James's and Green parks, should be significantly reduced.

  The group highlighted the area in front of Buckingham palace—which, it should be explained, is part of St. James's park—as a prime example of the conflict between pedestrians and traffic. It recommended the creation of a pedestrian place between the palace and the Queen Victoria memorial. I am pleased to say that during the course of the last year consultants have looked at traffic and pedestrian access throughout the royal parks, and have already produced proposals for achieving this recommendation. Further detailed studies have been commissioned and when these are completed consultation will take place with all concerned.

  A programme of other traffic management measures is also being developed, including additional pedestrian crossings and traffic calming methods.

  On a related theme, the Jenkins group recommended that car parking should be banned from Horse Guards parade, returning the area to uncluttered open space, thus restoring one of the important vistas of St. James's park. Such a proposal will obviously require consultation with several Government Departments and other bodies. Alternative solutions to providing the necessary car parking, and the other consequential problems, would have to be found. The Royal Parks Agency is examining ways in which these problems might be resolved.

  For Regent's park, the Jenkins group's main theme was the need to view the park, villas and surrounding terraces as "an integral piece of urban design", reflecting its original conception. Many bodies now have management responsibilities within the area, and I accept the group's recommendation that there should ideally be a co-ordinated management strategy for the area as a whole. In this respect the important planning function of local authorities should not be overlooked. In the first stages I propose to consult colleagues in the Department of the Environment to see how the proposal can be taken forward. I also agree that a consultative mechanism between the park management and local residents and amenity groups, who value and take an interest in the park, should be developed.

  The group has put forward several proposals to improve the image of the parks to the visitor, including the

  919
  introduction of suitably sited display boards, explaining features such as the heritage and wildlife of the parks, and leaflets for self-guided trails. The general signing and maps on the parks also need improvement. I welcome these ideas, together with the suggestion for increasing the parks' role in more formal education by the provision of information centres and facilities for schools. The Royal Parks Agency's design consultant has in fact already designed new map boards, and these will be installed shortly. The first leaflets have already been produced.

  The group has recognised the role of royal parks in the image of London for visitors from this country and abroad, and this is reflected in its proposal for a circular walk linking all six central parks—the royal parks promenade. A leaflet showing the route and noting the important features along the way will be produced. I welcome this proposal, as does Westminster city council, which undoubtedly will have an important role to play in taking it forward. Parts of the route, such as the link through Park square and Crescent gardens, and that through Paddington, will need to be considered carefully, and several organisations will need to be consulted, if the proposal is to come to fruition.

  The full cost of implementing the recommendations is not yet known as further studies are required, and we will have to consider the position of the royal parks along with other demands on the Department of National Heritage budget. The specific recommendations made in the report, to increase funding to the parks through the retention of all additional income, a special contribution from Government, to cover the cost of policing and staging national celebrations, and a contribution from the Crown Estate, will require further detailed research and discussion within the Government. Until these discussions are complete I cannot say whether the proposals in the report can, or will be, met.

  I am pleased to say that considerable progress has been made towards meeting the recommendations in the group's first report on Hyde park and Kensington gardens. For example, the group felt that the Speakers' corner and Marble arch area had deteriorated, and suggested a competition for ideas to improve the area. The competition has been organised and was announced in January. in July a works management contractor was appointed and this contractor has completed a survey of all buildings and structures and drawn up a planned maintenance programme. This is the first step in reversing the deterioration in the fabric of the parks highlighted by the group. Traffic consultants have reported on traffic management within the parks and extensive consultation with local authorities and other interested parties is now taking place. The appointment of landscape architects, the establishment of the royal parks as an executive agency, and the policing of Hyde park by the Royal Parks constabulary, have been successfully completed.

  The comprehensive coverage given to every aspect of the parks by the Jenkins group and the general support and constructive comment that its reports have generated have persuaded me that a review of the remaining royal parks should be carried out. I have therefore invited Dame Jennifer Jenkins to chair a group to review Greenwich, Bushey and Richmond parks. The timetable for this review is longer than that for the previous reviews; starting in March, the group's report is expected in the first half of 1995. This will allow the Royal Parks Agency time to assimilate and take action of the proposals in the first two reports.
  920
  I am most grateful for the contribution and time Dame Jennifer, and her group, have already given, and look forward to the next report.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Promoter Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff were seconded to his Department under the export promoter initiative on 1 April 1993, 1 October 1993 and currently; how many enterprises had been advised by such staff by each date; and how many export group visits had been organised by such staff by each date.

  Mr. Needham
  Total number of staff seconded to the Department under the export promoter initiative by April 1 1993 = eight; October 1 1993 = 41; currently 68.

  Total number of enterprises contacted by export promoters by April 1 1993 = 54; October 1 1993 = 2,357; currently 5,467.

  Export group visits include seminars organised by export promoters, trade fairs or export missions led by export promoters or accompanying Ministers: by April 1 1993 = nil; October 1 1993 = 120; currently = 195.

  Approximate total number of enterprises which attended above events = 5,040.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies have been conducted since 1984 by his energy technology support unit on public attitudes to wind farm or wind generator cluster development in the United Kingdom; and what use he has made of any comparative studies conducted abroad.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following eight studies have been conducted since 1984 by the Energy Technology Support Unit on public attitudes to wind farms or wind generator cluster development. Results of relevant work conducted abroad are also noted.

  Public Attitude Survey at Delabole (two studies)

  Mynddy Cemmaes Windfarm Impact Assessment

  Cemmaes Wind Farm Impact Study

  The Visual Impact of Windfarms; Lessons from the United Kingdom NFFO

  Evaluation of Local Community Reaction to a Single Wind Turbine

  Public reaction to a 1 MW Wind Turbine Generator

  Survey of Public Attitudes towards Three Wind Turbines.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what safety arrangements are made for the long-term storage of liquid high level radioactive waste in tanks at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc subject to the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate's views as to safety.

  Colombian Coal
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he has taken to verify that coal imported into the United Kingdom from Colombia has not been mined by child labour;
  921
  (2) if he will deposit in the Library the documentation he has received certifying that coal imported into the United Kingdom from Colombia is not produced with child labour;

  (3) what assurances he has received directly or via PowerGen or National Power on the safety conditions in coal mines in Colombia exporting coal to the United Kingdom and on whether child labour is employed;

  (4) what reports of inspections of coal mines in Colombia exporting coal to the United Kingdom have been published; and if he will give the details of publication;

  (5) when was the last occasion on which he discussed the issue of Colombian coal and child labour with (a) officials of PowerGen and (b) officials of National Power;

  (6) what checks have been made by his Department to confirm that no coal being mined by child labour in Colombia is being delivered to stores in that country that are used for exports of coal to the United Kingdom;

  (7) if he will deposit in the Library the correspondence which has taken place between his Department and PowerGen and National Power on the issue of the importation of coal from mines in Colombia using child labour;

  (8) if he will list the dates and locations of inspections which have been carried out by or on behalf of his Department of coal mines in Colombia exporting coal to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 9 February,Official Report, column 314. Since then, I have met Dr. Pretelt, the president of Carbocol, who assured me that Colombian labour law, and mining law, prohibits women and under-18s from going underground, and that no Colombian coal for export is mined by children.

  Energy
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the results of the research on the development and demonstration of energy technologies, undertaken by the energy technology support unit, will be published; and whether that appraisal will cover both the energy supply and the efficient use of energy.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Energy Technology Support Unit expects to publish its appraisal report, which will cover both energy supply and energy efficiency, within the next few weeks. My Department will publish a summary of the appraisal as an energy paper. This will not discuss energy efficiency technologies, since they are now a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Small Companies (Audit)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the effective date for commencement of the abolition of the small companies audit requirement has been fixed.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I shall be making a statement shortly on this and other details of the relaxation of the audit requirement for small companies.
  922

  Korea
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the Korean Government regarding the increase in the tariff on textile imports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I have written to the Korean Ministers for Finance, and for Trade, Industry and Energy expressing the dismay of the United Kingdom Government regarding this action and pointing out that this is not the action we expect of a major trading nation.

  We are discussing options for action with our European partners and the Commission. Member states agree that robust and early action is necessary and at the request of member states the Commission is evaluating ways of responding.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what he now expects to be the future of Ferranti; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The receivers are discussing with a number of companies the possibility of selling the businesses which make up Ferranti International plc.

  The Independent
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the possible transfer of The Independent newspaper.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have received an application for my consent to acquire a controllong interest in Newspaper Publishing, owner of The Independent and The Independent on Sunday. The application relates to an offer made by a consortium consisting of Mirror Group Newspapers, the Espresso group and Promotora de Informaciones, in agreement with Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith, Mr. Adrian O'Neil and Mr. Matthew Symonds. It seeks my consent without an inquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under section 58(3)(a) of the Fair Trading Act 1973. This section gives me discretion to consent to a newspaper transfer without a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry where I am satisfied that the newspaper concerned is not economic as a going concern and as a separate newspaper and that, if the paper is to continue, the case is one of urgency. I am inviting comments from interested parties by 3 March on whether I should give my consent without a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a note describing the main features of the proposed transaction and explaining how the newspaper merger provisions of the Act apply to this case.

  I expect to make a further statement to the House announcing my decision following the period of public consultation.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions he has made about the future of the Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The consultation study I announced on 1 April was completed in the summer of 1993. Since then
  923
  I have held discussions with my colleagues and with AEA management and staff representatives about the way ahead. I have concluded that the business activities in the AEA's new commercial division are capable of privatisation and that privatisation represents the logical next step in the AEA's on-going commercial development. Decisions on the form of privatisation will be taken in due course, but there is no presumption that this should follow the present structure. The decisions taken will be based on performance in the market place and the extent to which the various options would meet customer requirements, enhance competition, help to improve United Kingdom competitiveness and maximise the return to the taxpayer. Legislation for privatisation will be brought forward in due course.

  Ownership of, and responsibility for, the safe management of the AEA's nuclear liabilities, as well as certain other functions more appropriate to government,

  £thousands, 1992–93 prices

  Executive non-departmental public bodies

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  11994–95

  11995–96

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  estimates

  plans

  plans

  British Hallmarking Council

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Advisory Committees on Telecommunications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  211

  221

  112

  129

  129

  129

  Area Transport Users' Consultative Committees

  645

  620

  582

  1,052

  Not known2

  Central Transport Consultative Committee

  274

  555

  506

  Domestic Coal Consumers' Council

  127

  158

  121

  121

  75

  62

  Gas Consumers' Council

  2,562

  2,527

  2,767

  2,828

  2,525

  2,517

  London Regional Passengers' Committee

  301

  436

  280

  316

  -(2)

  -(2)

  National Consumer Council

  2,457

  2,657

  2,930

  2,818

  2,303

  2,123

  Post Office Users' National Council

  455

  458

  448

  694

  576

  599

  Post Office Users' Councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  120

  122

  275

  Design Council

  7,245

  7,732

  7,287

  7,446

  6,705

  3,590

  English Industrial Estates Corporation (EIEC)

  18,550

  0

  6,000

  19,370

  Not known3

  Hearing Aid Council

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission

  6,330

  6,400

  5,540

  7,070

  6,870

  7,290

  National Enterprise Board (NEB)4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  National Research Development Corporation (NRDC)4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Policyholders' Protection Board

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  734

  876

  869

  848

  845

  930

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Planned figures are subject to change in annual PES negotiations.

  2 After 31 March 1994 the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the area Transport Users' Consultative Committees sponsorship will be the responsibility of the Office of the Rail Regulator. Sponsorship of the London Regional Passengers' Committee passes similarly to the Department of Transport.

  3 English Partnerships will take over the work of English Industrial Estates Corporation on 1 April 1994.

  4 Following the privatisation in 1992, the National Enterprise Board and National Research Development Corporation Boards' continue to carry out certain residuary functions.

  924
  will remain in the public sector but contracts for decommissioning and radioactive waste management work will increasingly be put out to competition. I will be exploring how best to organise these activities in the longer term and will make further announcements when I am in a position to do so.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The following table shows the amount of grant or grant-in-aid received by executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department:
  925

HEALTH

  Hospital Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many acute beds, intensive therapy unit beds and private beds there were by region in each of the last five years;

  (2) if she will give the number of intensive therapy unit beds by region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested will be placed in the Library. Intensive therapy beds are also included in the acute beds total. Private beds are those in private acute hospitals with operating theatres and are those in other private hospitals, nursing homes and clinics registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Palliative Care
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps she is taking to monitor the implementation of Department of Health circular EL(93)14 dealing with funding arrangements for specialist palliative care needs in nursing homes;

  (2) if she will list the health authorities which have formally drawn up procedures to provide nursing home-owners with information about the specialist palliative care needs of individual service users; and how the health authority will ensure that such needs are met in accordance with Department of Health circular EL(93)14;

  (3) what is her assessment of the progress of implementing Department of Health circular EL(93)14 relating to funding arrangements for specialist palliative care needs in nursing homes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  As circular EL(93)14 makes clear, where a person in a nursing home requires specialist palliative care, the provision of any such care which is additional to general nursing care is the responsibility of the appropriate health authority. Copies of the circular are available in the Library.

  Arrangements for this need to be agreed locally between health and local authorities in order to deliver responsive care to patients. The Department does not formally monitor the detail of such agreements.

  Last September's national community care monitoring exercise showed that collaboration between health and social services authorities is generally improving, although there is scope for some further clarification of local arrangements. Since then, as a precondition of local authorities' community care special transitional grant, we have again required them to submit evidence that they have reached agreement with health authorities over their respective responsibilities for continuing care.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of net and gross hospital and community health service capital and net and gross national health service capital expenditure for each year since 1973–74 expressed in 1993–94 prices, adjusted by(a) the gross domestic product deflator and (b) changes in input unit costs.
  926
  Mr. Sackville
  The precise information is not available in the format requested. Hospital and community health service gross current expenditure figures will be placed in the Library from 1976–77, the first year for which these figures are available. Expenditure estimates adjusted for input unit costs are not yet available at 1993–94 prices.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance she has issued on market testing for clinical services to ensure the quality of services in the clinical setting;

  (2) what assessment she has made as to the extent to which recommended Government guidelines for market testing were complied with in respect of the tendering process for awarding a private contract for the pathology services for the North Hertfordshire trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  The document "Market Testing in the National Health Service (Revised Guidance)", which set out the principles and methods to achieve quality in any service being market tested, was issued in June 1993. Copies of the document are available in the Library. The market testing of pathology services in the North Hertfordshire trust was already in train at that time. Chief executives are responsible for the proper conduct of market testing exercises in their trusts.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has for banning the use of electro convulsive therapy on children;

  (2) how many children received electro-convulsive therapy in the last year for which figures are available;

  (3) how many hospitals currently use electro-convulsive therapy as part of their programme for treating mentally disturbed children.

  Mr. Bowis
  Treatment in any particular case is a matter for local clinical decision by the medical practitioner or practitioners involved who are familiar with the particular case and complexities of the condition. Information on the use of electro-convulsive therapy is collected not on a hospital basis but by hospital episode. According to the latest unpublished figures available, no patient under the age of 15 received ECT in 1991–92. An unpublished survey in 1992 by the child and adolescent psychiatry section of the Royal College of Psychiatrists recorded that ECT was used very rarely on those under 18 and only where patients were very ill.

  Pathology Services
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she received from the independent assessors nominated by the Royal College of Pathologists on awarding the private contract for pathology services for the North Hertfordshire trust; and what action was taken as a result of that advice.

  Mr. Sackville
  The advice of the assessors nominated by the Royal College of Pathologists was given in confidence to the North Hertfordshire trust. We understand that the trust has found the advice valuable in its discussions on the detail of the service to be provided under contract.
  927
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her review of pathology services; when her report is due to be published; and what is the implication for her review of a decision to award a contract for pathology services to a private company before it is completed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The strategic review of pathology services is due to report to the Department in June. The Department will then consider the content of strategic guidelines for the national health service on the maintenance and development of high quality, cost-effective clinical services responsive to the needs of patients and users. The review is not intended to delay progress on local initiatives.

  Psychiatric Wards
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she proposes to take to ensure that women who are admitted to psychiatric hospital are guaranteed the choice to be treated on a women-only ward if they so wish.

  Mr. Bowis
  The patients charter requires health authorities to provide services which respect patients' privacy, dignity and religious and cultural beliefs. In line with this the "Mental Health Key Area Handbook" advises health authorities that one of women's particular concerns is the choice of a single-sex ward or single-sex area.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of serious assault have been reported by women who are patients in mixed psychiatric wards for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Bowls
  Health authorities are responsible for ensuring there is secure accommodation for all patients and incidents should be monitored locally.

  Hospital Catering
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and which hospital trusts operate two standards of catering for patients, one of which requires a payment by the patient.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Hearing Aids (Children)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which agency is responsible for monitoring the provision and maintenance of hearing aids for(a) pre-school children, (b) children at school and (c) young people aged 16 years and above who are in full-time education; and what plans there are to change the present arrangement;

  (2) which agency monitors the provision of insurance on hearing aids for children and young people; and what plans there are to change the present arrangement;

  (3) if she will list the conditions under which children and young people are entitled to be provided with the most appropriate hearing aid whether or not this is part of the national health service range of hearing aids.

  Mr. Bowis
  Hearing aids are available under the national health service for anyone who needs one. It is for the clinician concerned to decide which aid is most 928
  appropriate in each case, whether it is from the standard range or purchased by hearing aid centres from a commercial source. As hearing aids are provided on loan there is no requirement for the patient, or in the case of a child under 16, the child's parent to insure the device. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region(a) the hospitals that have closed since 1990 and (b) the hospitals that have opened since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions on opening or closing facilities are for local management. The Department requires formal notification only where proposed closures are contested by the community health councils.

  NHS Buildings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will undertake and publish a survey of the state of maintenance of buildings and plant of NHS hospitals in England, in order to identify any shortfalls leading to danger to patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. Since the removal of Crown immunity from the national health service in 1991, all NHS bodies are required to meet their statutory duties to make safe any hazardous buildings or plant.

  Smear Tests
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women in each region were found to have been misdiagnosed as a result of the improper administration of pre-cancer smear tests in 1993.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken to ensure that no further problems arise in the cervical smear testing system.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  In 1993 there were a few isolated instances where women were recalled for further tests because of inadequacies within the screening programme. These were addressed locally. The chief medical officer has recently announced a package of initatives to strengthen quality within the programme and copies of press release 94/37 detailing these are available in the Library.

  Suicide
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region the number of suicides for each year since 1990; and if she will publish the available data on their employment status.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of suicides, including undetermined deaths, in each region for the years 1990 to 1992 are shown in the table. Information on employment status at the time of death is not routinely recorded on death certificates.

  Year

  Region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  345

  341

  362

  Yorkshire

  432

  428

  437

  Trent

  515

  520

  526

  929

  Year

  Region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  East Anglian

  261

  251

  245

  North West Thames

  403

  445

  401

  North East Thames

  445

  443

  379

  South East Thames

  493

  466

  474

  South West Thames

  326

  325

  349

  Wessex

  346

  359

  350

  Oxford

  293

  264

  284

  South Western

  416

  389

  419

  West Midlands

  584

  533

  555

  Mersey

  250

  244

  216

  North Western

  485

  559

  544

  England

  5,594

  5,567

  5,541

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications have been received for section 64 funding from April 1994; how many have already been processed; and how many have been refused.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 8 February at col.197.

  School Catering
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the application of the Welfare Food Amendment Regulations 1992 to schools catering for under-fives.

  Mr. Sackville
  The policy intention was that the 1992 amendment regulations should simply delete references in the Welfare Food Regulations 1988 to the Nurseries and Childminders Regulation Act 1948, insert appropriate references to the Children Act 1989 and incorporate other changes to harmonise with the 1989 Act. There was no intention to change any entitlement under the regulations. However, we have received legal advice that the unintended effect of the amendment regulations was to remove the possibility of schools running classes for under-fives from participating in the welfare food scheme. This means that an estimated £3·3 million including £0·52 million in Scotland and £0·18 million in Wales paid between April 1992 and April 1994 will have been paid on a basis which is incorrect on the strict interpretation of the law. In addition, a number of schools have been registered under the scheme without statutory authority. We intend to continue registering new applicants and making payments on an extra-statutory basis to ensure that schools may participate in the welfare food scheme so as to provide free milk to children under five in line with the policy intention. Appropriate statutory authority will be obtained as soon as possible. The total amount to be paid on this basis, initially estimated at a cost of £150,000 per month in England, £22,000 in Scotland and £13,000 in Wales will be reported in notes to the relevant Departments' appropriation accounts for 1993–94. There is no possibility of any child losing entitlement under the welfare food scheme as a result of the above arrangements.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population covered by the Winchester district health authority live in the county of Hampshire.
  930
  Mr. Sackville
  The latest population estimates relate to mid-1992. At that time 99·9 per cent. of the population covered by the winchester district health authority lived in the county of Hampshire.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total annual budget of the Winchester district health authority;

  (2) what was the total annual budget of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire district health authority;

  (3) what was the total annual budget of the Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire district health authority;

  (4) what was the total annual budget of the Southampton and South West Hampshire district health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  Revenue expenditure in 1992–93 of those authorities was:

  Authority name

  Total revenue expenditure (£)

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire DHA

  177,799,025

  Southampton and South West Hampshire DHA

  149,568,600

  Winchester DHA

  70,717,287

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire DHA

  74,965,717

  Source: Annual accounts of health authorities (England) 1992–93.

  Notes: The figures are provisional.

  The figures shown include an amount for capital charges.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population covered by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire district health authority live in the county of Hampshire.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest population estimates relate to mid-1992. At that time 99·9 per cent. of the population covered by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire district health authority lived in the county of Hampshire. Following enlargement of the authority on 1 April 1993 this proportion was still 99·9 per cent.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population covered by the Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire district health authority live in the county of Hampshire.

  Mr. Sackville
  The whole of the population covered by the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire district health authority lives in the county of Hampshire.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population covered by the Southampton and South West Hampshire district health authority live in the county of Hampshire.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest population estimates relate to mid-1992. At that time 99·9 per cent. of the population covered by the Southampton and South West Hampshire district health authority lived in the county of Hampshire.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total sum of the budgets of those general practitioner fundholders who practice in the county of Hampshire.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities are responsible for managing the general practitioner
  931
  fundholding scheme in their areas and only regional information is available centrally. For local information the hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Alastair Service, chairman of the Wessex regional health authority.

  Family Health Services, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total budget for Hampshire family health services authority in the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Budgets are not set for family health services authorities as most elements of expenditure are demand-led and funded accordingly. Budgets for FHSA cash-limited expenditure are issued by regional health authorities and are not recorded centrally.

  Wessex RHA
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of population covered by Wessex regional health authority who live in the county of Hampshire.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest population estimates relate to mid-1992. At that time 48·1 per cent. of the population covered by Wessex regional health authority lived in the county of Hampshire. Following enlargement of the authority on 1 April 1993 this proportion became 50·5 per cent.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total annual budget for Wessex regional health authority for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The current cash limit for the Wessex region in 1993–94 is £1,328,000,000.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the English local authorities which currently have a policy of charging for personal social services other than residential care; and if she will specify which authorities charge for(a) day care, (b) home care and (c) other services.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are not required to inform the Department of their policies for charging for day and domiciliary services.

  Bed Bureaux
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities had bed bureaux in(a) 1990 and (b) 1994; and if she will list them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for individual health authorities. The information is not available centrally.

  Meningitis
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost has been thus far of the national publicity campaign on meningitis.

  Mr. Sackville
  The figure is £55,318.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the national publicity campaign on meningitis and septicaemia planned for February is going ahead.
  932
  Mr. Sackville
  Yes. The chief medical officer wrote to all doctors on 3 February with an example of the new public information leaflet on meningitis and septicaemia. Further copies of the leaflet have been sent to all general practitioners to be made available to the public. Leaflets will also be issued in April to college students and there will be a further wider student distribution in September. Supplies of leaflets have also been provided for the National Meningitis Trust and Meningitis Research. Further steps are under consideration. Copies of the leaflet will be placed in the Library.

  Private Treatment
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice or guidance has been issued regarding hospital staff advising patients to pay for private treatment because health authority contracts have been completed or because the waiting lists are long.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The national health service will remain available to all on the basis of clinical need, not the ability to pay.

  Stanley Royd Hospital
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will seek a report from the mental health task force regarding the steps that are being taken to close Stanley Royd hospital, Wakefield; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Wakefield was one of 20 district health authorities visited recently by the mental health task force to see how purchasers and providers were approaching the replacement of the large hospitals and to draw out good practice.

  The task force will issue an overview report shortly. The reprovision of the facilities at Stanley Royd is being monitored by the task force along with all the other long-stay mental illness hospitals.

  Wakefield health authority and the Pontefract and Wakefield community trust are working closely with other local organisations to develop a range of residential facilities, day care, community units for the elderly and acute facilities which will enable the residents of Stanley Royd hospital to be cared for within the community and for the hospital to close in 1995. There was full consultation on the reprovision of mental illness services last year.

  Family Health Services Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff have been employed by FHSAs for every year since their creation(a) in total and (b) by region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The numbers of staff employed are shown in the table.

  Family Health Service Authorities (FHSA) Staff by Region as at 30 September 1990–92

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  320

  370

  420

  Yorkshire

  420

  450

  440

  Trent

  420

  520

  620

  East Anglia

  220

  280

  280

  North West Thames

  280

  540

  570

  North East Thames

  380

  580

  600

  South East Thames

  390

  340

  500

  933

  1990

  1991

  1992

  South West Thames

  390

  420

  450

  Wessex

  280

  320

  330

  Oxford

  310

  270

  290

  South Western

  310

  340

  370

  West Midlands

  720

  640

  670

  Mersey

  190

  340

  320

  North Western

  510

  520

  610

  Total

  5,130

  5,930

  6,470

  Source of Data:

  1. For 1990 the Department of Health Non Medical Workforce Census.

  2. For 1991 and 1992 the Department of Health Non Medical Workforce Census and KM49 return.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole time equivalents (wte)

  2. Totals may not add due to the effect of rounding.

EDUCATION

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the capital cost of fitting out, furnishing and decorating the premises in York formerly used by the National Curriculum Council.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These costs were incurred in 1989–90 at the time the National Curriculum Council moved into the premises. The costs are not identifiable from the National Curriculum Council's published accounts but the Department's records indicate that they amounted to some £0·5 million.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total annual budget of the Further Education Funding Council for the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Further Education Funding Council's total grant for 1993–94, including recurrent and capital grant, is £2·701 billion. This includes £24·9 million for the council's own running costs.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the Further Education Funding Council's budget supports institutions in Hampshire.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Further Education Funding Council's recurrent funding allocations to institutions for 1993–94 covered the period 1 April 1993 to 31 July 1994 and amounted to £3·201 billion. Allocations to institutions in Hampshire amounted to £100 million or about 3·1 per cent. of the total.

  Grant-maintained Schools, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total budget for each grant-maintained(a) primary school and (b) secondary school in Hampshire for the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Total budgets for grant-maintained schools in Hampshire for the year 1993–94 are as follows:934

  Total budget

  £

  (a) Primary Schools

  Abbotswood GM Middle School

  1,063,488

  Ashley Junior School

  412,452

  Blackfteld Junior School

  708,049

  Calmore GM Middle School

  680,246

  Front Lawn Middle School

  538,515

  Hordle CE Primary School

  321,215

  Lyndhurst Middle School

  1248,715

  Mill Rythe County Infant School

  1111,572

  The Priory School

  449,363

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  725,609

  St. Paul's RC Primary School

  446,334

  St. Peter's CE Junior School

  1131,535

  St. Peter's RC Primary School

  392,168

  (b) Secondary Schools

  All Hallows RC School

  2,621,982

  Applemore School

  1,188,404

  The Arnewood School

  2,594,778

  Bay House GM School

  3,345,885

  Bohunt School

  2,414,511

  The Burgate School

  1,674,107

  Cams Hill School

  1689,689

  City of Portsmouth Boy's School

  2,284,162

  Crofton School

  2,732,703

  Hardley School

  1,982,987

  Oaklands RC Comprehensive School

  1,444,983

  Purbrook Park School

  859,604

  Ringwood School

  1,807,935

  St. Edmund's Catholic School

  1671,235

  St. George Catholic School

  774,246

  Testbourne Community School

  849,834

  Testwood School

  2,065,880

  Note: The amount shown for total budget includes Annual Maintenance Grant, Special Purpose Grants for Restructuring, Development, Premises, VAT, Transitional Grants and Capital Grants payable to the schools in 1993–94.

  1 Became GM on 1 January 1994 hence AMG amount included is provisional.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what evidence Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusions that equal benefits can be obtained from nursery education and other forms of pre-five-year-old provision; if he will list the sources which he has considered and which evidence(a) supports and (b) does not support his conclusions; and what are his reasons for considering that the evidence in (a) above is of greater weight than that in (b) above.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Evidence on the educational benefits of nursery education and other forms of pre-school provision comes from a wide variety of sources. A summary commissioned in 1985 by the then Secretary of State was published in 1988 in "Children Under Five: Educational Research and Evidence" by Margaret Clark. The findings of these and subsequent investigations are not conclusive, but overall the evidence suggests that good quality pre-school education can benefit children wherever it takes place.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning the changing of the spending formula in section 11.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.
  935
  We have received many representations from local authorities and associations, teacher unions, ethnic minority communities and other interested parties about the reductions in section 11 funding which we regret it has been necessary to make. Among these, there has been widespread support for the approach, which we have announced we are adopting from 1994–95, of paying grant in the form of an annual budget to each grant recipient, instead of as a fixed percentage of actual costs.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General 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) the Law Officers' Departments and (b) his 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.

  The Attorney-General
  During the current financial year the Crown Prosecution Service launched a regional public awareness campaign. The objective of the campaign is to inform the public about its role and responsibilities, as recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The effectiveness of the campaign will be measured against the amount of editorial coverage in newspapers, radio and television. There have been no other advertising or promotional campaigns in the Law Officers Departments, including the Government Property Lawyers Agency, in the current year. No campaigns costing over £10,000 are at present planned for 1994–95.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 981, whether any of the Treasury Solicitor's staff engaged in assisting the Scott inquiry exercised any function in respect of, or were directly or indirectly party to, the advice offered to Government witnesses, or related witness statements in the Matrix Churchill case.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The two members of the Treasury Solicitor's staff who are assisting the inquiry, Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru and Ms Helen Duffy, had no involvement in the Matrix Churchill case either when serving in the Treasury Solicitor's Department or, in the case of Mr. Muttukumaru, when seconded to my Department between December 1988 and September 1991.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 981, whether any of the Treasury Solicitor's staff engaged in assisting the Scott inquiry exercised any function in respect of, or were directly or indirectly party to, the giving of advice, or the receiving of information in connection with the Treasury Solicitor's shareholding in International Military Services Ltd.

  The Attorney-General
  No.
  936

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many visits abroad the Solicitor-General made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  The Attorney-General
  The Solicitor-General made one visit abroad during 1993. The cost to public funds was £467·51. The purpose of the visit was to discuss bilateral legal issues with the French Minister of Justice.

  Treasury Solicitors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General whether it is usual for Treasury Solicitors to suggest amendments to witness statements of Government service employees giving evidence on behalf of the Government; what internal guidance on the giving of such advice or suggestions exists; and if he will place a copy of such advice in the Library.

  The Attorney-General
  Advice provided by the Treasury Solicitor's Department to its clients may include advice in relation to witness statements. No internal guidance exists on this subject.

  Mr. Gordon Foxley
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Attorney-General what action the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken to inquire into the circumstances in which the convicted Mr. Gordon Foxley has remained on bail and unsentenced for three months.

  The Attorney-General
  The granting of bail is a matter for the court. However, I understand that following his convictions on 3 November 1993 the court granted Mr. Gordon Foxley conditional bail pending sentence.

  On 7 February 1994 the judge adjourned sentence to a date to be fixed due to Mr. Foxley's medical condition.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  EC Overseas Development Council
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions have been taken by the Overseas Development Council of the European Community under the new powers provided by article 130 and 130A of the treaty on European Union.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The powers of the Development Council are not affected by articles 130 and 130A of the treaty on European Union, both of which refer to the internal policy of the Community.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the value of Overseas Development Administration support for the Malaysian water supply projects undertaken by Biwater for each year since 1985 and the percentage this represents for the year involved of(a) water and sewerage project beneficiaries and (b) total Overseas Development Administration-aided projects;

  (2) what projects undertaken by the Biwater group of companies have had Overseas Development

  937
  Administration assistance since 1983; and if he will list the value, location and nature of the projects involved, the tendering process involved for each, and the percentage of Overseas Development Administration assistance each has represented for each year involved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answers 8 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 14 February, column 568. Of the projects listed in that reply, the Cairo Wastewater project was won after competitive tendering, and the two ATP projects for Malaysia and Sri Lanka were negotiated contracts.

  The table below gives the percentage of the gross United Kingdom aid programme these three projects represented for each year involved:

  Financial year

  Expenditure (£m)

  Percentage of aid programme

  (of which Malaysia)

  (of which Malaysia)

  1986–87

  48·610

  (48·610)

  3·82

  (3·82)

  1987–88

  5·425

  (5·425)

  0·41

  (0·41)

  1988–89

  3·145

  (1·944)

  0·21

  (0·13)

  1989–90

  4·232

  (3·475)

  0·27

  (0·22)

  1990–91

  0·169

  0

  0·01

  0

  1991–92

  0·002

  0

  0·0001

  0

  1992–93

  0·637

  0

  0·03

  0

  1993–94

  0·702

  0

  0·04

  0

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 136, what was the date of the first letter after 27 June 1988 from Her Majesty's Government to the offer of civil aid for the Pergau project to the Malaysian Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: On 10 November 1988 Her Majesty's Government indicated in a letter to the Malaysian Government that they were prepared to consider aid and trade provision support for the Pergau project, subject to appraisal. The formal written offer of support was sent to the Malaysian Government on 17 April 1989.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Stationary Cars
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will give instructions that stationary cars that are parked in the precincts of the House of Commons are not, while they are parked, to be left with their engines running.

  Mr. Michael M. Martin
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms, who I understand is taking action to ensure the co-operation of all drivers in keeping the exhaust emissions from their vehicles to the minimum while they are within the precincts.

  Blackawton Bitter
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee how many gallons of Blackawton bitter brewed in South Hams has been supplied to the House in the last 28 days; and how much of it has been consumed.
  938
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  I shall ask the Director of Catering Services to reply to the hon. Member.

  Electrical Appliances
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what is the estimated cost of labelling each electrical appliance on the parliamentary estate with a portcullis and an appliance number on a non-destructible tag; what are the reasons for labelling each of these appliances; and how many such appliances there are.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  These are matters for the Director of Works.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bosnian Muslim Seventh Brigade
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the activities of the Bosnian Muslim Seventh Brigade; and if he can list the countries from which its participants come.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The brigade is believed to be near Vitez in central Bosnia. We understand that it mainly consists of Bosnians displaced by the war. There are foreign volunteers, but it is not possible to give precise information about their countries of origin.

  South Africa
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; pursuant to the answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 308, whether the Government are now in a position to give advice and assistance to South Africa on the creation of a multi-racial peacekeeping force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are helping the national peacekeeping force by providing the co-ordinator of the Commonwealth peacekeeping assistance group together with six military advisers and four police officers. Their role will be to advise on, and monitor, curriculum and training methods.

  Morocco
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by Her Majesty's representative in Morocco to inquire of the whereabouts of the missing Sahrawi people; and if he will give a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We regularly take up human rights issues with the Moroccan Government, both bilaterally and with our European partners. They are aware of the importance we attach to respect for human rights. A clause requiring a satisfactory human rights performance will be an important element of the new agreement which the European Union plans to negotiate with Morocco.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of regular Croatian forces engaged in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
  939
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations estimated on 31 January that between 3,000 and 5,000 Croatian Army troops were deployed in Bosnia. The United Nations Secretary General has been requested to report further to the Security Council on 17 February.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the conclusion of the UNPROFOR report concerning the artillery attack on the bread queue in Sarajevo on 21 August 1992 in respect of responsibility for the attack.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand that the United Nations was unable to draw any conclusions from its investigation into this incident.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those(a) British aid workers and (b) British military personnel who have been killed in Bosnia-Herzegovina to date; and if he will indicate which of the factions are thought to be responsible in each case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg

  (A)

  Mr. Gulam Soobiah

  Mrs. Christine Wincutt

  Mr. Paul Goodall

  (B)

  Lance Corporal Wayne Edwards

  It is impossible to determine with certainty who was responsible for these tragic deaths.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of regular Serbian forces engaged in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have seen no evidence that regular Serbian troops are engaged in Bosnia. But we believe that Belgrade continues to give support to the Bosnian Serbs by recruiting personnel and providing equipment.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to establish responsibility for the murder of the British aid worker, Paul Goodall, in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Bosnian Government are actively investigating the case and are providing us with progress reports.

  Caribbean Countries
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what study he has made of the effect on the Caribbean economies of a collapse in their banana exports and the possibility of the illegal drugs trade filling the vacuum.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Some countries, particularly in the eastern Caribbean, are heavily dependent for foreign earnings upon their banana exports. A sudden decrease in exports would be damaging to those countries. This is one of the factors we have always borne in mind in determining our policy towards the Caribbean and towards trade in bananas.

  There are problems in parts of the Caribbean related to trade in illegal drugs and we have given what assistance we can to eradicate these. We will continue to do so in the future.
  940
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what advice his officials have given Caribbean Commonwealth Governments on the introduction of election expense laws and the threat to their democracies from illegal drug money;

  (2) what steps he has taken following the correspondence from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on the lack of rules about election expenses in the constitutional or electoral laws of Commonwealth states in the Caribbean.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No advice has been given to Caribbean Commonwealth Governments on the introduction of election expense laws since none has been sought. At least one of the countries concerned, Barbados, already has such legislation in place.

  The laundering of illegal drugs profits represents a serious threat to the financial and economic stability of the Caribbean. We attach much importance to removing the profits from drug trafficking, and continue to urge dependent territories and independent Caribbean countries to pass legislation to trace, freeze and confiscate these profits.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Dame Eugenia Charles of Dominica; and if he discussed her views on the drug trade in the Caribbean and the collapse of the banana exports.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last met Dame Eugenia Charles in September 1992. More recently she paid calls on myself and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development during a short visit to London from 4 to 10 February. On both occasions we discussed at length various issues relevant to Dominica's banana industry.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conclusions he has drawn from the lack of a limit on election expenses in the laws of the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean and the effect of drugs dealing money on their parliamentary elections.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Each of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries is independent and it is therefore for each of them to determine its own laws, including those relating to election expenses.

  Although the drugs trade represents a serious threat to the economic and political stability of the Caribbean, we have no substantive evidence that drugs money is being used in parliamentary elections. We continue to give assistance to deal with the illegal drugs trade and to promote sound principles of good and democratic government in the region.

  Poland
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Polish Government in order to secure the reestablishment of direct flights between London and Warsaw; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We remain concerned at the suspension of air services between Britain and Poland and want to see the situation resolved as soon as possible.
  941
  There have been a number of contacts with the Polish Government at official and ministerial level in an attempt to resolve the current difficulties. I hope there will be an early resumption of services.

  We are anxious to secure a settlement which will be in the interests both of the airlines involved and the travelling public, and be consistent with the principles which govern aviation in the European Union.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the names mentioned in telegram 152 from Hong Kong to his Department dated 17 January 1985 and the teleletters from BHCM to his Department dated 18 and 23 January 1985 in connection with an arrangement made in Hong Kong between Sir John Bremridge, deputy governor of Hong Kong and Chooi Mon Sui, a representative of the Malaysian Government on 17 January 1985; and if he will place those telexes and telegrams in the Library;

  (2) if he will list the names mentioned in telegrams 781 and 794 from his Department to Hong Kong dated 16 August 1983 and telegram 246 from his Department to Hong Kong dated 18 August 1983 in connection with the murder of Jalil Ibrahim in Hong Kong; and if he will place those telegrams in the Library;

  (3) if he will list the names mentioned in (a) telegrams 313 BHCM to his Department and 1214 Hong Kong to his Department dated 16 August 1983, (b) telegrams 1220 Hong Kong to his Department and 315 BHCM to his Department dated 17 August 1983, (c) telegrams 1225 Hong Kong to his Department and 321 BHCM to his Department dated 18 August 1983 and (d) telegram 246 BHCM to his Department dated 19 August 1983 in connection with the murder of Jalil Ibrahim in Hong Kong on 18 July 1983; and if he will place those telegrams in the Library;

  (4) if he will list the names mentioned in telegram 322 BHCM to his Department dated 17 August 1983 and telegram 328 BHCM to his Department dated 22 August 1983 in connection with the murder of Jalil Ibrahim in Hong Kong on 18 July 1983; and if he will place those telegrams in the Library;

  (5) if he will list the names mentioned in the telegram to his predecessor on 17 January 1985 from the deputy political adviser in Hong Kong; and if he will place that telegram in the Library.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the contents of classified documents concerning the international relations of the United Kingdom.

  Russia (Jews)
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to President Yeltsin about the plight of Jews wishing to emigrate from Russia; what reply he has received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  We regularly raise with the Russian authorities the plight of Jews who have been refused permission to emigrate from Russia. A commission has been set up by President Yeltsin to review outstanding cases of Jews and others refused permission to leave. As 942
  far as we are aware, in all the cases reviewed so far the applicants have been given permission to leave the country.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received(a) on behalf of the Begun family of Mosow and (b) from Jews being refused exit visas for emigration from the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have received a number of representations on behalf of the Begun family and other Jews who are unable to emigrate from Russia. We have raised their cases with the Russian authorities.

  GEC-Malaysia
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions Tan Sri Arumugam, joint managing director, GEC-Malaysia has visited his Department in the past three years; and if he will list the occasions.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  Russian Federation
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to acquire premises in London to be made available for the residence of the ambassador of the Russian Federation; and on what basis the title of the premises will be held.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The premises at 13 Kensington Palace gardens have been made available for the residence of the ambassador of the Russian Federation. 13 Kensington Palace gardens remains part of the Crown Estate, but, as a corporation sole, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has taken a lease of the premises from the Crown Estate Commissioners on the basis of powers under section 2 of the Commissioners of Works Act 1852 and section 122 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. My right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister signified her consent in 1986 to the exercise of these powers by the Foreign Secretary for the purpose of acquiring premises to be made available to the then Government of the USSR. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has granted a 99-year underlease of the premises to the Government of the Russian Federation.

  The premises at 14 Sofiskaya embankment in Moscow have been made available for the residence of Her Majesy's ambassador on a concurrent 99-year lease.

WALES

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for the last convenient date the names of the members of non-departmental public bodies in Wales, noting the political balance for each body based on political affiliations on appointment.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 14 February, column 648–50.
  943
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to place in the Library a copy of the curriculum vitae of each person he appoints to a quango, trust or similar public body in Wales; and if he will take steps to ensure such curricula vitae record membership or active support for political parties.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: No.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the curriculum vitae of each person appointed to a position on a quango or other similar public body in Wales for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: I already make available, in the Library of the House, a list of all those currently appointed by me to NDPBs in Wales. The list shows the current members of each body, giving for each person their name, occupation, place of residence, the period of their appointments, the remuneration receivable in respect of their appointment and an estimate of the time commitment involved.

  I also publish a press notice, at the time when each appointment is made, giving a brief note on the background of the people concerned.

  The list is published quarterly: the current version relates to the situation at 1 December 1993.

  Numbers of United Kingdom students who successfully completed an Initial Teacher Training course, where the subject of study was Welsh, at higher education institutions in Wales1

  Academic year

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Colleges of Higher Education

  Cardiff Institute of Higher Education

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  University of Wales

  Aberystwyth

  7

  4

  8

  9

  12

  Bangor

  9

  5

  5

  14

  11

  Swansea

  N/a

  N/a

  3

  10

  7

  1 Information supplied by the higher education institutions between October 1993 and February 1994.

  n/a=Not available.

  Regional Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications under objective 3 for European funding for retraining have been submitted on behalf of areas of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Applications under objective 3 for European funding for Great Britain are submitted to the Department of Employment. 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 Department of Employment to approve any application for 1994.

  Selar Grasslands (Opencast Mine)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has received from the Countryside Council for Wales regarding an application to establish an opencast mine on the Selar grasslands site of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.
  944
  Information is not available in a similar form for each of the last five years, and could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proposals he has to determine and publish the political affiliations of persons appointed to quangos in Wales;

  (2) if he will list the chairperson of each quango, trust or similar appointed public body in Wales; and what information he currently has as to the political affiliation of such persons.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 14 February, column 648–50.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students have qualified to teach Welsh at secondary school level at each of the relevant colleges in Wales for each year since 1988.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of students who completed an initial teacher training course where the subject of study was Welsh are given in the following table. Details relating to courses completed at University College Swansea in the years prior to 1990–91 are not available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Countryside Council for Wales has requested the Secretary of State to call in for his own decision the planning applications for an opencast site including the Selar farm grasslands site of special scientific interest. This request is now being considered.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of the pharmaceutical profession in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has not yet met any leaders of the pharmaceutical profession in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pharmacists in Wales operate retail outlets.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 712 pharmacies in Wales where the pharmacist is contracted with the NHS to provide pharmaceutical services. There are, in addition,
  945
  some pharmacies which do not provide pharmaceutical services under the NHS, but the Welsh Office has no record of their numbers.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners practices operate their own pharmacies.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 24 May 1993, columns 467–68.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policies concerning pharmaceutical services in the national health service.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Our aim is to ensure that the public are provided with reasonable access to the full range of pharmaceutical services, and to take account of the cost to the taxpayer of providing pharmaceutical services.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local pharmaceutical committees he has met.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has not yet met any local pharmaceutical committees in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pharmaceutical centres there are in the hospitals of Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 40 hospitals in Wales with their own pharmacy departments.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to assist existing retail pharmacies in Wales to remain open and profitable.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 May 1993, column 639.

  Wepre Pharmacy, Deeside
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the Wepre pharmacy, Deeside, Clwyd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has no plans to do so.

  Further Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those who responded to the consultation paper of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales on the funding of further education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This is a matter for the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. I have asked the chief executive of the funding council to let the hon. Gentleman have the information he requires.

  Cadw
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who are the members currently appointed to Cadw.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Cadw, Welsh Historic Monuments, has an advisory committee whose role is to advise on the agency's policy, strategy and performance. The membership of the committee is as follows:
  946
  Mr. George Craig (Chairman)

  Principal Establishment Officer, Welsh Office

  Mr. Thomas Lloyd

  Chairman, Historic Buildings Council for Wales (ex-officio)

  Professor Glanmor Williams

  Chairman, Ancient Monuments Board for Wales (ex-officio)

  Mr. Tony Lewis

  Chairman, Wales Tourist Board (ex-officio)

  Mr. Clifford Evans

  President, Wallace Evans and Partners

  Road Tolls
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to charge tolls on the proposed third River Dee crossing and Deeside relief road; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am aware of no such proposals. This is a matter for Clwyd county council as the responsible local highway authority.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will clarify the legislative basis on which his Department made the statement in a letter of 21 January to the chairman of Gwynedd education committee, that the primary responsibility for the provision of speech therapy services lies with health authorities; in which guidelines these responsibilities are placed on health authorities; and what steps he takes to monitor health authority performance of such responsibilities.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The general provision of speech therapy services is the responsibility of health authorities under the National Health Service Act 1977. The level of provision is a matter for health authorities to determine in the light of local need, competing demands and resources available. The performance of health authorities is monitored during the annual review process.

  In the case of a child who has a statement of special educational needs, his/her local education authority must secure any special educational provision which is required to meet those needs and is specified in the statement. Where such special educational provision includes speech therapy, this must be provided in accordance with the statement.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what dates he consulted the Welsh Language Board on the issue of allowing the use of the letter D as a symbol for learner drivers in Wales; on what date he received a response from the board; and when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on this matter.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My officials have had frequent informal discussions with officials of the Welsh Language Board since I announced last November that this matter is being reviewed. We will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  School Children
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the recent reports which have been compiled on the average attainment levels in Welsh school children between the ages of 11 and 13 years whose first language is English; and if he will make a statement.
  947
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Pupil attainment arising from the 1992 pilot assessment exercise for end of key stage 3–14-year-olds—assessment in mathematics and science has been reviewed. A review of the attainments resulting from the 1993 tests for 14-year-olds was not possible because of the boycott by teachers. The outcome from this summer's statutory assessment for seven and 14-year-olds and the voluntary pilot exercise for 11-year-olds will provide information on pupil attainment in English, Welsh, mathematics and science.

  School Governors
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the total estimated cost of the survey of school governors currently being undertaken by Touche Ross management consultants on behalf of the Welsh Office; how many forms have been sent out; and for what purpose the information is being sought;

  (2) when he intends to publish the information gathered through the survey of school governors undertaken by his Department; and whether each subsection and possible answer will be comprehensively included in the publication;

  (3) if he will make it his policy that no disciplinary action will be taken against any school governor in Wales who refuses to fill in the survey of school governors questionnaire.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The cost of the survey of school governors in Wales is in the region of £40,000. Some 26,000 forms have been distributed to governing bodies in Wales. The survey will provide information on the background, experience, and work load of governors and will be of help to both the Welsh Office Education Department and local education authorities.

  The results of the survey should be available in the summer. The exact form in which the results will be published has yet to be decided.

  There is no question of any sanction whatsoever being taken against schools or governors who do not participate in the survey. Clearly the value of the survey is increased if as many governors as possible participate.

  Porthmadog Bypass
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated date of commencing work on the Porthmadog bypass on the A487 trunk road; and what is the target date for opening this road.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The scheme is shown in the 1993 supplement to "Roads in Wales" as unlikely to begin before April 1999. It will take about two years to complete. My right hon. Friend is reviewing strategic road needs in Wales and is considering the scope for bringing forward the more important improvements.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase annual payments to farmers in the existing environmentally sensitive areas in Wales; and what plans he has to deregulate the amount of capital grant available for conservation works in the environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will be announcing the revised scheme arrangements and payment rates for the Cambrian 948
  mountains extension and Lleyn peninsula ESAs shortly. Payment rates in these ESAs will be reviewed in 1996. The Cambrian mountains original ESA was revised in 1992 and will be subject to a payment review later this year. These payment reviews will include an assessment of the capital grant arrangements.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the proposed new environmentally sensitive areas in Wales to be launched; when the first agreements will start; when the first payments will be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The new ESA schemes in Preseli and the Clwydian range will be open for application shortly. The first payments to farmers will be made six months after the signing of the first management agreements.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on planning policy guidance note 6: "Town Centres and Retail Developments"; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Three.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his decisions concerning the sale of school playing fields.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As I have already indicated, the consultation exercise has been completed and I hope to announce the outcome in the near future.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase funding, in grant-in-aid, for the Countryside Council for Wales for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Countryside Council for Wales grant in aid for 1994–95 is £.20·635 million, which represents a 4 per cent. increase on last year's provision.

  Green Barriers and Belts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to announce his policies concerning green barriers and green belts.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering the advice of the Assembly of Welsh Counties on strategic planning guidance in Wales, including that on green barriers and belts.

  Wrexham to Bidston Railway Line
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning the long-term future of the Wrexham to Bidston railway line; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

SCOTLAND

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Lang
  The details are:

  1993–94

  Children's Panel Recruitment
  Press (£80,000): Objectives—to attract caring, responsible adults, particularly men, from all socio-economic groups to apply to become panel members. Effectiveness measure—by number of responses received.

  Electoral Registration
  Television/Press (£46,000): Objectives—to advise adults over 18 years and those who will come of age to complete the Electoral Registration Forms, and to encourage voters, particularly I8-year-olds and those who have moved home, to check for their names on the draft Electoral Registers. Effectiveness measure—by number of registrations in the annual autumn canvas.

  Further and Higher Education Charter
  Press, radio, outdoor posters (£86,000): Objectives—to raise awareness of the Charter and to promote its take-up among students, particularly in the 16–20 year-old age group. Effectiveness measure—demand for copies; research on response to be undertaken later this year.

  Accessibility to the Scottish Office
  Press (£150,000): Objectives—to promote easy accessibility by members of the public to The Scottish Office through an enquiry telephone line. Effectiveness measure—pre- and post-campaign qualitative research into awareness of The Scottish Office and new telephone number.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Press (£27,000): Objectives—to promote teaching as a profession, to recruit graduates and post-graduates, particularly in shortage subjects. Effectiveness measure—by response through a freepost coupon.

  Drugs and Solvent Misuse
  Television, booklet (Scottish element £130,000): Objectives—to encourage parents to discuss the dangers of drugs and solvents with their children and to publicise a confidential helpline and advice booklet. Effectiveness measure—precampaign qualitative research, number of responses to helpline and booklets issued.

  Fire Prevention
  Television (£125,000): Objectives—to alert householders to the dangers of failing to maintain smoke alarms. Effectiveness measure—qualitative research to assess awareness of the commercial and response triggered to be carried out when campaign ends.

  Organ Donors
  Television (63,000): Objectives—to urge carriers of the donor card to advise their families of their wish to donate. Effectiveness measure—research undertaken with the Scottish transplant community.

  Road Safety
  Television (£250,000): Objectives—to reduce child pedestrian road casualties by encouraging children to be more responsible and more safety-conscious. Effectiveness measure—qualitative research into campaign awareness.

  Right to Buy
  950
  Television, Press (£300,000): Objectives—to inform public sector tenants of the house purchase schemes available. Effectiveness measure—response for information booklet triggered by freephone number and coupon.

  National Continence Week
  Press, Bus interiors (£11,000): Objectives-to publicise National Continence Week and to encourage those suffering from incontinence to contact the helpline. Effectiveness measure—response to the telephone helpline.

  Offshore Europe exhibition
  Exhibition stand (£35,000): Objectives—to promote Government schemes of financial assistance and advice available to existing and potential exporters to stimulate and support business growth in Scotland. Effectiveness measure—number of visitors to the stand and resultant follow-up enquiries.

  Europartenariat Scotland
  Exhibition stand (£40,000): Objectives—to assist in business transactions between Scottish companies and visiting international representatives, and to promote Government assistance to Scottish companies. Effectiveness measure—number of visitors to the stand and resultant follow-up enquiries.
  Details of the advertising campaign programme for my Department for 1994–95 have not yet been finalised.

  Agencies

  HISTORIC SCOTLAND

  Promotion of Properties
  Television, Bus Sides, printed material (£260,000): Objectives—to increase the number of visitors to Historic Scotland's properties and to increase the income raised from visitors and from the hiring out of properties for functions, events and filming. Effectiveness measure—achievement of targets set within the overall advertising and marketing strategy.

  Details of the advertising initiatives for 1994–95 have not yet been finalised.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many planning applications for wind turbines have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected since 1984; and how many wind turbines are currently in operation in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Staff
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the total number of staff employed by his office and the total amount of public spending administered by his office for the latest date available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Details of staff employed and public expenditure administered by my Departments are contained in my 1993 departmental report, "Serving Scotland's Needs" Cm 2214, a copy of which is available in the Library. My departmental report for 1994 will be published shortly.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the number of staff employed and public spending administered by his office on each of three functions which would currently not be administered by the Secretary of State for Wales within Wales for the latest convenient date available; what is the total of each of these figures; and what proportion these figures are of the total staff employed and total public spending administered by the Scottish Office.
  951
  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally by my Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Solicitor- General for Scotland made two visits abroad during 1993. The first was to Cyprus for the Xth Commonwealth law conference from 3 to 8 May and the second was to Switzerland on 22 June for an informal meeting of the European Ministers of Justice. The cost to public funds was £1,936·15 for the Xth Commonwealth law conference and £739·00 for the informal meeting of European Ministers of Justice.

  Rents
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each Scottish local authority (a) the current average weekly rent and (b) the rent change in monetary and percentage terms for each of the last 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Average Standard Local Authority Rent 1993–94

  £ per dwelling

  per week

  Berwickshire

  23·60

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  21·09

  Roxburgh

  27·62

  Tweeddale

  22·44

  Clackmannan

  25·23

  Falkirk

  22·90

  Stirling

  29·14

  Annandale and Eskdale

  28·10

  Nithsdale

  25·66

  Stewartry

  28·40

  Wigtown

  29·34

  Annual average rent increase

  £ per dwelling per week

  Authorities

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Berwickshire

  1·20

  1·02

  0·63

  0·95

  1·52

  1·10

  1·09

  2·01

  1·44

  1·11

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  2³22

  (0·08)

  0·00

  0·74

  0·70

  0·96

  0·93

  2·35

  1·39

  0·86

  Roxburgh

  1·02

  1·28

  1·67

  0·48

  1·22

  1·71

  0·93

  3·23

  2·22

  1·44

  Tweeddale

  (0·05)

  0·06

  1·35

  0·44

  1·13

  (0·20)

  1·43

  2·33

  1·73

  2·88

  Clackmannan

  0·96

  0·46

  1·20

  1·47

  1·91

  2·64

  2·28

  1·77

  1·86

  0·44

  Falkirk

  0·51

  0·93

  0·93

  1·35

  1·36

  1·79

  1·93

  0·84

  1·47

  1·62

  Stirling

  0·01

  2·26

  2·08

  1·44

  1·03

  2·37

  2·21

  2·52

  2·11

  3·84

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1·22

  0·95

  1·37

  1·26

  1·61

  1·25

  2·61

  2·21

  1·82

  2·10

  Nithsdale

  0·90

  0·98

  1·66

  0·72

  1·59

  1·52

  1·79

  2·39

  2·06

  2·46

  Stewartry

  1·31

  0·13

  1·36

  1·00

  1·61

  1·45

  1·24

  3·77

  2·36

  1·51

  Wigtown

  2·19

  1·62

  0·90

  0·01

  0·87

  0·85

  0·48

  4·57

  3·60

  2·26

  Dunfermline

  0·49

  0·00

  1·30

  1·25

  1·94

  1·29

  1·56

  2·04

  1·36

  2·02

  Kirkcaldy

  1·15

  0·99

  1·25

  1·47

  1·69

  1·65

  1·95

  1·76

  2·10

  1·74

  North East Fife

  (0·05)

  1·14

  2·05

  1·20

  1·09

  2·63

  0·29

  2·26

  0·18

  0·98

  Aberdeen

  0·98

  2·32

  1·34

  2·14

  1·27

  1·95

  1·57

  1·32

  (0·20)

  0·95

  Banff and Buchan

  1·17

  1·37

  1·18

  0·63

  1·66

  1·70

  1·04

  1·16

  0·92

  1·08

  Gordon

  0·50

  1·73

  1·27

  0·20

  0·95

  ·65

  1·33

  4·26

  1·40

  2·34

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1·28

  1·21

  0·84

  0·49

  0·70

  0·03

  2·05

  1·84

  2·66

  4·01

  Moray

  1·29

  1·94

  0·45

  1·63

  1·59

  2·16

  1·35

  0·01

  1·50

  2·12

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1·04

  0·94

  1·85

  (0·02)

  1·59

  (0·13)

  (0·85)

  2·94

  3·26

  4·67

  Caithness

  2·08

  0·90

  1·04

  1·15

  1·71

  1·52

  1·75

  2·38

  2·40

  2·53

  Inverness

  0·74

  1·91

  0·83

  1·94

  1·95

  2·35

  1·33

  2·77

  2·70

  2·03

  Lochaber

  0·92

  0·70

  1·31

  1·74

  1·11

  1·95

  2·08

  2·52

  2·82

  3·33

  952

  £ per dwelling per week

  Dunfermline

  24·91

  Kirkcaldy

  26·22

  North East Fife

  24·50

  Aberdeen

  21·55

  Banff and Buchan

  23·17

  Gordon

  27·05

  Kincardine and Deeside

  25·63

  Moray

  24·40

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  26·80

  Caithness

  27·13

  Inverness

  29·09

  Lochaber

  29·83

  Nairn

  27·22

  Ross and Cromarty

  30·99

  Skye and Lochalsh

  31·77

  Sutherland

  30·09

  East Lothian

  22·99

  Edinburgh

  32·13

  Midlothian

  18·13

  West Lothian

  21·27

  Argyll and Bute

  29·36

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  28·60

  Clydebank

  28·06

  Clydesdale

  23·58

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  25·63

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  24·35

  Cunninghame

  24·31

  Dumbarton

  29·90

  East Kilbride

  25·18

  Eastwood

  21·73

  Glasgow

  30·78

  Hamilton

  25·39

  Inverclyde

  25·94

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  20·83

  Kyle and Carrick

  26·28

  Monklands

  25·66

  Motherwell

  23·43

  Renfrew

  24·41

  Strathkelvin

  25·11

  Angus

  18·88

  Dundee

  32·06

  Perth and Kinross

  22·94

  Orkney Islands

  27·60

  Shetland Islands

  29·76

  Western Isles

  33·38

  953

  Authorities

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Nairn

  0·92

  1·38

  1·15

  1·11

  1·63

  1·86

  0·06

  4·61

  2·96

  0·31

  Ross and Cromarty

  1·24

  0·74

  1·99

  1·13

  1·65

  2·09

  1·70

  3·79

  3·54

  2·36

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1·94

  1·89

  1·97

  0·24

  0·93

  1·14

  2·21

  3·60

  4·71

  2·04

  Sutherland

  1·06

  0·97

  1·37

  0·26

  1·37

  1·46

  2·43

  3·25

  4·53

  2·62

  East Lothian

  0·86

  1·29

  0·97

  1·35

  1·57

  1·60

  2·11

  2·13

  0·52

  0·36

  Edinburgh

  1·25

  (0·18)

  0·03

  1·84

  1·93

  4·12

  3·52

  4·31

  1·43

  1·60

  Midlothian

  0·87

  1·07

  0·92

  0·96

  1·01

  1·09

  0·00

  0·11

  0·21

  2·00

  West Lothian

  0·50

  0·80

  0·85

  0·90

  1·40

  1·80

  1·02

  1·07

  0·92

  1·55

  Argyll and Bute

  (0·15)

  2·03

  (0·01

  0·49

  1·56

  1·74

  2·35

  1·92

  2·88

  3·09

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0·58

  0·72

  2·06

  2·35

  1·40

  1·74

  2·12

  2·61

  3·23

  0·94

  Clydebank

  1·00

  2·15

  2·85

  2·02

  1·94

  3·75

  2·81

  1·56

  (0·51)

  1·46

  Clydesdale

  1·01

  1·45

  0·87

  0·83

  1·75

  1·74

  1·36

  2·18

  1·30

  1·41

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0·49

  2·13

  2·01

  1·67

  1·50

  1·85

  1·35

  1·94

  0·91

  1·66

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0·50

  0·72

  1·04

  1·46

  1·06

  1·66

  1·36

  2·60

  2·26

  1·79

  Cunninghame

  1·00

  1·00

  1·65

  2·51

  1·78

  1·63

  1·93

  1·92

  1·85

  2·18

  Dumbarton

  0·81

  0·01

  2·29

  2·93

  3·46

  3·08

  2·85

  1·77

  2·21

  1·93

  East Kilbride

  1·01

  1·05

  2·06

  0·98

  0·93

  2·09

  2·06

  1·01

  1·74

  0·82

  Eastwood

  0·50

  0·48

  0·44

  0·50

  1·46

  1·19

  1·49

  1·51

  2·96

  0·67

  Glasgow

  0·01

  1·02

  1·96

  2·02

  2·55

  3·98

  2·86

  2·78

  1·85

  2·13

  Hamilton

  0·70

  0·92

  1·85

  2·06

  0·79

  2·25

  1·47

  1·68

  2·20

  2·15

  Inverclyde

  0·77

  2·21

  1·11

  0·92

  1·05

  2·48

  2·32

  2·27

  2·49

  2·01

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0·51

  1·01

  1·83

  1·43

  0·63

  1·74

  1·29

  1·88

  0·07

  1·38

  Kyle and Carrick

  0·81

  1·76

  1·19

  1·01

  1·27

  0·91

  2·17

  1·49

  1·00

  5·06

  Monklands

  0·00

  2·02

  2·35

  1·82

  1·45

  1·83

  1·47

  2·56

  0·86

  2·00

  Motherwell

  1·00

  1·35

  1·20

  1·64

  0·93

  2·26

  1·31

  1·11

  1·33

  2·40

  Renfrew

  0·48

  1·00

  1·69

  1·49

  0·92

  2·81

  1·97

  1·98

  1·77

  1·96

  Strathkelvin

  0·88

  1·05

  2·57

  1·12

  1·93

  0·88

  1·33

  1·87

  1·55

  2·23

  Angus

  0·97

  0·96

  1·11

  0·80

  (0·10)

  1·28

  1·04

  1·07

  (0·11)

  1·11

  Dundee

  0·73

  1·02

  1·81

  1·98

  3·50

  4·08

  4·06

  2·96

  2·23

  1·62

  Perth and Kinross

  0·00

  1·16

  1·00

  0·95

  0·75

  1·21

  2·33

  1·61

  2·34

  0·82

  Orkney Islands

  0·88

  2·16

  1·33

  1·50

  1·07

  3·34

  2·21

  3·00

  2·38

  (0·40)

  Shetland Islands

  (0·05)

  2·91

  1·53

  0·96

  2·28

  0·87

  1·61

  4·34

  3·87

  0·87

  Western Isles

  1·84

  0·59

  1·02

  1·03

  1·44

  0·75

  2·75

  6·57

  1·85

  2·49

  Note: Rent reductions shown in brackets.

  Annual average rent increase (expressed as a percentage increase on previous year)

  Authorities

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Berwickshire

  10·4

  8·0

  4·6

  6·6

  9·9

  6·5

  6·1

  10·5

  6·9

  4·9

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  20·2

  (0·6)

  0·0

  5·6

  5·1

  6·6

  6·0

  14·3

  7·4

  4·3

  Roxburgh

  8·2

  9·5

  11·3

  2·9

  7·2

  9·4

  4·7

  15·6

  9·3

  5·5

  Tweeddale

  (0·4)

  0·6

  11·9

  3·5

  8·6

  (1·4)

  10·2

  15·0

  9·7

  14·7

  Clackmannan

  9·4

  4·1

  10·3

  11·5

  13·3

  16·3

  12·1

  8·4

  8·1

  1·8

  Falkirk

  5·0

  8·7

  8·0

  10·8

  9·8

  11·7

  11·3

  4·4

  7·4

  7·6

  Stirling

  0·1

  24·3

  18·0

  10·6

  6·8

  14·7

  12·0

  12·2

  9·1

  15·2

  Annandale and Eskdale

  10·5

  7·3

  9·9

  8·3

  9·7

  6·9

  13·5

  10·1

  7·5

  8·1

  Nithsdale

  9·4

  9·3

  14·4

  5·5

  11·5

  9·8

  10·5

  12·8

  9·8

  10·6

  Stewartry

  10·3

  0·9

  9·6

  6·5

  9·8

  8·0

  6·4

  18·2

  9·6

  5·6

  Wigtown

  18·2

  11·4

  5·7

  0·1

  5·2

  4·8

  2·6

  24·2

  15·3

  8·4

  Dunfermline

  4·2

  0·0

  10·7

  9·3

  13·2

  7·8

  8·7

  10·5

  6·3

  8·8

  Kirkcaldy

  11·0

  8·6

  9·9

  10·6

  11·1

  9·7

  10·4

  8·5

  9·4

  7·1

  North East Fife

  (0·4)

  8·9

  14·8

  7·6

  6·4

  14·5

  1·4

  10·7

  0·8

  4·2

  Aberdeen

  12·3

  26·0

  12·0

  17·0

  8·7

  12·2

  8·8

  6·8

  (1·0)

  4·6

  Banff and Buchan

  10·4

  11·0

  8·6

  4·2

  10·7

  9·8

  5·5

  5·8

  4·4

  4·9

  Gordon

  4·4

  14·5

  9·4

  1·4

  6·3

  10·3

  7·5

  22·4

  6·0

  9·5

  Kincardine and Deeside

  12·1

  10·3

  6·4

  3·5

  4·9

  0·2

  13·6

  10·8

  14·0

  18·5

  Moray

  12·4

  16·7

  3·3

  11·6

  10·1

  12·5

  7·0

  0·1

  7·2

  9·5

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  9·0

  7·5

  13·7

  (0·2)

  10·4

  (0·8)

  (5·0)

  18·4

  17·3

  21·1

  Caithness

  21·5

  7·6

  8·2

  8·4

  11·5

  9·2

  9·7

  12·0

  10·8

  10·3

  Inverness

  7·0

  17·0

  6·3

  13·9

  12·2

  13·1

  6·6

  12·8

  11·1

  7·5

  Lochaber

  8·1

  5·7

  10·1

  12·2

  6·9

  11·4

  10·9

  11·9

  11·9

  12·6

  Nairn

  8·2

  11·4

  8·5

  7·5

  10·3

  10·7

  0·3

  23·9

  12·4

  1·2

  Ross and Cromarty

  11·6

  6·2

  15·7

  7·7

  10·4

  11·9

  8·7

  17·8

  14·1

  8·3

  Skye and Lochalsh

  17·5

  14·6

  13·2

  1·4

  5·4

  6·3

  11·5

  16·8

  18·9

  6·9

  Sutherland

  9·9

  8·2

  10·7

  1·8

  9·5

  9·2

  14·1

  16·5

  19·8

  9·5

  East Lothian

  8·4

  11·6

  7·8

  10·1

  10·7

  9·8

  11·8

  10·6

  2·4

  1·6

  Edinburgh

  10·2

  (1·3)

  0·3

  13·7

  12·7

  24·0

  16·6

  17·4

  4·9

  5·2

  Midlothian

  8·8

  9·9

  7·8

  7·5

  7·4

  7·4

  0·0

  0·7

  1·3

  12·4

  West Lothian

  4·8

  7·2

  7·2

  7·1

  10·3

  12·0

  6·1

  6·0

  4·9

  7·8

  Argyll and Bute

  (1·1)

  15·3

  0·0

  3·2

  9·9

  10·0

  12·3

  9·0

  12·3

  11·8

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  5·3

  6·3

  16·9

  16·5

  8·4

  9·7

  10·7

  11·9

  13·2

  3·4

  Clydebank

  11·1

  21·5

  23·4

  13·4

  11·4

  19·7

  12·3

  6·1

  (1·9)

  5·5

  Clydesdale

  10·5

  13·5

  7·1

  6·3

  12·7

  11·2

  7·9

  11·7

  6·2

  6·3

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  4·9

  20·0

  15·8

  11·3

  9·2

  10·3

  6·8

  9·2

  3·9

  6·9

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  5·1

  6·9

  9·4

  12·0

  7·8

  11·3

  8·3

  14·7

  11·1

  7·9

  954 955

  Authorities

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Cunninghame

  0·1

  0·0

  18·6

  23·9

  13·7

  11·0

  11·8

  10·5

  9·1

  9·9

  Dumbarton

  9·5

  0·1

  24·4

  25·1

  23·7

  17·0

  13·5

  7·4

  8·6

  6·9

  East Kilbride

  8·8

  8·5

  15·3

  6·3

  5·6

  12·0

  10·5

  4·7

  7·7

  3·4

  Eastwood

  4·7

  4·4

  3·8

  4·2

  11·7

  8·5

  9·9

  9·1

  16·4

  3·2

  Glasgow

  0·1

  10·6

  18·4

  16·0

  17·4

  23·1

  13·5

  11·6

  6·9

  7·4

  Hamilton

  7·5

  9·2

  16·8

  16·1

  5·3

  14·4

  8·2

  8·7

  10·4

  9·2

  Inverclyde

  9·3

  24·4

  9·8

  7·4

  7·8

  17·2

  13·8

  11·8

  11·6

  8·4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  5·6

  10·5

  17·2

  11·5

  4·6

  12·0

  7·9

  10·8

  0·3

  7·1

  Kyle and Carrick

  8·5

  16·9

  9·8

  7·6

  8·8

  5·8

  13·1

  7·9

  4·9

  23·9

  Monklands

  0·0

  21·7

  20·8

  13·3

  9·3

  10·8

  7·8

  12·6

  3·8

  8·4

  Motherwell

  11·3

  13·6

  10·6

  13·2

  6·6

  15·0

  7·6

  6·0

  6·7

  11·4

  Renfrew

  5·8

  11·3

  17·2

  13·0

  7·1

  20·2

  11·8

  10·6

  8·6

  8·7

  Strathkelvin

  9·1

  9·9

  22·1

  7·9

  12·6

  5·1

  7·3

  9·6

  7·3

  9·8

  Angus

  9·0

  8·2

  8·8

  5·8

  (0·7)

  8·8

  6·6

  6·4

  (0·6)

  6·3

  Dundee

  9·1

  11·6

  18·4

  17·0

  25·8

  23·8

  19·1

  11·7

  7·9

  5·3

  Perth and Kinross

  0·0

  10·7

  8·4

  7·3

  5·4

  8·3

  14·7

  8·8

  11·8

  3·7

  Orkney Islands

  8·7

  19·7

  10·1

  10·4

  6·7

  19·6

  10·8

  13·3

  9·3

  (1·4)

  Shetland Islands

  (0·5)

  27·7

  11·4

  6·4

  14·3

  4·8

  8·4

  21·0

  15·5

  3·0

  Western Isles

  14·1

  4·0

  6·6

  6·2

  8·2

  4·0

  13·9

  29·3

  6·4

  8·1

  Note: Rent reductions shown in brackets

  Cornton Vale Prison
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to close Cornton Vale prison.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to close Cornton Vale prison.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scottish Office has spent on the operation of the assisted places scheme in each year since 1981; how many pupils have been covered by the scheme in each year since 1981; and what overspend occurred on the budget allocated in each of these years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for school years 1981–82 to 1992–93 is as follows:

  School sessions

  Total cost (£)

  Number of assisted pupils

  1981–82

  799,023

  790

  1982–83

  1,718,485

  1,450

  1983–84

  2,454,386

  1,900

  1984–85

  3,298,461

  2,265

  1985–86

  4,217,234

  2,620

  1986–87

  4,861,150

  2,626

  1987–88

  5,310,061

  2,680

  1988–89

  5,758,542

  2,695

  1989–90

  6,681,213

  2,841

  1990–91

  7,641,895

  2,861

  1991–92

  18,716,185

  12,916

  1992–93

  19,811,185

  13,043

  1993–94

  110,099,167

  13,024

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  11992–93

  11993–94

  School

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Aberlour

  —

  —

  5

  17,501

  8

  27,331

  7

  27,865

  10

  35,082

  11

  35,870

  Albyn

  16

  31,116

  20

  41,376

  23

  51,747

  20

  55,279

  18

  52,377

  17

  55,571

  Ardvreck

  —

  —

  1

  2,777

  2

  5,785

  3

  9,180

  3

  12,017

  5

  21,819

  Beaconhurst

  —

  —

  3

  3,756

  6

  11,676

  6

  18,589

  10

  30,475

  11

  34,588

  Belhaven

  —

  —

  4

  11,989

  3

  8,484

  3

  9,798

  2

  7,921

  1

  4,862

  Belmont

  18

  36,917

  21

  46,918

  20

  49,083

  23

  60,329

  23

  68,170

  26

  76,102

  Blairmore

  —

  —

  2

  5,948

  5

  15,058

  4

  11,202

  3

  5,931

  School closed

  Butterstone

  —

  —

  2

  6,348

  4

  12,624

  5

  18,283

  2

  8,297

  3

  13,433

  Cargilfield

  —

  —

  3

  10,425

  4

  17,547

  4

  19,128

  4

  19,557

  4

  18,002

  Cliftonhall

  —

  —

  6

  11,312

  7

  18,637

  7

  22,755

  8

  28,546

  6

  24,437

  Craigclowan

  —

  —

  6

  10,839

  9

  16,225

  9

  20,000

  9

  22,000

  12

  25,256

  Craigholme

  31

  51,317

  39

  67,548

  39

  85,924

  37

  96,643

  38

  109,527

  44

  128,506

  Crawfordton

  —

  —

  8

  13,420

  6

  19,219

  6

  22,456

  6

  25,225

  5

  22,238

  Croftinloan

  —

  —

  4

  13,350

  4

  15,278

  5

  16,359

  6

  20,500

  6

  20,471

  956
  1Provisional—Final claims to be submitted.

  The Assisted Places Scheme in Scotland is cash limited and there were no overspends in budget provision for the scheme in financial years 1981–82 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of fees was charged by each institution covered by the assisted places scheme in Scotland in the current academic year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Fees charged to the assisted places scheme by each school vary according to the income levels of individual parents whose children benefit under the scheme.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what safeguards are available to the Scottish Office to ensure that schools covered by the assisted places scheme meet recognised educational standards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Before a school can participate in the assisted places scheme in Scotland it requires to satisfy certain criteria, including certain standards of achievement, breadth of curriculum and teachers' qualifications. The schools are also subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the schools in Scotland which had pupils under the assisted places scheme for each academic year since 1989; how many pupils have been supported at each institution in each year; and how much it has cost the Scottish Office to provide this support in each year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  957

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  11992–93

  11993–94

  School

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Number of assisted pupils

  Amount paid £

  Daniel Stewart and Melville Coll, and Mary Erskine

  542

  1,089,782

  291

  647,807

  274

  686,814

  276

  766,689

  282

  840,210

  296

  883,974

  Dollar

  63

  115,546

  63

  130,54

  68

  145,185

  59

  150,044

  71

  182,827

  72

  203,044

  Drumley Home

  —

  —

  6

  12,828

  5

  15,116

  3

  10,049

  3

  10,79

  2

  9,259

  Edinburgh Academy

  43

  113,014

  46

  134,944

  48

  166,508

  50

  191,777

  52

  209,884

  56

  227,475

  Fernhill

  40

  63,937

  28

  46,687

  29

  55,159

  30

  63,846

  34

  79,573

  34

  84,084

  Fettes

  26

  101,191

  32

  134,472

  32

  151,61

  33

  174,548

  40

  199,763

  39

  209,031

  Fort Augustus Abbey

  38

  107,45

  34

  105,345

  33

  134,983

  34

  170,4

  28

  139,717

  School closed

  George Heriots

  226

  427,484

  237

  486,666

  236

  531,754

  247

  596,848

  247

  656,167

  256

  689,744

  George Watsons

  Included in DSME

  240

  506,852

  243

  575,268

  238

  639,74

  245

  717,925

  236

  681,386

  Glasgow Academy

  41

  74,168

  42

  89,605

  37

  107,175

  89

  301,839

  98

  346,458

  99

  346,172

  Glenalmond

  36

  143,697

  34

  145,745

  30

  166,502

  33

  190,588

  33

  215,022

  38

  241,406

  Gordonstoun

  23

  91,513

  24

  108,155

  26

  124,412

  29

  144,094

  28

  160,425

  28

  170,862

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  11

  12,591

  12

  15,725

  14

  22,101

  15

  27,653

  14

  25,036

  High School of Dundee

  164

  330,043

  174

  387,281

  182

  454,337

  180

  462,132

  197

  552,324

  193

  580,250

  High School of Glasgow

  46

  87,364

  40

  71,268

  38

  82,074

  39

  102,007

  45

  127,101

  49

  136,969

  Hutchesons Grammar

  143

  223,351

  135

  255,370

  135

  301,004

  138

  356,361

  152

  415,271

  146

  436,454

  Keil

  60

  129,698

  71

  152,685

  66

  174,156

  67

  198,819

  66

  223,879

  64

  229,599

  Kelvinside

  54

  121,290

  58

  137,390

  58

  161,317

  67

  213,982

  80

  266,852

  85

  304,930

  Kilgraston

  57

  114,354

  52

  120,21

  51

  142,624

  53

  164,519

  59

  185,757

  51

  193,287

  Kilquhanity

  19

  39,002

  18

  41,146

  18

  41,398

  18

  46,218

  20

  50,548

  20

  54,729

  Lathallan

  —

  —

  6

  16,874

  5

  17,536

  5

  19,869

  6

  25,72

  6

  27,102

  Laurel Bank

  63

  151,674

  59

  160,687

  54

  161,490

  53

  173,919

  53

  167,453

  58

  202,029

  Lomond

  42

  97,986

  43

  105,236

  39

  101,807

  44

  133,431

  49

  158,944

  56

  183,036

  Loretto

  24

  94,012

  29

  118,549

  31

  139,628

  33

  159,046

  35

  186,283

  33

  198,181

  Merchiston Castle

  50

  180,744

  56

  218,085

  60

  249,586

  62

  281,393

  65

  315,586

  65

  319,636

  Morrisons Academy

  166

  295,408

  177

  339,309

  164

  347,79

  172

  416,876

  162

  434,381

  157

  432,788

  New Park

  —

  —.

  3

  7,888

  3

  10,017

  3

  10,944

  4

  14

  5

  18,25

  Oxenfoord Castle

  —

  —

  5

  11,987

  11

  25,838

  13

  38,622

  12

  41,626

  School closed

  Park Lodge

  —

  —

  1

  1,809

  —

  —

  1

  2,598

  1

  621

  —

  —

  Park School

  63

  147,616

  61

  152,808

  72

  192,881

  68

  217,964

  68

  238,977

  67

  244,675

  Rannoch

  26

  77,343

  27

  101,463

  28

  119,766

  30

  139,248

  31

  158,770

  35

  173,990

  Robert Gordons

  61

  94,486

  58

  116,513

  63

  128,557

  64

  150,951

  63

  169,147

  65

  183,112

  Rudolf Steiner

  60

  110,877

  61

  127,413

  56

  136,397

  57

  159,714

  59

  179,42

  57

  182,188

  St Aloysius

  139

  259,995

  154

  295,9

  160

  330,424

  166

  380,134

  165

  433,125

  170

  443,938

  St Columbas

  36

  80,870

  40

  95,467

  32

  83,327

  42

  115,778

  39

  121,144

  36

  122,860

  St Dennis and Cranley

  25

  56,241

  28

  76,908

  30

  91,509

  28

  99,836

  31

  120,775

  29

  122,162

  St. Georges

  18

  37,227

  17

  40,371

  20

  52,13

  25

  64,959

  29

  85,210

  31

  92,536

  St. Leonards

  23

  63,324

  24

  75,795

  31

  113,765

  35

  131,000

  37

  147,826

  36

  168,406

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  13

  24,235

  18

  33,545

  19

  41,987

  22

  42,501

  22

  53,678

  20

  56,823

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  59

  121,628

  65

  154,491

  68

  182,386

  70

  213,688

  72

  241,22

  66

  245,883

  St. Marys

  —

  —

  2

  6,030

  4

  9,936

  1

  21

  2

  7,602

  2

  7,652

  Strathallan

  35

  136,72

  41

  187,165

  42

  215,432

  42

  243,000

  46

  272,640

  47

  287,146

  Wellington

  43

  84,849

  49

  108,121

  48

  129,636

  44

  144,149

  55

  183,265

  54

  197,928

  Westbourne

  63

  151,073

  57

  137,705

  60

  172,304

  Amalgamated with Glasgow Academy

  1Provisional figures.

  Mr.Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual cost to the Scottish Office of publicising and administering the operation of the assisted places scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The estimated cost to the Scottish Office of administering the assisted places scheme in 1993–94 financial year is £44,000. This total includes the cost of producing the "Brief Guide for Parents" advice booklet for 1993–94 school session of £655.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment the Scottish Office has made of the assisted places scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The aim of the assisted places scheme is to widen the range of educational opportunity for children by allowing them to attend independent schools which would normally be beyond the reach of their parents' financial circumstances. The Scottish Office carries out regular audit and monitoring procedures to ensure that the scheme meets the criteria set for it.

  In November 1992, published results from an independent survey commissioned jointly by the Scottish Office Education Department and the Scottish Council of Independent Schools confirmed that the main policy objectives of the scheme were being achieved.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average yearly cost of educating a pupil in each of the secondary schools in the Ayr division of Strathclyde regional council.
  958
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Strathclyde Region Air Division

  Running cost per pupil (£)

  Ardrossan Academy

  2,307

  Arran High School

  3,160

  Auchenharvie Academy

  2,974

  Auchinleck Academy

  2,562

  Ayr Academy

  2,986

  Belmont Academy

  2,225

  Carrick Academy

  2,887

  Cumnock Academy

  2,593

  Doon Academy

  3,628

  Garnock Academy

  2,409

  Girvan Academy

  2,409

  Grange Academy

  2,561

  Greenwood Academy

  2,356

  Irvine Royal Academy

  ..

  James Hamilton Academy

  3,247

  Kilmarnock Academy

  2,236

  Kilwinning Academy

  2,387

  Kyle Academy

  2,430

  Largs Academy

  2,430

  Loudoun Academy

  2,388

  Mainholm Academy

  3,531

  Marr College

  2,263

  Prestick Academy

  2,469

  Queen Margaret Academy

  2,905

  St. Andrew's Academy

  2,801

  St. Conval's High School

  4,240

  St. Joseph's Academy

  2,848

  St. Michael's Academy

  2,512

  Stewarton Academy

  2,430

  .. No entry.

  Notes

  The figures given are derived by dividing the total budgeted running cost by the school roll, where the school roll is the number of pupils on the roll

  959
  at the time of the annual school census in September 1992, including pupils of any special unit, and the total budgeted school running costs are as specified by the School Board regulations in respect of the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994.

  No entry is given for Irvine Royal Academy because of special circumstances following a local rationalisation.

  Shipping (Tariff Rebates)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list for each year from 1986–87 the amount paid under the tariff rebate subsidy scheme to each shipping company operating within the scheme;

  (2) if he will list for each year from 1986–87 the shipping operators who did not reach the capping level for subventions under the tariff rebate subsidy scheme and the amount of shortfall in each case;

  (3) if he will list for each year from 1986–87 the shipping operators who reached a capping level for subvention payments under the tariff rebate subsidy scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  Individual bulk shipping operators' TRS allocations are treated as being commercially confidential.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in any year since 1986–87, any shortfall in the

  Establishment

  Design capacity

  Cells in use

  Cells in use without access to night sanitation

  Prisoner population

  Aberdeen

  152

  147

  —

  143

  Barlinnie

  935

  833

  829

  995

  Castle Huntly

  144

  124

  —

  74

  Cornton Vale

  217

  183

  —

  156

  Dumfries

  146

  146

  146

  134

  Dungavel

  147

  128

  —

  74

  Edinburgh

  527

  527

  378

  640

  Friarton

  57

  57

  —

  73

  Glenochil

  496

  348

  —

  336

  Glenochil YOI

  179

  154

  —

  141

  Greenock

  179

  179

  4

  230

  Inverness

  87

  80

  —

  100

  Longriggend

  185

  185

  —

  197

  Low Moss

  400

  400

  —

  330

  Noranside

  137

  137

  —

  127

  Penninghame

  82

  82

  —

  61

  Perth

  453

  435

  410

  454

  Peterhead

  272

  210

  200

  207

  Polmont

  418

  340

  324

  378

  Shotts

  533

  190

  —

  474

  Totals

  5,746

  5,185

  2,291(44%)

  5,324

  The difference between "Design Capacity" and "Cells in Use" reflects the fact that a number of cells are not available because of redecoration or damage repair work, refurbishment (including in some cases, to provide night sanitation) or for other policy reasons (eg being retained in the event of an emergency).

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending each year from 1990–91 and the

  Health Body

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (£000)4

  Common Services Agency

  128,141

  142,535

  157,829

  160,709

  Health Boards

  3,210,418

  3,492,667

  3,767,893

  3,799,638

  Health Education Board for Scotland1

  —

  5,525

  6,422

  6,411

  Mental Welfare Commission

  776

  828

  900

  872

  960
  amount of payments to a shipping operator under the tariff rebate subsidy scheme has been reallocated to another participating operator.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes.

  Prison Cells
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each prison in Scotland the total number of cells, the number of cells without sanitation and the number of prisoners presently held.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 15 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about prisoner accommodation and prisoner numbers.
  The latest available information—reflecting the position as at Friday 4 February—is set out in the table below:

  projected expenditure for each year of the national health service bodies (Scotland) as listed in "Public Bodies 1993."

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The information is set out in the table. The figures have been adjusted to 1992–93 prices using the GDP deflator and have been taken from NHS (Scotland) summarised accounts.
  961

  Health Body

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (£000)4

  NHS Trusts2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  2,298

  2,357

  2,303

  4,126

  Scottish Hospital Trust3

  —

  —

  —

  State Hospital, Carstairs

  12,260

  13,303

  16,178

  17,394

  1 The Health Education Board for Scotland was part of the Common Services Agency in 1990–91

  2 NHS Trusts are funded by Health Boards.

  3 The Scottish Hospital Trust is not Government funded.

  4 Estimate.

  Equipment Thefts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: A variety of minor items are periodically reported missing. The following more substantial items have been formally recorded since 1990 as losses to the Scottish Office which are attributable to theft.

  Year and Item

  Approximate value £

  1990

  Furniture

  1,595

  1991

  Video equipment

  749

  1992

  Video equipment

  359

  Motor car

  2,650

  Computer equipment

  3,500

  Nursing staff employed by the NHS in Scotland: at 30 September

  Whole time equivalent

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Qualified2

  35,589·8

  36,224·8

  36,258·6

  36,449·9

  36,304·2

  35,992·1

  Unqualified3

  17,395·6

  17,325·0

  16,911·1

  17,071·3

  17,374·3

  17,347·9

  In training4

  10,797·5

  10,906·3

  10,516·1

  9,981·7

  9,376·4

  8,677·4

  1Provisional.

  2Includes both registered and enrolled nurses.

  3Includes auxiliaries, assistants and nursery nurses.

  4Includes students and pupil nurses, qualified nurses undergoing further training and, from 1992 onwards, Project 2000 students.

  Limb Defects
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration was given during the recent investigaton of the incidence of limb defects within the Ayrshire and Arran health board area undertaken by the health board, to the incidence of brain tumours occurring within the Ayrshire and Arran, and Dumfries and Galloway health board areas.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: The investigation took account of a 1992 review of brain tumours in the health board area during the period 1975–90 and concluded that there was no evidence of a common factor linking cases of brain tumour with cases of upper limb reduction defect. Both studies related exclusively to the Ayrshire and Arran health board area.
  962

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital trusts have been approved in the Lothian health board area; and if he will list all the individuals he has appointed to these trusts with any relevant details of their experience available to him.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 7 February 1994, Official Report, column 53. All those appointed have skills or experience relevant to the strategic management of major service providing bodies.

  Nurses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 Scotland for each year from 1988 onwards.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: The information is set out in the table.

EMPLOYMENT

  Foreign Nationals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve the working conditions of foreign nationals brought into the country as personal servants on restricted entry conditions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In general, conditions of work are a matter for negotiation and agreement between employers and their employees, without Government intervention. This applies whatever the nationalities of the parties. Domestic workers from overseas have the same employment protection rights as resident United Kingdom employees. The criteria under which these workers are admitted to the United Kingdom are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but I understand that overseas domestic
  963
  workers receive a leaflet explaining their rights in the United Kingdom and where to get help before they enter the country.

  Hampshire TEC
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total budget of Hampshire training and enterprise council for the year 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total sum of money available to the Hampshire training and enterprise council, for the performance of its contract with the Secretary of State in the year 1993–94, is £39,197,414.

  Restart
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many restart interviews have so far been conducted; what numbers were referred to each menu option; what numbers actually took up their referral; what numbers were referred to the unemployment benefit service for non-attendance at an interview; what numbers were referred to the unemployment benefit service for non-availability; what numbers were referred to the unemployment benefit service for the refusal of suitable employment; and if he will express the numbers also as a percentage.

  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. Frank Field, dated 17 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about how many Restart interviews have so far been conducted; what numbers were referred to each menu option and how many took up their referral; how many were sanctioned for non-attendance at interview, non-availability and refusal of suitable employment; and if the numbers can also be expressed as a percentage.
  Unfortunately the information you request is not available in the level of detail you require. The reason for this is that following a review of data collected by the Employment Service (ES) we decided that the amounts of information collected about the Restart programme could be reduced, lessening the burden throughout the organisation and producing savings in administration costs. Consequently we do not now collect information on the numbers of referrals made to each menu option. Also, information about the number of Restart clients who actually took up their referral is not available separately for each menu option, but is shown "as total starts on Employment Department (ED) programmes".
  The information we have available for the current year is shown in the attached table.
  These figures reflect only the direct results of Restart. We do not know how many people subsequently take up a job or a place on an employment or training programme as a result of the guidance given to them at their interview.
  Sign-offs, as a direct result of Client Adviser action, include: entering full-time education, starting training (not an ED programme), Youth Training, as a result of benefit disallowed, for pension purposes (no need to sign for NI credits), or those covered by home responsibilities protection (no need to sign for NI credits).
  They do not include sign-offs for: found work cases, for fraud intervention, failed to sign, clients transferring their claim to another office, or any other reasons not listed above.
  Starts on Employment Department programmes include Jobclub, Restart Course, Jobplan Workshop, Job Review
  964
  Workshop, Training for Work, Learning for Work, Community Action, Work Trials, Business Start-Up Scheme and Job Interview Guarantee.
  Similarly, we do not now collect information about the numbers of people invited to Restart interviews who were subsequently referred to adjudication authorities because of a doubt raised at their interview about their entitlement to benefit. Consequently I am unable to provide the number you requested in the final part of your question or to indicate the percentage of claims this represents. However, information about the total number of adjudication officers' decisions irrespective of source of referral is collected on a regional basis and is summarised quarterly. A copy of each summary entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions" is placed in the Library of the House.
  I hope this is helpful.

  1993–94 Operational Year: (to end of December 1993 rounded to 100s)

  Number of Restart Interviews

  2,400,000

  Outcomes

  Outcomes as percentage of Interviews

  Started work

  27,800

  1·1

  Took up other benefit

  45,000

  1·9

  Signed off as a direct result of Client Adviser action

  55,700

  2·3

  Starts on Employment Department Programmes

  526,500

  21·9

ENVIRONMENT

  Biodiversity Action Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his definition of the satisfactory progress referred to in paragraph 8(2) of the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan.

  Mr. Atkins
  Satisfactory progress will have been made when we judge there to be reasonable safeguards in support of our concerns that donor countries should retain the right to determine their financial contribitions under the biodiversity convention.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the policy of his Department regarding motor vehicles belonging to the Government car service being left with their engines running when parked; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  GCS drivers are instructed to keep the running of their vehicles' engines while parked to a minimum consistent with passenger and security requirements.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on giving preference to British-made cars in purchasing official and ministerial cars.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department's official and ministerial vehicles are purchased through call-off contract arrangements which comply with EC and GATT requirements. The current vehicles are sourced from three United Kingdom-based car manufacturers. The procurement policy is kept under review.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the rules and regulations relating to the use of Government cars.
  965
  Mr. Baldry
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) on 28 January,Official Report, column 415, to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).

  Condensing Boiler Grant
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Energy Saving Trust's condensing boiler grant scheme following the Director General of Ofgas's decision on the E-factor.

  Mr. Atkins
  The future of the condensing boiler grant scheme is a matter for the Energy Saving Trust Ltd. and British Gas plc, and its continued funding through the E-factor is a matter for the Director General of Gas Supply.

  Climate Change Convention
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what papers or proposals were submitted by the United Kingdom delegation to the intergovernmental negotiating committee for a framework convention on climate change at its meeting in Geneva that began on 7 February.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom submitted the climate change programme as its report under article 12 of the framework convention on climate change, making it the first country to do so.

  Ultraviolet Radiation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue daily bulletins on levels of ultraviolet radiation from National Radiological Protection Board monitoring stations in the United Kingdom, and issue guidance to the public if levels become enhanced due to thinning of the ozone layer.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Radiological Protection Board restarted its weekly bulletins on levels of ultraviolet radiation in the United Kingdom on 8 February 1994. UV levels are so low during this period of the year that NRPB sees no need for more frequent bulletins. My Department issues weekly bulletins on the levels of ozone over the United Kingdom and copies are placed in the Library of the House. Guidance to the public on avoiding excessive exposure to solar UV radiation is available from the Health Education Authority and the NRPB.

  Women's Aid Refuges
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the women's aid refuges funded directly or indirectly by his Department that have been closed in each region since 1990.

  Sir George Young
  My Department funds some women's aid refuges indirectly through the Housing Corporation. I am not aware of any refuges supported in this way which have closed since 1990.
  966

  Incinerators
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the sulphur dioxide emission limits for power stations and incinerators of different types: and what is the frequency of monitoring undertaken of emissions of sulphur dioxide from them;

  (2) if he will list the different types of incinerator according to the severity of their regulatory regimes and the criteria used for distinguishing each category.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued statutory guidance, PG notes, to local authorities on the emission limits and monitoring frequency they should specify in individual authorisations for processes subject to air pollution control under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has issued guidance, IPR notes, to his inspectors covering emission limits and monitoring frequency for processes subject to integrated pollution control under the 1990 Act. The following guidance notes relate to power stations and incinerators and are all in the Library of the House:

  PG1/3(91) boilers and furnaces 20–50MW net rated thermal input

  PG1/4(91) gas turbines 20–50MW net rated thermal input

  PG5/1(92) clinical waste incineration processes under 1 tonne an hour

  PG5/3(91) animal carcase incineration processes under 1 tonne an house

  PG5/4(91) general waste incineration processes under I tonne an house

  PG5/5(91) sewage sludge incineration processes under 1 tonne an house

  IPR1/1 combustion processes with an aggregate net rated thermal input of 50MW or more

  IPR1/2 gas turbines with an aggregate net rated thermal input of 50MW or more

  IPR5/1 merchant and in-house chemical waste incineration

  IPR5/2 clinical waste incineration

  IPR5/3 municipal waste incineration

  IPR5/4 animal carcase incineration

  IPR5/11 sewage sludge incineration

  IPR1/2 is under review and I am placing a copy of the latest consultation draft of proposed revisions in the Library. The Secretary of State has directed the chief inspector of HMIP to include in authorisations for new large combustion plant conditions which give effect to the emission limits contained in Council directive 88/609/EEC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.

  Almost all incinerators are controlled under part I of the Environmental Protection Act. The Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991, SI472, as amended, lay down the criteria for determining whether an incinerator falls to integrated pollution control or air pollution control. A waste disposal licence under part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is required for some aspects of an incineration process falling under air pollution control, as provided by the Disposal of Controlled Waste (Exceptions) Regulations 1991, SI 508, and for incinerators exempt from air pollution control. For incinerators not subject to integrated pollution control, any discharges to controlled waters require the consent of the National Rivers Authority under the Water Resources Act 1991.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the substances which are safe for disposal in land.
  967
  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's Waste Management Paper No. 26 gives guidance on the suitability of different types of waste for landfilling. A copy is available in the Library. The Department is currently reviewing policy in this area, taking account of the best practicable environmental option for the disposal of particular waste types, and will be issuing revised guidance in due course.

  Dangerous Materials
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what differences there are between the regulations governing the transport of dangerous and hazardous materials and dangerous and hazardous wastes.

  Mr. Atkins
  The various modal—road, rail, air and sea—regulations referring to the transport of dangerous goods are intended to ensure that dangerous goods are classified, packaged, labelled and transported safely during national and international journeys. Waste products are classified under their appropriate class of dangerous goods as set out in the UN classification system.

  The 1980 special waste regulations provide a national tracking procedure, based on consignment notes, for the movement of the most harmful wastes and are intended to ensure proper disposal. In addition all who handle waste are subject to a statutory duty of care.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of appeals against council tax(a) received, (b) conceded, (c) rejected and (d) outstanding by valuation district since the introduction of the tax.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am placing in the Library a table which sets out, by valuation office region, and by billing authority, the number of proposals to alter the valuation list which were received by the end of the initial appeal period on 30 November 1993, the number settled by 31 January 1994, and the number outstanding. Details of the number of settlements in each area which were reached by agreement and the number of proposals which were withdrawn are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the number of appeals received month by month since April 1993, (b) the total number of appeals allowed, (c) the total number of appeals rejected, (d) the total number of appeals outstanding and (e) the estimated time needed to clear the outstanding appeals in respect of council tax valuations in Doncaster.

  Mr. Baldry
  The numbers of proposals to alter the council tax valuation list received in respect of dwellings in the Doncaster billing authority area in 1993–94 are as follows:

  Number

  April

  1,025

  May

  230

  June

  93

  July

  73

  August

  55

  September

  77

  October

  88

  November

  320

  December

  10

  968

  Number

  January

  20

  1,991

  A total of 517 cases have been resolved by agreement and 87 have been withdrawn. The remaining 1,387 are unresolved. Those which are not settled by agreement or are not withdrawn will need to be decided by the local valuation tribunal.

  As I announced on 11 January, nationally we expect four out of five appeals to be dealt with before the end of 1994 and the remainder to be settled as rapidly as possible thereafter.

  Homelessness (Code of Guidance)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance to local authorities concerning the housing provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, issued as a supplement to the current edition of the homelessness code of guidance for local authorities.

  Sir George Young
  I have placed in the Library of the House today a copy of the supplement to the homelessness code of guidance to local authorities which has been issued by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales under section 71 of the Housing Act 1985. The supplement explains local authorities' responsibilities towards asylum seekers who apply to them for assistance under the homelessness legislation, in the light of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. The supplement also clarifies the duties of local authorities which receive applications under the homelessness legislation from persons who have entered the United Kingdom illegally, following the Court of Appeal's judgment in the case of R v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Copies of the supplement are being sent to all local housing authorities in England and Wales and to the main organisations which responded to last year's consultation about a draft of this supplement.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times, and at which sites, the World Health Organisation one-hour air quality guideline for sulphur dioxide was breached in the United Kingdom in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993; and what evaluation his Department has undertaken of the potential effect of regulations to ban the sale of high sulphur solid fuel and to control the sale of unauthorised fuels in smoke control areas, to reduce levels of sulphur dioxide to meet World Health Organisation one-hour guidelines.

  Mr. Atkins
  The potential effect of regulations to ban the sale of high sulphur solid fuels and to control the sale of unauthorised fuels in smoke control areas has been considered against the statutory air quality standards for smoke and sulphur dioxide under the EC directive 80/779/EEC, and provisions of the Clean Air Act 1993. Since 1990, only one site in the United Kingdom has breached the directive's limit value for sulphur dioxide. Over the same period, exceedances of the lower World
  969
  Health Organisation one-hour guideline, which is a management indicator, not a statutory limit, were as follows:

  Number of hours >122 parts per billion

  Site

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Stevenage

  1

  1

  Central London

  1

  Cromwell Road, London

  26

  15

  16

  8

  Bridge Place, London

  2

  6

  15

  7

  Ladybower, Derbyshire

  7

  12

  12

  Belfast, East

  173

  271

  213

  146

  Bircotes, Nottinghamshire

  27

  15

  Featherstone, W. Yorkshire

  8

  18

  Rugeley, Staffordshire

  28

  34

  Barnsley

  75

  166

  213

  Sunderland

  5

  1

  Bloomsbury, London

  9

  11

  Edinburgh

  4

  Cardiff

  2

  1

  Belfast, Centre

  53

  73

  Birmingham

  5

  6

  Newcastle

  6

  1

  Leeds

  8

  Bristol

  1

  Liverpool

  19

  1Provisional data.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) basic credit approvals, (b) supplementary credit approvals and (c) capital grants for housing, transport, education, personal social services, other services, protective services and urban programmes for each authority and for England for each year from 1990–91 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  Basic credit approvals, supplementary credit approvals and capital grants are issued by a number of Government Departments. The total amounts of credit approvals and capital grants for the various services for local authorities in England are published annually by HM Treasury at the conclusion of each public expenditure survey. Outturn information for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 and the latest plans for 1994–95 will be published at the end of this month in the public expenditure statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95".

  My Department issues basic credit approvals to most local authorities in England and those for 1990–91 to 1994–95 are set out in documents which are available in the Library of the House of Commons. In addition, the Department of Transport issues basic credit approvals to passenger transport authorities and the Home Office to joint fire and civil defence authorities.

  Information about the supplementary credit approvals issued by my Department to individual authorities for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 is also available in the Library.

  Information for individual authorities about supplementary credit approvals issued by other Departments and about capital grants is not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the allocation within Liverpool's standard spending assessment, on a per capita basis, for 970
  children at risk, during the next financial year; what is the allocation for the City of Birmingham; on what basis this formula operates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: The children's personal social service element for 1994–95 for Liverpool is £55 per head of resident population, that for Birmingham is £62. The formula uses a "client-group" approach where the client group is the estimated number of children at risk. Cost adjustments are made to reflect the increased costs associated with social conditions and differences in the costs of provision between areas. The formula for the children's PSS element, along with the formulae for other SSA elements, has been revised in the light of the SSA review. It is set out fully in the local government finance report, approved by the House on 3 February.

  Energy Saving Grants
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Director General of Gas Supply on his views on funding for energy saving grants; and what assessment he has made of whether the reduction or abolition of these grant schemes would affect the Government's environmental target following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have not met the Director-General of Gas Supply, as the funding of energy-saving expenditure through the E factor is a matter for her and British Gas plc. The Government are fully committed to the Energy Saving Trust, and the target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2000.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the criteria by which an individual may be classified as homeless.

  Sir George Young
  The criteria for determining whether a person is homeless for the purposes of part III of the Housing Act 1985 are set out in section 58 of that Act.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total budget of the Southern region of the National Rivers Authority for the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Atkins
  The total budget for the southern region of the National Rivers Authority for the financial year 1993–94 was £45,372,000.

  Housing Expenditure, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total expenditure in Hampshire by the Housing Corporation in the financial year 1993–94.

  Sir George Young
  The Housing Corporation's latest forecast is that in 1993–94 its total expenditure in Hampshire will be £46,990,974.

  Local Government Finance, Essex
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what housing capital receipts are held by each district council in Essex as at 31 March 1993.
  971
  Mr. Baldry
  Information on total usable capital receipts held at 31 March 1993 is given in the tables. No comparable information is available for housing receipts alone, since local authorities are not required to account separately for such receipts.

  £1000

  Basildon

  88

  Braintree

  889

  Brentwood

  582

  Castle Point

  12

  Chelmsford

  15

  Colchester

  2,118

  Epping Forest

  5,749

  Harlow

  1,730

  Maldon

  425

  Rochford

  417

  Southend-on-Sea

  6,425

  Tendring

  2,066

  Thurrock

  nil

  Uttlesford

  1,513

  Source: Local authority returns.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the financial reserves held by each district council in Essex as at 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available information as returned by local authorities is as follows:

  Estimated reserves as at 31 March 1993

  District Council

  (£000s)

  Basildon

  3,101

  Braintree

  3,591

  Brentwood

  6,349

  Castle Point

  -2,693

  Chelmsford

  4,227

  Colchester

  5,925

  Epping Forest

  5,500

  Harlow

  3,476

  Maldon

  1,145

  Rochford

  1,768

  Southend-on-Sea

  11,520

  Tendring

  2,843

  Thurrock

  10,654

  Uttlesford

  1,448

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take concerning his powers to recover from local planning authorities the costs of inspectors he appoints to hold their development plan inquiries.

  Mr. Curry
  The statutory provisions for local plan inquiries were originally introduced by the Town and Country Planning Act 1968. It has always been our practice to charge local planning authorities for the provision of planning inspectors to hold development plan inquiries for them. Questions have recently arisen over the legal basis for this practice. We have considered this issue very carefully, and decided that we should put the matter beyond doubt, by introducing early legislation providing powers for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to recover from local planning authorities the cost of supplying planning inspectors to hold such inquiries. Such legislation would be retrospective in order to validate payments already made and to secure fair treatment of all 972
  local planning authorities, irrespective of the timing of their local plan inquiries. The legislation would extend to Scotland.

  We share the concerns of local authorities about the high level of costs associated with local plan preparation, in which the local plan inquiry is just one stage. We therefore commissioned research to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of development plan inquiries, taking into account the costs involved. We published die executive summary of the research findings and recommendations in November 1993 and invited comments from those likely to have an interest. We will be publishing the final report shortly, together with our own reaction to the recommendations in the report.

  We are anxious to achieve full local plan coverage, as required by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as soon as possible. We therefore look forward to discussing proposals for improving the process with representatives of the local authorities and others, with a view to identifying the best way forward.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: The information requested is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Social Services
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list in rank order those local authorities that have budgeted to spend on social services less than the standard spending assessment for social services during 1993–94, showing their standard spending assessment for social services, their budget figure for spending on social services, the amount of the planned underspend and the percentage that the planned spending is below the standard spending assessment for social services;

  (2) if he will list in rank order those local authorities whose actual spending on social services was less than their standard spending assessment for social services during 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 showing their standard spending assessment for social services, their actual spending on social services, the sum underspent and the percentage that actual spending is below the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: I have placed in the Library tables showing the requested information. It is for each local authority to determine its spending priorities between services in the light of local circumstances.

  Birds of Prey (Protection)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of current legislation protecting British birds of prey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 British birds of

  973
  prey are protected against taking, killing, injuring or removal from the wild in any other way, except under licence. I am satisfied that this legislation is required and appropriate. Many birds of prey, both native and non-native, are also subject to the registration and ringing requirements of section 7 and schedule 4 to the Act if held in captivity. A consultation paper was issued by the Department last April inviting comments on possible changes to these requirements. Consultation on detailed proposals affecting registration and ringing of certain hawks and other species should begin very shortly.

  Equipment Thefts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: During the period 1 April 1991 to the 31 January 1994 there were 85 reported thefts of equipment. The total estimated value of these stolen items was £117,256·24.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on providing in full the information sought by hon. Members in parliamentary questions.

  The Prime Minister
  Except for matters which are confidential or on which successive Governments have refused to answer questions upon grounds of public policy, or when a reply is not given on grounds of disproportionate cost, answers should give the information sought and should be accurate and truthful and not misleading.

  Ministerial Functions (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will transfer the functions of the Home Secretary in Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of all functions of Government whose administration in respect of Wales is vested in Ministers other than the Secretary of State for Wales; which Minister is responsible in each case; and what total amount of public spending is attributable to each of those functions in Wales.

  The Prime Minister
  The responsibilities of each Minister of the Government are set out in the list of "Ministerial Responsibilities", of which all Members have a copy. Where responsibility for matters in Wales does not lie with the Secretary of State for Wales, Ministers in charge of other Departments exercise their responsibilities in respect of England and Wales, or the United Kingdom, as appropriate.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 February.
  974
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 February.

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

  Russia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Russia.

  The Prime Minister
  I visited Russia from 14 to 16 February as part of the regular practice of bilateral summits established by the partnership treaty which President Yeltsin and I signed in 1992. The Foreign Secretary accompanied me.

  In Moscow I had talks with President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, and met a number of other Ministers, including Foreign Minister Kozyrev and Defence Minister Grachev. I talked to a cross-section of the newly elected parliamentarians. I also met British and Russian business men. I visited the city of Nizhny Novgorod, and announced new know-how fund projects.

  President Yeltsin and I signed an agreement on the detargeting of nuclear missiles. We also agreed to hold military exercises, focused on peace-keeping, in the United Kingdom and Russia. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Russian Foreign Minister signed agreements on double taxation and on cultural exchanges.

  President Yeltsin and I agreed that we should build on the partnership between our two countries which is now based on shared democratic values. President Yeltsin has accepted my invitation to visit the United Kingdom this year. I have separately invited Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. I shall be recommending to Her Majesty the Queen that she should take up President Yeltsin's invitation to visit Russia.

  An important purpose of my visit was to give practical and polital support to reform. President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin assured me that economic reform would continue. But they did not underestimate the scale of the task which they face. It was clear that difficult decisions lie ahead.

  I discussed a range of international issues with President Yeltsin, including Bosnia. These discussions underlined how important it is to maintain a close political dialogue with Russia. I told President Yeltsin that I would support closer political consultation between the Group of Seven and Russia.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the citizens charter panel of advisers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The members currently appointed to the citizens charter panel of advisers are Sir James Blyth, chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, Angela Heylin, the Right Hon. the Baroness Perry of Southwark, Dr. Madsen Pine, Nick Rawlings, Christopher Swan and Lady Wilcox.
  975

  Open Government
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the Treasury on the implications of the recent report of the Committee on Public Accounts for open government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government will be responding to the Public Accounts Committee report in due course.

  Duchy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many meetings of(a) the Duchy Council and (b) the Trustees of the Benevolent Fund were held in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave

  Date

  (a)

  1988

  2 meetings (January and May)

  1989

  3 meetings (January, May and October)

  1990

  3 meetings (January, May and October)

  1991

  3 meetings (January, May and October)

  1992

  2 meetings (January and May)

  1993

  3 meetings (February, May and November)

  In addition to formal meetings of the full Council there were additional meetings with individual members of the council

  (b)

  The benevolent fund was constitued as a charity in September 1993 and the trustees have met once since then. Prior to that date advice on donations has been given at council meetings as above.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the venues of meetings of the Duchy Council held since 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Council meets in the Duchy of Lancaster office.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much members of the Duchy Council are paid; and how much each has received for travel and expenses for each year since 1987 or from the date of their appointment, if later.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Members of the Duchy Council receive no remuneration as council members.

  The total paid to council members for expenses incurred in visiting estates or attending meetings since 1987 has been:

  Year

  £

  1988

  1,174

  1989

  573

  1990

  337

  1991

  699

  1992

  1,228

  1993

  649

  Records of individual payments have not been maintained and it would entail disproportionate cost to research these items.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster after what period of time minutes of the meetings of the Duchy Council are made public.
  976
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Minutes of meetings of the Duchy Council are not made public.

  Duchy Affairs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many hours per week he allocates to Duchy affairs.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I spend approximately 5 per cent. of my time on Duchy affairs.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Appeals
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals against decisions of child support officers have been registered by the Independent Tribunal Service; and how many have been heard, broken down by area.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is the responsibility of its chief executive, Ros Hepplewhite. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 17 February 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Paliamentary Questions asking about the number of appeals against Child Support assessments.
  I understand from the Independent Tribunal Service that, to the end of January 1994, a total of 611 appeals had been lodged. Of these, 82 cases had been heard by the Child Support Appeal Tribunal. I attach a breakdown of these figures below:

  Number

  Midlands

  11

  North East

  17

  North West

  8

  Scotland

  14

  South East

  26

  Wales and South West

  6

  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average time taken by the Child Support Agency to perform reviews when the client disagrees with the original child support officer's decision, broken down by area CSAC;

  (2) how many parents with care have applied to the Child Support Agency pursuant to (a)section 4 and (b)section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991;

  (3) of the child maintenance assessments completed to date by the Child Support Agency what proportion are (a)nil or (b)minimum assessments, and what proportion are interim assessments;

  (4) what is the average time being taken by the Child Support Agency to perform reviews of assessments following a change of circumstances broken down by area CSAC.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is the responsibility of its chief executive, Ros Hepplewhite. She will write to the hon. Member.
  977
  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 17 February 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Child Support Agency's operations.
  In the period 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993, the Agency issued 711,000 maintenance application forms. Of these, 686,000 were issued in cases where the parent with care was in receipt of income support, family credit, or disability working allowance, and 25,000 were issued in cases where the parent with care was not receiving benefit.
  In the period from 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993, the Agency completed 121,600 maintenance assessments, of which 41,000 were interim assessments, and 28,800 were nil assessments, or assessments where the absent parent is liable to pay the minimum amount of £2·20.
  You have also asked for a breakdown of the time taken to perform a review where there has been a change of circumstances, and where a client disagrees with the original child support officer's decision. During the first months of the Agency's operations, the volume of work in these areas was relatively low. Although volumes have risen in recent months, it is too early for reliable information to be available.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Child Support Agency not to telephone its clients at work without prior consent.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Paul Channon dated 16 February 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency telephoning clients at work.
  Normally, the Agency will only telephone a client at work without prior consent where there has been no response to written correspondence and all other methods of communication have failed.
  We are very aware of the sensitive nature of our work and I can assure you that staff who deal directly with the public are fully trained and equipped with the necessary skills to handle such calls with sensitivity and tact.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Case Papers
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the practice in the Benefits Agency about destroying case papers; and if he will issue guidance requiring that case papers should not be destroyed while active inquiries into a case are going on.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paul Channon, dated 16 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the practice within the Benefits Agency (BA) for destroying casepapers.
  The BA policy on destruction of documents requires all Incoms Support (IS) cases to be examined at certain times and unnecessary documents to be destroyed. This policy represents an attempt to balance the needs of customers against the administrative expense of keeping all the documents indefinitely. There is no legal basis to the policy as the Agency, like other public bodies, is only legally required to retain samples of cases to conform with the Public Records Act.
  978
  New working methods, particularly computerisation, led to the need to review the Benefits Agency's document retention policy and a study was commissioned to consider the retention and storage of documents; the outcome of this study was to issue new guidance to all BA District Offices at the end of January 1994. This guidance reaffirms that IS casepapers are retained, as before, for a minimum of 18 months after the claim becomes dormant. It also provides clear and specific instructions to staff that casepapers should not be destroyed while active enquiries into the case are ongoing.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the average value of benefit to those in receipt of invalidity benefit in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and Wales.

  Mr.Scott
  On 4 April 1992, the latest date for which information is available, the average weekly amount of invalidity benefit for recipients in Wales was £75·431. Information for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is not available.

  Note:1 Based on a per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of existing recipients of invalidity benefit in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney who will be disqualified under the new capacity test.

  Mr. Scott
  Numbers cannot be reliably estimated at this stage, but our current estimate is that around 200,000 of the people who initially transfer to incapacity benefit from invalidity benefit may fail to satisfy the test within the first two years. This estimate has not been broken down by district.

  Laryngectomy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to recognising those who suffer from laryngectomy as having a disability; if he will assess sufferers' special heating requirements; if he will treat them as disabled people for purposes of VAT heating relief; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The disability living allowance advisory board is currently considering including in the "Disability Handbook" specific guidance on the care and mobility needs of people who have had a laryngectomy. Such people may be entitled to receive any of the wide range of social security benefits, including disability living allowance and attendance allowance, which are available, subject to individual circumstances. Details of the extra help in respect of VAT on domestic fuel were given in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on 30 November 1993 at columns 437–438.

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 Sea Fish Industry Authority.

  Mr. Jack
  The members currently appointed to the Sea Fish Industry Authority are as follows:

  Mr. Eric Davey (Deputy Chairman)

  Mr. Cecil Thomas Finn MBE

  979

  Mr. John Kelly

  Mr. Duncan Maclnnes JP

  Mr. Ian McFadden OBE

  Mr. Andrew Pepper

  Ms Elizabeth Stevenson

  Mr. David Vickers

  Mr. Colin Warwick

  Mr. Frank Ledwidge OBE FCA

  Professor Mike Haines

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Apple and Pear Research Council.

  Mr. Jack
  Members currently appointed to the Apple and Pear Research Council are:

  Professor Sir C. R. W. Spedding, CBE, Chairman

  Mr. A Burbridge

  Mrs. C. Clive

  Professor D. M. Conning, OBE

  Dr. O. Doubleday

  Mr. A. Jackson

  Mr. B. D. Neame, CBE

  Mr. C. Rose

  Mr. N. Stangroom

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal.

  Mr. Jack
  The following were appointed as members of the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal in 1991:

  Lord Grantchester (chairman)

  Sir Michael Kerry (deputy chairman)

  Mrs. J. Bell

  Mr. B. Boot

  Mr. A. D. Drummond

  Mr. J. M. Evans

  Mr. T. M. Evans

  Mr. W. E. Evans

  Mr. R. Harris

  Mr. H. Humphreys-Jones

  Mr. J. Jenkin

  Mr. T. H. Jones

  Mr. J. Lethbridge

  Mr. C. Muddiman

  Mr. J. Nelson

  Mr. P. Phillips

  Mr. J. Richards

  Mr. A. Webb

  Mr. B. Youngman

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the National Food Survey Committee.

  Mr. Jack
  The current membership of National Food Survey Committee is listed in the table:

  Mr. R. E. Mordue

  Dr. W. H. B. Denner

  Dr. P. J. Lund

  Mr. R. U. Redpath

  Dr. J. J. Wiseman

  Dr. J. A. Beaumont

  Dr. C. Bolton-Smith

  Professor A. D. Chesher

  Professor C. Ritson

  Dr. R. G. Whitehead

  Dr. L. Yeomans

  The membership list is published annually in the report "National Food Survey", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Committee on Agricultural Valuation.
  980
  Mr. Jack
  The members of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation are:

  Mr. J. R. Mathias (chairman)

  Mr. C. H. Arkell

  Mr. F. Grounds

  Mr. T. Hammett

  Mr. J. H. Harris

  Mr. H. B. Knight

  Mr. K. R. McDiarmid

  Mr. J. A. Pallister

  Mr. T. W. Sale

  Mr. T. G. Shearman

  Mr. R. V. Stone

  Mr. R. Thomas

  Mr. G. T. Williams

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Board of Horticulture Research International.

  Mr. Jack
  They are:

  Mr. Terry Pryce (chairman)

  Mrs. Valerie Boakes

  Professor Donald Boulter

  Dr. Peter Bunyan

  Professor James Callow

  Professor Timothy Flowers

  Mr. Michael Holmes

  Mr. Anthony Mitchell

  Dr. Richard Pugh

  Miss Sally Smith

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal.

  Mr. Jack
  The current chairmen and members of panels of the plant varieties and seeds tribunal are as follows:

  CHAIRMEN

  England and Wales—Mr. D. E. M. Young QC

  Scotland—Mr. W. C. Galbraith QC

  Northern Ireland—Mr. J. D. McSparran QC

  PANEL MEMBERS

  General Agriculture

  Professor G. R. Dickson

  Mr. C. J. Beynon

  Mr. J. R. Gill

  Dr R. C. F. Macer

  Mrs. S. Ward

  General Horticulture

  Professor G. R. Dixon

  Mr D. J. Fuller

  Professor H. J. Gooding

  Apples and Pears

  Mr. B. F. Self

  Cereals

  Professor D. Gareth Jones

  Professor J. C. Holmes

  Dr. R. T. Plumb

  Chrysanthemums

  Dr. K. E. Cockshull

  Forest Seeds

  Mr. A. T. Wood

  Forestry

  Dr. P. S. Savill

  French Beans

  Dr. J. Smartt
  981
  Fruit

  Mr. B. F. Self

  Dr. C. J. Wright

  Glasshouse Crops

  Dr. J. G Atherton

  Mr. D. J. Harrison

  Grasses and Legumes

  Dr. J. S Brockman

  Dr. D. Wilman

  Professor D. Wilson

  Narcissus

  Dr. A. R. Rees

  Peas

  Dr. P. D. Hebblethwaite

  Mrs. C. M. Knott

  Potatoes

  Mr. P. M. Harris

  Dr. P. D. Jenkins

  Mr. P. H. Lamin

  Roses

  Mr. J. A. Steele

  Seed Industry

  Mr. N. Bark

  Mr. D. F. R. George

  Dr. P. R. Dawson

  Mr. C. R. Alderton

  Dr. R. M. Eckersall

  Trees. Shrubs and Ornamentals

  Dr. P. G. Alderson

  Mr. J. Fraser

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to each of the regional panels.

  Mr. Jack
  The present members of the Department's nine regional panels are as follows:

  ANGLIA REGION

  Chairman

  Mr. J. Wallace

  Members

  Mr. P. Allenson

  Mr. D. Barker

  Mr. A. Bowes

  Miss C. Chivers

  Mrs. W. Long

  Miss M. Macrae

  Mr. D. Moore

  Mr. R. Paynter

  Mr. J. Shropshire

  Mrs. M. Skinner

  Mr. M. Thomasin-Foster

  Mr. R. Torrance

  EAST MIDLANDS REGION

  Chairman

  Mr. W. S. Hemington

  Members

  Mr. P. Atkinson

  Mr. R. Bealby

  Mrs. P. Broadhurst

  Dr. J. Carmichael

  Hon. D. Legh

  Mr. C. Matts

  Dr. J. Owen

  Mrs. P. Perkins

  Mr. R. Southgate

  Mr. J. Taylor

  Mr. R. Thomas

  Mr. R. Watts

  982
  NORTH EAST REGION

  Chairman

  Mr. P. Coverdale

  Members

  Mr. D. Avery

  Mrs.J. Bell

  Mrs. B. Binns

  Mr. T. Bromfield

  Mr. J. Cooke

  Mrs. A. Cowan

  Mr. D. Howard

  Mr. J. Howard

  Mr. M. Pollard

  Mr. J. Stephenson

  Professor R. Ward

  Mr. S. Wharton

  NORTHERN REGION

  Chairman

  Mr. A. Jackson

  Members

  Mr. J. Carr

  Mr. R. Grove-White

  Mr. J. Howson

  Mr. P. Lansdale

  Miss C. Ridley

  Mr. A. Sanderson

  Dr. R. Smith

  Mrs. M. Storer

  Mr. A. Walling

  Mr. A. Wannop

  Mr. A. Watson

  Mr. B. Webster

  Mr. G. Wilson

  NORTH MERCIA REGION

  Chairman

  Mrs. A. Williams

  Members

  Mr. A. Ayres

  Mr. B. Boot

  Mr. T. Bulmer

  Mr. J. Frost

  Mr. P. Gray

  Mr. F. Gribble

  Mr. J. Hunter

  Mr. N. Moore

  Mr. T. Prince

  Mr. D. Roberts

  Mr. W. Snelson

  SOUTH EAST REGION

  Chairman

  Mr. D. Browning

  Members

  Mr. C. Boswell

  Mr. D. Brazier

  Mr. G. Butler

  Mr. J. Jenkinson

  Mr. R. Jones

  Mr. P. Lowater

  Mr. M. Lowry

  Mr. D. Monnington

  Mr. H. Oliver-Bellasis

  Mr. A. Redsell

  Hon. L. Sandys

  Dr. P. Sharma

  Mrs. E. Stanton

  SOUTH MERCIA REGION

  Chairman

  Mr. D. Harper

  Members

  Mr. C. Briscoe

  983

  Mrs. J. Goodman

  Mr. C. Harvey

  Dr. D. Lambton

  Mr. R. Law

  Mr. J. Marsden

  Mrs. E. Morgan

  Mr. G. Revill

  Mr. D. Smith

  Mr. R. Vines

  Mr. A. Webb

  SOUTH WEST REGION

  Chairman

  Mr. P. Lethbridge

  Members

  Mrs. R. Berry

  Mrs. G. Cobley

  Mr. R. Hanbury-Tenison

  Mr. D. Hills

  Mr. R. Holland

  Mrs. M. Horrell

  Mr. J. Jordan

  Mrs. D. Lavery

  Mr. A. May

  Mrs. A. Petch

  Mr. V. Turton

  Mr. J. Whetman

  WESSEX REGION

  Chairman

  Mr. R. Lawton

  Members

  Mrs. J. Banks

  Mr. R. Bernays

  Ms H. Browning

  Mr. E. Cameron

  Mrs. L. Cook

  Mr. P. Feilden

  Mr. J. Hughes

  Mr. R. Martin

  Mrs. A. Streatfield

  Mr. G. Trehane

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.

  Mr. Soames
  The membership of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes is listed in the table:

  Professor Derek Burke, CBE, BSc, PhD, HonLLD (Chairman)

  Professor G. E. Adams, BSc, PhD, DSc, FACR

  Professor A. T. Atkinson, BSc, PhD

  Dr. A. C. Baird-Parker, OBE, BSc, PhD

  Professor E. Cocking, BSc, PhD, DSc, FIBiol, FRS

  Professor H. M. Dick, MD, FIBiol, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE

  Dr. Michael J. Gasson, PSc, PhD

  Professor W. P. T. James, MA, MD, DSc, FRCP, FRCP (Edin), FRSE

  Professor V. Marks, DM, FRCP, FRCPath

  Mrs. H. Millar, MA, FRSA

  Professor B. E. Moseley, MSc, PhD

  Rev. J. Polkinghorne, MA, PhD, ScD, FRS

  Professor P. Richmond, BSc, PhD, DSc, CPhys, FInstP

  Dr. P. J. Rodgers, MA, DPhil

  Professor J. E. Smith, BSc, MSc, PhD, DSc, FIBiol, FRSE

  Professor D. A. T. Southgate, BSc, PhD, MIBiol

  Professor R. Walker, BSc, PhD, FRSD, CChem, FIFST

  Professor H. F. Woods, BSc, BM, BCh, MRCP, DPhil, FFPM, FRCP

  Hens
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the grants made available for the 25 projects currently receiving funding from her 984
  Department in order to carry out research into the welfare problems associated with laying hens in intensive systems, naming the project and giving the amount of funding for each; what grants have been awarded to Horizon Farms by her Department over the last five years; and what was the size of each grant.

  Mr. Soames
  Projects funded by this Department and of relevance to laying hens in intensive systems address the following topics:

  Subject

  1993–94 costs

  £000

  Effects of handling methods, production systems and nutrition on bone strength and bird damage in laying hens

  197

  Effects of battery cage design on bird condition, feather loss and bone damage

  195

  Welfare aspects of current husbandry practices for caged hens

  17

  Bird welfare in non-cage systems

  233

  The principles underlying motivation, cognition and learning in poultry

  46

  The application of motivation, cognitive and learning principles to behavioural and environmental questions relating to poultry

  84

  Improvement of welfare in poultry husbandry systems, housing and transport by understanding environmental and behavioural interactions

  138

  Electrophysiological, neuro-anatomical and behavioural studies into the perception of pain, injury and stress by poultry

  177

  The physiological principles causing the elicitation, assessment and reduction of fear and distress in poultry

  104

  Causation and consequences of stress related behaviours in poultry

  126

  Skeletal integrity in laying hens

  100

  The preslaughter transportation of poultry by road

  66

  Avian welfare during handling

  31

  Depopulation of laying hens

  36

  Survey of broken bones in end of lay battery hens

  35

  Depopulation of alternative laying systems

  37

  Trauma in end of lay hens

  27

  Destructive pecking and cannibalism in laying hens

  29

  Behavioural assessment of hens in improved battery cages

  18

  Causes of broken bones and trauma in end of lay hens

  18

  Mechanised handling of laying hens

  96

  Hen injury in alternative egg laying systems

  16

  In the last five years Horizon Farms has received only one grant from this Department. In November 1993 it was awarded £298,750 by the EC Commission under EC regulation 866/90 together with £59,750 from this Department towards the cost of a new egg grading and packing plant near Corby

  Agricultural Assistance
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list her Department's current proposals for the assistance of British agriculture in the next 12 months.

  Mr. Jack
  British agriculture is supported by the mechanisms of the common agricultural policy. In the forthcoming negotiations to set CAP prices for 1994–95, my right hon. Friend will press for a settlement which takes full account of British farmers' interests.

  British farming will in addition continue to benefit from the wide range of Ministry grant and subsidy schemes and

  985
  from schemes to encourage effective marketing of agricultural products, as well as from our continuing drive to remove unnecessary regulation. Information on all these departmental activities is available in the House Library.

  Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statistics she has showing net investment from retained income categorised by farm business size for(a) 1981–82 and (b) 1991–92; and what other data are published by her Ministry relating investment to farm business size.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on net investment in agricultural assets is collected annually from a sample of farms in the farm business survey. The net investment, including both investment from retained profits and new funds introduced, is shown as the difference between cash income and cash flow from the farming business. Estimates of these measures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are published by type and economic size of farm in appendix 1 of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1991–92". The following table shows the averages for 1991–92 by farm business size group. Figures for 1981–82 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Estimated Average Net investment (1) (£'000 per farm)

  Farm size group

  Average of all types of farm

  Small

  4·2

  Medium

  9·7

  Large

  27·6

  (1) Net investment represents investment net of sales of assets using both retained profits and funds introduced from outside the farming business.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has relating farm size to participation in environmental schemes operated by her Ministry.

  Mr. Jack
  Farms of a wide range of sizes participate in our environmental schemes. For example, the average size of farms participating in those environmentally sensitive area schemes in which we require the whole farm to be entered into agreement currently ranges from 33 hectares in West Penwith to 487 hectares in the North Peak. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to the environmentally sensitive area reports of monitoring 1991 and 1992, available in the Library of the House.

  Poultry
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on relative welfare standards for poultry in the United Kingdom and eastern Europe.

  Mr. Soames
  No information is available on welfare standards for poultry in eastern Europe. However, Slovenia has become a contracting party to the Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, which contains general principles for safeguarding the welfare of such animals. Other eastern European countries may attend the meetings of the standing committee set up under the convention but have yet to become contracting parties to the convention.
  986

  Nuclear Waste (Dumping at Sea)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 494, whether Her Majesty's Government have yet reached a decision on whether to accept the recent London convention decision to introduce a permanent ban on the disposal of radioactive waste at sea; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  The United Kingdom will accept the formal ban on dumping low and intermediate-level radioactive waste at sea, which was adopted at the consultative meeting of the London convention in November 1993. We are already committed to a moratorium on sea dumping until 2008 under the OSPAR convention, and we have not carried out any dumping since 1983.

  The United Kingdom's firm view is that decisions on disposal of waste should be taken on scientific and economic grounds. At the meeting of the London convention, the UK therefore argued against an indefinite ban, in view of the scientific and economic arguments in favour of sea dumping for certain categories of radioactive waste.

  The scientific evidence shows that dumping at sea, carried out under controlled conditions, causes no harm to the marine environment and poses no threat to human health. This has been confirmed by careful monitoring over many years and studies have shown it to be the best practicable environmental option for the disposal of certain types of radioactive waste.

  Nevertheless, the United Kingdom recognises that the weight of international opinion on this matter means that such dumping is not, in any event, a practical proposition. We have, therefore, decided to accept the ban.

  We shall continue our own programmes of monitoring and research, and will contribute actively to the scientific re-evaluation to be carried out under the convention after 25 years. The United Kingdom will be ready to reopen discussions in the convention at any time should the weight of opinion change in favour of accepting the scientific conclusions.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in changing the Milk Marketing Board into Milk Marque; and when a decision is expected.

  Mr. Jack
  The Milk Marketing Board submitted amendments to its reorganisation scheme on 9 February. We shall be issuing a further consultation document as soon as we are in a position to do so. If the reorganisation scheme were to be approved the existing milk marketing scheme would come to an end on 1 November 1994.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to make a decision on the schemes of reorganisation for the Milk Marketing Board; what are the outstanding issues relating to the scheme of reorganisation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry issued a press release on 24 January which set out the position reached in discussions on the Milk Marketing Board's reorganisation scheme. On
  987
  9 February the MMB submitted amendments to its scheme, on the basis of which the Ministry and the Welsh Office are preparing a further consultation document. It will be necessary to allow interested organisations a period of four weeks in which to respond, following which my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales will consider the board's application having regard to all the circumstances, as required under the provisions of the Agriculture Act 1993. The timing of their eventual decision cannot be predicted with certainty but is unlikely to be before the end of April.

  Kew Gardens
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many living and preserved plant collections at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, are currently fully documented on computer; and when is the planned completion date for the capture of data from existing holdings of preserved plants.

  Mr. Gillian Shephard
  The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew estimates that some 200,000 of its living and preserved plant accessions are now documented on computer. There is currently no overall project or completion date for computerising information from its vast numbers of preserved plant specimens but emphasis is placed on the parts of the collection where active collaborative research programmes are being undertaken.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Residential Nursing Care
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the financial interests of families whose elderly relatives have moved into residential nursing care.

  Mr. Ancram
  The only representation my noble Friend has received about this matter concerned the disposal of a small farmholding by a family to meet the nursing home costs of an elderly father.

  Security
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in the Province.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were charged with terrorist-related offences in Northern Ireland last year.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Since I answered a similar question on 20 January 1994 there have been three deaths, all of civilians, as a result of terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland. In addition, there have been 27 separate shooting attacks and 28 bombings and mortar attacks, all of which were intended to kill or maim, and many of which have resulted in horrific injuries to both civilians and security forces.

  I resolutely condemn violence from whichever source it comes, whether from so-called loyalists or the provisional IRA. I can assure the House that the security forces will
  988
  continue to pursue those responsible for these atrocities with unrelenting determination. Evidence of their continuing success is the fact that over 50 people have been charged already this year with terrorist-type offences. In 1993, 368 people were charged with serious terrorist offences, 196 firearms and 60 rocket or mortar launchers were recovered, some 6,561 kg of explosives were neutralised and 3,944 kg of unprimed explosives were also found.

  Investment
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the level of future investment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  In the course of my duties I receive representations from many parties within and outside Northern Ireland on the subject of future investment in the Province. They include Members of this House, local elected representatives, trade and industry associations, trade unions, voluntary and charitable institutions, professional and technical consultants and academics.

  Joint Declaration
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about developments in security acceptance of the British-Irish joint declaration.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress on the Downing street declaration.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Neath (Mr. Hain).

  Inter-party Talks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent meetings that have been held with representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland and on his new framework of ideas for a polital settlement.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent meetings that have been held with representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland and on discussions he has had with the Irish Government.

  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the talks he has had with the parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government relating to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make proposals for political development.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards the resumption of constitutional talks and his most recent discussions with the Northern Ireland parties and the Government of the Republic of Ireland on this process.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche).
  989
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects his political initiative on Northern Ireland's future to lead to further negotiations.

  Mr. Ancram
  The talks process has been continuing in recent months in the form of bilateral discussions with three of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and discussions with the Irish Government. My right hon. and learned Friend is meeting the leaders of the three parties concerned and discussing ideas with them for giving direction to further bilateral discussions, across all three strands. Contacts will therefore continue, in the form of bilateral meetings, for the immediate future. Our objective is to return to multilateral talks covering all three key sets of relationships and involving the two Governments and the four main constitutional parties.

  Electoral System
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last had discussions with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland to discuss changes to the electoral system.

  Mr. Ancram
  My predecessor, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), met the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland on 3 February last year. After that meeting my hon. Friend wrote to Northern Ireland's main political parties concerning electoral matters which had been raised at the meetings on 15 December 1992 and 5 January 1993 with the parties.

  Owner-occupation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the level of owner-occupation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr.Tim Smith
  By the end of December 1992 the total number of owner-occupied properties was 363,500 or 66 per cent. of total occupied stock. Nearly 57,000 owner-occupiers have bought their houses from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive under its sales scheme while a further 12,400 have entered home-ownership through the co-ownership scheme operated by the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association.

  Health Care
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to discuss with representatives of the health service in Northern Ireland matters relating to the organisation of health care.

  Mr. Ancram
  My noble Friend Baroness Denton is taking forward a review of the way in which the Government's new purchasing arrangements for health and personnel social services are carried out in Northern Ireland. This review should be completed by the end of May 1994.

  As part of the review there is consultation with a wide range of health and social services representatives.

  Cross-border Co-operation
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.
  990
  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he intends to take to provide an alternative to a prison sentence for fine defaulters in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have already announced my intention to introduce legislation to reinforce the requirement on courts to ascertain and take account of offenders' means when imposing fines. I believe that this will help to reduce the extent of fine default in Northern Ireland.

  I am also looking at measures to reduce the use of imprisonment when fine default does occur. Various alternatives are under consideration, but I shall wish to be satisfied that they are likely to prove both practical and cost-effective.

  It remains the Government's view, however, that it is necessary for imprisonment to be retained as the ultimate sanction for fine default.

  Peace Representations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the future prospects of peace in Northern Ireland from residents of Great Britain.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government continue to receive a great number of letters and a number of petitions from individuals interested in the prospects for peace in Northern Ireland. In the period since the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach signed their joint declaration on 15 December last year, my right hon. and learned Friend and the Prime Minister have received almost 700 letters from residents of Great Britain on this issue. The vast majority of this correspondence expresses a heartfelt desire for peace in Northern Ireland, and a hope that the joint declaration can pave the way for that peace.

  Devolved Government
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on devolved government and a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Government hope that the political talks involving the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the two Governments will continue. Issues such as devolved government for Northern Ireland, and a Bill of Rights, fall within the remit of those talks described in my predecessor's statement of 26 March 1991.

  Intergovernmental Council
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the next meeting of the intergovernmental council is to be held; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  There are no plans at present to hold a meeting at ministerial level under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental council, although a working group of officials dealing with education and culture is due to meet before the summer.
  991

  Health and Social Services
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to each of the health and social services boards.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of each of the four health and social services boards are as follows:

  EASTERN HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD

  Chairman:

  N. G. D. Ferguson

  Non-executive members:

  J. C. Morton

  D. J. McGuiness

  Mrs. G. M. Loughran

  Professor R. W. Stout

  P. J. McLachlan

  one vacancy

  Executive members:

  P.Kinder—Chief Executive

  Miss A. Paisley—Director of Finance

  Ms A. Lynch—Director of Planning

  E. McCullough—Director of Operations

  R. Moore—Director of Social Services

  Vacant—Director of Public Health

  NORTHERN HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD

  Chairman:

  R. J. Hanna

  Non-Executive members:

  Lady J. Brett

  D. J. Clement

  J. D. McMullan

  M. A O'Connor

  Mrs. N. P. O'Loan

  Mrs. A. V. Smyth

  Executive members:

  D. D. Smyth—General Manager

  Miss S. Irwin—Director of Social Services

  Dr. J. D. Watson—Director of Public Health

  A. Hamilton—Director of Finance

  Miss E. McNair—Director of Quality Assurance and Nursing Services

  S. MacDonnell—Director of Planning and Information

  SOUTHERN HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD

  Chairman:

  J. D. Thompson

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mrs. G. Donaghy

  W. F. Gillespie

  Mrs. J. Power

  A. J. Quinn

  J. Ryan

  S. R. P. Wright

  Executive Members:

  Dr. P. Kilbane—Chief Executive

  R. Blair—Director of Social Services

  B. P. Cunningham—Director of Finance and Information

  M. Doris—Director of Planning

  Dr. A. M. Telford—Director of Public Health

  F. A. Rice—Director of Human Resources and Nursing

  WESTERN HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD

  Chairman:

  R. G. Toland

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mrs. M. R. Cooper

  W. S. Donaghy

  A. Jackson

  P. J. Kelly

  Mrs. C. R. Lavery

  Mrs. A. F. Mark

  992
  Executive Members:

  T. J. Frawley—General Manager

  Dr. D. Burke—Director of Social Care

  S. Cuddy—Director of Finance and Information

  Dr. W. McConnell—Director of Public Health (Acting Director of Health Care)

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  Ministers of State at the Northern Ireland made nine visits abroad at a total cost of just under £27,900.

  The visits were:

  (a) Mr. Mates

  Meeting with EC Commissioner in Brussels.

  An Intergovernmental Conference meeting in Dublin with other Ministers.

  (b) Sir John Wheeler

  Meeting in Dublin.

  (c) Mr. Atkins

  A transport and air exhibition in Hamburg.

  A rugby international in Dublin.

  A North South environmental and housing conference in Dublin.

  Le Bourget air show in Paris.

  Anuga Food Festival in Cologne.

  A cross border trade conference in Dublin.

  Driver Safety
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the review into new driver safety will be extended to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  I welcome the Secretary of State for Transport's proposals for ensuring the safety of newly qualified drivers. These proposals are already being considered by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland in consultation with the Department of Transport with a view to their possible introduction in Northern Ireland.

  Cars (Anti-theft Devices)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will launch a public awareness campaign in order to encourage motorists to fit anti-theft devices to their vehicles.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government have taken a number of initiatives against car crime in Northern Ireland in recent years.

  In 1991 the Northern Ireland Office launched a crime prevention campaign titled "Stopping Crime Starts With You". A key part of the campaign was the distribution of a free handbook providing advice on, inter alia, how to safeguard motor vehicles.

  The Northern Ireland Office has also recently given its support to a new car-crime initiative in Northern Ireland known as "Sold Secure—The Partnership Against Car Theft", which I was pleased to help launch at the Northern Ireland motor show on 14 February. The initiative offers motorists an opportunity to obtain advice on a range of car

  993
  security products which have been tested against strict criteria. The initiative is supported by the RUC and the local motor retail industry. A free leaflet is available of participating retailers.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on religious education in Northern Ireland schools.

  Mr. Ancram
  All schools are required to provide religious education for all pupils of compulsory school age. In schools under the control of the education and library boards, such education must be undenominational and based on the holy scriptures. In voluntary schools religious education is under the control of the school managers. A compulsory core syllabus, entirely Christian in content, has been approved by all the main churches in Northern Ireland and is being introduced into all grant-aided schools on a phased basis.

  Emergency Provisions
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements he has made to review the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Mr. John Rowe QC has accepted my invitation to prepare a report on the operation in 1993 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. As with previous reviews, the intention is that the report should enable both Houses of Parliament to discharge effectively their responsibility to scrutinise the operation of the Act on the occasion of the annual debates on the Continuance Order, and to determine whether any of the Acts temporary provisions could be allowed to lapse on 15 June 1994.

  I have asked Mr. Rowe to submit his report in sufficient time to facilitate the Houses' consideration of the Act.

  Paramilitaries
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many loyalist paramilitaries have been apprehended in each of the last three years;

  (2) how many republican paramilitaries have been apprehended in each of the last three years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of persons arrested in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is as follows:

  Number

  1991

  1,788

  1992

  1,846

  1993

  11,671

  1 Figures for arrests under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)Act are only available up to 30 June 1993

  Information on how many of these individuals were members of loyalist or republican groups is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of persons thought to be members of loyalist or republican groups who were charged with terrorist offences during each of these years is as follows:
  994

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Loyalist

  152

  191

  230

  Republican

  239

  214

  137

  Note:

  Statistics on charges are kept according to the most serious offence with which an individual has been charged.

  It the same individual is arrested or charged on more than one occasion, he/she will be added to the statistics each time.

TRANSPORT

  Bicycle Loan Scheme
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the introduction by his department of a bicycle loans scheme for the central Department.

  Mr. Key
  Advances of salary towards the purchase of bicycles were made available in the central department on 4 January 1994. Advances, to a maximum of £350, are available to all permanent staff with over two months' service. The bicycle must be used during the journey between home and office. Advances are also available to staff in all our agencies.

  44-tonne Lorries
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safeguards he is introducing to ensure that lorries of 44 gross tonnes are travelling to or from rail heads when in commercial use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The higher weight limit will apply only to vehicles carrying containers or swap-bodies—loading units—to or from railheads in combined road/rail operations. No conventional road vehicles will be able to operate legitimately at 44 tonnes. In order to operate at 44 tonnes, documentary evidence will have to be carried in the vehicle to show that the loading unit has travelled, or is destined for travel, by rail.

DEFENCE

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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 the Ministry of Defence and his agencies(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. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Steam Ships
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of marine engineering artificers currently serving in the Royal Navy are qualified to operate(a) gas turbine and (b) steam propulsion; how many steam ships are in service in the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement.
  995
  Mr. Hanley
  Records readily available do not show the proportion of marine engineering artificers qualified to operate gas turbine or steam propulsion systems. Records of general service marine engineering artificers serving on the trained strength in the surface fleet, however, show that 44 per cent. are qualified to operate gas turbine machinery and 26 per cent. are qualified to operate steam main propulsion machinery. Those qualified to operate steam main propulsion machinery would require further training to qualify them to operate gas turbine machinery. The Royal Navy currently operates four steam-propelled surface ships.

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Approximate cost £

  February 5–7

  Bosnia

  To visit British Forces

  6,820

  April 5–9

  Slovakia, Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria Bilaterals

  10,128

  May

  13–15

  Germany

  To visit British Forces

  4,647

  19

  Rome

  WEU Ministerial Meeting

  869

  July

  26

  Luxembourg

  WEU Ministerial Meeting

  1,727

  28–30

  Germany

  To visit British Forces

  3,910

  September

  13–16

  Italy, Bosnia and Croatia

  To visit British Forces

  7,283

  20–29

  Belize

  Visit British Forces and meet Prime Minister and members of Belizean government

  5,417

  Visit West Indies Guard ship on deployment and discussions with US

  US/Florida

  officials

  US/Washington

  Meetings with members of US administration

  October

  12–14

  Hungary

  Bilaterals

  5,625

  November

  15–18

  Gibraltar

  To visit British Forces and meet Chief Minister

  Cyprus

  Visit British Forces

  Sardinia

  RAF Briefing

  15,098

  Note:

  Figures are based on the cost of the Royal Air Force and civil flights involved. Accommodation is normally provided free by Her Majesty's ambassador or high commissioner, or other Government representative, or by the host Government.

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

  Overseas visits made by Minister (DP) in 1993

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Approximate cost £

  5–12 January 1993

  Kuwait Saudi Arabia

  17,850

  12–15 February 1993

  Abu Dhabi

  2,400

  17–19 February 1993

  Germany

  Anglo/German Seminar

  5,150

  5 Apr 1993

  Germany

  1,500

  28 Jun 1993

  Netherlands

  1,450

  16 September 1993

  Poland

  Representing HMG at reinterment of General Sikorski

  See note 3

  8 October 1993

  Kuwait

  3,150

  6–7 November 1993

  Dubai

  2,600

  18 November 1993

  Germany

  2,450

  996

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

  Mr. Hanley
  During 1993, my predecessor—until 27 May—and subsequently I undertook 10 official overseas visits. The cost and purpose of each were as follows:

  Mr. Aitken
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has made 11 official visits abroad in 1993. The cost to public funds and the purpose of each visit were as follows:
  997

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Approximate cost £

  15–17 December 1993

  Saudi Arabia

  3,150

  20–22 December 1993

  Bosnia

  Visit to British Troops in Bosnia

  8,950

  Note:

  1 The purpose of these visits unless otherwise stated was to promote defence exports or to discuss defence procurement issues.

  2 Figures are based on the cost of the Royal Air Force and/or civil flights involved. Accommodation normally provided by HM ambassador or high commissioner, or other Government representative, or by host t

  3 Accompanying HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. Negligible additional cost to public funds.

  Radioactive Samples
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when radioactive samples have been sent by scheduled airline flights after British nuclear tests since 1964; if he will list the number of occasions and by what carriers such samples were sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Air transport of radioactive materials by scheduled carrier is a routine practice, conducted under the well-established international regulations of the International Air Transport Association. Since 1964, there have been 21 occasions when radioactive samples were sent by scheduled British airline flights after British nuclear tests in the United States of America. On each occasion the samples were accompanied by staff from the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in the future of Ferranti; and when he now expects this to be resolved.

  Mr. Aitken
  Officials of my Department continue to have regular meetings with the receivers of Ferranti International to discuss our current and future business with the company.

  I understand that the receivers have been having discussions with prospective purchasers of all or parts of the company. Which bid or bids to accept will be a matter for the receivers. Bids will then be considered under competition legislation, and my Department will be consulted in the normal way. I am unable to say how long this process may take, but I naturally hope that a satisfactory outcome will be achieved without undue delay.

  Britannia Naval College (Dogs)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the dogs kept at Britannia naval college, Dartmouth, are used for purposes other than security; and what are the number for each of those purposes.

  Mr. Hanley
  All dogs owned by my Department at Britannia royal naval college are used for security purposes only. A number of privately owned dogs are, however, separately accommodated at the college at no cost to public funds.

  GEC-Malaysia
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions Tan Sri Arumugam, joint managing director, GEC-Malaysia has visited his Department in the past three years; and if he will list the occasions.
  998
  Mr. Aitken
  Mr. Arumugam has visited my Department on three occasions over the past three years, twice in 1992 and once in 1993.

  Malaysia (Bank Loans)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what compensation has been offered to United Kingdom banks which provided the Malaysian Government with loans at concessionary rates under the terms of the memorandum of understanding of 27 September 1988.

  Mr. Aitken
  All defence purchases by Malaysia under the 1988 MOU have been made on a cash basis. The need for finance at concessionary interest rates has not arisen.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to complete his review of the Reserve Forces Act 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will shortly be writing to hon. Members concerning the responses received during the consultation period, but we are unlikely to be in a position to announce final proposals until later in the year.

  Minesweeping Awards
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will define the criterion for the award of the minesweeping 1945–51 clasp to the naval general service medal—1915–62; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The criterion for the award of the minesweeping 1945–51 clasp to the naval general service medal—NGSM—was defined in 1952 as "for minesweeping service afloat" in a number of qualifying areas between 3 September 1945 and a variety of terminal dates appropriate to the areas. The time qualification was defined as being six months—180 days. Time spent in home, Atlantic and Mediterranean waters between 9 May 1945 and 2 September 1945 could also be counted towards the qualifying period of six months.

  The transfer of the Royal Navy's medal issuing task from Bath to Gosport in the 1970s appears to have resulted in the loss of records associated with the criterion for the issue of this clasp to the NGSM. Consequently, a new interpretation evolved, possibly based on the stricter criterion for the award of the bomb and mine clearance clasp to the NGSM for service ashore which was authorised at the same time as the minesweeping clasp: it became the practice to issue the minesweeping clasp only to claimants who could be proved to have carried out 180 days of actual minesweeping and, although it was in some cases possible to determine eligibility by reference to payment of minesweeping allowance, this did not cover minesweeping activities in far eastern waters.
  999
  The interpretation of the criterion used in recent years has been challenged by disappointed minesweeping veterans and a comprehensive investigation into their complaints has therefore been undertaken. It has proved impossible to establish how the criterion came to be redefined as requiring 180 days of actual minesweeping and it has now been decided to revert to the original 1952 criterion of six months—180 days—of minesweeping service afloat in the prescribed qualifying areas between
  1000
  the appropriate dates. Minesweeping service afloat is taken to mean service, in any capacity, aboard a vessel commissioned for mine counter-measure duties.

  Any naval minesweeping veteran who has not previously received this award but believes he is eligible should write to the Ministry of Defence, HMS Centurion—NPP(Acs)—Grange road, Gosport, Hants., P013 9X A. Awards will also be issued posthumously, once eligibility is confirmed, in response to applications from next of kin.

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

Overseas Aid Programme
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now the proportion of the aid budget devoted to the aid and trade provision.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, in this financial year £110 million—some 6 per cent. of the gross aid programme—is allocated to the aid and trade provision. On present estimates we expect to spend about £90 million on the ATP. The difference will be used elsewhere in the aid programme.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister stand by the criteria of degree of poverty, sound development, good government and human rights as the basis of all the aid programme? How then have Indonesia, Malaysia and China been leading beneficiaries of ATP? How can that be reconciled with one-third of the population of East Timor having been massacred? What specific action is the Minister taking to ensure that in future all assistance under the ATP as originally envisaged has to be justifiable in sound developmental terms?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, indeed the elements and objectives of the aid programme, as I set them out again last October in a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, stand. We have revised the ATP programme and the level above which ATP will not apply is the 700 dollar GNP per capita threshold. We intend to keep to that threshold. That revision was arrived at over the past few years. We are quite certain that it is the right way to help British industry. I believe that the noble Lord was a Foreign Office Minister when his government introduced the ATP scheme in 1977. I wonder whether he means that in the unlikely event of his party forming the next Administration, that aid instrument, which has created thousands of jobs throughout the land, will be wound up. If so, he is letting down British industry and British jobs.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the question now being asked is whether perhaps the ATP should be administered by the DTI?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am convinced that the ATP programme has a real part to play in answering developmental needs. That is why the threshold for ATP is down to 700 dollars GNP per head.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the very high regard in which the Minister is held in this House, is it not sad that she should have to justify the deal with
284
Malaysia which, as documents have shown, quite clearly linked an aid programme and a series of arms deals? Was not the arrangement reached behind her back and presumably without consultation with her? Could she say by what criteria Malaysia is now entitled to receive aid from our very small programme which, as she has often said, puts emphasis on the poorest countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord would know that on the criteria of the 700 dollar threshold, which I mentioned a few moments ago, Malaysia is no longer eligible for ATP for new projects. When a decision is made by a government, we all stand by the decision of that government.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be so good as to answer the question put to her by my noble friend Lord Redesdale?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I had. sought to answer the noble Lord's question.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many in this House who have admired her efforts in this field, and who have stood solidly behind her in regard to the integrity with which the programme has hitherto been carried out, are very disappointed that it should now have become quite clearly contaminated by considerations that are completely aside from the purposes for which the whole scheme was originally devised?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is jumping to conclusions. The ATP has been a successful scheme since it was introduced in 1977. I wonder whether your Lordships realise that it has won for this country some £3.9 billion of British exports at a cost of £1.4 billion. That represents business won since 1978, covering more than 270 projects and over 140 lead contractors, not including any of their sub-contractors, in 50 countries worldwide. The Opposition sometimes want to have it both ways.
Lord Judd: My Lords, certainly there is a place for a responsible ATP in aid policy, but not an ATP which is undermining development. Whatever the shenanigans in Downing Street and Whitehall on Pergau and the rest, can the Minister now give an assurance that in future every single penny of the aid programme will be devoted to the fight against poverty, the cause of human rights and improving the lot of people living in the third world? Will she further assure the House that she will never again allow herself to be trampled on and pushed to one side by people whose objectives have nothing whatsoever to do with the aid programme?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, out of the total aid budget more than 80 per cent. is spent on poverty alleviation. It was decided by a Labour Government in 1977 that there was room for an aid and trade provision so that British firms could compete on equal terms with their major competitors to whom those contracts would go, instead of to British workers, if Britain did not have something similar. In 1977 we did

285
not dissent. I have already made it quite clear that in the ATP review we set a threshold of 700 dollars. That threshold now means that some countries which previously could get ATP will no longer be able to do so. I am absolutely adamant that the objectives that we have set for the aid programme will be held to and that countries will only benefit from ATP if there is a full developmental need in the programme that is under consideration.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Members on this side of your Lordships' House, if not on the other side, could never believe that anybody could trample on my noble friend in any way whatsoever?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Some may try but none will win.

Psychoanalytic Therapy
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester The Lord Bishop of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the internal market in the health service, whether it is their policy to safeguard the future of long-term psychoanalytic therapy throughout the health service for those who need it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, it is for health authorities and general practitioner fundholders to assess the needs of their populations and to contract with trusts, hospitals and community units for the services that they judge to be clinically effective. As the internal market develops, health authorities will increasingly commission a range of therapeutic interventions of proven effectiveness.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that of the 200 health authorities, only 100 have that kind of therapy? Is she further aware that recent research by the Mental Health Foundation shows that one in 10 of the population of this country suffers from mental ill-health, and that research in the Low Countries and Germany shows that with psychoanalytical psychotherapy people can be saved from hospitalisation and expensive medication and can return to work? In view of that, does she agree that such therapy gives very good value for money?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this therapy has never been widely accessible to NHS patients because of the limited number of providers of the service and the differing views about its clinical effectiveness. I understand what the right reverend prelate is saying, and I know that some people find it extremely helpful. But the department feels that there is more work to be done in assessing and monitoring its effectiveness.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that psychotherapists who are properly trained and registered with the United Kingdom Council for
286
Psychotherapy—I emphasise those points—have an important role to play, especially as their work does not require the use of drugs, as the right reverend prelate pointed out? Can the noble Baroness assure us that training institutions for psychotherapy, such as the Tavistock Clinic, will be enabled to continue when they are given trust status?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. A review is currently being undertaken by the department about training requirements. We encourage registers of all therapists so that we know who is available and at what standard. We have secured the future of both the Tavistock and Portman clinics. They have been granted trust status, and the NHS management executive issued a contract worth £3.7 million for 1994–95, which will support the transition to the internal market.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will my noble friend consult the Tavistock and Portman clinics? They are concerned in these matters and would welcome an opportunity to be helpful.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. Our relationship with those two clinics is extremely good. As I said, we have secured their future and value the work that they do in training, education and development.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Tavistock and Portman clinics deal with the abused, the abusers and severe sexual deviants? Those people can be extremely dangerous not only to themselves but to the public. If those clinics do not survive in the internal market, serious problems may arise throughout the country in relation to training.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is up to health authorities to assess the needs of their populations and to enter into contracts with those two institutions. As I said, the department values their work. We are giving every possible assistance to help them enter the internal market and to ensure that their teaching and research activities are safeguarded.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of anxiety among voluntary organisations such as mine that there should be made available much more opportunity for what they call "talking treatments"? They are also concerned that over half the district health authorities have no service that they can offer. Can the Minister say a little more regarding the department's future progress on training as well as recruitment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I said, those therapies have a degree of ambivalence about them in relation to their effectiveness. There are those who find them extremely helpful and good value for money. They believe that they do a job that needs to be done. There are others who feel that it is actually quite damaging to people if the therapists are not properly trained, qualified, registered and recognised. Therefore the department has a review underway. The results will be available in the early summer. Once that review is

287
completed, another review, which will involve specifically education and training, will start in the late summer.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the fact that as many as half of the 200 or more health districts have no psychotherapy service a factor in the increasing problem of mentally ill people being discharged from hospital without a properly worked out individual care programme?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. My honourable friend the Secretary of State made an announcement last December on the way forward for mental health services. She recognises that legislation will he needed in the near future to ensure that people who are discharged from hospital are followed up and monitored. However, that is rather divorced from the specific Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that people in need of psychotherapy treatment are extremely vulnerable almost by definition, and bearing in mind that anybody can set themselves up completely untrained and irresponsibly as a psychotherapist, I should like to ask this question. What plans do the Government have to safeguard the future well-being of those vulnerable people by ensuring adequate training and oversight of the, workings of that profession?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is the subject of the two reviews that I have mentioned. We are encouraging the Development of registration and training standards and codes of ethical and disciplinary practices. We want to create a responsible and accountable profession. The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy launched its register of psychotherapists in 1993, and the British Confederation of Psychotherapists is about to publish a register of its members.

CAP Exports: Customs Checks
3.16 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the new practice of examining thoroughly 5 per cent. of common agricultural policy goods cleared through ports is being challenged with the European Commission, and whether there is any risk of it being extended to other ports in addition to Felixstowe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department off Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the practice of examining 5 per cent. of common agricultural policy goods exported from the Community to third countries has for some time been a feature of EC law. The examination requirements apply to traffic at all ports.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. That the practice has existed for some time does not quite coincide with my information. As I understand it—and I hope my noble friend will agree—it is a practice which has grown up relatively recently.
288
Does he accept that it is strange that although the practice is meant to apply to goods that are not subject to local export control there is an order at the moment waiting at Sheerness from a large exporter which was sealed by the customs at LEC on 21st January and yet is to be examined by the customs at Sheerness? That is bad for British trade and for British shipping. Both sectors have grumbled to me. It is also most unreasonable that such special measures should be taken when goods are being exported by reputable companies in this country? Those companies have a reputation to maintain. They take enormous steps not to cheat, whatever the regulations may be. Can the situation be modified so that procedures are carried out quickly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend asks a number of questions. I am not sure that I can respond in detail to the specific question relating to the case at Sheerness. However, I am prepared to look into it. Where local export controls are made use of, there should be less examination at the port. Obviously, we must get the right balance between the appropriate controls so as to protect Community funds and the funds of this country against fraud, while not impeding trade. We therefore negotiated further flexibility in the scheme and from January of next year the minimum examination rate in each of the 17 product sectors will be 2 per cent. but with an overall rate of 5 per cent. That will allow customs officials to exercise a certain degree of extra risk analysis whereby the low refund sector, such as processed goods—obviously, it will be considerably less broad because there is a low refund—will experience much lower rates of checking while those with high refunds, such as cereals, where checking is much easier, can continue to be checked at a higher rate. The checking of those should be easier and cause less disruption.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in so far as the goods referred to in the Question relate to the export of intervention stocks to third countries with a view to securing export refunds, it is absolutely vital that a good sample of the goods is inspected rigorously at the port of exit in order to prevent fraud? It is widespread among those samples that have so far been made and reported on by the Court of Auditors as well as our own National Audit Office. Will the Minister ensure that the regulations are rigorously enforced?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think I can say with all sincerity that I greatly welcome the noble Lord's question. It is right to achieve some sort of balance between impeding trade and combating fraud. We believe, and certainly Customs and Excise believe, that there is scope for considerably greater flexibility. That is why the extra flexibility that I mentioned has been negotiated. The absolute flat rate of 5 per cent. in all sectors is possibly over-rigorous. We hope that the greater flexibility, to which I referred, and the greater use of risk analysis will allow the pursuit of fraud to be continued while not impeding trade.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, was not the basis of the Question that British exports are being held

289
up as a result of delays by customs officials who come under the Minister? Can he do anything to speed them up?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the exporters themselves can make progress towards speeding things up. First, they can pack their goods in a suitable manner that makes it easy for customs to get access to those goods. More importantly, exporters can choose to have their goods controlled by customs inland at their own premises. Therefore—and I refer again to the case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mottistone—there should be considerably more cursory examination when the goods reach the port.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the possibility of fraud and indeed the need for checks arise only because of the structure of agricultural protection maintained under the common agricultural policy? Will he tell the House how much the checks cost? Does he agree that the expense of making them is yet another charge which the economic folly of the CAP imposes upon every family in this country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the precise question that the noble Lord asks about the cost of each examination. We believe that the impact of CAP reform in time will reduce the export refunds and consequently the need for such rigorous controls.

British Steel: European Commission Fine
3.22 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide details of the fines the European Commission is believed to be imposing on certain steel makers, including British Steel.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the European Commission yesterday announced the decision to impose fines of slightly more than 100 million ecu on 16 steel companies from seven Community and three Scandinavian countries. The fines follow a Commission investigation into alleged anti-competitive activity in beams, where findings were made of price fixing, exchange of information and market sharing. British Steel's fines total 32 million ecu (£24.4 million). I understand that British Steel will be appealing against the decision.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information and I accept that it must be the task of the Commission to ensure that the rules and regulations of various Community treaties are adhered to. Would he nevertheless agree that in the present situation within the European steel industries the Commission is getting its priorities wrong and that what it should be concentrating on is eliminating the subsidies, a large quantity of which still survive, rather than on penalising companies which are not subsidised and which may be purely technically in infringement of the rules of the treaty?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely agree with the premise of the noble Lord's question. It is right that the Commission has an important role to play in governing the treaties which deal with this subject. But of course its priorities should be to deal with the subsidy regime that exists for steel manufacturers throughout the Community. The Government have helped the Commission after the results of the November and December industry councils. That has made the Commission's job a lot easier. I should perhaps remind the House that the Government are in the forefront of efforts to bring about free and fair markets throughout the Community.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, will my noble friend urge the Government to press the European Commission to impose fines on those governments that give subsidies to steel industries against the spirit of the common market; subsidies which are killing the competitiveness of our steel industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we never fail to take the opportunity of demonstrating to the Commission and indeed to our other European partners that the interests of sound economies are best served by free trade. The Commission clearly has a role to police its own treaties in the way it sees fit. And that is what it has done in this particular case.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government will be supporting the steel companies in their appeal against the fines?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, first and foremost, this is a private sector matter between British Steel and the European Commission. If there is help and advice that we can offer British Steel, we shall do so. However, at this stage I am not yet certain whether or not British Steel will take an appeal forward.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that some 10 years ago, at the insistence of the Commission, there were mandatory minimum prices for the steel industry in Europe? There was a restructuring proposal by, I think, Davignon which meant that there were continuous discussions between steel companies. What has now happened seems to be just an extension of fining people for what the Commission encouraged in the first place.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. Between 1980 and 1988 the Commission administered production quotas under the manifest crisis provisions of the ECSC treaty. That finished in 1988. The investigation with which the Commission is concerned at the moment was post-1988.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, reverting to the subject of subsidies, is my noble friend aware that the Commissioner concerned, when giving an interview on television yesterday, emphasised how necessary it was,
"to stick to the rules".

291
Would my noble friend be kind enough to encourage that Commissioner and indeed our partners in other European countries also to stick to the rules regarding illegal subsidies?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we never fail to make that point both to the Commission and to our European partners. We do believe in fair play; we do believe in sticking to the rules; and we do believe in sticking to the law in this case.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I note from what the Minister said that a number of steel producers in Europe have also been charged with price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information. Can he explain why it is that British Steel has been called upon to pay the biggest tine of all—£24 million? Was the fix of that magnitude? Was British Steel the ringleader in this alleged cartel? If not, will the Government—reverting to a previous question—be prepared to assist British Steel if it has to appeal to the Commission or to the European Court of Justice?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, although we have not seen the formal notice of these fines from the European Commission I understand that British Steel was fined the most because it sold the most products into the European Community. It was the largest player in the manufacture of the beams which were the subject of the investigation. I can go no further than the answer that I gave to the nobble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty of Rome lay the responsibility on the Commission to eliminate state subsidies that distort competition? In the steel industry that has been the case for the past five years. Why is it that the Commission has not instituted action under Article 92 and brought the matter before the European Court of Justice? Why, in default, have not Her Majesty's Government urged that this course of action be taken? Five years have passed since the first infringement of Article 92.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is because this particular investigation comes under Article 65 of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty. That is the relevant treaty in respect of this investigation.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords—
Lord Peston: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I believe the next question comes from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, while endorsing what my noble friend Lord Ezra and others have said about the importance of dealing with illegal subsidies and creating proper conditions for free competition, does the Minister agree that in the world as it is today international cartels can be met effectively only by Community action and not by national action? Does the Minister further agree that effective action
292
against international cartels is in the interests of all of us in terms of lower prices and higher living standards in the long run?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords, and that is why we are supporters of the rule of law within the European Community.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am glad that the Opposition Front Bench is allowed to intervene.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Peston: My Lords, there are certain courtesies involved here. Since I am still slightly at a loss to know what the Government are going to do, does the Minister agree that British Steel is an efficient operator which is being hammered in two ways? On the one hand, it is being subjected to unfair competition from subsidised industries and, on the other, it is subject to this fine the size of which, as I understand it, is so large because British Steel is itself so large and efficient? The Minister keeps talking about such matters but what one would like to know—and if I were part of British Steel I should like to know—is what the Government are going to do?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I made clear earlier, this is a private sector matter between British Steel and the Commission. The noble Lord should not link the two issues. The investigation deals with a period between 1988–91, whereas the subsidy regime and the industry councils taken at the end of last year deal with the future. There I join with the noble Lord in saying that we wish to see a subsidy-free future for the European steel industry.

Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No.81 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.82:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause: ("Greater London Police Authority Metropolitan Police Authority

.—(1) There shall be a police authority for the metropolitan police district.

(2) The police authority established under this section shall be a body corporate to be known as the Metropolitan Police Authority.

293

(3) The police authority established under this section shall secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for its area.

(4) The police authority established under subsection (1) above shall consist of sixteen members, of whom—

(a) eight shall be members of a relevant council appointed in accordance with Schedule 1B to the Police Act 1964;

(b) three shall be magistrates appointed in accordance with that Schedule; and

(c) five shall be persons appointed by the Secretary of State.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a council is a relevant council in relation to a police authority if it is the council for a London borough.

(6) Schedule 1B to the 1964 Act shall apply with respect to appointments to the police authority established under this section. ").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I would like to speak also to Amendment No.213, which is consequential upon it. I do not need to urge a democratically elected police authority for London purely on the arguments of democracy or those of elected local representatives in London. It is enough for me to rely on the words of the Government and of the police force in London to urge the case for a democratically elected police force in London. Indeed, as recently as 26th May last year, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, argued very cogently for a democratically elected police force in London.
Without going into past history—that is to say, not going back more than a year—perhaps I may refer to the record of the Government's statements on this matter. The then Home Secretary, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, answered a Parliamentary Question on 14th April 1993 in these words:
"I think that London needs a Police Authority and the arrangement whereby the Home Secretary is in theory the police authority for London is not adequate if we are to hold the Metropolitan Police to account, as happens with other police authorities, and if we are to assist them by giving clearer guidelines on priorities and so on".
I could hardly have put it better myself.
I shall not quote any of the other intermediate statements. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in this House on 26th May 1993:
"London will benefit from the reforms which we are proposing as in a similar way will the remainder of the country … my right honourable friend intends in future that there should be a police authority for London outside of the Home Office and that he will delegate to that authority many of his existing responsibilities".—[Official Report, 26/5/93; col.351.]
Again, I yield to no one in my admiration of the noble Earl in this instance for his lucidity, clear thinking and correctness of political judgment.
What has gone wrong? What has gone wrong is that there was a panic campaign by a number of London Conservative MPs, who drew up all the old smears about the loony left-wing Lambeth councillors. It should be noted that this panic campaign took place last summer. I do not believe that we hear very much about loony left-wing Lambeth councillors at the moment because of the response which is always made, and which is bound to be made, as regards what is happening in Wandsworth and Westminster. I believe that the electors of Lambeth, Wandsworth and Westminster will be expressing their views on 5th May in such a way as to make it clear that the arguments which were used by Mr. Cyril Townsend and others last summer do not wash very well with the electorate and they should not
294
have any particular weight in this House. The Government have backed down on their very clearly and correctly expressed intentions as recent as May last year in response to irresponsible and ill thought-out Back-Bench pressure about the possibility of any democratic control for the police force in London.
I do not need to rely on Left or Right-wing councils or anybody else for the rest of the argument in favour of this amendment. The argument has been put very clearly by the police force itself. Sir John Smith, the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said publicly at the time that ACPO would like to see London governed by the same arrangements which will emerge for the rest of the country. He went on to stress that his association wanted to ensure that elected councillors would remain a "significant component" of any new authorities.
The newly appointed Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Paul Condon, in an article in the June edition of the Association of London Authorities Bulletin, also expressed his support for a police authority for the capital. In his article the Commissioner says:
"There is the challenge to be faced of working towards a new Police Authority for London. This is a concept which has my full support".
In the face of those arguments, what is there for me to add? Perhaps I may say a word or two about the wording of the amendment. In this amendment we have very deliberately not sought to raise the issue of the balance between the local authority councillors, appointed members and magistrates for London. We take it that the Committee will be expressing a view when it is reconvened to consider Clauses 2,3 and 4 on 1st March. At that time, whatever decision the Committee makes, it should be reflected in the wording of a new clause on the Greater London Police Authority. Under those circumstances it seems most straightfor-ward not to raise the whole issue of the composition of police authorities but simply to accept, for the purposes of this amendment, the government formula. That is what we have done.
London is different in some ways from other police forces. London, through the Metropolitan Police, has a number of national obligations. There are diplomatic surveillance and national security obligations besides a number of other matters which are primarily national and which devolve mainly on the Metropolitan Police, although of course major regional police forces also have comparable national responsibilities on a smaller scale.
If it is suggested that, because of the national responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police, the whole of its activities should be taken out of local authority control, that would be done against the considered advice of those in the police force who know most about it; who believe that national responsibilities can be carried out effectively, and who do not see (as I do not see) why it is that local councillors of any political persuasion should seek, for example, to put the Royal Family at risk. There is no difference, other than of scale, between the national and local responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police and those of the police in any

295
other area of the country. On those grounds also, having the Metropolitan Police under democratic local control is very much to be desired.
Above all, all of the arguments that are put forward by both Government and Opposition and by all of those who are concerned about the necessity to police by consent and to have local policing apply just as strongly in London as anywhere else—perhaps even more strongly.
In fact, even with the Metropolitan Police being responsible directly to the Home Secretary, there have been a number of very effective local policing initiatives between the Metropolitan Police and both Labour and Conservative London boroughs. They include Lambeth, where the Stockwell Park local scheme has been an effective collaboration between the Metropolitan Police and the Lambeth housing department. All over London, both police and local authorities are showing by their actions that they are willing and anxious to see local co-operation between the police and democratically elected councillors.
Why is it that the Government, having expressed their views clearly in favour of such a link and such a police authority, should have turned away from that very wise judgment? I very much regret the change of heart that the Government have undergone. I believe that it will be regretted not only by councillors in London but by the, police in London and by ordinary people in London, also. I beg to move.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I should like briefly to support what my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey has said. I have felt for a long time that there is a genuine case for having a police committee for London. Indeed, I thought that when I was Home Secretary 30 years ago, although there was no Police Bill at the time and I did nothing about it.
I have always recognised the particular responsibilities of government in relation to a number of issues that do not affect provisional police authorities. My noble friend referred to this. I see that those responsibilities are provided for in this amendment by the provision of five persons who should be appointed by the Secretary of State. The five, persons whom the Government propose to appoint with respect to the provisional forces are those who would be representative of local opinion other than those who are elected.
In relation to London, I do not think that the five persons whom the Home Secretary shall appoint, if this amendment is earned, ought to be the same type of person. I think that they ought to be representative more of the special responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government for a number of functions which do not fall to the provisional authorities. I hope that "the five persons" would be interpreted in that sense, but I am not sure whether my noble friend agrees. However, it seems to me that the Government have a distinct responsibility which must be exercised.
The case for a police authority for London is quite clear. At the moment, we have taxation without representation, and one has to be hard put to it to defend such a position. The local authorities which have to call in the charge are responsible for policing but have no
296
say in it at all. I believe that that is wrong. I see no reason why it should not be possible to devise a police authority that would represent both local opinion and national responsibilities.
There is such a thing as local opinion. I am sure that the councillors in the London Borough of Southwark where I happen to live in London have a different sense of priorities from those who live in Hampstead—at least I guess that they may have. However, there is no prospect and no chance of those views being represented. I think that that should happen. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will have to put forward a jolly good argument if he is to convince us that there is not a case for local representation.
I know that the police have built up very good relations with local authorities in some areas, and that is desirable, but the elected representatives, through the local authorities, ought to be able to form a police authority here in London, subject to the reservation of the Government's responsibilities, which could be included in this amendment. Subject to that, they ought to be able to form a police authority. Let us get rid of taxation without representation, which I thought had been rejected a long time ago. Unless the noble Earl can convince us—and I have never been able to find a convincing argument for that case—I hope that we shall test the opinion of the Committee on this.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: I understand clearly what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, says. At certain times when I was Home Secretary, I held something of the same view, but having had many of the problems that come from that national position, about which he spoke rightly and fairly, I came to the opposite conclusion. It was a difficult decision, but I think that I can claim that I had to deal with many—perhaps more than most—of those national problems when I was Home Secretary.
Those problems included somebody getting into the Palace and the Queen's bedroom. Problems such as that have to be dealt with by the Home Secretary—and have to be dealt with very firmly. Nobody else can take responsibility for it. I felt strongly on that occasion that I had to take a very strong view and in many different ways. I had to make some things perfectly clear to the Royal Household about what I believed had to be done. Naturally, they did not particularly like some of them. People imagine that the Royal Family is secure in the Palace and it is difficult when somebody finds that some things have to be changed. Somebody like a Home Secretary has to say that that will happen.
That is what changed my view. Although I recognise that there are strong arguments in favour of what the amendment suggests, on balance I believe that it is the Home Secretary who has the duty to deal with the national position. The Home Secretary also has a duty, which I regarded as very important when I held that position, to deal with local problems in conjunction with local councillors. We had meetings constantly with local councillors so that we could fulfil that charge.
I have come down on the opposite side of the argument to the noble Lords who have spoken so far, but

297
I agree that they have a strong case. Perhaps, however, when one has experienced the national problem—acutely on one or two occasions—it is not surprising if one takes this point of view.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Perhaps the noble Viscount will forgive me for intervening, but surely nothing about setting up a police authority of this kind, with its very limited responsibilities, would interfere with the duty of the Home Secretary (which would be exercised in all circumstances whether or not there was a police authority) to advise Her Majesty and others associated with the Royal Family about the proper level of protection. Surely nothing can remove that duty from the Home Secretary whether or not a police authority is set up.
Viscount Whitelaw: The answer to that must be that, if one sets up this police authority on the same basis as other police authorities throughout the country, the charge then comes that the Home Secretary must not interfere with this, that or another matter. That is a very good case and many people, including myself, have argued about the need for the police authorities to be independent. That is what I believe, but I do not believe that one can have that and then turn round from the national position and tell the chairman of the London police authority that you are going to have your will and that he is not. That is a very dangerous and difficult point.
This is a difficult matter. It is not a matter of principle to me because I think that it rests simply on the facts of London's national position as a large capital. In the end, I think that that national position has to be dealt with in detail and as a straight responsibility of the Home Secretary of the day.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: Perhaps I may begin by addressing the point that was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. The Royal Family has residences throughout the country. In fact, the Queen is well known to prefer Windsor Castle to Buckingham Palace as a residence. If there was an intruder at Windsor Castle, presumably the Home Secretary would have no difficulty in directing the chairman of the police authority for the Thames Valley to present the same sort of report that he would ask the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to present in relation to Buckingham Palace. I do not believe that the argument about an intruder in Buckingham Palace is sufficient for saying that we should not have a police authority for London. If that were the case we should not have a police authority for any part of the country in which there is a royal residence.
I support the amendment as a former Metropolitan officer of many years' service. I also support what was said by my noble friend Lord McIntosh about the police service being keen to see a police authority in London. When I joined the Metropolitan police force in the late 1950s there was a different attitude. The police service was inward looking and it had a simplistic, if not an arrogant, assumption that it knew best about how to police an area. There was little discussion of public
298
accountability or of the democratic deficit in London. Since then society has changed; it has become more complex. The police service is more sophisticated. There is greater media interest in it and a greater awareness of the rights of individuals. In some ways, that has forced the police service to be more accountable but there is a recognition in London that it is still not sufficient.
Some catalytic events have forced the police service to be more responsive to the London public. The 1981 Brixton riots and the report made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the consultative committees which were set up initially with some difficulty in boroughs such as Lambeth and Brent, have matured and there is a good relationship between London boroughs, the probation service, social services and police. There are many pro-active and successful partnership schemes working closely together. Suspicion of politicians no longer exists within the police service, and there is a much more mature understanding by politicians of the police service.
One of the successful partnership schemes was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine. There has been the recent initiative in King's Cross between the local police and the boroughs of Islington and Camden, which previously were not necessarily thought to be pro-police boroughs. That scheme has successfully made a considerable impact on the problems in that area with drugs and prostitutes. On the Stonebridge Estate in Brent, which I policed for a time, there has been a considerable reduction in drug dealing and associated crime due to the efforts of police in collaboration with the local authority and the probation service.
Those are worthwhile schemes and they demonstrate the importance of police and community working together, and not in response to directives from the Home Secretary. But they are voluntary localised schemes and not part of a London-wide strategy. Londoners have no formal voice in the policing of London. That is undemocratic and unsafe. Disaffection with police actions, as we saw in the Brixton riots, can lead to serious public disorder. More recently, the devastation created in Los Angeles was due in part to the breakdown between the police and the public.
Policing can work only if there is public confidence and support. Crime can be solved only by complex community action at the local level. Communities are effectively self-policing and they need to be policed by community police officers.
The point that I emphasise in particular is that there is no voice for the Metropolitan police force. It is not just that Londoners have no formal voice; the Metropolitan police force has no representative for itself vis-à-vis the Home Office. The commissioner cannot openly criticise or oppose the Home Secretary or the Home Office, whatever he may think of their ideas. He cannot, for example, say publicly that the Met. has the worst personal radio system in the country. He cannot make public statements to that effect. A London police authority could say that the personal radio system of Metropolitan police officers has been underfunded, under-resourced and poorly served for many years. It could ask for more resources and make a statement

299
which could hit the media. In no way could the Commissioner make such a statement in his close and over-symbiotic relationship with the Home Office.
Perhaps I may take as a more recent example the tragic death of Stephen Milligan, in respect of which accusations were made of police leaks to the media. There was no way in which the Metropolitan police force could suggest that it was those in other places (possibly Conservative Central Office) who leaked the information to the media. A police authority chairman could have been an advocate for the Metropolitan police force in those circumstances and suggested that politicians were the source of many of the stories that appeared in the press. An extremely important point for the Metropolitan police force is that it has no way of making its voice heard in public.
Finally, I should be grateful if in reply the Minister would say whether the new, more flexible financial arrangements which will be accorded to chief constables outside London will apply also to the Metropolitan police force? Or will it continue to be shackled by Treasury rules, which have made the proper funding of police buildings, the personal radio system and other equipment in London so hard to achieve over the years?
There are irrefutable arguments for having a police authority for London. The major anxiety that is usually expressed is the national responsibility of the Metropolitan police, which has been addressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. Many of those problems apply to other parts of the country and, in relation to the arrangements for a police authority for London, will be met by the five appointed members. I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: In her speech, which covered a lot of ground, the noble Baroness pleaded for the proposed change on the ground of democracy. I suggest that from the point of view of democracy it is much more effective to have the Home Secretary questioned, and for him to debate and defend his policies in either House of Parliament—of course, mainly in the House of Commons—than it would be to have a police authority of the kind envisaged in the proposed new clause. In the case of an authority, there would be much less publicity, much less account would be taken of criticism and it would be much less effective as a method of control.
Whatever else may be said on the matter, surely we can agree on both sides of the Committee that the Metropolitan police force has problems which are not only often different from those of other forces but are greater. There is no other comparable force with a city of anything like the size of London. Yes, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, and so forth, are large but they are not comparable with London. The Metropolitan police force not only has the problems involved in protecting the Royal Family, which have been mentioned and which to a lesser extent apply to some other forces, but it also has the problems of protecting the seat of government. It also has—dare I say?—the job of protecting Cabinet Ministers (of which I have never been one) and the greater problems of terrorism than elsewhere. I am sorry to say that we now have in London a considerable racial problem, although the way in which the police have
300
dealt with that in recent years has shown a great improvement. There is no doubt about that. I go back to the old Conservative principle that if change is not necessary it is necessary not to change.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: If it ain't bust, don't fix it!
4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): The noble Lord's amendment proposes the setting up of a democratically-controlled police authority—a matter which has exercised people for a long time. It exercised the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as he said, when he was Home Secretary. I can understand people believing that that would be a good idea. The Metropolitan police force is covered by most of the Bill's police provisions but the Bill is drafted, as was the Police Act 1964, to exclude the Metropolitan police force from certain of its clauses. Notably, they relate to the constitution and the function of police authorities.
Under the Government's proposals, the Metropolitan police force would in those respects continue to be catered for by the Metropolitan Police Acts. We gave a considerable amount of thought as to whether it was advisable to change that. The noble Lord. Lord Callaghan, said that he was in favour of a change. My noble friend Lord Whitelaw said that he had been of the same view for quite a while but gradually arrived at the feeling that the current position was best. My noble friend used an impressive argument about national interest and told us of his own experience in that regard.
It is fair to say that we have all thought about those matters. My right honourable friend considered them too. He eventually decided that the existing arrange-ments were correct. I was slightly amused because we have been castigated for making changes and, as some Members of the Committee may regard them, upheavals in the police force. But on the one occasion on which we decide not to change something which has been in place since 1829 everyone tells us that we should do so. I hope that Members of the Committee will realise that we have considered this matter and have decided not to make those substantial changes.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: It is not that we object to the Government making changes. The trouble is that they always make the wrong changes.
Earl Ferrers: If the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, would be kind enough to sit on this side of the Committee, he would consider that we had made the right changes. We were always clear that the provincial arrangements would require considerable modification if they were to be adapted to fit the unique circumstances of the Metropolitan Police. However, we hoped—and we made no secret of our hopes—that it might have proved possible to make suitable police authority arrangements which were legally separate from the Home Office.
In the event, we concluded, after further consideration, that it would go against the national interest to remove from the Secretary of State the legal authority over the force which is given to him by the Metropolitan

301
Police Acts 1829 to 1963. We concluded also that the Metropolitan Police Acts were sufficiently flexible to allow us to apply our police reform programme administratively to the Metropolitan Police.
The noble Lord asked in effect in his amendment why it is so essential to preserve the Secretary of State's position as police authority for the Metropolitan Police and whether a way could not be found to share his legal powers with some local or independent authority. The basic answer that I must give to those questions is the same as the one which has been given by successive inquiries and governments since 1829. The Metropolitan Police is, and always has been, much more than just a local police force. This is not just a matter of size, although we should not forget that we are talking about a force which is some 13 times the size of the provincial average. It is a matter of function.
Bound up with its intrinsically important tasks of policing the capital, the Metropolitan Police has permanent and unavoidable duties of policing the seat of government, and, as my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said, it carries the associated national tasks of guarding the Royal Palaces, Westminster, government departments and embassies. And it leads the police fight against terrorism. The Metropolitan Police also undertakes vital national functions on behalf of the whole police service; for example, specialist anti-fraud work and international and government investigations at the request of the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The Government felt that they could not leave it to a local or independent authority, however important, to carry the ultimate responsibility for what are vital national tasks. The Government must have a direct authority over the force which is responsible for law and order in the metropolis.
Because the Home Secretary is a Minister of the Crown, he is directly responsible and answerable to Parliament. Matters arising from the administration and operations of the Metropolitan Police can be, and are, raised and debated in Parliament. Parliament has a closer relationship with ale Metropolitan Police because the police authority is answerable directly to Parliament. It is important that Parliament should not relinquish its responsibility for and its influence over such a large force.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. But the noble and learned Lord recommended that the Home Secretary should remain as the police authority, as, indeed, for some time has every inquiry which has looked into the matter in detail. The noble Baroness was concerned also as to whether there would be flexibility in the police force under the new arrangements. The short answer to that is that there will be, subject only to the constraints of existing legislation. It is intended to give the management of the Metropolitan Police the maximum freedom.
The Government believe—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—that the present arrangement whereby the police authority is the Secretary of State, advised
302
exclusively by civil servants in the Home Office, is not ideal and could be improved. That is why we are establishing a new body, outside the Home Office, to help the Home Secretary and Londoners to benefit from the reforms, while ensuring that the Home Secretary and Parliament retain ultimate authority for safeguarding the national interest in the work of the force.
The new body, which we propose to call the Metropolitan Police Committee, will be created administratively to advise the Home Secretary on the exercise of functions which will outside London be the responsibility of local police authorities. We set out these responsibilities in the White Paper. The Metropolitan Police Committee is to advise the Home Secretary on: determining the details of the budget; approving and publishing a costed plan for policing which reflects both key and local objectives; probing and monitoring the performance of the force; holding the Commissioner to account for the delivery of agreed objectives; and drawing up a strategy for partnerships between the police and local people. Those are matters on which the committee will advise the Home Secretary, and he will retain ultimate authority.
The Metropolitan Police Committee will be expected to keep in close touch with police-community consultative groups; for example, about defining local objectives. It will also be required to publish performance results in a way which allows them to be compared with forces elsewhere.
The members of the Metropolitan Police Committee will not function as representatives. They will exist to advise the Secretary of State, who will remain directly answerable to Parliament for his police authority responsibilities. The Secretary of State will appoint all the members but individuals or local authorities or other bodies are welcome to suggest candidates at any time. No specific groups have been ruled in or out and there will be no quota. All members will be selected for their ability as individuals and not as representatives of a particular group. Its different constitution and functions mean that it will need fewer members than provincial authorities; for example,12 rather than 16.
Within its sphere of influence the Metropolitan Police Committee will undertake advisory work which is currently performed by civil servants in the Home Office. It will also be required to liaise closely with London's police and community consultative groups. It will enhance, but it will not replace, the present special arrangements for consultation between the Home Secretary and London MPs and local authority interests. With those changes, I suggest that it would be better to leave the responsibility as it is, as it should be and as it has been since 1829, with whoever holds the position of Home Secretary, although he will be advised by a committee which will help him in his tasks.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about no taxation without representation, does he agree that there are Members of Parliament in another place representing all the London boroughs?

303
Not only that, the Metropolitan Police receives a higher proportion of its financing from the Treasury, the taxpayer, than does any other police force.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is absolutely right and that is one of the most important reasons why it is necessary to keep the Home Secretary responsible for the Metropolitan Police. He is answerable to the elected representatives in another place. They may ask him questions, and they do. They have meetings with him; and he is subject to all the parliamentary rigour which goes with being a Home Secretary and a police authority.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl is entirely right when he says that every inquiry has recommended the maintenance of the existing situation so far as concerns Metropolitan police. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, certainly said so, as indeed, did others. However, having made that point, the noble Earl went on to stress to the Committee the national responsibilities of the Metropolitan police in terms of policing the seat of government, and looking after embassies, the position of the Monarch, Westminster and so on. All that is entirely right. Unhappily, the question that the noble Earl did not answer is: what has changed since 23rd March of last year? Perhaps I may remind him once again of what the then Home Secretary, Mr Clarke, said. He announced the creation of a new police authority for the Metropolitan police,
"in line with the new national pattern, thereby strengthening local accountability in the capital".—[Official Report, Commons; 23/3/93, col.765.]
As the noble Earl will no doubt recall, it was on 26th May of last year that we on these Benches initiated a debate on the Government's proposals for the police. On that day, we were greeted by a headline in the Evening Standard announcing that the Government had gone into reverse on the question. There was a major announcement of policy that the whole policing structure of London was to change. Eight weeks later, exactly the opposite was said by Ministers. The noble Earl has given no coherent explanation of that change in policy. However, we know, because it has been reported in the press, that Sir John Wheeler and a number of others (a small group of Conservative Members in the other place) indicated that they did not like the arrangements.
When the announcement was made in Parliament there was almost universal approval for what the Government had done. The noble Earl said a few moments ago that the Government are always most unfairly treated. If they come forward with recommendations for change, as they have done with the Bill, they are attacked, but if they make recommendations for no change—which is the position, by and large, so far as concerns the Metropolitan police—they are also attacked. As we know, the reality is that the major structure of policing in the Bill is opposed by virtually everyone. However, if we put that to one side and look at the Metropolitan police, we see that, in comparison, there was almost total agreement with what Mr. Clarke announced in the other place in March last year.
304
It is a great pity. Londoners had every right to believe that they were, for the first time, to have a democratically accountable local police authority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, indicated, there has been widespread support both in the police service generally and in the Metropolitan police for a democratically accountable local police authority in London. When it is suggested that it is preferable to have Members of the other place discussing the problems of policing in London, I must point out to the noble Earl that that is done precisely one day a year. It is not in any sense a serious alternative to a police authority meeting in public, as other police authorities do, and discussing frankly the problems of policing in London.
The Government have made a serious error. They have gone into reverse simply because a small handful of their supporters in the other place went to see the Home Secretary and complained about it. I believe that Londoners had every reason to expect better from the Government than they have received.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: I have the greatest difficulty understanding and following the arguments postulated in favour of not accepting the amendment or at least going a long way towards meeting it. I do not profess to know a great deal about the administration of the police. However, the Metropolitan force is widely respected throughout the country and, indeed, in places throughout the world. Foreign visitors, ambassadors and so on, who come here, feel much safer when visiting London in times of trouble or terrorism than, perhaps, we sometimes do when visiting more volatile areas elsewhere.
It takes a brave man to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, but I honestly and genuinely cannot follow his line of argument. On the one hand, he said that there was much merit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh: yet, on the other hand, he found reasons—based, I am sure, on his vast experience—as to why it was undesirable or not possible to continue with that which we have; namely, the Metropolitan police force. That comes across to me as a contradiction in terms.
There may be an argument that it is more costly to keep the force in being, or that it is more cumbersome and so on. However, perhaps my noble friend can examine whether the reasons that appear to him and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to make it necessary to effectively abolish the Metropolitan police might be turned to advantage and the force retained. I hope that that will be possible. I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I have been searching through the Bill to see what it says about the proposed Metropolitan police committee which was mentioned in the White Paper and which will be made up of appointed people to advise the Home Secretary. Where will we be able to find in statutory form the functions of that committee? Will it meet in public? What is it really going to do? Further, how will it conflict—if that is the

305
right word—at the moment, let alone if the amendment is passed today, with the report of the Home Secretary to Parliament and the fact that something like 90 London Members of Parliament in another place are only able to debate local policing in London once a year? I do not know the answer. I should have checked whether we operate in the same manner in this Chamber. I can see no reason why not. However, I cannot recall noticing when I was Home Secretary. I repeat: will there be a statutory instrument laying down the functions of the proposed Metropolitan police committee? I do not quite understand the position. The Minister made a play of it this afternoon; I can find nothing in the Bill about it.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may first answer the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. I believe that he has got the wrong end of the stick. I believe he thinks that we are abolishing the Metropolitan police force. If so, I can only tell him that that is not the intention. With regard to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, I should point out that the Metropolitan police committee can be established administratively under existing Metropolitan police legislation. Therefore, it is not necessary to have separate legislation in that respect. It would restrict unnecessarily the ability of the Home Secretary to adapt the arrangements to secure the best for London. That is why there is no particular mention of it in the Bill. It will, in fact, operate outside the Home Office and will consist of people whose responsibility will be to advise my right honourable friend. I should add that such people will be there to advise him, but it will be my right honourable friend who takes the final responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, could not help it. He made a big meal of what the previous Home Secretary said and went on about how there had been a change of heart. He enjoys pursuing something like that and making a mountain where not much of a mountain exists. My right honourable friend did say that that was his intention. The Statement was made and people knew about it. We listened to what people said and thought more about how it would work. We concluded that it was better for the position to remain as it is as regards responsibility but that, nevertheless, my right honour-able friend should be advised by outside people. That is the position.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, can make much of an issue of this by saying one moment that we are listening to what people say and we should not do this, whereas two days ago he claims that we said we would not listen to people when in his opinion we should have done. The noble Lord cannot have it all ways. We have listened. My right honourable friend considered that the present position would be best and he decided that the position should remain as it has been for the past 150 years.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl was asked a question by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, which I am sure he will realise he did not answer. The question was: is this advisory committee, or this
306
Metropolitan police committee, going to meet in public or not, or will it meet in a confidential situation and therefore people will have no idea what issues it is discussing? The question I asked was a different one, as I am sure the noble Earl will have realised. The Government of course would have considered very carefully all the implications of creating a democratically accountable police authority before Mr. Clarke made his announcement. The idea that they started to consider the wider issues only after they had made the announcement is of course quite unrealistic in terms of the way in which ministerial decisions are arrived at.
We make no complaint over the Government listening to people on this issue. All one would point out to them is that there was overwhelming public support for the provision of a democratically accountable police authority for London. The Government gave in to a small minority of their own Back-Benchers, notwith-standing the public support that had been registered. I think that that is a great pity. They did it—as the noble Earl is well aware—in the face of the situation that this withdrawal of Mr. Clarke's announcement, which had been made only in March of last year, did on that occasion obtain the overwhelming support of people in the police service both in London and outside it. It is a matter of regret that the Government have gone into reverse.
Lord Renton: I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. How can anyone be more democratically accountable than the Home Secretary is when he is accountable to the House of Commons?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Of course the Home Secretary is accountable to the House of Commons. However, the issue we are discussing—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will appreciate—is why, when Mr. Clarke announced that it was highly advantageous to have a democratically accountable police authority for London only in March of last year, eight weeks later he said exactly the opposite.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the past few minutes we have come to the nub of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, whether the Home Secretary was accountable to Parliament for the actions of the Metropolitan police. Strictly speaking, of course he is accountable for those actions to Parliament. However, we must ask ourselves, when we are considering these issues, to whom and for what a body is accountable. The Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for national policing issues all over the country, not merely for those affecting the Metropolitan police. That situation arose because under the 1964 Act a tripartite system was established which gives responsibilities severally to local police authorities, to chief constables and to the Home Secretary. Where local policing matters are concerned—I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is suggesting that there are no local policing matters in London; indeed, if he did so he would be going against the opinion of the Metropolitan police themselves—accountability is the domain of chief constables and local police authorities.

307
As regards accountability on national matters—it does not matter whether we are talking about the position in London, Warrington, Windsor, Sandringham or Balmoral and whether we are discussing accountability as regards the diplomatic protection group, the protection of the Royal Family, national drug smuggling issues or terrorist issues—the Home Secretary is accountable, and will be accountable if this amendment is carried, as regards national policing matters all over the country. The idea that London is so special that the Home Secretary has to be accountable for local policing matters as well as national policing matters seems to me to be totally unconvincing.
The Minister is renowned in the Chamber for his persuasive powers. Unfortunately, he has a real difficulty on this occasion because he is trying to persuade the Committee today of the validity of an argument which is the exact opposite of an argument he put before the Chamber on 26th May last year. With his usual courtesy and ability he put forward exactly the opposite view on the basis of the opinion of the then Home Secretary. I must say that I found the Minister more persuasive on 26th May than I find him today. I think it is right that we should take the opinion of the Committee on this matter. The view that we should take on this matter is the view shared not only by London local authorities but also by the Government last year, by the Metropolitan police themselves and by all who are concerned with the democratic control of policing in this country. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.82) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,112; Not-Contents,151.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Alport, L.

Gallacher, L.

Annan, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

[Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Aylestone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bath, M.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Haskel, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hayter, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hooson, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Howell, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes, L.

Chapple, L.

Hunt, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hylton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

David, B.

Judd, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Kagan, L.

Diamond, L.

Kennet, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridgc, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Eatwell, L.

Knights, L.

Ennals, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Ezra, L.

Listowel, E.

Falkender, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Falkland, V.

Longford, E.

308

Lovell-Davis, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Russell, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

McNair, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Serota, B.

Meston, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stallard, L.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Strafford, E.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Thurlow, L.

Nelson, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peston, L.

Wharton, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rea, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Richard, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Elton, L.

Aberdare, L.

Faithfull, B.

Addison, V.

Ferrers, E.

Aldington, L.

Flather, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gainford, L.

Annaly, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Arran, E.

Gisborough, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goschen, V.

Astor, V.

Greenway, L.

Bathurst, E.

Gridley, L.

Beloff, L.

Hacking, L.

Blatch, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Halsbury, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bridges, L.

Harvington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Henley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Cadman, L.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Huntly, M.

Caldecote, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carnock, L.

Killearn, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Knollys, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Chesham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Long, V.

Cockfield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Lyell, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Courtown, E.

Cranborn]e, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crathorne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cumberlege, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Daventry, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Morris, L.

Denham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Elibank, L.

Mowbray and Stourtorn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

309

Norfolk, D.

Sharples, B.

Norrie, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Orkney, E.

Slim, V.

Oxfuird, V.

St. Davids, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strange, B.

Peel, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Pender, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

[Teller.]

Pike, B.

Sudeley, L.

Plumb, L.

Swansea, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Teviot, L.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rennell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller]

Renwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Wakeham, L [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Weatherili, L. "

Romney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wise, L.

Sandford, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Seccombe, B.

Resolved in the negative to accordingly.
4.34 p.m.
Clause 10 [Alteration of police areas]:
[Amendment No.82A not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No.83:
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("appears to him to be") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No.83 is grouped with Amendment No.86. On this occasion I have no objection to the grouping. Both have the merit of being simple amendments and easily understood.
I draw the attention of the Committee to Section 21 of the 1964 Act, which gives the Secretary of State powers to alter police areas. Subsection (3) states that the Secretary of State shall not exercise his power to make alterations unless either he has been requested to do so by a police authority or, alternatively:
"it appears to him to be expedient to make the alterations in the interests of efficiency".
That limitation is meaningless and frivolous. It would not place any burden on the Secretary of State at all. If, as my amendment suggests, the words,
"appears to him to be" are taken out and replaced with the single word "is", the subsection would then read:
"it is expedient to make the alterations in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness".
The burden placed on the Home Secretary by such a change would be slight, but I believe that it is wholly appropriate.
This may not of itself appear to be an amendment of earth shaking importance and I do not suggest to the Committee that it is crucial. On the other hand, the Government's failure to accept it, or even to think about it, would indicate a very rigid state of mind and might influence the otherwise flexible approach which I always take to the arguments which they put forward.
Since the amendment is grouped with Amendment No.86 it may be convenient if I deal briefly with that amendment because it addresses a similar point. Section 21B deals with orders for altering police areas and such supplementary provisions as may be necessary. I am not certain how important those supplementary or
310
transitional provisions might be, but let us assume for the moment that they are not trivial. I suggest here that the words,
"as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient" should be amended by the deletion of the words,
"the Secretary of State thinks" to read, "as may be necessary or expedient".
That does not seem a great burden to place upon the Secretary of State. As we have so often argued in this Chamber, it is not a question of casting doubt upon the wisdom of the present holder of that office; it is a question of being absolutely certain that not only he but all his successors are infallible in the exercise of their judgment.
These two amendments represent a slight alteration, but an important one. They change what the Government propose in the Bill in the first instance by using the words "it is expedient" instead of,
"it appears to him to be expedient"
and, secondly, "as may be expedient" in place of the words "as he thinks expedient". I hope that I have made the position clear. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord has spoken to his amendments to Clause 10 with his characteristic modesty and moderation. I should remind the Committee that Clause 10 is the clause which has caused the greatest concern to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. One of the strictures of that committee refers very much to the issues to which the noble Lord has spoken. Amendment No.86 seeks to limit the flexibility of the Secretary of State in making powers under new Section 21B. It is worth reading on from the change that the noble Lord proposes. The powers which are sought to make supplementary and transitional provision as the Secretary of State thinks necessary include,
"provision as to the membership of a police authority".
We can understand that. When an area changes, that provision may be necessary when one has to have some change-over period. The powers also include,
"provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities".
Again one can understand that. They include,
"provision for the transfer of members of police forces and other persons; provision as to pending legal proceedings".
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in his place. Does that provision mean that legal proceedings might be dropped because of the change in boundaries? However, we then come to the crux of the matter. Paragraph (e) includes,
"provision amending Schedule IA to this Act, "
that is, the schedule which refers to police authority areas—
"any other enactment and any instrument made under any enactment".
The provision is bound by the phrase "supplementary and transitional provision". That is a widespread power. It is very much a Henry VIII provision that regulations made in that way can change,
"any other enactment and any instrument made under any enactment".
While I support the noble Lord's excellent amendment, does he realise the true horror of the powers which are proposed to be given to the Secretary of State by the new provision?
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: Perhaps I may put another point of view and perhaps assist my noble friend before he replies. While agreeing wholeheartedly with my noble friend that it is desirable to seek to have Acts of Parliament drafted in such a way that they contain less verbiage, and thus make lawyers' tasks less difficult in understanding them, I am not sure that in this case the amendment will achieve the objective that my noble friend desires. The reason is this. Amendment No.83 provides that "it is expedient" to make the alterations. Who will decide whether or not it is expedient? If it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient, at least he can argue his point. However, the generality of the phrase, "it is expedient" must open up doubts about who is responsible and how the provision would be interpreted.
The same argument applies to Amendment No.86. The term "may be" is loose. As drafted, the Bill would cause fewer problems in the future if certain actions were taken than might be created if the amendment were agreed to. I say that only to be helpful to my noble friend. I know his deep interest in the matter, and he is extremely persuasive. It is a point to be borne in mind.
Lord Gisborough: I believe that the provision is for minor adjustments. Without the amendment, the Home Secretary will be able to merge forces. That was not the intention. There seems a possibility that forces could be merged for accountancy arid book-keeping reasons which would be quite logical from the point of view of economy but totally wrong from the point of view of policing. The example of Los Angeles has been cited of what went wrong when book-keeping policing took over from local policing. There is the possibility of merging being undertaken at the whim of the Home Secretary or civil servants. If the amendment prevents that possibility, it should have serious consideration.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Home Office was the first office in which I served. I was very happy there and immensely proud of serving in that office. I have remained so ever since. I very much dislike opposing anything proposed by the Home Office. However, it seems to me that speakers have been overwhelmingly in favour of the amendment. I do not desire to add to the generality of what has been so admirably said. I merely draw attention to one word as indicative of the aggrandisement of the Executive these days at the expense of the legislative power of Parliament, and in particular of your Lordships' House when it comes, as a later amendment indicates, to intruding upon the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House.
I desire to add only this. It is the danger of the word "transitional". The point arises because use of that word was made quite extraordinarily—and I use that term advisedly—in the amendments to correct some of the grosser injustices of the Child Support Act. Regulations were brought in recently to modify the provisions of the Act. That Act provided for the formulae to be applied by officials in place of the discretion of the court which had previously obtained. The formulae were to assess the maintenance that was liable to be paid by absent fathers.
312
The provision fell into two categories. If the assessments had been made under the Act, as many had, they were immediately payable by the absent father. The absent fathers were immediately liable.
The other class of case was where the assessment had not yet been made. The word "transitional" would have covered the latter case. As the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments pointed out, the word did not immediately, and by accepted usage, cover the former case. In a sense, under "transitional" the department was bringing in regulations to permit the Secretary of State to alter the effect of a provision of an Act of Parliament. The joint Select Committee, with its immense experience, and headed by a chairman who is universally respected and is a Member of the other place, drew attention to that. It signified clearly that, as was the case, the use of the word "transitional" was quite extraordinary.
It seemed to us that that aroused immediate protests in your Lordships' House. We were in the difficulty that in the first place there is a convention—perhaps a weak convention and one that should be reviewed—whereby your Lordships do not vote against a statutory instrument. The second more powerful reason was that the regulations were designed, in so far as they went, to mitigate the harshness of the Child Support Act. So, subject to protests, the regulation was passed.
It was then indicated that the matter would be taken up before the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House. The point was then also raised in connection with the word "transitional" in a similar provision to this one in the Local Government (Wales) Bill. That, however, was not reached on the last occasion. It is notable that that is an additional reason in support of the amendment. To use the word "transitional" to give the Secretary of State power to rectify mistakes that have been made in an Act of Parliament is going far further than has yet been gone, although the Executive has been encroaching increasingly on the legislative power of Parliament and your Lordships' House.
Earl Ferrers: First, I can tell my noble friend Lord Gisborough that the amendment will not stop civil servants from amalgamating forces. I believe that that was his anxiety. Nowhere does the Bill allow for civil servants to amalgamate police forces, and therefore he need not be too worried about it.
The point at issue is quite simple in the case of my noble friend's amendment. Clause 10 of the Bill provides that Section 21(3) of the 1964 Act should state:
"The Secretary of State shall not exercise his power under subsection (1)"—
in other words altering police areas—
"to make alterations … unless … it appears to him to be expedient to make the alterations in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness".
The Bill leaves to the Secretary of State the question of whether it is expedient to make the alterations in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. Before he makes an order, he has to notify the interested parties and he must consider their objections. When he has considered them, he then has to be satisfied that the proposed changes are in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness. An order to implement such an alteration

313
or amalgamation must then be laid before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament. My noble friend's amendment would remove that subjective discretion on the part of the Secretary of State and both the first and the second amendments would impose an objective test of what is actually expedient in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness.
I suggest that those questions are not something which can be proved. They cannot be determined objectively; they necessarily involve a degree of subjective judgment. I believe that my noble friend Lord Mountgarret was right. No one can definitely say, "If you do that, it is expedient". But what one can do and can justify is to make alterations if the Secretary of State considers that, in his impression, it is expedient.
The words which my noble friend's Amendment No.83 would remove from the Bill have a direct parallel in the Police Act 1964. In Section 21(2) of the Act, the test for making amalgamation schemes is whether,
"it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient in the interests of efficiency",
that such a change should be made. The words used in the Bill are the same as those in the 1964 Act, which is itself concerned with amalgamations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is quite right to say that the words also appear in the 1964 Act. What he does not say is that the procedures which the Secretary of State has to adopt include provision for local public inquiries. Those are the provisions which are missing from this clause.
In cases of minor adjustments of boundaries, one can quite see that such powers are appropriate. But the problem is that the powers which are used here would be appropriate for minor changes of boundaries, for example those which would arise from local government reorganisation. We all recognise that, whatever comes out of the Local Government Commission and parliamentary consideration of the reports, there are likely to be changes of local government boundaries. That is fine; the provisions are all right. However, what is behind the Government's thinking here, and has been made explicit by Ministers over the past 12 months or so, is not just a matter of adjusting boundaries but of wholesale amalgamations of police forces.
It has been the view of Ministers that some police forces are too small for efficiency. We, for our part, very much contest that; in fact we consider that the smaller police forces have shown exemplary control over their expenditure, concern for community matters, efficiency in clear-up rates and generally high performance in terms of the recognised objectives of policing. The achievements of smaller police forces have been recognised by inspectors of constabulary.
The problem with Clause 10 is that what might be acceptable for minor changes is not acceptable for wholesale amalgamations. Anything which can be done to restrict the free licence for the Secretary of State to do what he wants—and that is what I understand the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is trying to do, to restrict that free licence—is very welcome indeed.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I have not always risen to support the Government in our discussions on the Bill, but it seems to me that the discussion we have been having goes extremely wide of the one narrow point raised in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I go along with the Minister in his conclusion that the whole process is started by a subjective judgment of the Home Secretary. It is bound to be subjective. We can discuss the procedures in due course, but the Minister's conclusion is that the procedures are designed to work out whether that subjective judgment turns out to be justified. That seems to me the simple pattern of the clause and I am afraid that I do not go along with the amendment. I agree with the Minister.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: It is with a great deal of unease that I find myself differing from the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, with his great experience of these matters. However, there are one or two points that I wish to make.
First, the fact that words have been used before in a comparatively modern statute confers upon them no status of respectability of any kind. It is still possible that they were, after all, wrong in the first place, in which case it would be desirable not to repeat the offence and use them again. So my noble friend's argument on that point is interesting only in that it reveals that he had not too much else to say.
The point with which I am concerned is this. The Government must accept that the Bill has aroused a great deal of hostility and suspicion among many people who are knowledgeable about police affairs. These two simple amendments seek to remove some of the suspicion that the Home Secretary simply wants to add to his powers and make life easy for himself. If he wants to alter a police area all he has to say is that it seems to him to be expedient to do so. No one can argue with that. If he says that it seems to him to be expedient, that is the end of the argument. On the other hand, if he has to give an indication or evidence that it is expedient to make a change, admittedly it will remain subjective, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, but it will not be quite so intensely so. There is a burden on the Home Secretary to satisfy himself and others that it is expedient to make the change asked for.
I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of the matter, but I have the nasty feeling at the back of my mind that the Minister is in the awkward position that he comes here with a load of advice and the instruction of his right honourable friend, "Do not give these people an inch. " I would like to believe that he will take these matters away to see whether there is the possibility that somebody else may be right and he may have got it wrong.
5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend says that I come here with loads of advice and instructions from my right honourable friend "not to give them an inch", to use his words. That has nothing to do with it. When I suggested that the precedent of the 1964 Act should be used my noble friend said that it was just possible that that Act had got it wrong and we should put it right. I say to my

315
noble friend that it is also possible that the Act got it right. If so why should we now differ? It is not a question of my right honourable friend gathering powers to himself; it is a matter of judgment. It is impossible to say that something will be done because it will be efficient and effective. All you can say is that you will do it because in your view it will be efficient and effective. It is simply a question of making the powers work, not giving additional powers to my right honourable friend so that he can bypass Parliament and do all these other things.
If and when under the new proposals there are any amalgamations there will be plenty of safeguards, one of which, apart from anything else, is that any proposal will have to be laid before Parliament so it can be discussed there. I assure my noble friend that this is not some diktat that my right honourable friend has given me.
Viscount Mountgarret: I should like to help my noble friend. Perhaps I may draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Peyton to Section 21A of the Act where it is provided that before making an order under Section 21, by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (3)—which says "it appears to him to be expedient"—the Secretary of State shall give notice of his proposal to various people. I understand the concern of my noble friend that on occasions there is too much power concentrated in too small an area, but on this occasion it is provided that the Secretary of State shall consult various people. Therefore, the scenario conjured up by my noble friend of the Secretary of State having the right to say that something looks a good idea and he can get on with it is simply not possible under the Bill as drafted.
Lord Monkswell: I am interested in the Government's argument that the wording of the 1964 Act was satisfactory and therefore it should be satisfactory now. I am not saying that the wording of the Act is unsatisfactory. One of the matters that concern me is whether the Government recognise that the circumstances today are rather different from those of 1964. If we cast our minds back to that period, the general consensus was that there was need for a reorganisation not only of local government but also of the police forces. There was no consensus about how it should be done. It was logical at that point in history to say that something had to be done and that the ultimate arbiter of what needed to be done was the Home Secretary. That was how the wording of the Act was framed.
We are now in a different situation. There is no consensus that something needs to be done about reorganisation of the police. If anything, the consensus is the other way round. It seems to me that it is only the Home Secretary who says that there needs to be amalgamation of police forces. There is a general consensus that most police forces up and down the land do not need to be amalgamated or split apart. There is recognition, however, of the need for minor changes because of the changes in local government which will arise from boundary commission decisions. It seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton,
316
is eminently sensible and should be supported. The circumstances today are different from those which obtained in 1964.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There is another difference between 1964 and the present time. Today we have a scrutiny committee, established in pursuance of the recommendations of the Jellicoe Committee, notwithstanding executive reservations. It has reported on the matter; that is a crucial difference.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to make too heavy weather about these amendments. Neither of them is very vital. I simply thought it would not be unreasonable to impose a slight burden on the Home Secretary to dilute a totally subjective judgment. That is unacceptable. I know that my noble friend Lord Mountgarret was anxious to help. I do not think he did so, although it was nice of him to try. Before I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that, had he said that there might be something in the matter and he would take it away to look at it, I do not believe that I would have attached an enormous amount of weight to the undertaking but I would have regarded it as a gesture of conciliation. Instead, he has literally spat it back at me and said, "This is absolute rubbish, and I will not even look at it". So be it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No.84:
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("two") and insert ("four").
The noble Lord said: I hope to deal with this matter fairly shortly. The Minister explained that the clause provides that where the Secretary of State is contemplating making a compulsory order altering police districts he must give notice to the police and local authorities concerned and such other persons as he considers appropriate. That notice has to describe the general nature of the proposed alteration and the reasons for it.
The 1964 Act left it to the notice itself to give a date by which objections must be received. This time the clause itself sets a period of two months with no power of extension. It seems to me that this is not realistic. Two months is not all that long. My experience may be unique, but I have known it take that time to get a reply from a Minister on what seemed to me quite a simple matter. That is the authorities' only chance. They will need to consult constituents and other bodies and they themselves do not meet every week. The notice might reach them in the middle of the holiday season—who knows? It is a little offhand. Given the importance of the issue to those concerned, it seems not unreasonable to extend the period for objecting at any rate to four months, if indeed it is necessary to provide any period in the statute itself. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In introducing the amendment, with which I thoroughly agree, the noble Lord did not refer to Amendment No.85, which has been grouped with it.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: With respect, no, the amendments have not been grouped together. They are distinct amendments.
Earl Ferrers: That seems to have closed up the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I made the point that I wanted to make; namely, that I agree with the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: But the noble Lord did not know that we were not talking about another amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, suggested that the period should be longer than two months and proposed that it should be four months. I thought it was hitting a little below the belt to say that it took two months to get an answer from a Minister at the Home Office.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I did not say from the Home Office; I said from a Minister.
Earl Ferrers: I thought that the noble Lord knew the habits of the Home Office so well that he might have been aiming in that direction. I am delighted to know that his loyalty to his old department remains strong and that he did not mean anything of the sort.
I suppose it is perfectly true that such letters might be written during summer holidays or whenever. But a two-month period in which the local authority has to reply in giving any objections to a proposed amalgamation seems to me to be quite a long while. I should have thought that that period was quite reasonable. There are arguments that the period of two months could be extended in some cases and the Bill allows for that. Two months is a minimum period and is not necessarily the period that will apply in all cases. So it would be possible to allow an extension of the period in certain cases.
I do not know that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, made a very effective case. Of course I wish to help whenever I can and I should be quite happy to accept the noble Lord's amendment, despite what I said earlier. It seems to me that four months would be a perfectly acceptable length of time. If that would help the Committee, I should be entirely happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I am very much obliged. It would help greatly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No.85:
Page 8, leave out line 19 and insert:

("(a) cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of that objection by a person appointed by him (who shall not be an officer of police or of any Government Department);

(aa) consider the report of the person holding an inquiry before determining whether the scheme should be made and if so subject to what modifications, if any; and").

The noble Lord said: I may have to speak for just a little longer about this amendment, which is rather more important than the previous one. Its purpose is to retain the local inquiry procedure where the Secretary of State is contemplating a compulsory alteration in police areas.
I recall that when the Police Act 1946 abolished most non-county borough forces, such as Reigate and Penzance, it also made provision for compulsory amalgamations, subject to some protection for the bigger counties and county boroughs. Those provisions were repeated with some extensions in the 1964 Act, as the Committee were reminded in earlier discussions. Tonight, happily, we can ignore the changes in amalgamation procedure made in the Local Government Act 1972—the statute which is so much admired by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—and also the Local Government Act 1992, dealing with the consequences for police areas of the findings of the Boundary Commission. That was a point touched on earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
The compulsory powers provided for in the 1946 and 1964 Acts were both put into use. A number of inquiries were held and a number of compulsory amalgamation schemes were carried through. But the procedure that is now contemplated is different. If the Secretary of State decides to go for a compulsory alteration in the interests of effectiveness or efficiency he is required to issue to the police authorities, the local authorities concerned and such other persons as he considers appropriate, as we have already discussed, a notice describing the general nature of the proposed alterations—that broadly follows the earlier Acts—together with his reasons.
There is then a period, which happily we have discussed, for making objections. The Secretary of State has to consider those objections and tell the objector whether he accepts them; and if not, why not. That is the end for the local and police authorities. At no stage is there any requirement for them to be told the details of the scheme; for example, under the paragraphs read out earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. They only have to be told the general nature of it. So far as I can make out, those details would appear for the first time in an order laid before both Chambers and requiring affirmative resolutions.
Under the old procedure, all the details—some of them can matter—would have been discussed at the local inquiry. Sometimes alterations would have been recommended by the inspector—but not now. Under the old procedure the orders had to be laid.
The Minister hinted that this time the additional requirement for affirmative resolution might prove to be an adequate safeguard. I am afraid that I do not believe that it is. For one thing, as we were reminded, it is rather unusual for this Chamber ever to turn down an affirmative resolution. My experience is limited but I can remember only one occasion. But as a safeguard, to my mind, in practice the affirmative resolution does not carry quite the weight that is sometimes attached to it. Also, the order cannot be amended. I do not quite know what either Chamber would make of an unamendable instrument with a mass of detail about such things as rank structure, the composition of the authority, the disposal of property, the detailed financial controls and all the rest of it.
What is a little more surprising is that there is no intention of using those powers, at any rate for the time being. The Government said in their White Paper, Police Reform (Cm.2281), that,

319
"it may be desirable in the long term to reduce the number of police forces," but that they all had enough to do in the meantime not to be diverted by any such proposals now. However, the Government want to take power to be able to implement a programme of amalgamation—a word which the Bill itself avoids—when, in a familiar phrase, the time is right.
The White Paper goes on to say that it would be unworkable to rely on the current statutory provisions.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "unworkable" as, "not capable of being worked".
But the White Paper immediately goes on to make it clear that the Government do not mean that at all. If I had been at the Home Office, I might not have been too happy about the drafting of that passage or indeed some other parts of the White Paper.
As the White Paper makes plain, what the Government object to is that if a local inquiry has to be held there may be delay and uncertainty over a long period. It is almost saying that the procedure would work but that it would be clumsy and a nuisance.
I have enough dim memories of being a bureaucrat to realise that it must be exceedingly frustrating, sitting high up in the Bail Spence Building at Queen Anne's Gate, when one is convinced that it would make sense to merge forces X and Y. The authorities have already had their say on the general issues but nevertheless one has to wait until the long inquiry procedures have been gone through and those concerned have been given their chance of arguing at length about the details. But we live in a democracy and those are issues of great local concern.
I shall listen, as I always do, with great care to what the noble Earl says when he replies. But on what I have heard so far I am nowhere near being convinced that the local inquiry should be dispensed with. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: At the time of the publication of the Willink Report there were 155 police forces in Britain, ranging from one of 18 officers in the Shetlands to one of over 3,000 in Lancashire. Now, of course, there are 43 forces in England and Wales and eight in Scotland.
Most of those amalgamations in England and Wales—some were affected subsequently by government reform in 1974—were carried through in the period 1966–67 as a result of the procedures laid down in the third schedule of the 1964 Police Act. That requires the Secretary of State to publish a scheme and, if the police authority or local authority object to it, there must be a local inquiry. As it happens, I was at the Home Office in the period 1966–67.
I am bound to say that I find it more than mildly surprising to have it suggested that the procedure laid down in that Act was unworkable; because it worked. Those amalgamations were carried through between 1966–67. Local authorities or local police authorities were enabled to put their case to an impartial and independent inspector, who then submitted a report to the Secretary of State. What is wrong with that? Why do we see the use of the word "unworkable"? It is an
320
astonishing word to use given the fact that, as I indicated, the bulk of the amalgamations that took place did so on the basis of this procedure.
I wish to make only two other points. The first was made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Like him I am mildly sceptical about the argument as between affirmative and negative resolutions. Oppositions are always in favour of the affirmative resolution procedure and governments, by and large, are in favour of the negative resolution procedure because of the amount of parliamentary time that can be devoted to it. On this occasion, for understandable reasons, the Government are suggesting the affirmative resolution procedure because they are wiping out the obligation on the Secretary of State to hold a local inquiry.
I do not regard that provision in the Bill as protecting the rights of local communities. As we know, debates in the House of Commons—that is where most of these debates will take place—on affirmative resolution procedures take place with possibly six, seven, perhaps a dozen MPs in the House, rarely more. The Division Bells ring and, as a result of the work of the Government Whips, the Government get their way. I do not regard that procedure as a satisfactory alternative to the right of local communities to put their case to an inspector at a local inquiry.
My second point is that I find it even odder that the Government are suggesting this major change in the amalgamation procedure when they say that they have no intention, in the short term, to amalgamate police forces. If that is indeed their position, why are they putting forward the proposal? It is an extremely strange idea.
One other argument was used in relation to delay and uncertainty over a long period. As I indicated, that did not operate in 1966–67. Having had some involvement in the matter at the time I cannot recall any of the Home Office officials who were involved taking that specific view; nor can I remember that view being expressed on behalf of any of the police forces involved. Accordingly, I am firmly opposed to once again stripping away the rights of local communities to put their case to a local inquiry.
It is wrong that police forces with a long and honourable tradition, a long record of service to their local communities, after four months can be wiped out of existence—in reality, by the stroke of a ministerial pen. The only problem then for the Home Secretary of the day—not the current Home Secretary because he tells us that he has no such ideas in mind—would be a thinly attended debate in the House of Commons taking place for an hour or so late in the evening as a result of which, when the Division Bells rang, a police force would be wiped out of existence. The local community would have no opportunity of putting its case to a local inquiry. That seems to me to be wholly wrong and I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl says to justify what, in my view, is an extremely oppressive proposal.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I support the amendment because I feel that the provision is a protection for the Home Secretary. I found in the cases I had to consider that new elements and arguments were brought

321
to light; matters that were not known to officials in the Home Office even to someone as luminous as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who always guided my footsteps from falling. But even he, on occasions, did not realise what those in the backwoods were thinking.
With respect, I think the Home Secretary is depriving himself of a form of protection in removing the possibility of a local inquiry. It helps him to know, after the inquiry, what arguments have been brought out. Although he hears the case from Home Office officials for amalgamation, he has not heard the case against. I suggest to the Minister, therefore, that it would be good to keep that form of inquiry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not trip myself up again by confusing the amendments. However, I want to say again that we strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the reasons already indicated. Minor changes to boundaries caused by local government reorganisation may well be acceptable in the form proposed. But larger changes may be proposed by future Home Secretaries with a different view from the present Home Secretary; after all, in the case of London, as we have seen, changes of one Home Secretary to another in the same party led to 180 degree reversals of policy. That could happen again. It may be that the arguments which always seem to persist—that larger authorities are more efficient than smaller ones—could result in proposals for large-scale amalgamations. Under those circumstances, proposals which are presented only in general terms to the authorities and to the councils in the area concerned, without a public inquiry, would be an outrage.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I know that anything to do with amalgamations is always a sensitive area, and that people are quite rightly jealous of their territorial forces. They take pride in them, and often they do not like to see amalgamations. That applies in matters of the police service, and very often in matters of business or even government administration. People like what they have become used to, and they take pride in their areas. I understand that. I do not think that there is anything sinister in what the Government are proposing.
There are serious disadvantages in the public inquiry procedures which apply under Section 21 of the Police Act 1964 in its present form. Inquiries are very long, very protracted and very expensive. Under present arrangements, if the Home Secretary is inclined to initiate compulsory amalgamation of police areas, he is required to publish details of the proposed scheme and to invite objections. Then if any of the interested police authorities or councils object, he is obliged to set up a local inquiry very much on the lines proposed by the present amendment. Once the inquiry has been held, the Secretary of State must consider the report and then determine whether the amalgamation should proceed. If he determines that it should proceed, he has to decide whether it should proceed with the modifications to the original scheme which are suggested by the report or
322
without them. He has to listen to the views of the inquiry, but he can then reject them. He need not accept its views. He need not incorporate its views into his decision.
The report of the inquiry and the draft of the order giving effect to the amalgamation is laid before Parliament but it is not subject to any parliamentary procedure. In other words, Parliament would have no right, and has no right, of approval or rejection of the order. These procedures are long. They can sometimes take up to 18 months. They can be very expensive. There is also the serious disadvantage of subjecting the police forces concerned to a prolonged period of uncertainty. We believe that this can have an adverse effect on policing in the area.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that the rights of local authorities can be wiped out at the stroke of a ministerial pen. I do not think that that is so. If I may modestly suggest it, the noble Lord is wrong. The proposals set out in the Bill are in some ways even more generous to objectors. Under the proposals, the Secretary of State is required to serve notice on the relevant councils and police authorities which would be affected and to such other persons as he considers appropriate. He must give a minimum period of time for them to respond with any objections. It was to be two months. That, I admit, has now been extended to four months at the stroke of the Committee's pen. The Home Secretary is then required to consider those objections, respond and state what his views are. In addition—and the Committee might think this a valuable safeguard—if the Secretary of State is minded to proceed with a compulsory alteration of police areas having considered the objections, he must obtain the approval of both Houses of Parliament before the relevant alteration order can come into effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that it is very unusual for affirmative resolutions to be voted against. It is unusual but I remember the occasion about 30 years ago when a Stansted order was brought before your Lordships. There was a proposal to have an airport at Stansted long, long before the present Stansted airport was built. There was such a row about it that, admittedly, the order was not voted on. The Government withdrew the order because it would have been so unpopular. The order never went through Parliament, so there is a protection there.
This is a less protracted and unsettling arrangement. It gives those who want to object the ability to object and allows for Parliament also to have the right of decision about the resultant decision.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl has suggested to us that there are formidable hurdles for the Secretary of State to have to clamber over in order to get his way on an amalgamation scheme. I took a note of what the noble Earl said. The Secretary of State must first serve a notice on those concerned. That does not seem an immensely difficult procedure. Then he has to give them time to respond. That is true. It is to take four months. Then he has to consider their objections. That

323
also is not an enormous hurdle to have to clamber over. Then he has to respond to the objections, which means a letter.
I ask the Committee to contrast that with the present statutory position. There is a local inquiry. In most cases an inspector of constabulary has to go into the witness box to justify the character of the Secretary of State's scheme. He is crass-examined. At the end of the period of inquiry the inspector submits a report to the Secretary of State. That is a substantial procedure, and rightly so, because what we are talking about is a significant number of police forces of considerable quality with a long record of service to the local community and often an intimate relationship with a local community. It seems to me that the procedures outlined by the noble Earl amount to very little indeed.
I have indicated already that I do not believe that the affirmative resolution procedure has a great deal of strength behind it because, as we know, many affirmative resolutions trundle through a thinly attended House of Commons, with people responding when they hear Division Belts ring. The local inquiry is the best guarantee local communities have that their forces will not be wiped out of existence by a Home Secretary without reasonable cause arid without a serious case being put to a local inquiry.
For instance, why should the police forces of Wiltshire and Dorset be amalgamated without some form of local inquiry? Why should the forces of Hampshire and Sussex be wiped out of existence without some form of local inquiry? What seems so puzzling is that the. Government have made it clear that they have no intension of proceeding with a programme of amalgamations. So one is left wondering why this provision has been introduced at all. With great respect to the noble Earl, he has not advanced an argument in favour of it except that he said that the present system can lead to protracted delay. To the extent that a local inquiry has to take place, it will take longer than simply an exchange of correspondence, which is what is outlined in the present Bill.
I must say to the noble Earl that in the period between 1966 and 1967, when, this major programme of amalgamations was carried through, there was no view in the police service that the delays caused by the local inquiry system were unreasonable or affected the efficiency of the police forces concerned.
We have here yet another example of the government of the day acting ether on their own behalf or possibly their successor's behalf, giving Ministers the power to act without being required to justify their position before a local inquiry. That is unreasonable. In the light of the arguments which have been represented, I hope that the Government are prepared to think again on the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I find the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, difficult to follow. He seems to argue that the Government are removing rights from people. He appears to look underneath every stone to see if there is a slug there. He says that we are producing arrangements for amalgamations, but we have no intention of doing any. I have no hesitation in telling the
324
Committee what the position is. My right honourable friend has no intention at present of amalgamating anything, but it is perfectly possible in the course of the next 10,20 or 30 years that amalgamations will have to take place.
The present procedure is a very protracted one, an aspect to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, did not address himself. If this matter continues for 18 months and nobody knows whether they are going to be amalgamated or not, there is frustration and lack of motivation. Under the system which we have at the moment the public inquiry is long and expensive. At the end of it the Home Secretary does not have to take any notice of what the inquiry says. He makes an order under the administrative procedure and Parliament does not vote on it or even debate it.
The proposed scheme will be quicker. People will have the opportunity to write in to complain and see my right honourable friend. He has to answer those complaints and the matter then goes before Parliament. That is a more appropriate procedure.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Earlier, the noble Earl sat down before I expected him to do so. I thought that he was developing a case against this amendment; but he does not appear to have got very far. We have talked about an alteration to police areas; but the White Paper is quite honest because it refers to amalgamations and that is what we are talking about. The Minister has not answered the point that, as drafted, the amendment allows for the authorities concerned to be told about the general nature of the proposals, but it gives them no opportunity to be told about the details which in some cases can be very important.
I do not think I need say any more about the weakness of the safeguard of an affirmative resolution. We have Stansted and Rhodesia, but not very much else. The Minister has not commented on the valid points made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, and in particular, that when these inquiries are made they bring out points of which the officials were unaware. That means amendments being made to the original scheme. The proposal now envisaged allows no opportunity for that to happen.
It is said that these inquiries can take a long time. was involved in some of them, but I cannot remember that they took as long as all that. As the Minister said, there may be one which went on for 18 months. But once made, the orders last for a very long time and a period of uncertainty of even 18 months is a price well worth paying to be sure one gets the answer right.
I am not going to ask the Committee for an opinion this evening because, looking at the amendment, its drafting could be improved. For example, it does not specify what type of local inquiry one has in mind. But I reserve the right to return to this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.86 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.87:
Page 8, leave out lines 40 to 44.
The noble Lord said: I am delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is back in his place. I know that he had urgent business outside this Chamber earlier this afternoon. I am very much hoping for his support on this amendment. It seeks to do what the Government decided to do in the Local Government (Wales) Bill: to take out a provision which would intrude on the procedures of this House by declaring that what would otherwise be a hybrid instrument shall be considered not to be so.
Even though it may be somewhat boring, it is necessary to remind the Committee of what the effect of the hybrid instrument procedure is in your Lordships' House. I quote from Erskine May at page 550:
"A petition to the House not to affirm a hybrid instrument must be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments within fourteen days following the day on which the Chairman's report is laid before the House. If no petition is received, or any petition so received is withdrawn during this period, the Chairman reports accordingly to the House. Any petition received during the period and not withdrawn, together with the instrument petitioned against, stands referred to the Hybrid Instruments Committee. This Committee is appointed each session (as it has been this Session) with the Chairman of Committees in the Chair.
The Hybrid Instruments Committee, after considering any representations in writing by the parties to the proceedings and after hearing, if it thinks fit, the parties in person or by counsel or agents, decides whether the petition has a locus standi. If it so decides, the Committee reports to the House, in accordance with the criteria specified in Standing Order [216) whether there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee into all or any of the matters complained of.
Where the Hybrid Instruments Committee has reported that there ought to be a further inquiry, the House may refer all or any of the matters on which the Committee has reported to a select committee consisting of five Lords, named by the House on the proposal of the Committee of Selection, with orders of reference specified under the House".
That provision would be completely removed if lines 40 to 44 of Clause 10 were to remain in the Bill. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, reminded us, is the difference between now and 1964, expressed very great anxiety over this provision. I shall not read the full report on hybrid instruments but simply the second and shorter paragraph:
"The Committee notes that Clause 10 excludes the hybrid procedure of this House and that the Home Office has defended this in comparison with existing powers. We drew the attention of the House to similar recent provisions in the Railways Bill and the Local Government (Wales) Bill. In this case the bill gives the Secretary of State new and extensive powers in many areas and the House may wish to look very carefully at any further delegation of powers such as is proposed in Clause 10. Bearing in mind that the bill will remove a provision of Schedule 3 of the 1964 Act for a public enquiry"—
this matter may be returned to on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—
"in case of objection by a police authority or a council to an order to amalgamate police areas, the Committee believes that the House will wish to consider carefully the exclusion of the hybrid instrument procedure in this case".
Before the last election I believe that this was called a "double whammy". One takes away the provision for a public inquiry and, having done so, one then takes away the provision for issues which mix general and particular matters—in other words, hybrid issues—to be
326
considered properly by the procedures of this House or another place. Many noble Lords in all parts of the Committee will consider this an affront to the procedures of this Chamber as well as to the democratic consideration of proposals by government on amalgamations. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I would not expect my noble friend the Minister to accept the amendment. I do not think that it will very often arise that there could be hybridity. That will occur only rarely, but when there is hybridity, it means an elaborate parliamentary procedure, with the taking of evidence and the hearing of arguments. It could cause considerable delay, especially if the matter arose in July and consideration was delayed until the full hybridity procedure could be conducted in the autumn. I would have thought that this is a matter on which we should be trying to avoid delay. If it is necessary to make the changes envisaged in what will be the new Section 21B of the 1964 Act,
"it were well
It were done quickly".
The Government are right to avoid hybridity. I hope that they will do so.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This is a more important constitutional point than might appear at first instance because it crystallises an increasing invasion by the Executive of legislative functions. That is an age-old constitutional tension. It is not to be worried about, it is not to be grieved about but it is to be noted and to be resisted.
From time to time the tension is relaxed. It was relaxed as a result of the Glorious Revolution which established the supremacy of Parliament over the pretensions of the Executive to exercise legislative power. For nearly two centuries after that, there was no attempt by the Executive to exercise such legislative powers. It was relaxed again after the report of the Donoughmore Committee in 1932 which considered ministerial powers. Again, for decades there was no attempt by the Executive to revive its pretensions in the legislative sphere.
Your Lordships are now faced with a renewed attempt. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, this is in effect an affront to your Lordships' House because it is a pretension to suspend the standing orders of your Lordships' House without any prior approach to the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House. That is an extraordinary pretension.
It is important to recollect why the procedure of your Lordships' House in relation to hybrid instruments was established. As is well known, there are three sorts of Bills. There are public Bills, which deal with matters general and are introduced by a Member of either House. There are private Bills, dealing with particular interests and introduced on petition from outside Parliament. However, some public Bills affect private interests in particular and are certified by the Examiners of Bills as hybrid Bills. They then go to be considered by the Hybrid Bill Committees which weigh the intrusion of private rights against the public purpose of the measure and give each such weight as they think fit. That was a nuisance to the administrators of the

327
Executive when trying to get a measure through Parliament—and to get it through quickly without paying too great a regard to individual rights which may be overridden. So the brilliant device was established: instead of having a hybrid Bill, the hybrid provisions were put into a statutory instrument under the Bill.
Your Lordships' House alone countered that by establishing a Select Committee on Hybrid Instruments so that the private interests which were intruded upon by a hybrid instrument could be given proper consideration—not necessarily vindicated against the general purpose, but given proper consideration. That was embodied in the standing orders of your Lordships' House; those standing orders which are now sought to be suspended.
The matter was considered by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972–73. It was a very strong committee, presided over by a very experienced parliamentarian and Minister, the late Lord Brooke of Cumnor. It reported that the procedure of your Lordships' House—the procedure which is now sought to be aborted—should be maintained; that it was a safeguard and hat it had proved for 50 years to be a safeguard for individual rights and interests. That was 20 years ago. We have now had 70 years of the use of that procedure. There have been a number of attempts to obviate it in the way that is proposed in this statute.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, such precedents as existed before the establishment of your Lordships' Scrutiny Committee can be discounted. The Scrutiny Committee has on this occasion, and previously, signalled very strongly its objection to such a provision. It came to a head in the last Session in relation to the Railways Bill. The department fought with great tenacity to preserve its power of intrusion; to preserve its power to abort the standing orders of your Lordships' House. The matter finally went to a Division, in which the Government had a majority of one. They were supported by what is opprobriously called the "payroll vote" of 23 Ministers who had been kept around in order to support the Government in such a situation.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded the Committee, the matter came up again in relation to the Local Government (Wales) Bill. On that occasion, the Government silently agreed with the objection and the Lord Advocate, who was in charge of the Bill, put his name at the head of the four Members of your Lordships' House who tabled an amendment.
So the fight goes on, as any fight for liberty goes on. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. One must expect this sort of provision to be revived wherever an Executive can get away with it. Your Lordships will not, I hope, allow the Government to get away with it on this occasion, any more than on the Local Government (Wales) Bill—and as they just got away with it on the Railways Bill. I support the amendment as strongly as I can.
6 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and to the Committee because I was not in my place when he began to speak to the amendment. I gravely overestimated the time that it would take to dispose of the preceding amendment.
The amendment appears under my name. In fact, I tabled the amendment separately from the other two noble Lords whose names appear on it because it represented my strong views. I do not wish to repeat what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Suffice it to say, the concept of hybridity exists in our proceedings in order to protect the individual on occasions when the whole might of the state is deployed. Without a provision of that kind, the small rights of small people might go wholly unnoticed, unobserved and unheeded.
I was surprised when I saw the extremely laconic way in which the right had been dispensed with. New Section 21B(3) in Clause 10 provides that:
"An order to which subsection (2) of this section applies, and which would apart from this subsection be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument".
That is the stuff of Alice in Wonderland and Humpty Dummy—"Words will not mean what they normally mean when I don't want them to". I find that a strange proposition to come from a Conservative Administration. I wonder what the reaction of some of my noble friends would have been had the provision been contained in a Labour Government's Bill.
I feel acutely uncomfortable with the provision. If it is going to be said that it will occur only very seldom, why bother about it at all? If it is going to be frequently used we should be very careful before we accept such a measure. I say in conclusion that I have no regret whatever that my name is on the amendment.
Earl Russell: Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I owe an apology to the Committee because I was not in my place when the amendment was called.
As usual, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is entirely right. The hybridity procedure is an important part of our liberty. The force of an Act of Parliament which may do what it likes is one of the most formidable instruments of power known to man. When the whole weight of that instrument is brought to bear against a single individual or corporation in a different way from any other individual or corporation, that individual or corporation has rightly been regarded as entitled to the protection of our procedure.
That sense has existed in Parliament for a long time. I recently read a case of 1607 where Parliament brought in a private Bill that affected the inheritance of someone imprisoned for Roman Catholic recusancy. They were not the favourite characters of another place in the 17th century. Nevertheless, it stopped proceedings on the Bill, sent notification to him in prison and delayed proceedings to allow him time to instruct counsel to get a hearing. That is the way that parliamentary procedure

329
ought to be conducted and that is why we, in our hybrid instruments procedure, have something which is particularly valuable to the liberty of the subject.
There is another instance which the noble and learned Lord did not mention. In the Local Government Finance Bill 1988 a provision was introduced to vary the power to have the hybrid procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, from the Dispatch Box defended that—and so did the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who spoke on that occasion—I thought with a good deal of force. It dealt with the application of the community charge to railway signal boxes where cases were so individual that the risk of hybridity was extreme. On that occasion I decided to give the noble Lord the benefit of the doubt, but in return I asked him to give a pledge not to make a habit of it. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, willingly gave me that pledge. Now we have in the Railways Bill, the Local Government (Wales) Bill and this Bill—three instances in quick succession. I am inclined to agree with Goldfinger: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action. I hope that the noble Earl's response will be sufficiently conciliatory to persuade me that on this occasion Goldfinger is mistaken.
We live in a time when respect for Parliament appears to be declining. I am inclined to think that the diminution of column inches in the papers is an objective sign of a real decline of respect. I regret that very deeply. The purpose of Parliament is to make the law and on occasion to be capable of checking the Executive. We have here a case where the power of Parliament to control what goes in to regulations, which are themselves hard enough to control and which will have the force of law, is severely diminished. I hold the view that, if respect for Parliament diminishes, this kind of Executive action may have something to do with it. It is what was known in the 17th century as, "how to blow up a Parliament without gunpowder".
Lord Renton: Does the noble Earl agree that the alteration of the boundaries of a police area will scarcely ever affect private interests in the way they could be affected, for example, under the Railways Bill or under various other forms of legislation with which we are familiar? Surely we must be realistic about this.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right—
Earl Russell: I believe that the question was addressed to me. If the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Mottistone, wish to come back, I believe that that will be in order.
If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right, the existence of the procedure would not use up a lot of parliamentary time because there would not be the wish to invoke it. But if there is the wish to invoke the procedure, that would indicate that the noble Lord is wrong and that it has adversely affected a private interest. After all, a police station is a community and one cannot tear it apart without causing a good deal of screaming as the mandrake is pulled up by the roots.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord made the point that I wished to make much better than I could have done.
Earl Ferrers: Members of the Committee have discussed the subject of hybridity, and it is clear that the requirement for an affirmative resolution procedure raises the possibility that under the standing orders of this House an order implementing the change in police areas might be a hybrid instrument. Of course, new Section 21B(3) would exclude that possibility. It seems unnecessary to treat an instrument such as we are considering as a hybrid instrument. I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton was right in saying that the police areas as such are not of a specific national importance which normally goes with hybridity.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: If there is no question of treating the regulation as a hybrid instrument, then there is no point in excluding the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House.
Earl Ferrers: I understand the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I am glad to receive his advice. I was merely saying that I do not believe that police areas would come under the hybrid instrument provisions. Erskine May describes a hybrid Bill as a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class. On the whole, hybridity tends to refer to parliamentary proceedings which implement public policy but which affect private interests in such a way that not all private interests are treated the same.
I know that Members of the Committee are sensitive about these matters. I remember the Bill to nationalise aircraft and shipbuilding. Problems of hybridity arose and there were a great many difficulties. I am glad to have the advice of the Committee on those matters. Precedents have been quoted. There is a precedent in the Local Government Act 1992. But parliamentary procedures are important, as is the advice of Members of the Committee about them.
My noble friend Lord Peyton said earlier that he felt uncomfortable. I am not surprised about that. He has done nothing but criticise the Bill from start to finish and I am glad that he feels uncomfortable. Earlier he accused me of coming to the Committee with strict instructions from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to say no to everything; that is not so. I wish to consider what Members of the Committee have said. At present I believe that what is in the Bill is correct, but I should like to take away the views of the Committee and consider them further before Report stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is an offer it would be churlish to refuse. Clearly, anxiety has been expressed on all sides of the Committee about the provision. The defence for it is rather like the housemaid's baby; it is only a little one. I do not find that argument very convincing.
It has been said that the subsection is an affront to the procedures of your Lordships' House. I am sure that that is true. We could live with that. However, I find that it

331
is an affront to the English language. The Bill has five lines which say that that which is shall be treated as though it were not. That is most offensive. The Minister has properly and courteously said that he will take away the matter and think again about it.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, I should like to raise one further point. If a Bill comes to us from another place with such a clause, it may be thought that the other place has made a decision and, therefore, we should be particularly cautious about rejecting such a clause. However, this Bill started in this Chamber and we are inflicting on ourselves a diminution of our powers. That should be taken into account in conjunction with what the scrutiny committee recommended.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is an extremely useful and valid additional argument for the amendment. It is proper that I should accept the Minister's offer. If he wishes, I shall make myself available to discuss the matter with him, but he may feel that that is not necessary. He will realise that if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, as I do, I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage if we do not receive satisfaction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Functions of Secretary of State]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): If Amendment No.88 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos.89 or 90.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No.88:
Page 9, leave out lines 4 to 23.
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the extremely important issue of the national objectives of the police service for which the Government are seeking powers. There are substantial implications with regard to this procedure. First, there is no precedent for a government of this country requiring every police force to accept the same objectives. I have still heard no persuasive argument as to why that should be done. In fact, we are moving towards a procedure whereby we are asked to undermine the judgment given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the case of Blackburn. That established clearly and unequivocally—I should be grateful if the noble Earl will deal specifically with this point—the operational independence of the chief officer. This provision is designed deliberately to undermine the force of that judgment and thus has the most profound implications for the police service.
As the noble Earl is aware, once again, so far as I am aware, the provision is opposed by every chief officer of police in this country. The constitutional implications are profound. Apart from anything else, there are a number of remarkable absurdities. I find it difficult to understand why the chief constables of Cumbria, North Wales and Dyfed-Powys, all police areas in which there is a settled and primarily rural population, should be
332
expected to have precisely the same objective as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, who is responsible for policing many of our most difficult inner city areas, and the chief constables of the West Midlands and Greater Manchester who are responsible for policing areas like Handsworth and Moss Side. What is the purpose of that?
We have been told frankly by the Home Secretary that among the central objectives which chief officers will be required to accept—I take two of the first examples given—are that the investigation and clear-up rate of cases of violence and burglary should be national objectives. I wonder how sensible that is. As I endeavoured to point out at Second Reading, crimes of violence include a wide range of offences from murder and manslaughter to minor assaults—an assault, say, committed by one neighbour on another.
I wonder why it is regarded as sensible to create a situation whereby, as a result of the requirement to be imposed on chief officers of the forces concerned to answer precise statistical questions based on the success or otherwise of their operations in those areas, the media will, perfectly understandably—and, in my view, perfectly properly—be able to construct league tables based on those statistics.
I understand—though I know that many regret it—the case for a league table, for example, so far as concerns schools. I know that many people are passionately opposed to the idea. Nevertheless, I can at least understand the logic behind it. People can move so that their children are entitled to go to school in an area where the schools have better academic records than others. That is perfectly understandable. Many parents do in fact choose to do so, though I am not quite certain whether they are wise to do so on the basis of such league tables. However, how can that apply to a police force? Is it really being suggested that someone should move from, say, the area of Greater Manchester Police to Dyfed-Powys on the grounds that the clear-up rates in the latter are better and because it is at the top of the league table.
As I have already said, two of the central objectives which the Government have indicated they intend to impose on the police service are those of violence and burglary. To repeat, cases of violence cover a very wide range of criminal offences. When it comes to murder, the police do not have to be told to give priority in terms of their resources to such an investigation or, indeed, to the investigation of a rape. But how is it sensible for the success of the police in clearing up a murder to be counted in precisely the same way as a dispute between two neighbours who come to blows?
As I have pointed out, a policeman who has the good fortune to arrest both neighbours will score twice as heavily for his chief constable compared with the case investigated by a large team of police officers which eventually brings one murderer to the courts, The first of those cases may require the investigative skills of one uniformed officer for a period of perhaps an hour or so but, in the case of a murder investigation, it may require scores of detectives working together over a period of three to six months.
The noble Earl must be aware of the situation because he has direct ministerial responsibility for the police. The police themselves see no point in such a statistical exercise; indeed, they see it as deeply damaging. They are aware of all the issues which will not form part of the league tables and which will not be among the national objectives which will be laid down by the Home Secretary.
What about the hours of police time spent in sorting out people's domestic disputes (not a national policing objective as laid down by the Home Secretary) in dealing with missing persons, lost or runaway children; or in trying to help the elderly and infirm who call on the police for such assistance? Further, what about the heavy claims on police time of sending officers to sporting meetings—football matches, and so on—and major events? What about the hundreds of officers who sometimes have to be deployed in the streets at a time when it is believed likely that there may be a major terrorist attack? One has seen over the past few months the number of officers who have been deployed in the streets of the City of London following terrorist attacks in the area. All those activities will not score at all in terms of getting a good place in the league table.
Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee another example—one which is of fundamental importance. Again, I have already drawn this to the attention of the Government. Given the fact that the Government want to have those national policing objectives, it is astonishing that drugs are to be excluded. Since I spoke on Second Reading, we have seen the figures produced by Customs and Excise for drugs seizures in the calendar year of 1993. As I indicated then, in the first six months of 1980 Customs seizures of heroin and cocaine had a street value of £2 million. However, by 1993 in exactly the same period the value of hard drugs seized was not £2 million but £34 million; in other words,17 times as much. Now we have had the full figures for 1993. According to Customs and Excise figures published in the middle of January, cocaine seizures were 748 kilograms with a street value of £110 million and heroin seizures amounted to 562 kilograms with a street value of £98 million. That is a total of somewhere around £200 million.
As I also indicated on Second Reading, United States Customs assumes that it is successful in seizing somewhere around 10 per cent. of the drugs destined for the US market. It is generally accepted by law enforcement agencies in other parts of the developed world that they are probably equally successful. Very rarely do they assume that they are more successful. Therefore, if we apply the multiplier of 10, it means that heroin and cocaine were circulating in the United Kingdom last year with a street value of around £2,000 million. That is a huge law enforcement problem, not just in our inner-city areas but also in some of our cathedral cities and settled rural areas.
As I am sure the noble Earl will rightly say, the Government have devoted a great deal of time to trying to deal with that escalating problem. Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee just two examples. At
334
present, unlike the situation in 1980, we have Customs and police officers posted to many embassies in Europe and elsewhere in order to collaborate with other law enforcement organisations—that is, both the police and Customs. That is extremely valuable work. I applaud the fact that it is being done.
In addition, we have had the creation of the National Criminal Intelligence Service which has its headquarters on the south side of the Thames. It has scores of officers working together to target major criminals. Moreover, the service has established five regional offices and 70 per cent. of its work is drug related. Yet, astonishingly, when it comes to the national policing objectives, the attack on drugs is not mentioned at all. I shall give the Committee an example of the kind of problem that will arise in the future in that respect. The National Criminal Intelligence Service obtains a great deal of intelligence relating to alleged money launderers as a result of information passed on by financial institutions. As Members of the Committee will recall, such institutions are obliged to pass on that information due to the passage of the drug trafficking offences Acts.
In a large number of cases the National Criminal Intelligence Service asks individual police forces to follow up with inquiries in the cases of people who are suspected of money laundering. These inquiries can result in major investigations which require the support of scores of detectives. Yet the bigger the resources made available by a police force for critically important work of this kind in dealing with the threat posed by narcotics, if this part of the Bill remains intact the greater will be the likelihood that that force will find itself lower in the league table than a force which does not make resources available to the National Criminal Intelligence Service for the work it carries out.
This is a most extraordinary situation. I find it difficult to begin to understand how the Government have made a serious misjudgment in the definition of the national objectives. If they are to have national objectives, which I think is a thoroughly bad idea, why have drugs been left out of account? Many chief officers are deeply concerned about this proposal from the Government. Once again their views have been ignored. They consider that it is for them and not for a Minister of the Crown to determine their operational priorities, after taking account, of course, of the interests of the community they serve and the concerns of its inhabitants.
I believe that the provisions in the Bill on these national objectives are wholly inconsistent with the present law as laid down in the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the Blackburn case. I believe that this matter strikes at the heart of the operational independence of the individual chief officer of police. I believe the provision in the Bill is wholly undesirable, and I very much hope that the Government will drop this idea as soon as possible. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Knights: I rise to speak to this amendment. I have added my name to it. As has already been said on several occasions in this debate, one of the fundamental principles of policing in this country has been the

335
independence of the chief constable in operational matters. It is one of the checks on an ambitious Executive, arid as a former Commissioner of Police with the Metropolitan Police once said, it enables them to be completely impartial as between the governed and those who govern them. It is a principle which was commended by the Royal Commission in 1962 and expressed in Sect on 5 of the Police Act 1964. It is now repeated in Clause 4 of this Bill which states:
"A police force … shall be under the direction and control of the chief constable".
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said, that principle was set out in much greater detail in the Blackburn judgment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, set out his view in a long judgment, some of which I read out to the Chamber on Second Reading. I wish to read out some of that judgment again. The noble and learned Lord stated:
"I hold it to be the duty … of every Chief Constable to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace; he must decide whether or no suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought. But in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observations on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the lam and to the law alone. At the same time there are many fields in which they have a discretion with which the law will not interfere, For instance, it is for the … Chief Constable … to decide in any particular case whether enquiries should be pursued, or whether an arrest should be made, or a prosecution brought"—
subject now of course to the Crown Prosecution Service—
"It must be for him to decide on the disposition of his force and the concentration of his resources on any particular crime or area. No court can or should give him directions on such a matter".
One is bound to ask how that concept of an independent chief constable can lie alongside the concept of centrally produced objectives.
A memorandum dated 12th January 1994, addressed by the Home Office to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House, stated:
"although police authorities and police forces are to be required to have regard to such objectives, they represent a framework for the exercise by those authorities of their statutory responsibilities, and are not a tightly drawn regulatory structure".
Nevertheless, under this Bill they are to be linked to the setting by the police authority of performance targets. If the police authority is to be held accountable to the Secretary of State in respect of the extent to which it does or does not achieve his objectives, surely it must follow that the authority will in turn seek to direct the chief constable as to how it expects him to deploy his resources to achieve its targets. The effect that that might have on the possible fixed-term appointment and the performance-related pay of the chief constable we shall debate later on.
While I am sure that the Minister will seek to reassure the Committee that there is no intention whatever to alter the present position, nevertheless I notice that a leading article in The Times today, in referring to your Lordships' debate last Tuesday, states:
"Above all, police authorities will be given new operational powers".
336
Therefore, it is not only chief constables 'who believe that the Bill will affect the current arrangements. Of course chief constables should, and I believe do, consult with their police authorities in setting out to the force and to the communities they serve their objectives for particular years. But they cannot abrogate their responsibility for operational matters and must not be subject to operational directions by a police authority which is acting itself on the basis of directions it has received from the Home Secretary.
I believe that the Home Secretary's views on the direction in which policing should go could be quite adequately communicated to police authorities and to chief constables without the necessity of statutory directions, and the extent to which his objectives are being achieved could be equally adequately monitored through the Home Secretary's police inspectorate. Statutory requirements do not seem to be necessary.
I believe that there is another danger inherent in this clause. While I am sure that the Minister again will seek to assure the Committee that there is no question of a league table of results—as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—achieved by individual forces, nevertheless I am sure the press will seek to create one for him using the complementary performance indicators to which I have already referred. Those details will be obtainable from force reports without any difficulty, but the comments which will be made on the way in which they are used will have nothing to say about the differences between, for example, the inner cities and the Fens of Lincolnshire, or indeed as regards the other demands which are made on the police.
At the moment the public expect the police to spend some 60 per cent. of their time on matters not related to crime. The "dry run" of the objectives for this coming year which was circulated a few months ago concentrates almost entirely on crime and crime alone, which represents only 40 per cent. of total police effort.
Would it not be wise to consult the Association of Chief Police Officers before any guidance is given to the police via the Home Secretary as to the direction in which he believes policing should go? Where does Whitehall get its information as to what the public expect of their police? It has to come from the ground rather than from the Civil Service. That is not provided for in the clause as I read it.
I oppose the clause, first, because I believe that it is unnecessary, and, secondly, and more importantly, because I believe that it could be extremely dangerous.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Without, I hope, doing any harm in the eyes of my noble friend to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, I should like to say that I agree with every word the noble Lord said. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary for me to attempt to repeat the arguments at any length.
I have put down two amendments. Before I refer to them briefly I should like to remark that in giving his views on an earlier amendment my noble friend gave me the impression that he thought that I was somehow misguided in not being an enthusiastic supporter of the

337
Bill, and the fact that I sat behind him made matters worse. I hope that I misunderstood my noble friend and that he did not mean anything of the kind.
In Amendment No.89 I suggest the omission of the words "by order determine" from Section 28A at the beginning of Clause 11 and their replacement by the single word "propose". That may not be ideal drafting but to me it reflects better the spirit of partnership among the Home Secretary, the police authority and the chief constable which I had always understood was the cornerstone of our policing arrangements and to which I have heard my noble friend Lord Whitelaw refer with eloquence on a number of occasions. I hope that my noble friend will not dismiss this as an irrelevant notion which has emerged from a disordered mind. I hope that he will take the amendment seriously and treat it sympathetically.
My second amendment is not as far-reaching as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Its purpose is simply to omit lines 9 to 13 which mention the establishment of specific levels of performance and performance targets. I wonder what they will mean in practice. I imagine that we shall be told that they will be dealt with more fully in the codes of practice. I notice that there is no provision in the Bill at present for those codes of practice to be made the subject of consultation. Whether or not that is the intention of the Home Secretary, I very much fear that the provision which I seek to leave out is indicative of the drift towards central control of the police.
I cannot for the life of me understand how specific levels of performance or performance targets will be defined. I do not understand how sense can be made of that when it comes to applying such standards to a single police force, to a unit in a police force or to an individual. I can imagine some very unpleasant and dangerous criteria being allowed to creep in.
I hope that I do not do the noble Lord, Lord Knights, any harm by agreeing with him, but I believe that he has done the Committee a signal service in the way in which he put his case. Perhaps I may say without embarrassing him that I have long wondered why the only policemen in this place were those on the door. I am very glad that the noble Lord is present on this occasion to give us the benefit of his wisdom and experience. I hope very much that my noble friend will listen to it.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, if I omitted to mention her, but she has not yet contributed a speech to this debate. I was referring specifically to the admirable contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Knights.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I speak as a mere layman in these matters, but it seems to me that different measures will make different people feel secure and well policed. The difference between town and country has already been pointed out. I shall go further and point out the marked differences between rural areas.
I would much rather trust to the perceptions of chief constables, magistrates and elected councillors than the perceptions of Home Secretaries. Some distinguished
338
former Home Secretaries are Members of this Chamber, but Home Secretaries are not omniscient. That is why I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment, or at least the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, was fully deserving of the encomium which the noble Lord gave it. As he said, I had not spoken. I shall not do so with either the weight or eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Knights.
I support the principle underlying all three amendments. They address another example of the trend of centralising power with the Home Secretary. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in feeling that Home Secretaries are not necessarily a reservoir of all wisdom and knowledge about what is required in the way of policing in this country. I believe that the present Home Secretary is operating on the basis of a very simplistic model of crime and how it may be combatted. He seems to think that he can wave a magic wand and issue an order and crime will vanish from the land.
As I said on Second Reading, I am particularly anxious that the apparent performance targets will consist of clear-up rates. I have known detective inspectors who can create 60 per cent. clear-up rates using theoretically legitimate means. There are ways of fiddling performance targets, and not only in the field of crime. Once one starts setting league tables and trying to assess complex jobs by counting, people will find ingenious ways of reaching targets and fiddling the figures. Therefore, at that basic level I am very anxious about performance targets and clear-up rates.
I am much more concerned by the proposal that the Home Secretary will be able to direct police authorities and chief constables as to what they should see as their major objectives in the coming year. We live in a society in which, although it is democratic, there is a tendency to see the powers and diktats of central government as more important than those of local authorities or, in this case, what the chief constable himself may consider important. The effect may be a total distortion of police effort.
Some of the objectives set this year have been generalised and are fairly anodyne but they include crimes of violence. In response to them, one may set up, for example, domestic violence units or rape units. Very often such units produce an increase in reported crime. Once police turn their attention to a specific crime—drugs is an example; the noble Lord, Lord Harris, spoke about them at some length—there is almost inevitably an increase in reported crime. In consequence, one receives more media attention, more crime is reported, and one has an upwards spiral of that crime. That argument is certainly true with regard to rape. When the Metropolitan Police began to be more sensitive to the problems of victims of rape, there was a considerable increase in reported rapes. Such an increase would run counter to the intention to improve clear-up rates and the crime figures.
The effect of setting specific targets is often to have exactly the opposite effect. Although the quality of the

339
service to the public may be much enhanced, one has an apparent diminution in performance. I am sceptical about the idea of performance targets and clear-up rates, especially when set at national level when one cannot observe what is happening on the ground.
The major objection in principle is to the assumption of power by the Home Secretary over chief constables and police authorities. The tripartite balance of power may be uncomfortable. Democracies are uncomfortable; they are difficult to work. But it is simplistic of the Home Secretary to assume that, by issuing diktats about what should be the major objectives of police forces in the coming year he can clear up crime, reduce the crime rate, and somehow no longer be blamed for the rising level of crime in this country.
Lord Elton: When one is faced with such a degree of professional experience in the police service, one naturally pays very close attention. One pays close attention also to any proposal abrogated by my noble friend Lord Peyton. However, I wonder whether the Committee may be going a little far in objecting to this part of the Bill.
As I understand the arguments against the provision, the first is that the Secretary of State is casting a blanket over England and Wales which will determine the whole policy of police forces to the exclusion of local influence. The Committee will not have forgotten, although we must revisit them, the provisions of Clause 11. New Section 28A applies that blanket requiring the police authority to have regard to the objectives set by the Secretary of State. However, immediately afterwards the authority is required to have regard to any objectives determined by the authority itself. There is therefore an equality of duty. I do not believe that it can be said that the Secretary of State has an overriding power in the Bill under Clause 11.
The Committee then expressed understandable reserves about the inevitability of every Secretary of State being the reservoir of wisdom and restraint that one would wish. However, in his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. That committee made no recommendation other than that your Lordships should consider—I ask the Committee to accept that recommendation—whether the order that the Secretary of State at present is empowered to make under line 4 on page 9 at new Section 28A(1) should not be subject to some form of parliamentary supervision. The Committee can then satisfy itself case by case as to whether the Secretary of State has gone over the top. The anxiety expressed would not then stand in the way of the provisions of the clause which I believe have merit.
Lord Plant of Highfield: Perhaps I may say a brief word in favour of the amendment. In doing so, I am very much a sinner who has come to repentance. About five years ago I wrote a pamphlet for the Institute of Economic Affairs in which I argued in favour of performance indicators in the public sector, including the police, and limited term contracts for chief constables. However, in the intervening period I have come to reflect on my arguments and realise that they
340
are fundamentally mistaken with regard to the police. I regard what I wrote then as fundamentally misguided. Perhaps I may briefly outline the reasons.
Performance indicators work, for example, in universities, (from where I come) in which one has a relatively homogeneous service to be delivered and a relatively homogeneous population of consumers of the service. The students are there primarily for one purpose; the staff are there primarily for one purpose. Neither of those conditions apply to police. The police have a diverse range of services to deliver. One has a diverse population, all of whom have different demands. Their interests have to be considered in a reasonably equitable way. There is a big asymmetry between the services and consumers where performance indicators work reasonably well and with regard to the police, a service in which they do not work well.
Secondly, having been involved in universities and performance indicators, both as an assessor of performance indicators from other universities and as a form filler in my own, it is clear that it is an enormously bureaucratic enterprise. In universities the exercise consumes hundredweights of paper. While the Home Secretary's desire is to cut down the amount of bureaucracy in the police and to put more people on the beat, I am worried that the performance indicator approach will create another bureaucratic monster.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, has already made my third point; namely, that people are ingenious. They can guide their behaviour to boost performance indicators. They can hit targets but at the cost of many other services that they should be providing. That is a major loss in a service with as broad a range as the police have. Therefore targets distort behaviour.
For those reasons, I believe that my view five years ago about the police was misguided. I would not now support what the Home Secretary proposes to do in the Bill. It is dangerous to link an illusory measure of effectiveness with proposals to judge a chief constable's performance in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness as detected by those distorting performance targets. If the chief constable is to lose his job as a result of a failure to meet those artificially defined targets, that is a dangerous concept. I now hold the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich: that is, the chief constable should be able to exercise discretion in consultation with, and having taken into account, the democratically expressed desires of local communities through the police authority and should be prepared at the end of the year to justify his exercise of that discretion to the police authority. He should not be bound by what I regard as distorting performance indicators.
Lord Renton: Clause 11 of the Bill breaks new ground. There was nothing like it in the Police Act 1964. In the light of the discussion that we have had, the provision deserves further consideration on the part of Government. The Government can be fortified to the extent pointed out by my noble friend Lord Elton. Our scrutiny committee has stated that it would be in order for the provision in the clause to be provided by

341
secondary legislation. However, the proposed method of secondary legislation needs improvement, in my opinion, in the light of what has been said.
The starting point is the question of performance targets. We find them referred to in lines 11 and 12 on page 9, but without any real definition. The Bill states:
"the Secretary of State may direct police authorities to establish specific levels of performance ('performance targets')".
But that is the only definition we have of performance targets which could relate to a wide range of things: crime prevention, crime detection, arrest, custody, prosecution of suspected offenders, traffic control, further training of police officers on the job, public relations, protection of the Royal Family and the Cabinet and of vulnerable places, as well as many others. I do not say that all those matters should be spelt out, but it would be helpful if my noble friend Lord Ferrers could give us some idea of what is envisaged by the broad phrase "performance targets".
It has been suggested to me by one of my noble friends who is present that Amendment No.92A proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has much to commend it. He tabled it with regard to codes of practice, to apply before codes of practice are approved and issued by the Home Secretary. However, on performance targets, it would also be helpful if the organisations representing chief constables and police authorities were to be consulted. That is another reason for further thought on the terms of the clause. I hope that we may hear from my noble friend that he has taken on board what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, as well as others.
7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Renton is correct when he says that we are breaking new ground in some parts of the Bill, particularly this one. There is nothing wrong with that. The whole police Bill deals with restructuring and bringing structures up to date so that they are more suitable for existing circumstances and those for the next 20 or 30 years.
I admired the noble Lord, Lord Plant, for admitting a total volte-face in his views. It is not often that a person, even a noble Lord, says that what he wrote five years ago was—as he said—fundamentally misguided. I admire him for saying it and respect it and, of course, he is entitled to change his view. I was grateful to him for having said that so generously.
The Bill will allow priorities to be set for the police and for police performance to be measured. That is a crucial element, clarifying the lines of accountability. After all, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is responsible for law and order. When things go wrong in law and order, people turn to the Home Secretary and say: "What are you going to do? The Government must do something". The Government spend £6,000 million on the police; 90 per cent. of that comes in one way or another from central government resources. Therefore, it is perfectly right for my right honourable friend, who is accountable to Parliament, to
342
be able to say to Parliament, "This is the way we are spending the money", and that he would like to see efforts made in certain directions.
If one suggests that the Home Secretary should not say that, one is suggesting that we must give the police authorities or the chief constables the money and let them get on and hope that they will do their work well. Of course, the majority do, but there should be some form of accountability. People ought to be able to say, "This is what I have spent my money on and this is the effect that I have had". If the public are worried about law and order, it is right for the Home Secretary to say, "Are we getting the best value for money? Are our police forces efficient?" That is totally different from interfering with the operational independence of chief constables, which is preserved, as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said, in Clause 4.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was right. No Minister can tell a chief constable what to do, but he can specify priorities. That is a totally different matter. The setting of key objectives will not undermine a chief constable's operational independence. A chief constable will be free not to meet the key objectives or any related performance targets if, in his view, other operational considerations are of overriding importance. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the Blackburn case. There is an established operational independence of the chief constable and nothing in the Bill undermines that. The Home Secretary has always influenced operational policy, of course, and he has always been able to do so when he provides guidelines and so forth. It is essential for his statutory duty and accountability that he should.
The key objectives do not remove the operational independence, they just identify major public anxieties which the police should tackle. In future, it will be much clearer to chief constables, to police authorities and to the public what is expected of the police. Police authorities will have clear standards upon which they can judge police performance. Police authorities, in turn, can be held accountable for the performance of the force for which they are responsible and those changes will improve the effective use of police resources.
The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Knights, were concerned about a number of matters and I only say to them that there need to be clear objectives for a service which costs £6,000 million. The police quite rightly complain that we make many and increasing demands upon them and the police themselves need a clear public indication of the major public concerns to which they should give priority.
The key objectives will set the priorities for policing. They will identify major public concerns which the police should tackle. My noble friend Lord Renton said that he hoped that there would be discussion about them. There will be. They will be selected after discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers, Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary and the local authority associations. The current non-statutory objectives which have been issued for 1994 and 1995 have been the subject of discussion.

343
What are those objectives which people find so worrying? They are simply these. The first is to maintain and, if possible, increase the number of detections for violent crimes. It is hard to find that objectionable. The second is to increase the number of detections of burglaries in people's homes. The third is to target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem, in partnership with the public and other local agencies. The fourth is to provide high visibility policing so as to reassure the public. The fifth is to respond promptly to emergency calls from the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was concerned that drugs were not specified in that. They were not specified in the key objectives because they were not considered to be of equal and overriding concern to all police forces. One of the objectives allows scope for targeting and preventing crimes of local concern, which can be drugs. The key objectives were discussed with representatives of ACPO and the local authorities who did not at any point advocate that work related to drugs should be a key objective. That does not mean that it cannot be a local objective.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question. I am sure he would not wish—wholly unintentionally—to mislead the Committee. Will he agree with me that the Association of Chief Police Officers made it absolutely clear to him and his colleagues that it was opposed in principle to what the Government propose here in terms of the national objectives? The Committee should not be misled into assuming that the association went along with this, because it did not. The Association of Chief Police Officers believes that it is wrong in principle for Ministers of the Crown to make those decisions.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has already made that point. I was answering the point raised by my noble friend that if we set objectives, that should be after discussion. Those objectives were set after discussion.
The success of police authorities and their forces in meeting the key objectives will be judged by performance indicators. Those indicators provide information about the number of burglaries detected or the percentage of 999 calls answered within locally specified times. They allow performance to be measured. The indicators for the 1994–95 key objectives were selected in consultation with the police, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and local authorities. Performance targets will tell the police what level of improvement in performance is expected.
The Bill requires police authorities, not the Home Secretary, to set targets, both for the national key objectives and for any local objectives. The role of the Home Secretary simply be to indicate the range of improvement that he expects to see. For example, he may ask police authorities and metropolitan forces to set a 4 to 6 per cent. target for increasing the number of detections for burglaries. He may set a target of 2 to 4 per cent. for smaller rural forces. Within the bands set by the Home Secretary police authorities will be free to make their own judgment as to how high or low a target should be. All of that can be supplemented by local
344
discretion. Police authorities may want to set local objectives to be measured by their own selected performance indicators. They may want to set targets, or higher targets than those required by the Home Secretary, for those key objectives. All of that will be possible. The structure proposed in the Bill simply sets out a means for establishing priorities and measuring performance. None of this is set in concrete. The year 1994–95 is being treated as a trial run to enable the Home Office and police forces to learn from the exercise. Future years' objectives, indicators and any conditions attached to targets will be discussed fully with the police and representatives of police authorities before they are set.
A number of noble Lords have said that they consider these matters to be wrong and that comparisons should not be made. The purpose of the provision is to provide a consistent basis of measurement so that forces can see how well they are doing. I do not believe that there is anything new about this. Every time I visit a police force I am festooned with statistics and facts on thefts, detection rates, clear-up rates and response times, and how effective the force has become at civilianisation and how it compares with the national civilianisation average. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said that figures could be altered by looking at a particular set of achievements. That possibility always exists. But in the end what is being said is that the Home Secretary is setting objectives to be covered and aimed at nationally. The police authority sets local objectives and says to the chief constable, "This is what we are worried about in our area. Will you deal with it?" How and when he deals with it are entirely operational matters which fall within the independence of the chief constable.
On the one hand, there are people who are worried about law and order and who ask what they are getting for the money spent. On the other hand, there are people who say that we must not interfere with the chief constable—we are not—and set these priorities. Of course the chief constable will be concerned with his local police authority. It is right that there should be strong police authorities. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Knights, recalls that in the days when he was a chief constable he worked much better with a strong police authority rather than with a weak authority which vacillated. We need strong police authorities. They are to determine what the policing is in their areas and the pressure points they want to see relieved. How that is done is entirely a matter for the chief constable.
I believe it not unreasonable to say to police authorities and chief constables that we are all in the business of dealing with crime. The Home Secretary, the police authorities and chief constables have responsibilities, but there should be some measurement of how they are doing; otherwise, we may as well let Parliament provide the money and hope for the best. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Chapple: The noble Earl said that when he visited police authorities he was inundated with statistics. If that is so, is it not an own goal to suggest that that can be married to a system of payment by

345
results? All they need to do is put those statistics down on paper and we will be paying more money for what we are already getting. Anyone who is familiar with payment by results systems in industry knows that they cannot be a substitute for good management. If you have poor management, payment by results systems will only make it worse.
Earl Ferrers: There is no question of a payment by results system based on the number of clear-ups. It is perfectly true that in industry in order to achieve competitiveness and effectiveness targets are very often set. If targets are not set there is nothing for people to aim at. I see nothing wrong in setting a target. At the end of the year the chief constable can say that the reason the targets have not been met is that there has been an outbreak of murders or burglaries and accordingly resources have had to be diverted. That is perfectly all right. Why should that not be allowed?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As always, I am fascinated by the response of the noble Earl, but, as always, I have unhappily found myself listening to a speech which does not answer some of the specific questions put to him. I now put a specific question and will gladly give way to him. Does he agree with me that the Association of Chief Police Officers is wholly opposed to this proposal? The answer to that is either yes or no. Will the noble Earl now tell the Committee what the truth of this matter is?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has a lovely habit of getting up and asking a question, saying that the answer is yes or no and inviting someone to answer in a monosyllable. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that these questions cannot be answered as simply as that. He knows perfectly well also that the Association of Chief Police Officers has welcomed many parts of the Bill but is opposed in principle to key objectives. But it has been co-operative over the key objectives set for 1994–95 with which it is in agreement.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I welcome that reply, which arrived in the nick of time. The fact is that the noble Earl has been good enough to confirm what the Committee should know, namely, that the Association of Chief Police Officers regards this as yet another example of the dangerous centralising tendency that runs through nearly all of the principal clauses of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord was kind enough to interrupt me. Perhaps I may ask him whether he thinks that there should be any form of objectives or indicators—yes or no?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am glad to answer the noble Earl with a very simple reply. I believe that it is the duty of every chief officer of police to discuss the problems of his local community with the local police authority. It is for them to decide the matter, not for a politician in Whitehall. The difference between us is as simple as that.
Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to interrupt but I cannot help myself. The noble Lord is so engaging a personality. Does he say that it is quite wrong for the Home Secretary, who is responsible throughout the country for law and order and for the disposal of £6,000 million, to have any say in how that money is spent?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That is quite an absurd question from the noble Earl, and I am rather surprised. I was hoping for a slightly more sophisticated question from him. Of course the Home Secretary—like the present one and like his predecessors, and like the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, when he was Home Secretary—has first of all a duty to provide adequate resources for the police service in this country and to indicate what he believes are the principal problems facing the police service of this country. That is the responsibility of the Home Secretary.
But the idea of imposing that framework on a police service which is wholly opposed to what the Government are proposing, as the noble Earl knows perfectly well, is offensive to the traditions of policing in this country. The difference between us is a fundamental one. It is whether we are going to move remorselessly—as I believe we shall over the next few years, if this process continues—towards more and more national control of the police service. We have seen that in country after country of western Europe. I remind the noble Earl that the traditions, the record and the reputation of the police service in this country are incomparably greater than in countries where there is exactly the form of national control that is advocated by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
In such a thinly attended Chamber, I do not propose to continue the debate this evening. Clearly, we shall have to come back to the matter because I am afraid that it is one of the three or four central issues in the Bill which are deeply offensive to the traditions of policing in this country and, I repeat, a police force which has won for itself such a high reputation in other countries of the world. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. It may be for the convenience of the House if the Committee recommences at 20 minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Accountants (Banking Act 1987) Regulations 1994
7.22 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th December be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Accountants (Banking Act 1987) Regulations 1994 which were laid before this House on 15th December 1993, be approved.
I understand that it will also be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Motions: that the draft Auditors (Financial Services Act 1986) Rules 1994, laid on 15th December 1993 be approved; that the draft Building Societies (Auditors) Order 1994 laid on 15th December 1993 be approved; that the draft Auditors (Insurance Companies Act 1982) Regulations 1994 laid on 17th January 1994 be approved.
The House will recall that Sir Thomas Bingham's report on his inquiry into the supervision of BCCI was published in October 1992. It concerned perhaps the largest ever fraud in the history of banking. When BCCI collapsed in 1991 it left behind it a trail of deception and criminality on an epic scale. Sir Thomas Bingham drew some clear lessons from his inquiry and set out a list of recommendations. When he introduced the report in this House, my noble friend Lord Caithness made it clear that the Government accepted them all and was committed to carrying them out. One of the regulations before the House today represents the culmination of our actions to give effect to one of Sir Thomas's recommendations that the existing right (in Section 47 of the Banking Act 1987) for auditors to report relevant information to the Bank of England should become a statutory duty. Sir Thomas was persuaded to this view by, in part, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee which, in another place, concluded that:
"although the existing permissive nature of Section 47 has worked well … it seems desirable to tighten the wording of the Act so that there can be no doubt, either from the point of view of the auditor, his client or the regulator, as to an auditor's duty to report. "
In the debate in another place in November 1992 the Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced that a similar duty should be introduced for auditors of building societies and financial service companies and he reported that the President of the Board of Trade would want the approach extended to the auditors of insurance companies; hence the four statutory instruments before us today.
Since that debate, the Government have taken the decision to introduce the duty into a fifth regulated sector, friendly societies, and a negative resolution order, under the Friendly Societies Act 1992 is also currently before the House.
There are a number of reasons for taking action across this wide front. First, and most important, the relevant provisions in the various Acts are very similar and if we are to bolster the arrangements in relation to banks then we should do the same for the other sectors entrusted with the public's investments, or with insuring their daily risks. It would be difficult for Ministers to have to defend leaving things unchanged in those other areas, if the effect of having done so were subsequently to lead to a case of fraud in an investment firm, building society or insurance company, which the existence of the duty would have helped to prevent. Extending the duty across the board will maintain a level playing field, which is something that is becoming increasingly important with the growth of cross-sector competition in the provision of financial products and services.
Once the scope or the duty had been determined, the Government published a consultation document at the beginning of March last year. That made clear that it
348
was not the Government's objective to alter fundamentally the relationship between auditor and client. Nor were we looking to increase the costs of audit. Our objective was the same as Sir Thomas Bingham's: to clarify and strengthen the position of the auditor, not to change it. So the Government held back from imposing a duty on auditors to seek out fraud, malpractice or wrong-doing. That would have meant straying too far from the auditors' traditional role.
The responses that we received to the consultation document were considered carefully and officials discussed the issues raised with the Auditing Practices Board and with other interested parties in the regulated sectors. Some comments could be dealt with readily by changes to the draft statutory instruments. But others were not so easy to resolve as they raised more fundamental questions. In those cases officials were able to explore with the Auditing Practices Board whether issues could be more easily addressed in the Statement of Auditing Standards, which was being developed to accompany the legislation, than in the statutory instruments themselves. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the cooperative attitude that the APB displayed in what were often long and complex discussions and to thank them for the very clear and helpful statement which they shortly plan to issue.
Once the extensive consultation process was over the Government circulated amended versions of the draft statutory instruments for a second, more limited round, before setting them in their final form. In producing the drafts we bore firmly in mind the fact that if this duty on auditors is to be effective, then it is vital that auditors can continue to rely on the trust of their clients. Therefore, we have tried to set the duty at a level which makes it clear to those who seek to commit financial crime that they are more likely to be caught, but which does not impose additional reporting burdens or costs on those who conduct their business honestly. We believe that that is most important.
Before I sit down, I should also like to mention that there is a European dimension to this issue. In November 1992, the Vice-President of the EC Commission, Sir Leon Brittan, sketched out some general proposals for Community legislation in response to the BCCI affair. Those proposals were subsequently turned into a Commission proposal for a directive, one element of which would be to require member states to impose a duty on auditors of financial undertakings to report breaches of laws or regulations or other adverse circumstances to supervisors. As the House will know, following discussions in Brussels, political agreement has been reached in the Council on an amended draft directive, which, if implemented in its present form, would impose on auditors a slightly wider duty to report than that contained in the regulations that we are currently debating. However, the proposed European directive has a number of further hurdles to negotiate before it can be finalised; and even when it is, it is unlikely to be implemented before 1996. Even though some minor changes may subsequently be necessary in order to conform with the directive, the Government do not want to risk a further period of delay before bringing these necessary measures into effect.
Given the widespread support of the recommendations of Sir Thomas we believe that we should now act promptly to pass those changes into law.
I conclude by once again expressing our gratitude to the APB and the many other professional bodies which were involved in considering the legislation. We believe that those measures will greatly strengthen and clarify the position of the auditor and represent an important step forward in the fight against financial wrongdoing. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th December be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Henley.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the Serious Fraud Office estimated that the amount of money lost due to management fraud in 1991 was double the loss due to household burglary. Fraud is big business and it is a growing business. If fraud were a legitimate business the Government's long hoped-for recovery would be well under way. Tackling fraud effectively is an essential part of building confidence in our financial institutions and of enhancing and sustaining the flow of savings into private business; in short, an essential part of building an efficient market economy.
Any measure concerned with the detection of fraud is a matter of the greatest public interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pointed out, the regulations grow out of the BCCI affair and implement in part—but not in whole, as the Economic Secretary suggested in another place—Sir Thomas Bingham's recommendations in his report into the affair.
To begin with, it should be remembered that it was not part of Sir Thomas Bingham's brief to conduct a general examination of the role of auditors and their relationship to supervisory bodies. He specifically ruled that out, suggesting that those questions,
"may well, at some point in the future, call for consideration in depth".
Given his terms of reference, Sir Thomas did not examine those issues in the depth that they deserved. But that is no excuse for the Government to fail to give them that attention. The regulations are a minimalist response to the problems raised by the BCCI affair and totally fail to address the wider issues of growing fraud and the role of the audit in the elimination of fraud.
I wish to ask two technical questions concerning the regulations and will later pose some related questions on the wider policy issues which the Government are apparently trying to avoid. First, with regard to the technical issues, why do the regulations only implement the first of the two recommendations contained in paragraph 3.45 of Sir Thomas Bingham's report? They embody recommendation 3.45 (iii) (a), but not recommendation 3.45 (iii) (b). Sir Thomas clearly regarded the two points as legally distinct. Why was the second neglected?
Secondly, while introducing the regulations in another place, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury took great pains to define in the widest possible terms the statutory responsibility now imposed on someone
350
acting "in his capacity as auditor". That would include the responsibility to report information discovered in work other than the audit itself (such as tax advice or business consultancy), work by other partners in the same accounting firm, and work on other audits of other companies which reveal information relevant to the first audit. That wide interpretation would seem, in common sense terms, to be at odds with the phrase, "acting in his capacity as auditor". Will the Minister confirm and justify his honourable friend's wide interpretation?
I turn to the more general issues to which I referred earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, repeating the words of his honourable friend the Economic Secretary, stated that,
"the Government held back from imposing a duty to seek out fraud, malpractice and wrong-doing".—[Official Report, Commons,15/2/94; col.853.]
Why did the Government hold back? Why did the Government fail to recognise that there is a vital public interest served by auditors and that the responsibility which auditors bear to the public interest should be embodied in statute?
In that respect the difference between the responsibility of auditors of private companies as set out in the regulations and the responsibility of auditors as set out in Section 15 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, could not be more striking. That Act places a duty upon auditors to seek out wrongdoing and waste and report it. Will the Minister tell us what is the rational basis for imposing a duty upon auditors to seek out wrongdoing in the case of local authorities and not in the case of banks, insurance companies, building societies or other financial service companies? Why does the public interest deserve protection in the first place and not the second?
A further significant difference as between the sectors covered by the regulations and the case of local authorities is in the appointment of auditors. In the case of local authorities auditors are appointed by an independent body—the Audit Commission. In the cases that we are considering the auditors are nominally appointed by the annual general meeting of shareholders but, as we all know, they are effectively appointed by the directors of the companies concerned. Indeed, how many times have we heard auditors refer to the directors of a company as "the client"? In law, the client is the body of shareholders.
The accounting industry is becoming increasingly competitive and the audit will typically be only part of the package of services which the accounting firm is attempting to sell to the "client"; that is, the directors. In those circumstances it is not surprising that an unhealthy relationship can develop between the directors of a company and the auditors. Surely it would be in the best interests of shareholders, as well as the wider interest of potential shareholders, employees, depositors and other customers, that auditors be appointed by an independent body so that the auditor is not relying for his or her future employment on the persons whom he or she is auditing.
The Government's approach to the problems of the appointment and responsibility of auditors has been to ignore the public interest and to effect the minimum

351
change upon a system which is failing to perform the task which the public have a right to expect of it. In recent years the accounting profession has been pressing for some limitation on the liability of auditors in fraud cases. Why do not the Government respond to the accounting profession's demand by requiring that, in return, auditors have a duty to the public to seek out fraud?
I well understand that imposing duties on auditors is an imperfect substitute for more effective corporate governance. But in bringing forward the regulations as their only response to rising financial sector fraud, the Government have ducked their responsibilities to legislate for an effective framework of accounting regulations; the sort of framework that would be an important element in building the confidence which is the ultimate resource of a successful financial industry. To secure that confidence, will the Government now initiate a proper inquiry into the relationship between client, auditor, supervisor and the public interest with the object of producing a Green Paper? We welcome the regulations as a step in the right direction. But they are only a small step; there is a long way to go.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord stated that fraud is big business, and I agree with him. He also spoke of the importance of tackling fraud effectively. I believe that as far as possible we tackle these matters as effectively as we can.
I apologise on behalf of my honourable friend the Economic Secretary if he gave the impression in his speech in another place that introducing the orders was all we were doing, and that they totally implemented the recommendations in the Bingham Report. I do not believe that that was the impression he intended to give and certainly that is not the case. This is only part of bringing into effect what the Bingham Report suggested. We also made it quite clear that we agreed to introduce legislation, as soon as the parliamentary timetable allowed, in response to one of his recommendations to give the Bank express powers to refuse or revoke authorisation of banks where proper supervision was impossible, and in relation to other matters. This is just one ò f the matters that needs to be examined.
The noble Lord then went on to ask about specific recommendations. He asked why the regulations do not cover paragraph 3.45(iii) (b), but cover paragraph 3.45 (iii) (a). As I understand it—I am speaking on advice—the recommendation is covered. I would prefer to take this forward further with the noble Lord in correspondence, but my advice is that both (iii) (a) and (iii) (b), as recommendations, are covered.
The noble Lord asked what was meant by someone acting "in his capacity as auditor" and whether that covered the case of two auditors in the same firm working for two different clients. As the APB's statement of auditing standards made quite clear, auditors are not required to report to a regulator confidential information which arises from work undertaken by the same auditing firm for another client. However, as a matter of sound practice, auditors who become aware of matters in this situation which could
352
otherwise give rise to a duty to report would we believe normally make further inquiries to establish whether the information concerned is substantiated.
Moving on to the general questions of why we do not go so far as the Local Government Act to seek out wrongdoing and why auditors should not have exactly those powers, as I think I explained, we did not go so far as to impose the additional duty to seek out fraud in order not unduly to change the relationship between the client and the auditor. It represents the difference between the fact that we are dealing in one case with private money and in the other with public money. The same would be true when we come to the question of the appointment of auditors. The noble Lord felt that too often they are seen as mere clients of the directors rather than of the shareholders by whom they are appointed. It is a matter for the shareholders to appoint them. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. Shareholders can obviously exercise their powers in that respect.
I hope that I have covered, albeit very briefly, the noble Lord's various points. Although he accepts that the regulations are only part of the way, I hope he recognises that they at least in part meet some of the recommendations of the Bingham Report. As we have made perfectly clear, both the Government and the Bank of England have fully accepted all the recommendations of the report and, as and when appropriate, we shall bring forward suitable measures so to respond. I commend the regulations the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Auditors (Financial Services Act 1986) Rules 1994
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 15th December be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Auditors (Insurance Companies Act 1982) Regulations 1994
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Auditors) Order 1994
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th December be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.44 to 8.20 p.m.]

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 11.
[Amendments Nos.89 and 90 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.91
Page 9, line 24, after ("may") insert ("by order").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos.92 to 95. There are two separate threads to these amendments, but I hope that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if they are considered together.
In all these amendments we are concerned with the issue of codes of practice by the Secretary of State about police authority functions. It is as well if we remind ourselves once again, as we did in our consideration of Clause 10, of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It considered specifically Clause 11 of the Bill and looked at Section 28A inserted in the 1964 Act providing that,
"The Secretary of State may by order determine objectives for … police authorities".
The Home Office prepared a memorandum for the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in which it set out its objectives. The committee published that memorandum in its third report which was presented to the House on 25th January of this year. It states:
"The final form of the objectives, and any subsequent changes to them, will be specified in a Statutory Instrument which has to be laid before parliament after being made, but this would not make the instrument subject to parliamentary control".
The Home Office explained:
"The objectives are clearly inappropriate to primary legislation because they would need to be changed and developed over time in response to changing circumstances… Parliamentary procedure beyond the laying of the order is not thought to be needed because, although police authorities and police forces are to be required to have regard to such objectives, they represent a framework for the exercise by those authorities of their statutory responsibilities, and are not a tightly drawn regulatory structure".
In paragraph 6 the committee states:
"The Committee agrees that the objectives do not need to be in primary legislation. We do, however, consider that as the Secretary of State proposes to, make the objectives of policing by an order that will be a statutory instrument, the House should consider whether there is a case for some parliamentary control of an order made under the new section 28A inserted into the Police Act 1964 by Clause 11 of this bill".
That is the purport of these amendments. Amendment No.91 states,
"Page 9, line 24, after ('may') insert (`by order')".
Amendment No.92 we say that in the same line there should be inserted the words,
"with the agreement of the organisations representing Chief Constables and police authorities".
That is a slightly different point from that made by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee but nevertheless a point on very much the same lines.
Amendment No.94 states,
"and any statutory instrument containing any order made under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
In this series of amendments we are giving effect to the anxieties expressed by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. That committee is a new organisation set up by the House in response to the work of the Jellicoe
354
Committee. It is already having a considerable effect on the way in which your Lordships' House can conduct its business, and that is entirely right. It never says in its reports, "The House should do this" or "The Committee should do that". It does not lay down what should be the result. The committee points to problems which it sees in delegated powers and draws them to the attention of the House, or in this case to the Committee. It suggests the areas of anxiety.
That is typical of your Lordships' House. We never ever say that anything is wrong. Whereas in another place standing orders may say that something is out of order, we do not have any power to say that. We simply say in our standing orders or in the Companion to the Standing Orders that such-and-such a thing would be "undesirable". That is the utmost condemnation that this House ever makes of its Members or of its procedures.
It is a powerful and condemnatory report in House of Lords' terms. The mild, questioning tone in which it is expressed should not be misunderstood. The point is very clear. What is proposed here is that varying provisions for determining objectives for police authorities are to be made by order, which would be subject to inadequate parliamentary scrutiny.
The purpose of this amendment is not to change the substance of what the Government want to do but to make sure that their objectives are achieved without any loss of parliamentary control. That is a cause which I believe will not be resisted by government and which should be welcomed in all parts of the House. It should also receive the approval of your Lordships' Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: We are now dealing with codes of practice, although when listening to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I felt that he was referring to the earlier part of this clause and performances. If we are now talking about codes of practice in Amendments Nos.91 to 95, I make this comment. Parliamentary practice as to codes of practice varies quite a lot. There are some codes of practice which are non-statutory and others which are statutory, and of those which are statutory, some merely have to be laid before Parliament as proposed by the Government here and others are embodied in statutory instruments, which is what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is suggesting.
I doubt the need for subordinate legislation on this matter. A code of practice is different from secondary legislation and has a different purpose. It is not intended to be part of the law. It is intended as guidance to those concerned. Therefore, I do not agree with Amendment No.91.
I turn now to Amendment No.92, in which the noble Lord is insisting that the code of practice should have,
"the agreement of the organisations representing Chief Constables and police authorities".
That would give them the last word. That would give them a veto, and I do not think that is right. By all means, however, let there be a 'requirement for consultation. Therefore, I would prefer Amendment No.92A to Amendment No.92. Indeed, Amendment No.93

355
would achieve that object so far as concerns the police authorities. I do not think that Amendment No.92 would be right because, as I say, it provides a veto.
At this lace hour, it is unlikely that we shall be reaching decisions tonight on any of the amendments that are grouped together. That is just as well because several of them overlap or are alternatives to each other and the Deputy Chairman of the Committee would have a confusing task if each of those amendments had to be put before the Committee.
I conclude by saying that there is one other point on which, with deep respect, I must correct the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Our Scrutiny Committee did not make any critical comment on the proposed new Section 28C which we are now discussing. Its comments related to the new Section 28A which we discussed before the dinner adjournment. Therefore, I think that my noble friend Lord Ferrers can ignore what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about the recommendations of our Scrutiny Committee.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for clarifying my thinking because I was a trifle surprised by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who was talking about objectives. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I thought that we had cleared the question of objectives before we went to dinner and that we were now discussing codes of practice. My understanding of codes of practice at least so far as concerns local government—and the police service is very much a part of local government—is that local government is entirely accustomed to working with notes of guidance and codes of practice from government. Therefore, no new principle is involved in the proposed new Section 28C.
My amendment, Amendment No.92A, was proposed with the idea of restoring to this section the tripartite balance which otherwise might be deemed to have been monopolised. I would not wish to see that balance so monopolised. I look forward with interest to what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say on the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I agreè with my noble friend Lord Renton that these codes of practice should not take the form of secondary legislation. That is not really their purpose. The main code of practice which the Home Secretary will issue under Section 28C will govern financial relationships between police authorities and their forces. It will take the form of guidance to police authorities on how they should frame the regulations governing their financial affairs. It will therefore encourage best financial practice, including the delegation of financial management. This code, and any others which may be subsequently issued, are therefore guidance documents, enshrining what currently constitutes best practice.
Parliament should of course be informed of their contents, as the codes will contribute significantly to shaping the relationship between police authorities and their forces; but they should not be regarded as regulatory instruments which require parliamentary scrutiny. It would be equally wrong either to remove
356
from the Home Secretary the obligation to inform Parliament of the contents of the code or to give the code the status of secondary legislation as suggested by Amendments Nos.91 and 94 on the one hand, and Amendment No.95 on the other.
Amendment No.92 proposes that the code should have to be the product of consensus between the Home Secretary, the Association of Chief Police Officers and those representing police authorities. The codes of practice will embody the Home Secretary's view, on the basis of wide consultation, of what best practice constitutes. That is what will be in the guidance. It may be—and indeed I hope it will be—that both the chief constables and police authorities will endorse the Home Secretary's conclusions on "best practice"; but the Home Secretary must not be constrained by the need to achieve consensus in issuing guidance which is designed to lead to better and more efficient management.
Amendments Nos.92A and 93 are not necessary. As I have said, the Home Secretary intends to consult fully with a wide range of bodies, including the Audit Commission as well as organisations representing chief constables and police authorities. The amendments have the disadvantage also of suggesting that consultation should be confined to chief constables and police authorities and, in the case of Amendment No.93, to police authorities alone—and to every police authority. I think that that would be undesirable. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will realise that the wording of the Bill is best left as it is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The wording contained in the Bill is by no means as clear-cut as the Minister appears to think. It provides in new Section 28C(3) that,
"The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any code of practice, and of any revision of a code of practice, issued by him under this section".
It may be that this is only gesture politics and that the Minister intends that Parliament should be informed but not consulted. If we are to be informed, surely there is no point in the information being laid before us unless we have some say on whether it is appropriate or suitable—otherwise there is no point in burdening your Lordships' House or our Library with that information.
Although I am not at all disposed to pursue these amendments, this little debate has been made thoroughly worthwhile by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who said that the police service is very much a part of local government. We agree with that. That is the argument that we pursued above all on Tuesday when we considered Clause 2. We look forward to the noble Lord's active and vocal support in pursuit of that objective. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.92 to 95 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Reports from police authorities]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.96:
Page 10, line 5, after first ("State") insert ("by means of a notice issued not less than six weeks previously").
The noble Lord said: With Clause 12 we move to the issue of reports from police authorities. We accept—indeed, we welcome—the idea of reports from police authorities. We think that in general the additional clause which it is proposed to insert after Section 29 of the 1964 Act is a move in the right direction. In our view, it is a reasonable proposal that police authorities should submit a report on the discharge of their functions and the policing of their area.
The problem is purely practical; it is a question of the minimum timetable before the reports can be prepared by the police authority and be received by the Secretary of State. The amendment seeks to insert a six weeks' notice requirement for the reports. That will allow enough time for the police authority to carry out the necessary inquiries, to assemble the information, to take specialist advice, to evaluate the findings and to prepare the report. Within the tripartite system—and I emphasise that precaution—it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to require the reports. If he is going to do so they should be effective reports and there should be adequate time for them to be prepared. I have no doubt that the Minister will reply that that is the intention of the Secretary of State and of the Home Office. It will be helpful to have the matter clarified so that there can be no doubt. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, kindly said what he thought I would say. He did not get it quite right but he was not far off. As he said, the amendment seeks to give a minimum period of notice of six weeks in all cases where the Secretary of State wished to exercise the new power provided by this clause to require a report from a police authority. As noble Lords will realise, this new power in respect of reports from police authorities is based closely on the long-standing power in Section 30(1) of the Police Act 1964, which enables the Home Secretary to require a report from the chief constable.
I hope that the Committee will accept my assurance that it will always be the practice of the Secretary of State to give a reasonable period of time for a response for a request for a report, just as is already the case with similar requests to chief constables. But the amount of notice that is reasonable to give must depend on the nature of the subject matter and its urgency.
As regards the existing power in respect of chief constables, routine returns of information may be the subject of several months' notice. Less urgent requests may well require several weeks' notice. But it is certainly not unusual for very urgent requests—sometimes connected with proceedings in Parliament or Questions asked by Members of Parliament—to be answered in 24 hours or less. Although police authorities will not be dealing directly with urgent operational matters, I really do not think it practicable to provide a minimum period of notice of six weeks. I can think of circumstances in which Members of the Committee would not be too happy at being told that they would have to wait for six weeks for some perhaps straightforward piece of information to be obtained from a police authority.
358
I assure the Committee that it would certainly not be the practice of the Secretary of State to impose unreasonable demands on police authorities by the exercise of his new power. I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to accept that the appropriate period of notice must vary according to the circumstances and that a six week minimum would be impractical. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that it is best to have a bit of flexibility.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not feel strongly about the issue. I agree with the noble Earl that some of the most urgent requests for information will go to the chief officer and not to the police authority. However, if we are talking about Parliamentary Questions we are almost certainly talking about police operations. In such cases the chief officer and not the police authority will be approached by the Home Office.
I am prepared to leave the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to decide what he wishes to do about the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not entirely reassured by the Minister's answer. I do not reject the assurance that a reasonable time will be given for reports. Indeed, I welcome that assurance and on that basis I shall not press the amendment to a Division. On the other hand, the way in which the Minister spoke gave me the impression that there could be a large number of such requests. I had hoped that routine requirements for reports would not be dealt with by specific requests for reports but by an indication on a regular basis of what should be contained in the annual reports from the police authority. The Secretary of State has plenty of powers in the Bill to require that annual reports should contain the kind of statistical information which he needs for his own purposes, and very properly too.
The idea that there should be a large number of ad hoc reports, some of which might be quite routine or in response to Parliamentary Questions, from a police authority rather than from the chief constable fills me with some disquiet. That was the valuable point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his intervention.
I hope that it is the intention of the clause that the Secretary of State will make such requests for reports to a police authority only when it is absolutely essential; when there is something about the policing of the area or the performance of the authority's objectives which requires a report to be made to the Secretary of State for the benefit of Parliament or anyone else.
I hope that the Minister will think again about that and, if necessary, will be able to reassure the Committee that the report-giving power will not be the first thing in the prayers at the Home Secretary's morning meetings—"What reports can we ask for from police authorities next?". It should be a power which, although it is necessary, should be used only sparingly if it is not to be a disruption in the work of these authorities. On the basis of the assurance given about a reasonable time being offered, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No.97:
Page 10, line 7, leave out from ("functions, ") to ("as") in line 8.
The noble Baroness said: The amendment addresses the same clause and it is an attempt to be helpful. As the Minister said, under Section 30 of the Police Act 1964 the Secretary of State may require chief constables to submit reports on any matters connected with the policing of their areas. The new clause appears to duplicate that and suggests that police authorities will be asked for reports oh matters connected to the policing of their area.
The Minister has already said that in relation to urgent operational matters the chief constable will be asked for the report. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his intervention stressed that it was for the chief constable to provide operational policing reports. If it is suggested that in future the police authority will be asked for the operational policing report it will have to ask the chief constable to provide a report. That puts the relationship between the chief constable, the police authority and the Home Office in a totally new set up. From top to bottom it will be a linear relationship, which worries us about the whole Bill, with the Home Secretary at the top, the police authority in the middle and the chief constable at the bottom. We are anxious to retain the tripartite relationship where the chief constable is on equal terms with the police authority. The duplication that is implicit in this clause with the Police Act 1964 is a recipe not only for that change in the relationship but also for confusion. I beg to move.
Lord Knights: I support the amendment. The Bill extends considerably the powers which the Secretary of State already has under the Police Act 1964 to require reports from chief constables as to the policing of their areas. Not only is it a duplication, it is an extension. It may well mean the police authority having to seek a report from the chief constable before it can respond to the Secretary of State. More important is the possibility of it being divisive as between the police authority and chief constable. What if the police authority has one thing to say about a particular matter and a chief constable has something else to say? It is one thing or the other and the one thing should be the chief constable in terms of policing of the area.
As regards asking questions of the police authority about the way it discharges its functions, that is a different matter and it is perfectly proper that the Secretary of State should be able to ask such questions. I believe that it will be rather divisive and objectionable to ask additional questions about matters relating to the policing of the area.
Earl Ferrets: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, for saying that her amendment is supposed td be helpful. That is in curious distinction to some of the other amendments she has moved. It seems that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there should be no clash between the Secretary of State's new power to request reports from police authorities and his longstanding power under Section 30 of the Police Act
360
1964 to request reports from chief officers. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State's powers in respect of reports from both police authorities and chief constables could extend to matters connected with the policing of the relevant police area.
There is a degree of overlap here, and it is quite deliberate. Of course, questions relating to operational matters are most likely to be directed to the chief constable. But the general duty of a police authority, as set out in new Section 4(1) under Clause 3 of the Bill, is,
"to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for its area".
Apart from the addition of a reference to effectiveness, that duty is unchanged compared with the existing provision in the 1964 Act. If we accept, as I think we do, that it is reasonable in principle for the Secretary of State to have power to call for reports from police authorities as well as from chief constables, then I think there will be cases where the Secretary of State would be entitled to call for a report from the police authority—perhaps alongside a related request to the chief constable—about aspects of the policing of the relevant area.
I can think of one or two cases recently where, because of financial considerations, police authorities said that they did not have enough money and that buildings would be closed and so on. There was then a fuss because it appeared that in that area policing would not be what it should be. In those circumstances, it is quite reasonable for the Home Secretary to call for a report from the police authority to ask what is the situation with regard to the police in its area and to ask what is the problem. That is different from calling for a report from the chief constable following perhaps, a riot in the area. There would then be a request for information as to what had happened in that regard. That is a different kind of request.
It is already well established that it is quite proper for a police authority to exert influence on matters of operational policy—to urge the chief constable, for example, to tackle particular problems which have arisen in the area—though I hasten to add that how those problems should be tackled in operational terms is of course a matter for the chief constable. There is an element of overlap but it is reasonable that the Home Secretary should be allowed to call for a report both from the chief constable and from the police authority—either one or both.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to ask for a report from the police authority as well as from the chief constable. Indeed, the clause is unexceptional in its reference to the discharge of the authority's functions which would of course include finance, the provision of buildings and equipment and so on. I am concerned about the vagueness of the term:
"or otherwise with the policing of its area".
That implies that a report would be provided about the operational policing of the area. I do 'not see how one can put any other interpretation on those words. I shall take away the amendment and consider the matter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I take the point that it is perfectly reasonable to ask for information from a police authority. However, I wonder whether the noble Earl will look at the language, without giving the Committee any commitment. I do not believe that there is a major issue between us but we wish to try to avoid confusion.
I do not wish to pick up the noble Earl on his words but he said that on an operational matter the request was most likely to be directed to the chief constable. My view is that it should always be directed at the chief constable. I do not ask the noble Earl for a commitment but I ask him to look at the language of the Bill because it is desirable to try to clarify the matter if at all possible.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is correct to say that if it concerns an operational matter, the request should be to the chief constable. Of course, I shall have another look at the language.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Police grant and other grants]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No.97A:
Page 10, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert:
("and the grants made under this section to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District shall be determined with reference to the level of the budget for the Metropolitan Police set by the Secretary of State. ").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to ensure that the Metropolitan police service will continue to be treated separately as regards the distribution of police resources to reflect the fact that the Home Secretary will continue to decide on the level of the Met's budget under the new policing regime established by the Bill.
London is excluded specifically from the provisions in the Bill which establish new police authorities in the shire areas. The Home Secretary will remain the police authority for London but a new body will be established within the existing statutory arrangements to advise him on policing in London.
Some London boroughs—I imagine, most of them—welcome the creation of an advisory body on policing in London and feel strongly that at least half the members of such a body should be elected councillors. Of course, each borough would like to see its councillors on the committee. However, the fact remains that it will be only an advisory body and the decision on the level of the budget will continue to be taken by the Home Secretary in his role as police authority for London.
At present, because it would clearly be inconsistent for the Government to make an assessment of the Met's need to spend its SSA which is different from the budget agreed by the Home Secretary, its SSA is automatically set at the level of its budget. I believe it to be desirable for that special arrangement to continue because it reflects the fact that the Met will continue to be different from the police authorities in the shire areas.
The amendment seeks clarification of the Government's intentions in that respect by requiring the
362
receiver of the Metropolitan police to be treated differently from the new shire police authorities in the making of grants to police authorities. It requires that the level of the grant should reflect the level of the budget set by the Home Secretary. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment seeks to remove the Metropolitan police from most of the provisions of new Section 31 of the Police Act 1964, inserted by Clause 13 of the Bill. It provides that Metropolitan police funding should be left solely to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
New Section 31 as it stands has been carefully drafted to permit its application to all police authorities without exception. It requires the Secretary of State to determine the amount of grant to be made to each authority; it allows him to use rules or a formula to allocate part of the total amount available; and it requires him to state the considerations he took into account in deciding how much to give to whom.
That is all perfectly compatible with funding the Metropolitan police. It allows the Home Secretary a degree of latitude in deciding how much grant should be received by different police authorities. He is certainly not bound to allocate all central government police grant on the basis of the formula. That would clearly not be right. But he is bound to make clear to another place the basis on which he is making his allocations. In whatever way he determines the funding for the Metropolitan police, new Section 31 requires him to tell another place his reasons. My noble friend's amendment does not seem to want him to do that, and he should be able to do SO.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that reply. It was extremely interesting and I shall study it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.98 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No: 99
Page 10, line 23, at end insert ("after consultation with such representatives of local authorities and persons representative of chief constables as he considers to be appropriate, and").
The noble Lord said: I did not move Amendment No.98, which was an alternative version of the same point, because I think that on reflection the above amendment, which provides for consultation with persons representative of chief constables as well as local authorities, is more appropriate than consultation only with local authorities.
We are concerned here with the level of grant to police authorities. I believe that it is necessary to set out the background in a few sentences. The White Paper (Cm.2281) on the police service at paragraph 5.14 proposes that there should continue to be joint central and local funding of police authorities. It has been suggested that the division of funding should be 51 per cent. from central government and 49 per cent. from local government. However, none of that actually appears in the Bill.
We know that discussions are taking place among the Home Office, local authority associations and the Association of Chief Police Officers about grant distribution formulae for 1995–96 and we know that the basis upon which those discussions are proceeding is that there should be a 51 per cent./49 per cent. split of grant. All that sou 'Ids entirely sensible to us. We do not in any way oppose the principle.
However, the amounts of money involved are very large. We are talking about £3 billion of police grant. If you want a comparison with local government finance, the figure there is approximately £17 billion of grant to local authorities. Section 78(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 specifies the degree of consultation which will take place on local authority finance. There are elaborate procedures of central consultative committees and so on, some of which are more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, reminded us a few minutes ago that the police service is part of the local authority service. Surely, therefore, it is right that the same degree of consultation between those who are issuing the grant and those who are receiving and spending it should apply to the police service as to the rest of the local authority services. Moreover, £3 billion is not an insignificant amount. Yet at present it is provided that the Secretary of State should determine the basis of his grant only with the "approval" of the Treasury rather than in consultation with the local authority associations or associations representative of chief police officers.
I do not in any way question the good will of those who are taking part in discussions between the Home Office and those outside organisations. But I think it is right that the consultation process which is taking place should be legitimised in statute, as it is for local government service.
I hope that the proposal will not be thought to be destructive. I would even go so far as to say that it was helpful that the Minister did not seem to think that by saying one amendment was helpful it implied that other amendments were not. But that is his problem and not mine. I believe that the amendment is helpful and is in line with the Government's wish to have a sensible structure for police grant. I hope that it will find favour both with the Government and with Members of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It seems to me that the case for the amendment is self-evident. There is nothing I wish to add to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said.
Earl Ferrers: Of course I accept that in no way is the noble Lord's amendment destructive. I also realise that the spirit of his amendment is to ensure that the Home Secretary should rim make up his mind in a vacuum. That is an entirely reasonable spirit. But I do not think it necessary to impose upon the Home Secretary a statutory obligation to consult either with local authorities or chief constables, or, indeed, both.
The Home Secretary will in fact consult widely with chief constables and local authorities on the distribution of police funding. The Department of the Environment,
364
which we expect to use the same formula as the Home Office in distributing its share of the funding to the new police authorities, is already bound to a process of consultation with the local authority associations. Therefore, to bind the Home Secretary as well in a similar way would appear to duplicate the process.
The consultation process of the Department of the Environment does not involve chief constables. The Home Secretary wants to be able to discuss his proposed distribution formula simultaneously with the local authority representatives and chief constables. We believe that the most effective and least bureaucratic way of doing that is through a non-statutory process.
However, in view of the noble Lord's remarks, I am quite happy to give the matter further consideration to see whether there is any advantage in drawing the two together or whether it would merely result in greater bureaucratisation of a process which will take place in any event. I shall certainly give the matter a little more thought.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. I can hardly resist the invitation to withdraw the amendment. I confess that I find it a little strange to argue that, because the Department of the Environment consults on a statutory basis on the distribution of its grant, it would be duplication for the Home Office to consult on a statutory obligation for its portion of the grant. I should have thought that it would simply be keeping the two sets of consultations in line and in particular would permit and encourage consultation with associations representative of chief constables as provided in the amendment. But no doubt those are matters which the Minister will take into account when he reconsiders the issues raised by the amendment. I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.100:
Page 10, line 34, at end insert ("together with the allocation criteria that have been applied. ").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No.101. We come now to rather curiously worded parts of Clause 13. Subsection (4) of the new Section 31 of the 1964 Act says:
"In determining the allocation among police authorities of the whole or any part of the aggregate amount of grants, the Secretary of State may exercise his discretion by applying rules decided upon by him and then applied without modification by reference to the particular circumstances of each authority".
There are some elements here which appear to be helpful and welcome. The phrase "without modification" as a qualifier to the rules "decided upon by him" (the Secretary of State) are helpful because they appear to discourage particular treatment of certain police authorities, although, as we shall come to consider when we look at Amendment No.102, that intention seems to be weakened by the wording of subsection (5) in Clause 13.
I believe that everyone who is involved in these grant matters agrees it is important that there should be some transparency, and that the Secretary of State should be

365
able to describe publicly and explicitly the grant allocation formula which he has applied in addition to the amount of grant payable to each local authority, and the considerations which he takes into account.
I have been making comparisons with local government. I am conscious that the complexities of the local government grant system have increased so much in recent years that the claim of transparency is probably difficult to sustain. Much of the revenue support grant and standard spending assessments for local authorities are now far from being transparent. They are dependent on quite complex multifarious analysis with factors which can possibly be expressed in numerical terms but which cannot easily be expressed in plain English. I know that the local authority associations are dissatisfied with the way in which standard spending assessments and revenue support grants are arrived at.
If I am arguing for greater transparency, it should not be thought that I am agreeing that the existing local government finance system is successfully transparent. There was a time in the early 1970s when I thought I understood that system. That period lasted for about six weeks and then changes took place and I lost that understanding. I have never regained any successful understanding of local government finance since that time. Others who have been involved in that area, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, might feel that complexities are piled upon other complexities in local government finance at such a rate that it is difficult to keep up with them.
The proposed new subsection (4) of this clause can be interpreted in a number of different ways. The subsection may permit the Home Secretary to determine the grant distribution rules and then apply them to police authorities only by reference to the particular circumstances, which have yet to be determined, of equal authority. Line 36 on page 10 of the Bill refers to the,
whole or any part of the aggregate amount of grants"—
that is, the grant to all police authorities. If there is freedom to vary the parts of the aggregate grant as between police authorities, is it not possible, at least, that the Secretary of State is being given power to vary his grant on his own terms between police authorities? Does that not mean that the phrase "without modification" in line 39 on page 10 of the Bill, has no real value? This is an opaque subsection. We believe that our alternative wording in Amendment No.101; namely,
"The Secretary of State shall issue common rules, which shall govern his determination of the allocation among police authorities of the aggregate amount of grants"
is not only fairer but much easier to understand. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The effect of Amendment No.101 is to require the Secretary of State to apply common rules when allocating available grant to police authorities. The Bill takes particular care to avoid imposing too rigid a set of rules and specifically provides a discretion on the part of the Secretary of State, rather than a duty, to use rules to allocate grant. The Bill is also particular in providing the Secretary of State with a power to apply
366
any rules to part of the total grant only, and also lets him treat different police authorities differently. There is good reason for that.
Amendment No.100 would require the Secretary of State to set out these proposed common rules in his report. It is therefore related to Amendment No.101. Work is in hand to devise a means of allocating grant to police authorities on a fair and equitable basis which is determined by the need for policing in each area.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that at one time he believed he understood how the standard spending assessment formula worked and that he understood it for about six weeks but after that period it was changed and he no longer understood it. Of course it is a complicated formula and we are trying to find a new formula. However, it is never easy either to find a new formula or, having found it, to understand it. We want to be as objective as possible. However, it is extremely unlikely that any rules which may emerge from such an exercise will allocate grant fairly to both a provincial police authority and to the Metropolitan police district. In addition to local policing, the Metropolitan police, as we know, additionally carry out a range of national and capital city functions for which finance must be provided.
We are also anxious to avoid any one police authority experiencing a significant change in its resources from year to year. We intend to introduce any changes gradually by limiting to an acceptable level the changes which may occur from one year to another. The Bill allows us to do that. We would not be able to do that if the amendments were accepted. My fear would be that the immediate application of common rules could result in some police authorities suffering a sudden and unacceptable decrease in funding.
For those reasons I do not believe that we could apply common rules in the way proposed by the amendments. It would not be fair to do so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will realise that we are trying to make sure that such changes as are necessary are introduced gradually so that no police authority suffers a severe decrease in funding in any one year.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am a little puzzled by some of the wording in subsection (4). It states that:
"the Secretary of State may exercise his discretion by applying rules decided upon by him and then applied without modification"—
so far, so good—
"by reference to the particular circumstances of each authority".
I do not know how he is to refer to the particular circumstances without finding it necessary to make a modification.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has a point. There are internal contradictions in subsection (4). The allocation is of the whole or any part of the aggregate amount of grants. That is extremely loose and fluid. Then the Secretary of State exercises his discretion, which again is fluid. Then he applies rules which he decides upon himself without modification, which appears to be slightly more rigid.

367
We welcome any assurance of transitional relief, which I believe is what the Minister was referring to; in other words, that any changes will be introduced gradually. However, that offer has led him into a misunderstanding of what is contained in the amendments. The noble Earl referred to the dangers of a rigid set of rules. The amendments do not propose a rigid set of rules. They propose that the Secretary of State should issue common rules. If he does not want rigid rules then he will not have rigid rules. That is up to him.
Nor is there anything in the amendments which makes it impossible for the Secretary of State to issue rules which include transitional arrangements to make sure that changes in grant take place gradually over a period of years. That transitional relief element of the Minister's answer is a red herring as regards the amendments. The Home Office appears to be determined that the Secretary of State can do what he likes about grant and can allocate grant between authorities without any real consultation or transparency in the way in which he does so.
I do not consider the answer at all satisfactory. It did not adequately answer the points raised in the amendments. Nor did it answer the criticisms which the noble Lord, Lord Renton. and I made of the comprehensibility of subsection (4). I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but this is a matter to which we shall wish to return at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.101 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.102:
Page 10, line 41, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No: 102 we turn to subsection (5) of Clause 13, which is even more curiously worded. It states:
"The considerations which the Secretary of State takes into account in making a determination under subsection (2)"—
which is the determination of the aggregate amount of grants and the distribution of those grants—
"and the rules referred to in subsection (4), "—
which are the curious rules about the "whole or any part", "without modification", and the "particular circumstances of the authority"—
"may be different for different authorities or different classes of authority".
That seems completely to negate any of the suggestions in the earlier subsection to transparency, to rules, to consultation or anything else. In other words, the Secretary of State consults, he sets up rules, he applies them without modification, and he can apply them differently to any authority or any class of authority.
If one were charitable one might think that there was a possibility that the Metropolitan police authority could be thought of as a different class of authority and that that may represent a desire to make a distinction between the Metropolitan police area and the areas outside the Metropolitan police area. In that case it is an idea which has yet to find expression on the face of the Bill. As matters stand, it is a classic case of saying, after
368
well over half a page of verbiage, that the Secretary of State may do what he wants. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory way to draft the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I support the amendment. The anxieties I have had are crystallised. One of the important aspects of the police force is its political impartiality. That consideration does not apply to many other local government functions. Local politicians have a much greater say in how services are delivered, the effect of which has been to produce political tensions. Over the years we have seen different classes of local authority areas with different types of local authorities being treated differently by governments of both political complexions. That is bad enough with different types of local authority areas. I refer, for example, to revenue support grant being given in one year for urban areas, and in another year for the rural shire areas.
Recently, the situation has become more blatant. We have classes of areas receiving apparently specific preferential treatment. I think of Westminster and Wandsworth, and the zero or low poll tax that they seem able to levy. Such political favouritism strikes people as blatantly unfair. It is important that we do not arrive at a similar situation with regard to the police. 'They should be above politics. The Secretary of State should not only be unable to show such favouritism; he should not appear to be seen to do so. I make a plea to the Government. The Bill needs to be redrafted to ensure openness and fairness which everyone can see and to ensure that different police forces are not favoured because of some political correctness in their activity.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may take up the point raised by the noble Lord. I fought the case in this House. There was a clear and openly declared argument as to why the Westminster council should have had additional help at the time of the introduction of the non-domestic rate. The reason was that all the money—it was a huge amount—which the City of Westminster was entitled to claim went direct to the Treasury. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, took part in the debate. However, the City of London was considered to be so different from other areas that reference to it was taken out of the Bill, as later were references to Westminster and then Camden. I cannot allow the noble Lord's remark to go unchallenged. The matter was discussed and well aired in this House.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may reply. That may be the reality. The problem is that it is not the perception. That is important. The people of this country should see that their police are not being subjected to political pressure, particularly from the Home Secretary.
Earl Ferrers: These matters are always confusing and complicated. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, feared that the Bill as drafted would enable the Secretary of State to do what he likes. There is always a difficulty in trying to find a formula which is suitable, using it and sticking rigidly to it so that it has to apply to every conceivable set of circumstances and there can be no flexibility attached to it. The noble Lord's amendment removes subsection (5) of the new Section 31, which is

369
inserted by Clause 13. That subsection allows the Secretary of State to take into account different considerations for different police authorities or classes of police authority when he decides the amount of grant which each authority should receive. It also allows the Secretary of State to apply different rules or formulae to different police authorities or classes of police authority when allocating grant between them.
One effect of the amendment would be to prevent my right honourable friend from providing the Metropolitan police with sufficient money to cover its national and capital city functions. That effect would obviously be undesirable and would act against efficient and effective policing.
The new Section 31(5) is not limited to the Metropolitan police. There could be other classes of police authority, depending on the size of the population in a police area, the extent to which the police area is urban, and so forth. So although one has to have a formula, there must also be flexibility within it. That is why I think it would be wrong to remove that flexibility which I fear the amendment would do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Frankly, that is gobbledegook. There is no point at all in having rules if the rules may be different for different authorities or different classes of authority. We may as well just say: "I think the Met. should have this, Lancashire should have that and Gwent should have the other", and set different rules for each of them and go ahead and allocate the money.
The idea in subsection (4) of having rules which are decided and then applied without modification, which are then permitted to be modified—in other words, to be different for different authorities—is self-contradictory. I know perfectly well what the Government are trying to do; I am under no illusions about it. I suspected that part of the excuse for it would be the differences between the Met. and other police authorities; but it does not get away from the fact that all the talk on the earlier part of Clause 13 on the considerations being taken into account or the rules being set is completely vitiated by the last two lines on page 10 of the Bill.
Lord Renton: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? The contradiction to which he referred—and he has made a valid point—could be simply removed by omitting from the penultimate line of subsection (4) the two words "without modification". Then the Home Secretary would have the flexibility which I personally think he should have and which my noble friend has advocated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is removing the contradiction by that suggestion, but it is going in the wrong direction. He is then confirming our view that the clause gives the Secretary of State all the discretion he wants. The words "without modification" are of no value in the light of the phrase in subsection (5):
"may be different for different authorities or different classes of authority".
370
It has no function, no purpose; it is redundant. We would much prefer to see the words "without modification" retained and to remove the phrase:
"may be different for different authorities or different classes of authority".
Alternatively, at least the words:
"may be different for different authorities"
should be removed. We might be prepared to argue about "classes of authority", but "different authorities" gives the game away. We know what the Government want to do. They want to set their own rules and they do not wish anyone to know what the rules are. We shall continue to resist this kind of discriminatory provision in such Bills.
Incidentally, although I do not wish to get into the argument about the funding of Westminster, I seem to remember that having won its first battle about the non-domestic rate, Westminster seems to have received very favourable treatment on the cost of snow clearance. Its costs were almost certainly virtually non-existent; but it was given much higher grant status than many northern authorities which have snow clearance problems. Westminster had it coming and going and still does, as regards the distribution of revenue support grant. The effective pleading of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, does not make the outcome any more just. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.103:
Page 11, line 7, after ("time") insert (", in the financial year concerned").
The noble Lord said: For the purposes of this amendment, I turn to subsection (7) of Clause 13. I will read out the provision in toto to remind the Committee of the extraordinary situation in which it finds itself:
"A grant to a police authority under this section shall be paid at such time, or in instalments of such amounts and at such times, as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine; and any such time may fall within or after the financial year concerned".
I know what the approval of the Treasury would be on these matters. The Treasury would set a grant and pay it five years late because that would be very good for the public sector borrowing requirement. What conceivable justification can there be to allow the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to pay indeterminate amounts of grant after the end of the financial year concerned?
If there is a case for specific parts of a grant, perhaps performance-related parts, to be paid after the end of the year—I cannot see a case for it but I can see how somebody may argue it—the Bill should say so. What it should not do is give the Secretary of State and Treasury the ability to pay as little of the grant as they like within the financial year concerned. Having risked antagonising the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, by my remarks on the previous amendment, I hope that as a responsible local government person she will feel inclined to support the amendment. Late payment of grant to a local authority or police authority can be extremely damaging. If it is necessary to have a deferred payment

371
the reason and amount should be spelt out in the Bill. There should not be carte blanche for late payment as is provided in the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not intend to go into great detail about snow. After all, the snow was offset by the large refugee contribution. We could go on debating that matter forever.
Referring to the particular amendment, I wondered whether the wording in the Bill was to enable people to receive money in terms of the accounting procedures rather than in reality. I will be interested to hear the reply of the noble Earl.
Earl Ferrers: I am frightened to give a reply. The last reply I gave was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to be gobbledegook. I suppose he meant by that that he could not understand it. I do not know whether or not he will be able to understand this reply. He was a bit hard in asking what conceivable justification there could be for paying a grant after the end of the financial year. He said that it was a wicked Treasury ruse so as not to pay grant for another five years. It is always fun to go off at an extreme and exaggerate. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will realise in the quieter moments of this evening when he has left the chamber that he has made the most monumental exaggeration that he has not intended to make.
The fact is that the effect of these three amendments will be to require that all grant is paid to police authorities within the financial year to which it relates. Of course, in the vast majority of cases all grant will be paid in the year to which the grant relates; otherwise, police authorities cannot function and will have no money to secure the maintenance of efficient and effective police forces for their areas.
There is a provision in new Section 31 that permits the Secretary of State, after he has made his main determination for the year, to vary that determination. This could mean that either a different total amount of grant was available or that the amount of grant to be made to certain police authorities was being changed. That could happen if local or national circumstances changed significantly during the year.
New Section 31 (which is Clause 13 of the Bill) requires that all reports setting out determinations of grant, including those which vary an earlier one, must be laid before another place and receive its approval. It is perfectly conceivable that the Secretary of State might make a fresh determination varying an earlier one towards the end of the financial year. If these amendments were adopted, the fresh report would need to receive the approval of another place and the grant would all have to be paid before the end of the financial year. If that were not possible, the grant could not be paid. That would make nonsense of the provision which allows the Secretary of State to vary his original determination. At worst, another place could approve a revised payment of grant just before the end of year guillotine, leaving no time for it to be paid. It is essential that we have some flexibility here.
That is why we would not wish to see the noble Lord's amendments accepted. 'But it is a perfectly good
372
reason to say that there should be flexibility and in this case, far from the Treasury not wanting to pay the grant for another five years, it enables it to pay the grant, which should the noble Lord's amendments be accepted it might not be be able to pay.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With his usual moderation, the Minister accused me of monumental exaggeration. But he only achieved that by misrepresenting both the amendments and my arguments for them. I specifically admitted the possibility that there might be some part of a grant which would have to be paid after the end of the year. I said that if there were some good reason for paying a grant after the end of the year, that should be explained in the Bill and late payment should be limited to that part of the grant.
On reflection, I rather doubt whether my moderation was justified. I could have been a good deal more extreme. After all, in local authority finance for a number of years there have been cash limited payments rather than payments based on spending. The £17 billion revenue support grant is all successfully paid on a cash limited basis within the revenue year concerned.
In the old days, when there were grants based on actual spending, it is quite true that payments were made the year after and sometimes the year after that. Sometimes the accounts were not closed for a couple of years after the end of the financial year concerned. But with the introduction of cash limited payments, that was no longer necessary and the Department of the Environment now pays all its grants within the financial year concerned. Police authorities' grants are now to be changed from grants based on spending, where there could be a case for late payment, to cash related grants, where there is no case for late payment.
The Minister has succeeded in misrepresenting the position about payments to a very substantial extent. In his reply he made no reference—though he would have been duty bound to do so if he had been representing the position fairly—to the difference between spending related grants and cash limited grants. I wonder whether he would care to explain to the Committee 'why cash limited grants, which are paid by the Department of the Environment within the year, cannot be paid by the Home Office within the year.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know that I would particularly like to explain that. But I have no doubt that there is a very good reason for it. I shall see what that reason is and let the noble Lord know.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It seems to me that this is a fundamental point about which the Minister should have known. I shall seek the opinion of the Committee on this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): The Question is that Amendment No.103 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No.51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos.104 and 105 not moved.]
9.43 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No.106:
Page 11, line 36, at end insert (", with diplomatic protection and with major public events").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No.106 again concerns the police grant. This subsection of Clause 13 allows grants to be made for national security matters. The amendment is a probing amendment to establish what comes under the heading of "national security". We suggest that diplomatic protection should be included to clarify what the grants can cover.
Providing protection cover for diplomats and other people who are threatened is an expensive outlay for a force and varies greatly from one part of the country to another. It requires five police officers to maintain 24-hour coverage and that is an extremely heavy drain on the budgets of smaller forces. It may also be required erratically. People may visit a country house or go on holiday to a different county from time to time. Those occasions may not be predictable by a force. Our feeling is that that type of erratic outlay should be covered by a central grant.
Does national security cover the cost of policing, for instance, the Conservative Party conference? That is a considerable outlay for the individual forces of Sussex and Lancashire when the party conferences take place there. The cover of the Conservative conference in particular is an extremely heavy drain on the local police force, particularly following the Brighton bombing. If those events are covered by the term "national security", there is no need for the amendment. The amendment is intended to spell out to some extent what is included under the "national security" grant.
Other major public events which happen within a force area from time to time and which cannot be predicted are pop festivals—a heavy drain on police manpower—and, alas, street riots. If there is major public disorder within one of our cities and mutual aid is required, that can mean extremely heavy expenditure for the force concerned. I am somewhat comforted by what the Minister was saying earlier about grants. He seemed to suggest that there was some flexibility in the ability to give forces extra grants during the year and other grants not budgeted for. However, I should be grateful for elucidation of "national security" and whether it covers these unforeseen and erratic events which can throw out a force's budgeting.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I obviously agree with the amendment as my name is attached to it. I realise that one cannot spell out in the utmost detail what is meant by "national security" in every conceivable case but I think that some more general indication should be given. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said, there is the question of party conferences. The party conference
374
of whatever government may be in power is obviously more at risk of terrorist attack than the conferences of parties which are not in power. My impression is that there is support for police cover at party conferences. No doubt the noble Earl will tell me whether that is true. If not, it is an immensely heavy burden on the forces in Lancashire and Sussex in particular.
As the noble Baroness said, the burden of providing cover, particularly for diplomats, in some of the smaller police force areas is now extremely substantial. It would be helpful if the noble Earl were able to say what action can be taken to clarify the matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I see that my Amendment No.106A is grouped with Amendment No.106. That is obviously because it covers more or less the same topic although my interest is the Metropolitan police service. It is therefore of interest that the noble Baroness has covered so widely the areas outside London on which I would not have been able to comment so well.
The Metropolitan police service performs a large number of national and international functions. I use that wording in my amendment because of its role as the police service for the capital. Those functions include protection of the Royal palaces and members of the Royal Family, protection of diplomats and diplomatic premises, the investigation of terrorist offences and compilation of associated intelligence, armed personal protection for Ministers and other VIPs, national Special Branch responsibilities, international investigations carried out at the request of the Government and the extradition of fugitives wanted in a foreign state.
Under existing legislation the Metropolitan police receive an extra 1 per cent. in specific grant to cover the cost of these national and international functions. The shire forces receive a specific grant of 51 per cent. of eligible costs and the Metropolitan police receive 52 per cent. The actual value of the extra 1 per cent. to the Metropolitan police gives them about £15 million in a year in addition to the specific grant of £35 million. However, the actual cost in 1992–93 was £69 million. So there was a shortfall of at least £18 million. The latest estimated cost for the current year is £95 million. We are therefore talking about considerable sums of money.
I was interested when the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to party conferences. There are also huge football programmes. There must be all kinds of things throughout the country where special demands are made of the police force. It is very important for us to have recognition of the very special costs associated with these matters. I support the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may use this amendment to ask a question about this part of the Bill. It says that a grant can be made in connection with safeguarding national security. Is that aimed at effectively setting up a tranche of police funding that will be geared to national security and that therefore, in each police force, there will be a certain sum of money for safeguarding national security? Alternatively, is it for making exceptional grants to police forces which are subject to exceptional circumstances? If the grant is to meet such circumstances, surely there are going to be

375
other exceptional circumstances and unforeseen occurrences which will arise apart from those affecting national security.
We need some explanation as to the purpose of these grants and whether the Government have a mechanism. How would they envisage reimbursing a police authority which is subject to really exceptional and unforeseen expenditure which it would be unable to meet in normal circumstances?
Earl Ferrers: The amendments would make the funding of diplomatic protection and major public events, and national and international functions, exceptions to the general rule of police authority funding as provided under the new Section 31. Grant allocation under the new Section 31 requires the approval of another place before any payment can be made. The only exceptions to that in the Bill are grants for capital expenditure and in connection with national security.
Capital funding for major projects at least cannot be catered for in the same way as the bulk of police authority funding. By its nature it is lumpy and driven by factors different from general police running costs. If a police authority needs a new headquarters building, for example, it needs a great deal of money for a year or two and then none for a long time. It may not be possible to quantify how much it will need at the start of the financial year. For that reason we need the separate provision in the new Section 31A.
The purpose of tae new Section 31B is to allow grant to be given for particular police operations against threats to national security which cannot be funded through the normal grant mechanism. Obviously, it is important to keep these exceptions to an absolute minimum. The provision reflects our experience in practice that there are just one or two such cases in which there is a need for special funding provision, but the Committee will understand that I would rather not go into detail on matters relating to national security. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, quite correctly referred to the fact that the Metropolitan police gets 1 per cent. extra for the international and national responsibilities which it carries out. That is a fact.
These amendments propose adding to those exceptions. I do not believe that there is a need for that. The funding of diplomatic protection, major public events and of national and international functions, can be dealt with perfectly adequately under the new Section 31. Certain items of expenditure such as these do fall unevenly on individual police authorities and we realise that. It might be possible to take account of them in the formula which my right honourable friend, together with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the local authority associations are currently seeking to devise as a means of funding police authorities by reference to the need for policing. If not, there is still no problem. There is no requirement for any funding allocation formula to apply to all the grant available. Provided my right honourable friend can justify his allocation of grant, and provided the allocation receives the approval of another place, he has discretion over the allocation of grant. Special funding needs can therefore
376
be catered for. New Section 31 is flexible enough to accommodate them. It is not necessary to treat them separately.
One or two of your Lordships referred to party conferences. The policing of party conferences is the responsibility of the local force. I know that it makes fairly severe inroads at any one time, but it is the responsibility of the local force although central government contributes in some shape or form to the security arrangements for party conferences. However, I do not think that amendment is about party conferences. This is a general provision relating to national security. It includes diplomatic protection, but is not confined to that. That is as far as I can go on national security.
As I have said, the Government contribute to the security arrangements for party conferences, but the policing of the conferences is the responsibility of the local force. I hope that the Committee will feel that it is reasonable that we should have such limited exceptions but that there should not be too many.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful for that response although I am still not terribly clear about what comes under the heading "national security". I should have thought that a little more could have been said without betraying any secrets. We shall consider the Minister's reply carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No.106A:
Page 11, line 36, at end insert ("and national and international functions. ").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move this formally because I have already spoken to it—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Baroness not want to move her amendment?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to move it formally.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I could ask for some procedural assistance. I thought that by moving the amendment formally it would appear in Hansard, which otherwise it would not, and that the Minister would be able to say that he had already spoken to it and that I would then be able to withdraw it.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to my noble friend for telling me what to do. I have already spoken to this amendment and I think that my noble friend understands what I have said.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Conduct and efficiency of police officers]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No.107:

377
Page 12, line 4, after ("procedures") insert (", agreed between the Home Secretary and the Police Staff Associations, ").
The noble Baroness said: We now move on from matters of police grant to consider matters relating to conditions of service. We are now into the area of police discipline, pay, remuneration, probation, promotion, rank structure and so on.
The proposed discretionary powers in this clause strengthen the Secretary of State's current obligation to consult the police negotiating boards and the Police Advisory Board on professional matters. In any organisation it is essential that one carries the members of that organisation with one. If there is no obligation on the Home Secretary to agree questions of procedure and discipline with the staff associations, the morale and good conduct of the police service will be adversely affected. This amendment is therefore intended to ensure that the staff associations are formally involved in reaching decisions with the Home Secretary about the regulations. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Bethell: I am an adviser to the Police Federation and I can say that there is a fair amount of support for the amendment. There is a vague idea of what the procedures envisaged in Clause 14 would be. Many serving police officers fear that they may have an adverse effect on their chances should they ever, as innocent policemen, be the subject of disciplinary proceedings. In particular, it has been suggested that under the procedures there would be a less onerous proof of guilt on a police officer charged with an offence; that the burden of proof would be reduced from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "on the probabilities of the matter". I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would comment on that.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. In my opinion it would be unconstitutional. We are dealing with regulations which are to be in the form of secondary legislation. To say that the regulations must be agreed with the police staff associations in effect gives the associations a veto as to the contents of the regulations. If the amendment were to read,
"after consultation between the Home Secretary and the Police Staff Associations",
that would be perfectly in order and would meet the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. My comments about Amendment No.107 apply with equal force to Amendment No.108. Having said that, I hope that it will prevent me from making a certain speech.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: In rising to add my support for both the amendments, I wish to say that their purpose is to ensure consultation with and involvement of the relevant police staff associations. It is important that the public have confidence that complaints brought against the police by the public are dealt with fairly and squarely. But it is equally important that police officers must be protected from malicious and ill-founded complaints being brought against them
378
and that the present principle in operation—namely, searching for the truth, with the necessary safeguards for the officer—should be retained.
In the main, police discipline proceedings result from complaints against officers. The majority of these complaints are malicious and are a form of counter-charge against officers who have executed the duties with which we charge them. If you, as a police officer, believed that as a result of a complaint against you for doing your honest duty to the community you could be tried before a kangaroo court, operating with a substantially reduced level of proof, what would your reaction be? If I were such a constable at risk of complaints against me which could jeopardise my job and my future as a result of the diligent application of my duty, the way I would avoid such dangers would be to avoid those duties. I would, for example, drive more slowly to an incident or take a wrong turning; turn the volume down on my radio or turn it off altogether; walk around the corner before any incident and keep walking, and also keep my job.
It is my belief that the legislation has professionally emasculated the operational effectiveness of the police service, though dedication and courage remain. I would hate to see us drive those qualities away too. When the whistle blows we want those front-line bobbies to come out of the trenches and confront our common enemy. Under this threatened legislation, if those bobbies want to stay in a job they will stay safely below the parapet—would not you? The police service in its entirety must have absolute confidence that the system is fair.
What is so wrong and terrible about consultation that prompted the Home Secretary to announce his decision on police misconduct at the Police Superintendents' Association Conference at Torquay in September of last year? At that time, all three staff associations thought that they were still in the period of consultation.
We are constantly being exhorted to guard against waste in all its forms. We are told that we must increase our efforts to become more efficient and provide better and more cost effective services and yet here we are ignoring and rejecting the vast amount of knowledge and professional expertise that has been built up over many years by the three police staff associations. That was offered to the Government with all the goodwill in the world but it has been cast aside and, therefore, wasted. Can we afford to indulge in that obscene form of waste? I ask the noble Earl to take note of that and to listen to what the three police staff associations have to say. After all, they are the experts who remain, in the main, anxious to help.
I conclude by quoting from a letter dated 28th January this year to the Home Secretary from the president and secretary of the Police Superintendents' Association. It says:
"The police service is not against change, but what we ask is only that change takes place after proper and careful evaluation of what is happening now, followed by careful planning and development of what might replace it. The best change—the change likely to succeed and improve—is the change which is implemented by, driven by, and supported by, those involved in carrying it out".
Earl Ferrers: This clause is about the provision of the establishment of procedures in which a member of

379
the police force can be dealt with by dismissal, the requirement to resign, reduction in rank, reduction in rate of pay and reprimand or caution; in other words, how those procedures are to work.
My noble friend Lord Renton was quite right that the staff associations have a clear interest in the content of regulations which affect their members. But it would be quite wrong to fetter the Home Secretary's discretion so that he can only make regulations with regard to police officers provided that he has first had the approval of the staff associations.
As my noble friend said, that would give the staff associations a veto on the regulations. My noble friend said he thought that the point would be met if my right honourable friend had to consult the staff associations before he made the regulations. That is exactly what he does. My right honourable friend is obliged to consult the police advisory board under Section 46 of the Police Act 1964. The staff associations are all represented on the police advisory board. Therefore, they will be consulted before the Secretary of State lays the regulations. However, I believe that it would be going too far to require their consent because that would mean that if the Secretary of State wished to produce regulations which he thought were necessary and appropriate and the staff associations did not agree, then my right honourable friend would not be able to lay those regulations. That would be wrong.
I give the noble Baroness the assurance that consultation will take place on those matters. Moreover, I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, that I understand the anxieties of the staff associations, which he expressed. Regulations will be produced which will change that to which everyone has become accustomed and that creates anxiety. But it is right that there should be a more simplified system than hitherto, and the associations will be consulted before the regulations are laid.
Lord Bethell: Can my noble friend address the point that I raised with him about the reduced burden of proof in disciplinary cases?
Earl Ferrers: I apologise to my noble friend for omitting to address that point. I wonder whether I might write to him on the matter.
Lord Bethell: Yes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not want to make heavy weather of the matter at this late hour. However, as the noble Earl will recognise, the point raised by his noble friend is fundamental to the anxiety in the police service about the new disciplinary regulations. As it happens, I believe that there is a case for change; indeed, I have made that decision publicly clear. But, nevertheless, there is widespread concern on the question and it is essential that it should be cleared up on the Floor of the Chamber at some stage so that we have a record of the Government's position.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord a little in that respect. The criminal burden of proof was always held to be necessary in the past. We are trying now to make such disciplinary matters more a question
380
of managerial decision. Perhaps I may put it this way. If a person is considered to have done something sufficiently criminally wrong, he will be taken before a court and subjected to the criminal burden of proof. Then, whether or not that person has been convicted by the court, you consider whether that officer is of a sufficient capacity and quality to be a competent police officer. In other words, those concerned will have to consider whether they wish that man to remain in the police force. That is a disciplinary matter which should not be subject to the criminal burden of proof but which should be subject to the lower burden of proof which is more likely than not as in a civil case. Therefore, there is a difference. However, it is mostly a managerial decision whether that officer is considered to be a sufficient kind of person to remain in the police force.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I hope that the noble Earl will forgive my intervention. I hate to be tiresome at this time of the evening, but is he saying that a decision on the facts on which that managerial decision will be taken will be decided on the balance of probabilities and not on the criminal burden of proof?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may follow up that question. I should have thought that Members of the Committee would have appreciated that it is in the interest of the members of the police forces that the strictest and strongest burden of proof should prevail before they are found guilty of anything. If we are to relax the burden of proof, it cannot be in their interest.
Earl Ferrers: I shall try to help Members of the Committee. If a person has done something criminally wrong, he will appear before a court and be subjected to the criminal burden of proof. It is possible that the court will acquit him and find that he is not guilty of a criminal offence. But then the chief constable is entitled to ask whether that person is of a sufficient calibre to be a policeman. That is a managerial decision. The chief constable may well consider for a variety of reasons, and even though the person may not have been convicted by a court, that nevertheless he is not a suitable person to remain in the police force. That would require a lower burden of proof.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not intend to pursue the point now. As the noble Earl has recognised, we are discussing a highly complex issue. If the noble Earl thinks it a good idea—and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell did—it might be better if the noble Earl was able to give a fuller explanation of what is proposed on Report. In that way, he would have the opportunity to consider carefully what he will say. It is to be hoped that that would also meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. As we all know, the issues are highly sensitive. It is obviously most important to get it right.
Lord Bethell: The noble Lord is quite correct. The point I raised is fundamental and one which rouses the greatest anxiety among members of the Police Federation of England and Wales. It would be very much to the advantage of everyone and, I believe, to the police service, if the matter could be cleared up on the

381
Floor of the Chamber on Report as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and not in a letter to me from my noble friend.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Of course, I would be entirely happy to do that. I was inveigled into answering by my noble friend's question. That was probably unwise as these are sensitive matters. I hope that in anything I said I have not gone over the bounds of propriety or correctness. I was going to suggest that I should write to my noble friend, send a copy of the letter to the noble Lord and lay a copy in the Library. That may be the best thing to do. Then, if my noble friend wishes to return to the matter or raise it on Report, we can do so.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I return to the amendment and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It should refer to consultation and not agreement. I shall withdraw the amendment at this point and perhaps return to the matter on Report with an amendment that refers to consultation with the staff associations. I believe it is important to have this matter on the face of the Bill although the Minister has assured us that consultation will take place. As I said, I will return on Report with an amendment that refers to formal consultation with staff associations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottinghamhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.108:
Page 12, line 29, after ("terms") insert (", of a type agreed between the Home Secretary and the Police Associations, ").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment.
[Amendment No.108 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No.109:
Page 12, line 29, leave out from ("made") to end of line 30.
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos.130 and 143 which stand in my name. Amendment No.130 relates to the Scottish part of the Bill and Amendment No.143 to the Northern Ireland part. Amendment No.109 is grouped with Amendments Nos.110 and 111. I understood that the Association of Chief Police Officers was most uneasy about the possibility of fixed term contracts for people of their rank. It seemed to me, looking at the Bill, that it was probably unsound for the regulations laid by the Secretary of State to be the cause of fixed term contracts for anyone because they are of doubtful value in these circumstances. There is a slight feeling that, if this is done by central government, it is a move in the direction of central control of the police force on a matter of great detail which can seriously affect people. It seems to me that the best thing to do is not to have that facility available within the regulations.
However, that does not mean to say, as I understand it, that individual police authorities might in their own wisdom introduce fixed term contracts for people of certain ranks, whatever those may be, and that that would be something for the police authorities themselves to negotiate. I would like to see much less
382
direction from the centre. Members of the Committee are well aware of my feelings in that regard from what I have said on earlier occasions. I am reinforced in that view from what I have heard in listening to the debate today. I believe that the more these matters can be decentralised, the better the situation will be. I would hope therefore that I might receive a little support. However, at this stage, I view this as a probing amendment to discover how my noble friend will react to it. The nature of his reaction will determine what I do next. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I wish to support my noble friend's amendment for another reason. The flexibility for which my noble friend Lord Ferrers has pleaded in other contexts at earlier stages of this Committee stage has much to commend it, especially when we come to consider fixed term contracts for fairly senior police officers. An officer may have reached the rank of superintendent at an earlier age than most officers do, and he may be fit for a good many more years' service in that rank. For the police authority and the officer concerned to be tied down to a fixed term may eventually deprive the police authority, and the chief officer of police, of the services of a valuable member of the force who should be allowed to continue to serve in that way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I should like to support the amendment. There is universal agreement among sensible people and the police that the Government's proposal would be a step which causes great unease and certainly would not add to the efficiency or the status of the police.
Earl Ferrers: I know that the prospect of fixed-term appointments has caused a number of people anxiety. My noble friend's Amendment No.109 is intended to prevent fixed-term appointments in any rank. Amendment No.130 deals with the same matter in relation to Scotland, and Amendment No.143 covers the point in respect of Northern Ireland. The Government have already accepted that fixed-term appointments are not appropriate for rank and file officers, but they do have a part to play in the appointment and management of chief and assistant constables.
The intention of Amendments Nos.110 and 1l1 is to limit the conditions applying to fixed-term appointments and performance-related pay to those which the Home Secretary was able to agree with other people. The Home Secretary will, of course, continue to consult the police authorities and the police staff associations before introducing or amending police regulations, as he is required to do by statute. The Government place great emphasis and value on the consultation process. But we cannot agree to a proposal that the Home Secretary's authority to regulate in respect of matters for which he is accountable to Parliament should be constrained by the need to secure the prior agreement of other interests.
There is another significant difficulty with Amendments Nos.110 and 111. While the amendments require the Home Secretary to reach agreement with

383
representative bodies, no means is provided of establishing which people can be said to be representative for these purposes.
The Government's proposals for the introduction of fixed-term appointments are sensible. They are consistent with increased emphasis on performance and accountability in the police, and reflect established arrangements in other employment sectors.
Relating pay t performance is, and is generally considered to be, a perfectly reasonable proposition. Distinguishing particularly good performance from the average provides an incentive to people to improve the effectiveness of their contribution. That benefits both the organisation and the individual. The amendment does not prevent the introduction of performance-related pay for rank and file officers or even chief constables. It only says that it cannot apply to assistant chief constables. That would provide for a situation where the financial rewards of the top managers were not dependent upon the quality and effectiveness of their contributions to the police force, but the pay of rank and file officers would be related to the annual appraisal of their performance. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that would be an odd situation.
I acknowledge that fears about increased political pressure have been expressed, but events have shown that chief constables are not greatly susceptible to political pressure; rather the opposite. Appointments to chief officer posts are already made by politicians in local government, with the consent of other politicians in central government.
If the prospect of fixed-term appointments were so objectionable, one wonders why the Police Negotiating Board recommended in 1992 a pay settlement which included acceptance of the principle of fixed-term appointments for chief constables. Both police authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers wanted fixed-term appointments at that time. Of course, I recognise that what is right for chief officers may not be right for superintendents. That is why we would not consider fixed-terra appointments for superintendents until we have reviewed their operation for chief officers. However, superintendents are senior managers; they are responsible for day-to-day operations in police forces, and we would not wish to rule out fixed-term appointments for them. Regulations would be needed even to allow police authorities at their discretion, to appoint chief officers for fixed terms. I hope that that explains the position.
Lord Renton: Can my noble friend deal with a point which has not been mentioned but which may help us all? Is it envisaged that there will be an opportunity to extend fixed-term appointments year by year? If that is the case, then the point that I made about flexibility would be met.
Earl Ferrers: It would depend upon the nature of the fixed term appointments. The fixed term appointments may be, for example, for four years, with the possibility of extending the period to seven years. It would depend upon the nature of the fixed term appointments.
Lord Knights: I am not sure whether there is some confusion. I am speaking to Amendments Nos.110 and 111, although they have not yet been moved. The Minister has in some sense responded to those amendments. I wish to make these points.
Fixed term appointments and performance related pay are somewhat foreign to police officers. Such concepts seem always to be more appropriate to occupations where employees have transferable skills, whereas the skills of a police officer are generally unique. Performance related pay has seemed more appropriate to the commercial world of profit and loss accounts and perhaps repetitive tasks. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, referred to some of the difficulties of setting up the necessary performance indicators.
Be that as it may, I understand that assistant chief constables have accepted in general terms the Sheehy proposals in the matter, although I personally worry about the effect that such proposals might have on the readiness of a superintendent to put himself forward for appointment as an assistant chief constable with, say, seven years to go before his pension and the possibility of having to leave after three years as an assistant chief constable. That matter has to be addressed.
How will the proposal affect the pension provisions? Different considerations apply to chief constables. I had assumed that the provisions would be discussed later when Clause 4 is recommitted. Somewhat similar provisions to those which I now propose were included with regard to chief constables in Amendments Nos.73 and 74 which were not moved earlier this week.
I must respond to what the Minister said about the effect on chief constables. I believe that if a chief constable is under pressure from a police authority to respond to its wishes in some regard, and he falls back on his independent position, as he is entitled to do, if that occurs 12 months or two years before he is due to apply for a continuation of his appointment—if indeed his conditions allow him to do so—that must affect his judgment unless he is a very strong minded man.
The purpose of the two amendments is to ensure that fixed term appointments and/or performance related pay are not built into the conditions of service of assistant chief constables unless they are in a form which has the agreement not only of the police authorities for whom they work but also of the assistant chief constables themselves. The conditions of service of police officers, which of course include their pay, are laid down in a statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State by virtue of the powers given to him by Section 33 of the Police Act 1964 which the clause seeks to amend. Those regulations cover the administration of police forces and include not only pay but leave and many other matters. Before making such regulations, the Secretary of State is required by the Police Negotiating Board Act 1980 to place a draft before that board for its consideration and, if necessary, conciliation and arbitration procedures which could follow. He does not have to accept the board's views on the draft or any arbitration award which may be arrived at where the board is in disagreement.
The amendments seek to ensure that the new provisions are not forced upon assistant chief constables

385
in terms which they themselves have not agreed. I understand the argument advanced a few moments ago that the Home Secretary must not be restricted as to what he can do and that he should not be put in a position where he cannot do something unless someone else agrees with it. But I am sure that the Minister will agree that not much will be achieved if officers are forced to accept conditions of service which they do not find acceptable.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether he envisages that fixed terms should be capable of extension?
Lord Knights: I certainly hope so. I view with considerable dismay the possibility of a chief constable being told on appointment, "It is for three years and no more". To be quite frank, if I were in that position, I should say: "Thank you very much, I'll stay as an assistant chief constable under my old conditions", if they were better.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Knights, has for the first time demonstrated the practical problems of this group of inter-related issues: performance-related pay, fixed term contracts and the issue which we shall come back to on 1st March, the character of the new police authorities. There are real risks involved and I hope the Committee has paid attention to the practical experience of the noble Lord, Lord Knights. If we go too far down the road of, for example, fixed term contracts, and it is made clear—as it may often be—in the advertisement for the post, what the character of that fixed term contract will be, one has to accept that a number of very able police officers will not apply for the jobs. Once one has reached the rank of superintendent after, let us say,20 or 25 years' service, there are still a substantial number of attractive opportunities outside the police service. If you pressure senior officers too much in terms of the contracts they are being invited to sign—as I believe is a risk—I think you will do lasting damage to the quality of applicants for many senior positions in the police service. The Committee must recognise that, because it is fundamental to the debate which we are having.
Not only is that the position as regards applications for jobs as chief constables but—the noble Lord, Lord Knights, is absolutely right—why should a superintendent who will not be affected by the fixed term contract apply for an ACPO job? After 25 years' service or whatever it may be, his pension is approaching and he will often, if he is an officer of ability, have opportunities to go outside the police service. Alternatively, he could stay at his present rank, knowing that his contract cannot be terminated.
I say this to the noble Earl not because I want to re-open the issue on Clause 2 but because he should recognise that. There is a great fear in the police service about the politicisation of police authorities. That is a fact. It is because of the inter-relationship of all those issues that I believe there are serious problems here which have to be recognised.
386
As regards performance-related pay, I do not start as a doctrinaire opponent of performance-related pay in all circumstances. That is an absurdity. I think it works often in some parts of the private sector—not in all parts. Some large public companies have had it demonstrated to them clearly in recent weeks that there can be real problems in making an estimate of what kind of performance-related pay a particular employee should obtain. However, I think the Committee must recognise that as regards public service there is no evidence that it has had any effect at all. It has been introduced in the Civil Service, as the noble Earl is aware. I put a series of questions to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when he represented the Treasury in this House. I asked what evidence there was that performance-related pay worked. The answer was that there was no such evidence; it does not exist. That is the Government's own view of the matter, not mine.
I have dealt with the question of the fixed term contract. The noble Earl said, correctly, that chief constables have shown in the past that they cannot be pressured into doing things that local politicians and, I hope, sometimes national politicians want them to do. That is true. But as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said at the beginning of his speech, the situation changes radically when a chief constable is coming up for renewal of his contract, six, seven, eight or nine months ahead and he is being pressured by some members of the police authority to take a certain action which he regards as undesirable and unprofessional. There will be some courageous chief officers in future who, if this regime is imposed upon them, will maintain a principled position. But let us face the fact that there will be a risk that some chief officers who want their fixed-term contracts renewed will succumb to that kind of pressure. The Committee has to recognise that fact. There is no point in passing this legislation without realising the serious practical problems that will arise from its implementation.
Lord Knights: Perhaps I may quote a hypothetical case, following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It was not many years ago that a very strong-minded chairman of a police authority pressured the chief constable of the force to place a traffic warden in a certain position when members of his union were going to or leaving their particular work. The wrangle went on for weeks. I am quite sure that under a fixed-term appointment the chief constable's contract would never have been renewed.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I rise to support the amendments. I have little to add to the arguments that have already been advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Knights. Studies have been made in the industrial world which show that performance-related pay is counter-productive, lowers morale, increases competitiveness between individuals, reduces cooperation and teamwork and generally lowers production rates. That takes place at a level in organisations where perhaps one can measure performance. Quite clearly, it is much More difficult to measure the performance of people of the rank of assistant chief constable, chief constable and so on. Do

387
you count the number of meetings they attend or the number of letters they write? How do you measure performance, at that level? I think that this is nonsense. It will set up enormous bureaucratic machinery that is not conducive to good morale, co-operation and the kind of spirit that one wants to see in our police services.
I refer to the dangers of fixed-term appointments with centrally-run police authorities. The worst dangers arise in the context of police authorities as currently outlined in the Bill. We hope that they will have a slightly different shape by the time the Bill leaves this House. The current shape of the police authority, the Home Secretary's power to appoint additional members and set policing objectives, the police authority's power to set local objectives and the setting of targets by the authority against which the chief constable's performance is to be assessed all add up to a horrendous mountain of things where it will be impossible for anyone to be successful. Crime will continue, police officers will continue to have complaints made against them and things will go wrong. You cannot run an organisation that is high in morale, co-operation and motivation if you impose these restrictions and burdens upon it. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support these amendments.
Lord Mottistone: I return to Amendment No.109 which started off this discussion. I have one question to put to the Minister. He responded to my noble friend Lord Renton who asked whether fixed term contracts could be extended. He said that there might be an example of four years being extended by three years. Will the regulations referred to in the subsection that I seek to amend by Amendment No.109 be sufficiently broadly drawn so that individual police authorities will be able to strike their own fixed term contract deals with the people they want to employ at higher ranks? Will they be able to provide for a four-year contract with an extension of three years by joint agreement, or will they be so tight that in effect only the Secretary of State sitting in Whitehall can decide what is to be in those fixed term contracts? Has the matter got far enough for my noble friend to be able to give me an answer to that?
Earl Ferrers: Needless to say, the regulations have not yet been produced. But the idea is that fixed term contracts will be capable of extension but not an unlimited extension. I cannot tell my noble friend at the moment whether there will be just one form of contract that will apply throughout the country. I rather doubt it. I should have thought that within certain parameters police authorities would be able to make their own arrangements with regard to the conditions which the regulations state.
Lord Mottistone: That is extremely helpful.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Will the Minister say something about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, with regard to pensions? How will they be affected if the three-year or five-year term ends before the person is due for a pension? The fixed term contracts in industry are a different matter altogether. They are there to attract good people from other companies to come along and put right trouble in the company. They
388
are subject to the ruthlessness of big business. No good man will take such a job unless he has a fixed term contract so that if he gets the sack he can sue the company for a great deal of money. That is the reason for fixed term contracts in industry. I cannot see that they have any relation to the police service.
Earl Ferrers: The advantage of fixed term contracts is a two-way one. A chief constable who joins a police authority can be very good and go on and on. Eventually there may come a time when it might be a good idea if he did not stay on. The idea of a fixed term contract is that a chief constable can take the job and if he is very successful the contract can be renewed. Alternatively, at the end of his contract he can move on to somewhere else. It introduces an area of flexibility, which is good.
As regards pensions, they will have to be adjusted in the light of the fixed term contracts, because all those pensions come under the police negotiating board and are matters that have to be considered when the fixed term contracts come into operation.
Lord Mottistone: I take great pleasure in my noble friend's latest reply to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I call Amendment No.110.
Lord Knights: I do not think that my amendment should be moved.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.110:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert:
("() At the end there shall be inserted
"() Regulations under this Part of this Act shall not contain reference to fixed term appointments for deputy or assistant chief constables unless by agreement between the Secretary of State, persons representative of police authorities and persons representative of chief constables". ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name also. Our names are on it together. I intend to say only a few words. I must say to the noble Earl that a number of points have been made this evening, as he will recognise, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, concerning fixed term contracts. We shall have to have a detailed response from the noble Earl in the future in a substantial debate which might conceivably take place on Clause 4 of the Bill, which is one of the clauses that will be dealt with on Re-committal.
As I and the noble Lord, Lord Knights, indicated, the fact of the matter is that not only is there widespread concern in the police service about these matters. The interrelationship between a new type of police authority, a fixed term contract and performance related pay has to be debated far more vigorously than is possible so late on a Thursday evening, as it is now.
Having said that, which is all that I wanted to say—and that we shall have to go into this matter either on Clause 4, when we come to it, or alternatively on Report, because these issues are absolutely fundamental, as this brief debate has demonstrated-I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No.110 not moved.]
[Amendment No.111 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Appeals against dismissal etc.]:
10.45 p.m.
Lord Bethel Lord Bethel moved Amendment No.112:
Page 12, line 35, after ("resign") insert ("or is reduced in rank, or made subject to a permanent bar on promotion, ").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of several amendments that I have tabled about matters that arise out of the changes in police discipline as envisaged by the Bill. I must apologise for detaining the Committee at such a late hour. My only excuse is that the matter is of some importance. That has already emerged from previous discussions.
Many Members of the police service believe that the Government have adopted a rather strange attitude towards the question of police discipline in that they wish to change fundamentally the rules that have applied up to now over disciplinary action in what is, after all, a disciplined and rigid public service. My noble friend the Minister referred to a new managerial approach in the police service, and there have been references to performance-related criteria.
My noble friend also wrote to me saying that he looks forward to seeing the normal flexibility of the workplace in the police service. I wonder whether it is appropriate to have that sort of flexibility in the police service or whether, indeed, it is possible. That is why I tabled the amendment; and with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No.113. If the Committee will be extremely indulgent to me, I shall touch on Amendments Nos.114 to 116 and Amendment No.119 on the understanding that I shall speak briefly or not at all when they come up later this evening.
It is dangerous to envisage some of the proposals put forward by my noble friend. Amendment No.112 would enlarge the right of appeal of a policeman when he is charged with an offence to those who are reduced in rank, have a freeze put on their careers or are fined. As presently drafted, the Bill will give a right of appeal only to those dismissed 'from the service or who are required to resign.
I envisage problems in that regard. Can one imagine a policeman, reduced from the rank of chief inspector to constable, wishing to carry on in the service? Would not such a finding by a disciplinary tribunal amount, to all intents and purposes, to a requirement to resign? Yet such a finding could be issued against a charged policeman on a disciplinary offence without any right of appeal. I hardly think that that is the sort of justice a policeman expects when he is facing all the problems that we know he faces on a daily basis. Likewise, a sentence could be passed on a policeman that his promotion would be indefinitely halted, or that he would be subject to a fine of up to £750. Again, those are severe punishments; and, under the Bill as drafted, they would not be subject to the right of appeal. I hope that my noble friend will be able to look again at those sections of the Bill and say that he will consider tabling his own amendments at Report stage.
I should mention that other professions where strict discipline is enforced by the bodies themselves, such as the Law Society, are not making changes of this sort. A solicitor who faces being struck off the register of course has the right of appeal under all circumstances; he may seek professional advice and have professional representation at his hearing; he has the right to call evidence and to cross-examine, or have his legal representative cross-examine, any witnesses in the matter on his behalf. And the level of proof to find against him is that the matter be proved beyond reasonable doubt—a point which seems to be a little vague at the moment and about which we hope to hear more shortly.
All that must be seen against a background where the police are under increasing pressure and where there are large numbers of people in society who see the opportunity to complain against the police as a growth area. I can tell the Committee (because I have just received from my noble friend an answer to a Written Question) that in 1985 the number of complaints dealt with in the Metropolitan police area was about 4,000. The figure has risen to nearly 8,000 in less than 10 years. On the other hand, the number of complaints substantiated has hardly risen at all. The figure has risen from 141 to 150. There is a great temptation among people who run up against the police to lodge complaints against them. It happens on a regular basis, often for malicious reasons.
What frightens me is that a complaint against a policeman may be used in order to deal with that policeman on the basis of a supposed lack of confidence or lack of popularity within his police station. These complaints are made so often that it is surely right that they should be dealt with on the highest level of justice and with the highest level of protection available to the accused police officer. Otherwise, it will be open season on police officers who face difficulties and accusations from members of the public with whom they come into conflict.
I shall not detain the Committee further at this very late hour, but I hope that we shall be able to debate these matters at a more appropriate time in the future, either during this Committee stage or on Report. I shall be anxiously awaiting what my noble friend can say on the whole question of police discipline; not just on the amendment I have put down, but on the principle of the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Having been involved in introducing in this House the first police complaints Bill, which set up the original Police Complaints Board, I should like to say something about this issue.
That Bill was not greeted with universal enthusiasm in the police service and nor was its successor, which went a great deal further. Nevertheless, I think there has been an immense improvement in the past 20 years in terms of public confidence in the complaints system, a complaints system which sometimes leads inevitably to disciplinary action being taken against police officers who have misconducted themselves. I therefore do not start off with any prejudice in this matter against change

391
but I am to some degree at least sympathetic to some of the arguments—not all of them, if I may say so—of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.
I am very seriously worried about proposals in the Bill which deny an avenue of appeal to officers convicted of disciplinary offences, except of course those who have been sentenced to be dismissed or required to resign. and about proposals which preclude the right in such cases to legal representation. It was the present Government who extended the right of legal representation in police disciplinary cases. I believe that decision was taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, when he was Home Secretary; or if not by him, then by his successor. I was surprised at the time that the Government had gone so far as they had, but they did so. We are therefore faced with a situation where it is now being suggested that some of those rights should be removed. That makes me slightly uneasy because I can understand some police officers being seriously concerned about the removal of a right of appeal, particularly in some of the most serious cases.
I wish to cite a particular example to the noble Earl, but I do not ask him to react to it tonight. It demonstrates some of the problems which are involved in this approach. I give as an example the case of an inspector with 15 years service who is reduced to the rank of constable, which is not an wholly unlikely event in some circumstances. I want to give some figures because that enables me to illustrate the degree of my anxiety.
The pay for an inspector on the top rate, with four years in that rank, on the current scales is £26,496. Reduced to the rank of constable on a 15-year rate, and again using current scales, he will get £21,267. That is a loss every year of £5,229. Assuming that the officer completed 30 years service in the circumstances which I have described, the loss is £78,435. There is no right of appeal and no legal representation. That causes me anxiety.
But it is more serious even than that. If that inspector served for 30 years and then drew maximum commutation and residual pension—using current scales because that is the only sensible way in which to approach this matter—the maximum commutation for the inspector would be £78,435 and the maximum commutation for the constable would be £53,167. Therefore, there is a loss of commutation lump sum of over £13,000. That, again, is in circumstances with no right of appeal and no right of legal representation.
Assuming a life expectancy after retirement of 20 years, the inspector's pension over that 20 years would total £264,980. For a constable the figure is £212,670. That is a loss of pension over a period of 20 years of over £52,000.
In summary, therefore—and this is the substance of the matter—the losses to an inspector with 15 years service and reduction in rank to constable, is: loss of pay in service, as I have indicated, £78,436; loss of lump sum commutation, £13,073; loss of pension over 20 years, £52,290. That is a total loss of £143,799. There is no right of appeal and no legal representation. The Government have to ask themselves the absolutely fundamental question. I am certainly in favour of vigorous disciplinary action being taken against those
392
who misconduct themselves. But I am also strongly of the view that people should have a proper right to have their case heard on appeal and to be legally represented in circumstances of this sort where they can be gravely damaged financially.
I am not asking the noble Earl to respond in detail to this point tonight, but we deserve a very clear answer to this matter. I am seriously apprehensive about the consequences of what is being proposed here. I very much hope that the noble Earl will look at this matter between now and Report stage because I shall certainly be very reluctant to allow it to go through without some changes being made in the areas which I have analysed.
11 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, opened his remarks by saying that he was not entirely supportive of my noble friend Lord Bethell. If that is the case, I should like to hear him on an occasion when he is supportive. I have seldom heard such a splendid example of the dangers which are inherent in the Bill as it stands and which my noble friend is trying to remedy.
We have reached the part of the Bill that causes me great concern. I believe that it threatens to undermine the right of police officers to the natural justice to which they are entitled. The police are a force in a way not dissimilar to the military. The military, by which expression I embrace all the forces, are subject to military law which encompasses the right of appeal where most offences are concerned. I do not see why the police force is threatened with treatment different from that which has served the Armed Forces so magnificently.
The provisions threaten to make a police officer a second-class citizen-a different citizen. When a police constable arrests a criminal who is tried, convicted, and perhaps sent to gaol, that criminal has the right to appeal against anything of which he or she is found guilty. The criminal knows that, except for dismissal from the service, the police officer does not have a similar right of appeal, with the serious consequences that have been outlined in part so well by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I find that distinctly concerning.
An analogy has been suggested between a police tribunal and an industrial tribunal. The two cannot be compared. They are quite separate. Industrial tribunals deal with employment. An employer would be very reluctant to reduce a person's rank because of the contract of employment that exists between an employer and employee. That would happen only rarely. But the police are different. When officers join, it is felt that they are suitable to remain in the service. If, however, they are found guilty of a serious offence, it is then felt inappropriate that they should retain their rank. If an industrial tribunal found that an employer effectively reduced an employee's pay by giving him a different rank, for want of a better word, I suspect that the tribunal would construe that action on the employer's part as constructive dismissal. That difference does not seem to have been embraced by the Home Office.
My noble friend referred to Amendment No.119, thus widening the discussion. I do not believe that we

393
should get too involved at this stage in trying to do too much, any more than we want to extend this evening any longer than is absolutely necessary. However, it has to be said that the provisions of Amendment No.119 are something that we should bear closely in mind. A police officer may find that he is liable for the cost of his appeal. It would be wrong to allow a situation whereby a police officer feels that he cannot proceed because of that. At the moment, the police fund meets those costs for him unless the Secretary of State is minded to make a direction otherwise.
I shall not comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about legal representation. It answers itself. A serious issue is being embraced in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will take these points back, think about them again and see whether it is possible to bring forward amendments on Report which go some way towards relieving the anxieties. Although they have been expressed by only three Members of the Committee tonight, I suspect that if more Members were present they would be echoed in all parts of the Chamber.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Having sat mute but attentive throughout virtually the whole of the debates today, I cast off my taciturnity to make the three into a four. I too support the amendments and specifically Amendment No.113. It is my misfortune, however, that in one respect my view differs from that of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. The noble Lord said that he was seeking to enlarge the right of appeal. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, it is not the noble Lord who is seeking to enlarge the right of appeal but the Government who are seeking to restrict it.
The Bill restricts the range of punishments which may be the subject of an appeal. In Section 37 of the Police Act 1964 the provision was simple. It stated that,
"a member of a police force who is dealt with for an offence against discipline may appeal to the Secretary of State".
It was as simple as that. There was no limitation on the orders against which he might appeal and, presumably, there was a right of appeal against any finding of fact or any punishment or disposal of the matter.
That provision was amended by Section 103 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. But the amended provision gave the same width of the right of appeal. It stated that there was to be an appeal "against any punishment awarded. " So far as I am aware, that is still the position. Therefore, we are asking for an explanation of why the Government seek to restrict the right of appeal. Members of the Committee will not have failed to notice that the limitation applies not merely to the range of punishments against which there may be a right of appeal but against the finding itself; against a possible finding of fact. According to the Bill, the right to appeal against the finding depends upon what ultimately is the punishment inflicted. Clearly, the Government, like everyone else, value this right because here they are making express provision for it. It is no light action to remove a right so fundamental for the protection of individuals. Those who seek to do so carry the heavy burden of explaining the reason.
394
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave a vivid explanation of the possible financial consequences of some of the provisions which, if the Bill goes through unamended, will no longer carry a right to appeal. It is not merely, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethel!, put it, the serious cases. Any finding of fact against a police office for a disciplinary offence is likely to be carried on his record for at least a substantial distance into the future. It is likely to affect his whole career.
We ask: why is there a proposal to take away what on the face of it is a fundamental right of the individual, which apparently has been operating without any difficulty for a long period of time?
Earl Ferrers: Members of the Committee have argued this evening strongly in favour of an appeal to the police tribunal where an officer has been demoted or barred from further probation. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave a graphic description of the financial constraints which that may put upon an individual. I shall read again with interest what he said so that I can absorb it later. I have no doubt that one can always find difficult and tragic circumstances visited upon people who either lose their job or rank.
Since I have been at the Home Office, I have been appalled by the length of time that it takes for the resolution of disciplinary cases. That is different from the matter to which my noble friend Lord Bethell referred; namely, the police having complaints made against them. Of course, he is right that that often happens. A special procedure exists for dealing with that.
However, we are now dealing with disciplinary offences; that is, where a person has done something wrong and it is considered that he should be disciplined. The proposed system is much simpler than the previous system. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, asked why we need to change from the present system. We wish to change the system because, if a person is disciplined, it is in the interests of justice that he should know as quickly as possible what his position is. Often people are suspended for years and then are reinstated, in which case a huge sum of money is attendant upon that reinstatement. Alternatively, a person may be dismissed—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. Would that not be an argument against ever giving anyone an appeal against anything?
Earl Ferrers: I do not think so and I shall explain why. We are trying to provide a reasonable disciplinary procedure so that all disciplinary cases, even those in which there is a reprimand, receive a hearing before an assistant chief constable and two superintendents. The case is considered and the person is disciplined.
If he does not like the judgment, he can complain to the chief constable, who either upholds or overturns the decision. If the chief constable upholds the decision, the person receives the appropriate penalty, which may be demotion. Under the new arrangements, if the case results in dismissal or a requirement to resign, he will

395
have the right to g o before a tribunal. That tribunal will consist of a qualified lawyer, a current or ex-chief constable and a member of the police authority.
In introducing those procedures, we intend to give an officer the right of an internal appeal to his chief constable. My noble friend Lord Bethell argues that the officer should be able to take a stage further his appeal against demotion to an external body; namely, the police appeal tribunal. I do not believe that a tribunal should be granted the power to interfere in the internal management of the police force. I do not see how such an external body could form a judgment as to whether the person concerned was capable of performing the duties of the higher rank. Those are matters for internal management and not for external review. However, the position is different where a person is being dismissed or required to resign.
There is a right of appeal in all cases as regards disciplinary matters. As I explained, the officer can appeal to his chief constable against the decision of the hearing by the assistant chief constable and two superintendents. He can therefore only lose his rank if four senior officers have considered that to be the appropriate course to take. Such an officer will not now have the right of appeal to an outside force. However, I question whether he should have such a right. Who serves in what capacity in the police force is part of the management of the force. I believe that it would be very serious for the police service if police officers were allowed to continue to serve in posts for which they were not fitted and for which their senior officers considered them to be unsuitable. That is the reason why we are making the change. As a result of that change, it will be quicker and simpler. Moreover, justice will be done a very great deal quicker than has been the case under the present system.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Of course it will be a great deal quicker because the Government are taking away the right of appeal. If there was no disciplinary procedure and we simply had instant dismissal, it would be even more speedy. The Government introduced the right of appeal in the extensive list of cases in which it now operates. It was not a decision taken many years ago. To the best of my recollection, it was the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and Mr. Brittan who went along with it.
Let there be no doubt about it. The Government must surely return to the issue, especially as regards the situation of a reduction in rank in the circumstances that I described. I am certainly at one with the noble Earl in saying that people who are unsuitable to serve in the police service should be removed from it. However, I am not in favour of a financial penalty of over £140,000, in the circumstances to which I referred, without any avenue of appeal and without any right of legal representation. That seems to me to be objectionable.
The noble Earl very kindly said that he would reflect on the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, who has had to leave the Chamber, asked me to tell Members of the Committee that he is strongly in favour of the points that I am now putting forward. He, too, regards it as
396
quite unjust to remove that right of appeal in such circumstances; namely, the reduction in rank issue. I very much hope that the noble Earl will reflect on the matter to see whether something can be done. Otherwise, we shall have to return to the matter on Report. Speaking for myself, I would find it very difficult to let the Bill leave this place with such an oppressive clause within it.
Viscount Mountgarret: My noble friend the Minister referred to the fact that he found the length of time involved with appeals and all the various procedures very worrying. Time should not be a consideration of any sort in such matters where a man's livelihood, future and retirement are at stake. If it takes a long time because of the gathering of evidence, and all the relevant things that go with it, then I say: so be it.
My noble friend did not answer my point. I do not blame him; but I should be grateful if he could say why there should be a different procedure for the police as opposed to the military court martial. I understand his point that outside tribunals should not be seen to be interfering, as it were, with the internal workings of the police. That is understandable; but in a court martial the offender is tried by people within the military—I hope I may refer to the army in this context—only up to a certain level of offence. Where the offence is a serious one, the judge advocate is called in. He is an independent person who has legal knowledge and he is in a position to advise and guide the president of the court martial as regards all the arguments that have been promulgated.
On an appeal there is usually, in serious cases, a barrister who represents the defendant. I do not see why the police should be treated in a different fashion. If we are not to have an independent tribunal for the police, we at least should have something like an independent barrister, or judge advocate—call it what you will—to guide the chief constable, or to whom the police officer concerned might refer. I still hope—I have asked for this—that some of the arguments that have been made this evening might be taken on board by my noble friend because I, and I believe a number of others, consider these to be serious matters which should he discussed again at another stage of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: Of course I shall consider what has been said in the Committee this evening; it would be wrong of me not to do so. However, I do not propose to follow my noble friend down the avenue of comparisons with courts martial on which he is obviously an expert but on which I am not proficient. My noble friend said if the process to which he referred took a long time, that did not matter. I remind him of the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. I remember the case of a police officer—I may have remembered this incorrectly—who was being dismissed for having taken some money out of the canteen in lieu of some Kit-Kats or Mars bars. I believe he had taken £5
The case had passed through all the appeal procedures and it was referred to me as Minister of State in the Home Office. It was then referred to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the whole process lasted about three or four years. I do not believe

397
that kind of system of meting out justice can be correct. If my noble friend believes that in a case where such a small sum of money is involved the procedure I have described should be adopted, I can only say that he and I part company. However, I shall of course take note of what has been said this evening because these are important matters.
Lord Bethell: I am glad to hear that my noble friend will take note of what has been said this evening because although we are a "thin" Committee, I have gained the impression that there is strong feeling on the part of many Members of the Committee that amendments of this kind should be accepted by this Chamber and should be included in the Bill.
As regards what my noble friend said a moment ago, he is correct to point out that justice delayed is justice denied. However, what we do not want is rough justice. We may want more of a court martial regime but not a drum-head court martial, or execution in the field. I hope that my noble friend will bear all that in mind. One point arose from the interesting intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. If I am correct in my assumption, a senior officer—an inspector or a chief inspector—who is required to resign under this procedure would resign with his pension rights intact. On the other hand, if he were reduced to the rank of constable, his pension rights would be reduced to those of a constable. He would therefore endure a more severe punishment by being reduced to the ranks than if he were merely required to resign. He would benefit financially from the so-called more severe punishment which carries a right of appeal than from the punishment of being reduced to the ranks. This is just one of many anomalies in this Bill and one of many difficulties that I hope my noble friend will look at before we resume the Committee stage on Monday. I have tabled another amendment which I hope will be discussed rather earlier in the day.
In the meantime, in view of the late hour and in view of the fact that we do not really have much of an attendance in the Committee, in spite of the fact that if there were to be a Division we would probably win it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.113 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Schedule to be inserted in Police Act 1964: appeals tribunals]:
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved Amendment No.114:
Page 54, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (c) and insert: ("(c) one shall be a person chosen from a list maintained by the Secretary of State of persons who have retired from the police service as chief officers of police within the previous five years. ").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.114 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.115 and 116. The amendments attempt to vary the composition of police appeal tribunals. They would have the effect of adding a magistrate, a representative of the professional associations and a retired chief constable as opposed to a serving chief constable. I believe that that would amount to a significant improvement in the proposals already put forward. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have one or two questions to ask about this issue. First, as I understand it, at the moment on any appeal tribunal there is a representative of the appropriate staff association. If I am right on that point, and I believe that I am, why has that representation been withdrawn?
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, says "what?". What is being withdrawn is the right of the staff association to be represented on the tribunal. Why is it being withdrawn? An explanation has to be given.
Secondly, we are dealing with an organisation which will be hearing appeals against dismissal. Where a person outside the police service appeals to an industrial tribunal there is always an employee's representative on that tribunal. If the existing right is to be withdrawn there will be no employee's representative on the tribunal.
The two issues are clearly related. Why is this change being made? What is the justification for it? I shall be truly interested to hear the noble Earl's response.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend referred to Amendments Nos.114,115 and 116. We feel that a tribunal of five members would be unwieldy. The proposal to add to its membership a magistrate as well as an officer belonging to the staff association of the appellant would keep the tribunal in balance, but would make it very much larger.
The Government's own proposal that one member of the tribunal should be a police authority member—who may be a magistrate—would include on the tribunal a member of the body which is responsible for the efficiency and effectiveness of the local force who is also an informed member of the public which that force serves.
The chief officer of police who sits on the tribunal, and who will in most cases be likely to be a retired officer, will have experience of the command of a force and will have served in all ranks of the police service earlier in his or her career. He or she will be able to give an informed view as to whether the officer concerned has met the standards of that service.
That membership seems to us to give the right balance to the tribunal and I do not believe that the addition of more members would do anything other than to add numbers without adding extra opinions of weight.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked why no representative of a staff association will be included in the membership of the tribunal. We are considering here people who are being dismissed. The matter concerned is whether that person is a fit person to be a police officer. Those who come to that conclusion would be the legally qualified expert, a retired chief constable who has served in all ranks of the police service, and a member of the police authority who is responsible to the people in the area which the police force serves. In that respect, a member of the staff association from which the appellant is drawn has no locus in the matter. One is concerned as to whether that person is a sufficiently competent and reputable person

399
to be a member of the police service. A representative of his staff association would be an irrelevance in that respect.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have not made myself clear; and I apologise. The hour is late and no doubt we are not hearing one another with the appropriate degree of clarity. I did not ask that question. I asked a different one. Is it or is it not true that at present a representative of the staff association sits in such circumstances? If the answer to that question is, yes, he does, the next question is: why is he being removed? That requires a different answer from the one given by the noble Earl. Of course, I may be wrong. Perhaps the Minister will assist me.
Earl Ferrers: I agree that the hour is late. My hearing is reasonably all right; it is merely the comprehension that is slowing down a little. I thought that I had detected the noble Lord's question aright and had answered it correctly. I have tried to explain throughout this discussion that the disciplinary system which we propose is more geared to whether a person is a fit person to be in the police service. That is different from what has happened heretofore, when a member of the staff association was present. We believe that in the future the important matter to be addressed in this case is whether the judgment requiring a person to be dismissed or required to resign is wrong. The question at issue is whether the person is fit to be in the police service. A staff association representative is not a valid member to have on the tribunal in that circumstance.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may intervene in seeking to assist the noble Earl. The issue always under question in such tribunal settings is whether a police officer, of whatever rank, is a fit person to be a police officer. While I agree with the noble Earl that the objective of the exercise is to make a judgment as to whether someone is. or is not suitable to be a member of the police force, that judgment must not be made in isolation. Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.
The British system has evolved to ensure that justice is seen to be done, and is done. Industrial tribunals were referred to as an example. A representative of the trade unions sits on an industrial tribunal to help to arrive at the correct judgment. That also ensures that those members of a trade union who are involved in an industrial tribunal have some confidence that justice is being, done, and can see that it is done. That is one of the crucial points. We must all accept that the tribunals do not sit in public; they are not reported verbatim in the press and media. 'Therefore, we have to find some mechanism to ensure that people see the operation of the tribunal and to enable justice to be seen to be done as well as being done.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I must say that I was following the argument reasonably well before the noble Lord spoke; now I am not.
Lord Bethell: I fear that I am still not convinced by what my noble friend had to say. It is correct, as I understand it, that in many professional tribunals or industrial tribunals a member of the defendant's staff association is present as one of the representatives. I should have thought that my noble friend might see some merit in the idea, although I take his point about not making a tribunal too cumbersome with too many members. Of course, one wants to get such things over as quickly as possible.
I ask my noble friend to consider how a defendant, a person complained against, can be represented by a member of his staff association. It is not enough simply to say, as the Home Office says, that more flexible personal procedures are needed and we no longer concentrate on precise matters for detailed proof. It is desirable that a person should have the support of a professional association member. I am sure that would be the view of a member of the Home Office who found himself in such an invidious situation. In the meantime—
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I believe he has put a different complexion on the point. I thought he was saying: would it not be fair for a member of the staff association to be there to represent a person?
Lord Bethell: No, a member of the tribunal,
Earl Ferrers: In that case I misunderstood him. For the reasons I have given, I do not think it appropriate for a member of a staff association to be on a tribunal where it is being decided whether or not a member of that association is fit to be a police officer. As I explained, there is a legally qualified chairman while the other two people are responsible for the running of the force—the chief constable and a representative of the police authority for the area being policed. Those are the people best placed to decide whether an individual is suitable to be in the police force, not a member of the staff association. However, as in all these matters, I shall pay attention to what has been said this evening.
Lord Bethell: I am grateful to my noble friend. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.115 and 116 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No.117:
Page 54, line 16, after ("may") insert ("not").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.117, I feel it may be for the Committee's convenience if we also discuss Amendment No.118. Amendment No.120 relates to a quite separate matter, and if it meets with the Committee's approval, I propose to speak to it when its turn is reached on the Marshalled List.
I must begin by declaring an interest. I am privileged to chair the Council on Tribunals and the amendments represent the considered view of the council. The schedule makes provision for the police appeals tribunals which are to be substituted under Clause 15 for

401
the present procedure of appeals to the Home Secretary. Paragraph 5 makes what appears to be a curious provision. It begins by saying that the tribunal,
"may determine a case without a hearing".
I assume that that means without an oral hearing. If a tribunal meets for the purpose of discussing its conclusions, that may be referred to as a hearing and the tribunal is unlikely to dispose of the matter without doing at least that. So I assume that what is meant is an oral hearing, but I do not propose to pursue that drafting point for the moment.
The provision is unusual. There are cases before some tribunals that can be resolved quite fairly and satisfactorily without a hearing provided that the tribunal reads the documents that have been submitted, ensures that the parties have been given an opportunity to submit whatever documents they think fit, and each side is afforded an opportunity to read those submitted by the other and to comment on them. The tribunal then reaches its conclusions on those documents. For example, if the issue turns on the construction of the documents, that is a reasonable proceeding. Each party has said in writing what it wishes to say and so no oral hearing may be necessary.
But that is an unusual situation. Normally, it is more satisfactory to give an appellant the opportunity to come before a tribunal to put his case and call whatever evidence he thinks will assist the tribunal. Certainly, that is important where anything turns on the question of which of two people is telling the truth. One has to bear in mind that many of the determinations of these tribunals will be based on disputed questions of fact which will affect the future career of police officers. The formula that is usually preferred by the council is that the appellant, or perhaps better either party, shall be entitled to a hearing but there will not be one unless it is asked for.
The present provision says that there will be no entitlement to a hearing even if it is asked for. That in itself appears unsatisfactory. But the proposition enters into what appears at first sight to be the realm of farce. I read paragraph 5(1):
"A police appeals tribunal may determine a case without a hearing but shall not do so unless both the appellant and the respondent have been afforded an opportunity to make written or, if either so requests, oral representations and any such representations have been considered".
That appears to mean that the tribunal does not have to accord a hearing, even if it is asked for, but that if it does not it must, when requested, hold an oral hearing to decide whether or not it will hold an oral hearing. I do not know whether or not I have misunderstood. If the draftsman is drawing a distinction between a hearing and something else—for example, an opportunity to make oral representations—it seems to me to be a curious use of the English language, and is certainly likely to make for ambiguity. It still sheds no light on the purpose behind the provision. The noble Earl may be able to enlighten us, or perhaps it will emerge that it is all a mistake. We can only hope that the Government do not really mean what they appear to be saying in the sub-paragraph.
Viscount Mountgarret: Perhaps my noble friend will feel that by accepting the amendment it may go some way to cut down the length of time referred to earlier this evening in regard to the hearing of cases and the consideration of appeals. It seems to me that if we cut out all these written and oral requests and representations have been considered it will cut down the time very substantially.
Earl Ferrers: I shall do my best to enlighten the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, although it will be difficult in the face of one so experienced in these matters and also in tribunals. The schedule as it stands allows the police appeals tribunal to decide for itself whether or not it wants to hold a hearing. When it comes to such a decision its members will have read with care the appellant's reasons for appealing and as much supplementary material as he has chosen to put before that body, as well as the chief constable's reply. Should the tribunal decide that it is able to determine the case without holding a hearing it will offer the appellant a chance to come before it and make oral representations as to why it should not take the course of action that it intends to take. After hearing him or her, if it still feels that a hearing is not needed in order to determine the case, I do not believe that it should be required to hold one. The point is that provision has been made for the officer to put his point of view, personally or by his representative, as to whether a hearing should be dispensed with.
It may help the noble and learned Lord if I were to explain a little further that a hearing in police appeal cases does not necessarily mean a complete rehearing of the case. In fact, those are extremely rare and are expected to remain so.
A hearing in an appeal case will offer the appellant an opportunity to say why he considers that he is fitted for the police service and why he should therefore be reinstated. But one would have expected any material of substance on this matter to have been laid before the tribunal already as the basis for the appeal. If it has not, the appellant or his representative will have an opportunity to say so when the oral representations are made. The tribunal will then have an opportunity to decide whether a hearing would be beneficial.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment offers appellants no real benefit and could operate to delay the conclusions of the tribunal. At present, delay is a significant factor in police disciplinary proceedings, as I explained earlier. That is what my right honourable friend is trying hard to minimise so far as possible.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: It is a late hour, but I confess that I am more puzzled than ever. I hoped that the noble Earl would explain that I had misunderstood what the draftsman was trying to say. But I fear that I have understood it correctly. As I understand it, the tribunal will sit, and the appellant will come along, because he has a right to come along, in order to explain why he should have a hearing.
As the noble Earl has just indicated, the hearing will probably simply take the form of the appellant coming

403
along to address the tribunal. Most of the evidence will already have been submitted. So he comes along to explain why he should have a hearing. At a certain point he is stopped by the tribunal which says, "We have heard what you have said about why you should have a hearing. We do not think you should have a hearing and therefore we will not allow you to go on and produce the next two sentences that you intended to address to us about why you should still remain a police officer. "
One can think of no more time-wasting procedure, no procedure which is more likely to irritate people, and no more wholly pointless way of doing things. I wonder whether I could prevail upon the noble Earl at least to reconsider the drafting of this provision, so that what is being said can be made clear. But I should prefer him to address the common sense of it. Frankly, to me nothing seems to be more calculated to annoy everyone and to waste time than to allow someone to come before a tribunal and speak to it but to circumscribe just what he may say when he gets there.
It is a late hour and I do not propose to pursue the matter further this evening. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.118 not moved.]
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved amendment No.119:
Page 54, line 43, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert:
("() The costs of an appellant shall be defrayed out of the police fund of the relevant police authority unless the tribunal directs otherwise. ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would put right one of the most dubious paragraphs in the Bill that is before the Committee; namely, the one that requires an appellant before a police complaints tribunal to defray the costs of his appeal unless an order is made to the contrary. I believe that that is a most unusual procedure and I urge my noble friend to correct it at the first available opportunity.
To the best of my knowledge, an appellant in a criminal case, or any other case that would come before a professional body, would receive the costs of the appeal from a fund. My amendment proposes that the police fund should defray the costs of the appeal in question.
Perhaps before the end of this short debate my noble friend will be able to indicate what would be the average costs of an appeal to a police tribunal. I suspect that it will be a substantial four-figure sum, if not more. But it is clearly a sum that will be difficult for any police officer who has recently been dismissed from the service or who has resigned to find. I predict that many police officers in that situation who believe themselves to have a case on appeal will be deterred from appealing simply because they do not wish to use any money that they may have saved to pursue an appeal, or they may not have the money, in which case they will be in no position to appeal.
I believe that this provision goes against natural justice and I ask my noble friend to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I rise again briefly to support Amendment No.119. This is another instance
404
where the Government are changing the present position. Under the present system the appellant is liable to pay costs only if the Secretary of State so directs, and that would entail the Secretary of State requiring a reason so to direct. That is the effect of Section 37(5) of the Police Act 1964.
That represents the normal practice in relation to similar tribunals. Of course an appellant should be penalised if he has acted frivolously or unreasonably and caused money or time to be wasted. But here the assumption is that he will have to pay his own costs—I appreciate that there is a distinction between paying the whole costs and paying only his own—unless the tribunal has a specific reason for directing otherwise. Clearly it cannot direct otherwise unless it has some reason for so doing.
The noble Earl was involved earlier today in a number of exchanges as to whether the Government should be castigated for making changes or castigated for allowing matters to remain as they are. But this is a change which on the face of it could operate grossly unfairly. The onus must be upon the Government to establish a reason for making the change.
Viscount Mountgarret: I too strongly support Amendment No.119. My noble friend indicated that he would look at all the arguments postulated this evening and think about them. I hope that it will be in order for him to raise these matters again at Report stage. It would not be fair to ask the Committee to come to a view at this time of night and we would not obtain a representative view of the feeling of the Chamber. They are extremely important matters and I hope that my noble friend will consult with his right honourable colleague, because this situation has to be unacceptable.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend says that the situation, "has to be unacceptable". All I can say is that it may be unacceptable to him but that does not mean that it is unacceptable to everyone or even to the Government. There is a perfectly good reason for the provision. Whether or not it is acceptable to the individual is a matter for each person.
My noble friend Lord Bethell is quite right. The Bill proposes arrangements which are different from those which obtain at present. The reason for that is that the past few years have seen a considerable rise in appeals to my right honourable friend which have been relying solely on technical grounds rather than on the actual merits of the case, or on grounds which have little real merit to them at all. The normal practice in tribunals is for each side to bear its own costs. It is proposed that that should be the practice for the new appeal tribunals.
The tribunals will have the task of examining whether an officer who is dismissed or who is required to resign by his chief officer is fit for the police service. It seems to us right that anyone who is going to challenge the chief officer's decision—the challenging of four senior police officers (the hearing will be held in front of the assistant chief constable and two superintendents, and that will then be considered by the chief constable)—should be expected to have sufficient confidence in the merits of his case to be prepared to pay his own costs. All the costs of the appeal tribunal itself

405
will be met by the police authority, and the only costs the appellant would have would be his own. We would expect tribunals to award costs in any case where the appellant won his case and in any case where they saw merit in the appeal. But the principle that the person ought to be prepared to stand his own costs seems to me to be correct.
Lord Bethell: Is my noble friend able to answer my question about the approximate cost of an appeal?
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry but I cannot do that. It would obviously depend on circumstances. The only cost would be the person who goes with the appellant.
Lord Bethell: I shall shortly beg leave to withdraw this amendment also, but it is only because we are sitting at this very late hour and because there are so few of us. Again, as several noble Lords have pointed out, I feel confident that, were there to be a true test of the feeling of the Committee, several, if not all, of these amendments would be carried. I hope that it will be possible for us to debate these matters at a later stage and at a time when there is a good turn-out of people who can discuss these matters and vote on them if necessary. All this can be avoided if my noble friend will look seriously at these questions and take on board the matters that have been raised in these short debates. In the meantime, I can only apologise once again for having delayed the Committee at so late an hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No.120:
After Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule:
SCHEDULE 3A
("AMENDMENT To TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES ACT 1992: POLICE APPEALS TRIBUNALS
In Schedule 1 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (Tribunals under general supervision of council) after Tribunal 36, there shall be inserted—
"36A. Police Appeal Tribunals established under section 15 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994". ").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall begin by repeating a declaration of interest which I made in relation to my earlier amendments. The purpose of this new schedule is to provide that the police appeal tribunals shall be subject to the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. In exercising the existing jurisdiction to hear appeals against a disciplinary finding, the Secretary of State appoints a three-member inquiry to consider the appeal and to report to him. That procedure was established by paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Police Act 1964, which provided that, with certain exceptions:
"The Secretary of State shall … appoint one or more persons",
to hear appeals. I emphasise the word "shall". That was a statutory inquiry within Section 1 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, as it then was, and was consequently within the supervision of the council. A statutory inquiry was defined by Section 19 as inter alia,
406
"an inquiry … held … in pursuance of a duty imposed by any statutory provision".
Section 12 of the Police Act 1976 amended that provision in the 1964 Act to provide that the Secretary of State "may" appoint one or more persons to hear appeals. That was later substantially re-enacted in Section 103 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was never intended that that should have the consequence of removing the tribunals from the supervision of the council but it had that effect because they were no longer appointed in pursuance of a duty but only of a discretion.
That consequence was not noticed at the time when the amendment was enacted but some observant character later noticed it and perfectly properly pointed it out. I am not sure when it was noticed but certainly in 1985 it was the subject of correspondence between the Home Office and the council. It was agreed that matters should be suitably amended. The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, which was substantially re-enacted in 1992, provided in effect that even if an inquiry was not held in pursuance of a statutory duty, it could nevertheless be designated as a statutory inquiry for this purpose by ministerial order. It was agreed that that should be done. I disclose no confidences. This story is set out in the annual report of the council for 1985–86.
If that order had been made, I doubt whether I would have needed to trouble the Committee with this new schedule at so late an hour. I am sure that it was by oversight. After it was agreed that it should be done, it was never made; no order was made by the Secretary of State. So a consequence which was intended by no one is that for the moment an inquiry is not within the supervision of the council.
That could have been rectified in the Bill in dealing with the new arrangements which are not substantially different from the existing arrangements except that a statutory tribunal is an even stronger candidate for supervision than an inquiry appointed ad hoc. So one would have expected it to be corrected in this Bill. It was not and whether that was by oversight or otherwise, I do not know. But that need not deter the Committee. This amendment simply seeks to insert it.
If arguments are necessary, they come readily enough. First, there is a strong element of public interest in the working of this procedure. Both the police and the public will wish to be reassured that it operates properly and fairly and that the procedural rules have been scrutinised by the council. Secondly, this procedure is analogous to the procedure which, for those who are not members of the police force, is dealt with by employment tribunals. That is a point made more than once in the course of the Committee's debates today. To my knowledge, no one has ever questioned that employment tribunals should be, and are, within the supervision of the council.
Normally in moving an amendment, I would seek to anticipate the arguments which might be deployed against the proposal; but for the life of me I cannot anticipate what arguments might be used against this proposal, and why the Home Office should fear scrutiny by the council. I have had no indication that the

407
Government propose to accede to it. It may help if the Committee hears the Minister and we take it from there. I beg to move.
Midnight.
Earl Ferrers: I am glad that the undoubted capacity of the noble and learned Lord to consider most things has nevertheless made him unable to anticipate the arguments which I shall give in reply to his amendment because otherwise I would have had the rug pulled from underneath my feet. The noble and learned Lord has advocated bringing the police appeals tribunals within the scope of the body which has the good fortune to have him as chairman; namely, the Council on Tribunals. But that body is not concerned with small, ad hoc disciplinary appeals bodies such as this one which have no continuing existence or staff, which are the responsibility of local police authorities and which have no links either to local or central government.
It is the police authority which is to be responsible for the efficiency and effectiveness of its force. It is as part of those duties that we have arranged for a police authority member to be a member of any such police appeals body which has to be set up to deal with the case of a particular officer. The police authority member will represent the local public interest in ensuring the good conduct and efficiency of the local police force. It is for the police authority to make sure that such an appeals body operates its procedures in a way which is fair to the police officer concerned.
In any of this we do not see a role for the Council on Tribunals whose main concern is major tribunals which generally have a permanent existence and their own staff. Indeed, we find it difficult to envisage who would respond to the council's inquires, should it make any, when the appeal bodies have no permanent existence.
The noble and learned Lord based much of his claim for a police appeals tribunal on the fact that in 1985 there was an intention on the part of the Government to place existing tribunals under his council's wing. Considering their ad hoc nature, I am surprised that that was ever considered.
Be that as it may, the new tribunals are an entirely different matter. They will be set up as and when needed by the police authority and will have no continuing existence or staff. Even that for senior officers (which will be set up by my right honourable friend) will be a rare body. We know of no senior officer tribunal which has been set up in the past 10 years. I want to help the noble and learned Lord as much as I can. I assure him that the model rules of procedure that are advocated by his council will be fully taken into account when the tribunal rules are set. I hope that that will at least give him some cause for satisfaction.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The Minister's final kind undertaking certainly gives me some satisfaction, but I confess that I am far from fully satisfied. I did not appreciate most of the arguments that he advanced. First, he said that the new tribunals will be ad hoc, but surely the old tribunals were ad hoc. The provision in Section 37 of the 1964 Act was that when an appeal was
408
made the Secretary of State should appoint three suitable persons. Nothing could be more ad hoc than that. This is a far more stable and permanent tribunal.
The kind of tribunal which the Minister described is not by any means the only kind of tribunal within the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. There are over 60—I think that at the last count there were 65—different systems of tribunals in this country coming within the supervision of the council including, for example, the controller of plant varieties. It is difficult to understand why the fact that the tribunal is convened only from time to time and may not always consist of the same members should be an argument against the supervision of the council.
Not only was it the case that in 1985 the Home Office agreed that the appropriate amendment should be made by order, but since 1964 the tribunals have been within the supervision of the council. They have been there. The council has supervised them. It never occurred to anyone to argue, "They're only ad hoc"—nor have I heard the rather surprising argument that they are not really to do with central government. Some of the tribunals which are frequently supervised by the council deal with cases between individuals. Many of the cases heard by industrial tribunals are cases between individuals.
I cannot help feeling that the situation has not been fully considered by those who advise the noble Earl. It may be that at this late hour I am not as articulate as I would hope to be at a different time of day. It may be that, as the Minister said, he himself is not as open to consider these matters as he might be at a different time. Perhaps it would be better if we both returned to the matter either privately or on the Floor of your Lordships' House at Report stage. For the moment, but only for the moment, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Reports from inspectors of constabulary]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.121:
Page 13, line 26, leave out from ("published") to end of line 27.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.121 I should like to speak also to Amendment No.122. Both are probing amendments which have been tabled because we find some difficulty in understanding the provisions of Clause 17 about the publication of reports by the inspectors of constabulary. Our first difficulty is in subsection (1) which provides that, "the Secretary of State shall arrange for any report received by him … to be published in such manner as he thinks fit".
The next problem is in subsection (2) which provides:
"The Secretary of State may exclude from publication … any part of a report if, in his opinion, the publication of that part-(a) would be against the interests of national security".
The problem we have with the provision,
"in such manner as he thinks fit",
is that it is not at all clear what considerations the Secretary of State will take into account in using the discretion which is given to him. Let us suppose that the report is critical of a police authority. It is not intended that we should have democratic control of police

409
authorities but let us assume that we do and that the police authorities are under the control of a party different from that to which the Home Secretary belongs. Clearly, the provisions in the Bill would allow the Secretary of State not only to publish the whole report but to jazz it up, issue a video, send it to the popular press and, generally speaking, to make a good deal of political capital out of it.
On the other hand, let us suppose that the report were critical of the Home Secretary and the way in which he had intervened in the affairs of the police authority. Presumably in the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State would be permitted to pick and choose and to publish as little as he liked. Perhaps he may choose the minimum manner of publication and simply lay it in the Libraries of both Houses.
We do not believe that the Secretary of State should have this degree of power, and the removal of the phrase,
"in such manner as he thinks fit",
would diminish that unjustifiable power.
The second problem that I raised was the interests of national security. Those interests are always claimed when there is any possibility of a move towards open government. "Against the interests of national security" could be interpreted as criticising the ability of a police force to deal with public disorder. We accept that it is right to exclude from publication any part which might jeopardise the safety of any person. That does not mean that this blanket exclusion for national security reasons is justifiable. We suggest that the proper phrase should be,
"would seriously jeopardise national security".
In other words, that which it is convenient to exclude should not be excluded. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendments deal with the provisions regarding the publication of inspection reports. These reports have been public in practice since 1990; but it seemed right to us to go a step further and require them to be published. It is a small but important step towards even greater openness about police performance.
I would find it difficult to go along with the detail of the noble Lord's amendments. Amendment No.121 seeks to remove any discretion for the Secretary of State to decide exactly how a report should be published. In fact, we are likely to continue the current practice whereby inspection reports are made to the Secretary of State but a copy is sent to the police authority and the chief constable and is made available in local libraries in the police areas to which they relate. The copies are also freely available from the offices of the inspectorate to anyone who wishes to see them.
Amendment No.121 will still leave it to the Secretary of State to decide exactly in what form a report should be published. I believe that it is right that we should leave the matter open. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that we have no intention of making publication any less open than it is at present and we might in future decide to give these reports an even wider circulation.
410
Amendment No.122 raises more important matters. Police forces deal with very sensitive matters relating to security. Inspectors can and do look at all aspects of the force's work, including those relating to security matters. I believe that the noble Lord would agree that an inspector must be free to comment on those matters without the fear that any comments that he may make will present a security risk by being put into the public domain. That is why the clause allows the Secretary of State to exclude from publication any part of the report which would be against the interests of national security.
The noble Lord's amendment would raise that threshold to matters which would seriously jeopardise national security. That may not seem a great difference but it is clearly a tougher test. It means that matters which would be against the interests of national security could be published so long as they fell short of the higher threshold of seriously jeopardising national security. I do not believe that it would be right at all to require publication of matters which are against the interests of national security.
I assure the noble Lord that in accordance with the clause the Secretary of State would take a tough view as to what should be excluded from publication. The Government wish to put as much as possible into the public domain, whatever praise or criticism an inspector may make. But the needs of openness must obviously be curbed slightly where matters of security are at stake.
12.15 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I confess that I am far from satisfied with the response to Amendment No.122. Unfortunately, it is the experience in many departments that whenever the Civil Service is up against the wall as regards local government issues, it simply invokes the plea of national security to exclude matters from publication. It is a very different situation in this country from, for example, that in the United States. I believe that the higher test of seriously jeopardising national security is much more appropriate than the very loose and broad way in which the phrase "against national security" is commonly interpreted. Perhaps we shall have to wait for a proper freedom of information Act under a Labour Government to achieve what we want in that respect.
I was interested in what the Minister said about the way in which it is expected that there will be publication in response to Amendment No.121. I am grateful to him for his assurance that the Government do not intend to restrict publication any more than it has been restricted since publication became normal in 1990. I must confess that the description of the publication procedures which he set out seemed to me quite reasonable.
Of course, that still leaves the Secretary of State free to publish more widely those reports which he finds politically convenient. It is not clear to me what is the criticism of the amendment. Is the Minister saying that it is wrong that the amendment limits the discretion or is he saying that it is wrong because it leaves it in place?

411
It seems to us that it will be much better if the kind of publication procedures which he described were enshrined perhaps not in statute but at least as a code of practice for the Secretary of State. Secretaries of State often issue codes of practice for other people. Let us issue one for them, I should like to see something more explicit than the wide powers which are given to the Secretary of State in Clause 17. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.122 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Common services]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No.123:
Page 14, line 28, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with persons representative of Chief Constables and persons representative of Police Authorities").
The noble Baroness said: I rise at this late hour to move this amendment. It forms part of the theme that we have been following throughout the amendments to the Bill; namely, the assumption of power by the Secretary of State and his apparent reluctance to involve himself in democratic discussions with those who will be most directly affected by his decisions.
The amendment relates to the use of common services. I am very much in favour of more uniform use of such services by the police force—that is, the common use of technology, equipment and so on. However, there have been disasters in the past due to decisions within central government and the failure properly to consult chief constables and police authorities. The introduction of the forensic science service as an agency, for example, has caused considerable distortions in force budgets and a number of strange, local hiccups caused by forces adopting their own systems of sifting and various ways, entirely budget driven, to restrict the number of tests needing to be carried out due to the pricing system that the forensic science service introduced without consultation. Similar disasters happened with the introduction of the National Automated Fingerprint Identification Service (NAFIS) where there was a decision by central government and a failure to consult police forces and police authorities.
I am sure that. the Minister will say that the Secretary of State does, in fact, consult. However, I believe that many of us would feel more comfortable if it was actually written on to the face of the Bill that, before he could force police forces to use centrally provided facilities or services, he must formally consult representatives of chief constables and people representing police authorities. That would produce much greater efficiency and effectiveness in the long run and much better co-ordination and feeling throughout the police service. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The regulation-making power contained in Clause 19 is not a power that we would anticipate using very much. Chief constables and police
412
authorities usually recognise when it is important to participate in a common service and they usually do so voluntarily. We would only use the power where, for example, a particular police authority took such a parochial outlook that it wanted to opt out of a common service in a way which jeopardised the efficiency or effectiveness not only of its own force but also that of other forces.
The Home Office takes full account of the views of chief constables and police authorities when considering the provision of common services. Before exercising the new power it is virtually certain that, in practice, we will consult the Association of Chief Police Officers and representatives of police authorities in one of the tripartite bodies in which so much business affecting the police service is already carried out. However, I know that the noble Baroness would like to see the consultation made a statutory requirement. If she will be good enough to allow me to do so, I shall consider that proposal before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. Of course, I cannot tell the noble Baroness what the result will be, but I shall certainly consider the matter.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: That is a splendid note of harmony upon which to finish the day's business. I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I understand that it is proposed to finish the day's business at this point. I do not know who agreed to it, but "we" on these Benches did not. However, I do not want to ruin a most agreeable evening. Nevertheless, it might be nice if someone told us what was going on. I shall not press the point.
Earl Ferrers: We seem to have come to that stage of the proceedings at which we thought we would conclude for the day. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite wish to continue, but that is the position so far as I am aware.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If there has been any lack of consultation, it is probably my fault. I suggested to the Government Whip's Office this morning that it would be more suitable to finish before Clause 21. I understood that had been agreed. I had a message from the Government Chief Whip's Secretary to that effect, and I conveyed that message to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I am sorry that the message was not conveyed to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I apologise to him for that.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for making the matter clear. If it is convenient to him to adjourn, I can assure him it is convenient to

413
me. I only hope it is convenient to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and to everyone else. If that is so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past midnight.